The Living-Together Lie
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 07/07/2009 at 2:53 PM
I remember when I was first introduced to the concept of living together. I had just watched the movie Baby Boom with my parents, and my mom asked me, "Do you know what was wrong with that movie?" I didn't. Mom explained to me that the man and the woman lived together without being married. To my young mind, that option was completely foreign. In fact, I had simply assumed the couple in the film was married.
Fast forward to the present day. Some 60 percent of young adults will live together before they marry. Not only is it acceptable; it is expected and even considered prudent. As Scott M. Stanley and Galena Kline point out in today's featured article, the belief that living together is helpful to marriage is a myth:
The majority of young adults do believe that living together helps people make decisions about marriage as well as provides a way for couples to work through issues before making a lifelong commitment. In fact, over half of younger people believe that living together prior to marriage will lower their odds of marital problems and divorce. Research, however, suggests something quite different.
The main reason for this cited by the authors is the theory of inertia:
It suggests that external pressure to remain together starts to build when a couple moves in together. You move in together, buy a place, get a dog, spend less time with friends and more time alone together, and maybe declare the other as your beneficiary for financial matters — and these things make it more likely that you will stay together. In other words, there is an increasing weight of forces that favor your staying together when you live together. In the words of Scott's commitment theory, living together increases the constraints of leaving the relationship.
Basically, living together is a form of marriage, but a cheaper, flimsier one. The authors point out that living together often "just happens" rather than being the willful decision of marriage. I supposed within Christian circles, living together before marriage was clearly considered a sin, but the discussion on our Facebook page shows that even believers may not view cohabiting as out of bounds.
Apart from the evidence that suggests living together is bad for marriage, I appeal to Paul's words in Ephesians: "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people" (5:3). Regardless of whether you live under the same roof, sex outside of the covenant of marriage is not God's plan for sexuality. It's no wonder that couples who have cohabited report less satisfaction in marriage and a higher rate of infidelity and divorce. Straying from God's plan always has consequences. If someone tries to tell you otherwise, they are promoting a lie.
1. Cassandra said the following at 3:58 PM on Jul 7:
but the discussion on our Facebook page shows that even believers may not view cohabiting as out of bounds.
Unbelievable. If I never hear the phrase "personal choice" invoked in a discussion of the moral absolutes of the Bible again I will be a happy woman.
I searched for some verses to learn about the Biblical concept of choice.
James 4:4
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
1 Peter 4:3
For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.
And Paul "lived together" with Lydia? lol that's rich.
2. Adam said the following at 4:39 PM on Jul 7:
I would be very interested to hear someone actually make a case against living together before marriage. Every time I see the topic addressed it is assumed that there is sex. In which case, all of a sudden the topic is premarital sex.
What about where there is no sex? Is there a Biblical precedent one way or the other then?
On a related note, is it okay for a guy and a girl who are not in a romantic relationship to live together?
3. Dr. Ransom (E. Stephen Burnett) said the following at 5:18 PM on Jul 7:
To assume a guy and girl can live together without sex and/or sexual acts naturally following -- ignoring the stratospheric levels of sexual temptation, and inappropriate closeness that such an arrangement would bring about -- is, frankly, among the more brazenly naive assertions I've seen about the cyber-world today.
It is also a grossly Stoic view of human nature, to think that a man (or woman) could somehow just be too "mature" for that sort of thing. These are the only kinds of arguments supporting "non-romantic" live-in relationships, which I have heard from secular sectors.
But as other commentators have said, it's strange and genuinely bewildering to hear the same kinds of arguments from professing Christians.
4. Cassandra said the following at 5:25 PM on Jul 7:
I would be very interested to hear someone actually make a case against living together before marriage.
Beyond what the article said and the research backs up?
Every time I see the topic addressed it is assumed that there is sex.
And that's what everyone assumes if you're living with your gf. Hence why it's condemned in the Christian faith ... even if you claim you're not having sex, people won't believe it, and it's a bad witness.
On a related note, is it okay for a guy and a girl who are not in a romantic relationship to live together?
I think this is an area where there is no Biblical prohibition, but in my opinion, it's unwise. You're introducing temptation that you could live without. Maybe its not inherently a sin, but again, perhaps a potentially problematic witness to people who don't understand that the two people aren't romantically involved.
Thinking about it from a different POV, as many of us are single on this blog, if my boyfriend lived with a woman he was just roommates with, that would probably still bother me.
5. BDB said the following at 5:47 PM on Jul 7:
Of course, it's even more awkward for those Christians who don't believe in living together before marriage, and then must face their PARENTS doing so before remarriage!
6. Giselle Aguiar said the following at 6:47 PM on Jul 7:
It's not called "living in sin" for nothing. God gave us rules to follow, but we think we know better. We cannot hide from God. No matter what you call it, it's still a sin and no good can come from it.
One or the other of the pair is selling themselves out for a relationship with no foundation. It's not fair to either party. God knows all and it's not up to us to decide what we like is better just because it feels good.
7. Adam said the following at 7:47 PM on Jul 7:
(#3&4)
in this day and age, just the idea of a couple waiting until marriage for sex is considered to be incredibly naive to the culture. Yet as Christians we ascribe to the idea that it is possible and that we should wait. Indeed, some even do wait. I even know a couple who did live together before marriage and yet did not have sex.
I guess what I'm asking is "is the act of living together unmarried wrong?" No doubt it could be misunderstood by other believers. I would seriously question the wisdom of it. But when push comes to shove, I see no direct Biblical support for it being wrong.
8. Nicole said the following at 8:05 PM on Jul 7:
What if its more than just one guy and one girl living together? what if it was 2 guys and one girl or 2 girls and one guy? would it be less controversial then? What if it was a brother and sister and one other person?
I can understand why 'living together' even in a platonic way wouldn't be such a great idea for many reasons, definitely not disagreeing there. On the other hand I have actually seen it work out just fine in more than one instance with other friends.
9. Jen R. said the following at 8:44 PM on Jul 7:
I don't think that men and women who are not married to each other or related to one another should be living under the same roof. However, when I was abroad in Scotland this past year, one of my good friends lived with two other guys and two girls in one flat. I never really asked him if it was an issue, but I often wonder how the dynamic went with that. So in terms of Adam (#2) I think that maybe it can work in a non-romantic way, but I don't think it's ideal. Having said that, for some urban ministry I did two summers ago in Chicago, I shared an apartment with two guys and four other girls. It was good in some ways and bad in others-naturally, people started to have feelings for each other which made working together difficult.
10. Brian Krieger said the following at 8:46 PM on Jul 7:
Adam:
There is the emotional attachment that isn't proper for someone who isn't your wife or husband. I know boundless has had more about it than this, but here are a couple of links:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001505.cfm
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0000302.cfm
and related, but not explicitly:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0000277.cfm
11. Maggie said the following at 9:00 PM on Jul 7:
Adam (#2):
The reason discussion on this issue often revolves around sex, is that, as others have pointed out, if you live with your girlfriend or boyfriend, you give the appearance of being sexually involved, whether you are or not. Case in point, my next-door neighbour has a boyfriend who stays the night sometimes. My assumption is that he's not sleeping on the sofa.... The Bible is clear about avoiding even the appearance of evil.
The Bible is also VERY clear that we need to flee from sexual temptation and sexual immorality (2 Tim 2:2, 1 Cor 6:18, Eph 5:3, etc.) and living with someone you're attracted too is kind of like running towards temptation instead.
[I gave these very same two reasons to my ex when I explained that I thought it would be inappropriate for him to stay in my guest room while visiting from 700km away. He didn't like this line of reasoning so much, hence why he's my ex....]
There may be specific exceptional situations. A friend of mine boarded with her fiance and his parents before they married. She had just moved across the country to settle her, and they lived on different floors. Even so, she said that it was difficult to maintain boundaries.
12. DEH said the following at 9:03 PM on Jul 7:
When I was in junior high, one of my friends was adamant that living together, without the sex (she was a Christian), was wise before committing to lifelong marriage. Her reasoning resembled the reasoning that many use to support cohabiting (making sure you're compatible, etc.). No matter what we said to the contrary, she didn't believe us that cohabiting was wrong. So one of my other friends asked her pastor for his opinion, and his answer was fairly straightforward. He said, "Show me a couple who can live together without having sex, and I'll show you a couple who shouldn't get married." For whatever that's worth. :)
On another note, I was somewhat disappointed in the article itself because the attitude it conveyed throughout, while condemning cohabitation, seemed to promote some the ideas behind cohabitation, such as making sure your potential partner is compatible, as if that is the most important part of ensuring a lasting marriage. Such an attitude frustrates me to no end. While I believe it is extremely important to choose one's spouse wisely, making decisions with one's mind rather than solely emotions and taking godly counsel into account, I think that the most important factor in making a lasting marriage is committing to one's spouse without condition. If we go into marriage thinking everything will work out because we've found the right person, we will be tempted to bail when we find out that our spouse is perhaps human after all and think that maybe we chose the wrong one. It's not about finding the right person, it's about being the right person. And that's what I think this article misses.
13. Texas Craig said the following at 10:29 PM on Jul 7:
Adam:
To answer your question, there is no direct biblical prohibition against "cohabitating" when there is no sexual conduct. However, IMO, biblical principles would go against it for the following reasons:
(1) it will provide a negative witness because people will assume (generally rightly from our cultural viewpoint) you are having sex with the person you are living with
(2) it will provide a temptation to lust and sexual immorality for many people (although not all)
(3) it will create practical impediments to being able to serve others (for example, two guys living together would probably be more able to reach out to a homeless guy and invite him to stay with them, whereas a guy and a girl might not feel as free to do that - given the differences between men and women)
Those are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. I think the witness issue is the most significant.
14. Robin said the following at 10:31 PM on Jul 7:
Couples should not live together before they're married, regardless of whether or not they're having sex; I've been there, done that, and wish I could take it back. I lived with my boyfriend for 6 months until I found a job after the first 3 months and saved enough to move out.
We never had sex; we're both virgins and will remain that way until we're married. But, our decision to live together was still very stupid. Being able to live under the same roof is one of the perks of marriage, and we were seriously out of order.
As a matter of fact, those six months were some of the worst in our relationship because we pretty much had what Suzanne says: "a form of marriage, but a cheaper, flimsier one," a sexless, faux marriage in our case.
We had a million silly reasons for our choice:
1) I needed somewhere to stay because my roommate backed out at the last minute
2) It was temporary: I would get my own place once I found a job
3) Technically, we're not doing anything wrong because we're not having sex
...and a variety of other lame excuses.
Couples should not live together before marriage; there's no gray area with this, just people going their own way rather than God's.
15. Jethro said the following at 10:54 PM on Jul 7:
I have known a number of people who have lived with a member of the opposite sex, who they are not romantically involved with, without 'falling into' any sort of relationship - physical or emotional.
It actually is possible for a guy and a girl to just be friends.
16. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:52 AM on Jul 8:
:::turning sarcasm mode to ON:::
Oh come now, folks! Let's not get our britches in a bunch over something like "living together"!
We must be open-minded and develop a greater understanding of the challenges that men and women are facing today. We do not live in the 1930s anymore.
Christians need to be ministers of hope, helping people develop more healthier SELF-images, so they can aspire to better choices. If they don't have a proper view of SELF, then they cannot see their SELF-potential.
We must help them see the hope that is in their SELVES.
It's all about hope, folks. Because without hope, there can be no change...
:::turning sarcasm mode to OFF:::
17. Philip A. Kledzik said the following at 6:44 AM on Jul 8:
I agree with Cassandra in that there is no record in Scripture that says, "A man and woman who are not married to eachother may not live in the same dwelling whether there are sexual relations or not." The verses above do deal with sexual immorality. However, there is another area of life that Christ Himself brings to light that may deal more with this question of "can I live with her/him as long as I don't sleep with her/him?" The passage I am speaking of can be found in the book of Matthew chapter 5 verse 27-30. Here Christ is dealing with not just an issue of physical and sexual impurity, but an issue of the heart's impurity. Christ says, "but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."
You might be able to easily say, so we don't sleep together. But can you or the other person as easily so, no I don't "want" or lust after the other? The next verse says, "...if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
Christ is showing us that lusting after a a man or woman is a sin which has a wage that is death, eternal death. As a Christian we should run from those situations that are ripe for sin. Living with someone who is not your spouse is ripe for sin, both physical and in the heart.
Remember the old picture of a line that you shouldn't cross? Living with someone you aren't married to is like standing sideways (like on a tight-rope) and trying to balance without falling over. Eventually you will lose your balance and fall. It is better to stay far away from the line so that even if you trip, you aren't over the line.
I hope this helps some. I was using the NAS version for the Scripture references.
Philip A. Kledzik - author
An Issue of the Heart
Painted Rooms
authorphilipkledzik.books.officelive.com
18. D said the following at 8:37 AM on Jul 8:
My pastor said it well, "Living together before marriage tells the world that sex before marriage is ok." It isn't about what you are doing, it is what it looks like you are doing.
I had a friend (who lived alone) who was trying to witness to a guy who lived down the hall from him who wasn't a Christian and was living with his girlfriend. My friend had his girlfriend come into town and, through a series of circumstances, decided to have her stay with him. A couple of my friends and I tried to convince him that this wasn't a good idea, but he wouldn't take. Imagine the knock to his witness that it caused when he ran into this guy and his live-in-girlfriend in the hallway when he was bringing his girlfriend up to his place for the night. He later told us that he wished he had listened to us.
We need to realize that everything we do tells the world something about the Jesus we worship and love. When non-believers see non-believers living together it is automatically assumed that there is sex. When non-believers look at believers and see them living together, why should it be any different?
One of the main justifications people have for disliking Christians and the Jesus we worship is because they think we are all hypocrites (sp?). In a large sense we all are - we need to admit it to ourselves and them, and humbly share with them that we still struggle with sin and are not perfect. Additionally, this means fighting against all perceived forms of hypocrisy, as that damages how Jesus looks to the people around us.
19. Jeremy said the following at 8:47 AM on Jul 8:
Adam (#7):
I would say that is basically accurate. The Bible does not address this issue directly, but some of the clear Biblical principles (avoiding the appearance of evil or hints of sexual immorality, treating women with absolute purity, honoring the marriage bed, etc.) seem to indicate that it would be unwise for believers.
Naturally, many people hate gray areas of that sort, so overstatements and simplifications along the lines of "the Bible says this is sin, period" are to be expected, but I think your statement is essentially correct. However, as Paul says, let us not use our freedom to indulge the sinful nature (Gal 3:13).
20. Suzanne said the following at 9:02 AM on Jul 8:
Adam (#7),
I think there are several things to consider with your question. First, the sin may not be living together under the same roof (while remaining chaste). The sin may be the testimony you are giving to others. If the community around you (believing and unbelieving) cannot believe that you are living together while abstaining from sex, then essentially your testimony is shot. This very well may become an issue between you and God (Paul warns that mature believers not become stumbling blocks to others).
Second, this is clearly a wisdom issue. If you are attracted to your betrothed, why set yourself up for the most possible temptation to fail? The Bible advocates fleeing temptation, not living with it. There is a story in Proverbs 7 that is poignant. A young man walks past the prostitute's house right at the time he knows she will be there. He may not have set out to sleep with her, but he knowingly puts himself in the most optimal circumstances to be tempted. And sure enough, he ends up sleeping with her.
Adam, I see the question you're asking, but isn't it the splitting of hairs? Even if living with your significant other in utter purity (quite a feat) were possible, related issues—such as testimony and daily temptation—would impact your relationship with God. Why deal with that?
21. ally said the following at 9:40 AM on Jul 8:
Adam:
What's the advantage of living together before marriage? I tend to think we want to do that to decrease the chances of divorce and "make absolutely sure." This approach (1) doesn't work according to statistics and (2) fails to recognize that marriage is, to some extent, a leap of faith. The notion that if you experience enough with someone, you'll choose your spouse so wisely that marriage won't be hard seems short-sighted and misses the point.
Futhermore when you breach emotional boundaries and "play house" (sex aside) you're setting yourself up for a break up that will feel like divorce and leave you and your partner with more emotional scars and baggage. That's not how we should seek to love our Christian brothers and sisters. And how could sharing these domestic experiences with someone who ultimately isn't your spouse benefit your future marriage to someone else?
22. Jo said the following at 9:41 AM on Jul 8:
Adam,
"I would seriously question the wisdom of it. But when push comes to shove, I see no direct Biblical support for it being wrong."
To be honest, I kinda think this as well about unwed couples who sleep together, maybe live together, stay together and end up getting married.
Paul seems to suggest that the act of sex is essentially the marriage and so when two people sleep together they become one. So if those two people who have become joined stay joined, then have they still sinned?
Or would the sin be in breaking apart that union and joining with someone else (as is common these days)?
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against sex before marriage and think it would be extremely unwise and a very very bad idea - but I'm not sure if that scenario would be specifically sinful. (Although granted, the couple would probably have escaped 'sinfulness' more by luck than judgment...)
23. Jo said the following at 9:56 AM on Jul 8:
Amir, even though I often agree with your points, it really really annoys me when you do the 'sarcasm mode' thing. It always just strikes me as a bit unnecessary, I'd far rather read your serious thoughts than your satire. But maybe that's just me?
Anyway folks, since there's such disagreement over the rights and wrongs of living with someone of the opposite sex, here's a tricky one. Is it okay for a person who struggles with same-sex attraction to have a same-sex roommate? discuss.
24. Cassandra said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 8:
Jo #22
Paul seems to suggest that the act of sex is essentially the marriage and so when two people sleep together they become one.
Verses please.
25. Jeremy said the following at 10:27 AM on Jul 8:
Jo (#22):
Absolutely. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 is emphasizing the deep connection involved in sex and why that is inappropriate for unmarried persons, but it is very clear from Scripture that sex itself does not equate with marriage. For a straightforward example, see John 4:18, in which Jesus tells a woman that the man she is sleeping with is not her husband. Marriage is a public covenant between the two people, God, and others in their lives, not just sex.
26. Jonathan said the following at 10:35 AM on Jul 8:
"Regardless of whether you live under the same roof, sex outside of the covenant of marriage is not God's plan for sexuality. It's no wonder that couples who have cohabited report less satisfaction in marriage and a higher rate of infidelity and divorce. Straying from God's plan always has consequences. If someone tries to tell you otherwise, they are promoting a lie."
I think you are slightly mistaken in your logic. You are assuming that the dissatisfaction is related to the living and sleeping together prior to marriage. I would argue, that even this is related to flaws in character.
27. Julie said the following at 10:44 AM on Jul 8:
Relevant to the topic is this quote I'll copy from Prof. Theophilus's column "The Moves." (I'll add that in the two or three years since I've been reading Boundless, my own view has shifted from "the Bible doesn't specifically say it's wrong, prove why I shouldn't" to "The Bible may not say something specifically addressing X decision/option, but I know what how it asks me to behave toward God, myself, and others, and this doesn't fit those parameters.")
"When certain Corinthians threw in Paul's face their slogan that everything not forbidden is permissible, he replied 'but not everything is beneficial.' Thinking like a Christian means a lot more than doing what the Bible says; it also means thinking like the Bible thinks, even about things the Bible doesn't mention. That includes having respect for human nature as God designed it . . . It also includes realism about temptations."
28. DEH said the following at 10:56 AM on Jul 8:
A lot of people have quoted (unknowingly?) from the KJV version of 1 Thessalonians 5:22, the verse about avoiding the "appearance of evil." I'm no expert on Greek (far from it!), but I do want to point out that the consensus among most Biblical translators today is that the KJV got it wrong. Check out any other version of that verse and it will likely read something like "abstain from every kind of evil." Even the NKJV has changed the translation of this verse.
I don't think that means that cohabiting is okay because I think that all of the myriad verses about fleeing temptation still apply. I just think that we as Christians need to be careful to use Scripture correctly in our debates with others and not do as the Jewish priests, etc., did and place more burdens upon people than are necessary according to Scripture. Is doing something that appears to be evil, but in reality is not, sin? I don't think so. But it is unwise for reasons that others have already pointed out, including ruined testimonies and extra temptations to actually sin.
And to Jo (22), while I have not completely fleshed out the idea about couples who sleep together and stay together for life, I find myself thinking the same things. It's unwise, but is it sin? I'm not sure.
29. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:59 AM on Jul 8:
Let's not get bogged down in the "research suggests..." approach as our basis for saying that living together is wrong.
What if the "research" suggested otherwise?
What if the "research" showed that cohabitation led to stronger relationships?
What if the "research" showed that adulterous affairs were beneficial to both parties?
What if the "research" showed that abortion did not adversely impact women later?
What if the "research" showed that divorce did not adversely impact children, or cause long-term damage to the husbands and wives involved?
Would the "research" negate the Biblical imperatives against adultery, divorce, or murder?
Of course not.
:::turning sarcasm mode back ON:::
Oh come now, Jo! We must work hard to help all people develop healthier, more vibrant understandings of their SELF-worth.
After all, this is the only way we can effect real change.
This is why fundamentalism fails. We cannot afford to keep preaching age-old dogmas, getting people all riled up over sexuality.
We would be better off by focusing on a healthier, more positive approach that emphasizes SELF-esteem and confidence, enabling people to discover THEIR inner-goodness and make better choices.
:::turning sarcasm mode back ON:::
Seriously, my sarcasm mode is just a matter of illustrating how easy it would be to twist and tweak the truth to create a false doctrine.
30. Tami said the following at 11:10 AM on Jul 8:
Regarding sleeping together and then getting married... Yes, it is a sin. Not an unforgiveable sin, obviously, but a sin.
I don't think we can make things not-sin retroactively. You have to make decisions based on the reality of where you are at *today*.
Kind of like if I went to the store and (deliberately) stole a package of doughnuts, and then went back and paid for them later. Even though I eventually paid for them, I still did steal at a certain point, and I may or may not have to pay the consequences for theft.
31. Leah W said the following at 11:15 AM on Jul 8:
The crazy thing is the majority of the discussion points being brought up are circulating around two major sticking points..
1. The Bible not specifically stating this is wrong
2. What if emotions aren't involved
I've actually been reading in 1 Cor. 6 about how Paul is telling that church (who ironically enough had lots of questions about sex) that even though it might not be a sin... it's still isn't good for them! (it's Lawful but not Expedient). (I think all of 1 Cor 6 would be good to review... :) I saw it in a previous post, too.)
The verse also that keeps coming to mind is "Abstain [or flee] from all *Appearance* of evil."
I don't think it's just about us. It's ultimately about our witness. I remember a story my grandfather tells about a traveling missionary who stayed with two widowed sisters back in the early 40's ... no one thought anything of it back then because everyone respected widows and ministers, but now? ... Well, IMO, that shouldn't be done. Not because it's wrong! But because of what the world will take it and morph (pervert) it into. sigh!
As the Carmen song goes, "Gone are the days of 'Leave it to Beaver'." :) We just have to remain on guard and protect those things which are/should be precious to us; including (but not limited to) our witness, and our purity as it is seen by the world around us.
--stepping down off soapbox-- :)
32. Daniel said the following at 11:22 AM on Jul 8:
I'm living together with my Fiance, have been since March. My "horrible excuse" is the emotional, mental, verbal abuse of my fiance by her very own parents for twenty-two straight years of her life.
33. Megan said the following at 11:28 AM on Jul 8:
Adam (#2):
I think it's important to remember your own reaction to others in the situations you're questioning.
You have a girlfriend whom you do not live with, and she tells you she'd like to live with her best friend, who just happens to be a guy.
Of course, then there's the excuse that they'd never sleep with each other because they're just friends.
You know, just reading what I typed is making me laugh; the situation is ludicrous. Would you really "trust" her to not end up sleeping with her BFF? Of course, if you had a problem with your girlfriend living with her best friend who just happens to be a guy then you'd be considered a jealous boyfriend who has trust issues.
I've created all sorts of assumptions, but I honestly believe you wouldn't like it.
On the flipside, it would be incredible temptation for anyone to live with someone of the opposite sex. God said that if you look at a woman and lust for her in your heart, you've already committed adultry with her. Obviously this goes for women too, even though women are wired a bit differently.
I don't know if you're playing the devil's advocate here (part of me believes you are), but it would be hard to make a case for living together before marriage in biblical terms.
34. Lauren said the following at 12:05 PM on Jul 8:
Daniel: (#32)
This thread has probably hit a pretty sore point, considering your situation. However: there are always other solutions. Do neither of you belong to a church? Is there no family who can work with both of you to provide her shelter? Is there really and truly no other way out of the dilemma than to have your girlfriend live with you?
If something is wrong, there truly is always a way around it. You are not bound to do what is wrong.
35. Julie said the following at 12:07 PM on Jul 8:
Daniel, #32 - I am sure you want to protect your fiance and see taking her out from under her abusive parents' home and into yours as just that. But I would suggest that helping her find a friend or older couple from church who would be willing to house her for low rent until you two are married, given the very understandable circumstances, is a much better way to shelter her, honor God, and respect her as your future bride. I wish you the best.
36. BDB said the following at 12:53 PM on Jul 8:
I seem to remember this discussion from a year or so ago. I'm going to share a story.
At the Taipei airport I met a Canadian woman who had just been in the developing nation I was in for a mission trip. She was there on her own, doing medical work with NGOs.
I was startled when she started to explain how, for the three weeks, she was living in a house with a male Brazilian friend, explaining how he had a separate bedroom, so why not.
I couldn't help but think, "So...it bothered you so much you're blurting this out to a complete stranger?"
Neither are Americans. There's definitely different cultural definitions of what constitutes modest living arrangements. The Europeans I know seem to pay most attention to separate sleeping arrangements, rather than the "not under one roof" standard.
If you think about it, strict adherence to the "not under one roof" standard would mean that every widow who took in boarders at her (usually large) home was a sinner. That's a cultural thing, not a Biblical thing.
I agree that it is unwise for people who are romantically involved to be living together alone in a 500 sq ft apartment before marriage. As the pastor quoted above said - if they can easily avoid falling into sin, maybe they shouldn't be getting married.
37. Cassandra said the following at 12:57 PM on Jul 8:
Daniel #32 I'm living together with my Fiance, have been since March. My "horrible excuse" is the emotional, mental, verbal abuse of my fiance by her very own parents for twenty-two straight years of her life.
Daniel, I don't understand your post. I'm very sorry to hear about the abuse your fiancee has suffered, but you seem to be suggesting that she's living with you as an alternative to living with her parents. But she's 22 years old. Doesn't she have female friends she could live with?
38. BDB said the following at 1:05 PM on Jul 8:
In fact, in Elisabeth Elliot's book, Quest for Love she relates stories of two missionaries who met their wives while living under the same roof. In both cases they were staying in someone's home on some sort of ministry-related travel, and the woman was already there.
For George Müeller, his future wife was there as a household helper - helping run the household because the lady of the house was ill. In fact, he delayed proposing because he felt bad about taking her away from the household she was helping in, until he felt confident God would provide a replacement, which happened quickly.
Frank Murray met his wife when her mother provided a place for he and his team to stay. Clearly these "under the same roof" arrangements were not considered sinful. These examples are from the United States just 70 years ago.
Of course, neither couple "dated" either. The man just proposed.
39. Tara said the following at 1:43 PM on Jul 8:
The talking points at the end of Dr. Scott and Galena's article are the same ones that my now-fiance and I discussed repeatedly before we decided to move in together. If you feel your relationship is headed toward marriage, I see no problem with cohabitation. It's been great for us. The couple just needs to make sure they are not STAYING together for financial reasons or for simply comfort's sake.
Cassandra #37: Nice way to make assumptions about Daniel's situation (hey Amir, that was sarcastic mode ON). What if her female friends are all in school or live away? What if (GASP) it isn't really a problem because they're getting married anyway?
40. Daniel said the following at 1:48 PM on Jul 8:
I'd assume all these questions would be asked with such a vague post. I want to avoid a long discourse on the internet. These questions can be answered easy enough with this, use your imagination on what factors into emotional, mental, verbal abuse and how it affects people. Now apply that to friends, church, and any type of social issue. I'm the closest thing she has, I am her friend. Even if we had suitable others, we live in Maryland. This is not the state of cheap rent and living independent with a salary below 60,000. We do belong to a church... were already gossip, thank "abusive parent." The point of my post was really to bring up this view point. I don't ever see it brought up in the discussion of cohabitation.
41. Cassandra said the following at 2:26 PM on Jul 8:
Hi Daniel,
Julie #35 put it very well:
...is a much better way to shelter her, honor God, and respect her as your future bride.
You see yourself as helping her and being her friend, which is very noble, but misguided. Living with a woman that you're not married to, despite your best intentions, is defrauding her. You're harming her spiritually. You're causing her to sin and harming her relationship with God, not to mention whatever future marriage you may have.
I am sympathetic to what your fiancee is going through and your good intentions, but don't confuse yourself with a professional counselor, which is what she really needs right now. If you ask your pastor, he may be able to to give you a referral to someone in your church congregation if her medical insurance doesn't cover it.
42. Jeremy said the following at 3:48 PM on Jul 8:
Tara (#39):
That is exactly the same argument many Christians use to justify pre-marital sex. The Biblical truth is that there is a huge difference in God's eyes between two people being married and not being married, and certain things are sinful or unwise before marriage, whether you plan to eventually marry or not.
And, though everyone thinks that their own assurance is the real exception, 90% of dating couples think they will get married. That is why the "we're going to get married anyway" excuse is so powerfully seductive.
43. Jo said the following at 5:01 PM on Jul 8:
Cassandra,
"but don't confuse yourself with a professional counselor, which is what she really needs right now."
That's a bit of an assumption. I'm all in favour of counsellors, I'm training as a therapist myself, but just because someone has been through a lot doesn't automatically mean they need a professional counsellor.
44. Jo said the following at 5:10 PM on Jul 8:
Jeremy 25:
"Marriage is a public covenant between the two people, God, and others in their lives, not just sex."
But since when? A public covenant is not commanded in Genesis that I recall...
Really, I'm not invested in this issue at all, but I'm just not 100% sure that there's a clear distinction between sex and marriage in spiritual terms. in the passage you quoted there is - but you could argue that that's a cultural distinction, ie in that woman's culture marriage existed but she was not married - does Jesus condemn this behaviour, or is His mentioning it simply a sign to the woman that He knows all about her?
Again, I'm totally open to persuasion and I'm not bothered at all by which view is correct since it won't change my personal actions one bit. It's just something I wonder about.
45. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:44 PM on Jul 8:
Jeremy says (emphasis added):
:::setting sarcasm mode to ON:::
There you go again, Jeremy! Using that S-word (sin). Such fffffundammmentalist tactics are not presenting a positive message that inspires a healthy SELF-worth!
In order to effect change, we must first minister hope. Therefore, it is unproductive to use such outmoded tactics as telling people they are committing sin.
Perhaps that worked in Biblical times, but we no longer live in that era. We must take a more enlightened approach that lifts people up and encourages them toward a more hopeful future.
Just remember: without hope, there can be no change!
And we're all about hope...and...change, hope..and..change,
hope.and.change,
HopeAndChange!
:::setting sarcasm mode to OFF:::
Seriously, Tara, you are failing to account for the fact that marriage is a covenant. This is why the wedding is a big deal. In the OT, the sex act was the consummatory act.
The penalty for premarital sex? Marriage!
Why was that a "penalty"? It was marriage without the wedding. That robbed the bride and groom--and their respective families--of the celebration that would otherwise unite families and community.
That carried a stigma all its own.
A covenant is serious business. That is the nature of God's relationship with us.
It involves a solemn agreement between a stronger and weaker party.
It carries terms and conditions for both sides.
It involves public witnesses.
It involves fellowship as an expression of witness.
It involves shedding of blood.
The penalty for breach of covenant? Death.
Against that backdrop, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a Biblical case for engaging in the covenant act, without having public covenant recognition.
46. Tara said the following at 5:53 PM on Jul 8:
First, I want to apologize to Cassandra and Amir for my sarcastic/flip comments. That was uncalled for.
Hi Jeremy: You are exactly right about the "we're getting married anyway" argument, and it's interesting you brought it up because my mother and I had this discussion just last week. Her story is that she and my father dated for three years, and THREE WEEKS before their wedding day, they had sex. I guess they just couldn't wait anymore. (They've been married 35 years.)
So, I guess the question is this: Does "we're getting married" mean that the couple has simply talked about it and taken no action, or they have bought the ring, booked the church, and set the date? Of course something could happen to the relationship even after you gave the banquet hall your down payment, but I assume that by that point, you are committed.
SO, I think it's very important for couples to discuss sex and marriage from the onset, and to pray that they are being honest with themselves about the relationship and why they're in it. Is it for love? For sex? For the convenience of a roommate?
I think this area is much too gray, and that isn't a bad thing.
47. Ted Slater said the following at 10:36 PM on Jul 8:
Jo (#44) -- marriage ceremonies, weddings, are affirmed throughout Scripture, from the Old Testament, to what Jesus did and talked about, to our wedding ceremony in Heaven. They are not without meaning; indeed, they are very significant.
Certain women are identified as "prostitutes" in Scripture, while others are identified as "wives." They are different, though physically they both engage in sexual activity with a man. Sexual intercourse is indeed distinct from marriage; simply engaging in sex does not mean you're married.
It's worth pondering: Why does Scripture so highly value public marital covenants?
48. BDB said the following at 12:16 AM on Jul 9:
If I'm reading Jo (#44) correctly, she's referring to Genesis. I found this:
Genesis 24:67 (New King James Version)
67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
So, as Jo references in Genesis, no wedding ceremony.
Obviously, the public ceremony has evolved in every culture today. But the ceremony varies quite a bit from culture to culture - even from denomination to denomination. That suggests the ceremony is cultural, because Biblical standards shouldn't vary so much.
As far as I can tell in the Bible, a covenant is binding before God regardless of whether it is witnessed by anyone besides the parties to the covenant.
This is kind of where the idea of common-law marriage came from. It was legal in Scotland as recently as 2006. Israel today recognizes them as valid. In fact, Colorado law recognizes these common-law marriages as valid marriages based on consummation rather than a ceremony. More detail on Colorado's acceptance of marriage as valid without a ceremony is here.
49. Amir Larijani said the following at 3:54 AM on Jul 9:
Tara: Don't sweat it. I wasn't offended.
50. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:52 AM on Jul 9:
Jo: While the public ceremony is not commanded, the penalty for premarital sex--that is, sex between two people who are single and not engaged to someone else--was marriage (Exodus 22:16).
Like I said, that penalty had a stigma all its own.
The couple would not get the benefit of a scandal-free wedding, where there was joy between families.
(In fact, the bride's family would be outraged, as any "wedding" ceremony would be tainted, because she would not be presented as a virgin bride. That was a HUGE deal in ancient near east cultures, and is STILL a huge deal today in the Middle East.)
Instead, the man either (a) paid the bride price and took her has his wife, or (b) if the father refused to let him marry her, the man still had to pay the bride price. It was the equivalent of marriage and divorce in the latter case, which salvaged what little remained of her chance to marry. (Back then, a divorced woman was farther behind the 8-ball than any divorced woman today.)
Covenant business is serious business indeed.
51. Tara said the following at 7:42 AM on Jul 9:
Amir, of course I disagree with everything you said (#45) and I am insulted that you assume I take sex and marriage so lightly, especially since you know nothing about me.
But, I guess it's my fault for commenting on a blog run and read by people who obviously have such a different worldview than mine. I read this blog for a myriad of reasons, but one of them is to learn different opinions and to get into cerebral discussions. But apparently, you can't really have differing opinions; otherwise you are attacked or told that you are sinning. And then strangers give you advice to save your soul.
I really should have known better.
52. Brian K said the following at 7:54 AM on Jul 9:
I find this to be a telling statement:
I'm not bothered at all by which view is correct since it won't change my personal actions one bit.
I don't care what the truth is, I'm going to do what I want anyway. The fact that one person (or which particular one) said it is irrelevant. It's a recurring mindset that has permeated the Church from culture.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth....
53. Lola said the following at 7:58 AM on Jul 9:
I’m a Bible believing Christian but I don't get what all the fuss about. Seriously! If it's about premarital sex or the appearance of it, we all know that you don't have to live with a person to have sex with them. Dating already covers that, doesn't it? I'm not saying that every dating couple is having premarital sex but I do expect that any dating couple could potentially be having premarital sex even amongst those who claim to desire to save sex for marriage. Dating/courtships/engagement periods are potentially as destructive to marriage as living together before marriage. It's illogical that this blog (not boundless just this blog) is pro dating and yet against cohabiting. Seriously what's the difference?
Can you say for a fact that a couple that lives together are more likely to engage in premarital sex than those who don’t? I know that I can’t.
54. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:17 AM on Jul 9:
BDB: I'm sure you weren't attempting to suggest this, but referencing Isaac's marriage to Rebekah doesn't count as a "living together" scenario--at least not in the context being addressed here.
Why?
(1) Rebekah was sought out by Isaac's family. She was sought out at the behest of Abraham's desire for Isaac not to marry the people of the land.
(2) Rebekah, at the request of Abraham's servants and the consent of her own family, went willingly with them to marry Isaac.
So while there is no recorded "wedding", there is indeed the active cooperation of families, including witnesses from both families to the willing nature of the transaction.
The bride's family willingly gave her away; the bride willingly consented.
Isaac and Rebekah did not choose to "live together" in some vacuum, with no accountability.
In fact, the arrangement was in compliance with the desires of his father, as well as the consent of both Rebekah and her father.
There was no "premarital sex" involved. Nor was there a scandal in this case.
One could say there was "not even a hint"...
If that case were analogous to "living together", then Isaac and Rebekah would have conspired to either (a) have a secret affair, or (b) choose to live together without any consent or witness of either their families or immediate community.
The Isaac and Rebekah's marriage, does not make a case for Christian couples deciding to live together without the sanction of marriage.
55. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:57 AM on Jul 9:
Lola: actually, couples who live together are more likely to engage in sex than even the married couples.
56. DP said the following at 9:33 AM on Jul 9:
Amir - #54
Well duh. Of course people just living together are having more sex than married people. The people are younger, the 'fire' is still there, probably don't have kids, etc.
But we aren't talking about the population as a whole here. We are talking about committed Christians. I don't really see what all these surveys taken of the general public have to do with anything.
And for everyone talking about the 'appearance' that is left by two people living together...news flash...Unless you walk around with a sign on saying: "I am NOT having sex with my significant other", everyone already assumes that you are having sex, and guess what, they don't think its a big deal. If you are being a witness to someone, you can actually explain that fact, but for people who just see you, quite frankly who cares what they think.
57. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:07 AM on Jul 9:
Dp says:
Actually, it was Lola who said, Can you say for a fact that a couple that lives together are more likely to engage in premarital sex than those who don’t? I know that I can’t.
Please don't throw the "duh" line at me, when in fact I was merely providing a statistical basis that (a) refuted Lola's original statement and (b) suggested that couples who cohabit are even more fixated on sex than married couples and non-cohabiting singles.
Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but the same struggles that impact the general public, still impact the community of believers. This is why Paul spent no small amount of time (a) admonishing believers to eschew sexual immorality, (b) admonishing the Church to exercise discipline regarding those engaging in sexual immorality, (c) exhorting husbands and wives to provide for each other sexually, and (d) exhorting those singles who could not rein in their lusts to get married.
Can you say for a fact that Christians who cohabit have sex less frequently than those singles who do not cohabit? No you cannot.
So let me get this straight: sexual immorality is only a big deal if non-believers think it's a big deal?
That would certainly be at variance with the Law, the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles.
Even if that were all that mattered, keep in mind what Reagan advisor Lee Atwater often said: "If you're explaining, you'r losing."
This is not merely about your "witness", or even about "appearances". If that were all that mattered, cohabitation would be on the same level as alcohol consumption. (Guinness anyone?)
God's standards are not contingent on mere appearances.
Fact is, cohabitation breeds sexual immorality. Statistically, that is factual: cohabitants are more sexually active than even married couples.
You might be able to point to exceptions to that statement, but exceptions do not negate the rule.
And cohabitation leaves "more than a hint..."
58. IMO said the following at 10:18 AM on Jul 9:
#56
"but for people who just see you, quite frankly who cares what they think."
Right. It's not about others. It's about yourself. If I take God's Word seriously and desire to follow Jesus and love him with all my heart, ...it's about pleasing God, not man. How does that biblically look like in my life?
The problem/question is: Am I pleasing God with my behavior, my thought life, my actions?
Do I have a healthy fear of the Lord?
We are all each accountable for our actions before the Lord.
As a side note, if people assume you are having sex just because you are walking down the street, holding your signficant other's hand...then see Titus 1:15:
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted."
59. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 9:
Tara says:
I'm sorry that you were insulted. Keep in mind, however, that I was not making an assessment of you, merely what you said.
Moreover, with what portion of my statement about marriage did you disagree?
The premise that marriage is a covenant?
That the Old Testament penalty for premarital sex--the requirement of the bride price--was a penalty all its own?
That the wedding is a covenant ceremony containing elements of a covenant that was typical in ancient near east cultures?
Worldviews are one thing; making a Christian case for cohabitation is another.
You basically are involved in a discussion in which other Christians are trying to make the case that cohabitation is no big deal, when in fact it is quite a big deal for the reasons I--and others--have pointed out.
You don't think Jesus--the loving, gentle savior--ever talked about sin? His ministry began with Him taking the torch from John the Baptist and preaching, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Against that backdrop, I's say I'm quite the moderate.
60. JuliaH said the following at 10:36 AM on Jul 9:
The "appearance of evil" is actually a bad translation. The better way to say would be to avoid all kinds of evil. In other words, it is not what other people think that matters, it is whether you are engaging in sin.
61. DP said the following at 10:56 AM on Jul 9:
Amir #57 says:
"Actually, it was Lola who said, Can you say for a fact that a couple that lives together are more likely to engage in premarital sex than those who don’t? I know that I can’t."
Again, well duh. You mean to tell me that single people are less likely to have sex than people that are living together?!? The study does nothing to address non-cohabitating people in a serious relationship, which is what Lola was looking for. Your 'proof' did not provide any of the evidence that you think it did.
"Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but the same struggles that impact the general public, still impact the community of believers. This is why Paul spent no small amount of time (a) admonishing believers to eschew sexual immorality...Can you say for a fact that Christians who cohabit have sex less frequently than those singles who do not cohabit? No you cannot."
And you cannot prove the opposite, so what's the point?
"So let me get this straight: sexual immorality is only a big deal if non-believers think it's a big deal? That would certainly be at variance with the Law, the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles."
Uh no. I was specifically talking about people NOT having sex but whose friends/coworkers/strangers assumed they were. That is something that cannot be avoided unless you have a specific conversation with each of those people explaining that you are NOT have sex.
"This is not merely about your "witness", or even about "appearances". If that were all that mattered, cohabitation would be on the same level as alcohol consumption. (Guinness anyone?). God's standards are not contingent on mere appearances."
agree, though i'm probably not the one around here you need to explain that to...
"Fact is, cohabitation breeds sexual immorality. Statistically, that is factual: cohabitants are more sexually active than even married couples."
Again, as I said earlier in this post and my previous post, that study does not prove the point you think it does.
"And cohabitation leaves "more than a hint...""
So does watching a movie alone with someone, or are we back to looking only at appearances?
62. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 9:
DP says:
Actually, the study I cited provides an excellent amount of proof. That is because it provides a strong case that singles who cohabit are even more sexually active than married couples. And the margin on that is not a small one.
The case against cohabitation is indeed a strong one, as (a) there is no Biblical case for a single man and a single woman--outside the same family--living together unmarried, (b) sex without some form of public covenantal recognition (either by families and/or community of like-minded believers) is never sanctioned in Scripture, (c) fleeing sexual immorality is a command in Scripture.
And that cohabitation breeds sexual immorality is hardly debatable. The degree of immorality that it breeds--cohabiting couples are far more sexual than even married couples--is itself a substantial dysfunction.
Cohabitation is overwhelmingly about sex outside of marriage, and does absolutely nothing to add value to family life.
If that were not the case, children in such households would not be so likely to be abused than in married households.
Of course, given that you wish to relegate cohabitation on the same level with "watching a movie alone together", your capacity to reason effectively on this matter is substantially diminished.
63. Lola said the following at 12:09 PM on Jul 9:
Thank you DP. I am grateful that you have defended me accurately. I couldn't have done it better. It almost feels like you are inside my head. Thank you.
64. DP said the following at 1:44 PM on Jul 9:
Amir:
Let's go through this step by step
1) Lola says: "Can you say for a fact that a couple that lives together are more likely to engage in premarital sex than those who don’t? I know that I can’t."
The key word here is 'couple'. Nothing in here about married people versus unmarried. Strictly asking about unmarried couples that cohabitate versus those who do not.
2) Amir replies: "Lola: actually, couples who live together are more likely to engage in sex than even the married couples." providing a link with the following statistics:
# Couples living together report having sex 146 times per year.
# Married couples make love 98 times per year.
# Single folks are having sex the least at 49 times a year.
Note that the two groups that Lola asked about are not here, namely:
1) couples living together (present above)
2) couples not living together (not present above)
3) Based on the above I reply:
"Well duh. Of course people just living together are having more sex than married people. The people are younger, the 'fire' is still there, probably don't have kids, etc."
4) Amir replies:
"Please don't throw the "duh" line at me, when in fact I was merely providing a statistical basis that (a) refuted Lola's original statement and (b) suggested that couples who cohabit are even more fixated on sex than married couples and non-cohabiting singles."
5) I reply (as also noted above):
"The study does nothing to address non-cohabitating people in a serious relationship, which is what Lola was looking for. Your 'proof' did not provide any of the evidence that you think it did."
6) Amir replies:
"Actually, the study I cited provides an excellent amount of proof. That is because it provides a strong case that singles who cohabit are even more sexually active than married couples. And the margin on that is not a small one."
Again, not the issue
"And that cohabitation breeds sexual immorality is hardly debatable."
Again, nothing to back this up
"The degree of immorality that it breeds--cohabiting couples are far more sexual than even married couples--is itself a substantial dysfunction."
No one is disputing this fact, so again, not the issue.
"Cohabitation is overwhelmingly about sex outside of marriage"
Again, generalized statement with nothing to back it up.
"If that were not the case, children in such households would not be so likely to be abused than in married households."
Not at all relevant to the discussion
"Of course, given that you wish to relegate cohabitation on the same level with "watching a movie alone together", your capacity to reason effectively on this matter is substantially diminished."
Taking my words out of context and making a personal attack. Again, not relevant to the original question asked by Lola.
You were the one who brought up the 'not more than a hint' verse. I simply asked if watching a movie on the couch alone brings up the same urges, desires, temptations. Sorry if that was not clear.
65. xeres said the following at 1:52 PM on Jul 9:
wow! I bet the comments will go over 100.
A person's view on sex before marriage, the cultural background and how people view romantic relationships will inform that person's decision to cohabit more than anything else. Unfornately, many people have a very consumeristic view of sex and relationships where the your potential lover/spouse is a ready-made, nicely packaged products. Not only that, the paradox of living a librated society is that the U.S. have a lot of social pressures that encourage isolation and lack of bonding with other community members. We’ve developed all this internet technology that allows us to control our social interactions so we don’t have to come into contact with people we don’t like or whose values we don’t share. Exurbs? Gated communities? The breakdown of the extended family? Retirement homes and age/generational segregation? Racialized prejudice against people who dress differently for religious reasons? The majority society already has a ton of social forces that reduce unstructured social contact and combine to give individuals a sense of isolation and cut off their connections to real-life communities. Sadly, the community of believers are not immuned to the pressure. Why is it hard to held anyone accountable in the Christian Community?
66. DP said the following at 2:17 PM on Jul 9:
Also, Lola, for the record, I don't agree with this:
"It's illogical that this blog (not boundless just this blog) is pro dating and yet against cohabiting."
There a lots of reasons for couples to not cohabitate. It just seems to be implied by lots of commenters that everyone who cohabitates is having sex, which is simply untrue.
67. Lola said the following at 3:14 PM on Jul 9:
DP,
I thanked you only for those things that you said in my defence and not for those things that you didn't. I did not assume that you agreed with everything that I said.
Funny thing is that I'm against dating and cohabiting because I know for a fact that they are both potentially and equally destructive. I believe that dating has the potential to be even more detrimental to marriage than Cohabiting.
Both dating and cohabiting have resulted and will continue to result in sexual immorality and will harm future marriages.
Amir,
I think that I know what's going on here. You must have misunderstood my question.
When I asked in #53: "Can you say for a fact that a couple that lives together are more likely to engage in premarital sex than those who don’t?"
When I said "...those who don't" I meant non-cohabiting couples not "married couples" and not "non-cohabiting singles". We all know that cohabiting couples have more sex than these groups.
I was suggesting that it is possible that non cohabiting dating couples are just as likely to have sex as cohabiting couples. Cohabiting couples may have more frequent sex than non cohabiting couples but that's not the issue since neither group should be having any sex at all.
My point is cohabiting is not the problem, dating is!
68. BDB said the following at 3:30 PM on Jul 9:
Amir (#54) wrote:
>>BDB: I'm sure you weren't attempting to suggest this, but referencing Isaac's marriage to Rebekah doesn't count as a "living together" scenario--<<
Nope, merely agreeing with Jo's observation that a public marriage ceremony wasn't mentioned as part of the covenant in Genesis. It's a cultural thing that clearly evolved, but later on.
69. Jeremy said the following at 3:35 PM on Jul 9:
Lola (#67):
What exactly is your definition of "dating"? Surely it can't be the straightforward dictionary definition of arranging meetings together, if you think it so problematic.
70. Jo said the following at 3:53 PM on Jul 9:
BDB, 48:
That's a nice example of what I meant, thank you.
Amir,
Can you tell me where marriage is commanded as the penalty for pre-marital sex? Is it an OT law or is it just a custom of the day (ie, reported as happening but not actually commanded)?
Brian K, 52:
It was me who posted the 'telling statement' that you quoted, and you totally misunderstood what I meant. You summarised my view as:
"I don't care what the truth is, I'm going to do what I want anyway."
In fact if you'd read my earlier post, you'd know that I fully intend to remain a virgin 'til I'm married. The answer to this particular question of mine (whether having unmarried sex and staying together is sin or not) will not affect my actions whatsoever because that isn't something I plan to do anyway, not because I don't care about following God.
71. Jo said the following at 4:01 PM on Jul 9:
Brian,
Actually to be honest I'm quite offended by your characterisation of me. Please don't assume motives like that without even reading what someone has written before. I would like to think that my posts across all topics demonstrate that I do in fact care what God thinks and aim to align my actions with His will.
72. Jo said the following at 4:21 PM on Jul 9:
Oh Amir,
Sorry, you did quote the reference.
Hmmm. I don't know if I can explain this properly but to me it still sort of seems to rely on culture. ie, in the Jewish culture (which God set up), there was marriage, and there was a bride price. It kinda suggests to me that God is saying, if they've slept together, they are married and they must be recognised as such. Maybe that's an interpretation I'm putting on the text, I don't know.
Back in Genesis where BDB quoted, there doesn't appear to be a ceremony as such, although you're absolutely right that the families were in agreement and everyone understands that this is a lifelong commitment, which probably is very significant.
It just makes me wonder what a similar command would look like today.
We do have marriage of course, although a lot of people don't make use of it - and many others (including Christians) dislike the government's involvement in it, and the fact that while it still pays lip-service to "'Til death do us part", it's far too easy to go back on that vow. I can totally sympathise with those, Christian and otherwise, who've lost faith in that whole system.
To me, the point always seems to be that sex and "marriage" go together; where "marriage" is defined as a lifelong exclusive commitment, whether or not you have a fancy wedding or even have an official state-recognised union.
The official marriage that we know and love seems to me in many ways an outward sign of an inward commitment, a bit like baptism. It's a demonstration and official symbol of something that can exist without it: the lifelong union ordained by God.
A random example. I know a Christian couple who planned their wedding and then realised too late that they hadn't had the banns read and so couldn't 'officially' be married on the date of their wedding. After a panicked decision to fly to Vegas and get hitched, since that's the only place you can get married without having had the banns read, they reconsidered and decided that their marriage was between them, their community and God. It didn't matter that they wouldn't be able to be 'officially' married 'til a fortnight later. They went ahead with their planned wedding, had their wedding night as any normal couple would, and got officially married in a registry office a couple of weeks later.
I realise that's a very unusual example and I'm not trying to compare it to couples who live together and 'fall into' lifelong relationship without ever consciously committing to each other. But if sex outside of official state-recognised marriage is always wrong, did my friends sin? And if not, is it plausible that there is more than one way to have a "marriage" that God smiles upon?
73. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:31 PM on Jul 9:
Jo asks:
Exodus 22:16-17: If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
Here's how this played out....
Let's say we're living in Biblical times, among the newly-freed Israelites.
Let's say I develop an eye for Jael, a hot gal from a really nice family among my fellow Benjamites.
Let's say Jael and I sneak out one night and have sex.
I guarantee that there would be close to a zero likelihood of keeping the matter secret. This is because of the close-quarter nature of the community, as well as the fact that--back then (in some cases even today)--they checked the gal for virginity before marriage.
So now we get caught. At this point, my options are
(a) pay the bride price, and hope Jael's father is gracious enough to give her to me as my wife.
(b) pay the bride price, only to have Jael's father tell me no.
Even if he is gracious enough to let me marry Jael, I still now must deal with resentment on the part of Jael.
Why? Because of my promiscuity with her, I now have taken away her chances of a scandal-free wedding that would honor her among our families and the community.
I must now also deal with a set of in-laws who will never let me live down the disgrace I've brought on them.
Even my own family would be ticked at me, as they would become the targets of derision on the grounds of how I treated a daughter among our tribe.
Like I said, even a seemingly mild penalty has a stigma all its own.
74. Ted Slater said the following at 4:58 PM on Jul 9:
Living together looks a lot like marriage, but without any public marriage ceremony.
I ask again: Why does Scripture -- from the Old Testament to Jesus to Revelation -- so highly value public marriage ceremonies?
And why should we not?
75. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:02 PM on Jul 9:
As an admitted gym rat, I spend hours every week pounding out on the elliptical and strength machines. As FutureMrsLarijani will attest, I'm a bona fide fitness nut.
Over the course of the last 9 years that I have been going to that gym, I've seen many people come and go. Many are also fitness nuts who stay in great shape, others who work out reasonably and stay in decent shape.
There are also many who come enthusiastically but fall off after a couple weeks.
My favorite time is New Year's day. All the resolutionists who have decided they will lose 10, 20, 30, 50 pounds. They are committed to their goal, but they don't realize that it's more than just getting some good exercise. Fitness is about sleeping right, eating right, working smart and hard.
The resolutionists usually drop out after 2 weeks.
What does this have to do with cohabitation?
Let's say I was 50 pounds overweight.
Let's say I decided I was sick and tired of being out of shape. I was going to get into shape, fundamentally change my lifestyle, lose some weight, and embrace a life of fitness.
Let's say I decided that I would work out for at least 2 hours a day in the gym. 1 hour on the elliptical, and 1 hour of solid strength work.
At face value, that workout routine would be conducive to good fitness.
On the other hand, let's say I decided I was going to keep a fresh chocolate cheesecake in my refrigerator (with two six packs of Guinness), a couple gallons of my favorite ice cream in the freezer, and two packages of my favorite chocolate-chocolate chip cookies in the pantry.
Now what do you think my chances of success would be?
Some of you might say, "That means nothing, because if you're committed to your objectives, you can persevere just fine!"
While that is true at face value, experience tells a different story.
During my three years at the crisis pregnancy center, a large number of my clients were "living in" with their boyfriends, as they studied "ministry" at the local Christian college. A fellow counselor--a senior at that college at the time--remarked to me that the situation was far worse than what I had seen at the CPC.
Does cohabitation guarantee that you will fall into sexual sin? No more so than my well-stocked refrigerator guarantees the vanity of fitness efforts.
I have yet to see any of you make a case for the virtuous nature of cohabitation.
The best argument I've seen so far is, "Well...just because we live together doesn't mean we ARE having sex!" Experience, on the other hand, tells me that 9 times out of 10, the assumption would be correct.
Talk to the ministers and Christian counselors who deal with these issues on an almost daily basis.
Talk to the Christian wife who confides that she was promiscuous--and had an abortion--when she was young and stupid.
(I've had a few of those clients. If you think promiscuity leaves damage, you ain't seen nothing until you deal with a gal who's coming to terms with the fact that she killed a child. Like King David said: "My sin is ever before me.")
Talk to the married couples who--in a candid moment--will admit that they "did" before they said "I do". They lived together. People assumed that because they were Christian, they would do the right thing. Their spirit was willing, but their flesh was weak.
Talk to the college students who--in spite of having otherwise strong Christian commitment--gave in to the temptation after having it so available for so long.
Like fitness, avoiding sexual immorality requires working smart and hard.
Cohabitation is dumb. I don't care how "committed" you say you are. For every case you can show where a "committed Christian couple" didn't have sex, I'll show you--almost literally--9 other "committed Christian couples" who did.
Those folks always seemed to have the rockier marriages once they tied the knot. Interesting how that works out...
76. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 5:14 PM on Jul 9:
OK, I've noticed a few other Taras posting on here in the few months since I last posted so I hope I don't confuse anyone too much...
First off, if you want to look for something to validate whatever it is you want to do I'm sure you're going to find it...even in the Bible. However, if we rely solely on the wisdom of man to ascertain God's Truth then we will miss the mark.
What I don't fully understand is, if we as Christians want to live beyond the letter of the law why do we then require there be a specific law for us to decide what would be in accordance with God's nature (what we're trying to emmulate through Christ)? Do we really need the Bible to say "thou shalt not have sex before marriage" to finally decide that's what God has designed for the relationship between man and woman?
It would certainly be easier if such laws existed but I think some of these questions are what help make the Bible the Living Word. We must struggle with it and dig deeper. Soemtimes we'll come to wrong conclusions. Or sometimes two people may have varying interpretations but they might not be neccessarily in conflict (the Truth is bigger than us). But the Truth is in there and if we're in earnest about seeking God's will I think we will find it-or rather, as much as we are able.
"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". Jeremiah 29:13. NIV (Thank you girl's club. LOL)
If you want my personal stance: I firmly, firmly believe that marriage is a covenant between God, the couple and the community and no sex before that. But my words can't convict anyone of that belief. Only the Holy Spirit can. And yes, I'm stand by my claim that it was the Holy Spirit who convicted me. Obviously, you are free to disagree. Please don't think I'm trying to judge or point fingers just because I hold a firm stance on the issue.
77. BDB said the following at 5:59 PM on Jul 9:
Ted (#74) -
>>Living together looks a lot like marriage, but without any public marriage ceremony.<<
Well, specifically, without the lifelong covenant. For those common-law marriages, I have no doubt that God will hold them fully accountable for all the rules, even if the covenant was made in private.
Does the Bible say anywhere that the covenant must be made publicly? Or is that just assumed, since pretty much everyone is part of a culture and every culture has a ceremony?
It seems kind of like Baptism, where there are many examples of adults getting baptised by full immersion, but since the text doesn't actually say that, some denominations believe it is acceptable to baptise infants by sprinkling water on their head. It's my understanding that the Catholic church accepts baptism from all sects because baptism predates Jesus. (See John the Baptist.) No where in the Bible does it say that baptising infants is acceptable, nor that sprinkling water on the head counts. Nevertheless, that became church tradition after baptism became the means by which a person became a citizen of a country. Baptise the infant so they're a citizen.
There's obviously a very long church tradition for a public marriage ceremony. The Catholic Church considers it a sacrament. The Catholic Church also considers Church Tradition to be critically important. Thus, the Church Tradition absolutely supports a public ceremony.
(I'm a little unclear about whether Catholic doctrine considers tradition equal to scripture. Different Catholic orders emphasize different parts of scripture, just like different Protestant denominations emphasize different parts of scripture.)
78. BDB said the following at 10:03 PM on Jul 9:
Thinking about Catholics made me realize another doctrine that supports Jo's observation that God really considers consummation as what creates the marriage. Man, these traditions have changed over the centuries. I'd never heard of handfasting before.
There's certainly a lot of denominational differences on matrimony.
In rooting around, it seems that the idea that marriage vows cannot be private originated in the 16th Century, and was called Clandestinity.
So, it's a Council of Trent thing.
79. Lola said the following at 7:23 AM on Jul 10:
Amir you said #75,
"Cohabitation is dumb. I don't care how "committed" you say you are. For every case you can show where a "committed Christian couple" didn't have sex, I'll show you--almost literally--9 other "committed Christian couples" who did."
I can say the same for dating (define it as you may). In fact the same is true for dating. Many dating relationships also result in abortions and premarital sex, yet I don't see you or Suzanne writing it off in the same way that you are writing off cohabitation. If it's possible to date wisely and in a godly way, why shouldn't we attempt to cohabit in a godly way too, for all it's benefits i.e. rent sharing, getting to know a potential life partner better, living with someone you actually like e.t.c.
Cohabiting is no worse than dating. If two people want to have sex, they will. They won't have to live under the same roof to achieve it.
80. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:48 AM on Jul 10:
Lola says:
Baloney. In a cohabiting relationship, the difference is this: easier access.
In a dating relationship, there is more distance, and the access is not quite as easy, and therefore offers better chance for he and she to come to their senses.
In a dating relationship, it's a lot easier to objectively establish boundaries and stick to them at the outset, whereas in a cohabiting relationship it is a lot harder to stick to them.
It's like coming home from a workout with a load of chocolate eclairs in your refrigerator. In a dating relationship, you don't come home to your date. In a cohabiting relationship, you do.
I wasn't born yesterday, Lola. I've done no small amount of counseling--as a crisis pregnancy center counselor, youth minister, minister of education, and Bible study leader for adults.
In my experience--and the experience of every minister I know--those who date but do not live together are far less likely to have sex than those who cohabit.
In fact, in my 33 years as a Christian, I only know of one "committed Christian" cohabiting couple who did not have sex, although their engagement was quite short (less than a month).
I can name no small number of couple who dated/courted--and did not cohabit--who did not have sex until after the wedding.
The particular does not negate the general: as a general rule, singles who cohabit--Christian or not--are going to be having sex, and more of it when they do, than those who do not cohabit.
81. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 9:04 AM on Jul 10:
Lola,
I'm curious what your altnerative to dating & courtship would be. Arranged marriages? I'm having a hard time seeing the direct corelation between dating and co-habitation. (Though I agree that dating leads to just as many opportunites for sex...humans are a creative lot...if we want it we will always find a way)
BDB, others
I see we're quibbling about the word "ceremony". OK. A covenant (or contract) of marriage with the surrounding community does not have to include a ceremony in the way we recognize it -- a public, ritualistic/formal celebration, whatever. Using the example of Isaac & Rebekah, I think Amir did a good job of illustrating that there was a community surrounding the couple to give their union blessing & recognition. But seeing how Abraham was already using ceremonional rituals such as circumsion & setting up altars as symbols of his covenant with God it is not impossible to imagine that some sort of ceremony took place at the wedding of Isaac & Rebekah. Being nomads, it was probably small and basic--maybe as simple as Abraham saying "now I give you your wife". But I would agree the specifics of those details would not be as important--it was the blessing of both sets of parents and God over the union and the culmination of that union was the sex. But I dont' see the problem with ceremonies. And why not wait? I can't think of any God-glorifying reason to have sex before marriage.
82. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:17 AM on Jul 10:
Tara (not the other Tara):
Just to clarify, though: BDB was not defending sex before marriage.
My point in that was to show that, even in the nomadic nature of Old Testament patriarchy, marriage did not happen in a vacuum. There was accountability: mates were selected at the direction of parents, the bride's parents were cooperative, the bride was a willing participant, there were witnesses, the groom clearly took her to be his wife.
In a Christian context, marriage is a covenant that involves not just the bride and groom, but also their respective families. Even when physical families are not involved--which is the case on rare occasions--church families are involved.
There is no Biblical case for cohabitation. It would not even come close to passing the smell test against the backdrop of the Biblical call for prudence and discretion.
I disagree. Going back to my fitness analogy, there is a difference between me keeping the ice cream in my freezer, versus having to go to DQ or Baskin Robbins to get it.
The former provides easier access--it's already there--whereas the latter requires more work.
If I don't keep my "cheating food" in the freezer, then I'd have to get in my car, drive to the ice cream joint, make my order, then drive back home.
In a more traditional dating/courtship scenario, you have more opportunity for cooler heads and more accountability.
This is why I can count no small number--in raw and percentage terms--of singles who were able to abstain from sex before marriage whereas I can only count one cohabiting couple--in my 42 years--who managed that.
83. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 11:11 AM on Jul 10:
Oh, I agree that dating doesn't always lead to sex...I took the dating route and was a virgin on my wedding night. I meant that if people *really* wanted to have sex, not living together isn't going to stop them. I admit I shouldn't have used "just as many". There are more boundaries/obstacles to premarital sex in dating than cohabitation--that's why I don't think dating is inherently wrong and that it's even good. I guess I think that those obstacles are easily overcome if someone chooses to. But I wasn't trying to align myself with Lola's viewpoint. Just trying to gain some understanding.
And I've read enough of BDB's posts to know he doesn't really think premartial sex is OK nor that he was defending it. I understood the debate as being over what marriage actually is. No hard feelings. :) I don't know if your overall post is disagreeing with mine. I must not have expressed myself clearly because your most recent post seems to mirror my own viewpoint.
84. Lola said the following at 12:13 PM on Jul 10:
Amir,
We're just going to have to agree to disagree but I'm grateful for your efforts.
Tara,
Yeah arranged marriages. The kind where the man and woman meet for the first time on their wedding day.
A direct correlation between dating and cohabitation is that all cohabiting couples are dating couples.
You also said #81:
"(Though I agree that dating leads to just as many opportunites for sex...humans are a creative lot...if we want it we will always find a way)"
Thank you.
85. BDB said the following at 1:04 PM on Jul 10:
Amir (#82) wrote:
>>Just to clarify, though: BDB was not defending sex before marriage.<<
Correct.
I should mention that I come from a pioneer family, which means for quite a few decades we had people on the farm a long ways from everyone else. That may also mean that a minister, if any, came around rarely.
It seems that the Catholics DO have a provision for this situation, describing marriage without a priest. I'll quote it here:
Under the present matrimonial laws the blessing of the union by a priest is not, in certain circumstances, essential to the contract and the sacrament. If a Catholic couple wish to marry in a place where for a month there will be no priest qualified to join them in matrimony, they may simply express their mutual consent before two witnesses, and thereby they are validly and lawfully married. In danger of death, this may also be done even when there is no such expected delay in the coming of the priest.
My point is actually the opposite of the "living together" idea. I'm saying that God will in fact recognize a private marriage with all the responsibilities thereof. A private marriage still means forsaking all others until death. It is NOT "getting to know someone and seeing if it will work out."
I find it interesting that the Catholic church refers specifically to cases when death is expected before a priest can be expected to arrive. I wonder if that refers to going off to battle or death due to illness or injury. I know C.S. Lewis got married civilly, I think while his wife was still in the hospital with cancer.
86. BDB said the following at 1:19 PM on Jul 10:
Earlier this week a Chistian friend from Cambodia e-mailed me his engagement pictures. It was a dramatic reminder that the ceremonies related to matrimony vary WIDELY by culture.
The only thing that's the same in every culture is this: Vow before God to only have sex with your wife.
Otherwise, everything else is cultural. Including the ceremony.
87. BDB said the following at 1:20 PM on Jul 10:
If I'm reading Lola correctly, she's saying there's not much Biblical justification for dating, right?
88. Lola said the following at 1:50 PM on Jul 10:
Yes BDB (#87).
89. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:00 PM on Jul 10:
Lola: I come from a family heritage that is familiar with "arranged marriages", so I think I can speak on this.
Arranged marriages are not necessarily a bad idea, and in fact can be wildly successful. On the other hand, there are some issues:
(1) Who does the "arranging"? In the Scriptures, families worked together, brides and grooms were cooperative and willing participants.
That would seem to be equitable, except that...
(2) What happens if the parents are not believers? My dad is Muslim. My mom is a secular Catholic. Stepmom is a secular Methodist. I am on great terms with my dad--he will be a groomsman at my wedding--but he is not in a position to pick a wife for me.
Neither of my fiance's parents--or stepparents--are believers.
The logical answer to this would be for the Church to take over the role of "arranger", except that...
(3) Very few pastors I know would be remotely equipped to work with singles to match them up.
Churches are already largely out of touch with singles. They are--as a group--ill-equipped to "arrange" marriages.
My finance's church is excellent, but at best they are facilitators and not "arrangers".
There is no command in Scripture to go for "arranged marriages". While it can be successful, it requires a tightly knit set of like-minded Christian families, nothing like what we have today.
Even if you have the Church do the "arranging", the Church is not generally well-equipped to do this.
Of the few churches I've seen who have taken this approach, the abuses were quite rampant and the divorce rate was pretty bad.
As for not meeting until your wedding day, that dog won't hunt. Are you suggesting that couples won't have the right of refusal?
Keep in mind that even in the case of Rebekah and Isaac, Rebekah went willingly and not under coercion. She was actually related to Isaac, so there actually were family ties involved.
90. Louise from Chicago said the following at 2:09 PM on Jul 10:
Comment 89, I agree that in some cultures arranged marriages are very successful, but why could not the actual adults involved (prosecptive bride and groom) arrange the marriage themselves?
Isn't that what people used to do in past century western culture?
91. Tami said the following at 2:39 PM on Jul 10:
Amir wrote:
"My finance's church (etc etc)..."
Hmm, that's not a nice way to refer to the woman you'll be marrying! If you're marrying her for her money, you could at least be decent enough to hide that until AFTER the wedding. ;)
(PS I'm aware it was a typo; just having fun)
92. BDB said the following at 2:40 PM on Jul 10:
Louise (#90) wrote:
>>Isn't that what people used to do in past century western culture?<<
No. In general, they structured the time of their children so they came into contact with potential spouses of "appropriate" families. While matchmaking is more specific, from what I've read there's a heavy emphasis by the matchmaker in evaluating each family and then facilitating the introductions of individuals from similar family backgrounds.
I think this is what eHarmony is trying to do - match people whose backgrounds are very similar.
Can individuals do this on their own? Sometimes. But it is challenging to identify the like-minded people out of all the people available.
For example, consider the subset of 20-somethings who believe in tithing and giving to missionaries - to the tune of thousands of dollars a year. There are lots of Christians who aren't there yet in their faith. You could have a young-adult's group at a mega-church with 200 people, of whom less than 20 believe in tithing systematically. In a small church, there could be only one such person, in which case they might not know any other people with those spiritual convictions. Unless a 3rd party is aware and introduces them.
93. Amir Larijani said the following at 3:00 PM on Jul 10:
Tami: LOL...noticed it too late.
94. Louise from Chicago said the following at 3:13 PM on Jul 10:
Comment 92, what I was referring to was the fact that in the "old days" life was such that you literally couldn't manage a household and work your farm/have outside employment by yourself.
So...unless you could afford to hire servants you pretty much had three choices, live with family members, get a place in a boarding house, or get married.
Usually young men who wanted to have a farm or home of their own would purposely seek a wife...they would enlist the help of family and friends to see if they knew of any young women who would be interested in getting married soon.
And...they would meet and if things were agreeable they would get married.
As for women, you pretty much would not have a life if you did not have a husband!
An arranged marriage isn't just those that meet for the first time on their wedding day.
It can be two people who meet and become socially acquainted with the sole purpose to see if they are agreeable to having each other as spouses.
If the answer was "yes" on both sides, they could proceed right away to the marriage plans, and could have a relatively short engagement.
95. Lola said the following at 4:19 PM on Jul 10:
Amir,
I can see that you are fiercely pro dating.
I was not "suggesting that couples won't have the right of refusal" but surely even you will have to agree that there are more important things than the right of refusal i.e. holiness.
Just to be clear, the Bible is my authority for arranged marriages and not your family heritage.
And finally, the particular does not negate the general: as a general rule, people who date--Christian or not, cohabiting or not--are going to be having sex.
96. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:41 PM on Jul 10:
Lola: A few notes:
(1) I'm neither pro--nor anti--dating. My argument is that you are wrong to infer that dating is as bad as cohabitation. While our modern dating paradigm has serious problems, it is still better than cohabitation, and for the reasons I've mentioned. I can say this based on substantial experience on my end. I have enough pastors whose experiences are congruent with mine.
(2) If you think that your variation of arranged marriages is somehow any better, you might want to read the Bible a little more closely.
For one thing, you have only two instances in Scripture in which a man met his mate on the wedding day: (a) Isaac and (b) Jacob. The former had a family who invested major capital--more than most families would have today--and the latter whose case was a very loveless marriage.
Moreover, there is no Biblical mandate that commands that people get married in that fashion. In fact, neither Jesus nor the Apostles--in spite of serious issues of immorality and divorce among the people of that day--made any definitive pronouncements as to how couples must meet or get married.
For another thing, if you think the ancient Israelite culture was conducive to successful marriages, you'd be badly mistaken.
In fact, God saw it as enough of a problem such that He made provisions for divorce. Jesus Himself said that this was done "because of the hardness of your hearts".
As for divorce rates, Malachi torched the Israelites for their divorce epidemic.
During Jesus' life on earth, Pharisees were haggling over what were "acceptable grounds for divorce". (Gee...sounds like the malarkey I hear in Christian circles these days! There really IS nothing new under the sun...)
What's the end game to this? Fact is, we are fallen people who live in a fallen world. Total Depravity is what it is.
Modern dating, arranged marriages, agency dating, Church-supervised dating, each have their strengths and weaknesses. One thing on which Boundless, yourself, and even some of the marriage mandators (Debbie Maken) agree is that the modern dating paradigm has serious problems.
On the other hand, imposing dogma--that has no Biblical command--is nothing but Pharisaic dogma cloaked as Christian accountability.
What would I suggest as a solution to this matter?
(1) I'd say that men who are seeking marital relationships ought to work with the bride's family, to the extent that is possible. (Like I said, that is not always possible.)
(2) In the event that is not possible, both parties need to work with the Church from the outset, and establish a system of accountability. This is not about micromanagement--some churches will get it wrong--but rather about pursuing prudence and discretion. It's a Proverbs thing...
(3) When the couple decides to marry, allow the Church to guide the premarital process.
(4) Opt for shorter--rather than lengthy--engagements. The premarital process ought to be long enough for reasonable counseling and preparation for the merging of lives, but not so long as to unnecessarily drag out the process.
Note to the libertarians out there: What I am positing are recommendations, not commands.
97. Kellie said the following at 6:42 PM on Jul 10:
#95: I would disagree that dating Christians are going to be having sex.
Most committed Christians are going to work towards remaining pure in a relationship. And yes, some will slip up, but many will not.
98. DEH said the following at 1:12 AM on Jul 11:
Lola, I have to disagree with your comment (95):
"As a general rule, people who date--Christian or not, cohabiting or not--are going to be having sex."
That's a pretty strong comment that I don't think could be backed up by statistics, at least from my own experience. Among my married Christian friends, all of whom dated/courted prior to marriage, many of them were virgins on their wedding nights. Perhaps if you included self-identified, but non-practicing, Christians in your statistics, then you would be right. But among true born again believers? I just don't think it's true that they are all having sex while dating. I certainly wasn't, and according to a number of comments on this post, many others remained pure as well.
99. BDB said the following at 1:15 AM on Jul 11:
Louise (#94) - I agree with you.
I've read a few stories of people who had arranged marriages within the last few decades (since 1970). They usually have a difficult time explaining it to Americans.
What the 3rd party matchmaker usually does is a rather in-depth research on both families. That research is presented to both families first to see if it's a suitable match. One of them, from a Jewish family, even took issue with the particular type of stockings the girl was choosing to wear (I didn't really understand what they were talking about), but the idea being that a certain style was the appropriate modesty for someone who wanted to be the wife of a rabbi. It was a point of conflict with mom and dad.
I get the sense that those in the matchmaking profession in these communities are quite thorough in their preparation and demand accurate information from each family. That kind of accountability is missing when people, say, meet on their own at a bar, without any family context.
100. Brian Krieger said the following at 12:25 PM on Jul 11:
Jo:
First, I just wanted to say that I had read your comment, I was really trying to chew on what you said (I know, you were waiting on pins and needles ;-). I apologize for offending. I don’t purposefully write to offend. I should have stated your position on premarital sex as a construct.
I do, however, still stand by what I said (perhaps I should simply have broadened it to state that you do not believe in premarital sex….yes, I did read what you wrote prior). I purposefully didn’t include you stating it for that reason, and also that’s why I said it’s irrelevant who wrote it. It’s a mindset that you specifically state and it does define the culture in which we live. It’s stated often even on this blog (there was another statement similar to it on another post shortly after). After reading your clarification, I suppose I more or less see your line of reason, though, what I quoted makes a very absolute statement. I guess I think of it this way. Assuming that you are or eventually will be discipling/teaching/counseling someone (hey, counseling!). Someone says “I had sex with my boyfriend” or thinking about it. Now it matters what is correct and not. Truth is truth never mind what your personal motives may be. I think what you are saying, though, is that you will remain a virgin and won’t sleep with anyone prior to marriage, so it doesn’t matter about what is viewed as “marriage”. I guess I would just say that you should consider what the biblical construct (what is correct) for it may be prior to that discipling relationship (something to which we are commanded). Personal motives don’t cut it if they are divorced from God.