(Although this article stands alone, it is actually intended as a sequel to "The Dangers of Dating: Scriptural Romance - Part 1." We recommend that if you haven't already read the first article, you do so before reading this one.)

Many Christian parents are increasingly questioning the teen social structures we experienced during our youth that are now being passed on to our own children. Most of us bring regrets into our marriages, but are much more alarmed to ponder how much worse things could have been. We realize the dating relationships we thought were so delightful actually made us incredibly vulnerable. I, for one, am immensely grateful that God's grace was apparently protecting me from devastation. Most of us realize our lives could easily have been much more scarred than they are.

Yet, when we ponder recent trends such as the acceptance of "date rape" and other perverse mind-sets, we recognize that the flaws in the American dating patterns we survived can no longer be overlooked. The vulnerability we thought to be relatively harmless in our own youth is now being exposed as a significant danger. Thus many families are questioning, or outright rejecting, dating as an acceptable and necessary scenario for preparing for marriage. We are seeking a better, safer design, a more biblical tradition, for our young people.

Even if we could be assured that our young people could withstand temptations inherent in dating and somehow be protected from seductive predators looking for naive victims, some of us are questioning more deeply the very principle of pre-marital romance. I am thankful that when Connie and I married neither of us had experienced physical intimacy with others. Yet we both brought the memories of previous romantic relationships into our marriage. Most couples I talk with acknowledge that such baggage has hindered their marital unity both emotionally and physically.

In Part One of this article we considered 1 Thes. 4:6 and Paul's charge to avoid both "going beyond" the limits of physical purity and "defrauding" others by inciting desire. The institutionalized flirtation of dating is a direct violation of this command. It would be ludicrous to go on a date without flirting with one's partner. That is what dating is for. It is expected that each dating partner will experiment with their own, and the others' emotions. In the physical realm such experimentation would correctly be labeled fornication! Why have we come to accept temporary, casual, serial romances in the domain of the emotions?

In a budding romance two single people begin to increasingly view themselves as a couple. Even if there are no commitments, they are seen together and treated as a couple. As their emotions focus on their partner, certain hopes begin to be fulfilled which leads to anticipation of greater delight in increasing one-ness. This eager expectation is what we call romance. In a more objective manner, social scientists have called this process "bonding." In a sense the couple is becoming glued to one another emotionally.

God created this romantic impulse. The Bible refers to the ultimate outcome of this process when it says (Gen. 2:24). "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Becoming one flesh would certainly be possible without any emotional unity. However the scripture makes it clear this is not God's design. Husbands and wives are supposed to love one another (c.f. Eph. 5:25; Tit. 2:4). God wants them to bond emotionally as well as physically.

The problem we face today is that for several generations young people have been encouraged to experiment (flirt) with the emotions of a variety of romantic partners before settling into a permanent romance in marriage. In each romance, however, they begin the process of emotional bonding. Then, when they "break up" they must rip apart the bond. This leaves one or both parties wounded. But the wounds eventually heal and they move on to the next romance. But after each romantic relationship their healed wounds leave scars--memories that will impact all future relationships, including the one God clearly wants to be permanent. This is the baggage so many of us regret bringing into our marriages.

In mandating that church leaders be "one-woman men" (Literal translation of 1 Tim. 3:12; Tit. 1:6), scripture clearly holds this as the ideal for all. I wonder if we have taken this far enough. To my regret and shame, I confess that during my youth I gave other women my heart. Emotionally I have not been a one-woman man. While I was not physically promiscuous, I was emotionally promiscuous.

For example, during my youth my family traveled with my father for two years as he conducted a prayer conference ministry in various churches. In many of the churches we visited I would be attracted to one of the young ladies. After leaving I would cultivate a correspondence relationship and we would exchange love letters. At the time everyone thought this was rather cute and innocent.

But today there are certain parts of the country I dread traveling to. I just know some day I will be preaching righteousness and holiness in some church and some woman will stand up in the back and wave, calling out, "Yoo-hoo! Do you remember me?" To my chagrin it will be one of my former love-letter correspondents whom I defrauded. I enticed these to desire emotional relationships that I should have reserved for my wife.

In fact, several years ago my wife and I were running the tape exhibit at a homeschool convention where I was speaking. A woman who didn't know Connie was my wife came up and asked her if she knew me very well. Connie rather tentatively admitted she did know me pretty well. This woman proceeded to announce, "Well I used to go with him."

You can imagine what was happening in Connie's heart. She pointed to me and said, "Why don't you go and talk with him."

The woman came up to me and asked, "Do you remember me?" I puzzled for a moment and couldn't place her. She told me her name. I still didn't remember her. She mentioned where she was from, and all of a sudden my face reddened. I remembered her, all right. I was so embarrassed! The woman said, "That lady over there told me to come and talk with you."

I swallowed and announced, "That lady over there is my wife, Connie."

This exchange was incredibly awkward. Why? There had never been anything physical between us, but still I felt shame. Why? I have regrets regarding both my own and Connie's memories of dating relationships. I wish I was the first fellow my wife had ever been romantic toward, and she wishes the same regarding me. If only we had each avoided recreational romance altogether and saved our hearts, not just our bodies, for one another. I believe this is a God- given, instinctive desire.

How can I spare my own children such regrets as Connie and I bring to our marriage? Clearly purity is ultimately a matter of the heart. Of course it is possible to practice dating and maintain physical purity and, theoretically perhaps, even emotional purity. But is it likely? Is there some pre-marital romance pattern that makes both physical purity and emotional purity more likely, or better, virtually certain. I believe God's word gives us such a structure in the practice it calls betrothal. But before considering this let's consider another popular alternative that is similar, but definitely not identical to the scriptural pattern.

Is Courtship the Answer?

As a single youth pastor in 1972 I was challenged through the ministry of a very godly man, to develop scripturally based convictions to guide my dating. Try as I might, I couldn't find any scripture to validate dating at all! I saw the need for some new scenario to replace dating--but what might that be? At that time I came across the term "courtship" in my reading. I wasn't quite sure what courting was, but I knew my young people had no better idea than I, so I decided to use this term and give it a meaning that might provide a more scriptural direction for youthful romance.

By God's grace I persuaded my small youth group to give up dating and replace it with this new (actually old) thing we called "courtship." I defined courtship as a romantic relationship between a young man and woman in which both were of marriageable age, had the full blessing of their parents, and were seriously contemplating marriage. Thus we eliminated casual dating and unauthorized dating.

In Part One of this article I briefly shared my own testimony of how God used my commitment to courtship to spare me from marrying the wrong woman. I was committed to not proceeding toward marriage without the full blessing of both my parents and those of the young woman I would marry. God used my parents refusal to spare me (and the godly young woman I was interested in) from marrying the wrong person. Through my parents, the Lord led me to the beautiful romance of marrying Connie.

As a result of this "courtship" experience I began promoting courting as a biblical alternative to dating. I have been gratified, over the years to see many others begin seeing the dangers of dating and begin promoting courtship instead. It has been exciting to hear the delightful testimonies of newly married couples who had committed themselves to courtship and were spared the regrets and scars of teen dating experiences. Courtship is unquestionably better than dating.

Yet, occasionally I began hearing other reports that were not so encouraging. Some made statements that courtship was not "working." I felt rather defensive. How could courtship not work? Several parents told me their young people had committed to and practiced courtship, but had still experienced being defrauded. I remember an instance where a father told me his daughter had courted one fellow and the relationship didn't pan out so she courted a second fellow. It was determined that this situation wasn't the right one either so she courted a third fellow, and then a fourth. This man declared that courtship didn't work, as his daughter had clearly been defrauded.

I challenged him that what he was describing wasn't really courtship, but simply dating by the name courtship. He insisted that it really was courtship. As I asked him for the basis for his contention he quoted back to me my own definition of courtship: "a romantic relationship between a young man and woman in which both were of marriageable age, had the full blessing of their parents, and were seriously contemplating marriage." He reported that in each of his daughter's courtships all three of these pre-requisites were met. But in each case the relationship ended without leading to marriage.

I was stumped. Indeed it appeared that these were, in fact, courtships. They fit the definition of courtship that I, and everyone else I know, use to distinguish courtship from dating. Courtship simply had not worked for this young woman. She was still defrauded. Hopes and expectations were incited that were not fulfilled. She still experienced repeatedly what I call the "broken-heart syndrome." How could courtship not work?

Such accounts forced me to return to God and His word. I was dismayed to have to admit that just as dating is nowhere found in scripture, neither is courtship. The word "courtship" is certainly never found. Not even the idea of courtship, a romantic trial period before committing to marriage, is ever found in scripture.

Before we move on to what the scripture does show us, let me illustrate more specifically some of the inadequacies of courtship. I'm thankful for the numerous couples who have had blessed courtships. Many have gone through courtship, gotten engaged, and gotten married as one-man women and one-woman men. I thank God courtship has been such a blessing to so many. Courtship is definitely moving in the right direction, as it at least recognizes the dangers of dating. But it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't conform to the scriptural ideal.

What is the problem? Courtship still leaves the door open to defrauding! Although it implements the scriptural principle of parental authorization, providing significant safeguards, it is still defined as a trial emotional relationship one can back out of. It is still, at the core, experimental romance.

Several years ago another father came to me explaining that his 14-year-old daughter was not ready to get married, and knew it. She was persuaded that courtship was superior to dating. However, she had come to him asking permission to court a young man. The father wanted my recommendation.

Consider this situation. The young lady recognized and welcomed the need for her father's authorization. This provided her a God-ordained protection. Yet she still didn't understand the need to avoid defrauding. Her understanding of courtship was simply that it was parentally authorized dating. She didn't want to marry the fellow. She only wanted to enjoy the thrill of a temporary romance. But temporary romance, whether called dating or courtship, implies there will be an end. At the end of a romance there is always at least one broken heart. We're back to "the broken-heart syndrome." Courtship as parentally authorized dating is probably better than unauthorized dating. But it is still romantic experimentation and makes defrauding virtually inevitable.

In another case a family was committed to courtship and had thoroughly instructed their young people in the process, giving specific directions to their 19-year-old daughter on how to respond to any advances that might be made by fellows. At one point a committed Christian young man in their church asked her to go with him on a date. As she had been instructed, she sent him to her father. The father was impressed with the young man's demeanor, godly reputation, and courage in coming to him. He informed the fellow that their family had repudiated dating in favor of courtship, explaining what that meant and why they had made this commitment.

The fellow was impressed, and even persuaded. He verbalized a desire to practice courtship rather dating himself. Of course, he then asked if he might court the daughter. The father really liked the young man and gave his consent for them to begin a courtship.

After a period of courting, the young couple came to the father and announced that they were now quite certain the Lord wanted them to marry. The father was a bit put off and refused to give his blessing. As his daughter became resistant to his authority he came to me asking my counsel. What should he do? How could he persuade his daughter to fully submit to him?

I had to explain to this father that he himself had unknowingly sown the seeds of this rebellion. When he authorized the courtship, he hadn't authorized marriage. Thus all he authorized was an experimental relationship. Essentially he authorized his daughter and this young man to defraud one another! It's no wonder she was resistant to his authority now. She likely had felt her father had already begun preparing her to accept the young man as her authority.

Many who are practicing and promoting courtship today suggest two stages of authorization. In the first stage the couple is authorized to begin courting--to get to know one another and find out if they are emotionally compatible. (Doesn't this sound vaguely similar to the rationale for a couple living together for a time before marriage--to find out if they are compatible?)

In the second stage the couple must seek and receive authorization to become engaged. Authorization at this step is not a certainty. Thus the possibility of a broken heart is quite distinct. The benefit of this scheme seems to be that neither the parents nor the young people need to be convinced of the appropriateness of an ultimate marriage at the first stage. However, this leads us back to leaving the door open to defrauding.

In another situation a godly father saw the dangers of dating and committed to avoiding them (Prov. 22:3). He trained his three daughters to be emotionally as well as physically pure--to save their hearts as well as their bodies for the man God would have them marry. They were being well-trained to be one-man women. Their family committed themselves to courtship as a means to maintain this purity. The man and his wife were so delighted to guide their first two daughters through courtship and engagement into wonderful, godly marriages.

Their third daughter also was guided through courtship and became engaged. Everything seemed to be going along fine until her fiance got cold feet. He changed his mind, deciding she wasn't the one God wanted him to marry after all. This godly young lady was devastated-- defrauded! She later ended up going through courtship, engagement, and getting married to another fellow. She was physically pure but what about emotionally? She could never claim to be emotionally as well as physically the one-man woman she had dreamed of presenting to her husband.

Many will suggest she was spared. And undoubtedly in God's redemptive economy He took a bad thing and made it ultimately good (Rom. 8:28). In most of our cases he used the dating patterns we followed to bring us into the marriage he wanted for us. But does this validate dating? Hardly! Our Redeemer redeems bad things, making them good, He redeems ugly things making them beautiful. God uses many imperfect vessels. This does not, however, mean he is giving His approval to the tools He redeems. He has blessed sincere commitments to purity in courtship. But this does not mean it is his ideal. Our practices must be judged by scripture, not experience.

The scriptural pattern of betrothal would have made the defrauding this young lady experienced impossible. How? Unlike today's engagements, in the biblical structure once a betrothal was committed to, it was binding. In our society, an engaged couple can call off the wedding at any point. Even just a few moments before the marriage vows are made it is still understood that either party could change their minds. A betrothal, on the other hand, instituted a covenant that was irrevocable except in very specific circumstances.

Probably the best example of this is found in Matthew's account of the birth of Christ. Mary and Joseph were not yet married, they were only betrothed. The betrothal did not authorize physical intimacy. (It obviously authorized something, though, as we will see.) When Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant he was troubled, knowing he wasn't the father of the child. He wanted to call off the wedding. But he couldn't just call it off. The only way he could call off the wedding was to divorce Mary! But they weren't married yet! How could they get a divorce? In the biblical design it took a legal divorce (on scriptural grounds) to revoke the betrothal covenant. Thus betrothals were not entered into lightly because they were virtually irrevocable.

No one denies that this was the practice throughout both the Old and New Testament eras. But does this mean we are to practice it today? Just because the Bible describes a practice should we make it a standard for Christians everywhere and at all times? Note the descriptions of men's apparel in scripture. They wore what we would probably call gowns or dresses today. Should American Christian men wear dresses and sandals because Jesus did? I don't think so. The Bible's descriptions are not binding upon us. But they are at least worthy of our consideration.

Does the Bible do more than simply describe Betrothal, though? Yes it does! Let me make a case for this by starting with some basic, indisputable principles. First, 1 Thessalonians 4:6 clearly forbids defrauding in this matter of purity between men and women. Therefore only those traditions and practices which support both physical and emotional purity should be options for Christians. Anything tending to undermine such physical and emotional purity by facilitating the building of false expectations should be viewed, at best, as "provision for the flesh" which we are told to avoid (Rom. 13:14).

Second, God's people are to avoid making promises they cannot or will not keep. The Psalmist gives us a list of attributes of those who may dwell in God's presence. Among these is "He who swears to his own hurt and does not change" (Ps. 15:4). We have taken engagement promises too lightly, as simply a final trial period before making the truly binding vows. I understand that there was a lawsuit in one of the Southern states recently where a jilted fiance won a "breach of promise" suit based on unrevoked laws making engagements binding.

Betrothals, or engagements, have been deemed binding by serious Christians in our own society until quite recently. For example in 1959 the Family Life Committee of the Lutheran Church-- Missouri Synod (arguably the most conservative, evangelical Lutheran body in America-- especially at that time) published a book entitled Engagement and Marriage dealing with this subject as a current controversy. They reported their own substantial surveys in which "[a]lmost half of the Missouri Synod families responding accepted betrothal as equal to marriage in the sight of God." They further reported, "Sixty-nine per cent of the clergymen in the Missouri Synod regarded betrothal as binding as marriage."

But does the Bible itself address this issue directly? Beyond descriptions does it actually prescribe binding betrothal? In Deuteronomy 22:22-29 God mandates distinct penalties for immorality based upon one's marital state. A married woman who was immoral was to be executed along with the man who committed the adultery with her. However if a man committed fornication with a non-betrothed virgin neither of them was executed. He was simply required to pay her father a dowry and marry her without the possibility of ever divorcing. (Interestingly Exodus 22:16-17 clarifies that if her father refuses to permit the marriage, he must still pay the dowry even though he may not marry her.)

There seems, at first glance, to be a double standard here. Why would the same act, committed by two different people be punished differently? Quickly it becomes clear, though, that in one case a marriage covenant is in place and has been violated, while in the other case this is not true. Apparently this is the definitional difference between adultery and fornication. In the case of adultery, at least one of the parties is already married, making the immorality a violation of an existing covenant.

But now we turn, in this passage, to the point of our discussion. God specifically deals with one other marital category: the immorality of a man with a virgin who is betrothed. The way we think today, we would class her with the single virgin and say the immoral couple must marry. But God didn't do that. He required their execution, and was even more graphic in describing their stoning. Apparently even though the betrothed woman is unmarried this immorality is classed as adultery because a marriage covenant has been entered into.

In the Bible when is the marriage covenant made? It is not at the wedding, but at the betrothal! In fact this is why in numerous passages a betrothed couple is referred to as "husband" and "wife" even though they are not yet married (c.f. Deut. 22:24; Matt. 1:19-20, 24; Luke 2:5). Some have insisted that because these are already called husband and wife betrothal is the same as marriage. This is not the case. Not until the wedding is physical union authorized. But then what does betrothal authorize?

I have been accused of promoting loveless arranged marriages. The specter of being married to someone you don't love is enough to scare most contemporary people into the deception of the emotional defrauding of dating. Clearly the Lord wants husbands and wives to love one another as we pointed out earlier from Ephesians 5:25 & Titus 2:4. Yet when are they supposed to begin to bond emotionally, or "fall in love" as we would say today?

My father actually taught that it was a sin to "fall in love." He said that when you fall you don't know where you are going to land. The whole love-at-first-sight idea pre-supposes we are ruled by our emotions. Our emotions are fickle and can easily mislead us. Is it possible to "fall in love" with the wrong person? Absolutely! I know. I did it! Thankfully my parents would not bless a relationship they knew was not God's best for me.

In our culture we are taught to marry the one you love. Nowhere in scripture do we find this encouraged. Instead the scripture teaches us to love the one you marry. There is a vast difference between these two. Are we to be led by our emotions or by God's will?

My father taught me that my emotions should not lead me. Emotions are a wonderful gift from God, but they are not to lead us. Solomon provided this parental direction (Prov. 23:19) "Hear, my son, and be wise; And guide your heart in the way." We are to guide our emotions rather than being led by them. I was confident that my father was right that God would grant me a wonderful romantic relationship with whoever He chose for me to marry if I would simply surrender to His will. That is exactly what has happened. My marriage to Connie continues to be remarkably romantic and exciting, but it is not based on love. It is based on willing surrender to God's will.

In considering these statements one might, at first glance, feel they make true romance impossible. To some, romance is only exciting if it is sneaky, unauthorized, illicit. On the contrary, God wants romance to be restful, delightful, pure. Authorized romance does perhaps lose the adventure a thief experiences, of risking getting caught. But God's design for love between a man and a woman is that of Adam and Eve before they sinned. Genesis 2:25 tells us they "were not ashamed."

The most romantic book in the Bible, Song of Solomon, repeats an interesting warning three times (SoS. 2:7; 3:5; 8:4): "I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, Do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases." Young people need to be careful to not stir up romantic desires until the right time.

This is a critical issue. If we leave the door open to being romantic prior to a commitment we continue to make young people vulnerable to defrauding. Yet we don't want them going to their wedding altar without being in love.

But when and how should they begin cultivating romance? Clearly it would be beneficial to have developed some passionate feelings for one another before the wedding. But how can this be delayed until after the commitment to marry? It appears that this is at least one of God's purposes for betrothal. The scripture doesn't specify all of the purposes for betrothal--only that it was a period of preparation prior to the actual physical union during which the commitment to move on to marriage is irrevocable.

At the very least, though, the betrothal authorized the cultivation of emotional anticipation for the bride and groom. Now that the decision of who to marry was finalized they could focus on that person without risk of heart-break, or defrauding. Clearly betrothal authorized romance! During this time the couple's hearts grew to eagerly anticipate the delight of becoming wholly one. As their thoughts turned increasingly toward their betrothed there was no fear of rejection, no guilt of deception or unauthorized presumption, no need to hide.

I am convinced this is a scriptural design for pre-marital romance that desperately needs to be recovered today. We keep encouraging our young people to play on the freeway of heart-break, knowing they will learn the games of dodging flirtation and hoping they will not get hit by a speeding immorality.

In scripture God not only uses betrothal and marriage as an illustration of His relationship with us, but He also reverses this, teaching us about the proper relationship between husbands and wives by studying His dealing with us (see Eph. 5:22-33). It is interesting that the church is likened to a bride, with Christ as the groom (John 3:29, Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17). But has the wedding taken place yet? When is the "marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:9)? This is a future event we all look forward to. But that means the church is not yet married to Christ! Oh no! Could He change His mind and call off the wedding? No! We were bought, have been redeemed by Christ's own blood. The dowry has been paid!

The church is not married to Christ yet. We are betrothed to Him! We will never fully understand our relationship to Christ without understanding betrothal. Paul said (2 Cor. 11:2) "For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

To listen online to a humorous audio presentation exploring these issues, CLICK HERE. An expanded message on Betrothal is available in either audio or video tape through our Resources section. For further clarification on this topic, view the "Comparison Chart of Dating, Courtship, & Scriptural Betrothal" available online.

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
Title:
Comment:
Code:*

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved