Get Married or Break Up by Motte Brown on 10/22/2007 at 1:13 PM

For couples who've been dating a year or more, it's as simple as this: Get married or break up. Here's an excerpt from Scott Croft's "From 'Hi' to 'I Do' in a Year" explaining why.

To put it simply, "not acting married before you're married" ... gets exponentially more difficult the longer a pre-marital relationship persists. If ... our goal is to move positively toward God-glorifying lives (rather than simply to "walk the line" by attempting to satisfy our fleshly desires as much as possible without sinning), wisdom and godliness would seem to counsel keeping relationships shorter.

And if you think your circumstance (e.g., long distance relationship, in college, etc.) warrants a longer relationship, Scott provides some compelling reasons why it doesn't matter.

Here's his answer to the "long distance" excuse:

"This argument doesn't really apply to us, because we're in a long-distance relationship."

I think it does, even if the physical circumstances are different. As to emotional intimacy, we live in the age of e-mail, free long distance and unlimited any-time minutes, and cheap flights. It's still really easy to "act married" emotionally, even in a long-distance relationship.

As to physical intimacy, many long-distance couples have told me that because they are not physically close to one another as often, they actually experience more intense physical temptation when they're together. And again, if you believe the stats, long-distance couples don't do any better than others at staying physically pure.

My situation was pretty straight forward -- two singles going to the same church begin dating. Still, I had no intentions to marry six months into the relationship. Thankfully, a mature Christian intervened with a firm but gentle, "Son, that's plenty long enough for you to know whether or not you want to marry her. You need to fish or cut bait."

Maybe your circumstance is different. Or maybe you just need someone you trust to tell you to get married or break up. It worked for me.

Get Married or Break Up by Motte Brown on 10/22/2007 at 1:13 PM

For couples who've been dating a year or more, it's as simple as this: Get married or break up. Here's an excerpt from Scott Croft's "From 'Hi' to 'I Do' in a Year" explaining why.

To put it simply, "not acting married before you're married" ... gets exponentially more difficult the longer a pre-marital relationship persists. If ... our goal is to move positively toward God-glorifying lives (rather than simply to "walk the line" by attempting to satisfy our fleshly desires as much as possible without sinning), wisdom and godliness would seem to counsel keeping relationships shorter.

And if you think your circumstance (e.g., long distance relationship, in college, etc.) warrants a longer relationship, Scott provides some compelling reasons why it doesn't matter.

Here's his answer to the "long distance" excuse:

"This argument doesn't really apply to us, because we're in a long-distance relationship."

I think it does, even if the physical circumstances are different. As to emotional intimacy, we live in the age of e-mail, free long distance and unlimited any-time minutes, and cheap flights. It's still really easy to "act married" emotionally, even in a long-distance relationship.

As to physical intimacy, many long-distance couples have told me that because they are not physically close to one another as often, they actually experience more intense physical temptation when they're together. And again, if you believe the stats, long-distance couples don't do any better than others at staying physically pure.

My situation was pretty straight forward -- two singles going to the same church begin dating. Still, I had no intentions to marry six months into the relationship. Thankfully, a mature Christian intervened with a firm but gentle, "Son, that's plenty long enough for you to know whether or not you want to marry her. You need to fish or cut bait."

Maybe your circumstance is different. Or maybe you just need someone you trust to tell you to get married or break up. It worked for me.

Comments

[1. Ted Slater said the following at 1:16 PM on Oct 22:]

1

I never understood that "fish or cut bait" saying. Must be a Southern thing. ;-)

The title of the piece you reference sounds eerily similar to a blog I wrote back in March: From "Hi" to "I Do" in a Year. Hey, someone stole my title!

[2. Louise said the following at 1:23 PM on Oct 22:]

2

If it worked for you, Mr. Brown, it was right FOR YOU.

As for me, I got engaged after fifteen months of dating. When one of my future sisters-in-law received the news that we had only known each other for fifteen months, her jaw dropped.

And she's a marriage minded Catholic!

Anyhow, I would be interested in hearing the stories of others....how long did you date before you got engaged/married and if the time frame was longer than a year, do you think you and your subsequent marriage suffered?

[3. Christina said the following at 1:41 PM on Oct 22:]

3

its not necessarily the marriage that suffers so much as the pre-marital relationship in an extended dating relationship (per the article)

Me, I've known a guy for year now and we only started talking/seeing eachother/dating for the last month. He's crazy about me and has no intention of having a dating relationship last longer than several months. He's intentionally pursuing me and if things go well, marriage could be right around the bend...

But nothing is certain yet...

[4. OBEWAN said the following at 1:43 PM on Oct 22:]

4

That advice does not hold water for me regarding college students. I know plenty who waited the whole 4 years at different Christian colleges and then got married and went on to serve full time on the mission field. What about the guy in the Bible that had to wait for 7 years? In fact, he did it twice - 14 years.

[5. connie reagan said the following at 1:58 PM on Oct 22:]

5

I'm an old married lady with adult children.

You know, all this is is extrabiblical advice. I think it is silly to make such a rule, and I would think my children foolish in the extreme to hold themselves to it. In many cases, a year is plenty, and the advice would be good. But in the end all it is is advice, and I can easily think of circumstances when it would be bad advice.

Let us all be careful of putting ourselves under extrabiblical bondage to "rules of men."

[6. erin said the following at 2:02 PM on Oct 22:]

6

Louise,

My husband and I dated for 3 months before getting engaged, and we were married by 11 months. A few people expressed surprised that we got engaged so quickly, but from the beginning both my husband and I were intentional in our communication, and we each knew the other was interested in pursuing a relationship that could lead to marriage, and not just a casual fling. We also were a long distance couple, and I can definitely testify that being apart only intensified our desire for each other when we were together.

I agree with Christina that the marriage won't suffer necessarily from a couple who has a prolonged dating relationship, but from my observations of friends, it does seem to cause added problems and temptations (I loved the phrase "not acting married before your married" that Croft uses).

[7. Motte said the following at 2:17 PM on Oct 22:]

7

I understand that people have different opinions on this issue. But one of the main points Scott makes is that the long you date, the more prone you are to sinning physically.

No reasonable person would argue that physical temptation does not increase — a lot — the longer two people date who are attracted to each other and who grow to love each other. Sadly, statistics and anecdotal experience both indicate that even the vast majority of Christian couples who spend time in dating relationships of any length, sin physically.

I've yet to see any of the "From 'Hi' to 'I do' in One Year" detractors address this inconvenient truth of long-dating relationships. Is it simply a matter of self-control and accountability? Or do you believe a certain amount of sinning physically just comes with the territory of any dating relationship?

[8. Becky said the following at 2:22 PM on Oct 22:]

8

Now, as far as i can recall, the article never purported this to be a hard and fast RULE, it merely pointed out that after couples are together much more than a year without getting married they are suseptible to alot of sins that they could avoid by getting married. With this logic, it makes more sense, if you are going to marry said person anyways, to marry them sooner as opposed to later so you can avoid falling into these sins. because Even if you do end up getting married later down the road, that sin was still displeasing to God.
Sure mabye there are people who waited four years until they were done school to marry and later went on to the mission field. That doesn't disprove anything the article said. That doesn't mean that they didn't sin by 'acting married', or at least struggle unnessesarily with the temptation to do so.
As for Jacob Waiting seven years in the Bible, i'm going to guess that that's alot different. The culture was different. He was not in a dating relationship with Rachel exposing himself to the temptation to act married to her emotionally or physically, he was working for her father.

[9. Loris said the following at 2:25 PM on Oct 22:]

9

I got engaged after dating my boyfriend for three weeks (we'd been best friends for the seven months before that)...and married him six months to the day after we started dating. In our case, I think we might have benefited from waiting a few months longer, but not because of our relationship. When we married, I had only met my in-laws once, and the face they had shown to me then was very different than the one I saw after I married. If I'd had longer to observe them, that would have affected my decision. Also, our entire engagement was long-distance and therefore my husband could barely participate in the wedding plans. I would have liked to do more of the planning with him.
Still, I believe that everything happened in God's timing and in my own limited knowledge, if I had had more information before saying "I do," I might not have married my wonderful man.

[10. Justin said the following at 2:26 PM on Oct 22:]

10

Let us all be careful of putting ourselves under extrabiblical bondage to "rules of men."

Excellent! I could run a blog for years on just that theme alone.

The problem is one year is such an arbitrary length of time. Frankly, I struggle to remmain pure after about 30 minutes into the relationship.

But I guess, it is something to think about, which is ultimately the point of this blog.

[11. Carrie said the following at 2:48 PM on Oct 22:]

11

Just from a wedding planning standpoint, "Hi to I do in a year" is a little much. In my head I have a timeline of a total of 18 months. I really don't think I could plan a wedding in less than six months. I certainly couldn't know the groom well enough to pick up on all of his non-verbal communication and tell when I'm being annoying in less than six months. (6+6=12)
I understand the principle behind this article (avoiding sin and temptation), but I don't necessarily agree with the method. There are WAY too many exceptions to the rule: sickness and immigration laws are coming to mind.
There are two friends of mine that have been married less than a year, both of them younger than me. They ended up shifting all of their wedding and engagement plans ahead 6 months to a year. All of their friends at (a conservative, Christian)college thought it was a fantastic idea and exclaimed "finally!" when they got engaged. All of their friends in their respective hometowns thought they were getting married too young. Six months after the wedding, they no regrets. They dated for over a year and were engaged for just under a year.
I went to a wedding earlier this year where the relationship from "Hi" to "I do" was less than 6 months. They lived in different states. It was very difficult to see the other on a regular basis, but they talked everyday.
The principle: avoid sin.
The method: it varies.

[12. Canadian Boy said the following at 3:07 PM on Oct 22:]

12

So, essentially, because a longer relationship leads to a greater temptation to sin, the reason to get married is so that you won't be sinning?

[13. Elisabeth said the following at 3:17 PM on Oct 22:]

13

Next month will be the 1 year anniversary of the date I started dating my husband. That's right--We met at the end of July 2006, started dating at the end of November 2006, got engaged the beginning of February 2007 and got married at the end of June 2007. Just thinking about it makes my head spin, but it was all God's timing. If I had any longer to plan the wedding I would have gone mad--the details and questions about desires and taste and order were endless! The struggle to stay pure was tough also. However we are now happily married and I don't think I would change a thing!
I tend to side with the people who think this is good advice to keep in mind because my brother just got married also. He met his wife quite a few years ago, and (because of age) they just got engaged right before I did. Also because of age and maturity they decided to wait until next year to get married, but because of sin they got married a few weeks ago.
It's hard to say that you will be fine with the temptation until you are in the situation and even then a lot depends on your significant other.

[14. Marci said the following at 3:17 PM on Oct 22:]

14

Obewan,

How do you know those 4 year long couples were sexually pure when they married?!? The whole point of the mandate to "get married or break up" is that people in relationships for this long are prone to sexual sin.

The point is NOT that they got married! The point is = did they honor God with their purity during this time? Most of the couples I know that were together 4 years or longer really messed up sexually...

We are not designed by God to fall in love only to be forced to restrain the desire to consumate the relationship for four years or more. Four year relationships go against how humans are designed.

If you were to go to an unsaved person and say 'I'm in a relationship and I want to have sex with this individual, but I'm waiting for four years because I want to stay pure' ...you'd better believe you'd be chastised for being unrealistic. Even people who aren't Christians accept that by a certain point, sexual intimacy has got a part to play in a healthy loving relationship ...they may wait till college is over to marry, but believe you me, they're not abstaining.

If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to exclude college students from this mandate - I don't care what they are studying. On a college campus - even Christian ones - there is often a lot of impure sexual behavior going on. I would argue that this perhaps makes is even HARDER for college couples to avoid thinking 'well, if all the heathen are doing full out having sex, threesomes, and whatever else, we're not sinning if we make out but don't grab anything' which quickly becomes 'well, we're grabbing stuff but no penetration is going on' which quickly becomes?.....!?!!? [Imagination has filled in the blanks]

LET'S FACE IT: a lot of people have more respect for getting an education than for obeying Biblical guidelines for relationships. Without saying it, most people would rather mess up sexually than mess up educationally.And THAT is unfortunate.

Blessings

[15. Marci said the following at 3:25 PM on Oct 22:]

15

Motte said: "I've yet to see any of the "From 'Hi' to 'I do' in One Year" detractors address this inconvenient truth of long-dating relationships. Is it simply of matter of self-control and accountability? Or do you believe a certain amount of sinning physically just comes with the territory of any dating relationship?"

WELL-SAID! I think most folks really do believe your last statement is true...so glad you hit the nail on the head.

Blessings

[16. J.T. said the following at 3:25 PM on Oct 22:]

16

I have a question: If we are supposed to go from "Hi" to "I do" in a year, does this mean we should exclude all members of the opposite sex that we have know for some time in our search for a spouse?

[17. Jethro said the following at 3:46 PM on Oct 22:]

17

Actually I think couples should get married after 6 months. A whole year is way to long and doubles the chances of sinning. In fact, maybe 3 months would be better still....

Sorry, but according to the little blurb Croft is a lawyer and church elder, not a relationships expert. As someone else has also pointed out, 12 months is entirely arbitrary and there is no scriptural or scientific support for that particular timeline. I don't think I'll be telling any friends to get married soon 'because Scott Croft says you should'.

[18. Miah said the following at 3:46 PM on Oct 22:]

18

Interesting conversation. This topic came up at dinner the other night, oddly enough.

Honestly, until a few months ago, I was on the side of 'one should date the person for a long time before getting engaged, then short engagement and get married.' My reasoning behind this was that you have the rest of your life to spend with this person, if they're the right one, why rush? But a few months ago, I started dating, and well, lets just say that sometimes one eats their words that they were so sure about...Now I am not sure what to think in all this. Yes, I agree that the physical temptation is huge and grows into a bigger monster the longer the relationship goes without the 'ability' to express that.

However, is marriage a 'simple way' of dodging sexual temptation? And is this the right approach, because marriage is something that is a lifetime commitment. It is the signing of a contract. And as someone brought up to me just a few minutes ago, how long would you wait so sign a contract that would change your life?

[19. Nicole said the following at 3:59 PM on Oct 22:]

19

I think one year is a long enough time to KNOW if you want to marry someone. Whether it's wise for a couple to actually get married within a one year timespan, however, could vary. For every peice of anecdotal evidence, I can think of many that support the other "view". I know many christian couples who rushed into marriage (less than one year) who are now divorced. Most of those were younger and in college when they married and probably married for the reasons that Croft oulines in the article. However, for every failure I also know of at least one success story. So, I wouuld have to agree with OBEWAN. This is advice, for most it's good, others maybe not.

[20. Kyu said the following at 4:00 PM on Oct 22:]

20

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. The one year guideline is way too long.

My ultimate goal was marriage and if God can confirm the relationship in the shortest time possible, I was willing to go with it. My parents entered into engagement on their second date [and they're still happily married now], and I knew you can't ever put God in a box for these things. Funny thing was, before I met my wife, I was telling my parents that God worked quickly for THEM, but who's to say God will work that quickly for ME?

My "Hi to I do" was 3 months. I'm not taking any credit for this. God simply brought two people together who not only were right for each other, but even their timing was a perfect match!

[21. Diane said the following at 4:13 PM on Oct 22:]

21

My husband and I started dating in April, got engaged that December, and were married the following August. Looking back, I think that was almost too long even. The longer we were together, the harder it became to resist temptation physically, and our emotional intimacy was through the roof. And I've seen friends plan weddings in less than six months and still have beautiful weddings. I guess it all depends on where your priorities are.

Also, my husband and I were in school when we got married, and I actually think it's been easier to be married while in school than dating while in school. Lots of people finish school after they get married with no trouble.

That said, situations do vary, but I think that a year is a good guidline to follow in most circumstances. But it is only that: a guideline. And while this may be an extra-biblical guideline, remaining sexually pure is not. If having a short dating/engagement period helps a couple maintain sexual purity (as well as emotional purity), then to do so would definitely be following God's design for marriage.

[22. Becks said the following at 4:25 PM on Oct 22:]

22

Three friends of mine, all practising, chaste catholics went in less than a year from 'Hi' to 'I do'. And they are all divorced now! One marriage broke up only one month after the wedding.

Only one friend managed to get an annulment so far. So for the others, being catholic, it may well mean that they can NEVER MARRY AGAIN. Frankly, it may be easy to advocate a one-year rule if you follow a denomination that allows divorce, but if that's not the case, you better get to know each other for at least a year, which would mean 12 mths dating+6 mths engagement = 18 months at least(and Monsignor TG Morrow, author of 'Christian Courtship in an Oversexed World' advocates exactly that.)

Of course you will struggle with chastity. But, as one blogger eloquently put it, you will do that as soon as 30min into the relationship.

[23. Hannah C said the following at 4:33 PM on Oct 22:]

23

My question now is: What do you do if you know you want to marry the person you are dating, but because of circumstances (e.g., going to two different colleges), you can't? What would you suggest be done then? Or if the parties are between 18 and 20?

I suppose one could say that such situations come about only when people date when they shouldn't, because they can't get married in a year. But really, can you even say that? Sometimes relationships happen - unexpectedly - and they happen to be ones that could lead to marriage...just not within a year.

I would really like to see some opinions about this.

[24. Anna Marie said the following at 4:38 PM on Oct 22:]

24

So far, I have read some pretty valid points; and I can see both sides of the coin, so to speak. One aspect that was not touched in all of this are those of us committed Christian "singles" who are divorced and how a second marriage timing, etc. plays into all this. I am not someone to stir the pot, but the "fish or cut bait" topic has come up alot with me and my boyfriend lately...all because of me ;)

As a bit of backgroud, we are both 43 and each have biblical divorces (adultery & abandonment from our former spouses) after 11 years of marriage each. When we met we were both up front about our desire to "date to marry", etc. In some ways - primarily because of what we have experienced in our former marriages - I think to some extent, neither of us is racing down the isle, but I am the one that doesn't want to take the "slow boat to China" either! We have both worked hard (and continue to do so) to learn from our first marriage so that we can try to avoid the many pitfalls of second marriages (and there are many!) We have also attended a Christian Stepfamilies Conference (awesome!)

We met and began dating in November 2006, so we are coming upon our 1 year anniversary; I guess that's where my "fish or cut bait" attitude came from...and it doesn't help that my friends are starting it too...asking questions, etc. My boyfriend still has the "wait and see" approach...and although I agree with him to some extent (considering both of us still have a bit more to do), I know that he dated his former wife for 6 years before they married. I can tell you right now, that is not going to happen with me! (And his answer usually is something like "well...so you are telling me you wouldn't wait for the person that God has for you?" which is a very frustrating statement for me) Although marrying my former spouse after knowing him 9 months was a mistake (in my particular case), I am no longer happy "playing house" without more than an exclusive dating relationship with him (we have been dating exclusively since December 2006). We have a "long distance" relationship, but we keep it going through many phone calls, e-mails, etc. He lives only 30 miles away, however he's on call for his work alot so I only see him in person every other weekend - something neither of us likes, but unless I move, there's not much we can do about it, as his license/certification for work is only in his state, not mine. When he's here, we do everything together...attend church, family things, etc. When we date, a lot of it is "family dates" (hence my reference to "playing house" above) my son comes with us...mini golf, dinner, last weekend went to the pumpkin patch, etc. Although his former spouse would not have children, he loves them and has always wanted children. I have a son, 12, who has an incredible relationship with him (and not much of a relationship with my former spouse). It took me 2 years after my divorce to even want a relationship with anyone and I have come a long way in the trust department...I have allowed my son to get to know him, etc.! (That's huge for me, as I never let him even meet anyone else I have dated in the past.) As you might imagine with these dynamics...my son and I BOTH are in this pretty deep, as I believe my boyfriend is, as well. In our particular case, marriage will not be happening next month...however, I pray for more of a solid commitment from him (more than just the "wait and see approach" that I have gotten so far). For us...I would love to see us married next September...

Now that everything is on the table, I am interested to know...What are YOUR thoughts about this? ;)

[25. Jess said the following at 4:59 PM on Oct 22:]

25

After the "hi to i do" article came out, I discussed the idea with my boyfriend. We have been together for about 7 and a half months at the moment. We're quite obviously heading towards marriage, have both stated that as our goal and we work on issues in the relationship as they come up.
We have struggled sexually, quite a bit in fact. So I said to my boyfriend the other day, out of frustration really, "why don't we just hurry up and get married?".
Thankfully, I have a wise and loving man who explained to me why this wouldn't be the best option. He said that we don't know each other well enough to make that decision, that he's not mature enough, that I'm too young and that he didn't think it would be the right thing to do just because of temptation.
I must admit, the first three points didn't have much sticking power with me, but I asked him to explain the last one.
He said that he would like us to have sufficiently learnt self-control before we got married. He said that marrying out of sexual frustration might make one problem go away, but it wouldn't fix the issue in our hearts. Thanks to the grace of God, we are learning self-control and learning how to be content with where God has us now.
In addition to this, a lot of people in our Christian communities have counselled us to wait longer. My parents are happy with him, but still reccommend waiting one or two years to get engaged.
Actually, when we met with a preacher at our church earlier in the year, he suggested that this "marrying early" thing might be part of America's culture (we are in Australia). He said that while American literature on the topic is often good, it is usually very focused on short dating periods, and he encouraged us not to feel pressured by this. Do you concede that this is a possibility? I guess I'm on the boat with other people who say your advice is good for some, but it's a bit unfair to call it Biblical and say that everyone should follow this method.
I really respect my boyfriend and I trust his judgement on this. I know that God will work everything out in his perfect timing.

[26. Johnny said the following at 5:00 PM on Oct 22:]

26

J.T.,
The answer to your question should be "no." I think the point Scott was trying to make is that the length of an intentional marriage-potential relationship should be fairly quick. I don't think he is necessarily including time spent as "acquaintances" or "friends."

On another note, I don't believe there are (or should be) any literal, set-in-stone restrictions on length of time dating. We can use biblical principles as guidelines (as Scott has done), but I think creating any hard-fast "rules" would be overstepping our bounds. To me, what it boils down to is this: Is God being glorified through the progression of our relationship? If He is, then we know we're on the right track.

[27. KendraW said the following at 5:05 PM on Oct 22:]

27

My parents met and were married in under eight months. I have some friends who got engaged two weeks after meeting. Both my parents and these friends have been married for over thirty years.

More recently, my cousin met a gentleman back in late April and they are set to get married in December. So, right about eight months there. Another cousin and his wife were married within a year of meeting.

I agree that sexual purity is a good reason to avoid having a relationship drag on for too long. But different things work for different people.

JT - I don't think they mean it that way. It's a cute turn of phrase but I believe they mean that we should marry a person within a year of starting dating. That's my take anyways.

I figure I'll just trust in God's sense of timing in bringing the right person into my life and guiding us down the path of how long we should date before we get married.

[28. bob said the following at 5:14 PM on Oct 22:]

28

I think the general principle behind this idea is a good one, but I believe we need to be careful about specifying a particular time frame. I know people who would probably benefit from having more than a year to get to know their potential spouse better, and I know people who don't need anywhere near that long.

So before we make timelines for ourselves and others, I think we should realize that the proper timing will vary from person to person.

[29. Tiffany Dujinski said the following at 5:18 PM on Oct 22:]

29

Hi all~
I got married on October 6th (that's right - just two weeks ago) to the love of my life whom I met on October 28th of last year and was engaged to on May 28th of this year. We went from hi to I-do in less than a year, and if I had it to do over, I'd get married even sooner. Our relationship was long-distance (a six-hour drive), and the desire just to be together was overwhelming at times. We were both intentional in our conversation regarding marriage from the beginning of the relationship, and we were firmly committed to purity. We held hands after we got engaged, but nothing else. It was very difficult at times and would have been much more so had we been planning to wait longer for the wedding. So far as wedding planning, I planned mine from start to finish in a little over four months. We had 200 guests and my mom catered the reception. It was hard work, but let me reiterate, I'm very glad we didn't wait any longer than we did. The only thing I'd change if we had it to do over would be a much smaller wedding MUCH sooner.
Just a quick plug for Boundless - both of us were regular readers before we met, and Boundless continued to be an awesome conversation starter throughout our relationship. We even toured Focus on the Family during our honeymoon! Thanks, Boundless! :o)

[30. Melissa* said the following at 5:46 PM on Oct 22:]

30

My pastor has talked over the years about getting married to avoid sexual sin. He said he used to be of the position to "hurry through the pre-marital counseling" so the couple could get married. Over the past few years, however, his position changed. If you don't have self-control now, what says you'll have it as a married person? I thought it was a very valid point. This, of course, does not mean that anyone should test "the line" and allow him/herself to be tempted to sin. I think of my church's music directors. They were 15 and 16 when they began dating and got married shortly after finishing college. They were together for about seven years and maintained a pure relationship. A year wouldn't have worked for them; certainly 16 was not the best age to get married. However, they took precautions. They only spent time "alone" while in public. Time in each other's homes was supervised and during the day. Being alone at each other's homes was unacceptable. And it worked.

But I like the advice Boundless gives on this. If you have a purpose toward marriage, and it's headed that way with no major objections from either party or their families, why wait?

[31. Kellie said the following at 6:17 PM on Oct 22:]

31

While I'm all for short dating relationships (and let's face it Christians usually have short relationships), I think trying to make a rule about an appropriate length of time is kind of silly. Every relationship is different, so the length of each relationship is different. My husband and I were a long distance relationship. We dated for a year, got engaged, then got married six months later. Given that I was still in school when we met, we got married as quickly as we could. It wouldn't have been responsible of me to quit school 6 months before graduating so we could get married and it would have been silly to break up rather than get engaged. I admit we had our share of temptation, but we waited. It was worth it.

[32. Joshua said the following at 6:18 PM on Oct 22:]

32

As a recently married man, I feel that I should give my two cents. I am a college student, as is my wife. Both full-time students, and, as I'm the youth pastor at our church, we run the youth ministry. So there could be plenty of excuses for putting it off (focus on studies, too busy, not enough money, etc).

We knew each other for about 2 1/2 years before we started dating. The thing is, it was a sort of healthily distant friendship. As in we didn't go anywhere alone together, it was always a group of people, and we didn't discuss the possibility of a relationship. I had talked with her father, who encouraged me to pursue it if I thought God was leading me to do so. Well, come to find out, she'd been interested in me all along! Anyway, in April, we talked about where God was calling us, and how our callings were very similar. We had gotten to know each other, but had not even come close to the point where there was temptation between us. We prayed about it, talked about it, and sought counsel from people we looked up to in the church. Our first date was in May. That day, we officially decided to get married. Less than three months later, we tied the knot.

I would say that it's entirely possible to put on a wedding in 3 months or less. We had no problem getting it together. In the midst of the summer, our church moved (then moved again, a week before the wedding was to happen at the church), and my then-fiancee was working 12+ hrs a day, I was taking summer classes and working as much as I could. There was also the county fair in July that we had to prepare for (part of the joy of marrying into a family that raises goats!), a youth camp, and plenty of other things that kept us busy.

You know what? If I had the choice to go back and have waited 6 months longer, so we could have more time to plan and all that, I'd stick with three months. In less than three months, we had plenty of times where there was some temptation about to surface, but because it was so short, it was bearable, and we made it. Our first kiss was at the end of the wedding ceremony.

On the other hand, a close friend of mine and his girlfriend (now fiancee) have decided to get married. They've been dating for 4-5 years, and it will be at least a year or two before they get married. I have seen firsthand the unnecessary stress and temptation this has put on the relationship, not to mention the awkward situations it has caused!

Anyway, my advice is that if you want to marry the person, and the person wants to marry you, go seek counsel from people whom you respect spiritually, whether it's your pastor and his wife, or someone similar, go to someone in leadership, who is in a strong, God-honoring marriage, and seek their guidance. If they're for it, and God is for it, what's the big holdup?

[33. Kimchihead said the following at 7:33 PM on Oct 22:]

33

Why does it have to be so absolute? Sometimes, marriage just doesn't make sense for either party.

[34. Amelia said the following at 7:49 PM on Oct 22:]

34

Jess,

Lots of what you said resonates with me, so I'd just like to make a few points regarding my thoughts on reading you post. First, about your boyfriend's thoughts on learning self-control: that's all well and good, but is that fleeing from temptation? And when do you judge if you have a sufficient level? There will always be temptations, married or not - when have you fought them enough? Why not just leave them behind, if you can? As to his other points... well, how do you measure maturity? I doubt he will ever 'feel' mature enough. He doesn't have to be exceptionally wise or manly, or whatever he thinks maturity is, is to get married. As to being too young... I doubt it. I see from your blog that you're in first year uni, so you'd have to be 17 or 18, right? What's wrong with that? When is the magic age?
I think I agree with you about the 'marrying early' thing being a mostly American thing, but it's still very prevalent in Christian circles in Australia. Also, while you don't have to feel pressured by it, you are allowed to acknowledge it's good points, if you can see them.
One more thing - your parents advice to wait one or two years before engagement. Could it be that they are just shocked that their little girl wants to get married?
Sorry for picking on you. I just wanted to raise some points that struck me while I was reading your blog. Like I said, it kind of resonates with me... lots of similarities to my thoughts and experiences... I'm Australian, 19, second year uni, married.

[35. Kathryn said the following at 7:53 PM on Oct 22:]

35

I have friends who went straight from friends to engaged and then married within 6 months.

I have other friends who date for 3-4 years then get engaged and are married within 4 months.

The couples who date for longer do struggle a bit, but the amazing thing is that they overcome it and they continue to date and then in another year or two, they are married.

I get that it's wise advice, but I wouldn't want to make it into a rule. As people keep pointing out, the method varies, but the rule is still the same: don't sin.

[36. Cat Woman said the following at 8:42 PM on Oct 22:]

36

I have to agree that this year-long period seems like an impatient and naive rule. I can understand the argument to avoid temptation, and I knew plenty of couples in college who provided anecdotal evidence to prove it. But it still takes a year or two to really get to know someone.

Growing up, my Mom continually reinforced to me that she expected me to date at least 6 months to a year before getting engaged. Why so long? Growing up, my grandmother and several step-uncles were manic depressive/ schizophrenic/ bipolar relatives. They would be fine and appear normal for a while -- say, 6 months to a year -- before they cycling back around to being anywhere from depressed to delusional and dangerous.

It's great that you're encouraging people to get married and avoid temptation. That's biblical. But don't stretch it too far. There's an equal amount of anecdotal evidence pointing to why it can be even more dangerous (mostly for women) to get married too hastily.

[37. farmer Tom said the following at 9:49 PM on Oct 22:]

37

I'll make this as short as possible.
I met the future Mrs. farmer through our singles group in February. I saw her at several singles activities between then and August. The first week of August we were both counselors at Bible Camp for Senior High week.
We spent all of our free time together that week. After camp was over on Saturday, we spent the rest of the day at a mutual friends house. I stayed at the friends house, she went home. On Sunday morning I called her, we spent all of that day together, I met her folks that day, first guy she had ever dated. We spent nearly every weekend together from that point on, usually she came and stayed with my folks as I was doing farm work. We were engaged in November, before Thanksgiving. We got married the first week of April so that we didn't have to wait until spring fieldwork was over for the wedding.

From first date to married in nine months.

[38. steven said the following at 10:11 PM on Oct 22:]

38

FYI, I am actively pursuing physical and emotional purity with my girlfriend of almost 2 years. I hope to get married soon after college is over (I have this semester plus 3 more to go, so less than 2 years.) I understand the wisdom behind the rule, but just because the temptation for sin is there does not mean every Christian couple should marry in about a year. While I would love to be married ASAP, finishing college and being able to serve my friends and campus in a way that would otherwise be impossible are taking priority for a little while longer.

It is not always wise to take every bit of advice. What is wise is to look at advice and figure out what principles it is founded on.

[39. Jen said the following at 10:24 PM on Oct 22:]

39

I always expected I wouldn't spend a long time dating, but it didn't work out that way. We had a long-distance relationship, and still do, six months into our 12-month engagement. After a year and a half he proposed and I said yes. Sure we considered & prayed about doing things more quickly - both of us desired to. But it would have meant me transferring schools and doing an extra year of undergrad at a school that's not as good. It would have been stupid, ridiculous, and foolish to marry a year after we started dating, given our circumstances. It also would have been stupid, ridiculous, and foolish to break up. Sure it's tough dating/being engaged so long, but God gives grace, and in the meantime He's used us where we are. By His grace we've been able to maintain boundaries, and are all the more excited about when we will finally be joined together in marriage. Of course I'd encourage people not to spend too much time dating/engaged, it's definitely not easy, but I think it's also ridiculous to suggest there's some formula that makes it generally better to get married faster. No, you can't remain pure if you're doing it in your own strength, but God is gracious, He works in each person in different ways, and His timing is perfect.

[40. KES said the following at 10:29 PM on Oct 22:]

40

So here's a circumstance which is not just as simple as "get married or break up".
My boyfriend and I are beginning our third year together. He will receive free college tuition as long as he is single. The prospect of half as much college debt starting out together, combined with the advice of godly counselors, mentors and parents; our knowledge of our own sins; and the sight of how God is using us as an unmarried couple right now is enough that we believe that God is calling us to wait at least another year before getting married.

I have to agree with Connie... why are Christians so, so quick to build a mold for every aspect of our walks and then impose them on other people as "The Biblical Way"? What's next, articles prescribing how long we should wait after marriage for children? How long to leave between children? What to name them?
Provide advice and guidance, by all means, but stop trying to sell us on your way being God's way.

[41. Kevin said the following at 12:10 AM on Oct 23:]

41

I agree with Jess. So many people here are using sexual temptation as the main reason for marrying quickly. What about self-control? If anything, marrying quickly because you "can't control" yourself sexually is showing a lack of self-control, which is one of the fruits of the Spirit. Should you really be getting married with such a lack of self-control?

I'm not saying that getting married in less than a year is necessarily wrong, but I don't think you should accelerate a marriage just because you can't keep your pants on. If anything, I'd say that if you can't control your sexuality, you're NOT ready to be married.

[42. Childless single woman said the following at 1:15 AM on Oct 23:]

42

How about we give God a break and stop using Him to justify our preferences over timing? If not, we can get into dangerous "spiritual blackmail" situations, like Anna Marie is experiencing: "well...so you are telling me you wouldn't wait for the person that God has for you?" (To which, Anna Marie, a possible answer is: "well...so you are telling me you want to delay God's will for your life?") All very dangerous territory!
I think two things come out of this discussion:
1) As far as I can see, God repeatedly says in the Bible to go, get married and multiply. He says nothing about waiting on His timing, waiting for The One He has chosen etc. etc. These are all additions that we have culturally chosen to add on, mostly to justify protracted singleness. The only instruction is that they must not be an unbeliever. After that, I see the Bible basically saying that it is God's will for us to marry, now we must get on and do it. Nowhere in the Bible is there a pattern of bellyaching over God's will or God's timing with regard to marriage.
2) Wisdom seems to indicate that sexual purity will be compromised the longer the wait. Also, the singleness limbo-land is extended unnecessarily. Plus, marriage in the end is a leap of faith. You can be with someone many years and still be suprised almost daily. No wonder really, as we often surprise ourself with our behaviour in any given situation.
I think we are putting many unnecessary hurdles in the way of marriage. And the using God to justify it.

[43. mel said the following at 5:33 AM on Oct 23:]

43

this may not be true for everyone. i've seen people get married after very short courtships and engagements. most of those people have come from healthy backgrounds and families. if you dont come from that kind of home environment, it takes a little longer to work through things... trust, learning to have a healthy relationship. i believe its important to have those foundations in order BEFORE you marry, b/c after you say 'i do' there is no going back.

[44. rachel said the following at 6:42 AM on Oct 23:]

44

This seems to me to sound a whole lot like the dating vs courtship controversy. Both sides says their way is more biblical and they have passages and counsel from wise believers to back them up. What it really comes down to is people acting biblically, whatever the method. You can date biblically and court sinfully. You can marry within a year and act sinfully and date for 3 years and act purely. Granted, it is hard, but that doesn't mean impossible or even unwise.

Jim and Elisabeth Elliott dated for 5 years, long-distance even. Their focus during their relationship was purity, intentionality, and waiting on God's timing. They are now an example of purity to others (perhaps in the same situation??)

It's not about man-made rules. It's about doing what's right. Love the other person, love God more, be intentional, surround yourself with accountability, and marry or break up as quickly as you can within the Lord's timing depending on where He has you in life.

If that takes a year or less, that's probably ideal. If it takes longer, work hard to stay pure, but don't marry out of pressure if you're simply unable to. Use wisdom and get counsel.

[45. Louise said the following at 7:46 AM on Oct 23:]

45

Kimchi, your name intrigues me.

Do you like Korean food?

[46. Marci said the following at 7:49 AM on Oct 23:]

46

To Nicole, Becks, Anna Marie, Jess:

First Nicole: you say you agree with OBEWAN - but OBEWAN completely sidestepped the issue of sexual purity in his analysis. You, too, say nothing about this issue, which is at the core of this entire discussion. Are you disregarding the issue of sexual purity altogether?!? Please clarify.

Nicole and Becks: implicit in both your postings was the idea that the divorces of the individuals you know seem connected to their marriage in and around the one year time frame. Don't you think this is stretching the truth? Just because they divorced says nothing - they may have similarly divorced after dating 4-5 years. Furthermore, did they divorce for Biblical reasons (adultery)? If not, I would argue that they stepped out of God's will. The Bible makes it clear that individuals are to divorce only in cases of adultery - and Christ makes it clear that THIS allowance was only given by Moses because of the hardness of peoples hearts. So scripturally, we see that God doesn't want divorce for any reason.

If those you know who divorced did so for Biblical reasons, you could make the argument that they may have married to deal with lust (which is different from a healthy sexual desire for one's partner), and thus still fell prey to lust. So the argument that marriage shouldn't be used merely to deal with lust is a powerful one.

HOWEVER, if these individuals did not divorce for Biblical reasons (unfortunately, Christian's aren't allowed to divorce merely because of "irreconcilable differences" or any other petty reason), the argument should be about why they did not stay together when the going got rough. No one said marriage was a bed of roses.

It's also possible that these individuals were not ready for relationships AT ALL. Therefore, it stands to reason that the divorce has less to do with how long they courted (because had they waited a few years before they courted they'd have more time to mature - THEN they could date for a year, get married, and be prepared for the work a marriage requires) that the wisdom of their timing in entering relationships. Boundless has said over and over that if you are legitimately not ready to marry, it's wise to avoid relationships altogether - the same applies here. Don't blame the marriage failure on the time of courtship - that's way to hasty. And years ago, people regularly courted for short time frames and stayed married for years. The Facts? Most of the divorces that occur happen because people (one or both) are selfish and lack committment. If your looking for marriage to be a joy ride, of COURSE you'll bolt at the first sign of work to be done! In days gone by people did not have these misconceptions....that's why divorce almost never occured.

Anna Marie: I'm an outsider for sure, but he dated his former wife 6 years?!? I'm sorry, but all kinds of warning bells are going off in my head.

Here's what I've noticed - if a man does not know FOR SURE that he will marry you by a year and a half into the relationship (and I'm sure Boundless would argue for a year here) - and will not articulate his resolve at the 1.5 year point - BOLT! Leave him immediately. I have never seen it to fail....if men are still humming and hawing at that point, they're just waiting for something better to come along.

If I'd known about Boundless one year position, I would've started questioning guys around the one year point to see if that holds true.

The other problem with long relationships is that you don't want him to marry you because 'it's been so long; everyone's expecting it'. And this can and does happen.

If you know that with his previous wife they waited 6 years, I would point-blank ask him how much time he generally believes he'll need to know that he will marry you. Ask him *specifically* if he would possibly date you for 6 years as well in order 'to know'. If he says that he can't put a time limit on it and that he would possibly date you for 6 years, you have your answer. Leave. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that he loves you too much to waste your time. Your time is YOUR responsibility. Right now, he's not sounding like he's intentional about marrying you. And that really, really concerns me.

Have you ever read that book "He's just not that into you"? It's hilarious; my roomates and I read it just for fun in undergrad. Greg writes it; from his own personal experience, he says that divorce is not a good reason for a person not to know if they really want to marry you. If they're into you, they get on board - divorced or not.

Now Jess: All kinds of warning bells are going off in my head about your situation to. Do not subordiante your own judgement to his; you are BOTH in this relationship together.

What horrifies me is that you guys are struggling sexually...but he STILL says you both don't know each other enough to marry? I think your position is the Biblically sound one, and I'm concerned about the fact that based on his judgement in this area, he does not appear as spiritually grounded as you do. Are issues of spiritual headship a general problem in you relationship?

*If he's not mature enough and you're too younge, WHY are you dating?!?*

If he's not mature enough, as the spiritual leader, he should have NEVER initiated a relationship with you. He should have waited till he was ready to marry. And why are you too young?!? I had a friend that married at 18 and she and her husband are happily married and looking to do missions in Africa. Youth has nothing to do with it; maturity is the central thing.

There is no "issue in our hearts" - sexual desire for someone you love is not a sin. It's a natural force God has created that helps motivate people toward marriage and helps to nourish the relationship after marriage. This is one area where the Bible does NOT advocate self control - Paul says that is is better to marry than to burn with passion. Where is he admonishing people to learn selfcontrol?!?

I'm Canadian, and so maybe this will hold little weight with you...but I don't think this is an "America" or "Australia" issue. This is a "Will we follow the guidelines of Scripture even if it's inconvenient" issue. I don't care who or which country seems to be teaching one way or another...the BIBLE says it's better to marry than to burn with passion.

Society - including people of authority in ministry, family, and friends - should not dictate whether or not you follow the mandates of scripture. You may have to be counter-culture and get married. So be it.

I think Croft would say that you two should either break up - OR get married. Your first intution is Biblically sound.

I'm passionate about this becase I've seen too many people try learning self control in this area against the counsel of Scripture - and being in Youth Ministry, I am SICK TO DEATH OF SEEING YET ANOTHER GIRL PUSHING A BABY STROLLER BEFORE MARRIAGE!!!!! OR STRUGGLING EMOTIONALLY BECAUSE SHE'S HAD AN ABORTION. This is NOT God's plan!

May God have mercy on us

Blessings

[47. Adam Sloope said the following at 8:21 AM on Oct 23:]

47

With all do respect (it's in the Geneva convention), this is why Christian dating is so horrible and awkward. Marry or break up within a year? Seriously, as a man, I desire marriages, but I also see the spirtual side of it all and think it is nothing to rush. When i marry a woman, I will be held accountable for how I run my marriage, then if we have kids, i'm held accountable how they live their lives, then if they get married, they are going to run their marriages after the way i ran mine... Do you see the depth of marriage? It is more than just fish or cut bait. We need to be careful when doing this whole dating thing. Clear communicatin is what I think is most important and then humility. If both people come into the dating world with the thought of we are friends and we are growing together towards Christ, oh i'm attracted to them, see if they have qualities that you desire in a husband or wife and then go from there. Going into the relationship with the thought of we are getting married or breaking up is why so many Christians are single now, too much pressure.

[48. Marci said the following at 8:36 AM on Oct 23:]

48

Kevin,

Where in the Bible does it show that couples are to strive to control their natural sexual desires instead of marrying?

Paul says it is better to marry than to burn with passion - how do you interpret this verse? Which other verses are you using to support your claim?

1 Corinthians 7:9 "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn"

Statistics prove that the people in the church are clearly much less able to "contain" their sexual desire prior to marriage than they assume. If you're struggling with sexual desires, I'd say you're burning - wouldn't you?

Paul doesn't say 'except if you're going to college; except if you're parents want you to wait a couple years; except if it will raise eyebrows'.

IN FACT - I would argue that if people were waiting until they were ready to marry to date/court, this discussion would be uneccessary. So explain to me: is the issue REALLY that people need to be self controlled sexually...and marry later because these desires have surfaced at an inopportune time? OR is it that people need to exercise self control about when to begin dating/courting relationships?

It seems to me that people rush headlong and get into relationships, ignoring the fact that sexual desire may arise and they are not yet in a position to marry. I highly doubt that in Jesus' day, men were initiating relationships with women before they were ready to marry! In fact, a man knew his readiness for marriage would be assessed by the brides family. There was no 'let's just hook up and deal with the question of readiness later'

But OF COURSE - no one wants to do the responsible thing and foregoe the fun and joy of having a romantic relationship...even if doing so will reduce the chances of ending up in the situation Paul describes.

Your idea that a couple is not ready to marry unless they have learned this type of sexual control seems appropriate for a lust issue...but not the healthy desire for one's spouse that God designed us to have (prior to and during marriage).

Blessings

[49. Ro said the following at 8:50 AM on Oct 23:]

49

Brilliant post and article. I would refer detractors to Michael Lawrence's excellent article "Stop Test-driving your Girlfriend."

We need to make sure we are not "defrauding our brothers and sisters" as the Bible says.

We should not take emotional intimacy that is not meant for us from people that we don't end up marrying. The best way to do this is to take the shortest possible time needed to decide whether or not to marry someone. I think one year is more than sufficient.

Isaac and Rebekah did not know each other when they married. The God that brought those two together is still the same God that is around today.

Marci and Childless single woman, you're comments are both insightful and encouraging.

In Biblical days people married very young. I was just wondering what people think the reasons are that we are no longer ready for marriage at similar ages that our predecessors were?

[50. Louise said the following at 9:12 AM on Oct 23:]

50

Marci, IMO you are very harsh on divorced people.

Don't be so judgemental, ma'am.

After all, you might be there yourself someday.

[51. NeedACatchyName said the following at 9:47 AM on Oct 23:]

51

Adam Sloope wrote:
"With all do respect (it's in the Geneva convention), this is why Christian dating is so horrible and awkward."

Exactly! Why are Christians so adverse to being in dating relationships? Because we've turned Christian dating into something unbelievably complicated and pressure packed. It's easy to get overwhelmed by everything that encompasses Christian dating these days. Everyone seems confused about the whole dating vs. courtship thing, and if you ask ten Christians to define those two terms, you'll get ten different answers. If you get married too young, you're accused of being immature because you didn't wait, but if you get married too old (or don't get married), you're accused of being immature because you waited too long. There's also enormous confusion about physical contact; heavy physical contact is almost universally frowned upon (in principle if not in practice), but there's still a lot of differing views on kissing, hugging, and hand holding. There's also the pressure to get married in a certain "one size fits all" time frame, as this article discusses.

And if you get past all this, then you get the church singles group pressure. There's always that one girl in every singles group that gets weirded-out and offended if a guy dares to ask her out for something as innocent as coffee, and will make life extremely awkward for any guy who does. There's also the tendency of singles groups to consider any male and female who go out on one single date as a "couple," even if the relationship never progresses beyond that. And if the relationship doesn't succeed, then invariably one of the people in the former relationship gets ostracized from the group (usually the one who's been there the least amount of time or is not as much a part of the "inner circle" as the other person), regardless of whether or not the breakup was actually their fault.

And of course, there's also the idea of "waiting on the one God has chosen for you" that has been hyped since youth group. Unfortunately, it's created a whole generation of Christians who are afraid to go out on a simple date because they're afraid that an otherwise acceptable relationship candidate might not be "the one" because they didn't get some extremely clear and obviously supernatural sign from God before the date.

Why is dating so much easier for non-Christians? Because they can ask a girl out for coffee, get to know her for a couple of dates, and if it doesn't progress beyond that, then it's not considered a big deal. And if the relationship does develop, then it develops at its own pace, without many of the man-made pressures of Christian dating.

[52. Katie (the other one) said the following at 10:41 AM on Oct 23:]

52

NeedACatchyName,

You read my mind. Thank you.

[53. nikki said the following at 2:12 PM on Oct 23:]

53

NeedACatchyName, you hit all the nails on their respective heads. *bows* I feel like everything I was going to say is now unnecessary.

OK, almost everything. :) I think as long as you are acting in wisdom, with much thought and prayer and counsel, then you are acting in God's will. Some people are "meant" to be married really fast, and some have to wait longer (thanks to whoever mentioned Elizabeth and Jim Elliot). One size just won't fit everyone. You should, however, definitely be sure about wanting to marry them if it's going to be a long time.

[54. NeedACatchyName said the following at 3:28 PM on Oct 23:]

54

Thanks for the kind words Katie and Nikki!

So here's a question that's somewhat based off of my previous post. Is it just me, or is the whole concept of going out for a simple date (coffee, dinner, etc.) just to get to know each other with no commitment to going out again really frowned upon in the church today? It seems more and more whenever you ask a girl out on a date it's understood that you're trying to initiate a dating or courtship relationship with her, along with the levels of commitment that entails. There seems to be a trend towards the idea that if you really need to "get to know" someone, then you should do so in a group environment at church (preferred) or in a group activity with several mutual friends. And since this serves the purpose of "getting to know" the other person, then there should already be a certain level of commitment even on the first date.

Of course, this does present a few problems. If the person you're interested in getting to know doesn't attend the same church as you, or participates in different ministries or studies, then getting to know them this way isn't feasible. And arranging multiple group activities with mutual friends just so that you can get a chance to talk to a young lady is many times easier said than done, especially with the difficulty in getting several people with varied personal commitments to synchronize their schedules and agree on something to do. And in the event that you just met randomly and don't have any mutual friends, then finding a group solution to getting to know the other person can prove virtually impossible.

This is just my opinion, but I think that Christian dating would be benefited in the long run if Christians would just be open to going out on a date or two for the purposes of determining if there's any mutual interest, with "no hard feelings" if it never progresses beyond that phase. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this phase needs to be more than one or two dates, and I think that it goes without saying that regardless of your views on physical contact in relationships there should be none during this phase, not even hugging or hand-holding. But I do think that this sort of dating could prove to be quite beneficial, and could serve to break some of the current dating tension in the church.

[55. Jethro said the following at 4:05 PM on Oct 23:]

55

Ro,

Alot of Christian's seem to be concerned about 'taking emotional intimacy' that doesn't belong to them. But I ask you, what does that really mean? What sort of people are we that we can't have more than one person know who we really are? Moreover, if you don't marry the person, it's not like you've given something away that can never be gotten back, you can share exactly the same thoughts, feelings, desires and fears with your spouse when you get one.

[56. BDB said the following at 5:51 PM on Oct 23:]

56

Marci, your writing is so...vivid. That's funny.

NeedACatchyName wrote:

>>especially with the difficulty in getting several people with varied personal commitments to synchronize their schedules and agree on something to do.<<

There is kind of an assumption that everyone runs with a pack, isn't there?

>>Don't get me wrong, I don't think this phase needs to be more than one or two dates, <<

Ah, yes. I know lots of non-Christians who think they should be able to go, say, five years and then break up with it being no big deal.

[57. Jess said the following at 7:35 PM on Oct 23:]

57

Amelia,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful insights. You raise a good point about fleeing from temptation (but isn’t the Bible verse “flee from sexual immorality”? 1 Corinthians 6:18). It’s a point that we can’t dismiss and one that we’re still working on in terms of solutions. From previous conversations with my boyfriend, he would say that a “sufficient level” of self-control would be when we (although tempted) don’t sin sexually. Now, I should clarify that we haven’t had sex, but we have done things (in thought and deed) that are not “without a hint of sexual immorality”, and we know that those things are just as wrong as intercourse.
I agree with you that I don’t think you can ever be “mature enough” for marriage. And I’ve expressed this to him. He feels that he would like to improve some specific areas in his life that are lacking in godliness before committing to leading another person spiritually. I can also see things in my own life that need improving, I guess I just don’t know where to draw the line between “ready” and “not ready” for marriage.
I’m recently 19 years old. Age isn’t an issue for me, but he feels that I’m too young (in both age and maturity). He’s 21 years old and finishing college this year.
I can see a lot of wisdom in this idea of marrying early, but it seems to make a lot of assumptions about the individual people involved. And I don’t think it’s Biblical to set a specific time which is “best”. I realise that there was a disclaimer at the start of the article that the author doesn’t think it would be “sinning” to wander out of this time schedule, that he thinks it’s wisdom…. But even that has a tone of superiority.
Mum and Dad think you should date someone for one or two years before marriage. Could be partially shock (I am their eldest) but I think it’s mostly that they have seen a lot of broken marriages and they realise how important the decision is.
I’m very interested in hearing your story about how you got married, how things are now. If you have time, would you mind leaving a comment on my blog and I’ll email you back?

Marci,
I appreciate your concern for my relationship, but the overall tone of your response seemed quite abrupt and harsh to me. But this is the internet, so who knows. I’ll just address what you said…
Firstly, I’m not subordinating my judgement to his. We both value each other’s opinions a lot and we discuss things with much prayer. When I said I respect him and trust his judgement, that is me saying that, after we have discussed it and he has decided to talk to our pastor about it, I agree with his chosen course of action. I trust that he is weighing his opinions against the Bible. And I acknowledge that deciding when we get married is not my decision (although deciding if we get married is, in part).
Issues of spiritual headship were initially a problem for us, but things have improved a lot and he is really stepping up to the mark. No one is perfect, I’m still learning how to encourage and respect that headship.
Why does it horrify you that we’re struggling sexually and still don’t know each other well enough to make a marital decision? Lust can be something that happens without emotional intimacy, and we are heavily convicted on that already.
As for your question regarding his maturity and my age…Like I mentioned in response to Amelia, his maturity isn’t such an issue for me and neither is my age. But you know what? That’s not worth breaking up over. I’m willing to wait the extra time and meanwhile learn how I can serve Christ in my current situation.
You raise a good point that “sexual desire for someone we love is not a sin”. I think I need to be reminded of that more often. Amidst all the struggles, sometimes I find myself cursing God for making me a sexual being. But I realise that he made me that way for a reason, and I shouldn’t wish it was another way. Actually, I find it a helpful lust-combating tool to remind myself that God’s perfect plan for sex is within marriage and everything else is a cheap copy. Thanks for mentioning that. However, the “issue in our hearts” that I was referring to is the issue of selfishness and disobedience. When we sin sexually, it’s not merely a matter of being so attracted to that person, it’s me being selfish and not wanting what’s best for them. I think that’s an important thing to deal with before getting into marriage.
As for Paul’s “better to marry than burn with passion”…. Wise mentors in my life have said that this is talking about sex, and is more of a last resort. In other words, “It’s better to marry that to have sex outside of marriage”. This makes sense to me, because in that day, I don’t think there was so much grey surrounding relationships, no real chance to sin on different “levels” of sexual immorality.
I agree that the issue of marriage is primarily Biblical, not cultural. What I was suggesting was that the original article might contain some suggestions which are not inherently Biblical, but rather cultural. That’s not to say that one way of doing things is better, just that it’s not fair to take cultural norms and turn them into “Biblical must”s.
You’re right in saying that society should not dictate the pattern for our relationship, but the Bible does say (I’m just not sure where….maybe Proverbs?)” there is wisdom in the counsel of many”. So when a lot of wise people in our community say the same thing, we tend to believe them. These are people who have strongly Biblical worldviews and who are passionate about helping people to live lives obedient to God.

I thought I should also mention some additional “circumstantial” facts about our relationship: this is my first year out of home, we live together in a Christian, student accommodation type thing which houses 50 young adults, my boyfriend is still somewhat financially dependant on his parents but hopes to become independent next year after working, he will be moving out of the student accommodation next year, I have made a commitment to stay next year in a ministry role. We think the best thing for us right now is to stay together, pursue marriage and set clear boundaries.

[58. KES said the following at 8:36 PM on Oct 23:]

58

Jess -- kudos to you. You and your boyfriend sound a lot like me and mine. I really appreciate your thoughts on self-control sexually, and the idea that Paul's recommendation of "better to marry than to burn" is more of a last resort.
I think what those of us who are talking about bringing sexual desire under control before marriage are not talking about some sort of super-spiritual exercise or suppressing God's gift to us, but rather coming to a more mature and less self-centered view of sex.
For example, think of an unmarried Christian who struggles with pornography or masturbation. Will marriage make these problems go away? Not necessarily. They don't desire to have a mutually self-sacrificial, loving, caring sex life with another person, just an endorphin release. If a person's sexuality is self-centered before marriage, it will likely continue that way after marriage. The same goes for a couple who struggles with sexual sin, not only because they want each other, but because they also simply want, for themselves. The time to get married rather than burn, I think, is when you burn for your intended spouse, when your desire is at least equal parts wanting to please them as to please yourself. Because isn't mutual self-sacrifice and the circle of "This pleases me because it pleases you" really what marriage is supposed to be about?

[59. Louise said the following at 8:48 PM on Oct 23:]

59

Hey, I have a questions.

Marci told Jess not to subordinate her judgement to her boyfriend.

I thought that was what Boundless People think the Bible says women should do!

Isn't it the opinion on here that when a couple is dating, the man should be the leader?

Am I missing something here?

[60. Ted Slater said the following at 9:06 PM on Oct 23:]

60

Louise -- Jess's boyfriend is not her husband. A "boyfriend" is not in any kind of spousal authority over his "girlfriend." A woman has no biblical requirement to submit to her boyfriend.

That said, regardless of marital status, a man should have the disposition to lead, to initiate.

[61. DanL said the following at 9:42 PM on Oct 23:]

61

I am really puzzled as too why anyone would want to date/be engaged for more than a year. I’ve desired to get married for sometime, and believe if the right woman came along I’d jump on it. A year seems plenty long enough to get to know someone and their family. I have to admit that getting engaged after only a couple months or less, like some here have mentioned, seems to be really strange and something I probably wouldn’t recommend. But as long as we view the clock as starting when a couple first went out and not when they first met (I’m assuming that the relationship isn’t one the couple “drifted into,” which is as it should be), I would think getting married in a year is perfectly normal. I’m really puzzled why some here think that is short.

Personally, I can’t see asking someone out unless I knew they for several months first (and in most of my previous dates its been closer to a year, but I do find that as I get older its get harder to meet people so I have been relaxing this rule), so I don’t quite know if I could truly go from “From ‘Hi’ to ‘I Do’ in a Year” but I certain I won’t go from first date to “I Do” in more that year, without some sort of major unseen event imposing itself on my life (like being in a coma for 6 months).

That said, Croft does say “in the vast majority of cases” in the article so he is allowing for exceptions. I picturing things like a military reservist getting called up, or perhaps a couple that had major premarital counseling issues. I think I would probably allow for a few more exceptions than Croft (or Brown or Slater) would, especially for younger couples, but I definitely think there needs to be a very concrete reason for the delay. And by that I mean something substantially more than “we need to get to know each other more.” In my mind for a man to date someone for more than 15-18 months or so without getting married, and without a very definite reason, is absolutely shameful.

[62. KJ said the following at 9:46 PM on Oct 23:]

62

Yes, I think my circumstance IS different - mainly because my name is not Motte Brown!

My boyfriend and I have dated now (with marriage as our goal) for over a year, and we're not yet engaged. What am I supposed to do, deliver an ultimatum? Maybe something catchy like, "Give me a ring and a wedding date RIGHT THIS MINUTE or I'm out of here?" Or should I just take up whining and dropping hints every time we're together? (I've seen girls take up the latter strategy - and it isn't pretty.)

I'm sure he'd appreciate being wheedled into marriage, or dragged down the aisle. That would definitely create an atmosphere of trust and (within marriage, where it belongs) submission on my part.

In other words, how is this article supposed to be useful to women at all?

[63. em said the following at 10:22 PM on Oct 23:]

63

You know, a time period isn't the all important thing. I agree with those who say that a year may be a good mean but that is simply extra-biblical "wisdom" advice, not a good "hard-and-fast" rule.

On the one hand, endless dating is unwise. On the other, hasty marriage can be quite unwise too.

Among Christian singles who have matured in a culture of selfishness and divorce, being skittish of commitment is normal. It is also appropriate for our leaders and elders to admonish us against our own sort of fear and selfishness that holds us back from giving ourselves fully to each other in marriage. I understand that.

But I'm still very skeptical of the advice to marry quickly. The 'just do it' attitude toward marriage encouraged by so many of our leaders may produce just the sort of fruit we young folk fear. Many of us have not been trained in healthy homes and even in the church are not necessarily well mentored. We know ourselves well enough to know we don't know ourselves.

My own mother and father married quite quickly and she was all of 18 to his 22. They had a horrible, abusive marriage that ended in his death just under 25 years later and 7 years ago. There were some good spots but I can't remember many of them. I'm 26 now and am a financially self-sufficient college grad in a solid church with lots of great friends and a very good job and a quite useful life overall. I've never been in a relationship and, at this point, don't know if I could be ready to commit to anyone in a year -- even if they were ideal for me.

I'm not immune to the longing for relationship and shared life and even physical intimacy that can come in a healthy marriage. But being single and chaste for life - as hard as that is - cannot possibly be as bad as having the sort of marriage I saw growing up, or even one a good deal less bad than that. I'm not ruling out marriage entirely, but I think I'll be very cautious.

[64. DanL said the following at 10:23 PM on Oct 23:]

64

As much as I do agree the theme of the article, I do have to take some exception with Croft in the case of the college couple whose parents wanted them to finish school first (I’m interpreting the parents refusing to pay for school as an indication that they think it best of the couple not to marry yet. If it has more to do with wanting to see them self-sufficient before marriage then I would be in tighter agreement with Croft).

This is an area where I think honoring ones parents comes into play and provides a valid reason for delay. While I would certainly council any future children of mine to marry before graduation in such a case (assuming I thought highly of their fiancé), one is still called to honor ones parents even when they disagree with them. I’ve seen many many couples rush into marriage against their parents wishes and dismiss their concerns with statements along the lines of long engagements are bad (which they are, but it doesn’t address whether the parents had valid concerns or not). Worse they will dismiss their parents advice and council entirely if they aren’t believers (as if that meant they had no wisdom) or they aren’t “mature believers” (the later charge almost exclusively by people who grossly overestimate their own spiritual maturity).

I do agree with Croft entirely when he said, “more than one set of Christian parents have relented on this question in the face of *respectful*, biblical resolve by their children.” In other cases a compromise can be reached where the engagement may be longer than ideal, but still shorter than the time it would take the couple to graduate. The later almost happened with my brother when he wanted to get married sooner than my parents thought best, but then he decided to go ahead and get married on his time table without regard to what my parents thought in a manner that I thought showed great disrespect to them. My parents also thought there where a couple issues they wanted addressed in premarital counseling before the wedding. As much as I dislike long engagements if something needs to be addressed before the wedding then it needs to be addressed _before_ the wedding. And while long distance relationships (such as my brother’s) may not in general be a reason for things taking longer, when there more extra counseling issues the logistics of getting the couple and pastor in the same town to talk to each other can be.

I also wish to state this is one area where I think Boundless (and those like it) need to spend more time reaching parents of students and twentysomethings. If seen many parents encourage their children to pursue relationships and then turn around and tell them to wait when they find someone.

[65. Leah said the following at 12:48 AM on Oct 24:]

65

"For couples who've been dating a year or more, it's as simple as this: Get married or break up."

Excuse me? That's not true, and you know it. Try being a little less controversial for a change.

When my boyfriend and I had been dating for a year, I was 18, he was 20, I was in my second year of university (without a job) and he was in his third year (with a part time job). You would seriously tell a couple like that to get married?

There are enough people around who I respect who have had, or condone, relationships of 2 years or more, that I can take one look at your statement, raise an eyebrow in incredulousness, and keep walking. Dr James Dobson has said that he believes a couple "should be sweethearts" for 2 years. My parents dated for 4 years from the time they were 17. Two of two of those years were spent separated, one when Mum was down south at college, one when she was teaching in another town. Another couple at our church dated on and off for 5 years from when she was 14 and he was 16. Another couple dated for 3 years from when she was 18 and he was 19.

Yeah, maybe if you're in your mid-20s and living on your own that statement might apply, but when you started dating at 15, 16 or 17 and are still studying and living at home things are a bit different.

[66. DanL said the following at 3:38 AM on Oct 24:]

66

I join Jethro in being somewhat confused on the nature of “emotional intimacy.” I know their have been times in my past where I’ve let myself get too close emotionally to women when I shouldn’t have. I am trying very hard to make these same mistakes again. But I also have been greatly helped by close female friends in the past too. I guess when I compare emotional intimacy to its physical counterpart, I find it harder to know where the “lines” are. (Please note the scare quotes. I recognize that both are hart issues and simple matters of looking for lines to cross or not. It’s late at night and I’m tired and can’t immediately think of a better way to say this, so hope it still gets my question across. )

[67. Louise said the following at 5:30 AM on Oct 24:]

67

Mr. Slater, I am still confused.

Doesn't this website that in a dating relationship, the man should lead?

Then isn't the woman supposed to submit while he leads the dating relatinship? Or until such time as they are married (if that happens) is she just supposed to WATCH him lead?

[68. Louise said the following at 8:18 AM on Oct 24:]

68

Sorry, my post should read "Doesn't this website STATE that in a dating relationship, the man should lead?"

[69. Anna Marie said the following at 1:07 PM on Oct 24:]

69

I love this website, but to address Louise...I believe the BIBLE tells us to be submissive to our husbands. Before we are married, it is to our parents (or whomever has raised us if our parents are not in the picture). We are to seek wise counsel in such matters as these. I am not sure we sit by and "watch" our boyfriends "lead"...I don't know how to put it into words. I am 43 and divorced from an abusive ex who took advantage and distorted God's word in this area (as well as many other areas) so I am very cautious in watching the men I have dated and the decisions they have made in their lives and for their children, etc. to determine if I am going to be comfortable under his leadership one day. Even as a single adult grown woman, when I got divorced 3 years ago today, I purposely submitted myself to my church eldership for accountability and such in important matters. My father is deceased and my mom is not a Christian...I know my church leadership loves and cares for me and my son and will give me wise counsel when I ask for it; I trust them implicitly.

I guess the end result of all of this is that we all need some sort of accountability in our lives and with accountability brings wisdom for us to make whatever choices are before us...especially when we don't know which direction God might be pointing us.

Submission, the way God intends it to be, is not "do as I say"...its a partnership where your husband values you and your opinions, etc. and takes them into consideration in his loving leadership of your home. It also means that he is accountable to God for what happens in his home.

[70. Jerrard said the following at 1:59 PM on Oct 24:]

70

What about after you cut bait? What if the two of you are such good friends that communication continues and emotions are still present. I broke up with my ex 10 days ago, but we both love the Lord, and I'm not sure how to love her in the Lord without feeling those post-break-up emotions. (i.e. "I miss her", "I wonder if this is what God wanted" ect.). Sex ruined our relationship and almost our friendship leading to a hurtful breakup. It was a blessing in disguise because we turned to repentance and agreed to love and minister to one another. I just don't when to draw the "friend zone" line.(too many conversations, visits, ect.) I'm not sure if I want to marry her and I don't want to defraud her. But she was and is my friend more than anything. I don't want to hurt her either by distancing myself. Any advice?

[71. Marci said the following at 4:55 PM on Oct 24:]

71

Louise,

Everything I said about divorce is, to my knowledge, Biblically correct. Do you know of any verses that specifically contradict what I said?

Your comment about me perhaps being divorced one day?

INAPPROPRIATE! Sounds to me like someone is bitter enough to wish the pain of their experineces on someone else.

Not Christ like AT ALL.

Blessings

[72. Marci said the following at 5:42 PM on Oct 24:]

72

Jess and KJ,

First Jess:
Your approach is exactly the opposite of what Croft advises in "From Hi to I do in a year" ...but I think you know that.

No, I didn't intend to be harsh in my post. That being said, I'm blunt. Even in real life. And I've had numerous friends (who initially hated me for saying exactly what I thought) later tell me that I was the only one in their lives who spoke the truth.

You know what I've never understood? The people who go to weddings, whisper about the misgivings they have regarding the newly married couple, and then broadcast these misgivings loudly when they divoce. How hypocritical and CRUEL! So I don't waste time - I just tell the naked truth as I see it, because too often people sugar coat the truth and obscure the meaning. I appologize for my bluntness: it's both a strength and a weakness for me (for instance, you were put off by my tone).

However, everyone is responsible for what they know. So you're now responsible for all the counsel you've received. Regardless of my thoughts on your resolution, I earnestly pray that you may never have a reason to regret your decision.

Now KJ: You raise a valid point. I don't think women should whine to get their boyfriends to marry them.

But you know what? If by 1.5 years (MAX)into the relationship he cannot tell you he's going to marry you FOR SURE -take off. As a woman, you have to be strong. If you don't put your foot down when he's had more than enough time to decide, you are giving him PERMISSION to waste your time.

So staying in the relationship and complaning is not at all the only option. But leaving (when the length of time he's taking to decide becomes disrespectful) takes a strong woman. I've never had one boyfriend who wasn't bound and determined to marry me. Not one. And I'm convinced it was because they KNEW that I had the strength to leave....and not only was I strong enough to leave, I WOULD leave.

Men know when a woman KNOWS she has options. The minute you start thinking Mr. Boyfriend is the only suitable person you'll be able to get...GOOD LUCK trying to demand any respect.

Women also keep thinking 'if I just spend one more year with him, he'll come around' - I think this is crazy. Because if he doesn't want to marry you, a year, two more, three years is not going to seal the deal. And earlier this year I read an article somewhere that said that when they asked Christian guys if the woman they were dating was the one they would marry, most said 'no'. This means they were just waiting around for someone better! So don't assume that a Christian man will not waste your time.

A confident woman does not need to give an ultimatum; the minute she says 'you know, it's clear we want different off our relationship so you can find a girl you'll want to marry' - I mean, if he's got the desire to marry you and is just wasting time, he'll snap to and buy you a ring right quickly. Robin even used this tactic on Dr. Phil lol...a couple months after she let him know that if marriage wasn't in the picture for them she was out, he proposed. (Ladies, if it worked on a psychologist lol ....[wheels in the brain turning])

And not one of friends who has come to the realization of her worth has ever had problems getting men to want to marry since! At first, they all thought I was crazy; but then, they realized I was never in unproductive relationships because of my confidence. Two broke up with their four-year boyfriends (I never agreed with that either; before comming round, one friend actually called home to her mother complaining about how unrealistic my 1.5 year rule was...only to have her mother turn around and tell her that I was absolutely correct), one broke up with her 5 year boyfriend, and two of them got married to other men, both of whom knew they were going to marry them in less than 1 year. And the other friend is currently in a productive relationship.

It works!

Blessings

[73. Jethro said the following at 5:58 PM on Oct 24:]

73

Marci,

Quote "The Bible makes it clear that individuals are to divorce only in cases of adultery"

So does that mean if I took to beating my wife on a daily basis she wouldn't have the right to divorce me as long as I remained faithful? I mean adultery is the only reason right?

Quote: "Most of the divorces that occur happen because people (one or both) are selfish and lack committment"

Have you got any objective evidence for this or is it just your opinion? One carries far more weight than the other.

I note also Marci that you're very very forceful in your responses. Can I suggest that you adopt a less dictatorial tone and recognise that you in fact don't have all the answers or the sole right to interpret the Bible. Finally, if you could stop littering your posts with capital letters for emphasis that would be appreciated, it's REALLY annoying.

[74. Jess said the following at 7:44 PM on Oct 24:]

74

Marci,
I didn't mean that I was offended by your tone, just that it might make it hard for people to take you seriously sometimes. If they can find fault with your delivery, it's easier to dimiss the content.
Anyway, It's clear you think you are right on this, and I have nothing more to say.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me personally.

[75. Louise said the following at 9:11 PM on Oct 24:]

75

Marci, you show me in the Bible where it says that divorced people are selfish and lack commitment.

And I never said I was like Christ.

Not that you would actually know what He was like...not with the nasty tone of your posts.

[76. Leah said the following at 10:38 PM on Oct 24:]

76

Marci, I would point out that what Jess says "If they can find fault with your delivery, it's easier to dimiss the content." Often I find you so rude (normally to others rather than myself) that I virtually ignore what you have to say. Often I agree with you, but I still ignore it because you've been so rude to the person.

I agree that divorce is only appropriate in the case of unfaithfulness. The bible makes that clear. But you should not have snapped at the lady who suggested you may one day end up divorced. You do now know your future, and that may be true. Keep your words sweet, in case you may need to eat them one day ;)

It's good to tell the nake truth as you see it without sugar coating it, but I seem to recall many times in the bible when Jesus says to be loving! You may think you're being loving by telling the truth, but you are not doing it lovingly.

To those who have discussed the nature of submission/mens' leadership in dating relationships: I do believe that men should lead, and I think that, to a certain degree, the woman should submit. Key words being "to a certain degree". I believe Jess was wise when she said she considered and weighed her boyfriend's opinion, then agreed with him and went along with that. That is good. Obviously, there should not be such a large degree of submission- ie. you're not obliged to up and relocate if your boyfriend has to move to another state for work, however a wife is. Just like you don't have to submit to your boyfriend's choice of church, however a wife does. (NB: I don't believe dating couples have to attend the same church. Engaged and married couples, yes). So, as girlfriends, we should still display a submissive nature, but this does not mean submitting to him on everything, or being walked over and not voicing your opinion.

[77. Louise said the following at 8:31 AM on Oct 25:]

77

Okay, folks, I have a few questions here.

I do not mean to be confrontational...I would like honest opinions please.

What does a woman do if she is not by nature submissive?

A few years ago I had a boyfriend tell me "There isn't a submissive bone in your body."

And indeed, there probably isn't!

Now...if the answer it that non -submissive women should stay single, that to me is an acceptable answer.

I personally like being single and I like living alone.

But...Boundless says if you aren't called to celibate service, you should get married.

What if a woman isn't submissive and a man isn't a leader?

And yes, everyone I know what it says in the Bible, but what if someone just isn't that way?

[78. Marci said the following at 8:31 AM on Oct 25:]

78

Jethro and Jess,

A new article was posted on Boundless today called "Obey your Pastor?"

I think it's worth a read. Certainly holds more weight than anything I say.

Jethro: Both you and Jess seem to have interpreted my post differently. Jess thinks it might make it hard for people to take me seriously; you think it seems forceful.

Neither was my intention. Thank you both for your feedback, as maybe I do need to consider whether my tone might cause people to ignore what I say. I don't want to be artificial on this site either...so this will take some thinking about....

Also Jethro: I'm not in Bible school, and I don't assume I'm an authority on the Bible. But I do think any Christian can get into dangerous areas if they ignore what the Bible says because it's inconvenient. For instance, in the situation you described with a woman being abused - do you think I'm heartless??? My suggestion would be for this woman to separate from her husband; this would allow her to seek protection from an abusive situation *and* pray that God will do a work in his heart. Through prayer and counseling, it is possible for God to restore the relationship.

In my view, divorcing here (which is not Biblically sanctioned) seems like telling God that he doesn't have the power to aid the situation.

My comment about one or both being selfish and lacking committment is one that most marriage counselors I've encountered support. I say one or both to encompass situation where a spouse is married to an absolute jerk, but who is trying her/his best. If they divorce you against your will, I admit you're stuck. Hence, "one or both."

Did either of you note my comment that the reason I feel this strongly about these topics is because I'm in youth leadership? I responded primarily out of seeing many people in similar situations who ended up having sex out of wedlock - of course I feel strongly; I don't want anyone else to go through the pain I've been seeing again and again of late.

Blessings to you both

[79. Marci said the following at 8:39 AM on Oct 25:]

79

Louise,

Please read carefully. You said "that divorced people are selfish and lack commitment"

But I acutally said: "The Facts? Most of the divorces that occur happen because people (one or both) are selfish and lack committment."

Please note that I said "one" or "both" to encompass situations where either the husband or wife is married to a person who demands a divorce and/or just won't work at the situation.

I *did not" say that divorced people are selfish and lack committment. There are some cases where the fault rests on both partners; but for some, their spouse just wouldn't cooperate.

I actually know two divorced ladies in the later category, and I'm sympathetic with both their cases; they both got raw deals.

[sigh]

Blessings

[80. Louise said the following at 8:46 AM on Oct 25:]

80

Marci, I don't know what marriage counselors you deal with, but I do not agree that most counselors believe that divorced people are selfish or lacking in committment.

But hey, ma'am, go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel superior.

[81. Carrie said the following at 8:57 AM on Oct 25:]

81

Louise,
I feel your pain as I have been labeled "aggressive" and "stubborn". Having a the man lead, or anyone else other than me, goes against every grain in my body.
It's called sanctification. It is hard. A marriage is supposed to be a picture of the Gospel. The man is to imitate Christ and the woman is called to imitate the Church.
How does the Church submit to Christ?
I'm learning more about that one everyday. The Church continues to fall short of the standard set for her, but Christ continually and unconditionally loves her. He is constantly beckoning her to return to Him. He demonstrates love.
Now, no man is Jesus, but he spends his life trying to imitate Him. So, he's constantly learning new and different things.
I wish there was a simple, pat answer because my life would be much easier. First, learn how to submit to Christ. Then you can be better equipped to honor the men in your life. Note, I said "honor" and not "submit". As noted here on Boundless (and my pastor has said the same exact thing), the only man you submit to is your husband. I think the dating/engagement process would be a time of learning what submission to your husband would look like. Once you get married, you begin to practice this -- as submitting to Christ Himself. I don't think anyone ever does it perfectly, but hopefully everyone is learning how to do it better.
If in dating/engagement you aren't supposed to pretend like you're married, then you shouldn't really do this during your single days either. I'm constantly learning that I don't have to "prove myself" to any male interests I have. My goal right now is to honor Christ. I'm just praying very hard that some male specimen out there recognizes that and wants to walk beside me in this endeavor.
Learning about what Scripture has to say about the purple harlot has helped me out a lot. I want to be the virgin, not the purple harlot. It's tough, but Christ is with me through it all.

[82. Marci said the following at 9:02 AM on Oct 25:]

82

Leah,

There's a difference between being rude and being honest (which is often considered rude in our pc-dominated cultures).

This is probably the most emphatic I've ever been on a thread, because I don't want others to experience the pains I've been seeing lately...

But where else would you say I've been rude? Can you remember a specific thread?

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually interested in what you think is rude.

That being said, I will say that the most beneficial people in my life have been those who say things that at first may have upset me, but I later relized were true. So I guess I've taken the same approach in my dealings with others.

I think honesty is undervalued. Even if I don't agree with what someone says, if I feel their relating the truth as they see it, I'll respect them. Not many people have the guts for that these days....

I'm also study literature. I think because I've seen how words can obscure truths, I'm more prone to being blunt than I ever have been in my life. I guess people have reactions to what they study, and I've been going through one of late.

I don't think all truths are lovely...so I've never packaged them...

But since there's such a split between people who think I'm funny (BDB), hard to take seriously (Jess), and rude (you)....I may try to package my answers.

I've tried this a few times before on the site - and people misunderstood me more than ever. At least here, it seemed like people were reacting against what I was saying....not thinking I was saying something I wasn't...(except mostly Louise)

I really, really do feel that Louise intended to be mean-spirited in her comment. And I'm interested that you don't dub her comment rude....but you think my comments are rude even though most times I'm arguing for a concept I believe is Biblical. But my experience on Boundless is that someone is always offended when the Bible presents an inconvenient truth...how can I ever stop this? I don't mind if people disagree with what I say...but if people think my intention is to be rude, that's different.

I think that you, too, misunderstood what I was saying about divorce. I wasn't lashing out at divorced people. Please see my recent comment to Louise; hope this clarifies what I say. There are good reasons to keep one's words sweet...but I don't think misrepresenting the Bible would be a good way to compensate for the chance that a divorce could happen in the future.

I will, though, consider what sugar coating to put on my words so they go down with ease (I guess I just figure, just take Buckley's - it works!)

Blessings

[83. Louise said the following at 9:15 AM on Oct 25:]

83

Carrie, I am not in "pain."

I am curious.

I still stand by my opinion that some people are just better off single.

[84. Marci said the following at 9:28 AM on Oct 25:]

84

Louise,

You said: "Marci, I don't know what marriage counselors you deal with, but I do not agree that most counselors believe that divorced people are selfish or lacking in committment."

But I actually said: "My comment about one or both being selfish and lacking committment is one that most marriage counselors I've encountered support."

There *is* a difference between generalizing all divorced people (which I did not do; you're not being honest about what I said) and saying "one or both," which indicates that there are cases where one spouse is terrible and uncooperative. Which would make this spouse lacking in committment towards the marital relationship, and thus, selfish.

Please argue fairly. If I fail to argue fairly, I'm sure someone will call me on it. But when you misrepresent what someone says...especially when they've pointed it out to you numerous times...it's dishonest and seems *intentionally* insulting!

Blessings to you

[85. Tami said the following at 9:58 AM on Oct 25:]

85

Louise - In answer to your question, I'll use myself as an example. Not that I'm some ideal, but I struggle through that question myself. (FYI, I'm not married yet, as you may have gathered if you've read other comments I've made, so this is a little theoretical at this point.)

First off, I don't think a woman is required to submit to a guy when he's simply her boyfriend. Be respectful, yes. But not follow everything he says blindly, which I fear is often the definition of "submit" in some men's minds.

Secondly, I tend to only make it past two or three dates with guys that I honestly respect, so that cuts the "do I submit?" questions down to a minimum for me. (Also cuts the number of dates down, but I digress. ;)

I test how well he leads in the small things, and then progressively move on to bigger things. I would only take his lead on huge life-goal-oriented stuff if I was pretty close to having rings on my finger.

Generally I can sniff out the guys I'd never be able to "submit to" pretty quickly. If a guy I just met tells me, "Don't go to grad school" or "Don't take that job," I'm out of there. (And I have been.) That guy has control issues, and if he's like that after a couple dates, I can only imagine what being married to him would be like!

But if I've known the guy for a while, and our relationship is serious and headed towards marriage, I would take his words into consideration if I knew they came from a good place in his heart, where he was looking out for me and planning for our future. And if I prayed and still felt strongly, I'd have another discussion with him about it, and see how we could work together on it. If it really was a dealbreaker, I choose God's direction over the guy.

So basically, when I consider the "submission thing" with regard to "can I do it?" the questions I ask myself are, "Do I really respect this guy's wisdom? Could I see myself following the lead of *this particular man*? If I'm going to be following his lead, can I trust that he will look out for me, too? Does he value who God has uniquely made me as a person, and encourage me?" If the answers to those questions are "no," then I don't think I can be committed to that particular man. Which, to me, is what marriage is... a commitment to respect, love, and honor one particular man, and serve God together.

And I know it can be done. I know of many very strong, intelligent Christian women who have very wise husbands who love and respect them very much. They work *together,* with him taking the lead.

If you respect the man, and are willing to respond to his leadership, it makes it a lot easier to follow his lead. If the guy isn't strong enough to lead well in the first place, I would probably not consider him marriage material for myself.

[86. JMarie said the following at 12:10 PM on Oct 25:]

86

Louise,
There have been times when I think you only hang around Boundless to heckle the bloggers.

Marci,
There have been times I've thought you came across as abrasive or arrogant.

And yet, with both of you, there have been many times when I thought you provided great insight or a needed, unique perspective. I appreciate that and think The Line would lose something good if you stopped posting. Thank you for keeping folks on their toes!

However, as has been addressed here before, I think we could all benefit from taking a moment to be sure we understand what someone is saying before we respond, to re-evaluate our tone, and ask to if our comment adds something necessary to the discussion.

Louise - on the issue of whether some women just aren't meant to submit and some men aren't meant to lead, I've had the same question myself. Could it be that the woman has issues with all authority that needs to be dealt with between her and God, or that she just hasn't found a man she respects enough? Perhaps God intends to grow the man and woman by putting them in roles that don't come naturally? I don't know, but I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on the matter (though at this point I'm not sure it's on topic).

[87. BDB said the following at 1:11 PM on Oct 25:]

87

Marci wrote:

>>That being said, I will say that the most beneficial people in my life have been those who say things that at first may have upset me, but I later relized were true.<<

Some personality types can handle that better than others. If it's not done gently, it will still end the relationship. Though, indeed, the individual may decide that the honest feedback was right and adjust their behavior in the future. They will end up respecting the person who was honest with them. They just won't try to reconcile a friendship with the person being honest.

I've seen it both ways. There are people who've come to me very upset that they made a lot of bad choices and none of their "friends" ever said anything - so they ended those friendships. But the same individuals end friendships with people who ARE honest (e.g. "How dare they judge me!"). Sometimes you lose either way.

But I do think Marci is very articulate and a keen observer of the people around her.

[88. nikki said the following at 1:46 PM on Oct 25:]

88

Hi Louise, I know several people have already addressed your questions about submission earlier, but I'll give it a shot.

Actually we are all called to submit to something or someone...regardless of age, gender or status. We are all required to follow laws, both civil and moral ones. The Bible tells us all to submit to one another. Submission is a necessary virtue that we should all practice...it's closely related to humility and gentleness. Phillippians 2 also teaches us that Christ was the ultimate example of submission, "making himself nothing," and that we are to follow Christ's example of valuing others above ourselves. He wasn't only speaking to women here! Clearly, submission is commanded of all Christians. This lesson needs to be taught! Too often it is the women that are focused on in sermons about submission, and it is overlooked that all believers need to be constantly in submission.

But there's an extra reason that women and wives are to submit (in marriage and within the church - there are no other restrictions). That's because of what marriage points to. The wife is the symbol of the body of believers, and her husband represents God and His Son. When a woman doesn't have an attitude of submission to her husband, it is a picture of insubordination to God. This is why divorce is so antithetical to Christian principles: it is a graphic picture of God turning his back on us, or of us abandoning God. One of the purposes of marriage is to reflect the relationship between God and Man.
Husbands, in the role of Christ, are commanded to lead, and love sacrificially. Wives are called to submit and respect. But don't go thinking that men don't have to respect and women don't have to love. It's only the issues we struggle with that are mentioned here. Women don't, on a whole, need to be told to love their husbands because they generally do. Husbands, likewise, don't generally have problems with respecting their wives. When Paul gave that command, he wasn't leaving things out because they are not required; he left them out because they are assumed. Husbands need to submit to their wives on regular occasions...because it is what all believers are commanded to do with others.

So the bottom line is that all Christians need to be cultivating an attitude of humility, submission and deference to others. Women, because of their role in marriage and in the church, have an added layer of command. But it is already something we should be doing. Hope that kind of answers the questions in your mind.

[89. Tami said the following at 2:07 PM on Oct 25:]

89

WRT what BDB said, it's just unfortunate that some people feel the need to be unduly harsh while they're being honest. Honesty and caring is hard to hear underneath harsh tones of voice.

We need to hear the truth from others, and sometimes it takes a little time of reflection in order to accept that truth. We can respect that it was probably hard for them to be so honest with us.

Then again, some people just say what they want to say, right off the top of their heads, without regard to how someone else might take it, and never understand why someone might be put off by their way of saying things. They take the person's backing off as a sign of his or her further weakness of character. That kind of attitude is hard to respect, as it indicates a lack of consideration of others' feelings, and yes I will evaluate my relationship with someone who consistently acts like that.

[90. BDB said the following at 2:47 PM on Oct 25:]

90

Louise wrote:

>>What does a woman do if she is not by nature submissive?<<

Elisabeth Elliot has some great books. She's written 28 as I recall, but still believes in femininity. You may want to try her title, "Let Me Be a Woman."

After taking several months to think about it and observe people, I accept EE's contention that when women take initiative, the result is chaos. All of the multi-year run-on relationships I observe around me have women taking the initiative with their boyfriends. I'm not sure that is the same as Biblical submission in decision-making (such as jobs, school, etc.) But the spiritual principle is similar.

It has been my observation that if a man won't lead in a relationship, usually he didn't initiate the relationship, either.

[91. Leah said the following at 7:54 PM on Oct 25:]

91

Marci, there have been many times I've cringed and thought "you could have said that much nicer and still gotten your point across", but I"m not about to go looking for all the threads. If you want though, I can make a comment every time you do it from now on so you know :P

Now please, don't accuse me of being PC. I hate political correctness with a passion, as anyone who reads my blog would know. I do not equate honesty with rudeness. I love for people to be honest, but you can be gentle and loving about it instead of abrupt and offensive.

Louise- you ask "And yes, everyone I know what it says in the Bible, but what if someone just isn't (submissive)?"

The blunt answer is: that doesn't matter. You still have to be submissive. What if I am simply not an obedient person? Does that excuse me from obeying God's commands? We are born sinful. That means we are born with tendencies to do what is wrong and what God does not like. That means we must correct ourselves.

That goes for men who are not leaders and women who are not submissive.

Now, if you feel you're called to celibacy, then by all means, this doesn't apply to you! But if not, you should get married. I was at a camp recently, on the topic of "love sex and marriage", where the speaker said "the man does not have a choice when it comes to being the leader. He is the leader, whether he likes it or not. The question is whether he's a good leader or not."

Now, in regards to you and what your boyfriend (or ex-boyfriend) said, you may have a faulty idea of what submission is. I think a lot of it comes from respecting your boyfriend/husband. If we respect them then that should automatically lead to submission. Just like we respect our parents and submit to them. Were you submissive to your parents? If so, then the idea that you "don't have a submissive bone in your body" is quite false! Now, if you really aren't a submissive person, perhaps you should work on being submissive. I know I really have to! There have been times when my boyfriend has said or done something that, while I mightn't like it, is not wrong or bad. And I just bite my tongue. Not so that he can walk all over me (he doesn't), but to show respect for him and his leadership. Like I said in an earlier post, girlfriends are not required as much submission as wives, but I do think we should demonstrate some.

So, in summary, women (especially wives) must be submissive. Even if we are not submissive people, we should work to correct that in ourselves. This doesn't mean you can't disagree with him, and can't speak up on your behalf. But it does mean that ultimately he has the final say. If he loves you as God commands, he will take your thoughts into serious consideration.

[92. BDB said the following at 12:54 AM on Oct 26:]

92

Tami wrote:

>>They take the person's backing off as a sign of his or her further weakness of character. <<

Oh my, I'm dealing with that attitude with someone right now. Or at least pondering how I'm going to deal with it. I need to calm down so that I don't "accidentally" start reeling off a list of all her broken work and personal relationships, and point out that her approach is the common thread. I'm sure that there's more wreckage that I don't know about. So in the mean time I need to pray for God's timing and some words that are seasoned with grace.

[93. Abigail said the following at 6:29 AM on Oct 26:]

93

I am glad I didn't get married to my boyfriend within one year of dating! I think this "one year" business is great for some people, but it is just dangerous to imply that longer relationships are necessarily wrong. I have been with my boyfriend for 2 years. We had six months together, then a heartwrenching year separated by thousands of miles, and now we are six months past that. A lot of things are coming up as "issues" now because he was so intent on impressing me during those first six months of dating that he failed to really consider what he wanted/needed out of marriage (and if I was the right person for those "needs"). He wanted to get engaged before he left for that year, so it isn't like he wasn't willing to commit at that point. I felt like it was too soon and we were too young to make that decision. My parents thought we hadn't known each other long enough to know if we should marry. They were right. As heartbreaking as it is to be considering all the options after spending 2 years in a relationship, I think it is a lot better than the alternative -- wondering why in the world you got married!
After watching plenty of married and engaged couples, it seems to me that every marriage faces a time of extreme crisis about the relationship, where one or both people really question whether it is the best thing to be married to the other. This happens before or after marriage. I am glad that we are not married with this happening, because we can fully explore all the things we want to think about. If we were married we would just have to bury these thoughts. Now we can deal with these, and if we still decide to get married we will know with all certainty that we are making the right decision and have the answers for doubts/concerns, etc.

I think it is very risky to marry someone you haven't been in a relationship with for at least a year, but I wouldn't make a hard and fast rule to call "God's Will" like you guys have done here on Boundless.

[94. K said the following at 7:55 AM on Oct 26:]

94

I have to say that although Marci is upfront in her comments I don't perceive her to be rude.

Secondly I know things can come across differntly if not done face to face but from what I have read the motivation behind her comments don't seem to be said just to be harsh but because she has seen ppl go through it and is passionate not to let others suffer the same - I really don't see what is wrong with that. Also she can only comment based on what you have written in a post.

Finally whoever said and supports this notion of she may one day be divorced? What kind of statement is that for a christain to make? Would Jesus really say that to someone? I see no need for it in a christain's vocab.
It is neither a fact or the truth, God knows the plan he has for a person's life and they are good.
And also, if you read Paul's letters he was very direct.

[95. Leah said the following at 8:47 AM on Oct 26:]

95

Marci- the only post of Louise's that I read was her asking about submission.

I just went and re-read the exchange between the two of you, and the first post I encountered that sounded remotely snappy or rude or whatever was yours, when you snapped at her ("INAPPROPRIATE!") for suggesting you might one day end up divorced. It was a fair enough suggestion, it might happen to any of us. In fact, I found your very first post on this thread kind of rude.

Besides, it wasn't your replies to Louise that I was talking about, it was your reply to Jess. So I don't know where my opinion of Louise's comments come in to it. You certainly shouldn't be making judgments about me based upon it.

And like I said before, (hasn't been posted yet, hopefully it will soon), this has nothing to do with my opinion of honesty. Be honest, by all means. But don't use that as a licence to be rude. The most honest people I know are also the gentlest, kindest, most loving people I know. I can't say any of those three things about you. You might have loving intentions, but you are not being loving or treating the person lovingly. It is possible to be honest and kind, loving and gentle.

[96. Tami said the following at 10:03 AM on Oct 26:]

96

BDB -- believe me, I know that's tough. I will pray for you, and I mean that.

[97. Louise said the following at 11:33 AM on Oct 26:]

97

To everyone who responded to my submission question, thank you for your honest responses.

[98. Marci said the following at 3:29 PM on Oct 26:]

98

Leah and K,

First Leah (K, the words I have for you are further down on the page):

If I had told someone that they were rude, I would defend it with specific examples. I would care enough to do this. In my experience, people who are genuinely trying to correct others won't leave things in the realm of the vague - we all know that vague responses are less useful.

I find it interesting that even though you say that you thought my first post on this thread was rude, you don't give specific examples.

My gut feeling is that you're concerned that if you raise specific examples, lots of people will chime in and say 'but that's not rude.' Whereas right now, you can attack my character without providing proof for anyone that it's justified. Why say you think that even my first post is an example - but not give specific examples? I'm sorry, but it really is starting to look like you're deliberately undermining my voice on Boundless.

At least, my response to you here tells you *specifically* why I think what I'm thinking. And - not to close down discourse by my response - feel free to post specific examples in response. That would be useful.

Now K:

Thank you for providing an alternative reading of my posts in response to Leah's suggestion that they are rude. I can't tell you how much that meant to me, because I've never once written something here in an attempt to be hurtful. To me, being rude is intentional. Thank you everything contained in my post, as evident through your observation that my main thing is not to see more people experience the hurts I've been witnessings.

God really used you to encourgage me. Thank you for being a willing vessel.

Blessings

[99. Marci said the following at 3:34 PM on Oct 26:]

99

Leah,

You say: "but you are not being loving or treating the person lovingly. It is possible to be honest and kind, loving and gentle".

Now you're judging my intentions?!? Do you notice that usually when I say things that I think might be the case, I use words such as "seems" or "appears" so as to avoid judging the person outright? I've also found that this method leaves room for people to post a response and clarify, because this wording shows that I think I may be seeing something, but I'm not sure.

But by you're wording, you're arguing that I am not treating the peson lovingly. You're not even leaving room for the possiblity you might be wrong.

Interesting.

[100. Leah said the following at 7:49 AM on Oct 28:]

100

Marci,
I was never judging your intentions. You will note that I said "You might have loving intentions, but you are not being loving or treating the person lovingly." How on earth is that judging your intentions? That's judging the result of what you do, not the intentions.

I also would have thought that "the first post on this thread" would be specific enough, but seeing as it isn't, I'll go into further explanation. Your use of !?! when asking OBEWAN a question sounds almost ridiculing of them. Your use of !?! and caps when talking to Jess also sounded ridiculing, and as if you were yelling at her. (Let's face it, caps are a globally understood form of cyber-yelling). I mean, even Jethro said "you're very very forceful in your responses. Can I suggest that you adopt a less dictatorial tone and recognise that you in fact don't have all the answers or the sole right to interpret the Bible. Finally, if you could stop littering your posts with capital letters for emphasis that would be appreciated, it's REALLY annoying."

If anyone here is judging intentions, it's you, when you say "My gut feeling is that you're concerned that if you raise specific examples, lots of people will chime in and say 'but that's not rude.' Whereas right now, you can attack my character without providing proof for anyone that it's justified." Actually, I gave you a reason for not getting specific examples, if you actually read my posts. I also offered to point it out in future, an offer I note you ignored.

Deliberately undermining your voice? Why would I do that, unless I genuinely disagreed with you? I'm just as qualified to say you hang around just to undermine my voice. It's a silly claim to make.

[1. Ted Slater said the following at 1:16 PM on Oct 22:]

1

I never understood that "fish or cut bait" saying. Must be a Southern thing. ;-)

The title of the piece you reference sounds eerily similar to a blog I wrote back in March: From "Hi" to "I Do" in a Year. Hey, someone stole my title!

[2. Louise said the following at 1:23 PM on Oct 22:]

2

If it worked for you, Mr. Brown, it was right FOR YOU.

As for me, I got engaged after fifteen months of dating. When one of my future sisters-in-law received the news that we had only known each other for fifteen months, her jaw dropped.

And she's a marriage minded Catholic!

Anyhow, I would be interested in hearing the stories of others....how long did you date before you got engaged/married and if the time frame was longer than a year, do you think you and your subsequent marriage suffered?

[3. Christina said the following at 1:41 PM on Oct 22:]

3

its not necessarily the marriage that suffers so much as the pre-marital relationship in an extended dating relationship (per the article)

Me, I've known a guy for year now and we only started talking/seeing eachother/dating for the last month. He's crazy about me and has no intention of having a dating relationship last longer than several months. He's intentionally pursuing me and if things go well, marriage could be right around the bend...

But nothing is certain yet...

[4. OBEWAN said the following at 1:43 PM on Oct 22:]

4

That advice does not hold water for me regarding college students. I know plenty who waited the whole 4 years at different Christian colleges and then got married and went on to serve full time on the mission field. What about the guy in the Bible that had to wait for 7 years? In fact, he did it twice - 14 years.

[5. connie reagan said the following at 1:58 PM on Oct 22:]

5

I'm an old married lady with adult children.

You know, all this is is extrabiblical advice. I think it is silly to make such a rule, and I would think my children foolish in the extreme to hold themselves to it. In many cases, a year is plenty, and the advice would be good. But in the end all it is is advice, and I can easily think of circumstances when it would be bad advice.

Let us all be careful of putting ourselves under extrabiblical bondage to "rules of men."

[6. erin said the following at 2:02 PM on Oct 22:]

6

Louise,

My husband and I dated for 3 months before getting engaged, and we were married by 11 months. A few people expressed surprised that we got engaged so quickly, but from the beginning both my husband and I were intentional in our communication, and we each knew the other was interested in pursuing a relationship that could lead to marriage, and not just a casual fling. We also were a long distance couple, and I can definitely testify that being apart only intensified our desire for each other when we were together.

I agree with Christina that the marriage won't suffer necessarily from a couple who has a prolonged dating relationship, but from my observations of friends, it does seem to cause added problems and temptations (I loved the phrase "not acting married before your married" that Croft uses).

[7. Motte said the following at 2:17 PM on Oct 22:]

7

I understand that people have different opinions on this issue. But one of the main points Scott makes is that the long you date, the more prone you are to sinning physically.

No reasonable person would argue that physical temptation does not increase — a lot — the longer two people date who are attracted to each other and who grow to love each other. Sadly, statistics and anecdotal experience both indicate that even the vast majority of Christian couples who spend time in dating relationships of any length, sin physically.

I've yet to see any of the "From 'Hi' to 'I do' in One Year" detractors address this inconvenient truth of long-dating relationships. Is it simply a matter of self-control and accountability? Or do you believe a certain amount of sinning physically just comes with the territory of any dating relationship?

[8. Becky said the following at 2:22 PM on Oct 22:]

8

Now, as far as i can recall, the article never purported this to be a hard and fast RULE, it merely pointed out that after couples are together much more than a year without getting married they are suseptible to alot of sins that they could avoid by getting married. With this logic, it makes more sense, if you are going to marry said person anyways, to marry them sooner as opposed to later so you can avoid falling into these sins. because Even if you do end up getting married later down the road, that sin was still displeasing to God.
Sure mabye there are people who waited four years until they were done school to marry and later went on to the mission field. That doesn't disprove anything the article said. That doesn't mean that they didn't sin by 'acting married', or at least struggle unnessesarily with the temptation to do so.
As for Jacob Waiting seven years in the Bible, i'm going to guess that that's alot different. The culture was different. He was not in a dating relationship with Rachel exposing himself to the temptation to act married to her emotionally or physically, he was working for her father.

[9. Loris said the following at 2:25 PM on Oct 22:]

9

I got engaged after dating my boyfriend for three weeks (we'd been best friends for the seven months before that)...and married him six months to the day after we started dating. In our case, I think we might have benefited from waiting a few months longer, but not because of our relationship. When we married, I had only met my in-laws once, and the face they had shown to me then was very different than the one I saw after I married. If I'd had longer to observe them, that would have affected my decision. Also, our entire engagement was long-distance and therefore my husband could barely participate in the wedding plans. I would have liked to do more of the planning with him.
Still, I believe that everything happened in God's timing and in my own limited knowledge, if I had had more information before saying "I do," I might not have married my wonderful man.

[10. Justin said the following at 2:26 PM on Oct 22:]

10

Let us all be careful of putting ourselves under extrabiblical bondage to "rules of men."

Excellent! I could run a blog for years on just that theme alone.

The problem is one year is such an arbitrary length of time. Frankly, I struggle to remmain pure after about 30 minutes into the relationship.

But I guess, it is something to think about, which is ultimately the point of this blog.

[11. Carrie said the following at 2:48 PM on Oct 22:]

11

Just from a wedding planning standpoint, "Hi to I do in a year" is a little much. In my head I have a timeline of a total of 18 months. I really don't think I could plan a wedding in less than six months. I certainly couldn't know the groom well enough to pick up on all of his non-verbal communication and tell when I'm being annoying in less than six months. (6+6=12)
I understand the principle behind this article (avoiding sin and temptation), but I don't necessarily agree with the method. There are WAY too many exceptions to the rule: sickness and immigration laws are coming to mind.
There are two friends of mine that have been married less than a year, both of them younger than me. They ended up shifting all of their wedding and engagement plans ahead 6 months to a year. All of their friends at (a conservative, Christian)college thought it was a fantastic idea and exclaimed "finally!" when they got engaged. All of their friends in their respective hometowns thought they were getting married too young. Six months after the wedding, they no regrets. They dated for over a year and were engaged for just under a year.
I went to a wedding earlier this year where the relationship from "Hi" to "I do" was less than 6 months. They lived in different states. It was very difficult to see the other on a regular basis, but they talked everyday.
The principle: avoid sin.
The method: it varies.

[12. Canadian Boy said the following at 3:07 PM on Oct 22:]

12

So, essentially, because a longer relationship leads to a greater temptation to sin, the reason to get married is so that you won't be sinning?

[13. Elisabeth said the following at 3:17 PM on Oct 22:]

13

Next month will be the 1 year anniversary of the date I started dating my husband. That's right--We met at the end of July 2006, started dating at the end of November 2006, got engaged the beginning of February 2007 and got married at the end of June 2007. Just thinking about it makes my head spin, but it was all God's timing. If I had any longer to plan the wedding I would have gone mad--the details and questions about desires and taste and order were endless! The struggle to stay pure was tough also. However we are now happily married and I don't think I would change a thing!
I tend to side with the people who think this is good advice to keep in mind because my brother just got married also. He met his wife quite a few years ago, and (because of age) they just got engaged right before I did. Also because of age and maturity they decided to wait until next year to get married, but because of sin they got married a few weeks ago.
It's hard to say that you will be fine with the temptation until you are in the situation and even then a lot depends on your significant other.

[14. Marci said the following at 3:17 PM on Oct 22:]

14

Obewan,

How do you know those 4 year long couples were sexually pure when they married?!? The whole point of the mandate to "get married or break up" is that people in relationships for this long are prone to sexual sin.

The point is NOT that they got married! The point is = did they honor God with their purity during this time? Most of the couples I know that were together 4 years or longer really messed up sexually...

We are not designed by God to fall in love only to be forced to restrain the desire to consumate the relationship for four years or more. Four year relationships go against how humans are designed.

If you were to go to an unsaved person and say 'I'm in a relationship and I want to have sex with this individual, but I'm waiting for four years because I want to stay pure' ...you'd better believe you'd be chastised for being unrealistic. Even people who aren't Christians accept that by a certain point, sexual intimacy has got a part to play in a healthy loving relationship ...they may wait till college is over to marry, but believe you me, they're not abstaining.

If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to exclude college students from this mandate - I don't care what they are studying. On a college campus - even Christian ones - there is often a lot of impure sexual behavior going on. I would argue that this perhaps makes is even HARDER for college couples to avoid thinking 'well, if all the heathen are doing full out having sex, threesomes, and whatever else, we're not sinning if we make out but don't grab anything' which quickly becomes 'well, we're grabbing stuff but no penetration is going on' which quickly becomes?.....!?!!? [Imagination has filled in the blanks]

LET'S FACE IT: a lot of people have more respect for getting an education than for obeying Biblical guidelines for relationships. Without saying it, most people would rather mess up sexually than mess up educationally.And THAT is unfortunate.

Blessings

[15. Marci said the following at 3:25 PM on Oct 22:]

15

Motte said: "I've yet to see any of the "From 'Hi' to 'I do' in One Year" detractors address this inconvenient truth of long-dating relationships. Is it simply of matter of self-control and accountability? Or do you believe a certain amount of sinning physically just comes with the territory of any dating relationship?"

WELL-SAID! I think most folks really do believe your last statement is true...so glad you hit the nail on the head.

Blessings

[16. J.T. said the following at 3:25 PM on Oct 22:]

16

I have a question: If we are supposed to go from "Hi" to "I do" in a year, does this mean we should exclude all members of the opposite sex that we have know for some time in our search for a spouse?

[17. Jethro said the following at 3:46 PM on Oct 22:]

17

Actually I think couples should get married after 6 months. A whole year is way to long and doubles the chances of sinning. In fact, maybe 3 months would be better still....

Sorry, but according to the little blurb Croft is a lawyer and church elder, not a relationships expert. As someone else has also pointed out, 12 months is entirely arbitrary and there is no scriptural or scientific support for that particular timeline. I don't think I'll be telling any friends to get married soon 'because Scott Croft says you should'.

[18. Miah said the following at 3:46 PM on Oct 22:]

18

Interesting conversation. This topic came up at dinner the other night, oddly enough.

Honestly, until a few months ago, I was on the side of 'one should date the person for a long time before getting engaged, then short engagement and get married.' My reasoning behind this was that you have the rest of your life to spend with this person, if they're the right one, why rush? But a few months ago, I started dating, and well, lets just say that sometimes one eats their words that they were so sure about...Now I am not sure what to think in all this. Yes, I agree that the physical temptation is huge and grows into a bigger monster the longer the relationship goes without the 'ability' to express that.

However, is marriage a 'simple way' of dodging sexual temptation? And is this the right approach, because marriage is something that is a lifetime commitment. It is the signing of a contract. And as someone brought up to me just a few minutes ago, how long would you wait so sign a contract that would change your life?

[19. Nicole said the following at 3:59 PM on Oct 22:]

19

I think one year is a long enough time to KNOW if you want to marry someone. Whether it's wise for a couple to actually get married within a one year timespan, however, could vary. For every peice of anecdotal evidence, I can think of many that support the other "view". I know many christian couples who rushed into marriage (less than one year) who are now divorced. Most of those were younger and in college when they married and probably married for the reasons that Croft oulines in the article. However, for every failure I also know of at least one success story. So, I wouuld have to agree with OBEWAN. This is advice, for most it's good, others maybe not.

[20. Kyu said the following at 4:00 PM on Oct 22:]

20

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. The one year guideline is way too long.

My ultimate goal was marriage and if God can confirm the relationship in the shortest time possible, I was willing to go with it. My parents entered into engagement on their second date [and they're still happily married now], and I knew you can't ever put God in a box for these things. Funny thing was, before I met my wife, I was telling my parents that God worked quickly for THEM, but who's to say God will work that quickly for ME?

My "Hi to I do" was 3 months. I'm not taking any credit for this. God simply brought two people together who not only were right for each other, but even their timing was a perfect match!

[21. Diane said the following at 4:13 PM on Oct 22:]

21

My husband and I started dating in April, got engaged that December, and were married the following August. Looking back, I think that was almost too long even. The longer we were together, the harder it became to resist temptation physically, and our emotional intimacy was through the roof. And I've seen friends plan weddings in less than six months and still have beautiful weddings. I guess it all depends on where your priorities are.

Also, my husband and I were in school when we got married, and I actually think it's been easier to be married while in school than dating while in school. Lots of people finish school after they get married with no trouble.

That said, situations do vary, but I think that a year is a good guidline to follow in most circumstances. But it is only that: a guideline. And while this may be an extra-biblical guideline, remaining sexually pure is not. If having a short dating/engagement period helps a couple maintain sexual purity (as well as emotional purity), then to do so would definitely be following God's design for marriage.

[22. Becks said the following at 4:25 PM on Oct 22:]

22

Three friends of mine, all practising, chaste catholics went in less than a year from 'Hi' to 'I do'. And they are all divorced now! One marriage broke up only one month after the wedding.

Only one friend managed to get an annulment so far. So for the others, being catholic, it may well mean that they can NEVER MARRY AGAIN. Frankly, it may be easy to advocate a one-year rule if you follow a denomination that allows divorce, but if that's not the case, you better get to know each other for at least a year, which would mean 12 mths dating+6 mths engagement = 18 months at least(and Monsignor TG Morrow, author of 'Christian Courtship in an Oversexed World' advocates exactly that.)

Of course you will struggle with chastity. But, as one blogger eloquently put it, you will do that as soon as 30min into the relationship.

[23. Hannah C said the following at 4:33 PM on Oct 22:]

23

My question now is: What do you do if you know you want to marry the person you are dating, but because of circumstances (e.g., going to two different colleges), you can't? What would you suggest be done then? Or if the parties are between 18 and 20?

I suppose one could say that such situations come about only when people date when they shouldn't, because they can't get married in a year. But really, can you even say that? Sometimes relationships happen - unexpectedly - and they happen to be ones that could lead to marriage...just not within a year.

I would really like to see some opinions about this.

[24. Anna Marie said the following at 4:38 PM on Oct 22:]

24

So far, I have read some pretty valid points; and I can see both sides of the coin, so to speak. One aspect that was not touched in all of this are those of us committed Christian "singles" who are divorced and how a second marriage timing, etc. plays into all this. I am not someone to stir the pot, but the "fish or cut bait" topic has come up alot with me and my boyfriend lately...all because of me ;)

As a bit of backgroud, we are both 43 and each have biblical divorces (adultery & abandonment from our former spouses) after 11 years of marriage each. When we met we were both up front about our desire to "date to marry", etc. In some ways - primarily because of what we have experienced in our former marriages - I think to some extent, neither of us is racing down the isle, but I am the one that doesn't want to take the "slow boat to China" either! We have both worked hard (and continue to do so) to learn from our first marriage so that we can try to avoid the many pitfalls of second marriages (and there are many!) We have also attended a Christian Stepfamilies Conference (awesome!)

We met and began dating in November 2006, so we are coming upon our 1 year anniversary; I guess that's where my "fish or cut bait" attitude came from...and it doesn't help that my friends are starting it too...asking questions, etc. My boyfriend still has the "wait and see" approach...and although I agree with him to some extent (considering both of us still have a bit more to do), I know that he dated his former wife for 6 years before they married. I can tell you right now, that is not going to happen with me! (And his answer usually is something like "well...so you are telling me you wouldn't wait for the person that God has for you?" which is a very frustrating statement for me) Although marrying my former spouse after knowing him 9 months was a mistake (in my particular case), I am no longer happy "playing house" without more than an exclusive dating relationship with him (we have been dating exclusively since December 2006). We have a "long distance" relationship, but we keep it going through many phone calls, e-mails, etc. He lives only 30 miles away, however he's on call for his work alot so I only see him in person every other weekend - something neither of us likes, but unless I move, there's not much we can do about it, as his license/certification for work is only in his state, not mine. When he's here, we do everything together...attend church, family things, etc. When we date, a lot of it is "family dates" (hence my reference to "playing house" above) my son comes with us...mini golf, dinner, last weekend went to the pumpkin patch, etc. Although his former spouse would not have children, he loves them and has always wanted children. I have a son, 12, who has an incredible relationship with him (and not much of a relationship with my former spouse). It took me 2 years after my divorce to even want a relationship with anyone and I have come a long way in the trust department...I have allowed my son to get to know him, etc.! (That's huge for me, as I never let him even meet anyone else I have dated in the past.) As you might imagine with these dynamics...my son and I BOTH are in this pretty deep, as I believe my boyfriend is, as well. In our particular case, marriage will not be happening next month...however, I pray for more of a solid commitment from him (more than just the "wait and see approach" that I have gotten so far). For us...I would love to see us married next September...

Now that everything is on the table, I am interested to know...What are YOUR thoughts about this? ;)

[25. Jess said the following at 4:59 PM on Oct 22:]

25

After the "hi to i do" article came out, I discussed the idea with my boyfriend. We have been together for about 7 and a half months at the moment. We're quite obviously heading towards marriage, have both stated that as our goal and we work on issues in the relationship as they come up.
We have struggled sexually, quite a bit in fact. So I said to my boyfriend the other day, out of frustration really, "why don't we just hurry up and get married?".
Thankfully, I have a wise and loving man who explained to me why this wouldn't be the best option. He said that we don't know each other well enough to make that decision, that he's not mature enough, that I'm too young and that he didn't think it would be the right thing to do just because of temptation.
I must admit, the first three points didn't have much sticking power with me, but I asked him to explain the last one.
He said that he would like us to have sufficiently learnt self-control before we got married. He said that marrying out of sexual frustration might make one problem go away, but it wouldn't fix the issue in our hearts. Thanks to the grace of God, we are learning self-control and learning how to be content with where God has us now.
In addition to this, a lot of people in our Christian communities have counselled us to wait longer. My parents are happy with him, but still reccommend waiting one or two years to get engaged.
Actually, when we met with a preacher at our church earlier in the year, he suggested that this "marrying early" thing might be part of America's culture (we are in Australia). He said that while American literature on the topic is often good, it is usually very focused on short dating periods, and he encouraged us not to feel pressured by this. Do you concede that this is a possibility? I guess I'm on the boat with other people who say your advice is good for some, but it's a bit unfair to call it Biblical and say that everyone should follow this method.
I really respect my boyfriend and I trust his judgement on this. I know that God will work everything out in his perfect timing.

[26. Johnny said the following at 5:00 PM on Oct 22:]

26

J.T.,
The answer to your question should be "no." I think the point Scott was trying to make is that the length of an intentional marriage-potential relationship should be fairly quick. I don't think he is necessarily including time spent as "acquaintances" or "friends."

On another note, I don't believe there are (or should be) any literal, set-in-stone restrictions on length of time dating. We can use biblical principles as guidelines (as Scott has done), but I think creating any hard-fast "rules" would be overstepping our bounds. To me, what it boils down to is this: Is God being glorified through the progression of our relationship? If He is, then we know we're on the right track.

[27. KendraW said the following at 5:05 PM on Oct 22:]

27

My parents met and were married in under eight months. I have some friends who got engaged two weeks after meeting. Both my parents and these friends have been married for over thirty years.

More recently, my cousin met a gentleman back in late April and they are set to get married in December. So, right about eight months there. Another cousin and his wife were married within a year of meeting.

I agree that sexual purity is a good reason to avoid having a relationship drag on for too long. But different things work for different people.

JT - I don't think they mean it that way. It's a cute turn of phrase but I believe they mean that we should marry a person within a year of starting dating. That's my take anyways.

I figure I'll just trust in God's sense of timing in bringing the right person into my life and guiding us down the path of how long we should date before we get married.

[28. bob said the following at 5:14 PM on Oct 22:]

28

I think the general principle behind this idea is a good one, but I believe we need to be careful about specifying a particular time frame. I know people who would probably benefit from having more than a year to get to know their potential spouse better, and I know people who don't need anywhere near that long.

So before we make timelines for ourselves and others, I think we should realize that the proper timing will vary from person to person.

[29. Tiffany Dujinski said the following at 5:18 PM on Oct 22:]

29

Hi all~
I got married on October 6th (that's right - just two weeks ago) to the love of my life whom I met on October 28th of last year and was engaged to on May 28th of this year. We went from hi to I-do in less than a year, and if I had it to do over, I'd get married even sooner. Our relationship was long-distance (a six-hour drive), and the desire just to be together was overwhelming at times. We were both intentional in our conversation regarding marriage from the beginning of the relationship, and we were firmly committed to purity. We held hands after we got engaged, but nothing else. It was very difficult at times and would have been much more so had we been planning to wait longer for the wedding. So far as wedding planning, I planned mine from start to finish in a little over four months. We had 200 guests and my mom catered the reception. It was hard work, but let me reiterate, I'm very glad we didn't wait any longer than we did. The only thing I'd change if we had it to do over would be a much smaller wedding MUCH sooner.
Just a quick plug for Boundless - both of us were regular readers before we met, and Boundless continued to be an awesome conversation starter throughout our relationship. We even toured Focus on the Family during our honeymoon! Thanks, Boundless! :o)

[30. Melissa* said the following at 5:46 PM on Oct 22:]

30

My pastor has talked over the years about getting married to avoid sexual sin. He said he used to be of the position to "hurry through the pre-marital counseling" so the couple could get married. Over the past few years, however, his position changed. If you don't have self-control now, what says you'll have it as a married person? I thought it was a very valid point. This, of course, does not mean that anyone should test "the line" and allow him/herself to be tempted to sin. I think of my church's music directors. They were 15 and 16 when they began dating and got married shortly after finishing college. They were together for about seven years and maintained a pure relationship. A year wouldn't have worked for them; certainly 16 was not the best age to get married. However, they took precautions. They only spent time "alone" while in public. Time in each other's homes was supervised and during the day. Being alone at each other's homes was unacceptable. And it worked.

But I like the advice Boundless gives on this. If you have a purpose toward marriage, and it's headed that way with no major objections from either party or their families, why wait?

[31. Kellie said the following at 6:17 PM on Oct 22:]

31

While I'm all for short dating relationships (and let's face it Christians usually have short relationships), I think trying to make a rule about an appropriate length of time is kind of silly. Every relationship is different, so the length of each relationship is different. My husband and I were a long distance relationship. We dated for a year, got engaged, then got married six months later. Given that I was still in school when we met, we got married as quickly as we could. It wouldn't have been responsible of me to quit school 6 months before graduating so we could get married and it would have been silly to break up rather than get engaged. I admit we had our share of temptation, but we waited. It was worth it.

[32. Joshua said the following at 6:18 PM on Oct 22:]

32

As a recently married man, I feel that I should give my two cents. I am a college student, as is my wife. Both full-time students, and, as I'm the youth pastor at our church, we run the youth ministry. So there could be plenty of excuses for putting it off (focus on studies, too busy, not enough money, etc).

We knew each other for about 2 1/2 years before we started dating. The thing is, it was a sort of healthily distant friendship. As in we didn't go anywhere alone together, it was always a group of people, and we didn't discuss the possibility of a relationship. I had talked with her father, who encouraged me to pursue it if I thought God was leading me to do so. Well, come to find out, she'd been interested in me all along! Anyway, in April, we talked about where God was calling us, and how our callings were very similar. We had gotten to know each other, but had not even come close to the point where there was temptation between us. We prayed about it, talked about it, and sought counsel from people we looked up to in the church. Our first date was in May. That day, we officially decided to get married. Less than three months later, we tied the knot.

I would say that it's entirely possible to put on a wedding in 3 months or less. We had no problem getting it together. In the midst of the summer, our church moved (then moved again, a week before the wedding was to happen at the church), and my then-fiancee was working 12+ hrs a day, I was taking summer classes and working as much as I could. There was also the county fair in July that we had to prepare for (part of the joy of marrying into a family that raises goats!), a youth camp, and plenty of other things that kept us busy.

You know what? If I had the choice to go back and have waited 6 months longer, so we could have more time to plan and all that, I'd stick with three months. In less than three months, we had plenty of times where there was some temptation about to surface, but because it was so short, it was bearable, and we made it. Our first kiss was at the end of the wedding ceremony.

On the other hand, a close friend of mine and his girlfriend (now fiancee) have decided to get married. They've been dating for 4-5 years, and it will be at least a year or two before they get married. I have seen firsthand the unnecessary stress and temptation this has put on the relationship, not to mention the awkward situations it has caused!

Anyway, my advice is that if you want to marry the person, and the person wants to marry you, go seek counsel from people whom you respect spiritually, whether it's your pastor and his wife, or someone similar, go to someone in leadership, who is in a strong, God-honoring marriage, and seek their guidance. If they're for it, and God is for it, what's the big holdup?

[33. Kimchihead said the following at 7:33 PM on Oct 22:]

33

Why does it have to be so absolute? Sometimes, marriage just doesn't make sense for either party.

[34. Amelia said the following at 7:49 PM on Oct 22:]

34

Jess,

Lots of what you said resonates with me, so I'd just like to make a few points regarding my thoughts on reading you post. First, about your boyfriend's thoughts on learning self-control: that's all well and good, but is that fleeing from temptation? And when do you judge if you have a sufficient level? There will always be temptations, married or not - when have you fought them enough? Why not just leave them behind, if you can? As to his other points... well, how do you measure maturity? I doubt he will ever 'feel' mature enough. He doesn't have to be exceptionally wise or manly, or whatever he thinks maturity is, is to get married. As to being too young... I doubt it. I see from your blog that you're in first year uni, so you'd have to be 17 or 18, right? What's wrong with that? When is the magic age?
I think I agree with you about the 'marrying early' thing being a mostly American thing, but it's still very prevalent in Christian circles in Australia. Also, while you don't have to feel pressured by it, you are allowed to acknowledge it's good points, if you can see them.
One more thing - your parents advice to wait one or two years before engagement. Could it be that they are just shocked that their little girl wants to get married?
Sorry for picking on you. I just wanted to raise some points that struck me while I was reading your blog. Like I said, it kind of resonates with me... lots of similarities to my thoughts and experiences... I'm Australian, 19, second year uni, married.

[35. Kathryn said the following at 7:53 PM on Oct 22:]

35

I have friends who went straight from friends to engaged and then married within 6 months.

I have other friends who date for 3-4 years then get engaged and are married within 4 months.

The couples who date for longer do struggle a bit, but the amazing thing is that they overcome it and they continue to date and then in another year or two, they are married.

I get that it's wise advice, but I wouldn't want to make it into a rule. As people keep pointing out, the method varies, but the rule is still the same: don't sin.

[36. Cat Woman said the following at 8:42 PM on Oct 22:]

36

I have to agree that this year-long period seems like an impatient and naive rule. I can understand the argument to avoid temptation, and I knew plenty of couples in college who provided anecdotal evidence to prove it. But it still takes a year or two to really get to know someone.

Growing up, my Mom continually reinforced to me that she expected me to date at least 6 months to a year before getting engaged. Why so long? Growing up, my grandmother and several step-uncles were manic depressive/ schizophrenic/ bipolar relatives. They would be fine and appear normal for a while -- say, 6 months to a year -- before they cycling back around to being anywhere from depressed to delusional and dangerous.

It's great that you're encouraging people to get married and avoid temptation. That's biblical. But don't stretch it too far. There's an equal amount of anecdotal evidence pointing to why it can be even more dangerous (mostly for women) to get married too hastily.

[37. farmer Tom said the following at 9:49 PM on Oct 22:]

37

I'll make this as short as possible.
I met the future Mrs. farmer through our singles group in February. I saw her at several singles activities between then and August. The first week of August we were both counselors at Bible Camp for Senior High week.
We spent all of our free time together that week. After camp was over on Saturday, we spent the rest of the day at a mutual friends house. I stayed at the friends house, she went home. On Sunday morning I called her, we spent all of that day together, I met her folks that day, first guy she had ever dated. We spent nearly every weekend together from that point on, usually she came and stayed with my folks as I was doing farm work. We were engaged in November, before Thanksgiving. We got married the first week of April so that we didn't have to wait until spring fieldwork was over for the wedding.

From first date to married in nine months.

[38. steven said the following at 10:11 PM on Oct 22:]

38

FYI, I am actively pursuing physical and emotional purity with my girlfriend of almost 2 years. I hope to get married soon after college is over (I have this semester plus 3 more to go, so less than 2 years.) I understand the wisdom behind the rule, but just because the temptation for sin is there does not mean every Christian couple should marry in about a year. While I would love to be married ASAP, finishing college and being able to serve my friends and campus in a way that would otherwise be impossible are taking priority for a little while longer.

It is not always wise to take every bit of advice. What is wise is to look at advice and figure out what principles it is founded on.

[39. Jen said the following at 10:24 PM on Oct 22:]

39

I always expected I wouldn't spend a long time dating, but it didn't work out that way. We had a long-distance relationship, and still do, six months into our 12-month engagement. After a year and a half he proposed and I said yes. Sure we considered & prayed about doing things more quickly - both of us desired to. But it would have meant me transferring schools and doing an extra year of undergrad at a school that's not as good. It would have been stupid, ridiculous, and foolish to marry a year after we started dating, given our circumstances. It also would have been stupid, ridiculous, and foolish to break up. Sure it's tough dating/being engaged so long, but God gives grace, and in the meantime He's used us where we are. By His grace we've been able to maintain boundaries, and are all the more excited about when we will finally be joined together in marriage. Of course I'd encourage people not to spend too much time dating/engaged, it's definitely not easy, but I think it's also ridiculous to suggest there's some formula that makes it generally better to get married faster. No, you can't remain pure if you're doing it in your own strength, but God is gracious, He works in each person in different ways, and His timing is perfect.

[40. KES said the following at 10:29 PM on Oct 22:]

40

So here's a circumstance which is not just as simple as "get married or break up".
My boyfriend and I are beginning our third year together. He will receive free college tuition as long as he is single. The prospect of half as much college debt starting out together, combined with the advice of godly counselors, mentors and parents; our knowledge of our own sins; and the sight of how God is using us as an unmarried couple right now is enough that we believe that God is calling us to wait at least another year before getting married.

I have to agree with Connie... why are Christians so, so quick to build a mold for every aspect of our walks and then impose them on other people as "The Biblical Way"? What's next, articles prescribing how long we should wait after marriage for children? How long to leave between children? What to name them?
Provide advice and guidance, by all means, but stop trying to sell us on your way being God's way.

[41. Kevin said the following at 12:10 AM on Oct 23:]

41

I agree with Jess. So many people here are using sexual temptation as the main reason for marrying quickly. What about self-control? If anything, marrying quickly because you "can't control" yourself sexually is showing a lack of self-control, which is one of the fruits of the Spirit. Should you really be getting married with such a lack of self-control?

I'm not saying that getting married in less than a year is necessarily wrong, but I don't think you should accelerate a marriage just because you can't keep your pants on. If anything, I'd say that if you can't control your sexuality, you're NOT ready to be married.

[42. Childless single woman said the following at 1:15 AM on Oct 23:]

42

How about we give God a break and stop using Him to justify our preferences over timing? If not, we can get into dangerous "spiritual blackmail" situations, like Anna Marie is experiencing: "well...so you are telling me you wouldn't wait for the person that God has for you?" (To which, Anna Marie, a possible answer is: "well...so you are telling me you want to delay God's will for your life?") All very dangerous territory!
I think two things come out of this discussion:
1) As far as I can see, God repeatedly says in the Bible to go, get married and multiply. He says nothing about waiting on His timing, waiting for The One He has chosen etc. etc. These are all additions that we have culturally chosen to add on, mostly to justify protracted singleness. The only instruction is that they must not be an unbeliever. After that, I see the Bible basically saying that it is God's will for us to marry, now we must get on and do it. Nowhere in the Bible is there a pattern of bellyaching over God's will or God's timing with regard to marriage.
2) Wisdom seems to indicate that sexual purity will be compromised the longer the wait. Also, the singleness limbo-land is extended unnecessarily. Plus, marriage in the end is a leap of faith. You can be with someone many years and still be suprised almost daily. No wonder really, as we often surprise ourself with our behaviour in any given situation.
I think we are putting many unnecessary hurdles in the way of marriage. And the using God to justify it.

[43. mel said the following at 5:33 AM on Oct 23:]

43

this may not be true for everyone. i've seen people get married after very short courtships and engagements. most of those people have come from healthy backgrounds and families. if you dont come from that kind of home environment, it takes a little longer to work through things... trust, learning to have a healthy relationship. i believe its important to have those foundations in order BEFORE you marry, b/c after you say 'i do' there is no going back.

[44. rachel said the following at 6:42 AM on Oct 23:]

44

This seems to me to sound a whole lot like the dating vs courtship controversy. Both sides says their way is more biblical and they have passages and counsel from wise believers to back them up. What it really comes down to is people acting biblically, whatever the method. You can date biblically and court sinfully. You can marry within a year and act sinfully and date for 3 years and act purely. Granted, it is hard, but that doesn't mean impossible or even unwise.

Jim and Elisabeth Elliott dated for 5 years, long-distance even. Their focus during their relationship was purity, intentionality, and waiting on God's timing. They are now an example of purity to others (perhaps in the same situation??)

It's not about man-made rules. It's about doing what's right. Love the other person, love God more, be intentional, surround yourself with accountability, and marry or break up as quickly as you can within the Lord's timing depending on where He has you in life.

If that takes a year or less, that's probably ideal. If it takes longer, work hard to stay pure, but don't marry out of pressure if you're simply unable to. Use wisdom and get counsel.

[45. Louise said the following at 7:46 AM on Oct 23:]

45

Kimchi, your name intrigues me.

Do you like Korean food?

[46. Marci said the following at 7:49 AM on Oct 23:]

46

To Nicole, Becks, Anna Marie, Jess:

First Nicole: you say you agree with OBEWAN - but OBEWAN completely sidestepped the issue of sexual purity in his analysis. You, too, say nothing about this issue, which is at the core of this entire discussion. Are you disregarding the issue of sexual purity altogether?!? Please clarify.

Nicole and Becks: implicit in both your postings was the idea that the divorces of the individuals you know seem connected to their marriage in and around the one year time frame. Don't you think this is stretching the truth? Just because they divorced says nothing - they may have similarly divorced after dating 4-5 years. Furthermore, did they divorce for Biblical reasons (adultery)? If not, I would argue that they stepped out of God's will. The Bible makes it clear that individuals are to divorce only in cases of adultery - and Christ makes it clear that THIS allowance was only given by Moses because of the hardness of peoples hearts. So scripturally, we see that God doesn't want divorce for any reason.

If those you know who divorced did so for Biblical reasons, you could make the argument that they may have married to deal with lust (which is different from a healthy sexual desire for one's partner), and thus still fell prey to lust. So the argument that marriage shouldn't be used merely to deal with lust is a powerful one.

HOWEVER, if these individuals did not divorce for Biblical reasons (unfortunately, Christian's aren't allowed to divorce merely because of "irreconcilable differences" or any other petty reason), the argument should be about why they did not stay together when the going got rough. No one said marriage was a bed of roses.

It's also possible that these individuals were not ready for relationships AT ALL. Therefore, it stands to reason that the divorce has less to do with how long they courted (because had they waited a few years before they courted they'd have more time to mature - THEN they could date for a year, get married, and be prepared for the work a marriage requires) that the wisdom of their timing in entering relationships. Boundless has said over and over that if you are legitimately not ready to marry, it's wise to avoid relationships altogether - the same applies here. Don't blame the marriage failure on the time of courtship - that's way to hasty. And years ago, people regularly courted for short time frames and stayed married for years. The Facts? Most of the divorces that occur happen because people (one or both) are selfish and lack committment. If your looking for marriage to be a joy ride, of COURSE you'll bolt at the first sign of work to be done! In days gone by people did not have these misconceptions....that's why divorce almost never occured.

Anna Marie: I'm an outsider for sure, but he dated his former wife 6 years?!? I'm sorry, but all kinds of warning bells are going off in my head.

Here's what I've noticed - if a man does not know FOR SURE that he will marry you by a year and a half into the relationship (and I'm sure Boundless would argue for a year here) - and will not articulate his resolve at the 1.5 year point - BOLT! Leave him immediately. I have never seen it to fail....if men are still humming and hawing at that point, they're just waiting for something better to come along.

If I'd known about Boundless one year position, I would've started questioning guys around the one year point to see if that holds true.

The other problem with long relationships is that you don't want him to marry you because 'it's been so long; everyone's expecting it'. And this can and does happen.

If you know that with his previous wife they waited 6 years, I would point-blank ask him how much time he generally believes he'll need to know that he will marry you. Ask him *specifically* if he would possibly date you for 6 years as well in order 'to know'. If he says that he can't put a time limit on it and that he would possibly date you for 6 years, you have your answer. Leave. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that he loves you too much to waste your time. Your time is YOUR responsibility. Right now, he's not sounding like he's intentional about marrying you. And that really, really concerns me.

Have you ever read that book "He's just not that into you"? It's hilarious; my roomates and I read it just for fun in undergrad. Greg writes it; from his own personal experience, he says that divorce is not a good reason for a person not to know if they really want to marry you. If they're into you, they get on board - divorced or not.

Now Jess: All kinds of warning bells are going off in my head about your situation to. Do not subordiante your own judgement to his; you are BOTH in this relationship together.

What horrifies me is that you guys are struggling sexually...but he STILL says you both don't know each other enough to marry? I think your position is the Biblically sound one, and I'm concerned about the fact that based on his judgement in this area, he does not appear as spiritually grounded as you do. Are issues of spiritual headship a general problem in you relationship?

*If he's not mature enough and you're too younge, WHY are you dating?!?*

If he's not mature enough, as the spiritual leader, he should have NEVER initiated a relationship with you. He should have waited till he was ready to marry. And why are you too young?!? I had a friend that married at 18 and she and her husband are happily married and looking to do missions in Africa. Youth has nothing to do with it; maturity is the central thing.

There is no "issue in our hearts" - sexual desire for someone you love is not a sin. It's a natural force God has created that helps motivate people toward marriage and helps to nourish the relationship after marriage. This is one area where the Bible does NOT advocate self control - Paul says that is is better to marry than to burn with passion. Where is he admonishing people to learn selfcontrol?!?

I'm Canadian, and so maybe this will hold little weight with you...but I don't think this is an "America" or "Australia" issue. This is a "Will we follow the guidelines of Scripture even if it's inconvenient" issue. I don't care who or which country seems to be teaching one way or another...the BIBLE says it's better to marry than to burn with passion.

Society - including people of authority in ministry, family, and friends - should not dictate whether or not you follow the mandates of scripture. You may have to be counter-culture and get married. So be it.

I think Croft would say that you two should either break up - OR get married. Your first intution is Biblically sound.

I'm passionate about this becase I've seen too many people try learning self control in this area against the counsel of Scripture - and being in Youth Ministry, I am SICK TO DEATH OF SEEING YET ANOTHER GIRL PUSHING A BABY STROLLER BEFORE MARRIAGE!!!!! OR STRUGGLING EMOTIONALLY BECAUSE SHE'S HAD AN ABORTION. This is NOT God's plan!

May God have mercy on us

Blessings

[47. Adam Sloope said the following at 8:21 AM on Oct 23:]

47

With all do respect (it's in the Geneva convention), this is why Christian dating is so horrible and awkward. Marry or break up within a year? Seriously, as a man, I desire marriages, but I also see the spirtual side of it all and think it is nothing to rush. When i marry a woman, I will be held accountable for how I run my marriage, then if we have kids, i'm held accountable how they live their lives, then if they get married, they are going to run their marriages after the way i ran mine... Do you see the depth of marriage? It is more than just fish or cut bait. We need to be careful when doing this whole dating thing. Clear communicatin is what I think is most important and then humility. If both people come into the dating world with the thought of we are friends and we are growing together towards Christ, oh i'm attracted to them, see if they have qualities that you desire in a husband or wife and then go from there. Going into the relationship with the thought of we are getting married or breaking up is why so many Christians are single now, too much pressure.

[48. Marci said the following at 8:36 AM on Oct 23:]

48

Kevin,

Where in the Bible does it show that couples are to strive to control their natural sexual desires instead of marrying?

Paul says it is better to marry than to burn with passion - how do you interpret this verse? Which other verses are you using to support your claim?

1 Corinthians 7:9 "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn"

Statistics prove that the people in the church are clearly much less able to "contain" their sexual desire prior to marriage than they assume. If you're struggling with sexual desires, I'd say you're burning - wouldn't you?

Paul doesn't say 'except if you're going to college; except if you're parents want you to wait a couple years; except if it will raise eyebrows'.

IN FACT - I would argue that if people were waiting until they were ready to marry to date/court, this discussion would be uneccessary. So explain to me: is the issue REALLY that people need to be self controlled sexually...and marry later because these desires have surfaced at an inopportune time? OR is it that people need to exercise self control about when to begin dating/courting relationships?

It seems to me that people rush headlong and get into relationships, ignoring the fact that sexual desire may arise and they are not yet in a position to marry. I highly doubt that in Jesus' day, men were initiating relationships with women before they were ready to marry! In fact, a man knew his readiness for marriage would be assessed by the brides family. There was no 'let's just hook up and deal with the question of readiness later'

But OF COURSE - no one wants to do the responsible thing and foregoe the fun and joy of having a romantic relationship...even if doing so will reduce the chances of ending up in the situation Paul describes.

Your idea that a couple is not ready to marry unless they have learned this type of sexual control seems appropriate for a lust issue...but not the healthy desire for one's spouse that God designed us to have (prior to and during marriage).

Blessings

[49. Ro said the following at 8:50 AM on Oct 23:]

49

Brilliant post and article. I would refer detractors to Michael Lawrence's excellent article "Stop Test-driving your Girlfriend."

We need to make sure we are not "defrauding our brothers and sisters" as the Bible says.

We should not take emotional intimacy that is not meant for us from people that we don't end up marrying. The best way to do this is to take the shortest possible time needed to decide whether or not to marry someone. I think one year is more than sufficient.

Isaac and Rebekah did not know each other when they married. The God that brought those two together is still the same God that is around today.

Marci and Childless single woman, you're comments are both insightful and encouraging.

In Biblical days people married very young. I was just wondering what people think the reasons are that we are no longer ready for marriage at similar ages that our predecessors were?

[50. Louise said the following at 9:12 AM on Oct 23:]

50

Marci, IMO you are very harsh on divorced people.

Don't be so judgemental, ma'am.

After all, you might be there yourself someday.

[51. NeedACatchyName said the following at 9:47 AM on Oct 23:]

51

Adam Sloope wrote:
"With all do respect (it's in the Geneva convention), this is why Christian dating is so horrible and awkward."

Exactly! Why are Christians so adverse to being in dating relationships? Because we've turned Christian dating into something unbelievably complicated and pressure packed. It's easy to get overwhelmed by everything that encompasses Christian dating these days. Everyone seems confused about the whole dating vs. courtship thing, and if you ask ten Christians to define those two terms, you'll get ten different answers. If you get married too young, you're accused of being immature because you didn't wait, but if you get married too old (or don't get married), you're accused of being immature because you waited too long. There's also enormous confusion about physical contact; heavy physical contact is almost universally frowned upon (in principle if not in practice), but there's still a lot of differing views on kissing, hugging, and hand holding. There's also the pressure to get married in a certain "one size fits all" time frame, as this article discusses.

And if you get past all this, then you get the church singles group pressure. There's always that one girl in every singles group that gets weirded-out and offended if a guy dares to ask her out for something as innocent as coffee, and will make life extremely awkward for any guy who does. There's also the tendency of singles groups to consider any male and female who go out on one single date as a "couple," even if the relationship never progresses beyond that. And if the relationship doesn't succeed, then invariably one of the people in the former relationship gets ostracized from the group (usually the one who's been there the least amount of time or is not as much a part of the "inner circle" as the other person), regardless of whether or not the breakup was actually their fault.

And of course, there's also the idea of "waiting on the one God has chosen for you" that has been hyped since youth group. Unfortunately, it's created a whole generation of Christians who are afraid to go out on a simple date because they're afraid that an otherwise acceptable relationship candidate might not be "the one" because they didn't get some extremely clear and obviously supernatural sign from God before the date.

Why is dating so much easier for non-Christians? Because they can ask a girl out for coffee, get to know her for a couple of dates, and if it doesn't progress beyond that, then it's not considered a big deal. And if the relationship does develop, then it develops at its own pace, without many of the man-made pressures of Christian dating.

[52. Katie (the other one) said the following at 10:41 AM on Oct 23:]

52

NeedACatchyName,

You read my mind. Thank you.

[53. nikki said the following at 2:12 PM on Oct 23:]

53

NeedACatchyName, you hit all the nails on their respective heads. *bows* I feel like everything I was going to say is now unnecessary.

OK, almost everything. :) I think as long as you are acting in wisdom, with much thought and prayer and counsel, then you are acting in God's will. Some people are "meant" to be married really fast, and some have to wait longer (thanks to whoever mentioned Elizabeth and Jim Elliot). One size just won't fit everyone. You should, however, definitely be sure about wanting to marry them if it's going to be a long time.

[54. NeedACatchyName said the following at 3:28 PM on Oct 23:]

54

Thanks for the kind words Katie and Nikki!

So here's a question that's somewhat based off of my previous post. Is it just me, or is the whole concept of going out for a simple date (coffee, dinner, etc.) just to get to know each other with no commitment to going out again really frowned upon in the church today? It seems more and more whenever you ask a girl out on a date it's understood that you're trying to initiate a dating or courtship relationship with her, along with the levels of commitment that entails. There seems to be a trend towards the idea that if you really need to "get to know" someone, then you should do so in a group environment at church (preferred) or in a group activity with several mutual friends. And since this serves the purpose of "getting to know" the other person, then there should already be a certain level of commitment even on the first date.

Of course, this does present a few problems. If the person you're interested in getting to know doesn't attend the same church as you, or participates in different ministries or studies, then getting to know them this way isn't feasible. And arranging multiple group activities with mutual friends just so that you can get a chance to talk to a young lady is many times easier said than done, especially with the difficulty in getting several people with varied personal commitments to synchronize their schedules and agree on something to do. And in the event that you just met randomly and don't have any mutual friends, then finding a group solution to getting to know the other person can prove virtually impossible.

This is just my opinion, but I think that Christian dating would be benefited in the long run if Christians would just be open to going out on a date or two for the purposes of determining if there's any mutual interest, with "no hard feelings" if it never progresses beyond that phase. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this phase needs to be more than one or two dates, and I think that it goes without saying that regardless of your views on physical contact in relationships there should be none during this phase, not even hugging or hand-holding. But I do think that this sort of dating could prove to be quite beneficial, and could serve to break some of the current dating tension in the church.

[55. Jethro said the following at 4:05 PM on Oct 23:]

55

Ro,

Alot of Christian's seem to be concerned about 'taking emotional intimacy' that doesn't belong to them. But I ask you, what does that really mean? What sort of people are we that we can't have more than one person know who we really are? Moreover, if you don't marry the person, it's not like you've given something away that can never be gotten back, you can share exactly the same thoughts, feelings, desires and fears with your spouse when you get one.

[56. BDB said the following at 5:51 PM on Oct 23:]

56

Marci, your writing is so...vivid. That's funny.

NeedACatchyName wrote:

>>especially with the difficulty in getting several people with varied personal commitments to synchronize their schedules and agree on something to do.<<

There is kind of an assumption that everyone runs with a pack, isn't there?

>>Don't get me wrong, I don't think this phase needs to be more than one or two dates, <<

Ah, yes. I know lots of non-Christians who think they should be able to go, say, five years and then break up with it being no big deal.

[57. Jess said the following at 7:35 PM on Oct 23:]

57

Amelia,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful insights. You raise a good point about fleeing from temptation (but isn’t the Bible verse “flee from sexual immorality”? 1 Corinthians 6:18). It’s a point that we can’t dismiss and one that we’re still working on in terms of solutions. From previous conversations with my boyfriend, he would say that a “sufficient level” of self-control would be when we (although tempted) don’t sin sexually. Now, I should clarify that we haven’t had sex, but we have done things (in thought and deed) that are not “without a hint of sexual immorality”, and we know that those things are just as wrong as intercourse.
I agree with you that I don’t think you can ever be “mature enough” for marriage. And I’ve expressed this to him. He feels that he would like to improve some specific areas in his life that are lacking in godliness before committing to leading another person spiritually. I can also see things in my own life that need improving, I guess I just don’t know where to draw the line between “ready” and “not ready” for marriage.
I’m recently 19 years old. Age isn’t an issue for me, but he feels that I’m too young (in both age and maturity). He’s 21 years old and finishing college this year.
I can see a lot of wisdom in this idea of marrying early, but it seems to make a lot of assumptions about the individual people involved. And I don’t think it’s Biblical to set a specific time which is “best”. I realise that there was a disclaimer at the start of the article that the author doesn’t think it would be “sinning” to wander out of this time schedule, that he thinks it’s wisdom…. But even that has a tone of superiority.
Mum and Dad think you should date someone for one or two years before marriage. Could be partially shock (I am their eldest) but I think it’s mostly that they have seen a lot of broken marriages and they realise how important the decision is.
I’m very interested in hearing your story about how you got married, how things are now. If you have time, would you mind leaving a comment on my blog and I’ll email you back?

Marci,
I appreciate your concern for my relationship, but the overall tone of your response seemed quite abrupt and harsh to me. But this is the internet, so who knows. I’ll just address what you said…
Firstly, I’m not subordinating my judgement to his. We both value each other’s opinions a lot and we discuss things with much prayer. When I said I respect him and trust his judgement, that is me saying that, after we have discussed it and he has decided to talk to our pastor about it, I agree with his chosen course of action. I trust that he is weighing his opinions against the Bible. And I acknowledge that deciding when we get married is not my decision (although deciding if we get married is, in part).
Issues of spiritual headship were initially a problem for us, but things have improved a lot and he is really stepping up to the mark. No one is perfect, I’m still learning how to encourage and respect that headship.
Why does it horrify you that we’re struggling sexually and still don’t know each other well enough to make a marital decision? Lust can be something that happens without emotional intimacy, and we are heavily convicted on that already.
As for your question regarding his maturity and my age…Like I mentioned in response to Amelia, his maturity isn’t such an issue for me and neither is my age. But you know what? That’s not worth breaking up over. I’m willing to wait the extra time and meanwhile learn how I can serve Christ in my current situation.
You raise a good point that “sexual desire for someone we love is not a sin”. I think I need to be reminded of that more often. Amidst all the struggles, sometimes I find myself cursing God for making me a sexual being. But I realise that he made me that way for a reason, and I shouldn’t wish it was another way. Actually, I find it a helpful lust-combating tool to remind myself that God’s perfect plan for sex is within marriage and everything else is a cheap copy. Thanks for mentioning that. However, the “issue in our hearts” that I was referring to is the issue of selfishness and disobedience. When we sin sexually, it’s not merely a matter of being so attracted to that person, it’s me being selfish and not wanting what’s best for them. I think that’s an important thing to deal with before getting into marriage.
As for Paul’s “better to marry than burn with passion”…. Wise mentors in my life have said that this is talking about sex, and is more of a last resort. In other words, “It’s better to marry that to have sex outside of marriage”. This makes sense to me, because in that day, I don’t think there was so much grey surrounding relationships, no real chance to sin on different “levels” of sexual immorality.
I agree that the issue of marriage is primarily Biblical, not cultural. What I was suggesting was that the original article might contain some suggestions which are not inherently Biblical, but rather cultural. That’s not to say that one way of doing things is better, just that it’s not fair to take cultural norms and turn them into “Biblical must”s.
You’re right in saying that society should not dictate the pattern for our relationship, but the Bible does say (I’m just not sure where….maybe Proverbs?)” there is wisdom in the counsel of many”. So when a lot of wise people in our community say the same thing, we tend to believe them. These are people who have strongly Biblical worldviews and who are passionate about helping people to live lives obedient to God.

I thought I should also mention some additional “circumstantial” facts about our relationship: this is my first year out of home, we live together in a Christian, student accommodation type thing which houses 50 young adults, my boyfriend is still somewhat financially dependant on his parents but hopes to become independent next year after working, he will be moving out of the student accommodation next year, I have made a commitment to stay next year in a ministry role. We think the best thing for us right now is to stay together, pursue marriage and set clear boundaries.

[58. KES said the following at 8:36 PM on Oct 23:]

58

Jess -- kudos to you. You and your boyfriend sound a lot like me and mine. I really appreciate your thoughts on self-control sexually, and the idea that Paul's recommendation of "better to marry than to burn" is more of a last resort.
I think what those of us who are talking about bringing sexual desire under control before marriage are not talking about some sort of super-spiritual exercise or suppressing God's gift to us, but rather coming to a more mature and less self-centered view of sex.
For example, think of an unmarried Christian who struggles with pornography or masturbation. Will marriage make these problems go away? Not necessarily. They don't desire to have a mutually self-sacrificial, loving, caring sex life with another person, just an endorphin release. If a person's sexuality is self-centered before marriage, it will likely continue that way after marriage. The same goes for a couple who struggles with sexual sin, not only because they want each other, but because they also simply want, for themselves. The time to get married rather than burn, I think, is when you burn for your intended spouse, when your desire is at least equal parts wanting to please them as to please yourself. Because isn't mutual self-sacrifice and the circle of "This pleases me because it pleases you" really what marriage is supposed to be about?

[59. Louise said the following at 8:48 PM on Oct 23:]

59

Hey, I have a questions.

Marci told Jess not to subordinate her judgement to her boyfriend.

I thought that was what Boundless People think the Bible says women should do!

Isn't it the opinion on here that when a couple is dating, the man should be the leader?

Am I missing something here?

[60. Ted Slater said the following at 9:06 PM on Oct 23:]

60

Louise -- Jess's boyfriend is not her husband. A "boyfriend" is not in any kind of spousal authority over his "girlfriend." A woman has no biblical requirement to submit to her boyfriend.

That said, regardless of marital status, a man should have the disposition to lead, to initiate.

[61. DanL said the following at 9:42 PM on Oct 23:]

61

I am really puzzled as too why anyone would want to date/be engaged for more than a year. I’ve desired to get married for sometime, and believe if the right woman came along I’d jump on it. A year seems plenty long enough to get to know someone and their family. I have to admit that getting engaged after only a couple months or less, like some here have mentioned, seems to be really strange and something I probably wouldn’t recommend. But as long as we view the clock as starting when a couple first went out and not when they first met (I’m assuming that the relationship isn’t one the couple “drifted into,” which is as it should be), I would think getting married in a year is perfectly normal. I’m really puzzled why some here think that is short.

Personally, I can’t see asking someone out unless I knew they for several months first (and in most of my previous dates its been closer to a year, but I do find that as I get older its get harder to meet people so I have been relaxing this rule), so I don’t quite know if I could truly go from “From ‘Hi’ to ‘I Do’ in a Year” but I certain I won’t go from first date to “I Do” in more that year, without some sort of major unseen event imposing itself on my life (like being in a coma for 6 months).

That said, Croft does say “in the vast majority of cases” in the article so he is allowing for exceptions. I picturing things like a military reservist getting called up, or perhaps a couple that had major premarital counseling issues. I think I would probably allow for a few more exceptions than Croft (or Brown or Slater) would, especially for younger couples, but I definitely think there needs to be a very concrete reason for the delay. And by that I mean something substantially more than “we need to get to know each other more.” In my mind for a man to date someone for more than 15-18 months or so without getting married, and without a very definite reason, is absolutely shameful.

[62. KJ said the following at 9:46 PM on Oct 23:]

62

Yes, I think my circumstance IS different - mainly because my name is not Motte Brown!

My boyfriend and I have dated now (with marriage as our goal) for over a year, and we're not yet engaged. What am I supposed to do, deliver an ultimatum? Maybe something catchy like, "Give me a ring and a wedding date RIGHT THIS MINUTE or I'm out of here?" Or should I just take up whining and dropping hints every time we're together? (I've seen girls take up the latter strategy - and it isn't pretty.)

I'm sure he'd appreciate being wheedled into marriage, or dragged down the aisle. That would definitely create an atmosphere of trust and (within marriage, where it belongs) submission on my part.

In other words, how is this article supposed to be useful to women at all?

[63. em said the following at 10:22 PM on Oct 23:]

63

You know, a time period isn't the all important thing. I agree with those who say that a year may be a good mean but that is simply extra-biblical "wisdom" advice, not a good "hard-and-fast" rule.

On the one hand, endless dating is unwise. On the other, hasty marriage can be quite unwise too.

Among Christian singles who have matured in a culture of selfishness and divorce, being skittish of commitment is normal. It is also appropriate for our leaders and elders to admonish us against our own sort of fear and selfishness that holds us back from giving ourselves fully to each other in marriage. I understand that.

But I'm still very skeptical of the advice to marry quickly. The 'just do it' attitude toward marriage encouraged by so many of our leaders may produce just the sort of fruit we young folk fear. Many of us have not been trained in healthy homes and even in the church are not necessarily well mentored. We know ourselves well enough to know we don't know ourselves.

My own mother and father married quite quickly and she was all of 18 to his 22. They had a horrible, abusive marriage that ended in his death just under 25 years later and 7 years ago. There were some good spots but I can't remember many of them. I'm 26 now and am a financially self-sufficient college grad in a solid church with lots of great friends and a very good job and a quite useful life overall. I've never been in a relationship and, at this point, don't know if I could be ready to commit to anyone in a year -- even if they were ideal for me.

I'm not immune to the longing for relationship and shared life and even physical intimacy that can come in a healthy marriage. But being single and chaste for life - as hard as that is - cannot possibly be as bad as having the sort of marriage I saw growing up, or even one a good deal less bad than that. I'm not ruling out marriage entirely, but I think I'll be very cautious.

[64. DanL said the following at 10:23 PM on Oct 23:]

64

As much as I do agree the theme of the article, I do have to take some exception with Croft in the case of the college couple whose parents wanted them to finish school first (I’m interpreting the parents refusing to pay for school as an indication that they think it best of the couple not to marry yet. If it has more to do with wanting to see them self-sufficient before marriage then I would be in tighter agreement with Croft).

This is an area where I think honoring ones parents comes into play and provides a valid reason for delay. While I would certainly council any future children of mine to marry before graduation in such a case (assuming I thought highly of their fiancé), one is still called to honor ones parents even when they disagree with them. I’ve seen many many couples rush into marriage against their parents wishes and dismiss their concerns with statements along the lines of long engagements are bad (which they are, but it doesn’t address whether the parents had valid concerns or not). Worse they will dismiss their parents advice and council entirely if they aren’t believers (as if that meant they had no wisdom) or they aren’t “mature believers” (the later charge almost exclusively by people who grossly overestimate their own spiritual maturity).

I do agree with Croft entirely when he said, “more than one set of Christian parents have relented on this question in the face of *respectful*, biblical resolve by their children.” In other cases a compromise can be reached where the engagement may be longer than ideal, but still shorter than the time it would take the couple to graduate. The later almost happened with my brother when he wanted to get married sooner than my parents thought best, but then he decided to go ahead and get married on his time table without regard to what my parents thought in a manner that I thought showed great disrespect to them. My parents also thought there where a couple issues they wanted addressed in premarital counseling before the wedding. As much as I dislike long engagements if something needs to be addressed before the wedding then it needs to be addressed _before_ the wedding. And while long distance relationships (such as my brother’s) may not in general be a reason for things taking longer, when there more extra counseling issues the logistics of getting the couple and pastor in the same town to talk to each other can be.

I also wish to state this is one area where I think Boundless (and those like it) need to spend more time reaching parents of students and twentysomethings. If seen many parents encourage their children to pursue relationships and then turn around and tell them to wait when they find someone.

[65. Leah said the following at 12:48 AM on Oct 24:]

65

"For couples who've been dating a year or more, it's as simple as this: Get married or break up."

Excuse me? That's not true, and you know it. Try being a little less controversial for a change.

When my boyfriend and I had been dating for a year, I was 18, he was 20, I was in my second year of university (without a job) and he was in his third year (with a part time job). You would seriously tell a couple like that to get married?

There are enough people around who I respect who have had, or condone, relationships of 2 years or more, that I can take one look at your statement, raise an eyebrow in incredulousness, and keep walking. Dr James Dobson has said that he believes a couple "should be sweethearts" for 2 years. My parents dated for 4 years from the time they were 17. Two of two of those years were spent separated, one when Mum was down south at college, one when she was teaching in another town. Another couple at our church dated on and off for 5 years from when she was 14 and he was 16. Another couple dated for 3 years from when she was 18 and he was 19.

Yeah, maybe if you're in your mid-20s and living on your own that statement might apply, but when you started dating at 15, 16 or 17 and are still studying and living at home things are a bit different.

[66. DanL said the following at 3:38 AM on Oct 24:]

66

I join Jethro in being somewhat confused on the nature of “emotional intimacy.” I know their have been times in my past where I’ve let myself get too close emotionally to women when I shouldn’t have. I am trying very hard to make these same mistakes again. But I also have been greatly helped by close female friends in the past too. I guess when I compare emotional intimacy to its physical counterpart, I find it harder to know where the “lines” are. (Please note the scare quotes. I recognize that both are hart issues and simple matters of looking for lines to cross or not. It’s late at night and I’m tired and can’t immediately think of a better way to say this, so hope it still gets my question across. )

[67. Louise said the following at 5:30 AM on Oct 24:]

67

Mr. Slater, I am still confused.

Doesn't this website that in a dating relationship, the man should lead?

Then isn't the woman supposed to submit while he leads the dating relatinship? Or until such time as they are married (if that happens) is she just supposed to WATCH him lead?

[68. Louise said the following at 8:18 AM on Oct 24:]

68

Sorry, my post should read "Doesn't this website STATE that in a dating relationship, the man should lead?"

[69. Anna Marie said the following at 1:07 PM on Oct 24:]

69

I love this website, but to address Louise...I believe the BIBLE tells us to be submissive to our husbands. Before we are married, it is to our parents (or whomever has raised us if our parents are not in the picture). We are to seek wise counsel in such matters as these. I am not sure we sit by and "watch" our boyfriends "lead"...I don't know how to put it into words. I am 43 and divorced from an abusive ex who took advantage and distorted God's word in this area (as well as many other areas) so I am very cautious in watching the men I have dated and the decisions they have made in their lives and for their children, etc. to determine if I am going to be comfortable under his leadership one day. Even as a single adult grown woman, when I got divorced 3 years ago today, I purposely submitted myself to my church eldership for accountability and such in important matters. My father is deceased and my mom is not a Christian...I know my church leadership loves and cares for me and my son and will give me wise counsel when I ask for it; I trust them implicitly.

I guess the end result of all of this is that we all need some sort of accountability in our lives and with accountability brings wisdom for us to make whatever choices are before us...especially when we don't know which direction God might be pointing us.

Submission, the way God intends it to be, is not "do as I say"...its a partnership where your husband values you and your opinions, etc. and takes them into consideration in his loving leadership of your home. It also means that he is accountable to God for what happens in his home.

[70. Jerrard said the following at 1:59 PM on Oct 24:]

70

What about after you cut bait? What if the two of you are such good friends that communication continues and emotions are still present. I broke up with my ex 10 days ago, but we both love the Lord, and I'm not sure how to love her in the Lord without feeling those post-break-up emotions. (i.e. "I miss her", "I wonder if this is what God wanted" ect.). Sex ruined our relationship and almost our friendship leading to a hurtful breakup. It was a blessing in disguise because we turned to repentance and agreed to love and minister to one another. I just don't when to draw the "friend zone" line.(too many conversations, visits, ect.) I'm not sure if I want to marry her and I don't want to defraud her. But she was and is my friend more than anything. I don't want to hurt her either by distancing myself. Any advice?

[71. Marci said the following at 4:55 PM on Oct 24:]

71

Louise,

Everything I said about divorce is, to my knowledge, Biblically correct. Do you know of any verses that specifically contradict what I said?

Your comment about me perhaps being divorced one day?

INAPPROPRIATE! Sounds to me like someone is bitter enough to wish the pain of their experineces on someone else.

Not Christ like AT ALL.

Blessings

[72. Marci said the following at 5:42 PM on Oct 24:]

72

Jess and KJ,

First Jess:
Your approach is exactly the opposite of what Croft advises in "From Hi to I do in a year" ...but I think you know that.

No, I didn't intend to be harsh in my post. That being said, I'm blunt. Even in real life. And I've had numerous friends (who initially hated me for saying exactly what I thought) later tell me that I was the only one in their lives who spoke the truth.

You know what I've never understood? The people who go to weddings, whisper about the misgivings they have regarding the newly married couple, and then broadcast these misgivings loudly when they divoce. How hypocritical and CRUEL! So I don't waste time - I just tell the naked truth as I see it, because too often people sugar coat the truth and obscure the meaning. I appologize for my bluntness: it's both a strength and a weakness for me (for instance, you were put off by my tone).

However, everyone is responsible for what they know. So you're now responsible for all the counsel you've received. Regardless of my thoughts on your resolution, I earnestly pray that you may never have a reason to regret your decision.

Now KJ: You raise a valid point. I don't think women should whine to get their boyfriends to marry them.

But you know what? If by 1.5 years (MAX)into the relationship he cannot tell you he's going to marry you FOR SURE -take off. As a woman, you have to be strong. If you don't put your foot down when he's had more than enough time to decide, you are giving him PERMISSION to waste your time.

So staying in the relationship and complaning is not at all the only option. But leaving (when the length of time he's taking to decide becomes disrespectful) takes a strong woman. I've never had one boyfriend who wasn't bound and determined to marry me. Not one. And I'm convinced it was because they KNEW that I had the strength to leave....and not only was I strong enough to leave, I WOULD leave.

Men know when a woman KNOWS she has options. The minute you start thinking Mr. Boyfriend is the only suitable person you'll be able to get...GOOD LUCK trying to demand any respect.

Women also keep thinking 'if I just spend one more year with him, he'll come around' - I think this is crazy. Because if he doesn't want to marry you, a year, two more, three years is not going to seal the deal. And earlier this year I read an article somewhere that said that when they asked Christian guys if the woman they were dating was the one they would marry, most said 'no'. This means they were just waiting around for someone better! So don't assume that a Christian man will not waste your time.

A confident woman does not need to give an ultimatum; the minute she says 'you know, it's clear we want different off our relationship so you can find a girl you'll want to marry' - I mean, if he's got the desire to marry you and is just wasting time, he'll snap to and buy you a ring right quickly. Robin even used this tactic on Dr. Phil lol...a couple months after she let him know that if marriage wasn't in the picture for them she was out, he proposed. (Ladies, if it worked on a psychologist lol ....[wheels in the brain turning])

And not one of friends who has come to the realization of her worth has ever had problems getting men to want to marry since! At first, they all thought I was crazy; but then, they realized I was never in unproductive relationships because of my confidence. Two broke up with their four-year boyfriends (I never agreed with that either; before comming round, one friend actually called home to her mother complaining about how unrealistic my 1.5 year rule was...only to have her mother turn around and tell her that I was absolutely correct), one broke up with her 5 year boyfriend, and two of them got married to other men, both of whom knew they were going to marry them in less than 1 year. And the other friend is currently in a productive relationship.

It works!

Blessings

[73. Jethro said the following at 5:58 PM on Oct 24:]

73

Marci,

Quote "The Bible makes it clear that individuals are to divorce only in cases of adultery"

So does that mean if I took to beating my wife on a daily basis she wouldn't have the right to divorce me as long as I remained faithful? I mean adultery is the only reason right?

Quote: "Most of the divorces that occur happen because people (one or both) are selfish and lack committment"

Have you got any objective evidence for this or is it just your opinion? One carries far more weight than the other.

I note also Marci that you're very very forceful in your responses. Can I suggest that you adopt a less dictatorial tone and recognise that you in fact don't have all the answers or the sole right to interpret the Bible. Finally, if you could stop littering your posts with capital letters for emphasis that would be appreciated, it's REALLY annoying.

[74. Jess said the following at 7:44 PM on Oct 24:]

74

Marci,
I didn't mean that I was offended by your tone, just that it might make it hard for people to take you seriously sometimes. If they can find fault with your delivery, it's easier to dimiss the content.
Anyway, It's clear you think you are right on this, and I have nothing more to say.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me personally.

[75. Louise said the following at 9:11 PM on Oct 24:]

75

Marci, you show me in the Bible where it says that divorced people are selfish and lack commitment.

And I never said I was like Christ.

Not that you would actually know what He was like...not with the nasty tone of your posts.

[76. Leah said the following at 10:38 PM on Oct 24:]

76

Marci, I would point out that what Jess says "If they can find fault with your delivery, it's easier to dimiss the content." Often I find you so rude (normally to others rather than myself) that I virtually ignore what you have to say. Often I agree with you, but I still ignore it because you've been so rude to the person.

I agree that divorce is only appropriate in the case of unfaithfulness. The bible makes that clear. But you should not have snapped at the lady who suggested you may one day end up divorced. You do now know your future, and that may be true. Keep your words sweet, in case you may need to eat them one day ;)

It's good to tell the nake truth as you see it without sugar coating it, but I seem to recall many times in the bible when Jesus says to be loving! You may think you're being loving by telling the truth, but you are not doing it lovingly.

To those who have discussed the nature of submission/mens' leadership in dating relationships: I do believe that men should lead, and I think that, to a certain degree, the woman should submit. Key words being "to a certain degree". I believe Jess was wise when she said she considered and weighed her boyfriend's opinion, then agreed with him and went along with that. That is good. Obviously, there should not be such a large degree of submission- ie. you're not obliged to up and relocate if your boyfriend has to move to another state for work, however a wife is. Just like you don't have to submit to your boyfriend's choice of church, however a wife does. (NB: I don't believe dating couples have to attend the same church. Engaged and married couples, yes). So, as girlfriends, we should still display a submissive nature, but this does not mean submitting to him on everything, or being walked over and not voicing your opinion.

[77. Louise said the following at 8:31 AM on Oct 25:]

77

Okay, folks, I have a few questions here.

I do not mean to be confrontational...I would like honest opinions please.

What does a woman do if she is not by nature submissive?

A few years ago I had a boyfriend tell me "There isn't a submissive bone in your body."

And indeed, there probably isn't!

Now...if the answer it that non -submissive women should stay single, that to me is an acceptable answer.

I personally like being single and I like living alone.

But...Boundless says if you aren't called to celibate service, you should get married.

What if a woman isn't submissive and a man isn't a leader?

And yes, everyone I know what it says in the Bible, but what if someone just isn't that way?

[78. Marci said the following at 8:31 AM on Oct 25:]

78

Jethro and Jess,

A new article was posted on Boundless today called "Obey your Pastor?"

I think it's worth a read. Certainly holds more weight than anything I say.

Jethro: Both you and Jess seem to have interpreted my post differently. Jess thinks it might make it hard for people to take me seriously; you think it seems forceful.

Neither was my intention. Thank you both for your feedback, as maybe I do need to consider whether my tone might cause people to ignore what I say. I don't want to be artificial on this site either...so this will take some thinking about....

Also Jethro: I'm not in Bible school, and I don't assume I'm an authority on the Bible. But I do think any Christian can get into dangerous areas if they ignore what the Bible says because it's inconvenient. For instance, in the situation you described with a woman being abused - do you think I'm heartless??? My suggestion would be for this woman to separate from her husband; this would allow her to seek protection from an abusive situation *and* pray that God will do a work in his heart. Through prayer and counseling, it is possible for God to restore the relationship.

In my view, divorcing here (which is not Biblically sanctioned) seems like telling God that he doesn't have the power to aid the situation.

My comment about one or both being selfish and lacking committment is one that most marriage counselors I've encountered support. I say one or both to encompass situation where a spouse is married to an absolute jerk, but who is trying her/his best. If they divorce you against your will, I admit you're stuck. Hence, "one or both."

Did either of you note my comment that the reason I feel this strongly about these topics is because I'm in youth leadership? I responded primarily out of seeing many people in similar situations who ended up having sex out of wedlock - of course I feel strongly; I don't want anyone else to go through the pain I've been seeing again and again of late.

Blessings to you both

[79. Marci said the following at 8:39 AM on Oct 25:]

79

Louise,

Please read carefully. You said "that divorced people are selfish and lack commitment"

But I acutally said: "The Facts? Most of the divorces that occur happen because people (one or both) are selfish and lack committment."

Please note that I said "one" or "both" to encompass situations where either the husband or wife is married to a person who demands a divorce and/or just won't work at the situation.

I *did not" say that divorced people are selfish and lack committment. There are some cases where the fault rests on both partners; but for some, their spouse just wouldn't cooperate.

I actually know two divorced ladies in the later category, and I'm sympathetic with both their cases; they both got raw deals.

[sigh]

Blessings

[80. Louise said the following at 8:46 AM on Oct 25:]

80

Marci, I don't know what marriage counselors you deal with, but I do not agree that most counselors believe that divorced people are selfish or lacking in committment.

But hey, ma'am, go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel superior.

[81. Carrie said the following at 8:57 AM on Oct 25:]

81

Louise,
I feel your pain as I have been labeled "aggressive" and "stubborn". Having a the man lead, or anyone else other than me, goes against every grain in my body.
It's called sanctification. It is hard. A marriage is supposed to be a picture of the Gospel. The man is to imitate Christ and the woman is called to imitate the Church.
How does the Church submit to Christ?
I'm learning more about that one everyday. The Church continues to fall short of the standard set for her, but Christ continually and unconditionally loves her. He is constantly beckoning her to return to Him. He demonstrates love.
Now, no man is Jesus, but he spends his life trying to imitate Him. So, he's constantly learning new and different things.
I wish there was a simple, pat answer because my life would be much easier. First, learn how to submit to Christ. Then you can be better equipped to honor the men in your life. Note, I said "honor" and not "submit". As noted here on Boundless (and my pastor has said the same exact thing), the only man you submit to is your husband. I think the dating/engagement process would be a time of learning what submission to your husband would look like. Once you get married, you begin to practice this -- as submitting to Christ Himself. I don't think anyone ever does it perfectly, but hopefully everyone is learning how to do it better.
If in dating/engagement you aren't supposed to pretend like you're married, then you shouldn't really do this during your single days either. I'm constantly learning that I don't have to "prove myself" to any male interests I have. My goal right now is to honor Christ. I'm just praying very hard that some male specimen out there recognizes that and wants to walk beside me in this endeavor.
Learning about what Scripture has to say about the purple harlot has helped me out a lot. I want to be the virgin, not the purple harlot. It's tough, but Christ is with me through it all.

[82. Marci said the following at 9:02 AM on Oct 25:]

82

Leah,

There's a difference between being rude and being honest (which is often considered rude in our pc-dominated cultures).

This is probably the most emphatic I've ever been on a thread, because I don't want others to experience the pains I've been seeing lately...

But where else would you say I've been rude? Can you remember a specific thread?

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually interested in what you think is rude.

That being said, I will say that the most beneficial people in my life have been those who say things that at first may have upset me, but I later relized were true. So I guess I've taken the same approach in my dealings with others.

I think honesty is undervalued. Even if I don't agree with what someone says, if I feel their relating the truth as they see it, I'll respect them. Not many people have the guts for that these days....

I'm also study literature. I think because I've seen how words can obscure truths, I'm more prone to being blunt than I ever have been in my life. I guess people have reactions to what they study, and I've been going through one of late.

I don't think all truths are lovely...so I've never packaged them...

But since there's such a split between people who think I'm funny (BDB), hard to take seriously (Jess), and rude (you)....I may try to package my answers.

I've tried this a few times before on the site - and people misunderstood me more than ever. At least here, it seemed like people were reacting against what I was saying....not thinking I was saying something I wasn't...(except mostly Louise)

I really, really do feel that Louise intended to be mean-spirited in her comment. And I'm interested that you don't dub her comment rude....but you think my comments are rude even though most times I'm arguing for a concept I believe is Biblical. But my experience on Boundless is that someone is always offended when the Bible presents an inconvenient truth...how can I ever stop this? I don't mind if people disagree with what I say...but if people think my intention is to be rude, that's different.

I think that you, too, misunderstood what I was saying about divorce. I wasn't lashing out at divorced people. Please see my recent comment to Louise; hope this clarifies what I say. There are good reasons to keep one's words sweet...but I don't think misrepresenting the Bible would be a good way to compensate for the chance that a divorce could happen in the future.

I will, though, consider what sugar coating to put on my words so they go down with ease (I guess I just figure, just take Buckley's - it works!)

Blessings

[83. Louise said the following at 9:15 AM on Oct 25:]

83

Carrie, I am not in "pain."

I am curious.

I still stand by my opinion that some people are just better off single.

[84. Marci said the following at 9:28 AM on Oct 25:]

84

Louise,

You said: "Marci, I don't know what marriage counselors you deal with, but I do not agree that most counselors believe that divorced people are selfish or lacking in committment."

But I actually said: "My comment about one or both being selfish and lacking committment is one that most marriage counselors I've encountered support."

There *is* a difference between generalizing all divorced people (which I did not do; you're not being honest about what I said) and saying "one or both," which indicates that there are cases where one spouse is terrible and uncooperative. Which would make this spouse lacking in committment towards the marital relationship, and thus, selfish.

Please argue fairly. If I fail to argue fairly, I'm sure someone will call me on it. But when you misrepresent what someone says...especially when they've pointed it out to you numerous times...it's dishonest and seems *intentionally* insulting!

Blessings to you

[85. Tami said the following at 9:58 AM on Oct 25:]

85

Louise - In answer to your question, I'll use myself as an example. Not that I'm some ideal, but I struggle through that question myself. (FYI, I'm not married yet, as you may have gathered if you've read other comments I've made, so this is a little theoretical at this point.)

First off, I don't think a woman is required to submit to a guy when he's simply her boyfriend. Be respectful, yes. But not follow everything he says blindly, which I fear is often the definition of "submit" in some men's minds.

Secondly, I tend to only make it past two or three dates with guys that I honestly respect, so that cuts the "do I submit?" questions down to a minimum for me. (Also cuts the number of dates down, but I digress. ;)

I test how well he leads in the small things, and then progressively move on to bigger things. I would only take his lead on huge life-goal-oriented stuff if I was pretty close to having rings on my finger.

Generally I can sniff out the guys I'd never be able to "submit to" pretty quickly. If a guy I just met tells me, "Don't go to grad school" or "Don't take that job," I'm out of there. (And I have been.) That guy has control issues, and if he's like that after a couple dates, I can only imagine what being married to him would be like!

But if I've known the guy for a while, and our relationship is serious and headed towards marriage, I would take his words into consideration if I knew they came from a good place in his heart, where he was looking out for me and planning for our future. And if I prayed and still felt strongly, I'd have another discussion with him about it, and see how we could work together on it. If it really was a dealbreaker, I choose God's direction over the guy.

So basically, when I consider the "submission thing" with regard to "can I do it?" the questions I ask myself are, "Do I really respect this guy's wisdom? Could I see myself following the lead of *this particular man*? If I'm going to be following his lead, can I trust that he will look out for me, too? Does he value who God has uniquely made me as a person, and encourage me?" If the answers to those questions are "no," then I don't think I can be committed to that particular man. Which, to me, is what marriage is... a commitment to respect, love, and honor one particular man, and serve God together.

And I know it can be done. I know of many very strong, intelligent Christian women who have very wise husbands who love and respect them very much. They work *together,* with him taking the lead.

If you respect the man, and are willing to respond to his leadership, it makes it a lot easier to follow his lead. If the guy isn't strong enough to lead well in the first place, I would probably not consider him marriage material for myself.

[86. JMarie said the following at 12:10 PM on Oct 25:]

86

Louise,
There have been times when I think you only hang around Boundless to heckle the bloggers.

Marci,
There have been times I've thought you came across as abrasive or arrogant.

And yet, with both of you, there have been many times when I thought you provided great insight or a needed, unique perspective. I appreciate that and think The Line would lose something good if you stopped posting. Thank you for keeping folks on their toes!

However, as has been addressed here before, I think we could all benefit from taking a moment to be sure we understand what someone is saying before we respond, to re-evaluate our tone, and ask to if our comment adds something necessary to the discussion.

Louise - on the issue of whether some women just aren't meant to submit and some men aren't meant to lead, I've had the same question myself. Could it be that the woman has issues with all authority that needs to be dealt with between her and God, or that she just hasn't found a man she respects enough? Perhaps God intends to grow the man and woman by putting them in roles that don't come naturally? I don't know, but I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on the matter (though at this point I'm not sure it's on topic).

[87. BDB said the following at 1:11 PM on Oct 25:]

87

Marci wrote:

>>That being said, I will say that the most beneficial people in my life have been those who say things that at first may have upset me, but I later relized were true.<<

Some personality types can handle that better than others. If it's not done gently, it will still end the relationship. Though, indeed, the individual may decide that the honest feedback was right and adjust their behavior in the future. They will end up respecting the person who was honest with them. They just won't try to reconcile a friendship with the person being honest.

I've seen it both ways. There are people who've come to me very upset that they made a lot of bad choices and none of their "friends" ever said anything - so they ended those friendships. But the same individuals end friendships with people who ARE honest (e.g. "How dare they judge me!"). Sometimes you lose either way.

But I do think Marci is very articulate and a keen observer of the people around her.

[88. nikki said the following at 1:46 PM on Oct 25:]

88

Hi Louise, I know several people have already addressed your questions about submission earlier, but I'll give it a shot.

Actually we are all called to submit to something or someone...regardless of age, gender or status. We are all required to follow laws, both civil and moral ones. The Bible tells us all to submit to one another. Submission is a necessary virtue that we should all practice...it's closely related to humility and gentleness. Phillippians 2 also teaches us that Christ was the ultimate example of submission, "making himself nothing," and that we are to follow Christ's example of valuing others above ourselves. He wasn't only speaking to women here! Clearly, submission is commanded of all Christians. This lesson needs to be taught! Too often it is the women that are focused on in sermons about submission, and it is overlooked that all believers need to be constantly in submission.

But there's an extra reason that women and wives are to submit (in marriage and within the church - there are no other restrictions). That's because of what marriage points to. The wife is the symbol of the body of believers, and her husband represents God and His Son. When a woman doesn't have an attitude of submission to her husband, it is a picture of insubordination to God. This is why divorce is so antithetical to Christian principles: it is a graphic picture of God turning his back on us, or of us abandoning God. One of the purposes of marriage is to reflect the relationship between God and Man.
Husbands, in the role of Christ, are commanded to lead, and love sacrificially. Wives are called to submit and respect. But don't go thinking that men don't have to respect and women don't have to love. It's only the issues we struggle with that are mentioned here. Women don't, on a whole, need to be told to love their husbands because they generally do. Husbands, likewise, don't generally have problems with respecting their wives. When Paul gave that command, he wasn't leaving things out because they are not required; he left them out because they are assumed. Husbands need to submit to their wives on regular occasions...because it is what all believers are commanded to do with others.

So the bottom line is that all Christians need to be cultivating an attitude of humility, submission and deference to others. Women, because of their role in marriage and in the church, have an added layer of command. But it is already something we should be doing. Hope that kind of answers the questions in your mind.

[89. Tami said the following at 2:07 PM on Oct 25:]

89

WRT what BDB said, it's just unfortunate that some people feel the need to be unduly harsh while they're being honest. Honesty and caring is hard to hear underneath harsh tones of voice.

We need to hear the truth from others, and sometimes it takes a little time of reflection in order to accept that truth. We can respect that it was probably hard for them to be so honest with us.

Then again, some people just say what they want to say, right off the top of their heads, without regard to how someone else might take it, and never understand why someone might be put off by their way of saying things. They take the person's backing off as a sign of his or her further weakness of character. That kind of attitude is hard to respect, as it indicates a lack of consideration of others' feelings, and yes I will evaluate my relationship with someone who consistently acts like that.

[90. BDB said the following at 2:47 PM on Oct 25:]

90

Louise wrote:

>>What does a woman do if she is not by nature submissive?<<

Elisabeth Elliot has some great books. She's written 28 as I recall, but still believes in femininity. You may want to try her title, "Let Me Be a Woman."

After taking several months to think about it and observe people, I accept EE's contention that when women take initiative, the result is chaos. All of the multi-year run-on relationships I observe around me have women taking the initiative with their boyfriends. I'm not sure that is the same as Biblical submission in decision-making (such as jobs, school, etc.) But the spiritual principle is similar.

It has been my observation that if a man won't lead in a relationship, usually he didn't initiate the relationship, either.

[91. Leah said the following at 7:54 PM on Oct 25:]

91

Marci, there have been many times I've cringed and thought "you could have said that much nicer and still gotten your point across", but I"m not about to go looking for all the threads. If you want though, I can make a comment every time you do it from now on so you know :P

Now please, don't accuse me of being PC. I hate political correctness with a passion, as anyone who reads my blog would know. I do not equate honesty with rudeness. I love for people to be honest, but you can be gentle and loving about it instead of abrupt and offensive.

Louise- you ask "And yes, everyone I know what it says in the Bible, but what if someone just isn't (submissive)?"

The blunt answer is: that doesn't matter. You still have to be submissive. What if I am simply not an obedient person? Does that excuse me from obeying God's commands? We are born sinful. That means we are born with tendencies to do what is wrong and what God does not like. That means we must correct ourselves.

That goes for men who are not leaders and women who are not submissive.

Now, if you feel you're called to celibacy, then by all means, this doesn't apply to you! But if not, you should get married. I was at a camp recently, on the topic of "love sex and marriage", where the speaker said "the man does not have a choice when it comes to being the leader. He is the leader, whether he likes it or not. The question is whether he's a good leader or not."

Now, in regards to you and what your boyfriend (or ex-boyfriend) said, you may have a faulty idea of what submission is. I think a lot of it comes from respecting your boyfriend/husband. If we respect them then that should automatically lead to submission. Just like we respect our parents and submit to them. Were you submissive to your parents? If so, then the idea that you "don't have a submissive bone in your body" is quite false! Now, if you really aren't a submissive person, perhaps you should work on being submissive. I know I really have to! There have been times when my boyfriend has said or done something that, while I mightn't like it, is not wrong or bad. And I just bite my tongue. Not so that he can walk all over me (he doesn't), but to show respect for him and his leadership. Like I said in an earlier post, girlfriends are not required as much submission as wives, but I do think we should demonstrate some.

So, in summary, women (especially wives) must be submissive. Even if we are not submissive people, we should work to correct that in ourselves. This doesn't mean you can't disagree with him, and can't speak up on your behalf. But it does mean that ultimately he has the final say. If he loves you as God commands, he will take your thoughts into serious consideration.

[92. BDB said the following at 12:54 AM on Oct 26:]

92

Tami wrote:

>>They take the person's backing off as a sign of his or her further weakness of character. <<

Oh my, I'm dealing with that attitude with someone right now. Or at least pondering how I'm going to deal with it. I need to calm down so that I don't "accidentally" start reeling off a list of all her broken work and personal relationships, and point out that her approach is the common thread. I'm sure that there's more wreckage that I don't know about. So in the mean time I need to pray for God's timing and some words that are seasoned with grace.

[93. Abigail said the following at 6:29 AM on Oct 26:]

93

I am glad I didn't get married to my boyfriend within one year of dating! I think this "one year" business is great for some people, but it is just dangerous to imply that longer relationships are necessarily wrong. I have been with my boyfriend for 2 years. We had six months together, then a heartwrenching year separated by thousands of miles, and now we are six months past that. A lot of things are coming up as "issues" now because he was so intent on impressing me during those first six months of dating that he failed to really consider what he wanted/needed out of marriage (and if I was the right person for those "needs"). He wanted to get engaged before he left for that year, so it isn't like he wasn't willing to commit at that point. I felt like it was too soon and we were too young to make that decision. My parents thought we hadn't known each other long enough to know if we should marry. They were right. As heartbreaking as it is to be considering all the options after spending 2 years in a relationship, I think it is a lot better than the alternative -- wondering why in the world you got married!
After watching plenty of married and engaged couples, it seems to me that every marriage faces a time of extreme crisis about the relationship, where one or both people really question whether it is the best thing to be married to the other. This happens before or after marriage. I am glad that we are not married with this happening, because we can fully explore all the things we want to think about. If we were married we would just have to bury these thoughts. Now we can deal with these, and if we still decide to get married we will know with all certainty that we are making the right decision and have the answers for doubts/concerns, etc.

I think it is very risky to marry someone you haven't been in a relationship with for at least a year, but I wouldn't make a hard and fast rule to call "God's Will" like you guys have done here on Boundless.

[94. K said the following at 7:55 AM on Oct 26:]

94

I have to say that although Marci is upfront in her comments I don't perceive her to be rude.

Secondly I know things can come across differntly if not done face to face but from what I have read the motivation behind her comments don't seem to be said just to be harsh but because she has seen ppl go through it and is passionate not to let others suffer the same - I really don't see what is wrong with that. Also she can only comment based on what you have written in a post.

Finally whoever said and supports this notion of she may one day be divorced? What kind of statement is that for a christain to make? Would Jesus really say that to someone? I see no need for it in a christain's vocab.
It is neither a fact or the truth, God knows the plan he has for a person's life and they are good.
And also, if you read Paul's letters he was very direct.

[95. Leah said the following at 8:47 AM on Oct 26:]

95

Marci- the only post of Louise's that I read was her asking about submission.

I just went and re-read the exchange between the two of you, and the first post I encountered that sounded remotely snappy or rude or whatever was yours, when you snapped at her ("INAPPROPRIATE!") for suggesting you might one day end up divorced. It was a fair enough suggestion, it might happen to any of us. In fact, I found your very first post on this thread kind of rude.

Besides, it wasn't your replies to Louise that I was talking about, it was your reply to Jess. So I don't know where my opinion of Louise's comments come in to it. You certainly shouldn't be making judgments about me based upon it.

And like I said before, (hasn't been posted yet, hopefully it will soon), this has nothing to do with my opinion of honesty. Be honest, by all means. But don't use that as a licence to be rude. The most honest people I know are also the gentlest, kindest, most loving people I know. I can't say any of those three things about you. You might have loving intentions, but you are not being loving or treating the person lovingly. It is possible to be honest and kind, loving and gentle.

[96. Tami said the following at 10:03 AM on Oct 26:]

96

BDB -- believe me, I know that's tough. I will pray for you, and I mean that.

[97. Louise said the following at 11:33 AM on Oct 26:]

97

To everyone who responded to my submission question, thank you for your honest responses.

[98. Marci said the following at 3:29 PM on Oct 26:]

98

Leah and K,

First Leah (K, the words I have for you are further down on the page):

If I had told someone that they were rude, I would defend it with specific examples. I would care enough to do this. In my experience, people who are genuinely trying to correct others won't leave things in the realm of the vague - we all know that vague responses are less useful.

I find it interesting that even though you say that you thought my first post on this thread was rude, you don't give specific examples.

My gut feeling is that you're concerned that if you raise specific examples, lots of people will chime in and say 'but that's not rude.' Whereas right now, you can attack my character without providing proof for anyone that it's justified. Why say you think that even my first post is an example - but not give specific examples? I'm sorry, but it really is starting to look like you're deliberately undermining my voice on Boundless.

At least, my response to you here tells you *specifically* why I think what I'm thinking. And - not to close down discourse by my response - feel free to post specific examples in response. That would be useful.

Now K:

Thank you for providing an alternative reading of my posts in response to Leah's suggestion that they are rude. I can't tell you how much that meant to me, because I've never once written something here in an attempt to be hurtful. To me, being rude is intentional. Thank you everything contained in my post, as evident through your observation that my main thing is not to see more people experience the hurts I've been witnessings.

God really used you to encourgage me. Thank you for being a willing vessel.

Blessings

[99. Marci said the following at 3:34 PM on Oct 26:]

99

Leah,

You say: "but you are not being loving or treating the person lovingly. It is possible to be honest and kind, loving and gentle".

Now you're judging my intentions?!? Do you notice that usually when I say things that I think might be the case, I use words such as "seems" or "appears" so as to avoid judging the person outright? I've also found that this method leaves room for people to post a response and clarify, because this wording shows that I think I may be seeing something, but I'm not sure.

But by you're wording, you're arguing that I am not treating the peson lovingly. You're not even leaving room for the possiblity you might be wrong.

Interesting.

[100. Leah said the following at 7:49 AM on Oct 28:]

100

Marci,
I was never judging your intentions. You will note that I said "You might have loving intentions, but you are not being loving or treating the person lovingly." How on earth is that judging your intentions? That's judging the result of what you do, not the intentions.

I also would have thought that "the first post on this thread" would be specific enough, but seeing as it isn't, I'll go into further explanation. Your use of !?! when asking OBEWAN a question sounds almost ridiculing of them. Your use of !?! and caps when talking to Jess also sounded ridiculing, and as if you were yelling at her. (Let's face it, caps are a globally understood form of cyber-yelling). I mean, even Jethro said "you're very very forceful in your responses. Can I suggest that you adopt a less dictatorial tone and recognise that you in fact don't have all the answers or the sole right to interpret the Bible. Finally, if you could stop littering your posts with capital letters for emphasis that would be appreciated, it's REALLY annoying."

If anyone here is judging intentions, it's you, when you say "My gut feeling is that you're concerned that if you raise specific examples, lots of people will chime in and say 'but that's not rude.' Whereas right now, you can attack my character without providing proof for anyone that it's justified." Actually, I gave you a reason for not getting specific examples, if you actually read my posts. I also offered to point it out in future, an offer I note you ignored.

Deliberately undermining your voice? Why would I do that, unless I genuinely disagreed with you? I'm just as qualified to say you hang around just to undermine my voice. It's a silly claim to make.