Changing your relationship status to ‘in a relationship’…

1. Implies that you are no longer single

However in God’s eyes you still are. Biblically we only stop being single when we are engaged. The ‘in a relationship’ status is a modern invention that finds no roots in the Bible.

2. Implies you have made unspoken vows

Unspoken vows along the following lines are implied by the change in status:

“I (name), take you (name) to be my boyfriend, to have and to hold from this day forward. I promise to love, comfort, honour, cherish and protect (name), forsaking all others, be faithful to (name) unless we breakup. Amen”.

The unspoken vows of being ‘in a relationship’ are similar to those of marriage because the girlfriend/boyfriend relationship is a marriage-like relationship. However these vows are not the type of vows God makes and I believe are illegitimate in God’s eyes. He does not promise to love and cherish us unless He breaks up with us. He promises to love and cherish Christians forever because love is not something that is supposed to fail (1 Cor 13:8). Vows that allow for a painful divorce-like split can’t please God.

3. Implies you belong to each other

“He’s my man”, ”I’m his girl” and ”We are together” are terms used when ‘in a relationship’. These are terms that suggest you romantically ‘belong’ to the guy. However in God’s eyes you do not. The guy is not “yours” and you are not “his”. You should rather see him as a brother in Christ who could be somebody else’s husband.

4. Implies there is something to celebrate

Once you change your Facebook status you will inevitably get a whole heap of ‘likes’ and comments such as “Congratulations!” and “I’m so happy for you”. However there is nothing to celebrate. The guy may not marry you. He may well marry someone else. Imagine you went to an interview and the interview panel cracked open a bottle of champagne five minutes in – before they’ve even decided to offer you the job or not. You’d rightly think such behaviour was inappropriate. You may not get the job and such celebration could give false hope.

Furthermore I think it’s unwise to change your status because doing so…

1. Adds unnecessary pressure

Once you go public you will inevitably provoke a lot of attention that can add a huge amount of pressure to your time of getting to know a guy. Pressure can be an attraction killer. It can lead to you or the guy feeling overwhelmed, smothered and then bailing out when you could have ended up in an amazing marriage. Equally, the pressure of going public can lead to people getting married who have serious and valid reservations – because they feel things have gone too far to back out.

2. Can lead to shame

Love always protects (1 Cor 13:7)

If things don’t lead to marriage, which they often don’t, then you and the guy must both very publicly change your relationship status back to single. If it was you who decided marriage was no longer on the cards then it could be quite difficult for the guy. Love protects and to protect another is to protect them from potential public shame.

3. Can create a false sense of security

Love does no harm (Rom 13:10)

Declaring your romance to the Facebook world can leave him ecstatic. It can hugely stir up his love and give him a false sense of security. If months down the line you then decide marriage is not best, the guy can feel far more rejected and hurt than if you had not made a public declaration. Likewise, you could end up with a false sense of security that could lead to more heartbreak for you.

So when I don’t ‘like’ your ‘in a relationship’ status on Facebook, please don’t think that I don’t care about your happiness.  It’s because I care about your long-term happiness and the happiness of the guy that I won’t.

Want to know more?

I highly recommend the book: ‘God’s Way for Romance‘ by Stuart Burgess. WE HAVE 10 SIGNED COPIES TO GIVEAWAY. JUST LIKE THIS ARTICLE AND WRITE A COMMENT BELOW TO BE IN FOR A CHANCE OF WINNING! I would also recommend my article: Boyfriends vs Courtship (What’s the Difference?)

The post Why I won’t ‘like’ your relationship status first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.

1. The boyfriend/girlfriend status is an alternative to marriage

The boyfriend/girlfriend status is an alternative to marriage. Put another way, it is a copy of marriage without the commitment. It is a marriage-like relationship. When two people are in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship there are unspoken vows, such as ‘I am your partner’, ‘I belong to you’ and ‘I will be there for you’. However, there is no vow of lifelong commitment and the vows are not made before God. Boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are very appealing to human nature because they involve marital pleasures from a young age but without the commitment of lifelong marriage. In past ages where there was a biblical courtship culture, people had a choice of being married or being single. However, in modern society people have an additional choice of having a boyfriend/girlfriend. As the relationship culture becomes more popular, so the institution of marriage becomes less special and less honoured. Whereas in past societies most people aspired to getting married as young adults, now most people aspire to being in relationships as young adults. In past ages living together was frowned upon and called ‘living in sin’. However, in modern times living together is seen as a legitimate alternative to setting up a marital home. The practice of living together means that marriage is no longer seen as necessary but simply as an optional extra. In fact, marriage is now often seen as an inconvenient optional extra. People today say they cannot get married because it is too expensive or because they would rather spend money on a holiday or a house. Ironically, the reason why marriage is often expensive is because people are living together before marriage and so marriage only seems worthwhile if there is an elaborate wedding. As marriage gets replaced by an alternative, the girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, so is marriage dishonoured.

2. The boyfriend/girlfriend status has caused a decline in the number of people getting married.

The boyfriend/girlfriend culture has resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of people getting married. Since boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are seen as equivalent to marriage, it should not be surprising that many people see cohabiting as an alternative to marriage. The proportion of the population getting married today is only about half of that in 1900 because many people now choose to cohabit rather than get married. In 2008 there were around 233,000 weddings in England and Wales, but that figure would have been over 400,000 if the same proportion of society was getting married as in 1900. When you take into account that many modern marriages are actually remarriages following divorce, the actual decline is even greater. As marriage declines in society and its importance lessened, so is marriage dishonoured.

3. The boyfriend/girlfriend status has raised the average age at which people get married

When society has a boyfriend/girlfriend culture, this always increases the average age at which people get married. One reason is that people want to have the fun of several relationships before settling down. Another reason for the delay in marriage is that the relationship culture makes cohabiting acceptable before marriage. The increase in the average age at which people marry can be clearly seen over the last hundred years as the relationship culture has become stronger in Western society. The average age at which women get married (for the first time) in the UK has risen from around twenty-three in 1900 to around twenty-nine in 2004. The average age for men has risen from around twenty-five in 1900 to around thirty-one in 2004. When you consider that a person’s healthiest and most vigorous years are their twenties, these increases are very significant. The delay in getting married is a self-reinforcing problem because when people see that the average age for getting married is thirty-one, they are much less prepared to save themselves for marriage than if the average age was twenty-five. In contrast, when society has a courtship culture, people tend to get married young because there is no alternative to marriage. And when people can see that there is a tendency to marry young, they do not mind saving themselves for marriage—and so there is a virtuous cycle that ensures marriage is honoured. In areas where there is a strong Bible culture, such as Bible Belt areas in the USA, there is still a trend for men and women to marry in their early to mid-twenties. In contrast, when there is a tendency to marry at an older age, people struggle to save themselves for marriage —and so there is a sinful cycle that ensures marriage is dishonoured.

4. The boyfriend/girlfriend status has been a key reason for the rise in divorce rates

In the last hundred years in the West the number of divorces has increased enormously by a factor of something like 100. I think the relationship culture is the primary reason for this ungodly trend because the relationship culture makes it sociably acceptable to go through divorce-like splits again and again.  Breaking-up has become a normal part of life. Unsurprisingly as breaking up before marriage has become the norm, so has breaking up after marriage.  The great rise in divorce has resulted in the institution of marriage being greatly undermined.

5. The terminology of the boyfriend/girlfriend status is damaging to marriage

Relationships dishonour marriage because they copy the language of marriage. We say “He’s mine”, “I am his”, “He’s my other half”, “We’re a couple” etc.  When a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship fails we say “We broke-up, we split-up” etc. At the same time in modern society marital terms like ‘spouse’, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are discouraged or even banned in order to prevent marriage being seen as superior to relationships. The media tries to use the term ‘partner’ whether someone is married or not in order to give equal status to people in boyfriend/girlfriend relationships. On 8 April 2011 a man wrote a letter to The Daily Telegraph expressing his surprise and sorrow that he was not allowed to refer to his wife as his ‘wife’ when he was at the dental surgery. This particular dental practice insisted that everyone refer to spouses as partners, not as husbands or wives. By giving equal status to relationships through the language we use, the institution of marriage is greatly devalued.

6. Boyfriend/girlfriend culture has elevated the “soulmate” status above the marriage status.

The modern world does not recognize marriage as the ideal place for a romantic relationship. Instead the world judges a relationship in terms of whether two people are ‘soulmates’. People now say things like, ‘I have found my soulmate’ or ‘I am looking for my soulmate’. If two unmarried people are soulmates, their relationship is said to be as good as it can be. Many celebrities and films are now promoting the stereotype that soulmate status is the ultimate criterion for successful romance, rather than marriage. People sometimes use the concept of soulmate to justify past failed relationships by saying that those past relationships failed because they had not found their soulmate. Sadly, many people do not realize that the whole point of marriage is to ensure that two people do actually become soulmates. Only with the lifelong commitment of marriage and biblical vows can two people actually become soulmates. As the relationships culture elevates the soulmate status over the marriage status, so is marriage undermined.

7. The boyfriend/girlfriend status has devalued purity

The boyfriend/girlfriend status has made it socially acceptable to have romantic intimacy outside of marriage.  Even most Christians believe a degree of sexual intimacy such as passionate, intimate kissing is fine once you are “in a relationship”.  Thus the intimacy that belongs in marriage has been taken outside of marriage and marriage has been dishonoured.

Stuart Burgess (Stuart Burgess is the author of our book of the month, God’s way for romance: Getting back to Biblical courtship). WE HAVE 10 SIGNED COPIES TO GIVEAWAY. JUST LIKE THIS ARTICLE AND WRITE A COMMENT BELOW TO BE IN FOR A CHANCE OF WINNING!

If you want to read more on this topic,

• ‘Boyfriends vs Courtship (What’s the difference)‘ explains how people can pursue marriage without having a boyfriend/girlfriend.

The post How Boyfriends Dishonour Marriage first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves not with elaborate hairstyles, or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds appropriate to women who profess to worship God (1 Tim 2:9-10)

A pastor called Albert Martin became concerned and burdened with how some of the women in his church were dressing. As a result he prayerfully asked a number of men in his church to name the top 10 ways women dress that men generally find overtly sexual and distracting to help the ladies better understand the affect clothing can have on a man. He was not suggesting that the women were dressing immodestly intentionally. Neither was he blaming the women for men’s struggle with lust and taught that men need to take full responsibility for their own sin. Rather, he had a strong desire that men would love and honour their sisters and knew that the way the women were dressing was unhelpful.

Some of you might be thinking: ‘What right do men have to share with me what they find immodest. Modesty is between me and God’. If that’s you, I would ask you to consider what it means to dress with decency as required by the above text. The Greek word for decency means:  ‘a sense of shame or honour, modesty, bashfullness, reverence, regard for others, respect’. Thus to dress with decency is to dress in a respectful, reverent way with regard for what others think. Modesty is not all about us and our own standards. If most men find our clothing indecent, we should care.

Here is the list they came up with along with their reasoning. They were real and raw in explaining how the male mind is wired. Obviously the list was subjective. You won’t find a place in the Bible that says ‘Thou shalt not reveal thy cleavage’. However, I have spoken to a number of men about this list and they have been in agreement. See what you think. If you disagree, why not ask your brothers in Christ for their opinion…

1. Dresses or skirts with lengthy slits

Apparently when a man’s eye sees a long slit that comes up to the knee or above on a tight skirt or dress, he can think, “Oh, a few more inches and what would I see?” That is the way a man’s mind works. The slit is a magnet to men’s eyes.

2. Dresses, skirts or jeans which tightly cling to the butt

A skirt that tightly clings to our butt is a skirt that not only comes down over our butt, but deep into the back of the thighs. We’re not talking about fitted clothing here, but rather skin tight clothing. It draws men’s attention.

3. A skin tight upper garment

It is one thing for our garment to come down and hang loosely upon the breast, but if it tightly clings to our breasts as well as closely shapes and isolates them we can create a big distraction! People should not receive an anatomy lesson in mammary glands when they look at us!

4. Unbuttoned blouses, low neck lines or cleavage

Some of us women unbutton down to one button away from bearing our bras. Apparently when a man sees only one button to go his mind can go, ‘I wonder what is under that one more button’. John Piper shared in a sermon: “Women, remember that in a church setting you need to at times bend over and pick up a child. Bend over and look at yourself in the mirror before you leave the home. What may seem to cover you well standing up, does not cover you sufficiently when you bend over.”

5. Sleeveless tops with large, gaping arm holes

We look down on our sleeveless dress and see nothing but our shoulders. But if it has a large gaping arm hole, a man sitting behind us looks up at the pulpit, sees through to our bra and his mind can go where he doesn’t want it to go. If the arm holes are tight enough that no one can see in, Pastor Albert suggested it is our liberty before God to choose to wear them or not.

6. Low rise skirts or jeans

This is the style made popular by Brittany Spears, Jennifer Lopez and other celebrities. We’re talking skirts that barely hang on the hip bones and jeans that barely come up and cover the crack of the buttocks.

7. Skirts and dresses that are just plain too short

If we find it difficult when we are seated to adequately cover ourselves, then our skirt/dress is probably too short. We can get engrossed in something in a public setting and forget to keep our knees locked together. Before long our legs end up spreading a bit and anyone just happening to glance can see clean up to our underwear. Mrs. Albert Mohler advises, “If you arrive at church dressed in such a way that by the end of the service the people around you, by no fault of their own, know the colour of your underwear and they have watched you do a shimmy dance as you try to get your too short, too tight skirt to go under you, there is a big problem.”

8. See-through clothing

Clothing that fails to fully cover our underwear that could benefit from a camisole or a slip underneath.

9. Skin tight trousers or jeans that tightly hug the buttocks, the thighs and the crotch.

Some of us rock up to church in jeans that either have spandex/lycra in them or a kind of very stretchy material that hugs the buttocks, comes around and hugs the thigh and presses up on our crotch and the crack of our buttocks (think jeggings). Pastor Albert says we have no idea what that does to many a man when he sees it. It draws his eye to the most erotic part of our body. That whole area becomes a magnet for men’s eyes.

10. A bare midriff and back

We’re talking about where tops come down and just barely, if at all, meet the low rise jeans. We may look in the mirror and say, “Well, I am fully covered,” but all we need to do is to reach over a couple of inches and our belly is showing. If we just bend over, people can see our back and usually the top of our underwear.

Conclusion

Well I don’t know about you, but I was certainly challenged by this list! I’m aware some of you may be thinking, ‘It’s not my fault if men lust after me… that is their problem’. Yes men are fully, 100% responsible for not lusting after us (Matt 5:28). Yes some men will lust whatever we wear. However, that does not take away our God given responsibility to try and dress modestly and decently (1 Tim 2:9-10). I think to love our brothers is to say, ‘If my tight, figure hugging, see-through, short, cleavage baring dress with a slit up to my butt could stumble you, how ever much I love it, I will not wear it’. Is it really loving or Christ-like to say, ‘I don’t care if my dress is overtly sexy and distracts your mind. That’s your problem…deal with it. It’s my right to wear it’? Is it really loving to say to our married sisters in Christ, ‘I don’t care if my dress distracts your husband. I am free to parade my body in front of him if I want’? Does this mean we should go about judging any woman who isn’t dressed right?  Of course not. Any woman, however she is dressed, should feel loved and accepted in our presence! If you are a new Christian and your wardrobe is full of the type of clothing mentioned, please don’t worry. Don’t let it stop you coming to church. It might be that you have far more important things to sort out before God at present. Godly men and women will not judge you for your clothes and will just be so pleased to see you! Please don’t let this article distract you from your new relationship with God.

Please do share with your sisters in Christ so that we may all better honour God in this area. You can listen to the full sermon this article was based on by clicking here. Stuck with how you can dress fashionably and modestly? Check out this great site that is packed with ideas…Set Apart Style.

[UPDATE: To clarify some misunderstanding for those who did not listen to the full sermon this article was based upon, I updated the introduction and conclusion]

The post 10 Ways Women Dress Immodestly first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.

That’s where the following practical suggestions come in. Note the phrase “practical suggestions.” These are not sacrosanct biblical principles. This is not the only way the early part of a courtship might look. These are simply suggested applications of biblical principles. In the end, there is no formula and no rote substitute for intellectually honest Christians seeking to care well for one another and to faithfully apply Scripture to infinitely varied relational circumstances.

So with all that said, let’s consider how the principle of caring for one another well in the early stages of a relationship might look.

What Are We Doing Again?

The first thing that should happen, if it has not happened during the initiation of the courtship, is that intentions should be established. Whatever that conversation looks like, intentions should be clear and it should be the man making them. So guys, tell her why you have initiated or are initiating with her, tell her that you intend to pursue the relationship to determine if marriage to her is the right choice before God.

In my view, this establishing of intentions should be done near the beginning of any one-on-one romantic time spent together — preferably within the first two or three “dates” during a deliberate conversation on the subject.

Guys, don’t wait until you’ve had lunch or dinner or “hung out” one-on-one four or five times before you let her know what’s going on. The idea is to remove that period of confusion or vulnerability for the woman by being forthright from the beginning about what level of intention or commitment exists (a la 1 Thessalonians 4). You probably won’t know at this stage how things are going to ultimately turn out regarding marriage (that’s why you court), so you need not communicate that right away. But you should know what you’re trying to find out and what your intentions are — that is what you, as the man, must be clear about. From there, you obviously need a response from the woman to know whether or not things will go any further.

If you know the woman from church, if you’ve seen her interact in a group, observed her with others, maybe worked with her as a part of some ministry, that input should be enough for you to think through the decision of whether initiation of a courtship is the right thing. Remember, your intent at this point is not necessarily marriage — and that’s not what either of you are committing to at this stage. You’re simply committing to get to know her a little better in an intentional way to evaluate whether the two of you should then consider marriage to one another.

Ladies, as uncomfortable as this may sound for the guys, you might be in a difficult position here as well, depending on how well you know the man initiating with you. What if that answer is “not well at all”? Then I’d ask, have you had any chance at all to see him in group settings, or do you know him by reputation? If you don’t have even information at that level, feel free to tell him that you want some time to think and pray about it (that is, if you’re not sure at that point that you’re not interested).

Then — in addition to actually thinking and praying about it — ask one of your pastors or elders whether he knows him and what he thinks. If the pastor or elder you ask doesn’t know him well, he can guide you to a trustworthy source that knows him better.

If you know the man well or at least better than what I’ve just described, but you are not sure whether you are interested in him, I’d encourage you to at least take some time to get to know him before giving an unequivocal “no.” Keep in mind that this is different from feigning interest when there isn’t any. There are instances in which you can be genuinely unsure about a guy but still move forward this far.

Let me say it again: Agreeing to court is not agreeing to marry. That’s why you court. We’re trying to make intentions clear, here, not asking anyone to commit to go the distance with no information.

There are biblical and unbiblical reasons for a man to initiate with a woman, and there are biblical and unbiblical reasons for turning a man down. If you feel that you are not initially attracted to a man who initiates with you, OK — but at least ask yourself why that is. Are you considering biblical characteristics in that decision? Do you have enough information to know that you could not marry this man? If a man initiates with you, ladies, think and pray and seek counsel before simply dismissing him. If nothing else, treating men who initiate well will encourage other men to initiate.

So … Here We Are

If we are concerned about defrauding one another (again, this idea applies to both genders but particularly to the men as the initiators), another one of the early issues to address is how much and what kind of time couples spend together.

What kind of time should couples spend together in the early stages of a courtship?

The answer turns on what you are trying to find out about this person at this stage of things. You’re trying to find out whether this is someone you should know more intimately en route to figuring out whether this is a person you could marry. Did you catch how I phrased that? You are trying to figure out if you should get to know this person more intimately; you are not at the outset trying to get to know this person intimately. The difference is subtle but important.

One suggestion I have for individuals starting out is that the majority of your time together should be spent with other people, preferably with your families and church families. Get to know one another in groups, find out how the other person reacts to people, spend time with the people he or she cares about. This will provide you a chance to get to know him or her well and will also provide a buffer and accountability against getting too emotionally intimate too early.

Many people want to start out a courtship by spending a huge amount of time alone together. This is understandable but unadvisable for a number of reasons. Spending too much time alone promotes a high level of intimacy on a number of fronts, can lead to some level of isolation from other friends, and puts undue emphasis on the relationship in the lives of both people.

If you do spend time alone, spend it in activities, read a book together, be in public places, etc. In these early stages, people should not spend long hours looking into each other’s eyes over candle-lit tables or being alone together at one another’s apartments. To do so courts temptation (so to speak) and implies a level of commitment that’s simply not there yet.

Think not just about the kind of time you spend together, but how much. Even if you spend the right kind of time together, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Don’t get together (even with other people) four or five times a week. Leave space in your life for other activities and relationships. And don’t spend every moment that you’re not together on the phone or even emailing or texting or IMing back and forth. Build the momentum (if it will build) slowly.

What Should We Talk About?

Have you thought about the fact that there are some topics that are inherently intimate and that almost automatically promote deep intimacy between two people? What do I mean?

For starters, let me suggest that you not go out in the first week and tell each other the long, teary versions of your testimonies and the greatest personal pain that the Lord has delivered you from in your life.

Don’t immediately make that person your confidante in matters personal and emotional. Don’t articulate your deepest feelings with respect to your life or even how you feel about that person. Also (and this may seem counterintuitive), I advise folks not to spend long periods in prayer together. Prayer is a wonderful thing, but it’s also inherently intimate. Pray for the relationship, but don’t spend hours holding hands and pouring yourselves out before the Throne. That may come.

What should you talk about then? Talk about a book you’re reading, your interests, your faith (in more general terms or along the lines of issues), things going on in your life. Talk about your values and priorities, ambitions and plans you may have, your families and things that are happening in your church or in the world.

All right. Does this sound cold, uninviting, even deceptive? I admit it’s not the stuff of movies, but the very point that I’m making is that at this point it shouldn’t be. You are not yet that other person’s main provision from the Lord for spiritual, emotional and physical intimacy and companionship. That role is reserved for the person’s spouse. You are not that yet. You are in the early stages of seeing if that is a role that the Lord would eventually have you fill in one another’s lives, but you’re not there yet, and the kind of intimacy I’ve described is not to be engaged in on a trial basis. Even if it looks more fun or stimulating to go there — and I know it does — it’s also defrauding your brother or sister.

Emotional Intimacy

This brings me to the larger principle bound up in these suggestions: Deep emotional intimacy should not be established in the early stages of a courtship.

It’s not that you’re being dishonest or cold, it’s simply being cautious about living out a deeper commitment than truly exists between you. Song of Songs 2:7 tells us not to awaken love before it pleases: Do not start what you cannot — without sin — finish.

The modern, secular idea of dating relationships is to test the waters of marriage by acting as much like you are married as possible until you both (in the very heat of that temporary emotion and passion) decide what you want and either get married, or until one of you decides it’s not a good fit and you go through something like a divorce (at least emotionally, if not physically — though that’s pretty common, too).

The biblical idea of marriage holds that such level of relating to one another begins when you are married. It’s one of the things that makes marriage unique. Our goal should be prayerfully to decide whether the person we are courting should be the one we marry without having to go through a de facto divorce if the answer’s no.

Will there still be disappointment and sadness and emotional pain if a courtship doesn’t work out? Of course. There’s no perfect way to do this. I assure you, though, that the pain will be lessened by the honest, mutual, spiritual concern for one another that results when two people treat one another like brothers and sisters in Christ first, and potential spouses second. This is for the protection of the people involved (especially the woman), for the witness of the church and for the glory of God [© Scott Croft. Scott lives in Kentucky, where he works as an attorney and serves as an elder of Third Avenue Baptist Church]

• This article is Part of a series on Biblical Courtship.  Read Part 1: Biblical Courtship: What is it?, Read Part 2: Biblical Courtship: How should it begin?
• The next article in the series is Part 4: Biblical Courtship: Growing in Knowledge
• This series of articles on Biblical Courtship will continue over the following months. Please sign-up to receive articles by email as they are published.

The post Biblical Courtship: Navigating The Early Stages first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.

Basically, the question seems to be how exactly single Christians should relate to members of the opposite sex in that large and awkward zone between “we’ve never met” and a deliberate dating or courting relationship.

Much of this is a fairly new problem. Essentially, the historical reality is that until 30 or 40 years ago, long, intimate friendships between men and women in which each served as the other’s emotional confidante, relationship adviser and “best buddy” were far less common than they are today.

So is the trend toward intimate friendships between single men and women a good thing? In my view, not so much. If you haven’t read my previous articles on biblical dating, you’ll be helped in thinking through this issue by reading “Biblical Dating: What is it?” Based on some of the principles found there, let me offer a couple of practical reasons why I believe such friendships to be generally unwise, and then I’ll suggest a positive role for friendship among singles in the Christian community.

Friendship That Invites Confusion and Frustration

In previous articles, I’ve raised several biblical principles regarding the way we should treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. First Thessalonians 4:1-8 admonishes us not to wrong or “defraud” our brother or sister by implying a marital level of commitment (through sexual involvement) when it does not exist. As I’ve discussed before, a broad (but sound) implication of this passage is that “defrauding” could include inappropriate emotional — as well as physical — intimacy. Romans 13:8-14 calls us to love others, to work for their souls’ good rather than looking to please ourselves. More specifically, verse 10 reminds us that “[l]ove does no harm to its neighbor.” Romans 14:1-15:7 offers a discourse on favoring weaker brothers and sisters above ourselves, valuing and encouraging that which is good in the souls of others.

Bottom line: I believe it is extremely difficult and rare — as a practical matter — to honor these principles in the context of a close, intimate friendship between two single Christians of the opposite sex. (For the verbally precise among you, I think such friendships between non-single Christians are also a bad idea, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.)

Intimate friendships between men and women almost always produce confusion and frustration for at least one of the parties involved. Close friendships by their very nature tend to involve extensive time talking and hanging out one-on-one. They tend to involve a deep knowledge of the other person’s hopes, desires and personality. They tend to involve the sharing of many aspects of each other’s daily lives and routines. In other words, they tend to involve much of the type of intimacy and companionship involved in — and meant for — marriage.

Yet even with all this deep communication going on, at least one aspect of these friendships inherently involves a mixed message. No matter how clearly one or both of you have defined what’s happening as “just friends,” your actions are constantly saying, “I enjoy being with you and interacting with you in a way that suggests marriage (or at least romantic attraction).”

The simple reality (of which most people are aware, whether they admit it or not) is that in the vast majority of these types of relationships, one of the parties involved either began the “friendship” with romantic feelings for the other person or develops them along the way. Either way, that person is now hanging on to the “friendship” in the hope of getting something more despite the “clear words” from the other person that he or she wants nothing beyond friendship.

To the extent that one person’s romantic feelings have been clearly articulated to the other (and were met with an unfavorable response) to continue in some no-man’s land of “good friends,” is arguably to take selfish advantage of the vulnerable party. Yes, I know, the other person is an adult who is free and responsible to walk away if he or she is so unsatisfied, but like it or not, it tends not to work that way. Hope springs eternal, whether it should or not.

And that’s the “clear” scenario. What if one person develops romantic feelings in a friendship in which no “clear words” have been spoken, such that the desires of the other person are a mystery? Especially if it’s the woman in this position (as seems to be the case more often than not) she will likely feel that if she pushes for something more than friendship, she may lose the interaction and companionship she currently has. Still, given her desire for a husband — and perhaps to have this man as her husband — the status quo of “just really good friends but nothing more for some odd reason” will leave her unsatisfied, frustrated and confused. I have seen and heard and read of such frustration and hurt playing out many times over.

Certainly, a man can find himself in a similar position with a woman he’s attracted to, but given his obligation to be clear and intentional with the woman and to initiate the type of relationship he truly desires, he arguably has placed — or at least kept — himself in such a position. He simply is not “between a rock and a hard place” in the same way a woman is.

Finally, there’s one more type of confusion to consider. How do others view your “friendship”? Ladies, might there be men who would have initiated with you but for their uncertainty about or discomfort with your intimate friendship with another man? Guys, has a woman perhaps turned you down over questions about a woman friend you spend lots of time with? Would youwant to date someone knowing that he or she had a significant, pre-existing and ongoing emotional bond with another single member of the opposite sex? If I were a single person desiring marriage, the answers to these questions would matter to me.

I admit we’re not talking absolutes here, but almost. In my experience counseling and writing on this topic, everybody thinks (or at least claims) that his or her intimate friendship is the exception. “No way we’ll end up in one of the situations you just talked about. Unlike most other people of our age and experience, we are (insert favorite answer here) a) really astute students of our own and each other’s hearts, b) super-clear and talented communicators, c) always honest with each other, even when such honesty entails huge vulnerability for whoever is speaking, d) all of the above.”

Maybe. But here I would pose the question that is relevant to so many aspects of the courtship and dating topic. Why risk harm to your own heart or to that of a brother or sister to have a type of companionship that, outside of marriage, is arguably questionable anyway? This brings me to my second argument against intimate one-on-one friendships between brothers and sisters in Christ.

Enjoying the Convenient, Delaying the Good

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that your intimate friendship is one of those rare jewels that is devoid of the potential for hurt or confusion. There’s another drawback to such friendships. They discourage marriage.

Men and women who are not called to long-term singleness and celibacy have a strong desire for companionship with a member of the opposite sex. This is good and right. As I’ve discussed before, Scripture seems to consider marriage (and children) to be a normal part of the progression toward biblical manhood and womanhood (see, among others, Genesis 1:27-28; 2:23-24; Matthew 24:38-41; Luke 20:34-36).

In the past, when both sexual immorality and intimate male-female friendships were much less accepted and less common in society, men and women moved more deliberately toward marriage earlier in life. By offering a taste of the companionship and interactions that make marriage so satisfying, with none of the accompanying commitments or responsibilities entailed in marriage, intimate friendships discourage the pursuit of the grown-up, God-intended outlet for marital desires — marriage. This is especially so in a culture — and a church — that struggles with the widespread sociological trend in its young adults known as “perpetual adolescence.” Albert Mohler, Alex and Brett Harris, Candice Watters and other Boundless authors have written about this trend at length. In fact, the failure of many Christian men to pursue marriage well into their 20s and 30s may be one of the most disturbing results of this trend, but that’s another topic for another day.

As you probably know, I believe Scripture to teach that engaging in the types of emotional intimacy and companionship involved in close male-female friendships — outside of marriage and for their own sake — is wrong (see everything else I’ve ever written for Ruby in the Rough). But even if you don’t accept that premise, such intimacy is still inadvisable in the sense that it delays and discourages marriage, which Scripture unambiguously calls good and right.

I would especially encourage women who desire marriage to give this argument some thought. If you are one of the many women to write me to complain with great frustration that “Christian men don’t initiate,” consider this: Are you and your sisters satisfying the intermediate needs of your guy friends such that they feel no particular compulsion to pursue marriage?

Friendship Within A Context of Community

So am I saying that I’m against the idea of relationships growing out of Christian friendship? Am I saying that friendship among single brothers and sisters has no place? Am I saying that single men and women need to shun one another, speaking only to utter the words “will you date me,” followed by “yes” or “no”? Absolutely not. In fact, I would argue that dating or courting relationships ideally grow out of friendship among co-laborers in the Gospel. The question is what those friendships look like practically.

First Timothy 5 describes a relationship among Christian men and women not married to one another as that of brothers and sisters. The Lord has mercifully called us not to live the Christian life alone but as part of a community of believers. Single men and women can and should serve in ministry together, study the Word together and hang out together socially. They should go out together, gather around meals, watch movies. In my view, however, these activities should be done, for the most part, in groups rather than one-on-one. Men can initiate group get-togethers, and so can women. In fact, single brothers and sisters in Christ, like the rest of Christ’s body, are positively called to care for one another. Men can (and should) give women rides home rather than have them walk alone at night. Men can come over and move couches. Women can cook a meal for a group of guys in danger of developing scurvy from a near total lack of vegetables. Knock yourselves out.

Friendships grow out of the body of Christ functioning and, in turn, result in interests beyond friendship. To be sure, the friendships that develop in this context are not the same friendships with the same level of intimacy that would develop from spending consistent time alone with someone, but they provide a context from which initiations and relationships can bloom. Remember, the world has falsely told us that a high level of intimacy with another person needs to precede any sort of commitment to another person.

Is there a precise formula for whether a friendship or series of interactions is too intimate? If there is, I don’t know it. Hang out in groups; serve together. By all means, chat and be friendly with your brothers and sisters in Christ. Should a friend make the assumption that you’re ready to marry him or her if you initiate a one-on-one conversation at church or at a group dinner? No. Have you blown two tires and gone screaming off into the trees if you ask someone to lunch or coffee once or twice? Maybe not. Depends on what happens from there.

Just be aware that “friendship” is no more a forum to play married than a dating relationship is. If you find that you are consistently showing one of your opposite-sex Christian friends more one-on-one attention than all the others, whether in conversation or through invitations out, it’s probably time for 1) some clarification of intentions and (most likely) a change in the status of the relationship to something more overtly official, or 2) a change in the way you interact with that person. Beyond that, godly single adults will have to work this out on a case-by-case basis [© Scott Croft. Scott lives in Kentucky, where he works as an attorney and serves as an elder of Third Avenue Baptist Church]

The post Can Men & Women Be “Just Friends”? first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.

It’s also big business. If you were to Google the word “matchmaker,” you would receive something in the neighborhood of 21,200,000 responses — with a few of these outfits claiming to be Christian, but most making no such claim. “Dating” will get you 790,000,000 hits.

As evangelical Christians, we’re called to be distinct in the ways we think and act about all issues that confront us and those around us. This topic is no exception. So is there such a thing as biblical courtship? If so, what is it? How can Christians think differently about this pervasive issue in media and culture? How are we doing so far?

The answer to that last question is “not well.” Surveys consistently indicate that professing Christians behave almost exactly like non-Christians in terms of sexual involvement outside of marriage (in both percentage of people involved and how deeply involved they are — how far they’re going), living together before marriage, and infidelity and divorce after marriage. In fact, depending on which statistics one believes, the divorce rate for professing Christians may actually be higher than for Americans as a whole. Granted, not all of these people are evangelicals, but we’re not doing so well either. Indeed, the central issue we need to confront — and the reason I write and speak on this topic — is that when it comes to dating and relationships, perhaps more than in any other area of the everyday Christian life, the church is largely indistinguishable from the world. That truth has brought immeasurable emotional pain and other consequences to many Christians. Worse, it has brought great dishonor to the name of Christ and to the witness of individuals and the church.

It doesn’t have to be this way. For Christians, the Lord has given us His Word, and the Holy Spirit helps us to understand it. We have brothers and sisters in Christ to hold us accountable and to help us apply the Word to our lives. If you’re a Christian, that’s the biblical life you’re called to.

That’s what I hope this column will be about — applying God’s Word to finding a spouse and getting married.

The sufficiency of scripture

I have to start by explaining the theological doctrine that drives the approach I want to outline (and advocate). That doctrine is called the sufficiency of Scripture. Almost all professing evangelical Christians are familiar with and vigorously defend the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture (which states that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, it’s true, and it contains no falsity or error). I certainly agree with the inerrancy of Scripture, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture assumes inerrancy but then goes a step further. This doctrine simply holds that the Bible is sufficient to guide and instruct us authoritatively in all areas of our faith and life, and that there is no area of life about which the Bible has no guidance for us. The sufficiency of Scripture is taught explicitly and implicitly in many passages, but perhaps the most obvious is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So how does the sufficiency of Scripture apply to our coming discussions? Well, many evangelicals who otherwise believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and who might generally agree with the sufficiency of Scripture have nonetheless embraced the world’s ideas about dating. In doing so, some make the argument that Scripture doesn’t speak to this topic. I believe it does. The Bible speaks to every area of our faith and life at some level. Some things it talks about explicitly, like salvation or sanctification or marriage or elders. The Bible guides us in some areas by broader, more general principles and ideas we can build on as we strive to live the Christian life in practical ways. In either case, no area of life falls totally outside of the guidance and authority of God’s Word.

My point is that we cannot simply state that the Bible “doesn’t mention dating or courtship,” and then think we’re off the hook to pursue this area of our lives either on the world’s terms or however seems best to us without diligent, submissive reference to God’s Word. If the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is true, then God’s Word does have authoritative guidance for us about how we might best glorify God in this area of our lives. That means our conversation has to be a biblical conversation. I mention the sufficiency of Scripture as part of the groundwork for this column because it’s one of those doctrines that touches every area of our lives, and it is at the heart of the approach to dating (and life) that we’ll talk about here.

Biblical Courtship

OK. Let’s take care of some basic definitions. We may define biblical courtship as a method of introduction and carrying out of a pre-marital relationship between a single man and a single woman:

1. That begins (maybe) with the man approaching and going through the woman’s father or family;
2. that is conducted under the authority of the woman’s father or family or church; and
3. that always has marriage (or at least a determination regarding marriage to a specific person) as its direct goal.

The Scriptural support for the idea of biblical courtship is largely by example and implication. We will look at a number of passages over the course of our discussions that support various aspects of biblical courtship, but for the moment, let me just give you some references to study:

• 1 Corinthians 6:9-7:19 (command to be pure, seriousness of sexual sin and instructions regarding marriage)
• 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 (do not wrong or defraud one another in relationships — by implying a relationship or commitment by your words or conduct that does not actually exist)
• Song of Solomon 2:7 (“do not awaken love before it pleases” — i.e. before the proper time, meaning marriage)
• Proverbs 6:20-7:27 (warning to avoid sexual sin and foolish relationships)
• James 1:13-15 (temptation is to be taken very seriously)
• Romans 13:8-14 (love others, work for their soul’s good; don’t look to please self)
• Romans 14:1-15:7 (favor others, not self … value what’s good to their souls)
• 1 Timothy 5:1-2 (treat single women as sisters in Christ, with absolute purity)
• Titus 2:1-8 (young men and women should focus on self-control/godliness)
• John 14:15 (if you love Christ, you will obey His commands — read: above your own desires — and live biblically)

We’ll talk more about these and other passages as we deal with other topics in this series.

Modern Dating

We may basically define modern dating as a method of introduction and carrying out of a pre-marital relationship between a single man and a single woman:

1. that begins with either the man or the woman initiating with the other;
2. that is conducted outside the formal oversight or authority of either person’s family or church; and
3. that may or may not have marriage as its goal and is often purely “recreational” or “educational.”

Now, the biblical support for the modern approach to dating … (insert crickets, tumbleweeds, person whistling here)…. That was it. There isn’t any. The very idea of extended romantic or sexual involvement outside of marriage doesn’t even appear in Scripture unless it is described as illicit (sinful). Furthermore, it doesn’t even appear in any society, western or otherwise, in any systematic way until the 20th century. While the principles supporting biblical courtship have their beginnings with the very structure of the family, modern dating has its origins with the sexual revolution of the 1960s. It is brand new, and yet, seemingly, it is all we know.

Differences Between Modern Dating and Biblical Courtship

So what’s the real difference? Here are some fundamentals:

Modern dating philosophy assumes that there will be several intimate romantic relationships in a person’s life before marriage. In fact, it advocates “playing the field” in order to determine “what one wants” in a mate. Biblical courtship has as its goal to be emotionally and physically intimate with only one member of the opposite sex … your spouse.

Modern dating tends to be egalitarian (no differences between men and women in spiritual or emotional “wiring” or God-given roles). Biblical courtship tends to be complementarian (God has created men and women differently and has ordained each of these spiritual equals to play different and valuable roles in the church and in the family).

Modern dating tends to assume that you will spend a great deal of time together (most of it alone). Biblical courtship tends to encourage time spent in group activities or with other people the couple knows well.

Modern dating tends to assume that you need to get to know a person more deeply than anyone else in the world to figure out whether you should be with him or her. The biblical approach suggests that real commitment to the other person should precede such a high level of intimacy.

Modern dating tends to assume that a good relationship will “meet all my needs and desires,” and a bad one won’t — it’s essentially a self-centered approach. Biblical courtship approaches relationships from a completely different perspective — one of ministry and service and bringing glory to God.

Modern dating tends to assume that there will be a high level of emotional involvement in a dating relationship, and some level of physical involvement as well. Biblical courtship assumes no physical intimacy and more limited emotional intimacy outside of marriage.

Modern dating assumes that what I do and who I date as an adult is entirely up to me and is private (my family or the church has no formal or practical authority). Biblical courtship assumes a context of spiritual accountability, as is true in every other area of the Christian life.

Basically, we can make three general statements about modern dating vs. biblical courtship in terms of their respective philosophies:

1. Modern dating seems to be about “finding” the right person for me (as my friend Michael Lawrence has written on another site, “Stop Test-Driving Your Girlfriend“); biblical courtship is more about “being” the right person to serve my future spouse’s needs and be a God-glorifying husband or wife.
2. In modern dating, intimacy precedes commitment. In biblical courtship, commitment precedes intimacy.
3. The modern dating approach tells us that the way to figure out whether I want to marry someone is to act like we are married. If we like it, we make it official. If we don’t, then we go through something emotionally — and probably physically — like a divorce. In biblical courtship, Scripture guides us as to how to find a mate and marry, and the Bible teaches, among other things, that we should act in such a way so as not to imply a marriage-level commitment until that commitment exists before the Lord.

I’m supremely confident that as we go back and forth in the coming months, some — perhaps many — of you will disagree (if you don’t already) or be initially annoyed at some of my statements. Ask yourself why. What are you trying to hold onto that you think this approach will take from you (privacy, autonomy, a secular idea of freedom or of your own rights)?

I have a particular challenge for those of you whose main objection is that the practical details we’ll talk about here “are not explicitly biblical”: think about the details of how you conduct (or would like to conduct) your relationships. Can you find explicit support for the modern approach in Scripture? Are there even broad principles in Scripture that justify the modern vision of dating (or yours, whatever it may be)? The Bible simply doesn’t give us explicit instructions on some of what we’ll discuss. Fair enough. In such a situation, we should ask what gets us closest to clear biblical teaching. In other words, within the many gray areas here, what conduct will help us to best care for our brothers and sisters in Christ and bring honor to His name?

That’s it. That’s a basic framework for biblical courtship as best I can discern it from the principles of God’s Word. Now, you’re on. No question is too broad or too specific, too theoretical, too theological, or too practical. Agree with what I’ve said, or challenge it. This is how iron sharpens iron. Just remember one thing: we’re in this together — for His Glory. [© Scott Croft. Scott lives in Kentucky, where he works as an attorney and serves as an elder of Third Avenue Baptist Church]

• Next in the series…Biblical Courtship (PART 2): How Should It Begin?

The post Biblical Courtship: What Is It? first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.

1. “We belong to each other”

We can plainly see the idea of belonging/ownership through the type of language that accompanies a boyfriend relationship:

• “Are you single?”…“No, I am taken”
• “Who is that guy?”…“He’s my man” or “He’s my partner…we’re a couple“
• “What will you write in her valentine’s card?”…”Will you be mine?”
• “We used to be together, but we broke-up”

2. We are in an intimate relationship meaning we:

• Are romantically physically intimate (includes any clearly romantic affection)
• Do things together which are romantically emotionally intimate to enjoy the intimacy of belonging to one another

The romantic, emotionally intimate things a boyfriend and girlfriend will do together (to enjoy the intimacy of belonging to one another) will be different from couple to couple.  However common examples are:

• Intense quantities of communication and time spent together because a) it feels good and b) that’s what couples do
• Becoming one another’s primary emotional confidant because a) it feels comforting and because b) that’s the role of a girlfriend.

And?…

These beliefs are modern. In the Bible we see no concept of men and women belonging to one another or enjoying the physical and emotional intimacy of belonging outside of betrothal/marriage.  But is there anything wrong with these beliefs?  The following parable looks at the impact these beliefs can have on society:

The parable of the fadopted child

Clue to understanding the parable: ‘Fadoption’ represents having a boyfriend/girlfriend. ‘Adoption’ represents marriage.

The year is 2100. Due to a major ongoing war there are now a huge number of orphaned children in England. Orphanages are being built everywhere and couples are being encouraged to adopt. In time, 2 major complaints arise:

1. We don’t like all the background checks of the adoption process. We think we should just get to try temporarily owning a child for a while. Then we will know if we want to adopt them or not.
2. We find the emotional boundaries of the adoption process frustrating. We want to get to enjoy the intimacy of feeling as if a child belongs to us during the process of deciding if we want to adopt or not.

The government agrees a new system for children who are deemed old enough and mature enough to choose if they want to be part of it. The result? ‘Fadoption’ is born!

Fadoption is just like adoption but without the lifelong commitment, without the help of the adoption agency to make a wise match and without the thorough background checks. The idea behind fadoption is instead of making an informed choice and then permanently committing to the child, a couple…

• Briefly gets to know a child of a fadobtable age
• Asks the child if they would like to be fadopted

If the child agrees, the couple…

• Temporarily commits themselves to the child
• Treats the child almost completely as if they were the couples own
• Enjoys the feeling of having a child for as long as they want

…and then decides if they want to adopt or not. If they decide not to adopt they must ‘break up’. Many couples almost completely sever the relationship with the child after a failed fadoption.  From one day to the next the child goes from being treated as a son to being treated as an ex-son.

Churches soon accept Fadoption but teach that couples should not have the child live in their home before adoption as this is too intimate.  Pete is one of the elders at a small Baptist church and decides, along with his wife, Mary, that they would like to fadopt Ben, a 13 year old orphan who attends his church.  Ben is overjoyed when they ask him to become their fadoptive son and wholeheartedly accepts their offer.

Belonging/Ownership

As is typical with fadoptions, Pete and Mary begin to talk to Ben as if he is their own son. Pete calls Ben, ‘My boy,’ and when Mary is asked if she is childless she says, ‘No, haven’t you met Ben?’  Their extended family also treat Ben like he is Pete and Mary’s child.

Pete and Mary do things together with Ben which are emotionally intimate to enjoy the intimacy of belonging to one another

Ben stays living at the orphanage but sees Pete and Mary many times a week. Pete and Mary text Ben numerous times a day, every day telling him how great they think he is. He texts them back expressing his happiness at being their fadopted son.  They take family like pictures with Ben and post them up on Facebook. They encourage Ben to feel completely at home with them and they share their lives and hearts with him. After a few months they even tell him they ‘love’ him and Ben tells them he loves them too.

The result?

Nearly everything about Pete and Mary’s behaviour suggests that they care about Ben, that they are committed to him and that he is their child. Ben finds it hard to trust Pete and Mary at first as he knows that fadoption’s can end, but through their treatment of him he soon let’s down his guard and get’s very attached.

One and a half years after fadopting Ben, Pete and Mary decide it’s just not working out and that they won’t adopt. Firstly, Ben is a bit too emotional for their liking. In addition they were hoping that their first son might become a theologian but Ben ended up not being quite as intelligent as they would have liked. They just don’t feel adopting Ben is of God. Pete and Mary pray about it and decide to tell Ben it’s over and it’s best that they don’t spend any more time with him. This will help Ben find the ‘right’ family to adopt him. Ben is devastated. He had become nearly as attached to Pete and Mary as many children are to their own adoptive parents.

Ben sees Pete and Mary at church each week. They seem to be doing okay but he is a complete mess. They smile at him but don’t really talk to him so as to give him the space to ‘move on’. They refer to him as their ex-fadopted-child. No one in the church seems to think that Pete and Mary have done anything wrong. After all, fadoptions don’t always work out and that’s just life. Better to end a fadoption than adopt and have it go wrong.  Plus, Ben chose to be fadopted.  Within 3 months, Pete and Mary decide to fadopt a new boy. Once again they treat this boy as if he were their own. Ben is in pieces watching them behave exactly the same with the new boy as they did with him.

After 2 more painful failed fadoptions and a heap more emotional scars, Ben is finally adopted. He finds it very hard to trust and bond to his actual adoptive parents due to his past experiences, especially when he finds out that they had already fadopted 4 other children and rejected them before they chose to adopt him. His adoptive parents seem so used to getting attached to children and then breaking things off that Ben finds it hard to feel safe and free with them.

Some fadoptions are not as painful or heartbreaking as Ben’s experience. Some fadoptions just last a few weeks. Yes, it’s still hurtful to be treated as if you belong to someone and then have them reject you, but at least in such a short time you don’t get so attached. Sometimes a child has the wonderful privilege of being adopted after their first fadoption. On rare occasions a child gets adopted after their first fadoption by a couple who have never fadopted before. Many children and couples however have experienced one or more failed fadoptions. An older lady in Ben’s church called Shani, remembers what life was like before fadoption and speaks to Pete:

Shani: We are to love our neighbour as ourselves.  It’s terribly cruel to treat a child as your own, behave in such a way that encourages him to get deeply attached to you, and then reject him. I think fadoption is horrible and think Christians should stop fadopting. Christ loves orphans and I think fadoption must grieve him.

Pete: Shani, the Bible never says we can’t fadopt.  We can’t make up rules that are not in the Bible. Many wonderful Christians have had successful fadoptions that have led to great adoptions.

Shani: Yes, and many wonderful Christians have experienced a fadoption ending in heartbreak. Look, with fadoption, a child is growing in intimacy, trust and oneness with a couple who quite possibly will never adopt them. It is very difficult for them to keep a guard on their hearts and keep from getting too attached in such an emotionally intimate relationship where the couple are referring to the child as their own and treating them as such.

Pete: Yes it is. It is very hard to guard your heart in everything because the heart is deceitful above all things. Children guarding their hearts before adoption is a real problem – thinking this will be achievable by not fadopting is a false solution. Fadoption is not the problem but rather the hearts of the children involved. Plus, you are overlooking all the benefits of fadoption.  You wouldn’t buy a car without trying it out first. Fadoption enables a couple to try a child before they adopt.

Shani: How can you compare a child to a car! A child is not something to be tried and used!

Pete: Fair point. But you overlook another huge benefit. Fadoption helps couples prepare for being adoptive parents by allowing them to get parenting experience with a number of different children before they choose ‘the one’ they want to adopt.

Shani: At the expense of their ex-fadopted childen! Do you really think acting like parents and breaking up with a child helps prepare couples for adoption? Isn’t it rather helping them prepare to walk away if their adoption isn’t going the way they wanted it to.

Pete: Okay, but fadoption offers couples the opportunity to figure out what they want in a child by getting to try different children out.

Shani: Why is fadoption required for couples to work out what they want in a child? Fadoption is based on a lie: “you are mine”. The behaviour that is normal in fadoption is inappropriate and misleads children. Fadoption normalises children having had a number of people they were deeply attached to that broke it off with them. In fact, many children feel as if there is something wrong with them if they have not had at least one fadoption. Yes some fadoptions lead to adoption. Yes some fadoptions don’t damage children too much. But the whole idea of fadoption is just wrong. It normalises forming and breaking relationships contrary to God’s ideas of faithfulness.

Conclusion

What does fadoption have to do with the beliefs that underpin our boyfriend/girlfriend culture? Just like fadoption, our boyfriend/girlfriend culture normalises, outside of binding permanent commitment the beliefs that we can:

1. Belong to someone
2. Enjoy the intimacy of belonging to them.

Just as fadoption damages children and leaves a trail of broken hearts, so does our girlfriend/boyfriend culture. Sure, there are many great marriages that have come out of our boyfriend/girlfriend culture. However, in my estimation, over 50% of the men and women in our churches will have had at least one failed serious relationship with a person who:

• Held their hand, kissed them and referred to them as ‘mine’
• Treated them as the image in the article shows

Thus, as with fadoption, very many Christians will have unnecessarily experienced a major heartbreak.

Moreover, as with fadoption, our boyfriend/girlfriend culture is leading individuals to get deeply emotionally attached to one another before they have collected all the important information that is required to wisely choose if they should permanently commit or not.  This can result in an individual either:

• Marrying someone simply because they are too emotionally bonded to walk away.
• Breaking someone’s heart unnecessarily over a relationship ‘deal-breaker’ that could have been discovered without the pair getting emotionally attached.

But does the Bible have anything to say about the 2 beliefs that underpin our boyfriend/girlfriend culture? Well we see that an unmarried woman, scripturally is a single woman…

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. (1 Cor 7:8).

…which presumes she does not belong to a man.  Moreover, we see no concept in the Bible of a woman/man being ‘taken’ or being ‘owned’ before betrothal/marriage.  Furthermore, men are called to treat all young unmarried women as biological sisters…

Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. (1 Tim 5:1b-2)

…which presumes that there would not be any physical intimacy of a romantic nature.

But there is more to it than that…

1. The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbour as ourselves (Mark 12:31) and that to love our neighbour is to do no harm to them (Romans 13:10).
2. Biblical principles such as…

• Sex outside of marriage and adultery being sin (Galatians 5:19)
• Guarding our hearts (Proverbs 4:23)
• Not stirring up or awakening love until it pleases (Song of Solomon 2:7)
• God hating divorce and the violence it causes (Malachi 2:16a)

…reveal, among other things, God’s desire that we would not hurt one another or experience or cause deep romantic heartbreak. Thus I think the belief that two people who are not permanently committed can…

1. Belong to one another

2. Be in an intimate relationship meaning they:

• Are romantically physically intimate
• Do things together which are romantically emotionally intimate to enjoy the intimacy of belonging to one another

…that underpins our boyfriend/girlfriend culture is sinful at its core because it normalises damaging and hurting people. For thousands of years Christians have been getting married without holding to these two beliefs. My prayer is that more pastors around the western world will start teaching their singles how to get to know each other, pursue marriage and make wise marriage choices without embracing the two harmful beliefs explored in this article that are the very foundation of our boyfriend/girlfriend culture.

You may be thinking, what’s the alternative?  How can we move towards marriage without belonging to a person first? Our articles, ‘A culture of stirred up love‘ and ‘Boyfriends vs Courtship (What’s the difference)‘ offer some suggestions.

• If you struggled to understand how the parable related to boyfriend/girlfriend culture, click here for a detailed break down.

What do you think?

Have we accurately portrayed our girlfriend/boyfriend culture?  Do you have a personal experience that relates to this article?  Please let us know by commenting below.

[Rowina Seidler. The image used in this article is the same one a pastor recently used in a blog post defending boyfriend relationships. I chose to use it as I think it typifies the level of emotional attachment, physical intimacy and stirred up love that has become normal for many Christians to experience with multiple people they don’t marry].

The post Beliefs That Break Hearts first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.

1) Chemistry/Attraction…

It’s that:

• Thrill when you get to see the person (“The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes, leaping over the mountains, bounding over the hills.” Song of Solomon 2:8).
• Experience of finding them and their conversation captivating (“You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride; you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace.” Song of Solomon 4:9).
• Lack of ability to see flaws in the person (“You are altogether beautiful, my love; there is no flaw in you.” Song of Solomon 4:7)
• Desire for physical closeness. (“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine;” Song of Solomon 1:2)
• Longing to spend time with the person (“Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away”, Song of Solomon 2:10”)
• Feeling of romance associated with your time together (“For your love is better than wine; your anointing oils are fragrant; your name is oil poured out;” Song of Solomon 1:2-3”).

You can have most of the above without being emotionally attached and without having had a single deep, intimate conversation.  In fact you could feel such chemistry within minutes of meeting a person. Conversely, chemistry may not be present at all at the beginning and can grow out of nothing.  A woman can end up feeling strong chemistry with someone she was not initially physically attracted to. Furthermore chemistry is something that can completely disappear.

2) Intimacy…

Emotional intimacy is something that comes with time.  It is cultivated through many things such as:

• Increasing trust and vulnerability.
• Sharing of our deepest hopes, dreams, thoughts, emotions and insecurities.
• Increasing levels of physical intimacy from holding hands to sexual intercourse.
• High quantities of communication.

Emotional and physical intimacy can:

• Awaken chemistry/attraction.
• Increase feelings of romantic love.
• Increase our levels of emotional attachment.

3) Attachment…

Emotional attachment is the bond that occurs between two people that makes it difficult for them to be apart and creates deep pain if broken.  It’s that:

• Feeling of being lovesick (“Sustain me with raisins; refresh me with apples, for I am sick with love”. Song of Solomon 2:5).
• Need to keep up communication and anxiety when the person has not got in contact for a while (“On my bed by night I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, but found him not. I will rise now and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares; I will seek him whom my soul loves.” Song of Solomon 3:1-2).
• Feeling of ownership/belonging (“My beloved is mine, and I am his” Song of Solomon 2:16)
• Experience of anguish if the person goes off with someone else (“for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame.” Song of Solomon 8:6).

Increased emotional and/or physical intimacy leads to increased emotional attachment, which in turn will increase feelings of chemistry.

So are chemistry, intimacy and attachment important?

A thriving, happily married couple will experience chemistry/attraction, emotional and physical intimacy, and emotional attachment in their marriage. So yes they are important!  But how important are they during a courtship?

1) Chemistry/attraction during courtship…

For a woman it seems that chemistry is not incredibly important at the beginning of a courtship since it can grow from nothing.  Many women fear that if it’s not there it will never be there.  Moreover, without initial feelings of desire, attraction and thrill, many women can’t be bothered to get to know a man and miss out on a great catch.  I know countless women who did not feel initial chemistry and are now greatly attracted to their husbands.  However, if a woman has spent a considerable amount of time getting to know a man and there is still NO excitement to see the person or NO thrill experienced when the person makes contact it could be a justifiable reason to call things off.

2) Intimacy and attachment during courtship…

The Shullimite women of Song of Solomon, three times adjures women to “not let love stir up or awaken before it pleases”. After all

love is strong as death…Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it” (Song of Solomon 8:6-7)

But when does it please to stir up love? Well I can tell you when I think it certainly does not please. It does not please with a man who:

• Has many characteristics you don’t respect, is immature and irresponsible.
• Has completely different goals, vision, values and theological beliefs to you.
• Is only a cultural Christian and does not actually personally know Jesus.
• Is charming but manipulative, deceitful and untrustworthy.
• Is not sure if he wants to marry you or you are not sure you want to marry him.

Only time, prayer, the scriptures and wise counsel will help you to figure out if it really does please to let love awaken or stir (‘Is he a good match for you‘ will help). Before a man has proposed you cannot be sure if his intentions to marry you are true and so before engagement it would be wise to guard your heart (See ‘7 reasons to guard your heart‘). Before betrothal it would also seem unwise and even potentially cruel and dangerous to be involved in activities that purposefully cultivate DEEP emotional intimacy or DEEP physical intimacy and unavoidably lead to DEEP emotional attachment. Why?  Because we are hugely risking hurting ourselves and the man pursuing us if we don’t end up getting married.  We are being unloving to them because we are purposefully doing things that could lead to them being greatly harmed. We are being unloving to our future husband (if we are to marry someone else) because we are purposefully behaving in a way that will lead to us carrying scars and emotional baggage into our future marriage. But if emotional and physical intimacy are very important in a marriage don’t we want to know before accepting a proposal if we are capable of having emotional and physical intimacy in marriage. I would answer yes! In my opinion however we don’t need to try to cultivate intimacy to know if it will be there in a marriage. The very process of figuring out if we should marry a person will unavoidably offer the potential for a level of emotional intimacy to be cultivated even if we’re trying to avoid it! Spending time together and having conversations about things such as past relationship history, roles in marriage and life dreams are necessary before getting engaged.  If you have asked hundreds of essential questions over a period of time and you feel no emotional intimacy at all you will know there is an issue there.  However, you don’t need to seek out emotional intimacy to know if it’s there. You don’t have to spend thousands of hours having emotionally intimate and vulnerable conversations or spend most of your waking hours with a person to know if you have the potential for great emotional intimacy within a marriage. What about physical intimacy?  Until the 20^th century it was not normal for Christian men and women to treat each other physically as more than brothers and sisters before betrothal.  With the advent of the boyfriend/girlfriend relationship this changed.  It is my understanding that scripture teaches we should treat each other as biological brothers and sisters in all purity before betrothal (see ‘A culture of stirred up love‘ and 1 Timothy 5:1). But then how can we know if we will enjoy physical intimacy in marriage if we’ve not even had any romantic touch?  This is an important question!  I challenge you to find one woman who is attracted to a man, deeply respects him and wants to marry him but does not enjoy their first romantic touch.  I have met many women who have had no romantic touch before engagement and I have never heard one of them sharing that they did not enjoy it when it finally came! But what about sexual intimacy (including passionate kissing)?  It’s the experience of many women, and the Bible’s teaching that God designed us to enjoy sexual intimacy with a man we are attracted to who has committed to us for life and that we don’t need to test this out before choosing to marry someone.  I am not saying sexual physical intimacy will come completely naturally to all and it is something to work on (as is emotional intimacy) but that the context and security of marriage is the best place for physical intimacy to flourish and grow!

Summary

Chemistry, intimacy and attachment are important in a marriage.  Chemistry can grow from nothing so is not that important at the beginning of getting to know a man and thus we should not overlook good candidates who we feel no instant chemistry towards.  If after considerable time we still feel no desire/excitement to spend time with the person, it might be wise to call things off. Deep emotional and/or physical intimacy leads to deep emotional attachment, which will inevitably lead to heartbreak and scars if things don’t work out.  Thus if we care about the person we are courting and care about our own hearts we will want to minimize the levels of intimacy (to limit the depth of emotional attachment) before engagement and marriage. Further reading:

• ‘A culture of stirred up love‘ looks at how we can navigate the courtship process without letting love get too stirred up.

Do you agree?  Let us know by commenting below [Rowina Seidler]

The post Chemistry, Intimacy & Attachment (Are they important?) first appeared on Ruby in the Rough.