Is Kissing Sinful?
by Ted Slater on 01/18/2007 at 11:36 AM
OK, that's perhaps a needlessly inciting headline. But it does get us to focus like a laser beam on the morality of kissing someone you're not married to.
The point in Scott Croft's article, published this morning on Boundless, is that kissing as typically practiced within modern dating relationships is sexual in nature, and that there's no place for sexual activity outside of marriage:
God's design of sex doesn't merely include the act of sexual intercourse. It's also everything that leads up to that act, and everything on the sexual continuum is meant to end in that act. It's called foreplay, and it's a fundamental part of God's design for sex. To borrow (and embellish) an analogy from Michael Lawrence, sexual activity is like a down-hill on-ramp to a highway. It's one way, you gather momentum the second you enter it, and according to the Great Engineer's design of the highway system, there's only one reason to get on it.
It's a difficult teaching. But as I've mentioned before on this blog, I was able to practice it when I dated the girl I ended up marrying. And that proves that it's not impossible to put this teaching into practice.
Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. Biblical, and therefore beneficial? I'd say yes.
1. John said the following at 11:52 AM on Jan 18:
An honest reading of the article suggests that Mr. Croft is correct in his conclusion that premarital kissing is, if not sinful, an act of folly that puts one in danger of sinning.
I can attest, however, that it's possible to go for years without kissing.
2. Angela said the following at 12:15 PM on Jan 18:
I am so grateful for all of you that speak boldly and, most definitely, counter-culturally about this topic. I often have conversations with believers and non-believers that will argue kissing (or "making out") is acceptable. Many of my friends, who I admire for their deep knowledge of the Bible, don't adhere to this perspective of dating and intimacy.
So, thank you. I have and will continue to use your articles to enrich my own life and to admonish/edify my friends and family.
Angela
3. Emma said the following at 12:29 PM on Jan 18:
I can certainly see the points you're trying to make in this posting, and in Scott Croft's article.
However, it seems to me that if part of what we're trying to do is not to awaken desire, couldn't the very abstaining lead to the same thing?
Naturally, persons in a courtship would have a physical attraction to each other. Desire, then, already has a potential for clouding one's thinking. (And I can certainly see how kissing could cloud it more.) If you don't have desire, why are you in the courtship in the first place?
I'm just wondering whether anyone thinks that the very pitfalls of any pre-marital touching can still be there by abstinence bringing on ever-increasing desire (or mistaken desire, i.e. fed by curiosity, the lure of the forbidden, etc, as ungodly as that sounds).
And what of those who have, like some of the Boundless writers, saved their first kiss until marriage? How would people like that discern their true intentions in a courtship? I'm not suggesting it's wrong to save that first kiss, but if you're in the late 20s/early 30s and are still waiting, your judgment can be REALLY compromised by then because of quite the build-up of desire!
Any thoughts from people who have waited?
Is it totally beyond repair in terms of the amount of regret if we haven't?
4. John said the following at 1:08 PM on Jan 18:
I'm still waiting ...
Your desire is going to be there either way, whether you date/court or not. Because marriage is for life you must try to find the right person to marry, not just look for an outlet for your unsatisfied urges. Anyone could be married by tomorrow if they didn't have standards. Marrying well is important if you aspire to live your life according to Biblical standards.
And if you haven't lived up to those standards in the meantime? I have repented and confessed the sin to the Lord, but believe me, I have worse regrets.
5. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:25 PM on Jan 18:
I for one do not mind a "True Love Waits" application to kissing as well.
Currently I have no cause to undergo the procedure with anyone. But though I don't know firsthand whether the process awakens certain physiological reactions -- I shall take Scott's word on that -- I can say that this is one of those things that would just seem worth delaying anyway, just to make the first time, seconds after Mawwiage, all the more special.
It seems more and more Christ-followers now don't wish to take any chances that they would be cheating a significant other, or their Creator, by taking part in what is basically a pre-mating ritual.
6. Luke said the following at 1:44 PM on Jan 18:
I totally dissagree with the title of the article. Kissing is not an act of sexual intercourse or of being sexual. If that was the case Judas would have been having sex with Christ when he kissed him. Which is absurd. It's not kissing that God is objecting too, its your intentions. The entire Bible is filled teaching about the persons "intentions". What this article should have been about is how most likely kissing leads to sin.
Is it difficult to kiss a female and not pursue sexual desire in your heart? Yes. Impossible? No.
7. Ted Slater said the following at 1:55 PM on Jan 18:
Luke -- the article addresses exactly the points you raise. Let me encourage you to take a few minutes to read it before commenting on it again....
8. Chris said the following at 1:56 PM on Jan 18:
Both Scott and Ted have hit the mark on this one, and I think ultimately to set the stage right for a God honoring marriage, Kissing must wait until marriage, and yet at the same time I'm almost cringing as I agree.
I've certainly made my mistakes in the past, and just like the highway analogy, any steps in that direction have gone nowhere for me.
I know they're right, and yet at the same time I really struggle to accept the truth that any form of physical touch, or anything even remotely sexual in any way before marriage is a sin.
Put another way, any form of caress, touch or sexual desire awakened with someone that you are not dating would be just as inappropriate with someone that you are dating. I.E. - if it's not ok to kiss a girl your not dating, it's not ok to kiss a girl dating. And so the build-up of desire continues ...
9. Emma said the following at 2:12 PM on Jan 18:
I agree that of course marriage is not about fulfilling unmet urges.
But how does one discern true desire to be with someone specific vs. a build-up of desires?
10. Eliana said the following at 2:16 PM on Jan 18:
I thought the article was kind of confusing as to what kind of kissing the author is referring to. He seems to be focusing on kissing on the lips, but is he also talking about kissing on the cheek or forehead? I am 26, and so far I have never kissed anyone on the lips, and my boyfriend and I want to save that for if we get married.
11. Jethro said the following at 2:35 PM on Jan 18:
Let's just admit this is a matter of personal opinion and not a biblical mandate.
There are no bible verses specifically addressing this topic and many that are used to do so require drawing a pretty long bow, as in the case with some verses used in Scott Croft's article.
Upshot: Everyone one is different and it's largely a matter of what is right for each person within the context of the relationship. If one couple decide not to kiss and it works out for them -- awesome. If another couple decides they want to spend 23 hours a day glued to each others lips and it works out for them -- awesome.
Let people live their lives, they don't constantly need to be told that what they feel, think and do is wrong.
12. Danni said the following at 3:28 PM on Jan 18:
That was an amazing article!! My philosophy of kissing is to not kiss until my wedding day at the altar, mainly because I have been challenged by my parents and others to wait. While this has been my plan, I had never though about it in the Biblical sense that was presented in the article. A kiss is just a step in the direction of the sexual roller coaster. Why even get into the coaster if you are not prepared to ride it the whole way through?
Thank you for your presentation of this thought provoking article about a Biblical approach to kissing. No matter how hard it is, staying sexually pure in all every way is just another way to obey and glorify God.
John: I heartily agree with what you said, "Anyone could be married by tomorrow if they didn't have standards. Marrying well is important if you aspire to live your life according to Biblical standards." Standards are important in every area in life, not just in the area of marriage. We have standards in the area of food, we won't eat food that is too long past the sell by date, because we might get sick. Biblical standards are much the same. When we know something is wrong and still do it we are convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Jethro: In response to your comment ("Let people live their lives, they don't constantly need to be told that what they feel, think and do is wrong"). We as Christians are supposed to live by Biblical standards, by following what Jesus said. This means in every area of life, not simply the ones we like or choose to live by. And the philosophy of "Whatever floats your boat" or "Whatever is right for you is right for you" is not Biblically founded.
13. Esperanza said the following at 3:39 PM on Jan 18:
The wonderful thing is that God IS letting people live their lives. In fact, he guides us to the truth so we can live life as it was mean to be lived, to the fullest. Life is not about doing whatever you think is best. That is making truth and morality relative- and that is making for a very scary world (like a lot of people are now!). Doing what's "wrong" does not feel good, and doing what's "right" DOES! I like to know about what I'm doing "wrong" so I can stop doing it and (God helping me) start doing what's "right" and feel good again!
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for this article. I try to encourage my fellow single friends along these lines but most will not think it out, they say they want to wait until they're in a relationship to figure out what will be "right for them". So thank you, thank you, thank you again for spurring us to think of these things.
14. Becky F. said the following at 3:46 PM on Jan 18:
Jethro, you said: Let people live their lives, they don't constantly need to be told that what they feel, think and do is wrong.
You have a good point, I think "constantly" being the key word.
However, it would be wrong not to say anything to someone who is regularly participating in a known sinful act.
Kissing is a little bit of a gray area. I know that not every kiss that I give my husband leads to sexual desire (at least for me! I'd have to ask him). For example, when one of us is leaving to go to work and we kiss goodbye, it is not a sexual kiss. However, remembering from personal dating experience, kissing for a longer period of time, and for more-selfish reasons, which typically leads to "making out" is a sexual kiss, and that's probably the type of kisses people should avoid with non-spouses.
15. Scott said the following at 3:53 PM on Jan 18:
I must say that Scott has written a great article on this subject. I can say from experience from my pre-Christ days that kissing is exactly like getting on the onramp. It was like telling my body, "Get ready!" By God's grace I didn't go further than making out. Articles like this have definitely given me fuel that I hope to use in any future relationships.
Jethro, I must respectfully disagree with your reasoning that this a personal opinion. Scott's article on a big point that the heart of the kissing/hugging/whatever debate. Am I treating my sister in Christ with absolute purity? For arguments sake, let's say I'm dating someone right now (I'm not). Until I say, "I do" in front of God and men, I'm have not committed to my hypothetical mate for life. Engagements can be broken. God could lead us in different directions. A red flag could come up in the courting/dating. I just can't see how making out for 23 hours/day is honoring towards the other person (I realize it's hypothetical too).
Another hard thing I've learned from experience, and from other godly men is that physical intimacy can "short-circuit" a relationship. What I mean is that it can cause you to imagine things in another person that just aren't there. Or it can cause you to miss red flags as well. I've done both, and they were hard lessons.
Again, thank you to Ted and Scott for some great article and good food for thought. Chris said it really well, "I know they're right, and yet at the same time I really struggle to accept the truth that any form of physical touch, or anything even remotely sexual in any way before marriage is a sin."
16. folk2funk said the following at 3:58 PM on Jan 18:
Elizabeth Elliot's book, "Passion and Purity" goes in depth on this topic and many related issues. I highly recommend it. I will also tell a piece of folk wisdom that is a somewhat humorous guideline. I always heard it said father to son about dating: "Never kiss a woman unless you intend on immediately telling her that you love her. And never tell a woman you love her unless you intend on immediately asking her to marry you."
17. Shaun said the following at 4:13 PM on Jan 18:
Great article. Two thumbs up from me.
Something to ponder: Several of the blog comments seemed to indicate that they were not convinced because there was not a Scripture that said/implied "Thou shalt not kiss before marriage." Instead of seeing just how far we can go and not cross the line, why not look at it from the "forever" standpoint? Do you really want to look at the person you are marrying and wonder if they have been intimate with someone else on "any level"? I know I don't.
I have been married for 17 years, and did not follow the Bible before my marriage, and I can tell you that my wife and I have a lot of regret on how we handled ourselves. I wished all of my "first time" stuff would have been given to my wife.
If hindsight is 20/20 or perfect vision, then hindsight in my case is this, the girlfriends that I had and the things that we did, do not amount to anything in my marriage or in my "forever" viewpoint. Even though I wanted to do them at time. I wished I would have learned to operate in self-control during that time. I wished somebody would have given me the truth when I was young.
Looking forward to the next 10 articles! :)
18. Dr. Ransom said the following at 4:20 PM on Jan 18:
Addressed to Jethro:
It's doubtful that few here will admit to anything of the sort -- that "this is a matter of personal opinion and not a biblical mandate."
One can easily argue that "no Bible verses specifically address" any specific sin, especially those that are more culturally based: carjackings, for example.
Yet *overarching* Biblical principles apply.
Scott Croft maintained persuasively that in current cultural context, kissing (especially via both mouths) is unavoidably indicative of "foreplay" -- or, I would say, a pre-mating ritual -- both emotionally and biologically. The Bible is *very* clear that we are to protect one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, not defrauding each other, and to flee "any hint" of sexual immorality. And the overall context of these passages, along with that of Scripture altogether, is that of avoiding "minor" actions that we know can lead us into major ones.
What do you mean by "if it works out for them"? Do you perhaps mean that one unmarried couple may *not* be able to avoid progressing beyond kissing to other procedures, but another couple may slow-dance via lips for "hours" and avoid any temptation to go further?
Here we might resort to common-sense and experience-based points; I would ask the married couples, or those singles who've already smooched for extended periods of time: were you tempted to go further, or was that the farthest thing from your mind during your mush-mouthing session(s)?
And, concurring with the last of Danni's note above: Your last comment seems indicative of your arguments' questionable presupposition. Turning away from legalism, you support the opposite extreme of antinomianism -- i.e., toss out the rules, we can do what we want.
For a non-Christian, that approach could be expected; for a Christ-follower, though, you might well remember that though we're under Grace, that gift from Christ should naturally motivate us to seek His glory in our actions and not merely chase after our own do-your-own-thing live-and-let-live lifestyle.
19. David Baeder said the following at 4:41 PM on Jan 18:
The problem with Mr. Croft's article is that he lumps things together that ought not be lumped. For example, he lumps sexual gratification and the need for intimacy together, when clearly they are not the same. He lumps all romantically oriented physical activity into the sexual category, which simply is not the case. He has made various assumptions without first testing those assumptions. If all romantically oriented physical activity is sexual in nature, than why stop at kissing? What about holding hands? Mr. Croft's lack of critical analysis causes me to wonder what qualifications he has to write on such a subject. It is one thing to put a hedge around yourself, but Mr. Croft seems to be implying that those whose hedge lines are less encompassing are in violation of the will of God. Jesus called such people "white washed tombs."
20. Jethro said the following at 4:53 PM on Jan 18:
Ok, here goes:
Danni: Yes Christians are meant to live by biblical standards, what I was saying though is that it's not like there is a commandment on kissing. As the author says, Christians disagree on a lot of things, kissing is one of them. I was trying to point out that while Scott Croft may not think kissing before marriage is appropriate, other people of good conscience disagree. Who's right and who's wrong? I would say that in the absence of a direct command to the contrary that question is open to debate.
Becky: I agree, sometimes it is appropriate to point out to people that their actions may be wrong. here however, I feel that the article is putting forth a 'one size fits all' philosophy, with no real room for disagreement. On that basis I maintain that we don't need to continually tell people they are in the wrong.
Scott: Not sure if you're the same Scott who wrote the article or not? Anyway, in the article Scott (the author) says that he might be convinced that "that brief, "non-leaning-in" hugs of greeting, sympathy, etc. between men and women who are not romantically involved are OK".
The fact he needs convincing of this, and even then he may not be convinced, seems a little extreme to me. With some of my female friends I am on a kiss hello basis, leaning in hug and all. Gasp! Similarly some of my male friends are on a 'leaning in hug and kiss hello basis' with my wife. Now, apparently these interactions are outside of Scott Croft's parameters for acceptable male-female relationships.
It seems to me like this kind of dichotomous thinking is unrealistic and unproductive. Who cares if I hug and kiss some female friends hello? It's not exactly akin to jumping in bed with them, it's merely a sign of friendly affection. Why does some sort of sexual connotation need to be read into an otherwise chaste act?
This is the kind of thing I was referring to earlier when I said that Christians need to stop telling people they are constantly in the wrong. When you make a big deals out of little things like that, you risk people tuning out on the really important issues. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of someone re sex before marriage as extremist when that person thinks you can't even lean in when you hug a friend in greeting. I think this is the real problem for Christians today. The crux of the message gets lost in the myriad of other things we are busy telling people to do.
21. Ted Slater said the following at 5:17 PM on Jan 18:
Jethro -- you wrote: "This is the kind of thing I was referring to earlier when I said that Christians need to stop telling people they are constantly in the wrong."
Isn't that what you're doing in your comments? Saying that Scott and many of those posting comments here are wrong?
It seems that it's human nature to want to evaluate and critique, as both Scott and you are doing. To embrace some ideas; to reject others. Such thoughtful evaluation and critique can be helpful as we strive for purity in our thoughts and behaviors.
22. Kyu said the following at 5:17 PM on Jan 18:
[I had this same conversation last year with two other single guys from church on a Saturday morning at a local diner. We were asked to finally leave the restaurant after four hours].
Dr. Ransom wrote:
"It seems more and more Christ-followers now don't wish to take any chances that they would be cheating a significant other, or their Creator, by taking part in what is basically a pre-mating ritual."
I wish that was true, but based on my experience in the church, it's so *not*. Sad and discouraging. But I’m encouraged by those who do! Those who choose to wait are definitely the softspoken minority, as those who think it's no big deal jeer at this concept.
And Shaun beat me to some of the points I was going to make [I already had this post drafted, and was proofreading it when I was pleasantly surprised to see that Shaun was taking some of the words right out of my mouth].
Let's assume the Bible said, "Thou shall not kiss your girlfriend." I wonder if that will even make a difference in some of us anyway. We'll find ways to downplay it, excuse our actions due to our constantly-evolving culture, find ways to reinterpret the Scripture passage, or measure it up to some degree (ie, was it French kissing? Or was it a short peck on the lips?). [Debate on drinking and smoking also seem to take this route]. As sinful creatures, we find ourselves totally disobeying even God's specific commands, like keeping our minds pure, watching the things we say, not worrying, etc etc.
If you can see yourself even being remotely bothered by the fact that your future spouse kissed x number of previous boy/girlfriends, then it's time for us to start upholding the same standards in our lives (ie, pointing out the speck in a neighbor’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own eye). Or, if one can simply sweep all those kisses under the rug without blinking an eye, then more power to you. Kiss away! [But in all honesty, can any one of us really say it doesn’t matter how many people our wives/husbands kissed back in the day? It’s not anything to be proud about, to say the least. But keep in mind we’re living in an age where people will say the previous relationships they had and what they did in those relationships are not anyone’s business, even their own spouses.
But for some of us, we attempt to uphold our standards because of the simple desire to honor our future spouse. We're giving ourselves completely to the other person, and it includes our future, our past, our achievements, and failures. And our kisses. And memories of those kisses. And after we exchange rings on the wedding day, I bet most of us would look back on those pre-marital kisses and say, "It really wasn't worth it."
[On a personal level, after 27 years, I can say it really was worth the wait].
23. Jethro said the following at 5:54 PM on Jan 18:
Dr Ransom,
Whether Croft's argument was persuasive or not is a matter of personal opinion. I didn't particularly find it so. You it seems did. That's ok, we can agree to disagree.
Ted,
You're quite right, I was indeed doing the same thing as Croft and others. I would suggest however that the difference lies in the degree of the injunction. The position I'm putting forward is something like 'everyone is different, let's not make these sweeping statements that don't necessarily apply to everyone or to all situations'. Croft and others are essentially saying 'the Bible says kissing before marriage is a sin so don't do it'. The problem of course is that the Bible only says that if you are so inclines to read it that way. Croft is. I am not.
A general observation. All this talk of speeding on-ramps and such things really doesn't acknowledge that people do in fact have the power of free will and self control. So if you're making out with your girlfriend and you think it's leading somewhere you don't want it to, then you do in fact possess the ability to stop making out. The decision to engage in sex after kissing is ultimately just that, a decision, not an inevitable consequence. It's kind of like saying we shouldn't own cars because people might speed and kill themselves or others. Not so. We should be responsible with our romantic life just as we should with our motor vehicles.
24. Dave said the following at 8:35 PM on Jan 18:
I think there is a legitimate concern regarding the legalism in this article. One could construct a similar situation when looking at alcohol. A lot of Christians believe it is sinful to drink any alcohol at all and would use any number of verses in Proverbs to back this up. However, the majority of Christians in the world would see no problem with drinking alcohol (in moderation) and would cite 1 Timothy 5:23. There are levels of alcohol consumption which are Biblically proscribed (ie: drunkenness) as there are levels of physical intimacy which are Biblically proscribed (ie: fornication). But to extrapolate and say that you shouldn't drink any alcohol, or you shouldn't have any physical contact with someone from the opposite sex before marriage, I'm sorry but I really don't see that as a valid 'Biblical' argument. Given our society it may be a good idea to use an approach like the one presented here, but again, that doesn't make it any more Biblical.
A while back I saw a great post on some site (it might have even been here!) which said something along the lines of, "If it doesn't involve an ox or land trading hands, it's not really Biblical dating."
25. Valerie said the following at 11:44 PM on Jan 18:
Excuse my scattered comments but here goes...
Jethro, on your last comment you say: "A general observation. All this talk of speeding on-ramps and such things really doesn't acknowledge that people do in fact have the power of free will and self control."
I understand this observation is true in that we do have free will and can exercise self-control ... but the question is do we always have self-control? If we did, we'd be able to always stop ourselves from sinning ... but that is not the case, we fall short, we mess up and fail again and again.
Also, the author mentions a sexual continuum, that kissing can be in part foreplay of sex. From various studies in the college arena, I know this is true. Biologically your body IS preparing for the final act. [As the writer points out this view,} 'It's ... everything that leads up to that act, and everything on the sexual continuum is meant to end in that act. It's called foreplay, and it's a fundamental part of God's design for sex.' Then the writer goes on to give an analogy from Michael Lawrence involving the on-ramp like you mentioned ... My point is this, the writer is in no way saying one does not have choices, but that one is much LESS LIKELY to be able to stop him or herself when they have started down that path.
And I believe that the writer should be commended for giving biblical wisdom in this area. Kudos to you, Scott Croft!
26. Danielle said the following at 12:35 AM on Jan 19:
I like a good, bold title :).
Thanks for sharing such honest thoughts. I'm now on my way to read the full article over at Boundless but I just wanted to mention I'm delighted this topic has been addressed.
To me, kissing is definitely a sexual act. While it may not necessarily lead to further intimacy, I believe it is the beginnings of such.
And, in most cases, the motivation behind a kiss is an example of the desire for intimacy. We rarely kiss someone romantically because we think it would be nice for *them*. Our motivation comes from our own pleasure. Within the bounds of marriage, we are free to share this pleasure with one another. Outside a marriage, perhaps kissing is a line we need not cross.
27. Kelsey said the following at 1:10 AM on Jan 19:
Scott-
Thank you so much for your article! I plan for my first kiss to be at the alter, and it was encouraging to read your article, as well as to see other people my age who think the same way -- I was starting to wonder if I was the only one, when even Christian movies and fiction portray "just" a kiss as harmless and normal.
I especially apreciated the part where you wrote (to paraphrase) "Okay, go ahead and go as far as you think you can, but when it's over, can you honestly say you were honoring God, embracing purity, and doing what was best for the other person?" Good questions.
Jethro-
As far as the on-ramp metaphor goes ... yes, we do have brakes. We can usually stop when we're ready to. But if I'm heading toward the interstate going 70 miles an hour, what kind of damage is that going to do when I try to apply my brakes and/or veer off the road just a few yards short of danger? Maybe I can stop before the road, but it's probably not going to be pretty, and would have probably been better if I'd just stayed on the road that was going the direction I wanted to go in the first place.
Yes, we do need to be responsible in both romance and driving. But what is more responsible: to drive within the established traffic laws, or see how fast and out-of-control I can drive without getting caught or getting in an accident?
Just a thought.
28. Paul said the following at 1:31 AM on Jan 19:
"Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity." 1 Timothy 5:1b-2
Such was Paul's exhortation to Timothy, a single guy in ministry under Paul's guidance. So, what do you feel comfortable with with your immediate family? I don't think you'd smooch your brother or sister in most cultures. Still, having grown up in partly in Europe, I'm quite happy to exchange the greeting kisses but that's about it. (Greeting kisses are dangerous enough if you don't get you nose clear of the other person's in the cross action; I once collided noses with a perfect stranger when being introduced! Ouch!)
Anyhow, certainly I think this advice is sound until there is some formal understanding of deeper commitment, i.e. engagement at the least.
Paul
29. Leah said the following at 6:22 AM on Jan 19:
Unfortunately the Boundless website is having problems- again- (can someone look into that please??) which means I can't actually read the original article. I hope, however, that doesn't rule me out from commenting on Ted's post.
Is kissing (outside marriage) sinful? Not *necessarily*. Can it be used for sinful purposes (outside marriage)? Most definitely. Can it be used for pure purposes (outside marriage)? Most definitely.
Luke, I don't think your reference to Judas' kiss is quite on par with what this article is referring to. It's a different type of kiss. However, I do, mostly, agree with you. "Is it difficult to kiss a female (or male, in my situation) and not pursue sexual desire in your heart? Yes. Impossible? No." Amen to that. I would have to disagree with "Kissing is not an act of sexual intercourse or of being sexual." though. That's a very black-and-white comment- something that kissing ISN'T. Kissing is, very often, of a sexual nature. If you say that it isn't, you've either never shared a kiss, are lying to yourself, or have some supernatural, rare gift (like celibacy) like what Paul had.
However, I believe you're right when you say it depends on the intentions. There are times when I've kissed my boyfriend, and the intentions haven't been right. However, there are also delightfully pure kisses that just make you feel warm and happy and convey your affection, with no impure intentions. To say "kissing isn't sinful" is wrong- just like saying "kissing is sinful" is wrong.
I also oppose Angela making "kissing" synonymous with "making out". ("I often have conversations with [people]that will argue kissing [or "making out"] is acceptable.") Kissing is NOT the same as making out. Kissing can definitely lead to making out, which is a problem. I would say kissing is acceptable (or rather, *can be* acceptable) while making out isn't. There is a difference, and to blur that line is unhelpful.
I also agree with Scott who said "(physical intimacy) can cause you to imagine things in another person that just aren't there. Or it can cause you to miss red flags as well." I've sometimes wondered if my vision and judgement has been clouded by physical intimacy. It's always useful to take time out and discuss such thoughts with your partner. I don't think, however, it completely rules out any physical intimacy. Like I said above, it depends on the intentions, and it needs to be used wisely.
To re-iterate what I said above: To say "kissing isn't sinful" is wrong- just like saying "kissing is sinful" is wrong.
30. Elpizo said the following at 7:53 AM on Jan 19:
Well, shoot. As a single Christian actor, I have kissed dozens of girls on stage over the last 10 years. I guess I've committed tons of sinful pre-sexual mating rituals! Some of them were pecks, some were long, slow, deep kisses, and some of them were passionate lip-locking tumultuous affairs with roaming hands.
As far as our potential spouse's past as mentioned by some posters above, it obviously would not bother me. For this reason I can't really visualize myself marrying outside the arts. Who else would understand the fact that she'd have to watch her husband kissing many other women?
Ahhh ... but it's all make-belive, right? Yes -- it is play. However, it is play that is grounded in truth, otherwise it would not be good acting. My body is my body -- it is not a pretend body up there on stage. Is it a pretend spirit then?
This kinda thing can keep you up at night :)
31. Hannah said the following at 8:36 AM on Jan 19:
As someone who does kiss her boyfriend, it is a physical expression of affection and love. Yes, you have to treat it carefully, because kissing was created to hold power ... but when I (God willing) marry this man, I am not going to regret kissing him.
32. John said the following at 8:57 AM on Jan 19:
"If its OK for you to kiss someone who is not your spouse then God will give you someone who has done the same thing. If you don't mind someone else kissing your future/ intended spouse that's your decision and you will live with it and whatever consequences it causes."
Maybe I'm unusual but I'm really not bothered by the notion that my future wife will have kissed other guys (or done other things with them). My record is not squeaky-clean either; I'm an adult and have been round the block. I'm saying that not because I'm particularly proud of it (I realize that I have committed sins for which my Savior died), but it's the fact. I would be a hypocrite if I demanded my spouse meet a standard I myself could not meet.
33. Christina Marie said the following at 9:15 AM on Jan 19:
As a former legalist, tortured by an analytical conscience, I believe another perspective could be helpful here.
One which is gracious in its approach and eternal in its focus.
Our lives as Christians, like that of Paul, are to be driven by the gospel. It’s the best news we will ever know: that God has saved us and dwells with us, and all the richness of benefits that this brings. The best thing in this lifetime is to know Christ and fellowship with Him, as we look ahead to heaven. We are bound for heaven — it is for that redemption that our bodies and spirits yearn.
It saddens me that we as young Christians make marriage the highest goal of this stage in our lives. Unlike Mormons, we don’t believe that marriages, however wonderful, are eternal. They’re a blessing and a gift and a strong partnership that can accomplish much good — on this earth.
Yet if we live more than a few years on this earth — which all of us have by now — we have to figure out how to live and how to treat people while we’re here.
The purpose of a dating/courting relationship is, of course, to find a future spouse. The focus of the relationship should be the other person, and getting to know him or her, not “how far we can go”. The goal for Christians is not the short-term fix but the satisfaction of a healthy marriage — we must keep our eyes on that goal! Our responsibility as individuals is the motive in our hearts before God. Our responsibility in a relationship is to seek the other person’s good and to build him or her up.
Within this context, I believe that kissing is one of those gray areas. This is an area where we need accountability and where we need to exercise wisdom. Wisdom may be applied in different ways. It may be possible to kiss within a developing relationship to show affection — a bit more than you would a relative, without going into all-out passion. Other times this may not be possible, and self-control should be used. Taking time to get to know the person on a more friendship basis is helpful for preventing impulsive behavior and serial dramatic breakups.
For the legalists, I would stress that emotion and attraction are good — for God did not just make us intellectual or spiritual beings — and an essential part of a potential marriage relationship. For the antinomians, I would caution that the physical aspect should not “take over” the relationship. It must be balanced by a focus on the goal of marriage and the need for accountability and wisdom.
34. Rebecca said the following at 9:22 AM on Jan 19:
I wanted to respond to what Emma said...
I can certainly agree with you. Of course there is a "build-up" of desire as you become closer to the person you are dating. My boyfriend and I have chosen to wait until our wedding day (if we get to that point) to kiss.
Believe me, there are times when I wish there could be more. Sometimes when we say goodbye I'd like to give him more than a "side hug", but I'll quote Joshua Harris in saying that God wants us to, "learn to trust Him together. When a Christian man and woman systematically deny their own physical desires as an expression of mutual faith and submission to Jesus Christ, they are laying a solid spiritual foundation for their marriage. They're learning to fight sin as a team. They're learning to care for each other, pray for each other, and challenge each other." If our real goal is to honor God in our relationships, than the process of denying our own desires will be more important than fullfilling our physical needs.
35. Jake said the following at 10:12 AM on Jan 19:
Overall, I was somewhat disappointed with this article. First, I think Croft is equivocating. He says he thinks reasonable believers can disagree on this issue, and knows that Bible doesn't absolutely state that premarital kissing is sinful, but he clearly thinks it is. Thus, he issues repeated dire warnings about the awful consequences of "playing with fire" by kissing, but keeps saying that all this is just his view. People don't respect this "just my opinion" talk; I certainly have troulbe taking seriously someone who professes belief in something that sounds like an absolute truth but then hedges and says it's just his opinion. I think Christians should stop doing this. If someone things something is sinful, he should come out and say so definitively.
Second, Croft says that we souldn't have the idea of a "line" in our minds, because we don't want to approach the line but rather turn and flee from it. He makes the common argument that kissing is part of an unbroken contiuum that leads directly to sexual intercourse. But is kissing the beginning of that continuum? If once you've kissed you've already gotten on the highway onramp, where did the onramp start? What about a friendly hug; after all, that might inspire a temptation to kiss. Holding hands (which Boundless authors have condemned before) might lead to a temptation to hug. Better not to touch at all, right? I suppose when I meet an available single girl at church, I should just say "hi" from a distance rather than take her hand. But wait, if my girlfriend and I are on a date (in a public place, of course, so there won't be temptation to kiss,) and we look into each other's eyes, might that not awaken temptation, might we not start thinking lustful thoughts? Since that possibility is there, however slight, and we want "not even a hint," and we want to "flee from sin," we shouldn't look at each other at all. Even if we just talk on the phone, I might get turned on at the sound of her lovely feminine voice. The logical conclusion of this argument is that the only safe, God-honoring, non-flirting-with-temptation way is arranged marriage in which the man and woman have never met nor seen each other before instant the vows are exchanged.
Third, I think there is a contradiction between the way of thinking espoused in this article and the way of thinking Boundless (rightly, in my view) wants to encourage in telling people to get married. Croft's article exemplifies the "better safe than sorry" attitude so common among Christians today. If I do X, something might go wrong, it MIGHT not be God's will, and no matter how small the probability of that is, the last thing I want to do is not be in God's will, so I just won't do X. But this way of thinking is one of the primary reasons we're delaying marriage. "This person might not be 'the one,' I'm not hearing a clear, unmistakeable command from God to marry this person, so I'd better not." If today's Christian writers want to encourage people to step out in faith and get married, they should not be promoting the idea that it's too dangerous and therefore wrong to take risks.
Fourth, and this is really more an interesting tidbit than a serious point, I know I've read in one of James Dobson's books a humourous anecdote about him exchanging a kiss with his future wife, before they were even going steady. This was not portrayed as wrong. It may even have been in Life on the Edge, his advice handbook for young adults. Yet now, a website operated by the organization founded and headed by Dobson is publishing articles arguing that kissing before marriage is unbiblical. So has our understanding of the Bible improved, or can the discrepancy be justified by cultural context, or what?
36. Bethany said the following at 11:59 AM on Jan 19:
"If you can see yourself even being remotely bothered by the fact that your future spouse kissed x number of previous boy/girlfriends, then it's time for us to start upholding the same standards in our lives (ie, pointing out the speck in a neighbor’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own eye)."
You could extend this logic further. I wouldn't want my future husband to have shared intimate details about his life and heart and sin with anyone but me, either. Does that mean there should be no such conversation before the wedding night?
37. Erin said the following at 12:33 PM on Jan 19:
I think what's interesting to consider is that I imagine no one who waits until marriage to kiss regretted it, but I am sure that those who "made out" before marriage often do regret it (I don't mean all will, but some definitely will). As someone who's engaged and trying to practice purity and struggling with it sometimes, it would be much easier had my fiance and I never kissed to begin with. It's easy to tell ourselves, "We'll only kiss for two seconds," but soon two seconds become five, then ten, etc. etc., and it's hard to backtrack. I'm beginning to think it's better not to get on that roller coast at all until you can finish the ride.
38. Laura said the following at 12:43 PM on Jan 19:
Bethany,
I think that's a good question to consider -- what level of intimacy shared with anyone who is not my husband? It's tempting to jump into a relationship with both feet and want to be completely open with each other, but I've learned from experience that sharing such things can increase the level of intimacy between a couple more than the level of commitment requires, and makes breaking up all the more painful.
I definitely think at some point in a relationship it's necessary to confess previous sins and such, but I think that should be done with an attitude looking towards marriage and wanting to give the other person that information to base their choices on, rather than to fulfill our desire to completely open our hearts.
A dating relationship is a careful dance between allowing a person to get to know us and saving as much as possible for marriage, but that's partly what makes me so look forwards to marriage, being fully one with my spouse.
39. Rusty Shackleford said the following at 12:45 PM on Jan 19:
A personal plea:
If authors like Mr. Croft (rightly) acknowledge that this is a grey area, might he also consider removing the adjective "Biblical" from his assessment of pre-marital relationships? I suspect that he wouldn't, given that the tone of his writings on the subject assume that any mature believer would come to the same conclusion that he and his denomination have come to.
I am frankly surprised that Focus on the Family, Inc., has given the green light to broadcast a view held by a small minority of American Christians as the "Biblical" approach. This is not even to critique the view itself but the presentation of it as the approach mandated by Scripture and required for personal holiness.
The application of the Scriptures to our lives today takes understanding, faith, reliance upon the Holy Spirit, reliance on other brothers and sisters and, above all, wisdom. It is an appreciation for this final criterion of wisdom that I find lacking in this article and in other articles. I would like Mr. Croft or Mr. Slater or others to address how they are not attempting to bind the consciences of others by acknowledging disagreements among faithful Christians but then calling their own position the "Biblical" approach. Perhaps "A Biblically-informed, patriarchal approach to dating" might be a better title (if not more verbose).
If the topics were discussed in a more winsome way of "here is how I feel we can best honor God on the path to marriage in our culture" rather than being given the "Biblical" label, the articles would most likely resonate stronger with your readers and would convince more to thoughtfully and prayerfully consider your position.
40. Jessica said the following at 1:17 PM on Jan 19:
Well, it seems to me that the issue is not whether or not to kiss. The issue is really to me the motives for why we do the things we do. The issue is knowing ourselves well enough to know what triggers lust in our minds. This trigger is also strengthened or diminished by what we allow our eyes and ears to hear( be it sexual or romantic overtures in TV, radio, whatever). So to be plain: most people know what turns them on. For some it could be a lingering frontal hug; for others, it could be a peck on the cheek. Whatever your "trigger" is, don't pull it.
Maybe it's just me, but I believe people should be talking to God about everything in their lives that's going on (including their sexual desires in a relationship and expressing affection in that relationship) to allow the Holy Spirit to convict on this issue. I agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, but not to the point where you are unneccesarily creating false guilt about expressing affection towards another human being.
I think what also comes into play is what you believe affection in a God-honoring way looks like, which also touches on how you believe purity acts, walks, talks, and expresses themselves in a relationship. But for me, I know purity begins with my motivation for striving for it and the end result -- which is a closer and higher level of intimacy with Jesus. I also know for myself that my actions start with my thoughts, so I have to guard my mind, monitor my focus, and monitor what I'm feeding on. Is is just me, or is it crazy to think that you can watch or listen to anything and then struggle to figure out why you struggle so hard to control your flesh?
I personally think that when you're not physically all over each other in a relationship you really have the opportunity to really know and see the other person for who they are beyond the rose-colored glasses of physical attraction (where everyone you're attracted to suddenly has their flaws look not so bad as they were in reality)
However, I realize that as many people have posted on this debate, there are several things that (hopefully) we agree on:
we want to conduct our relationships in a God-honoring, loving manner that does not defraud or inflict severe emotional and spiritual damage on one another.
The Bible, although silent on the specific prohibition of kissing, is clear on sexual immorality and lust.
Let's keep the main thing the main thing!
Love the Lord God with all your heart.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
41. mikery said the following at 1:23 PM on Jan 19:
So I'll just add this -- kissing in itself isn't what is sinful (or condemned in scripture). Many have accurately observed that it is possible to kiss without having any sexual intentions at all. That having been said, I disagree with Scott's assesment. I do think that a line needs to be drawn, however. A 23 hour kiss is NOT a good thing -- neither glorifying to God nor honoring to either person involved. A short kiss shared between two people who are saying "hello" or "goodbye" or even "thank you" isn't at all sexual and shouldn't be categorized as such.
42. Matt said the following at 2:12 PM on Jan 19:
This whole discussion makes me think about the teaching of fences I heard in Israel about the Jews making laws and then laws on top of laws to keep themselves from sinning.
It is one thing to say that people should be thinking about whether kissing is something that would be beneficial for you and your relationships(with god and whoever you might be kissing). Its another thing to practically imply that you are sinning if you decide to kiss before marriage. It seems like it is adovcating just creating barriers so that you'll be less likely to sin. Which is understandable since living by the law is alot easier then actually having to wrestle with your conscience and the Spirit.
Christianity isn't supposed to be about sin management or sin minimalization. It's supposed to be about much more than that.
This discussion reminds me of Derek Webb's song: "A New Law"
"... Don’t teach me how to live like a free man
Just give me a new law
I don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
So just bring it down from the mountain to me
I want a new law
I want a new law
Gimme that new law
Don’t teach me about moderation and liberty
I prefer a shot of grape juice
Don’t teach me about loving my enemies
Don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
Just give me a new law
What’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
For one you can that cannot get you anything
Do not be afraid ..."
43. Chris Krycho said the following at 4:00 PM on Jan 19:
I have to agree with Rusty, here, though I have usually supported Boundless' side in these discussions. There is an element to which I believe you should either be saying, "This is a gray area; here is our perspective," or saying, "This is the Biblical reality of it," and then sticking to your guns. I don't believe sound exegesis of the passages in question really lends itself to the latter method, so I think more of the former would better suit you. Suggesting that there is Biblical support for your view, but that it is not absolute, is much more likely to win you an audience in a case like this where the situation is less than cut-and-dried.
And I have to take the stance that this is an issue that is very much a matter of personal conviction and discernment. I am personally convicted not to kiss until I get engaged; and then only to kiss chastely (ie, a very brief peck to say good night). To me, at that point, the kiss is essentially operating as a seal on the engagement. Others do not have the same convictions, and while I am happy to share that conviction -- and the reasons for it -- with them, I honestly don't believe that there is a Scriptural mandate against kissing.
I am fond of the methodology used to determine the best path through these sorts of sticky situations by my pastor back home. When I first began to date a young woman at our church, he -- with his typical humor and wisdom -- simply commented with regard to our physical intimacy, "If you can hold hands, hug, kiss lightly without being aroused, you're fine. If it arouses you... don't do it." It was s simple rule, and one that wasn't hard to figure out. There was, of course, the implicit understanding between two (relatively) mature young adult Christians there should be no more than the short list given there in any case. I know people who can sit close together, hold hands, and kiss lightly without problem. I am not among them; any of those can lead me down that path, probably because I am very much a Physical Touch love language person. With that in mind, when I date/court/pursue/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, I will fiercely limit my physical interactions with that young woman. Yet that is my own personal conviction, and for those who have different stumbling blocks, I would hesitate to do more than tell them to pray carefully about what their exact boundaries ought to be. And I do that by asking, "What honors God?" That ought to be our attitude about these questions, as it ought to be our attitude about all questions in life.
What honors God?
44. Katie said the following at 4:09 PM on Jan 19:
I think that it is important for the believer to not make "commitments" (such as no kissing before marraige) out of *fear* that they will have sex because they kissed. Instead, I believe that it is vital for believers to evaluate what God is calling them to, and to make that a step of faith. Therein is deliniated the difference between legalism and liberty.
45. Emma said the following at 4:28 PM on Jan 19:
"I am frankly surprised that Focus on the Family, Inc., has given the green light to broadcast a view held by a small minority of American Christians as the "Biblical" approach." - Rusty Shackleford
Regardless of what is actually true about kissing per se, Focus has the right and obligation to "broadcast" views that are not held by the majority if they are true.
Whatever it is "a small minority of Americal Christians" view "as the 'Biblical' approach" is not irrelevant if it is TRUE, if it is in fact supported by God's Word and centuries of Church Tradition holding fast to the meaning of those words (2 Thess. 2:15).
It could be the case (and is, in many respects, theologically) that many Christian Americans either hold or neglect "views" that are flat-out wrong according to the Scriptures.
Therefore, even if a belief (about kissing or anything else) is not held by a "majority" of "Americans" (as if Christianity wasn't spread from somewhere else to start with), it can still be true -- and therefore, fully within the right and duty of Focus on the Family to "give the green light to broadcast" it.
46. Matt C. said the following at 4:30 PM on Jan 19:
First of all, I'd like to congratulate Scott on a fine article. He properly addressed a true but counter-intuitive and controversial topic in a very thorough and systematic way.
If I may add a comment or two for affirmation and to ossibly make the conclusion a bit more intuitive to some readers:
There need be no long or excruciatingly detailed discussion about what physical activities are appropriate for a boyfriend and girlfriend; we all know the answer already. If anyone doubts that, imagine yourself married. Now, consider which intimate physical activities would be appropriate for someone who isn't your spouse. There you have it.
Although one can easily take that as "rules regarding anyone who isn't your spouse, which includes a boyfriend or girlfriend", one might instead argue that rules like that only "count" if you're married. I'll address that in a moment, but would first like to cover a possible explanation for why we're so inclined to argue the latter.
In America, there is a very common assumption that marriage is something that limits a person's potential quality of life. That's obvious in the "wife as ball-and-chain", "live it up before you're married" crowd. However, it's so pervasive that it even makes it's way into the assumptions of those with a more favorable outlook on marriage. Many, for example, still see marriage as a limiting contract, just one that also gives you benefits that outweigh the limitations. Even folks in this thread look on it as "saving it for marriage" with the implication of mere delayed gratification -- limiting yourself now for a better result later.
I would like to propose a different outlook that I think is more appropriate. J. Budziszewski often talked about the "purpose" of sexuality in Boundless. Setting children aside for the moment, the parallel purpose is the creation of a permanent intimate bond between a man and a woman. If you develop an intimate bond (to a small or large degree -- kissing or intercourse) that isn't planned to be permanent, you've really just wasted your time. Consequently, if you choose not to develop such a temporary bond, you really haven't limited yourself at all.
Now to address why the rules "count" when you're not married. Once again, imagine that you're married. Does knowing that your spouse romantically kissed a few folks before you got married improve your bond with him/her? Self-deception may be enough to convince you there's no damage, but I've never seen anyone remotely Christian argue that it provides an enhancement.
That still leaves temporary pleasure as a goal of even "light" physical intimacy, but that leads us to a hard and fast Biblical rule. "Seek first the kingdom of God". Simple bodily pleasure(mere chemical reactions -- I don't address genuine joy here) isn't worth any effort at all, but it is a common side-effect of pursuing worthy goals (or unworthy ones). If your first goal in any endeavor is chemical pleasure, then you're sinning no matter what you're actually doing. Please note the distinction between having the goal of bodily pleasure and actuality of experiencing bodily pleasure. We're all in agreement that the latter is a wonderful thing, so there's no need to argue the point.
Praise God for the forgiveness of sins through Christ's atoning death! Without Him, we'd all be in deep trouble because of that solid rule. But it remains a rule despite our uniform failure to live up to God's standard.
47. Brooke said the following at 6:04 PM on Jan 19:
I can understand the people that feel the need to wait until marriage or engagement to kiss. Kissing can lead to things more sexual in nature. But kissing (outside of marriage) in itself a sinful act? I have to agree with the person who equated it to alcohol. I enjoy boundless and granted I don't always agree with the articles, but I think this one is way off the mark.
48. Adam said the following at 7:05 PM on Jan 19:
Matt C.,
You said:
There need be no long or excruciatingly detailed discussion about what physical activities are appropriate for a boyfriend and girlfriend; we all know the answer already. If anyone doubts that, imagine yourself married. Now, consider which intimate physical activities would be appropriate for someone who isn't your spouse. There you have it.
The assumption here is that moral obligations are uniform across the board. That is a huge ethical mistake. I can use the same argument you used to prove that marrying someone is wrong:
There need be no long or excruciatingly detailed discussion about whether marriage is inappropriate for a boyfriend and girlfriend; we all know the answer already. If anyone doubts that, imagine yourself married. Now, consider whether marriage would be appropriate for someone who isn't your spouse. There you have it.
Second, where are you getting this idea that people who disagree with Mr. Croft are saying we seek "bodily pleasure" before the kingdom of God? We are more than willing to give it up if God tells us to do so. However, the problem is that we don't believe God has told us to do so.
God Bless,
Adam
49. Danni said the following at 7:27 PM on Jan 19:
This has been an interesting discussion to say the least!! A popular topic to be sure.
But after getting involved in the discussion myself and reading the great reactions (and non-reactions) to this issue, I am wondering if we are making it too big of a deal about it. Yes, staying sexually pure is important because Jesus commands us to do so, but if we are so willing to discuss the "little" things (such as this topic) and stay away from the bigger issues (eg. how to be saved)in the Christian life, I question the effectiveness of the argument altogether. Yes, somethings are important and need to be hashed out, but when it leads to people arguing just to argue -- well, I don't know that that falls under the category of 'love your neighbor as yourself'. We should all strive to be men and women after God's own heart. And while this does not mean we cannot discuss things intelligently, it does mean that we should seek to glorify God in every aspect of our lives, whether it be by remaining sexually pure or loving our neighbors as ourselves.
50. ag said the following at 7:49 PM on Jan 19:
Forget kissing ... Sexual desire can be ignited by a simple glance between 2 people. Therefore the "Bibilical approach" to certain activities should not be dictated by whether or not such activties ignite desire. Innocent activities can suddenly ignite a spark between two people. Therefore, the proper (and more difficult issue) is how to manage those feelings. Basically it requires determination, personal responsibility, and the ability to be honest with yourself about whether any given situation is inappropriate. Interestingly, these are the same skills a person will use after marriage in order to remain faithful to their spouse.
51. Leah said the following at 7:50 PM on Jan 19:
"If its OK for you to kiss someone who is not your spouse then God will give you someone who has done the same thing."
I know for a FACT that isn't true. I know of couples where one person has been physically involved with someone in the past, and the other person hasn't. Telling people what God will and won't give them is way out of line -- we have no way to know this.
I also fully support Dave's alcohol analogy. It also differs between people.
Eg- some people have a weakness for alcohol, and, given one sip, will go on to get drunk. Does this mean no-one should be allowed to drink? Of course not. Many people can drink responsibly.
Eg- some people have a weakness for gambling, and, given one chance to bet a few dollars, will go on to bet their savings, their car, etc etc. Does this mean no-one should be allowed go gamble? Of course not. Many people can gamble sensibly.
Which leads us to -- some people have a weakness for physical intimacy (incl. kissing) and, given one kiss, will go on to pursue things of a more sexual nature. Does this mean no-one should be allowed to kiss outside marriage? No. Many people can kiss, or hug, or hold hands, sensibly.
52. Bethany said the following at 8:32 PM on Jan 19:
I would just like to applaud Boundless -- and Scott and Ted specifically -- for taking on this subject matter. It's extremely controversial and indeed a grey area, so it's definitely easier to just ignore or skirt around it. I appreciate the carefully constructed and thorough arguement taken on.
Personally I think our society's casual apathy toward kissing (making out, not a greeting or peck) is part of the "cultural air" that we have breathed in for so many years without even noticing -- things we forget to go back and compare/contrast with the Bible! Christians have assimilated to the culture in the area of sexuality. We may think sex outside of marriage is wrong, but we are not striving to avoid 'even a hint' of sexual immorality. As I examine Scott's points and Scriptural support, I'm challenged to take the counter-cultural, Biblically-based view that extended kissing is sinful.
In high school, I decided to wait until the altar for my first kiss. I had no specific reasons behind it, though, other than 'saving as many gifts as possible to open on my wedding night!' Therefore when I got a little older, I started to believe that the physical relationship should slowly grow in proportion to the relationship as a whole. I thought I would be cheating a man out of something by basically giving him nothing physically until the wedding, so I did end up making out in my first serious relationship.
I repented and was cleansed from those sins, and now I am challenged and encouraged anew to remain pure in every way for my husband. Both emotionally and physically, I want to save myself for marriage, and the next time I kiss a man will be after the pastor announces, "You may now kiss your bride!" Thank you again for taking this on and providing a new challenge to believers.
53. Scott Croft said the following at 9:36 PM on Jan 19:
Hi, All -
To everyone who has commented so far, thanks for your comments. I'm really grateful that believers in the Lord can sharpen one another through a thoughtful dialogue about a difficult topic. I've been edified by reading the posts.
Let me briefly respond to a couple of common themes.
First, to reiterate, I'm not meaning to address all types of kissing in the article. As I wrote, I mean to address kissing (and other physical activity) that is romantically oriented and that takes place in a romantic context, and that's it. No relatives, no (appropriate) greetings, no kisses to signify to the bad guys which one the Messiah is (though I must say, for my money, that latter one was a sin for any number of reasons).
Second, a lot of posts seem to be addressing, in one form or another, the "wisdom" argument I made near the end of the article (several posts mention that this is an area to be governed by conscience or guidance from the Spirit, or wisdom, or some equivalent phrase). As you might be able to tell from the article, I kind of meant that to be a "back-up" argument.
Our consciences certainly can be helpful to us, but as Christians, we must make sure that we inform our consciences by -- and submit them to -- the clear teachings of scripture. Scripture also tells us that true "wisdom" is found *in scripture*. "Guidance from the Holy Spirit" is not fundamentally a subjective, mystical experience whereby I do "that which I have a peace about" from moment to moment. The clearest and fullest guidance we get from the Spirit is when He opens the scriptures to us.
My main argument is not "don't kiss because it might lead you to sin." My main argument is that romantically oriented kissing is sexual activity, such that when done outside of marriage, it is itself sin.
In my view, scripture presents a strong and clear enough argument against all sexual activity outside of marriage -- and clearly presents relationships to other believers as asexual "familial" relationships -- that arguing for the liberty to be physically involved requires more than a general statement about conscience, guidance, and wisdom. We must bring the discussion back to scripture and make the argument from there.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a HUGE fan of Christian liberty -- I'm just convinced scripture doesn't offer it to us in this area.
If that's truly my unwavering perspective on what scripture teaches, then why, as a few posts asked, do I say that this is a topic on which "reasonable Christians can disagree"?
Simple. I want to be careful to acknowledge that whether premarital kissing is a sin or not is not a salvation issue. Two people who believe totally opposite things on that question can still believe the exact same gospel and can still be in heaven together one day. Both can enjoy the same grace and salvation of Jesus Christ. One of them's just wrong about kissing :)
The same is true about the other topics we'll discuss here. They're arguments within the household of faith. Not to acknowledge that -- to imply that one can't be Christian if one doesn't agree on this or that secondary issue about how to best live the Christian life -- that's the true definition of legalism.
54. Leah said the following at 10:10 PM on Jan 19:
I think Boundless (Scott, Ted, whoever) really needs to define what "kissing" is. To me, there are a few basic kisses (NB: very basic outlines!!)
1. That between someone and friends- a greeting, or parting, or thanking, kiss on the cheek.
2. The same type of kiss, but between partners (bf/gf, husband/wife)
3. An affectionate, loving, lip to lip kiss (sometimes with another message, like 'thanks' etc.)
4. Then anything further- making out, pashing, whatever you want to call it.
From what I've read, I've come to believe Scott (and maybe Ted?) and many commenters who disagreed with kissing before marriage were referring to No 4. I, originally, thought they were referring to No.s 2 & 3 as well. I disagreed with that, because it seems that Ted and Scott's reasons for opposing kissing before marriage is that it is a sexual activity- when I believe Kisses #2 and #3 are not necessarily of a sexual nature.
Thoughts?
55. Matt C. said the following at 8:27 AM on Jan 20:
I just realized the oversight in my last post (besides the typos): one could take my response to the supposed "don't marry your girlfriend because she's not your spouse" argument and argue that polygamy would then be OK. I apologize for the bad argument.
A better way of explaining the contradiction in such a rule would be this: Such a rule implies a spouse (at some point). One is not born with a spouse. So it clearly cannot both preclude the fact of finding a spouse and imply the fact of finding spoue without being contradictory.
56. Aaron said the following at 9:14 AM on Jan 20:
Heres my three cents:
Cent 1: The verse pretty much sums it up "there should not be even a hint of sexual immorality" yet kissing would be more of a "suggestion" to the casual observer.
Cent 2: If I'd like my future wife to tell me that she had never kissed another guy (which I would), then how can I be sucking face with some one and posibly depriving their future spouse from hearing the same thing (and maybe more should my "free will" fail me)?
Cent 3: The bible commands, in the proper context, greeting each other with a holy kiss. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this is not the kind of kissing being discussed in the article.
On a side note: I'm not sure I want my first kiss with my wife to be on a platform infront of hundreds of staring eyes. Maybe we should change the tradition to a hand shake or even an "in leaning" hug? Any takers?
Thanks for the article Boundless.
57. Ted Slater said the following at 10:16 AM on Jan 20:
Aaron wrote: "I'm not sure I want my first kiss with my wife to be on a platform in front of hundreds of staring eyes. Maybe we should change the tradition to a hand shake or even an "in leaning" hug? Any takers?"
Aaron -- the first kiss I shared with my wife was on a platform in front of hundreds of staring eyes. It was fun, not awkward! :-)
And, yes, we had no problem ... um ... consummating our marriage that evening, despite our being so "hands-off" during our courtship and engagement.
58. Adam said the following at 11:27 AM on Jan 20:
Scott,
You said:
My main argument is not "don't kiss because it might lead you to sin." My main argument is that romantically oriented kissing is sexual activity, such that when done outside of marriage, it is itself sin.
In my view, scripture presents a strong and clear enough argument against all sexual activity outside of marriage -- and clearly presents relationships to other believers as asexual "familial" relationships -- that arguing for the liberty to be physically involved requires more than a general statement about conscience, guidance, and wisdom. We must bring the discussion back to scripture and make the argument from there.
If I understand your argument, you are saying:
1. Sexual things are wrong before marriage.
2. Kissing is sexual.
3. Therefore, kissing is wrong before marriage.
I think you are equivocating on the meaning of "sexual." Your argument is similar to the classic:
1. Some dogs have spots.
2. My dog has spots.
3. Therefore, my dog is SOME dog.
The crutial issue in your argument is whether the term "sexual" in #1 has the same meaning as "sexual" in #2.
In other words, I would say there is a way we can understand "sexual" in the context of single life, in which it does not imply sin. For instance, let's say a cute blonde with blue eyes catches my eye, and [although it is wishful thinking], she smiles back. In that instance we might call this "sexual attraction." However, I don't think anyone would argue that this would be sin. Singles are also said to be "sexual" beings. I don't think anyone would argue that, therefore, every single has sinned because they are sexual beings.
In other words, when we use the term "sexual," we have to explain what we mean by that term. There are several different senses and meanings to that term, and one must explain how it is being used, or you can end up equivocating between meanings.
Secondly, bringing it back to scripture, in my translation of the Biblical texts [septuagint and NT], I haven't found any word, phrase, or concept, prohibited by scripture, that has as its semantic range "kissing." In other words, the terms used for the prohibition of sexual sins do not refer to kissing at all.
I would agree with several people on here who have said that sexual sin is a matter of the heart. Even sinful actions have, as their root, an impure heart. That is really the heart of the issue. All sin comes from the heart, and we should be concerned with purifying our thoughts, and thinking God's thoughts after him, because that is the essence of purity.
59. Matt C. said the following at 12:31 PM on Jan 20:
Huh. If posted my correction, but not response I was correcting...
Well, here's the whole corrected version:
Adam,
1. You said:
"The assumption here is that moral obligations are uniform across the board. That is a huge ethical mistake. I can use the same argument you used to prove that marrying someone is wrong:
There need be no long or excruciatingly detailed discussion about whether marriage is inappropriate for a boyfriend and girlfriend; we all know the answer already. If anyone doubts that, imagine yourself married. Now, consider whether marriage would be appropriate for someone who isn't your spouse. There you have it."
Adam, your parallel is not really parallel. If you were to discern a rule from your parody, "consider whether marriage is appropriate for someone who isn't your spouse" you would end up either with the rule "It's wrong to be married to somebody who is not your spouse." Since it's a truism that anybody you're married to is your spouse, such a rule would in fact be impossible to violate.
You might argue that you discern the rule, "don't marry your girlfriend because she's not your spouse". However, such a rule implies a spouse (at some point). One is not born with a spouse. So it clearly cannot both preclude the fact of finding a spouse and imply the fact of finding spoue without being contradictory. That's another obvious indication that you've wrongly discerned the rule from the observation.
The important point on which it differs is that you're using it to prove a rule, where I was using it to illustrate inherent knowledge of a rule.
You also said:
"Second, where are you getting this idea that people who disagree with Mr. Croft are saying we seek "bodily pleasure" before the kingdom of God? We are more than willing to give it up if God tells us to do so. However, the problem is that we don't believe God has told us to do so."
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you genuinely making the claim that you kiss your girlfriend first and foremost because it glorifies God and seeks his Kingdom? If you're going to make that audacious of a claim, I'd like to hear some justification for how it does so.
The only argument I've seen here so far is that kissing is innocuous. But "it doesn't hurt anything" is a genuinely pitiful standard of behavior for people who are supposed to be stewarding our lives. Setting aside the question of whether it hurts, I asked another question: what does it accomplish? Why is it good stewardship of our lives?
60. Jake said the following at 2:26 PM on Jan 20:
Matt,
Perhaps Adam's substitution of "marriage" for "kissing" obscured the point a little. As I have put it before, if I were married, I wouldn't want my wife going out to dinner with another man. Does that mean if I am dating or engaged, I should not go out to dinner with my girlfriend/fiancee? I would not want another man asking my wife out. Does that mean I should not ask any women out? I would not want another man attending a premarital counseling session with my wife. Does that mean I should not attend a premarital counseling session with my fiancee? Face it: when we are dating or engaged, there are some things we are going to do that a husband and wife would also do together, but two totally uninvolved people would not. Therefeore, kissing cannot be condemned solely on the grounds that it is something a husband and wife share.
As for your second point, this attitude that we should only do things that first and foremost glorify God and seek his Kingdom, so common among contemporary Christians, if carried to its logical conclusion would make life impossible. Consider this:
"Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you genuinely making the claim that you eat hamburgers first and foremost because it glorifies God and seeks his Kingdom? If you're going to make that audacious of a claim, I'd like to hear some justification for how it does so.
The only argument I've seen here so far is that eating hamburgers is innocuous. But "it doesn't hurt anything" is a genuinely pitiful standard of behavior for people who are supposed to be stewarding our lives. Setting aside the question of whether it hurts, I asked another question: what does it accomplish? Why is it good stewardship of our lives?"
Again, this attitude is one standing in the way of many Christians getting married today. I.e., "I don't think marrying this person first and foremost glorifies God and seeks His kingdom, because if I marry him I'll get bogged down in child-rearing and keeping house and the mundane logistics of this life, whereas if I stay single I'm free to seek God alone and be wholly devoted to his kingdom."
That reminds me, I have to defrost some ground beef so I can make a hamburger for dinner.
61. Adam said the following at 3:09 PM on Jan 20:
Matt C.,
You said:
Huh. If posted my correction, but not response I was correcting...
Well, here's the whole corrected version:
LOL, ya, I thought you might be talking to me, but I didn't see any other response, and you didn't have my name at the top of the message.
You said:
You might argue that you discern the rule, "don't marry your girlfriend because she's not your spouse". However, such a rule implies a spouse (at some point). One is not born with a spouse. So it clearly cannot both preclude the fact of finding a spouse and imply the fact of finding spoue without being contradictory. That's another obvious indication that you've wrongly discerned the rule from the observation.
The important point on which it differs is that you're using it to prove a rule, where I was using it to illustrate inherent knowledge of a rule.
When you talk about "precluding" something, we must understand that to be talking about someone *morally* precluding something, not assuming the that something cannot logically happen. The "rule" allows for the logical possibility of finding a spouse, while denying the ethical righteousness of finding a spouse.
I might restructure the rule to show you what I am talking about:
"don't teach your girlfriend because she's not your student".
Obviously, this statement is not contradictory. It is not precluding the logical possibility of people taking on a student who they have never taught before. It is simply denying the ethical righteousness of such an action.
"don't allow anyone to work on your car because they are not your auto mechanic".
Again, the statement is not denying the logical possibility of people who work on other people's cars that were not, initially, their auto mechanic. What it is saying is that this action is immoral.
"don't hire your girlfriend to try your court case because she's not your lawyer".
Again, this statement is not denying the logical possibility of someone hiring someone who is not their lawyer: only the moral righteousness of such an action.
Therefore, it is not self-contradictory to allow for the logical possibility of an action happening, but to deny that such an action would be morally righteous. The statement "don't marry your girlfriend because she's not your spouse" is not denying the logical possibility of marrying someone who is not your spouse. It is denying the ethical righteousness of such an action.
Even if we were talking about the logical possibility of finding a spouse, the argument would still work because it is saying that, given your reasoning, you cannot hold both that the ethics of a married man apply to a single man, and that marriage exists. It would be stating that, if you are consistent, you will have a contradiction in your belief system. It would just be a much shorter reductio.
You said:
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you genuinely making the claim that you kiss your girlfriend first and foremost because it glorifies God and seeks his Kingdom? If you're going to make that audacious of a claim, I'd like to hear some justification for how it does so.
Well, I am kinda torn on this response, because I don't believe what you have said is a proper interpretation of Jesus' words, but I also would defend the claim you have put up there. Also, if you bring this text up alleging a contradiction between kissing and seeking God's kingdom first, then the burden of proof is on you to show how kissing is *not* seeking God's kingdom first.
First of all, go back and read what Jesus says there. He does not say "Whatever you do, glorify God and seek his kingdom." He says that it is to be of our first and highest importance that we seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness. He says that we are to be concerned with God, his commandments, and his righteousness over anything that we do.
I would, however, defend such a statement true. The reason is because God created the natural attractions between men and women. He also desires that we pursue these attractions to marriage. That is what the entire story of Genesis is all about. Hence, a kiss is simply an expression of that very thing.
You said:
The only argument I've seen here so far is that kissing is innocuous. But "it doesn't hurt anything" is a genuinely pitiful standard of behavior for people who are supposed to be stewarding our lives. Setting aside the question of whether it hurts, I asked another question: what does it accomplish? Why is it good stewardship of our lives?
Well, it isn't true that the only argument you've seen here so far is that kissing is innocuous. I have written a parody of your argument that you addressed in this very post. I agree that "it doesn't hurt anybody" is a terrible argument. However, I have not seen any scriptural arguments from the other side either. The best I have seen is the reference to a "hint" in Ephesians 5:3 which is only found in the NIV. Every other translation I am aware of is against the NIV at this point. Hence, I would agree that we cannot use the argument that it is innocent. However, we need some exegetical arguments here, or it is nothing more than a mere dogmatism.
Second, I believe I answered what it accomplishes and why it is good for our lives in the previous section. God has created the attraction between men and women as good, and says that the pursuit of marriage is a good thing. A kiss is an expression of what God already declared good in the garden of Eden.
God Bless,
Adam
62. Matt C. said the following at 4:48 PM on Jan 20:
To Jake:
You Said:
"Perhaps Adam's substitution of "marriage" for "kissing" obscured the point a little. As I have put it before, if I were married, I wouldn't want my wife going out to dinner with another man. Does that mean if I am dating or engaged, I should not go out to dinner with my girlfriend/fiancee? I would not want another man asking my wife out. Does that mean I should not ask any women out? I would not want another man attending a premarital counseling session with my wife."
Maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my first post, but I did specifically refer to "physical activities" and "intimate physical activities". Perhaps my failure to put emphasis on that is leading to your substituting non-physical activities in my argument regarding physical activities. I'll leave non-physical for another time.
You said:
"Face it: when we are dating or engaged, there are some things we are going to do that a husband and wife would also do together, but two totally uninvolved people would not. Therefeore, kissing cannot be condemned solely on the grounds that it is something a husband and wife share."
I would encourage you to begin reading things written outside of modern times. Even If you go back a century and a half and read some Dostoevsky, you'll find characters living out the concept of propriety, that do in fact live contrary to your supposedly inevitable situation. A woman might even recognize wrong doing at touching a hand, or seeing a man alone. We tend to have very narrow notions of what's possible in modern times.
Also, the hamburger argument is rather silly. Energy to move one's limbs is something of a necessity for any activity God has called most of us to. Eating food tends to give us that energy. Of course, you could apply the concept to the kind of extremely unhealthy eating that seeks pleasure first and foremost with fabulous results.
To Adam:
There are two possibilities. You are called to marry, or you are not. The gift of singleness has been well-covered in Boundless, and I won't bother rehashing it here, nor did I address that in the first place.
That leaves one and only one other possibility: You are called to marry. For such people (the ones addressed), who aren't rejecting that calling, the "your spouse" does in fact imply the logical necessity of a wife, not only the moral necessity.
You wrote:
"First of all, go back and read what Jesus says there. He does not say "Whatever you do, glorify God and seek his kingdom." He says that it is to be of our first and highest importance that we seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness. He says that we are to be concerned with God, his commandments, and his righteousness over anything that we do."
We'll use your interpretation then. If you've completely fulfilled your first and highest calling, then by all means move on to other less important ones. I have not done so yet, and perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I don't think it's typical to have done so. For those who haven't finished it yet, if you're setting it aside for something else, you're hardly putting it in first or highest place.
You wrote:
"I would, however, defend such a statement true. The reason is because God created the natural attractions between men and women. He also desires that we pursue these attractions to marriage. That is what the entire story of Genesis is all about. Hence, a kiss is simply an expression of that very thing."
How does kissing someone who isn't your spouse and isn't going to be your spouse help the pursuit of marriage? How does one express that very thing outside the context of that very thing?
You wrote:
"Well, it isn't true that the only argument you've seen here so far is that kissing is innocuous. I have written a parody of your argument that you addressed in this very post."
If your parody was to indicate (as I thought it was) that it is okay to kiss (which is, in fact sensible since my original argument was to show that it was not), then it was in fact merely an argument that kissing is innocuous. If there was more to it, I apologize for missing it.
You wrote:
"if you bring this text up alleging a contradiction between kissing and seeking God's kingdom first, then the burden of proof is on you to show how kissing is *not* seeking God's kingdom first."
Come now. If you're asserting that kissing is in fact seeking God's kingdom first, that is just as much a positive assertion requiring burden of proof.
63. Melody said the following at 6:49 PM on Jan 20:
My sister and I both decided to save our first kiss for our wedding day. She got married almost 2 years ago and did indeed share her first kiss with her husband at the altar. That was such a special moment for everyone there. When I tell people this they can hardly believe that it is true and it sets a precedent. As for me, I am still single and unkissed =)
We are supposed to be in this world and not of it and this is one way to do that. Even if it is not a sin, abstaining from kissing sets up a good example for other believers and other non-Christians as well.It also gives a good tool to explain why you don't kiss and what you believe. Romans 12:2 -- do not be conformed to this world -- and that is a worldly standard.
As far as whether just looking at a woman leads to sexual desire, Jesus addressed that in Matthew 5:28, the fact that looking at a woman with lustful intent has already commited adultery, which I think applies to fornication as well if you aren't married. So that is a sin too. Obviously this applies to women with regard to men as well. So if simply looking at a woman (or man) can lead to lust, I would imagine kissing does even more so, and that would make it a sin. You don't allow yourself to be tempted in the same ways when you avoid romantic kissing. This is in line with the fleeing sexual temptation that Paul exhorts us to follow.
64. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:57 PM on Jan 20:
Melody, you are correct, but you've missed the crucial distinction that was made regarding that point: if looking at a person lustfully is the sin -- and clearly, looking at a person is not sinful, since otherwise we would have to somehow avert our eyes every time we spoke to a person of the opposite sex! -- then likewise kissing in a manner that involves lust would be the sin. Now, the question of whether any pre-marital kiss between people who are romantically involved can be non-lustful is (obviously) open for debate, but that's really the question here, I think. It's not so simple as to say that because something can cause lust if our minds are not submitted to Christ, that it ought to always be avoided. A mind not submitted to Christ can be consumed by all manner of things -- hunger, greed, lust, etc. Yet the need to eat is real, the need to have sufficient "wealth" to provide for one's family is real, and the urge to procreate is real. And none of them are inherently sinful at any level. It is when they rule us, rather than Christ ruling us, that there is sin.
65. Felicia said the following at 9:16 AM on Jan 21:
After reading most of the comments posted here (there are so many that I skipped a few), my first thought is, why have so many people posted on this topic?
I believe the answer to that question can be found all throughout the Bible. I believe that (and I think Scripture backs me up) one of the most common sins in the Bible is sexual sin. It is spoken of so often and in different contexts (such as David's affair and the numerous sexual rituals of the pagans). I think there are a few reasons for this. One is that God designed us with sexual desires and needs. Another is that sexual sin is one of the only sins that is a sin in one context and not a sin in another. What I mean by that is when you are not married, sexual acts are not okay (i.e. are sinful) and after marriage are okay (i.e. not sinful) and even encouraged and blessed. A third reason is that Satan has used what God has designed to be good for his own evil tricks. Along those lines, sexual things play on our emotions, our physical bodies, our hormones, our thoughts, and probably other areas as well. Though this may be true of other sins, it seems that sexual sins damage us in so many areas. I can certainly say that as a victim of sexual sin myself, it has affected me years after the occurrence and it has taken me a long time to reach a point of forgiveness. Whereas when someone stole a material possession from me, I was upset for a few weeks and then it was over.
Perhaps I have strayed too far from the main topic here, however I wanted to make a point that this hotly debated topic is a serious thing, though not a salvation issue as Scott has pointed out. I would venture to say that drinking (as well as other topics mentioned), though with some similarities, has quite a different affect than kissing and perhaps should be viewed on a different level.
66. Adam said the following at 11:43 PM on Jan 21:
Matt C.
You said:
Maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my first post, but I did specifically refer to "physical activities" and "intimate physical activities". Perhaps my failure to put emphasis on that is leading to your substituting non-physical activities in my argument regarding physical activities. I'll leave non-physical for another time.
Then why are you being arbitrary? Why is it that your standard applies to physical activities, but not to other areas of morality?
Unless you can give us some justification for why it is that the standard applies in one instance and does not apply in another, all you are giving us is a circular argument. You are using a standard which already assumes kissing is wrong, but then refusing to use that standard in other areas of ethics. In other words, you only use the standard if it helps your argument.
You said:
There are two possibilities. You are called to marry, or you are not. The gift of singleness has been well-covered in Boundless, and I won't bother rehashing it here, nor did I address that in the first place.
That leaves one and only one other possibility: You are called to marry. For such people (the ones addressed), who aren't rejecting that calling, the "your spouse" does in fact imply the logical necessity of a wife, not only the moral necessity.
And I had offered refutations of the attempted rebuttal of the "gift of singleness" stuff, but I won't rehash that here either.
Worse than that, my point is very simple. You cannot consistently hold that it is moral for a single person to marry someone, and that the ethical standards are the same between a married man and a single man. That is self-contradictory.
You said:
How does kissing someone who isn't your spouse and isn't going to be your spouse help the pursuit of marriage? How does one express that very thing outside the context of that very thing?
Who ever said it was outside of the context of that very thing? I agree that if you are dating someone, you need to do everything you can to end up married to that person. I agree that if you are kissing someone, and you have no intent on marrying them, then you are engaging in sinful behavior ... not because kissing is wrong in and of itself, but because it is basically lying to the person.
You said:
If your parody was to indicate (as I thought it was) that it is okay to kiss (which is, in fact sensible since my original argument was to show that it was not), then it was in fact merely an argument that kissing is innocuous. If there was more to it, I apologize for missing it.
In what context? In the context of "It isn't hurting anyone," or in the context of "neither the Bible nor reason forbids it?" You said in your post:
But "it doesn't hurt anything" is a genuinely pitiful standard of behavior for people who are supposed to be stewarding our lives.
So, in other words, again you are equivocating on the meaning of terms. You have equivocated on the meaning of the phrase "rule out" [assuming that the moral and logical ruling of something out are equal], and now you have equivocated on the meaning of the word "innocuous" [assuming that proving something is morally acceptible is equivalant to justifying something by the use of the phrase "it doesn't hurt anything"].
God Bless,
Adam
67. Reita said the following at 8:24 AM on Jan 22:
I do not agree with the author's stand on the issue, but that is not the point. There have been other Boundless articles I disagreed with, but that meant that I was called to evaluate my convictions and to form solid reasons for them, weighing the evidence in the light of the Bible. However, I found this article to be largely one sided. Though the author acknoweldges that some Christians may disagree with his conclusions, he does not address *why* they would disagree. He does not take the time to evaluate the true feelings of 'the more liberal side of Christendom' -- for example, those who feel that kissing is appropriate after an engagement, those who feel that kissing is appropriate if done in public, if done 'close mouthed', or those who feel that it is the responsibility of each individual to guard his or her own conscience and proceed accordingly. All these varied opinions are gathered under the 'sin' or 'defrauding' or 'not treating one's sister with absolute purity' label.
I was also surprised to see such a focus on men in the article. The article always suggested defrauding one's sister, not treating one's sister in such a way, not looking at a woman lustfully, etc. I hope I don't have to point out that lust is not solely a male problem! I felt alienated from the article because it seemed that as a woman, I could only be cast as a 'victim' who has had her first kiss somehow 'stolen' by a man in the throws of sexual sin. Perhaps a more gender neutral approach would be best? After all, they say men are stimulated visually -- they don't need to kiss anyone to lust!
Just my thoughts.
Reita
68. Nyambura said the following at 2:38 PM on Jan 22:
After reading all the commments posted, I cannot help but think, the Bible exhorts us to flee from even that which appears to be sin. It's just like Jesus said, if you look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery.
People have likened the debate to that one involving alchohol. While you may go out to a pub and drink one, how will you minister to the alchoholic who goes beyond the one?
As Christians we should remember that it goes beyond us, we have a responsibility not to be stumbling blocks. It goes beyond what makes me feel good, to what is honoring to the body as a whole. That is why we have witnesses at our wedding, so that the whole body can come out and bear witness of the union.
I personally choose to wait, not as one bound in a prison where all pleasure has been denied, but rather in utmost freedom. I am well aware of the wickedeness of my flesh and I choose to not give it any room to glory. It's not how close to the line I can get, it's how far away from the line I can stay. I will honor my husband by giving him myself and he to me.
69. Jake said the following at 9:07 AM on Jan 23:
Nyambura,
It sounds like you are referring to 1 Thessalonians 5:22, which in the KJV contains the statement "abstain from every appearance of evil." Someone in the other thread already remarked on how that is not a good translation. It uses a somewhat archaic meaning of the word "appearance," to mean "manifestation" or "instance," not "look." Besides, something is either sin or it's not--how could something appear to be sin, but actually not be? If it's not sin, it shouldn't look like sin either.
Reita,
Amen to your comment about the focus on men. This seems to be endemic to Boundless and much of the conservative Christian world; this sort of chivalric view of women as innocent maidens and damsels in distress whose hearts are totally pure, being victimized by evil, lustful, worldly men. No one seems to want to acknowledge that a woman might initiate kissing or even sex. Having spent some time reading the opinions of secular liberals, I can tell you that our alleged sexism is one of the biggest reasons they hate us, in particular, our supposed view of women as unable to be independent, assertive, self-satisified, self-gratification-seeking, worldly people, when of course women can be all of those things. For example, it's common for them to claim that we think "women can't enjoy sex" or that we're only against abortion because we want to "punish unmarried women for having sex." Reinforcing that view doesn't help our cause.
Furthermore, it doesn't help us either. My ex-girlfriend, whom I wanted to marry, used to kiss me, but ultimately decided not to marry me. Did she defraud me? Am I a victim who had my kisses stolen?
70. Ruth said the following at 1:35 PM on Jan 28:
Jake,
Possibly. If she suspected all along that she had no intentions of marrying you. Or she might just be 'having fun'. As a woman I am usually harder on my sisters.
Just hold those kisses next time until engagement ring is on the finger and then keep it chaste. Kiss her like you would your sister or cousin and keep the engagement period relativly short 3-5 mnths and you'll be fine.
71. Brian said the following at 10:15 PM on Jan 13:
I have been sexually aroused by just meeting a woman I liked. I am not checking her out or thinking sexy thoughts, but I get aroused when I am around her (not touching, not slobbering all over each other, etc.)
So according to the idea that anything sexual is sin does that mean I can't even talk to women I like?
Surely not. I think there are real limits of what is sin and not, but this is a little extreme in my opinion.
Have I become aroused holding a girls hand? Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's a sin by any means.