The Meaning of Holding Hands
by Motte Brown on 09/06/2007 at 12:03 AM
This post was the second most googled post over the past year for the Boundless Line. One commentator wrote simply, "This is the dumbest (expletive) I've ever heard." I'm interested to hear your thoughts sans the expletives.
Many Christians agree that sex is off the table in a dating relationship (and for the purposes of this post I won't go into the different types of sex). But what about lesser forms of physical intimacy like light kissing, hugging or holding hands? Are these okay?
I guess it depends on whether or not you're okay with being considered "off the market" while in a dating relationship.
In an article published yesterday, the New York Times explores what hand-holding means in today's sex saturated culture; saying that as it did in former generations, it still communicates a form of commitment, maybe even more so.
"Hand-holding is the one aspect that's not been affected by the sexual revolution," said Dalton Conley, a professor and chairman of the department of sociology at New York University. "It's less about sex than about a public demonstration about coupledom." ...
To hold someone's hand is to offer them affection, protection or comfort. It is a way to communicate that you are off the market.
Though certain kinds of intimate expressions may fall within Paul's instruction to young men in 1 Timothy 5:2 to treat "younger women as sisters, with absolute purity," dating couples should also be concerned about what these expressions mean -- to each other and to those around them.
In a Boundless article published earlier this year, Matt Schmucker explains that we -- men particularly -- must be careful with the implied commitment of seemingly "innocent" forms of physical intimacy.
The single men in our churches must be encouraged to ask themselves, "in your relationships with single women, are you painting a false picture and committing fraud?" What may be considered innocent -- holding hands, putting an arm around her in the pew, some "light" kissing, long talks over Starbucks coffee -- all send the message to a sister that reads, "You're mine."
So the question is, is the person you are holding hands with "yours" or just "yours right now"?
1. DT said the following at 6:05 AM on Sep 6:
The only guy I ever held hands with is the guy who became my husband, and I wouldn't have it any other way. There's still such a thrill about walking around with him, holding hands, telling the world we belong to each other. :)
2. nikki said the following at 7:53 AM on Sep 6:
Shoot, I guess if "mine" can only mean my husband, then I should rewrite some of my love letters, and some Shakespeare while I'm at it. :)
But wait. Is this article talking about people who aren't even dating holding hands? I've never witnessed this and I can't imagine it happening often. But I don't want to misinterpret the article either. Are you just saying that we shouldn't "send the wrong message" to our "friends" by holding their hand when we haven't had a "DTR"? Again, can't imagine this happening often enough to warrant an article, so I wonder if there's more to it.
Even if you are talking about dating couples holding hands, and if that does only mean "mine right now" (who knows at the beginning if you'll marry the person?) I don't think there is anything wrong with that. On the contrary, I think it's great to communicate "couplehood" and "unavailability" to others, because unless you're in a kind of open dating relationship (bad idea already) you shouldn't continue to be "looking" and you should stay faithful and loyal to the person you're with. I think "our culture" cultivates faithlessness, "serial dating" and generally disloyal behavior, so I would tend to believe that the beginnings of commitment, even pre-engagement, are very good signs.
3. kman said the following at 7:56 AM on Sep 6:
"So the question is, is the person you are holding hands with "yours" or just "yours right now"?"
So holding hands= long term commitment? Don't think so.
I read a couple holding hands as being "together" at that time, I certainly would never read it as a symbol they had made a life-long commitment. That's what engagement/wedding rings are for. ;)
"long talks over Starbucks coffee" ??
OK How long is TOO long? Not buying this logic. Maybe people should just write letters and never actually meet until their wedding day. ...Wait someone might have impure thoughts so we shouldn't even think about the other person at all. LOL
No one can know how another person will take even a simple gesture, it's up to the couple to be clear and honest about what they intend for their relationship. We cannot mind read each other.
This type of advice must be maddening to singles. Let's add ever finer concerns to an already stressful/danger laden aspect of life.
Have we talked TOO long? I held his hand for 10 seconds, have I indicated a commitment? Do HE think it's a sign of my commitment? etc etc
Oh please.
4. Elaine said the following at 8:11 AM on Sep 6:
I believe the issue is not only with what holding hands communicates; it also has to do with perspective of the other person. If you see yourself as belonging to the Lord, and you are in a relationship with someone who also belongs to God, then hopefully you understand that your relationships are opportunities for displaying Christlike character and supporting each other in the faith, no matter what type of relationship you have with them. God is a God of order, and if your affections create confusion in the relationship and are guided by emotions instead of thoughtful purpose,then you don't need to hold hands with someone if it is not ABUNDANTLY CLEAR VERBALLY AND WITH SUPPORTING ACTIONS what the state or level your relationship is in.
In our society, affections are tossed around carelessly and without concern for clarity and respect for the other person's feelings. We as Christians are supposed to show the world what real love is, and not the other way around. Expressions of affection are definitely included in that.
5. Katie said the following at 8:23 AM on Sep 6:
I think the focus in dating relationships, even in the Christian community, is very inward and self-centered. The fact is, we do live in a community of brothers and sisters in Christ, and therefore must be looking to build each other up in as many ways as possible. Dating relationships in the Body are no exception. Whether that means you hold hands or not, you need to keep in mind that other people ARE watching and thinking about your relationship, and the message you send about it needs to be one that encourages people, not gives them reason to wonder about your purity or gossip. Should that extend to hand-holding? Quite possibly. Does it always extend to hand holding? That's a decision you need to make between God and your significant other. But don't cause others to stumble just because a certain physical gesture "feels good."
6. Christina said the following at 8:25 AM on Sep 6:
Kman, I agree with a lot of what your saying, and DT, I think you are just lucky.
Honestly, in order for me to consider marriage to a guy, I think I'd want to get to know as much about is beliefs, values, goals, dreams as I possibly can before making a long term committment - which might lead to "too long" nights at starbucks. And I don't think I'm going to be willing to share a lot of those things with someone who I don't think is seriously pursuing me for marriage. And if exclusive dating isn't a good indicator of intentional pursuit, then hand-holding is rather moot. If, on the other hand, exclusive dating is a good indication that the couple are intentionally pursuing eachother for a future life, then hand-holding is plenty ok, even if it is just saying "mine for now", because then it says, "mine for now...but possibly forever".
7. Daniella said the following at 8:47 AM on Sep 6:
my response is to Kman... you've got to be kidding me, your post seems to be a sign of your justification of your past or present actions. this article is not a joke, people do hold hands and talk tooooo long with each other with some type of intention in mind,either to manipulate,play with each others emotions or to proclaim their interest in another. as a single woman, the need to be percautious of all type of hurt is guided by articles like such that remind you to be careful, develop convictions and to be ALERT...for that guy who is up to no good with His "long talks."
Thank you boundless for all the guide you give to the singles!
8. Katie (the other one) said the following at 8:59 AM on Sep 6:
Katie said:
But don't cause others to stumble just because a certain physical gesture "feels good."
Are you serious? Please name one place in American society (because I believe a majority of us are living in the US) in which hand holding would cause someone to stumble. I happen to believe that hand holding is quite possibly the sweetest form of affection in modern society. Yes, hugs are nice, kisses are fine too (disagree with me on that if you like), but having my boyfriend hold my hand means more to me somehow.
I'd also like to wager that it's probably the most acceptable form of PDA. Who doesn't get that soft-hearted feeling when they see a coulple in their 70s or 80s holding hands in Walmart? While growing up, who didn't feel a little more safe by seeing their parents hold hands?
If my seeing someone else hold hands causes me to stumble in my faith, then I need to take a deep look into my heart and see what ugliness has perverted my view of love and affection.
9. Canadian Boy said the following at 9:12 AM on Sep 6:
This is religious legalism, cut and dry. Count me out.
10. nikki said the following at 9:13 AM on Sep 6:
Thanks Katie(the other one); you said just what I was about to...but much better.
11. P&P said the following at 9:21 AM on Sep 6:
Honestly I don't see what all the hoopla is about. Sure, holding hands at a "date" movie might mean something, but this absolutely no physical contact before marriage rule seems a bit absurd.
Whenever I see posts like this, I always think of Shaker communities where all contact between the sexes was strictly forbidden except for a weekly meeting where the men and women sat opposite one another in the meeting hall and talked. Shaker communities have since died out (although I have heard of one in upstate NY).
Honestly, if people are so concerned about contact between the sexes it might be time to revert back to the days when parents or community elders arranged marriages.
12. Holland said the following at 9:22 AM on Sep 6:
When I was in China, a male student about my age reached over and took my hand, holding it throughout a long (seemed very long to me) bus ride. There was nothing homosexual in his intention. He was merely showing friendship. The American girls with me never let me live it down, though. However, he was a country boy, and that is traditional Chinese action. More modern Chinese don't hold hands except romantically. It seems largely a culturally defined action rather than a sexual one. We've made it romantic; others make it friendly. I agree that it's nice to have a gesture that is public, intimate but non-sexual in nature.
13. kman said the following at 9:27 AM on Sep 6:
Daniella-
How long is too long?
"people do hold hands and talk tooooo long with each other with some type of intention in mind,either to manipulate,play with each others emotions or to proclaim their interest in another."
Sure. people do alot of things that either:
1.Manipulate others
2.Play with each other's emotions
3.Proclaim their interest in each other.
Not sure what the problem is with #3 if it's clearly communicated verbally.
As far as 1 & 2 go. I agree, but do you assume the worse from those who do talk tooooo long? is it POSSIBLE that these same activities have NO evil underlying motive? I have a hard time with assuming that anyone who talks "tooo" long is up to no good. Could it be that they...enjoy....talking....together? I could read all sorts of evil intentions into many other human behaviors. I will give people around me the benefit of the doubt.
Having said all that...If you feel convicted that holding hands is wrong or talking "too" long is problematic for you, I'd encourage you to conduct yourself to the best of your convictions. And let whoever you talk to or are in a relationship with know where you stand on it at the very beginning. God bless you in ALL your relationships!
14. JMarie said the following at 9:42 AM on Sep 6:
Honestly, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with holding hands (as previous posters have mentioned, the interpretation varies by culture). However, I appreciate this post because it's asking us to *think* about what we do. Rather than thinking that holding hands means nothing and going along with it, we can stop and consider whether we're ready for the community to see us as "an item" with the person in question.
15. Marie said the following at 10:09 AM on Sep 6:
Even though the guys I've gone on dates with were Christians, all but one of them seemed to want to push the fast-forward button on physical contact, even on the first date. I think it is gentlemanly to offer your arm as we're walking along, but to hold hands and/or put your arm around me on the first or second date--it's too much. It ruins it for me and makes me nervous. People say it doesn't matter, it's just an "innocent" gesture, but I think it's still too much. If it's a gesture you would make towards your grandma, sister, cousin, mom... ok, but with a girlfriend you ought to be just that much more careful, even. I would rather err on the side of "not enough" physicality than too much. Why push the issue? Both people are (hopefully) mature adults, you can handle this. Do you know of any Biblical examples of men and women touching each other romantically outside of marriage? If you sit side-by-side with each other and appear to others as friends and not necessarily lovers, is that a bad thing? If you are concerned about making sure people know you are "taken", won't those people who should know, already know?
My experiences of guys wanting to hold my hand--and more--early on have led me to decide that I would rather not even go there until we're engaged, possibly. This seems over-the-top! Stingy! Uptight! Oh my! But why not enter marriage pure and honorable, with "not even a hint of evil"?
16. Marie said the following at 10:12 AM on Sep 6:
Sorry if the above seems like a rant, but I'm tired of people *expecting* physical contact from a date.
17. Ted Slater said the following at 10:27 AM on Sep 6:
Seems to me that a lot of those complaining about the original post haven't read the original post. Instead they're defensive of anyone's perceived caution against the way they physically involve themselves with members of the opposite sex.
I guess it's the nature of the blogosphere to give your opinion, even when it has no relation to the original post, and to overlook the subtleties of what someone is writing and simply overreact to a caricature of what they're really saying.
It is good to see some of you engage with what Motte is saying, though.
18. Caroline said the following at 10:30 AM on Sep 6:
Thank you, Marie! I couldn't have said it better.
19. Katie (the other one) said the following at 10:35 AM on Sep 6:
Marie:
I would agree with you that holding hands on a first date is a bit much. I think we were mainly discussing previously defined exclusive relationships.
Also, I'm gonna bet that most people on this blog are not going to agree with you that, holding hands before marriage--or engagement--is "evil".
If it's your personal conviction not to do so until marriage, then you should abide by that, but I don't think hand holding is going to detract from entering into marriage in a "pure and honorable" state.
20. nikki said the following at 10:42 AM on Sep 6:
Marie, you said: But why not enter marriage pure and honorable, with "not even a hint of evil"?
How is physical contact evil? I agree with a previous commenter that if you are for some reason convicted in your heart that you can't hold hands with anyone you're not married to, then do it with all your heart. But the flip side is not judging everyone who doesn't agree with you or have the same convictions. I happen to strongly disagree with you, but that does not mean I am being evil or sinning every time I hold my boyfriend's hand. This is legalistic thinking.
I really don't care who knows we are together. The people who need to know, already know...and as for the others (strangers, I presume), I could't care less. Why would I want to conceal the fact that I have a boyfriend? (I am speaking about hand-holding in the proper context, of course...I'm not going to hold hands in church or meetings where it'd be distracting to everyone. But when we're walking around at the state fair, watching a movie, or just talking together, I think it's a very innocent and sweet thing to do.)
I certainly wouldn't expect contact on a first date; far from it. But from my boyfriend who I've dated for almost a year? From a fiancee? There is a big difference between pressure on a first date, and a natural, human affection that grows over time.
(And just because Scripture doesn't record instances of unmarried people touching each other romantically doesn't mean it's wrong: do you know of a Scripture verse where a couple decided not to hold hands until they were married?)
21. Carrie said the following at 11:03 AM on Sep 6:
A friend of mine who is getting married soon was extremely hesistant to hold hands in the dating phase of her relationship. She told me that it felt good, but she wasn't sure where her heart was and she wasn't completely sure where he stood. I thought that was completely awesome of her to exercise so much self-control!
She adapted her PDA rules as her relationship has progressed/continued. Her wedding is just over 2 months away and will be wearing a well-earned white wedding dress.
There are no "rules" for PDA, but there are principles.
I can totally see myself holding hands after the initial shock of being in a relationship wears off.
22. Esther said the following at 11:05 AM on Sep 6:
I find myself feeling very sad reading this post and all the responses. One of the things that I dislike most about our culture is the fear of physical contact. Why do girls seek physical attention in inappropriate relationships? Partly because they aren't receiving positive healthy contact from their loved ones. Holding hands? We post posters up of little kids doing it. I still will hold my dad's hand when we're out on a walk- with my mom holding his other one. I'll take hands with my brother and sisters, and have tickle fights or a "ha-ha" (when we all lie on the floor with our heads on each others bellies, and laugh uncontrollably). I give and receive hugs from people at church, male and female, young and old. It helps me know that I'm valued and loved. I won't give long or especially tight hugs to men, but it's clear in all minds what is going on. Nor would I hold hands for an extended period of time with a man I wasn't in a marriage-focused relationship with. Yet, to take the hand of the person next to you in church, or to put your hand on their shoulder if you are praying for them (hopefully in an appropriate setting), none of these seem especially wrong to me. I'm concerned that we may get on a legalism bandwagon, and critique and judge those who don't understand our (well-meaning) position. I'm much rather see a couple (who may be struggling with temptation) holding hands in a public setting, than doing much more in a private place where they feel they aren't being judged as much. I'd rather talk to someone about their basic heart attitude towards their partner and the direction and focus of the relationship, than get into an argument about THIS behavior or THAT behavior.
23. Marie said the following at 11:08 AM on Sep 6:
I believe Motte is discussing whether small forms of affection (hand-holding, etc.) are indicative of commitment. Am I interpreting his article correctly?
With my post I was trying to make a point that yes, those things DO indicate commitment, but unfortunately people (guys and girls) in our times ignore that fact, and often, they try to rush the physical and emotional commitment while delaying the actual (marital) commitment. People want to look and act/play committed while not actually being committed through marriage. I wasn't trying to start a debate on whether hand-holding is right or wrong; I apologize that I caused confusion.
On a side note, I don't have a problem with hand-holding, it's premature intimacy that I want to avoid.
24. Christina said the following at 11:22 AM on Sep 6:
Romans 14.
25. Christina said the following at 11:31 AM on Sep 6:
I read the article, and my question is this.
In this society and with the expectation that we should know someone rather well before taking the prospect of marrying them seriously, how do you get to know them in a way that doesn't appear as cheating on your wife if you were actually married? How does a man get to know a woman to a certain level of intimacy, but not too intimately, to actually know if he can manage spending the rest of his life with her? How does a woman keep herself from entering into an intimate conversation on beliefs, values, dreams, and goals without allowing a man to "defraud" her?
I don't see men or women wanting to enter into the kind of committment that allows this kind of intimacy without already having had this kind of intimacy. I guess it goes to "test-driving" the car before buying it, only not in the context of sex.
Ha ha...I get it...the article is telling us to be wary of emotional intimacy, just as wary as we are of physical intimacy. But at what point is it TOO intimate?
26. Jacob M. said the following at 11:49 AM on Sep 6:
Ted,
Your point is valid if we consider only what Motte himself says in this post. He wrote "But what about lesser forms of physical intimacy like light kissing, hugging or holding hands? Are these okay? I guess it depends on whether or not you're okay with being considered 'off the market' while in a dating relationship."
All that's saying is that holding hands in a dating relationship is OK as long as you're OK with being considered off the market. I can agree with that. However, let's also think about the article by Matt Schmucker which Motte linked to and quoted. I went and read the article, and saw that it made the following argument:
1. The Bible says that Christians should not defraud other Christians.
2. A man defrauds a woman when, by his words or actions, he promises the benefits of marriage to a woman he either has no intention of marrying or if he does, has no way of finally knowing that he will. (Emphasis mine, to show that Matt is saying that a man defrauds a woman ANYTIME he promises her the benefits of marriage when they're not yet married, even if he has made it clear that he really wants to marry her and she's the one who's hesitant.)
3. What may be considered innocent — holding hands, putting an arm around her in the pew, some "light" kissing, long talks over Starbucks coffee — all send the message to a sister that reads, "You're mine." The implication is that hand-holding is one of the benefits of marriage a man can defraud a woman by offering her before marriage.
4. Therefore, hand-holding before marriage is wrong, and not only wrong, but is always a wrong done by the man against the woman, even if it was her idea and she really wanted it!
5. Also, statistically speaking, a single man should recognize that any single woman with whom he speaks will probably be someone's wife, and he will probably be someone's husband — maybe each other's, maybe not. So there should be no difference in standards of physical intimacy between the single man's conduct with a single woman and my standards as an already married man.
6. Therefore, a married man holding the hand of a single woman who is not his wife is the moral equivalent of a single man holding the hand of a woman who is not his wife.
Matt also says that a man must not have any physical intimacy with any woman to whom he is not married, and he lumps having "a meal with a woman not my wife and [engaging] in extended conversation about each other's lives (likes/dislikes/struggles/pasts)" in with physical intimacy. The only possible conclusion from this (which flows necessarily from the idea that it's wrong for a single man to do anything it would be wrong for a married man to do) is that a man defrauds a woman he's dating if he takes her out to dinner and has a conversation with her.
So, Matt Schmucker has told single men that, if we have dated a woman whom we told we wanted to marry, but she expressed uncertainty and wanted to date longer before making the decision, and we have allowed her to hold our hand when she reached for it on a date, we have defrauded and wronged her. He has also effectively told single men who want to get married (and therefore by implication would like to be able to convince a woman to marry us) that we must refuse to have a conversation with a woman before the wedding day.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have a strongly negative reaction to these arguments.
27. Motte said the following at 11:51 AM on Sep 6:
Yes, Marie. My post is primarily about the implied commitment that comes with lesser forms of physical affection like holding hands.
I probably should have lengthened my excerpt from Matt's article. Here's the rest of the paragraph:
I appreciate the comments but like Ted, I feel some have missed the intent of the post entirely. Maybe that's my fault, maybe not. But the post is meant to encourage men to guard the hearts of their sisters in Christ by being extra careful when deciding which forms of physical intimacy are appropriate before engagement and marriage. Because every expression means something.
And I never said that all forms of physical expression are never appropriate before marriage. But I think it's always appropriate to ask yourself why your doing something. In this case, why are you holding the hand of your girlfriend? Are you committed to her? If not, are you being careful with her heart? Or are you just enjoying the benefits of intimacy, however innocent it may seem, outside of commitment?
28. Kellie said the following at 12:17 PM on Sep 6:
My husband and I started holding hands the night we formally began our relationship (ie. "Do you want to be my girlfriend, etc") We were an exclusive, dating couple, so I didn't see a problem with this. I wouldn't have been comfortable with any physical contact prior to this.
On the legalistic side of things, recently I came across a post on another site of well-meaning Christians, who thought a couple should save all forms of physical contact and intimacy until the wedding night. They thought a public kiss during the wedding wouldn't be as "special." Tends to get a little ridiculous in my opinion.
29. Dawnson said the following at 1:30 PM on Sep 6:
I understand what you're saying Motte, and I appreciate it. But while you "never said that all forms of physical expression are never appropriate before marriage" the article you linked and quoted *did* say that. Or at least implied it very strongly, as laid out by Jacob M. That is where the confusion is I believe.
"But I think it's always appropriate to ask yourself why your doing something. In this case, why are you holding the hand of your girlfriend? Are you committed to her? If not, are you being careful with her heart? Or are you just enjoying the benefits of intimacy, however innocent it may seem, outside of commitment?"
I very much agree.
30. Katie said the following at 1:57 PM on Sep 6:
To the other Katie:
I'm not saying that hand-holding NECESSARILY will cause someone to stumble...the main point of my comment is that we need to be aware that it MIGHT. Would it cause me to stumble? Not personally. Would it cause MOST people to stumble? I hope not! If so, then I think people need to examine their standing with Christ. I think we just need to be very conscious of the fact that other people are watching us, Christian and non- alike. Too often, as I said, people in dating relationships assume a "forget everyone else and focus only on us" mentality, which is dangerous when you're in a Christian context and trying to live out the reality that the world revolves around God, not us as individuals or our couple status.
And there are societies (I'm thinking particularly of Costa Rica, where I went on a mission trip last December) where ANY form of PDA, even hugs and hand-holding, make a person automatically assume that those two people are sleeping together. And since the United States is such a conglomerate of cultures, even within many churches, we just need to be aware that others' perceptions may differ from ours.
I'm not PRESCRIBING that all Christians in dating relationships should never hold hands. I'm saying only that those in such relationships should be aware of outside perception, and the POSSIBILITY that you and your significant other are causing someone else to stumble. We are supposed to glorify and honor God first and foremost, not please ourselves.
31. Katie said the following at 2:00 PM on Sep 6:
And high-five to Marie. Stick with your convictions!!
32. Katie said the following at 2:14 PM on Sep 6:
I've read the rest of the comments, and have this to add to my point about causing others to stumble.
As a girl, my heart is easily given away and therefore easily broken. I admit this, realize that's my issue, and am working on it. However, I think guys are under an obligation, as Motte pointed out, to protect that easily given away and easily broken heart, and therefore shouldn't hold my hand until they have committed to me on some level. Doing otherwise would cause me to stumble.
Holding hands might indicate a lower level of commitment (maybe...this really depends on the individual and I think for Motte's point isn't the issue up for debate), but it's commitment nonetheless and we need to be careful with people's hearts when we are demanding ownership of parts of them by means of whatever physical gesture.
Let's just be careful with each other's hearts. I'm tired of seeing my friends, guys and girls alike, heartbroken because someone wasn't honest with them upfront. We're different from the world as followers of Christ. Let's act that way.
33. Chris Krycho said the following at 2:42 PM on Sep 6:
I do not understand the notion of holding hands without commitment. I will have a conversation with my then-girlfriend before we hold hands the first time, saying what it means that we are holding hands - because it does mean something. Interestingly, it's one of the things I miss most from the one dating relationship I've had... it communicates very innocently that you are together, that you are with one another in a special way. And sometimes a simple squeeze of the hand can mean as much or more than words spoken... so guard it, do not abuse it. But don't be afraid of it either.
34. DotMarie said the following at 3:09 PM on Sep 6:
This is WONDERFUL!!!! My boyfriend and I don't see anything wrong with holding hands, per se, but we have chosen to NOT walk around in public holding hands until we are engaged because of the very possessive statement that makes. We do not "belong to each other" at this point, and holding hands makes that statement of belonging to each other. I'm amazed and blessed to find other people that think the same way.
35. brx said the following at 3:16 PM on Sep 6:
Esther,
I think your heart is in exactly the right place! Working with college and youth students, I can testify that healthy, non-sexual, physical affection is just as essential as verbal affection/praise in developing healthy, well-rounded people.
Motte,
Yes, you did need to clarify what direction you wanted to go with this because your original ending question was very open ended in my opinion. You rightly encourage that "it's always appropriate to ask yourself why you're doing something." Where as the problems most often seem to occur in the FOLLOW THROUGH TO _COMMUNICATE_ WHY YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING. This goes for guys AND gals! For example, in regards to hand-holding, once one decides why they're going to hold hands -or not- and in what situation(s), then also associate words with that non-verbal communication. DO NOT assume that the friend/date/romatic-interest has the same understanding of hand-holding (or anything else) as the other. Non-verbal communication makes up more than 50% of our in-person communication -- and just like words, physical signals can be interpreted differently depending on the receiver(s). Increase the reliability and accuracy of your communication and understanding together by explaining your action - or lack of it.
Some helpful things I've learned the hard way (and am still working to implement better myself): Guard yourself and others by matching words with your actions and actions with your words. Ask questions frequently and encourage others to ask you questions (try to be humble and open to receiving questions about your intentions). Give others the benefit of the doubt - they probably did not intend to do anything offensive.
May God fill our hearts to overflowing with Christ's loving Spirit!
36. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:01 PM on Sep 6:
After reading over the blog post, article, and comments here I would speculate that there are 2 main issues at hand.
1. What constitutes "off the market"?
2. Does romantic physical contact of any sort (e.g. holding hands) imply commitment?
Most seem to agree (except for the Scott Croft camp) that it is acceptable for some physical contact before the wedding day. How much is debatable (except intercourse and I'd say "petting") but still some is appropriate depending upon how deep/committed it is.
First, what at what point is someone "off the market"? When they go on a first date? When they've been dating for 6 months? When they both officially have a DTR and agree they are "steady"? Or is it when the engagement ring is put on? Or even after that?
Problem is you could end up with 100 different definitions which most of them have no clear cut Biblical rulings (although others might argue otherwise). Note that this could be independent of any physical contact.
In our society, I would say that until the engagement ring is on there is no official "off the market". Because if it's perfectly acceptable for one party to "call it off" during the process, why shouldn't other people expect as much as well? Not to say that people ought not to respect dating relationships, but I see nothing wrong in asking someone out even if they are dating someone else. After engagement, the only ones who have a legitimate reason to break off the engagement are the fiancees.
For the second question, I admit it is a harder issue because a lot of it comes down to what both people are interpreting. For one, holding hands on a first date is the norm, while for another it signals exclusivity.
The problem with using Matt Schmucker's analogy with marriage is that the commitment is already well-defined. A spouse is committed to another person and such physical contact like holding hands for an extended period of time (at least in the context of our society) does in fact imply a romance which is verboten outside of the marriage covenant. And remember that physical contact does not define a marriage. It's the outward commitment before God and man.
But such commitments do not exist between 2 people who are dating. Neither have anyone they are betraying. Yes, there are romantic feelings there with a hand hold, but that is expected and in fact part of the point of doing such.
(Also consider that a hand hold, hug, kiss, etc. for it to be truly "romantic" needs to be consenual. It takes 2 to tango. If a guy made a move towards a girl which she shys away from then it is not romantic as such.)
Finally, if we did consider that a hand hold (or other type of touch) implied exclusivity as strong as an engagement, we are left with the Scott Croft model where no touching can occur before engagement. I know some do advocate this position and I admit it might be better for our society if that were the norm. However, most reject that level of restriction and there is no clear cut Biblical evidence to support that as the only correct methodology unless one uses slippery slope reasoning (I MIGHT get aroused to lust by holding her hand so I shouldn't. Well I MIGHT also get aroused just by looking at her or talking on the phone so I shouldn't do that either...)
Therefore, I would argue three things:
A) One is only "off the market" when engaged
B) Holding hands (or hugs or kisses) do not imply commitment among unmarrieds
C) The best way way to minimize the emotional pain (note not completely mitigate since I believe that is nigh impossible) left by physical contact is to have open and honest communication about the matter.
37. k. said the following at 6:15 PM on Sep 6:
Motte asked, "...is the person you are holding hands with 'yours' or just 'yours right now'?" My answer is "Either! Or both!" This is really one of those issues people have to decide for themselves...a whatever-floats-your-boat thing. I don't view hand-holding as a sign of commitment, but if you think otherwise, that's fine too.
38. Leah said the following at 6:31 PM on Sep 6:
I think publishing this post was really unwise and provocative.
We have been through this topic countless times on Boundless, we've heard everyone's opinions, we don't need to go through it *again*.
However Marie, I think your assertion that holding hands before engagement is a "hint of evil" is more evil than the act itself. You're unfairly judging people on an issue which is dependent upon personal conviction.
39. Charles H. said the following at 7:02 PM on Sep 6:
Jacob M., you said it so much better than I could have. Thanks!
I'm still not buying the argument (I think Josh Harris was one of its original proponents?) that any sort of physical contact before marriage is somehow "defrauding." Fraud occurs when someone deceives another person; mere ambiguity is not the same as intentionally misleading, and people mature enough for a serious relationship ought to be mature enough to *ask* if they're unsure what a gesture means.
By all means, follow your conscience. But to accuse people of *fraud* for disagreeing is to accuse falsely, and that's certainly not Biblical.
40. Jeffrey J. Stables said the following at 8:24 PM on Sep 6:
Just as a caution to fellow Boundless Line readers and commenters, I find it a useful rule to draw the line on comments when I start addressing other comments instead of the post in question. That's when comment sections explode, tempers flare, and the original post gets lost in the chaos.
In that spirit, I'll answer Motte's original purpose in writing: Yes, I agree with this article. I don't find it legalism because it doesn't propose any rules--it leaves us to take heed and make rules based on our own convictions. And for me personally, as a 21-year-old guy, I think I've taken this significant physical action far too lightly in my short times of dating. Everyone would do well to at least reexamine their convictions in the light of this article, as I did; whether that ends up in agreement with me or not is up to you and the Holy Spirit.
Thanks Motte for reminding me of this great article!
41. Jacob said the following at 8:52 PM on Sep 6:
I would consider holding hands, as a continued gesture, not just a brief action, to be a sign of committment. However, if a man and woman intend or are considering marriage, it is fine.
In some places we have lived, a hug was the standard greeting among nearly everyone at church, not that they were strange, but considered it a normal gesture.
Much of it depends on your local culture and ettiquite. However, I would put kisses and hand holding under the serious committment catagory nearly everywhere.
42. Mike said the following at 9:34 PM on Sep 6:
If you are exclusively dating someone, I see nothing wrong with holding hands. That signifies that you are theirs. As for how long, I don't think that you know that going into the relationship, as dating is a way of discovering whether you can marry the person or not. It's not something you should enter into lightly, but neither should you be vilified if you discover that you cannot marry the person.
43. Vanessa said the following at 11:14 PM on Sep 6:
Holding hands is on the "Top 10" list of things I miss about not having a boyfriend. In this sex-crazed world, I love the fact that holding hands is enough to get me feeling giddy. It is something that is still so special to me and I've only really shared it with one person. Unfortunately, we didn't end up married to each other, but it is still one of my fondest memories of our time together.
It is unfortunate that something so innocent can be so twisted and misused. I don't go around holding hands with just anyone, so to me it is special. I think that's the way that it should be.
44. Chris Krycho said the following at 12:03 AM on Sep 7:
Charles H. -
Just so you know, no it wasn't Josh Harris who argued that. People who have read his books have carried his argument to that line, but I don't believe he's ever written, spoken, etc. anything to that effect. (Indeed, his own story of his relationship with his wife suggests he feels no such compunctions.) From what I understand, the direction [legalism] that people have taken his message [to deal with our hearts first and worry about the externals second] has frustrated him immensely.
I do not agree with Scott Croft, not least because I don't believe Scripture agrees with him about the meaning of "defrauding" each other. I think a post by Suzanne last April sums up my thoughts on the emotional end of it pretty well, and I think the physical end of things parallels that.
Peace with you all!
45. Dawnson said the following at 12:15 AM on Sep 7:
To Jeffrey J. Stables, if I'm not supposed to comment on comments, why are they viewable? My understanding was that this is a discussion, and sometimes discussions take interesting turns.
46. Jo said the following at 2:50 AM on Sep 7:
I have no problems with what Motte said. But I, like others who've commented, have a LOT of problems with the article he linked to. Not least because of its double standard with regards to men and women. I think it IS possible to 'defraud' another person romantically, but I think women do it just as much as men do. I also think 'long talks over Starbucks coffee' do not constitute fraud. I spent the evening last night alone with a very good male friend of mine. We must have talked for 3 hours, he even cooked me dinne at his flat. I've known this guy all my life, and there is no question of the relationship being 'more than friends'. I have several male friends, many of whom I have lengthy conversations and quite deep discussions with, just as I do with my female friends. That's the person I am, and has nothing to do with whether or not I'm romantically interested in them.
Also, re:physical signs of commitment. I 100% agree with those that have said, if you have a conviction in this area, go with that. But it is a very personal thing between you, God and the person you're dating. I have a friend who holds hands and links arms as a sign of friendship, she does it with me as well as with a lot of her male friends. I hug a lot of people for the same reason. I personally am fine with showing that I'm committed to someone I'm dating exclusively, because well, I am. While I'm with that person I won't be with anyone else. I don't think hand holding, kissing etc etc demonstrates a lifelong commitment - that's what sex is for. You don't physically 'belong to each other' until that act has taken place and 'two have become one'. I don't mean that everything short of sex is fine, of course. But I do think it's extreme to suggest a standard for everyone where any physical contact and even prolonged conversation is an expression of a marriage commitment and thus impure if marriage isn't imminent.
47. Katie (the other one) said the following at 8:42 AM on Sep 7:
Katie said:
I'm saying only that those in such relationships should be aware of outside perception, and the POSSIBILITY that you and your significant other are causing someone else to stumble.
Right, I agree that we should be aware of what we as Christians are demonstrating to those around us. But I don't think we're supposed to live every moment of our lives trying to portray our lives in a certain way to others. God calls us to certain ways of living, but he calls us to do it genuinely.
There is a balance here for which we need to strive. If I live my life more for the benefit of others' perceptions, then I'm living my life to please man. However, in living my life for God, I am often called to live a different way before my fellow humans.
That being said, I believe that quite often we Christians are so tangled in trying to keep up appearances with our fellow Christians that those outside of the Church are repelled by our actions. We (myself included) tend to forget that non-Christians have an ability to see through our masks. Basically, we shouldn't be putting on a "face" of chastity and non-affection just to make others think we are above such base feelings and displays of affection.
Non-Christians need to know that we are real, living, breathing humans as well.
48. Brian said the following at 9:48 AM on Sep 7:
Wow... REALLY different perspectives on such a seemingly innocent, yet vital, component of relationships! I'll say right from the get-go if there's a repeated theme that's mentioned, then the credit is due to the original source.
From a man's perspective we're the ones who are to exercise leadership and direction of the courtship (has more intent than "relationship") to how far is too far. Courtships are not only to get to know each other but the overlying thrust is answering one question: is it God's will for the two of us to get married? Throughout the courtship, yes there should be moments of having some time exclusively to develop the courtship and friendship, but I think that the time also should be spent in an inclusive environment (especially with her parents and other godly peers involved in the local church) because too much exclusivity is a recipe for stumbling, sin, and disaster. I think that holding hands should be withheld (no pun intended =D) until engagement when the question above is affirmed that it IS God's will for the both of you to get married.
From experience, I would try to abstain from holding hands (unless if it's necessary)... bottom line, men: USE DISCERNMENT. Here are three simple yet sharp questions I want to begin asking when involved in a relationship with another godly sister:
- Will holding her hand serve her or send the wrong message?
- Is my heart and intention clear of extending my hand to her?
- Will this guard my heart and her heart or will this lead to further emotional entanglements?
Knowing my sinful heart I need to be *extremely* cautious when entering a relationship and extending my hand out to her. But the truth is so amazing I want to live in the good of it, and to encourage you guys about what the gospel has done in our lives! Men, because of the gospel all of our sins of playing on women's emotions are now washed by the blood of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit we are now free to serve our godly sisters with all purity! What sweet news!
Ladies, on behalf of all the men, we first want to express our thankfulness to God for your prayers, encouragement, correction, speaking the truth, and exercising your God-given godliness and feminity; may you feel the Lord's good pleasure! But... we need your help! At times we have no clue what we're doing (and I loudly speak from experience!); if holding hands would make you stumble more than be served, please address it immediately. Please don't base hand-holding on subjective feelings and emotions but on the objective truth of the cross of Christ. And thank YOU all for creating a stumbling block that baffles our culture and glorifies God!
And may all courtships, whether it involves hand-holding or not, point to the glorious reality that there is a God who saves and a gospel that transforms wicked sinners into grateful, joyful servants.
For His glory,
Brian
49. Kelly said the following at 8:31 PM on Sep 9:
I agree with the original post.
Why? Because I've been defrauded twice (you would think I'd have learned after the first time but apparently I didn't!)
Holding hands, long talks (in excess of 5 hours), and then being told:
1) We're not dating, we're just friends
2) Actually, there was no excuse, he just vanished out of my life and didn't return my phone calls.
What did I do wrong? Assumed the guy was coming from the same place I was, and that holding hands implied some kind of romantic interest.
These days, I don't touch at all (no hugs etc) unless the guy is officially my boyfriend. I'm always horrified of stories of kissing goodnight on the first date.
50. Naomi said the following at 2:48 AM on Sep 10:
To answer the question in the article, holding hands = "yours right now."
Marriage makes the other person "yours." Marriage is the only thing that would really bind one person to another along with the complete rights of affection.
By "yours," I don't mean ownership. I mean you know, marriage makes two people as 'one' as the Bible says.
Personally, I don't see anything with holding hands and any other long discussion would go towards the danger of legalism.
Let's just answer the simple question posed by the article.
51. J.T. said the following at 8:23 AM on Sep 11:
Motte:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is your argument agaisnt holding hands or against manipulation? I know a lot of people (my mom comes to mind) that manipulate other people without touching them.
52. Mike said the following at 2:36 PM on Feb 5:
I am a pastor preparing a sermon on "Modern day Legalism", when I ran across this through a google search. This article will make a great illustration of how modern day legalism , which can be defined as the insisting of specific requirements of conduct that go beyond the teaching of Scripture. The points given in the article link were pure manipulations of Scripture blinded by a set of prerequisites that forced things on the Scriptures that were not inherently there.
Is there danger in what this article presents? YES! WHY? It puts the focus in the wrong place.
Legalism focuses on superficial spirituality. It is a lot easier to keep external rules than deal with the issue of the heart. It's easier to "not play cards" than it is to deal with bitterness in our heart. It is easier to put on clothes that conform with acceptable standards of the group, than it is to put on the nature of Christ. It is easier to conform to outward standards of sexual purity than to deal with a roving eye or a sensual heart.
What legalism does is distract us from the real issues of discipleship and life.
I appreciate the article because of the example of legalism it will be in my next sermon, but lament the fact that it might make new "modern day legalists" converts.
53. Ted Slater said the following at 3:50 PM on Feb 5:
Pastor Mike -- your comment disturbs me because of its cynical tone and its not including any specific information that might help us correct the article.
How do you respond to Kelly above, who commented that holding hands with a boy contributed to her sense of being "defrauded"?
How do you respond to those who agree that holding hands "says something" to the person you're holding hands with?
Mike -- you provide a general denunciation of the article as being legalistic and twisting Scripture. Could you provide specific examples of where the author was encouraging people to earn God's favor by following certain rules (the definition of legalism), or where the author misapplied/misunderstood Scripture?
I look forward to better understanding how you came to see this article as anything but helpful for those who are looking to get married, and to do it in a way that honors their loved one, as well as the Lord. Merely throwing out the term "legalistic" (and then elaborating on your denunciation) is not helpful.
FWIW, the tone ("I appreciate the article because of the example of legalism it will be in my next sermon") is not characteristic of any pastor I'd serve under. I frankly don't know why you left such a nasty, cynical, unhelpful comment, Pastor Mike. This kind of communication certainly doesn't "build up."
54. farmer Tom said the following at 5:47 PM on Feb 5:
Pastor Mike,
I can assume from your comments then that you think Paul was being silly when he said,
1 Corinthians 7
1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
Surely Paul didn't actually mean what he said, he was engaging in hyperbole, sarcasm or worse, right.
I suppose you consider this to be legalistic as well?
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2
We really can't expect Christians to act any differently than the culture around them, right? What ever the latest from Hollywood, that's fine by you. Got to avoid that legalism thing, so we will be libertine in our convictions to avoid the legalistic label.
Whatever!!!!
55. Louise said the following at 7:59 PM on Feb 5:
To me, when I see a couple holding hands I think "Well, these two people like each other."
56. Mike said the following at 8:09 AM on Feb 6:
Hey Ted, Thanks for the rebuke ("nasty, cynical...")My tone was too strong and for that I publically repent).
As you were passionate in calling me out, I am equally passionate about protecting Christians from being told that it is unequivocally wrong (per article link)to simply hold hands (not sex, not kissing, not petting) but holding hands. It bothered me then and although I do want to "speak truth but in love", it still bothers me.
With that being said, the New Testament deals less with strict, specific rules and deals a lot more with principles, "the principle of modesty", "the principle of purity"... Not "don't hold hands".
Farmer Tom, you quoted 1 Corinthians 7:1, have you had a chance to do a little study on the verse? The word "touch" is the greek word (haptesthai)it is a present, middle, infinitive and it doesn't refer to casual touch, but as the English Standard Version translates it "...it is good for a man not to have sexual relations..."
A simple word search in a "Rogers and Rogers", "Vines" lexicon, or a commentary like John MacArthur would be able to help you with your understanding of the verse.
Farmer Tom, you said "We really can't expect Christians to act any differently than the culture around them, right?"
Yes we can and they should. But I don't see "holding hands and lingering long over coffee" an issue of holiness. I believe in holiness and purity very deeply, but holiness begins in the heart and moves outward, not vise verse and I think you dumb down holiness when you turn it into 1)don't hold hands 2) Don't talk too much at Starbucks. Instead of real issues (heart issues)
If you can stomach relooking at my 3rd paragraph of last post, I think it would be helpful.
Mike
57. Ted Slater said the following at 9:08 AM on Feb 6:
Mike -- please re-read the article. It mentions "holding hands" on but one occasion, and neither condemns it nor says to guys, "Don't hold hands." It simply doesn't.
The author instead implores men to "be careful" because their behavior "sends a message" to their girlfriends that they may not realize.
The article merely encourages guys to consider their motives for wanting to express themselves physically with their girlfriends, and to consider how those physical interactions are perceived.
Again, you seem to believe that we're saying, "Don't hold hands." The article never said that. And neither do we. We're just wanting to encourage thoughtfulness and intentionality among our readers, in order to facilitate happy relationships. :-)
Thank you, Mike, for drawing attention to this article. It really does make for some helpful discussion.
58. Carrie (the original) said the following at 9:18 AM on Feb 6:
Pastor Mike, I'm a little disturbed by your counsel. Sometimes you have to start with the actions first. What happens if you see a child that is crawling towards an open oven? Or a kitten that is playing inside a dryer before it's turned on? You forcefully move them, I would hope! You see that are going towards danger, however blissfully unaware each creature is, but you being older and wiser remove them immediately from the dangerous situation.
You can't possible explain to the crawling infant why it's dangerous to be playing by an open stove, but you move them anyway. This is the tone of advice from the Boundless writers to their readers. They are trying to move the blissfully unaware creatures away from dangerous situations.
Sitting at a Starbucks for two hours talking with an attractive person of the opposite gender is more dangerous than one would like to believe.
I'll take my pastor's advice over yours, Pastor Mike. "Males and females can be friends up until a certain age. I think that age is six."
59. Andrea (aka Elena) said the following at 9:23 AM on Feb 6:
Mike,
As a singleton who could be part of the audience of such a message, I'd like to offer something for you to consider. Perhaps caution is due in using such a broad brush of legalism on what Ted and others are suggesting.
Holding hands is part of pair bonding*, and it signals something to the couple themselves, to their family and friends, to their acquaintances, and to the rest of the watching world. The challenge to singles is "What does your hand-holding say? Why are you doing it?"
Perhaps "Absolutely NO hand-holding at any stage before engagement" is a bit strict, but singles really ought to establish their boundaries (and know WHY they have placed them where they are) before they date/court.
So... I would rather have a more challenging sermon that helps me think through my "rules" (not only about dating/courting behaviors and mindsets but also about other areas of life) and helps me recognize when I am coming down on the side of legalism and when I am coming down on the side of faith, hope, joy, love, and walking wise.... instead of a "spot the legalism in Christendom" harangue.
Food for thought.... =)
Blessings on your reflection, prayer, meditation, Scripture reading, and writing as you prepare God's message for your congregation.
~A-Elena~
* I found the book Smart Love, by Nancy L. Van Pelt, to be of tremendous help to me; its explanation of pair bonding, in chapter 10, is excellent.
60. Marlowe said the following at 11:44 PM on Dec 10:
If this is about holding hands when you're not dating, I hold hands with one of my friends all the time. Like, every day. It's not a sign of romantic involvement, it's a sign that you care about this person!