On "Biblical dating," which means "courting"

And now for something completely different. Focus on the Family's webzine Boundless has posted the first in a series of articles by Scott Croft on what he calls "Biblical dating," which would better be called "courting," were that term not so readily misunderstood. "Biblical dating" is

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 dating is largely by example and implication.

Modern dating, in contrast is:

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!

The author is an elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church.

Comments

[Russell D. Moore]

I commend this article to our readers, thought not everyone will agree with every specific aspect. Scott Croft is a brilliant and convictional young Christian, the son of a godly physician and his exemplary wife here in metro Louisville.

[David Layman]

Isn't there some irony in evangelicals deriving moral direction from a style of relationship that derives its name from the Catholic Middle Ages ("courtship" being what took place in the "courts" of the medieval castle--much of which, if the literature of the day is to be believed-- was none too "chaste")?

It seems this is another example of the phenomenon analyzed in the current Touchstone, "Two Kingdoms Come" (pp. 38ff.) . Evangelicals want to root all norms directly in scripture. "Evangelicals have been habituated to regard to regard the created order as an insufficient foundation for considering political authority, civic justice, and the common good (p. 40 second column)." But the result are appeals to scripture that are based on dubious exegesis and exposition. We have here norms that are not "particularly biblical, but may actually reveal...the use of the Bible to baptize convictions derived from other sources of wisdom.

So why not simply acknowledge those sources of common moral values, whether one calls it natural law, common grace, or two kingdoms?

Woops. That would require acknowledging the flaws in evangelical hermeneutics.

[Francesca Matthews]

I doubt many women would be particularly impressed with the idea of having their pre-marital relationships micromanaged by their fathers or families.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I doubt many women would be particularly impressed with the idea of having their pre-marital relationships micromanaged by their fathers or families.<<<

Again, there seem to be a lot of people who think women must be under the manus of an adult male at all times. But in fact one reason the early Church attracted so many women was precisely because it offered another model for women. And women responded by taking on many positions of leadership in the Church.

[Laura K]

The biblical prooftexts for courtship are oblique, but the idea of courtship is surely not so foreign to Christians that they would scoff at the idea. Young men and women would do well to consider what they want out of a relationship before they pursue it. Is sexual attraction sufficient reason to date? There will be no biblical justification for a non-marital relationship based on that. The OT patriarchs may not give us sterling prototypes for the aquisition of spouses, but the basic tenets of courtship are there: utter chastity before marriage, deep involvement in the family life of the betrothed before marriage, and involvement of the Church in pre-marital guidance. There is no biblical precident for the disregard of the family as we see today. By and large, people in the scriptures (minus a Samaritan here and a prostitute there) actually did get married, stay married, and (get this!) have lots of children. There's got to be some kind of remedy to the modern problem. Courtship is a inherently respectful option to the degree that it is put into practice. But putting it into practice...is it feasible? Sure it's feasible, just as it's feasible to sustain a pure, monogamous, family-rich, Church-supporting Christian marriage after the wedding.

[Ethan Cordray]

Having given and received pain through engaging in the contemporary dating formula (including deeply injuring a wonderful friendship with a fine woman), I'm definitely sympathetic to the need for a more morally reflective alternative. Whether I think "biblical" is the best appellation for that alternative is another matter, but I don't find it particularly important. It's the sort of language we Evangelicals are wont to use, for better or worse. At least our biases are transparent.

About the only thing I can really think to object to in the article is the father-centric approach. From a practical standpoint, it seems to me that it may be pretty hard to find a father both present and willing to serve in that role. And at what point, exactly, is the father supposed to be involved? I think that formally requesting to begin courtship tends to over-commit to the relationship.

Aside from that, I find the article quite reasonable and helpful. The best point:

"Modern dating seems to be about "finding" the right person for me (as my friend Michael Lawrence has written on this site); biblical dating is more about "being" the right person to serve my future spouse's needs and be a God-glorifying husband or wife."

This is what I'm trying to keep in mind now. It's hard work, with no immediate payoff evident to me yet, but it's the right track. And I know that becoming purified has eternal rewards as well.

In the meantime I'll spend my afternoons watching Pride and Prejudice and taking notes.

[A]

Ethan, re Pride and Prejudice:

You might think that a good idea, but most girls only want Darcy in the abstract. He's dreamy, strong, silent, and worships Elizabeth. But would they want to live with his pride and stubbornness and absolute decision-making after the wedding?

Probably not. And that's the problem, I think, that things like uber-courtship exacerbates: Women make lists of "absolutely non-negotiable traits" their men MUST have, leaving the man absolutely no room to be imperfect. Being a student at a strict courtship-only college (guess which one...), I see this more often than I see women not having any standards. It's equally sad.

I find beauty in Darcy's faults.

[Brandon Rhodes]

I recommend that we return to the courtship regime that reigned during the Victorian era in America, and put women back in charge of asking men out. (For those unfamiliar with the history I recommend Beth Bailey's wonderful book From Front Porch to Back Seat.)

It was merely through the blind force of economics that young men moved into control of courtship in the first place: once entertainment moved out of the home and into public spaces like concert halls and restaurants, money was suddenly necessary to courtship, and men, as the partner with income, found themselves in a position from which to issue the invitation. Some writers at the time noted that the new regime of "dating" resembled prostitution, since only young men with money could now afford the company of young women; and, of course, it put the young woman in the vulnerable position of feeling at the end of the night that she now owed the young man something — he had, after all, just spent money on her.

I beg of you all to remember that the sex which we designate as the active agent, who gets to issue the invitation for a date, is put in a position of immense power — for each member of the passive sex must then become, in essence, billboard, an advertisement, an attempt to draw the attention of one of the askers. Please take a moment to glance at what a typical forteen-year-old girl wears — and what she reveals — today, and you will see what happens when the standards of young men are allowed for decades to pressure the standards of young women and what they must do to earn attention.

We should end this madness! Put the young woman back in charge, and make the young man jump through her hoops, earn her attention, just as his great-great-great grandfather did in the nineteenth century. Little girls being of fallen nature too, of course, the result will not be perfect; but by letting the naturally far more predatory young male take charge of courtship, we have put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

[Bill R]

"Put the young woman back in charge, and make the young man jump through her hoops, earn her attention, just as his great-great-great grandfather did in the nineteenth century."

Good idea, Brandon. It has the added advantage of preparing young men for life AFTER the wedding. ;-)

[Ethan Cordray]

Sounds good to me, Brandon. Maybe that would level the playing field for us poor and introverted types.

The fine thing about Pride and Prejudice, I think, what separates it from lesser romantic fair, is that the characters do indeed have flaws, real flaws that stick with them because they arrive out of the same traits that make them strong (I speak of the main characters, of course, though even as unpleasant a figure as Mrs. Bennett is fundamentally sympathetic). Mr. Bingley is nice and affable, which makes him pleasant but also wimpy. Mr. Darcy is strong and self-possessed, which makes him a fine aristocrat but overly stern and imperious.

I don't think the novel ever supposes that these characters will suddenly change after marriage. Elizabeth's children will probably not love their father the way Jane's will, but they're less likely to turn out as sycophants or wastrels. Neither the faults nor the virtues of the characters will ever disappear, although of course time and discipline will hopefully reduce the former. I think a great lesson of the book is that love isn't something to be reserved for some perfect ideal person but instead given to someone to whom one is suited, in both strengths and weaknesses.

Unless I'm wrong, and the real lesson is "Big houses are sexy."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The biblical prooftexts for courtship are oblique, but the idea of courtship is surely not so foreign to Christians that they would scoff at the idea. <<<

I find the whole issue problematic, a confusion of mores with morality. In the first place, Old Testament marriage and New Testament marriage are NOT the same thing; they do not have the same purpose, nor the same meaning. Old Testament marriage is concerned exclusively with procreation, with the continuation of the family name and the increase of family wealth. It is, in short, a worldly, pragmatic institution. The arranged marriages of the Old Testament are business transactions intended to transfer property--just as, inter alia, arranged marriages continue to be where they are practiced around the world. As a simple historical fact, there is no such practice as "biblical courtship"--whoever Scott Croft is, he's certainly no historian or anthropologist, and he's guilty of the cardinal sin of imposing his own ideosyncratic and anachronistic understanding on the practices of an ancient and alien culture. Or, to be more precise, he's trying to find biblical sanction for the courtship rituals practiced in the United States during the period between 1800 and 1920 (which seems to be the historical horizons for a lot of Evangelicals, come to think of it).

Christian marriage is a sacrament that has no worldly meaning or purpose; it is solely a typos of Christ's union with the Church and man's union with God. As Christ is the bridegroom and the Church the bride, so when man and woman become one flesh it is a manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth. Christianity cannot tolerate arranged marriage, nor can it endure an artificial notion of "courtship" derived from biblical prooftexts without cultural context. Christian marriage must be a gift free and openly offered by the parties to each other. Chastity before and after marriage is a Christian virtue, whcih like all virtue must be embraced internally and not imposed from the outside. Mr. Croft, whoever he is when he is up and dressed, apparently has little respect for the virtues of young people, because he seems to believe that they cannot be trusted to keep their passions under control. This speaks more to personal failures in parentling and professional failures in spiritual formation, than it does to the nature of courtship in the United States today.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I find beauty in Darcy's faults.<<<

My daughter asks, "Faults? Darcy has faults?"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I recommend that we return to the courtship regime that reigned during the Victorian era in America, and put women back in charge of asking men out. (For those unfamiliar with the history I recommend Beth Bailey's wonderful book From Front Porch to Back Seat.)<<<

Aw, heck, let's go back to the colonial New England practice of bundling. Then, when the girl gets pregnant, the boy marries her. It's the American Way! A comparison of birth and marriage records show that more than half of all colonial girls in New England were in a family way when they tied the knot. After all, a guy wants a fertile gal, and divorce being dificult if not impossible, doesn't want a pig in a poke.

[dilys]

My own dear husband maintains, with a grave combination of insight, courtliness, and practicality, that P&P demonstrates that men best acknowledge and abjure their own faults; and must forgive the provenance and failings of their women. The bright version is Elizabeth and Darcy, the somber one, the elder Bennetts.

As to the father directly occupying himself with the courtship of his children, or, as one Touchstone article memorably and ickily proposed, with the virginity of his daughters, it is doubtful whether we are reliably growing fathers en masse with the olympian magnamity, patriarchial confidence, and spiritual purity for that to be anything but kink-ed. The best contemporary hope is enough non-dysfunctionality in the family for the daughter to desire and seek, or at least admit, her parents' protection and advice.

It appears there is a huge opportunity for the education & encouragement of young women on these issues, enhancing their own innate inclination to modesty & beauty, and ameliorating the standard-setting of the young male. It is to shudder when well-intended pastors mullah-like obsess over the desperate dress of young women, bringing mothers and daughters to tears and frustration, when creativity, education, and holy delight, even addressing classic fashion and communication strategies, could be so much more serpent-and-dove.

[Judy Warner]

A father supervising his daughter's courtship seems like an end-stage strategy, when the emphasis should be on the beginning. Our culture is so warped when it comes to love and marriage (and almost everything else) that children must be given an alternative vision from their earliest days. Starting with the negative, they should be kept away from TV entirely. For the positive, of course the most important thing is the model their own parents give as to what a godly marriage is like. In addition, they need many books that convey a different sensibility from today's; that means very few children's books written after 1970. It doesn't mean goody-goody books; I read Tom Sawyer to my daughter when she was 7, to her great delight. And I also read her a great many other books set in pre-1900 times, which seem to have set in her mind a view of love and marriage which bears no resemblance to that of most of her peers. Of course we discuss these matters, but I must say that the books, and some movies (like Jane Austen films) seem to have had even more influence. I'm sure not all children would react like that.

At any rate, if children have internalized an alternative view of love and marriage, I think they can be trusted to find and choose a suitable mate. (I just wish she'd get around to doing so!)

[Bill R]

I am actually at this point in life. That is, both of my children are at the stage in life where they are looking for mates (a daughter 26 and a son 23). My involvement as the pater familias is quite modest, I must say. I don’t think my children would look favorably on the approach suggested by Mr. Croft, and I doubt I’d want it. But the job of training my children to look for a good spouse began at least 26 years ago when my daughter was born. The examples were set, first, by my wife and I as the parents, and, second, by the church itself. For my daughter, you can also add her own field of study in college (19th century English literature), with Austen and Bronte front and center.

Stuart Koehl said:

“Christian marriage is a sacrament that has no worldly meaning or purpose; it is solely a typos of Christ's union with the Church and man's union with God.”

I agree with the conclusion (though I wouldn’t use the word “solely”), but question whether we can say that a sacrament “has no worldly meaning or purpose.” It does not take its meaning or purpose from the world, but most certainly it has a meaning and a purpose that are intended to transform our world. But perhaps Stuart wouldn’t disagree with that qualification. If so, then I’d agree that the specific cultures of the Old and the New Testaments are not necessary guides. Rather, Christian principles are to be applied to our cultures. So I’d find myself in agreement with Judy Warner:

“At any rate, if children have internalized an alternative view of love and marriage, I think they can be trusted to find and choose a suitable mate.”

[Francesca Matthews]

>>Christian marriage must be a gift free and openly offered by the parties to each other. Chastity before and after marriage is a Christian virtue, whcih like all virtue must be embraced internally and not imposed from the outside. <<

Stuart, thank you for a truly beautiful post! You've made a great pedagogic statement here.

I don't see anything Christian in virtually veiling young women, keeping them in burqas and chaperoning them in public. There are uncomfortable overtones of projection in Croft's article.

[LAbriAlumn]

Considering that the pastor in question used a hermeneutic alien to the evangelical hermeneutic described in the Chicago Declaration on Hermeneutics, I don't see how is terrible Scripture-twisting could be blamed on a method he doesn't use.

To all who see all unmarried men as utterly depraved, and all unmarried women as pure as the driven snow; I take it you don't get out much?

The use of forced definitions and claims of Biblical teaching where there is none by the 'courtship' movement is deplorable, but as an unmarried male who is basically destitute (internet access is necessary to what work I can get, and is not a luxury) and does not have social standing in the world system, I have no credibility.

I find the notion that is attributed to Jane Austen, rightly or wrongly, and which is held by some allegedly conservative evangelicals, that the man must "have income, and the woman, 'pattibility'" to be rather meretricious. Literally.

The idea that the marriage covenant has no creational purpose is false. Marriage was instituted by God at Creation, and has several ends in mind. One of which is indeed the musterion of the relationship between Christ and the Church, but the New Testament also lists sexual satisfaction and chastity as another not only licit, but necessary purpose. And then there is the creation of a family culture in/as the ecclesia domestica (sp?)

Edith Schaeffer emphasized this last use or end in several of her talks and books as a sort of 'secret garden' living out the way of life of the Kingdom of Heaven where it could be seen on Earth and thus be used of God to draw people unto Himself.

[Ethan Cordray]

Hey, Labrialumn,
I just figured out what your name means.

I also agree that there are more purposes to marriage than pure typology. Unless of course you also consider all of the practical and moral uses as elements of that typology, which might be fair. But they ought not to be neglected for an exclusively symbolic view.

[Ethan Cordray]

Addendum:

Stuart,
I think you may misunderstand the nature of symbol sometimes. How recently have you read the beginning of Augustine's "De Doctrina?"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think you may misunderstand the nature of symbol sometimes. How recently have you read the beginning of Augustine's "De Doctrina?"<<<

Nope. But I do know this: in the patristic understanding, a symbol shares in the reality of that it represents. The dichotomy of symbol and reality results from the Berengarian Eucharistic controversies of the early 13th century. Berengarius of Tours said that the Eucharist must be a "symbol" because it isn't "real". The Latin Church responded (as, e.g., in the Fourth Lateran Council) that the Eucharist is "real" because it is not a symbol. Both explanations are mere flip sides of the same coin. About the same time, there was a similar Eucharistic controversy in Constantinople, in which a high-ranking deacon espoused a position similar to that of Berengarius. But rather than responding as the Lateran Council, two synods held in Constantinople affirmed the patristic understanding by stating that the Eucharist is a "deep anamnesis" of the one true sacrifice of Golgotha. The symbol and the reality interpentrate and the line between one and the other is indistinct. This approach fills Byzantine sacramental theology: sacraments or mysteries are "symbols" of a deeper underlying reality that share in the existence of that reality. Thus, baptism is a sign of death and rebirth in Christ; when one descends into the font, one indeed dies to the flesh, and is mystically reborn. When one is crowned in marriage, the two flesh are truly made one in Christ. This sacramental reality is present in all we do, extending to the Liturgy of the Church, to our iconography, and even our hymnography.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart,
I highly recommend the work, though I have barely scratched the surface of it myself.

Augustine makes another distinction, of a more general sort. He's discussing the nature of symbols. There are some things that are just symbols which have no importance in themselves, like words. There are others that are merely themselves and do not signify anything else. There is a third category of things that both have their own being and necessarily symbolize something else, like smoke to a fire (his example).

It is in this third category that it seems to me that the sacrament of marriage lies. It both symbolizes the deeper reality of union with Christ, but it also contains its own being as a physical and social reality that has pragmatic ends and diverse moral purposes in addition to (or possibly contained within) its nature as sacrament.

I don't think the difference between "participatory" and "Berengarian" symbolism (forgive me for making up these labels, I've not heard of this controversy before) necessarily speaks to this distinction. Even if a sacrament's reality is defined by its participation in the divine, perhaps the same act can still have additional (mundane?) elements of reality in addition to that. Then it would not be necessary to say that marriage "has no worldly meaning or purpose" merely because it also has the sacramental typological purpose.

Augustine's distinction between things which are to be enjoyed and things which are to be used (in the same work) may be helpful as well.

[LAbriAlumn]

Wow! I must have been grumpy yesterday, and didn't realize it. :-(

[Ethan Cordray]

Labrialumn,

No harm done. Might as well state such things forcefully!

More on De Doctrina (or at least on the first 23 pages which I have read):

Augustine distinguishes between things to be enjoyed and things to be used. The only things to be enjoyed are those that are eternal and immutable. All other things are to be used so that we may attain enjoyment of the eternal things. Thus perhaps as sacrament marriage becomes something to be enjoyed, being a participation in the reality of the eternal union with Christ. Yet in its moral, social, and creational capacities, it becomes something to be used, a tool for the refinement of souls so that they may more fully enjoy that eternal union as well as the rest of the fullness of living in Christ.

Thus the statement that "Christian marriage is a sacrament that has no worldly meaning or purpose" is false in a proximate sense, as it has more elements than the exclusively typological, and those elements have different purposes than simply showing forth or directly participating in eternal union. Yet in an ultimate sense the statement is true, for all the non-typological elements are directed toward the end of achieving a fuller participation in and enjoyment of eternal things.

[Bill R]

"Yet in an ultimate sense the statement is true, for all the non-typological elements are directed toward the end of achieving a fuller participation in and enjoyment of eternal things."

Yet not exclusively so directed, which is what makes the statement so misleading without a rather complicated explanation. Better, it seems, to say that Christian marriage is a sacrament with an eternal meaning and purpose that far outweigh its mere worldly meaning and purpose.

[Firinnteine]

The fact that the Eucharist is a participation in the Sacrifice of our Lord does not make it any less real food and drink. (The most real of all food and drink?)

The fact that marriage is a type of Christ and the Church (and also of the Trinity) does not make it any less a mundane -- physical, earthly -- reality. Quite the contrary. Song of Solomon does not cease to be a wildly erotic and brilliantly poetic statement of the physical expression of human sexuality just because it is also a glorious declaration of the love of Christ for His Bride, and of the longing of the Beloved for her Lover and Lord.

Stuart, I am fairly certain you don't mean it this way, but your denial that marriage has any earthly meaning or purpose seems to imply (to me) the kind of radical distinction between physical and spiritual realities that I assume you would condemn as heresy were it posited of the Eucharist. It sounds downright Zwinglian. (Meaning no personal offense....)

Of course you are not Anglican, but is the Eastern understanding of marriage (in your view) really directly contradictory to that put forward in the historic Book of Common Prayer? Or am I wholly misunderstanding your statements and/or the BCP?

[Judy Warner]

I think Stuart has a lot of nerve, getting the flu and leaving all those comments of his hanging in the air while he recovers. ;-)

[mairnéalach]

The doctrine of common grace presupposes the absolute worldly good of marriage.

[James A. Altena]

Excellent statement, Bill R.!

[Nick]

Before this thing wanders way off topic I'll don my armor and take Mr. Koehl to task.

Saying that virtue should be interior is all well and nice. It is also a rather simplistic view of human nature. People should really look around for the edge of roofs too, but the Code of Moses still has the Israelites putting up those parapets. When you meet the girl of your dreams and your blood runs hot and cold as if flooded with electricity whenever you touch her it is all for the good if her father is standing a few feet away keeping you rational. This isn't to say that either side isn't virtuous, just mortal. There, with a, "multitude of councilors," the two parties are protected from making a purely human mistake that they might otherwise be blind to. My wife was *total hotness* (if I may use the vernacular) when I met her. *Total* man. Since then my hormones have settled a bit. So she's just hot now. I can even look her in the eyes for hours at time (before the commendation from Proverbs hits me).

Parents stay parents for their whole lives. The degree of attachment varies over time and goes through a substantial change when their children marry as testified to by Scripture. A father that doesn't keep adequate watch over the courtship of his daughter, no matter her age, is abandoning her to foolishness. God certainly didn't take that kind of poor position with any of his people. We don't have a whole Old Testament summed up in, "make sure you do good stuff kids." It was warning and *direct* presence over the course of thousands of years.

You are right to note the exchange of property present in Old Testament marriages. Properly children are the property of the parent only relinquished in part at marriage. This was in no way lifted under the New Testament moralities. We are reminded that filial obedience is given, "with a promise." We are also reminded that all things are given in a form of trust from God. The most special thing a Patriarch can poses is children, again, held in trust. A father therefore treats God's most special possessions with disdain if he fails to follow through till the marriage is set.

That being said I've suggested the following to the young that have been placed in my care as either pastor or as father:
1.) Keep the courtship short. Long courtships of today exist for two reasons: one, the marriage has due has been rendered long before the marriage; two, the marriage has become a spectacle of wealth rather than a celebration with God.
2.) Keep other people around. You'll make fewer mistakes.
3.) Keep your parents involved. They can offer a lot of help. You will also have to live (sometimes physically) with a new set. Start off on a good foot so that having the in-laws over for dinner is a good thing.
4.) Have some alone time when it won't cause problems. Go out on a date in public place.

I should note that (4) encourages bundling. I'm all for that.

[Bill R]

"That's why God made women, to remind us that we're becoming obnoxiously grumpy, callous and brusque, and reprimand us and bring us back to reality."

Except when it's the wife who is grumpy, because she sleeps next to snore-y. Then she's very likely to say: "It would be very good that the man should be alone!" ;-)

[Aquinas]

Josh Harris, in his 1997 best-selling book "I Kissed Dating Good-bye," describes his own fed-upped-ness with what Croft calls "modern dating" and his resolution to abandon it in favor of what "Biblical dating" or "courtship." In "IKDG" and its follow-up, "Boy Meets Girl," he lays down the rules for a proper courtship and uses his own courtship, engagement and marriage as a case study.

I've read both books, and although I agree that "recreational" dating is not what dating should be, I also agree with critics of "Biblical dating" and Josh Harris's concept of courtship in particular: that it tends toward legalism and scrupulosity, and that it makes dating seem more like a business transaction than a preparation for a sacrament.

I don't mean to say that Harris's books have no merit; I think they are a terrific exhortation to young people to reconsider "recreational" dating and casual intimacy. However, the Harris Method could use a little more eros -- best to read it in combo with the Song of Songs.

[luthien]

Firinnteine, I think that Mr. Koehl is taking a good point too far and making it silly. Of course there are good, practical reasons for marriage-namely those in the BCP (which I only know from having seen the BBC P&P far too often...).

>>>You might think that a good idea, but most girls only want Darcy in the abstract. He's dreamy, strong, silent, and worships Elizabeth. But would they want to live with his pride and stubbornness and absolute decision-making after the wedding?<<<
Nope. He's too autocratic and would expect me to be too perfect. I want to marry Gilbert Blythe, not Mr. Darcy:) although I do like Darcy far better than Mr. Knightley from Emma or even Edmund from MP.

[Juli]

Ah, Gilbert Blythe ... and if you read the sequels, you know that their marriage turned out well. (Though maybe not, as Anne is too predictably perfect and much less herself in those sequels, which are much more sentimental than the early books in the series.)

You are right to note the exchange of property present in Old Testament marriages. Properly children are the property of the parent only relinquished in part at marriage.... The most special thing a Patriarch can poses is children, again, held in trust. A father therefore treats God's most special possessions with disdain if he fails to follow through till the marriage is set.

Then why not have the marriage transacted between fathers - if both sons and daughters, and not just daughters, are the "property" of their fathers? To have a woman's father deal with her suitor suggests that he is an adult, and a free agent, and she is not.

[Nick]

First, of all Gilbert Blythe was far from the current feminists arch-type which is why he was butchered in the mini-series-sequel-to-a-sequel-not-based-on-the-books that was released a few years ago. In the books he is a classic just patriarch and Anne loves him for it.

Second, I am not arguing for arranged marriage, though I don't object in any shape or form to the practice. What I am arguing is that parental involvement is key and they are free to dictate terms for the good of their less less than level headed children. In my own courtship I had terms dictated by both sides. My father-in-law (agnostic) set out some rules through the mediation of my mother-in-law. He never got involved directly, but I was well appraised of what needed to happen and who was making the request. I was actually living with my uncle at the time and, as I lived in his house, he felt totally free to act as my guardian. He set rules on where I was allowed to go and how late I could stay out. I was twenty at the time and obeyed every last one dutifully; calling in for permission to stay out past 10PM if I needed.

Was it tough? At times. I felt my Uncle was too strict in a couple of places (his rules were by far the most stringent) and I complained bitterly when I thought his authority was being pushed to far. We always were able to work it out. I fully believe my life is happier as a result.

[Ethan Cordray]

Luthien,

BCP=??? I feel like I'm missing something.

The fact that you wouldn't like Mr. Darcy is, I think, a fine thing. Remember, he's not the only decent man in the book. There's Mr. Bingley, too, who's perfect for Jane but wrong for Elizabeth. The opposite is true for Mr. Darcy. To each her own.

Nick, Aquinas, et el.:

I entirely agree that it would be great for fathers and mothers both to be involved in their childrens' courtships. I do find it a bit strange that The Harris/Croft-type approaches always seem to see only the woman's father being involved. He may be particularly important, but surely the other parents ought to be involved somehow too?

[A]

Darcy is my idea of a "perfect-for-me" man. Ethan said it best, I think, when he talked about the differences between the two men as fathers. I prefer the gruff Mr Darcy to the simpering Mr Bingley because when Darcy is finally humble and vulnerable, it means so much more than Bingley, who is affable and amiable all the time.

BUT again as Ethan said (wow, Ethan, you're good!) to each her own. After all, if you liked Darcy too, Luthien, we'd have to war over him. ;-)

[Judy Warner]

BCP = Book of Common Prayer.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any man can show just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

...and so on. But I have to copy out one more part, a prayer after the marriage takes place:

O almighty God, Creator of mankind, who only art the well-spring of life; Bestow upon these thy servants, if it be thy will, the gift and heritage of children; and grant that they may see their children brought up in thy faith and fear, to the honour and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[luthien]

Nick, I was talking about the Gilbert of the books, not of the movies, which I haven't seen.

A, I guess we'd better agree to disagree then:) Darcy would make an excellent husband for many women, just not for me. I suppose that it's rather pathetic, but one of my 3 non-negotiables for my future husband is that he does have to be a "nice guy." Er no, make that 4 non-negotiables, I forgot that I cannot marry a man who abuses his mother tongue and does not punctuate his e-mails (if he corrected the habits, then all would be forgiven, of course)

But Ethan, women aren't supposed to have opinions. Yeesh. Wherever did you learn all that feminist nonsense ?;) No, actually, I do agree with you. It just makes sense to involve all 4 parens in dating/courting. I'd far rather talk to my mother than my father about dating and marriage. For one thing, she's not quite so far in denial about the fact that I went and grew up.

One of my objections to the revival of courtship is the sheer impracticality of it; although Boundless has periodically addressed the question of how young people living far from their families should approach courtship, they always seem to assume that their readers attend churches where there's support and mentoring for courting couples. This simply does not work if one is Orthodox! According to the Harris/Croft view of things, between belonging to a church which doesn't support courtship and parents who don't approve of it, I'm clearly doomed to either convert back to Protestantism (not happening) and be able to court, or to become a nun (over my cold dead body; I'd be terrible at it), or find a husband in an unbiblical way. I do have a lot to say about this topic, but am supposed to be studying for my final exams which are next week, so we'll see if I make it back...

[Judy Warner]

I forgot that I cannot marry a man who abuses his mother tongue and does not punctuate his e-mails

Hmm, my daughter also has those qualifications for her future husband. Do you think there are enough young men who qualify to go around?

[Another Janet]

"Er no, make that 4 non-negotiables, I forgot that I cannot marry a man who abuses his mother tongue and does not punctuate his e-mails (if he corrected the habits, then all would be forgiven, of course)"

Methinks that young ladies who omit periods shouldn't be quite so picky.
AMDG, Janet

[mairnéalach]

I admit to some consternation at the difficulties involved in finding a wife in "the biblical fashion" (whatever that means). In my pagan days, I used to hold an independent spirit as the highest value; as a Christian, I've learned to condition that requirement greatly. I think love of hospitality--to children, family, friends--is perhaps the virtue I value most highly. That, and playing either fiddle, flute or harp. On some days I can't decide which is best! I think if I am to find a wife, it would probably be in the context of some service ministry--perhaps a prayer support group. That feels like the most organic and happiest place to seek one's beloved. That, or a barndance. Hmm.

[Nick]

In response to Ethan et al on why the Brid-to-Be's Father is likely to be the most involved:

We are in violent agreement that both sets of parents should be involved. However, tradition has led to the girls father being one of the prime movers for very practical reasons. While both parties in the courtship are hyped-up on hormones given by God, the half that is the most hyped-up is the boy. He is going to be naturally more predatory. That's why rape laws tend to be so one sided. The boy's father then is in the odd position of protecting someone else from his son, which isn't a natural position and leads to mistakes of leniency.

The girl's father on the other hand is protecting his child. The girl's father is also going to be very aware of the boy's tendencies and be naturally defensive because of that knowledge. The boy's father is going to be naturally aware of the boy's tendencies and be empathetic.

This doesn't mean the relationship has to be hostile. My father-in-law was obviously very aware of where I could trip up. He set rules that were good for me and was more than a little surprised by how strict my uncle was but supported my uncle. He was also very kind and we enjoy a closer relationship today than that between my father and myself.

Luthien points, I think, to some problems with this model. Namely, when the father and daughter don't share the same faith or are separated by distance. Our changing social scene has made it more likely that the girl is now a woman and working away from her parents. In these situations alternate methods need to be used. Also some churches may not be supportive of young couples which will require extra work(1).

(1) Though to be fair I thought the Orthodox were famous for their after liturgy coffee times? Isn't there an old grandmother type nearby that knows all the eligible men and can rope them in? Those old grandmothers can be wicked strong.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>BCP = Book of Common Prayer.<<

D'oh. Obvious. I think the "BBC P&P" immediately afterwards must have thrown me off.

Edward Ferrars sounds like my sort of fellow. My internal life during my first two years of college was greatly preoccupied by that issue. It was Galadriel that solved it for me: "I will decline, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel."

Nick, well said as to why the girl's father ought generally to be so important, as well as to the problems the model can have in real life. I sure wish there had been some parents around during my college relationship. I'm living at home now, so if anything arises I'll hopefully have greater recourse.

Judy, Luthien, et al., I'm doing my best to be that type. Thanks heavens for Firefox's new built-in spell checker!

[luthien]

Janet, you're right, I suppose, but really, if my husband is to be my leader, he needs to punctuate correctly more often than I do;) (in my own defense, I had 200 pages of German History reading as well as a Latin translation awaiting me ere I slept and was therefore commenting in extreme haste, and so did not edit.)

Nick, you are sort of right about the post-liturgy coffee hours; one of the ladies in the church choir has been bemoaning the fact that she has no sons to me marry to:) Trouble is, there's a dearth of Orthodox men to set Orthodox girls up with, and since I'm not Greek, don't speak modern Greek, never went to Greek school, don't know how to cook Greek food, wound up quitting GOYA because I hated it, and am generally a Barbarian like that (although I did win the parish Oratorical festival and now teach Sunday School and sing in the choir), most women in my parish would not consider me a suitable bride for their sons or grandsons. Once again I must run off to study-ah, the joys of professors who don't assign graded work until the end of the semester, like the Latin professor who didn't assign any written work at all until this week and is now loading us down with graded translations for this week and next so that he'll have something to base the grades on:/

[Bill R]

"is implius fili mi ne requiras faciendi plures libros nullus est finis frequensque meditatio carnis adflictio est"

When you consider GL's Greek fonts, and Dominic's pig Latin, there's no doubt--this is a high-class blog! (Anyone know Hebrew?)

[Judy Warner]

I know a little biblical Hebrew, but I have no idea how to get a Hebrew font, and if I did I wouldn't know how to put it into a post.

[Bill R]

Sorry for the tease, Dominic. Perhaps my next post should be in Esperanto? ;-)

[Judy Warner]

And anyway I would feel pretentious doing so, since I'm really not fluent, though I had six years of it in high school. It would look cool, though. Maybe I'll try it just for that reason.

[Gene Godbold]

I do a lot of writing in a wiki for work and our IT people provide all sorts of fonts for us to use. I bet they would work in this sort of interface as well. They just have to be interpreted properly by whatever is translating the text.

[Bill R]

"...anyhow, back to courtship?" - Dominic Glisinski

Ok, here's an issue that is a hot one for Christians I know--how far does Paul's command not to be "unequally yoked" go? Clearly it applies to the Christian courting or dating an unbeliever, but does it extend even to Christians outside your tradition? How wide is the "yoke"?

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

Given that when St. Paul wrote this, there were not different denominations, I think that the phrase shouuld not be pressed beyond the bounds of Touchstone-style "mere Christianity." If possible, it is probably best to marry within one's own denomination -- but that of course then presumes that one will never leave that denomination. Given the number of Touchstone folks who have left one denomination for another, I'd say that's not a basis on which to make such a decision. It is of course a real difficulty if a man and wife belong to churches that are not in sacramental communion with one another. Is there anyone out there in this situation who want to share his experience and advice?

[Gene Godbold]

My Catholic mother and Methodist father were married over the objections of my Methodist maternal grandmother. We were raised Catholic and attended every Sunday, but we also went to Sunday school (and occasionally worship) at the Methodist church. Because of the miracle of genetic recombination, I became Anglican in college (which is, in many ways, equidistant between the two traditions, a real bridge church, y'know :-)

My father provided most of the early religious training for me and my brother, who is Orthodox (OCA). I can't explain the genetics of that one, though. (Nor the case of my sister, who remains Catholic.)

Seriously, it was a little difficult logistically, but my parents didn't seem to have conflicts about it so we just accepted it. I think it would be harder between a Christian and a Mormon (or 7th Day Adventist or JW). I think that this would be a true case of unequal yoking.

[Bill R]

"I really doubt I'll find a woman who'll have me, and whom I am comfortable with."

What's with all these Doubting Thomases? (Or Doubting Dominics--that sounds like a great rock band!) Wasn't it Luthien who said something similar a while ago? (Excuse me, Luthien, if I'm mixed up here.) If I weren't a lawyer, I'd be tempted to become a matchmaker. So many clients, so little time!

I certainly don't denigrate the single life--many wonderful people are called to it. But most folks--particularly if they desire marriage--are called to marry, and frankly, it's more important than all the years you may spend in college, preparing for a career. Much, much more important. Would you doubt that you'd ever find a job so that you could earn a living? No? Why not? Because you work hard at it so you don't starve. But emotional starvation is worse! (OK, Bill, you can get off your soapbox now...)

[luthien]

Bill, you're right. I was the Doubting Thomas-several of my friends at school have gotten engaged recently and will be getting married after graduation this spring, and it's making me feel very old-maidish, unlovable, and lonely. I do stongly desire to be married but, being a girl, can't do anything about it but pray. (Gentlemen, please don't whine about having to take the initiative. Imo, rejection is better and less painful than always being ignored)

[mairnéalach]

Love is a mysterious thing which just doesn't seem to reduce down to a courtship formula. A heart longs for a kind of passion which can seem faraway and unattainable. But don't lose heart!

When the bridegroom satisfies that passion, it is channeled in ways too good to imagine. I'm finding that in my own life, as he trains me to trust him rigorously through different adversities. In their midst he leads me in paths of righteousness, and I find myself seeking his kingdom first. In the process, good and excellent things come showering down.

I expect a loving wife and a happy little Christian clan of my own will be part of that joyful package. All these idealisms I'm contemplating must be there for a reason. Since I continue to imagine just what a worshipful family life should look like, I firmly reckon he will indulge my desire to please him, and perhaps not in the distant future!

[Bill R]

Well, Dominic, Luthien, Mairnealach--God had His timing, which is rarely what we would choose. The effort you need to make is not for yourself, but for Him and for His. Joy may come unexpectedly, when you aren't seeking it. Seek the counsel of those whose wisdom you respect--parents, family, friends. May grace be yours.

[James A. Altena]

For Luthien, Dominic, Ethan, and the other singles here:

I can't claim special expertise in matchmaking and marriage. Far from it. I married only a little over a year ago, at age 47 (also my wife's first marriage at age 48), and I never dated or courted before that time. But from observing myself and other folk, I would like to throw in one observation that I've not seen mentioned here or elsewhere:

Finding a mate, and getting and staying married, begins with presuming that you are unworthy of your intended and/or spouse. Unworthy, period. If we start from the standpoint of our own unworthiness, then we can receive everything from our mate as an undeserved gift from God, in the same manner that we receive our salvation. Humility must be the starting point. My rector has often pointed out that marriage is the ordinary means God provides for most of us to be schooled in humility, for in it we learn that we can't have everything our own way and that we are not God. The problems begin if and when we start with the implicit (and often unconscious) assumption that we are looking for someone who meets certain specifications, like a customized product. That puts us in the position of making judgments, rather than practicing discernment.

Closely related to this the realization that one should seek a mate based not on common interests, but on basic orthodoxy and common moral standards. If you both believe in the faith of the Nicene Creed, have a solid foundation in Scriptural ethics (including principles of spiritual and moral formation of the inner man), and humility and charity, everything else can and will work out.

[Judy Warner]

Luthien, I do not believe that it is good for all women to marry young. Some are suited to that and others are not. You might have special gifts that you need to give to the world before you marry and have children, or you may need to grow up more in order to be noticed by the man who is right for you, or any one of a dozen other things. Often it happens that the more anxious you are about it, the less likely you are to find a mate, as your anxiety drives men away. You have a wonderful life to live, with your intelligence and your godliness, and if you make the most of it you will find a husband in due time without suffering so much in the meantime.

[mairnéalach]

Unworthiness is the starting point; without this realization, the true eureka surprise of godly joy never happens. With it, the torrid romance of becoming kings and queens in God's kingdom is made possible--and that joy of discovery and adventure is transmitted to the children.

[Stuart Koehl]

I'm feeling a lot better, but I have alot to catch up.

While I was sick, I took the time to re-read one of my favorite books, "The Bible and the Ancient Near East" by Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg. The basic premise of the book is that the Old Testament presents a fundamentally authentic account of the history of the People of Israel in the Near East through the Exile and return. Even the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua and Judges, which Gordon sees as the Great Epic Cycle of the of the Hebrews, contains accurate and authentic details about the time of the Patriarchs, the Conquest, and the Settlement periods. The accounts in the Bible can be reconciled with those of non-biblical records, such as the various Ugaritic and Sumerian texts, which reveal that Genesis, like the Illiad, preserves authentic memories of the 13th century BC. Interestingly, because so many of the Sumarian and Ugaritic tablets are commercial records, we have a very good understanding of courtship and marriage in the period of the Patriarchs, and it coincides almost exactly with what is given in the Bible. In fact, some of the Biblical texts are almost word-for-word identical with various marriage contracts, etc. from Ebla and other places of that time.

So, this is REAL Biblical courtship and marriage, as opposed to the myth of biblical courtship and marriage (which is really the myth of courtship and marriage in a very narrow slice of American history). What did it look like?

Well, first, the prospective groom, or his father, or an intermediary, would go to the father or guardian of the perspective bride. He would make his intentions known, and then the serious business of courtship would begin.

What would be the bride price (i.e., how many sheep, goats, camels, asses, etc)? How much of it would remain in the bride's dowry (if her husband should divorce her or set her aside, what could she keep)? If the bride proved barren, would she have to provide her husband with a surrogate to provide him with an heir? If she should later conceive, what would be the rights of her sons relative to the surrogates? Do the bride's household gods "convey" or not? What accommodation does the husband have to make in that regard?

These are all real issues covered in contemporaneous Middle Eastern marriage contracts and documents. And of course, we see the same issues covered in Genesis. So what can we then say about "Biblical Courtship" in the Age of the Patriarchs"?

First, it's all about the heirs. The purpose of marriage is about propagating the family name, which is why we have such nice customs as the Levirate, as well as the requirement for wives to give their husbands surrogates if they themselves cannot provide children.

Second, it's also about property--keeping what you have and getting more. Some very hard-nosed bargains are made in that respect, and the value of a woman is given in heads of sheep or cattle. I suppose we could substitute money.

Third, "What's love got to do with it"? Nothing at all. Wife might never actually meet husband, though husband might want to check out the goods before the negotiations get started. Either way, the woman's wishes figure into this not at all, so might as well keep the girls in seclusion to ensure that the goods are in pristine condition when the buyer comes along.

If we move up in history to the time of King David, we see that not much has changed. Though people might quibble with how many Phillistine foreskins a bride ought to bring, we're still dealing with marriage as a property transaction.

And that is what marriage is in the Old Testament--a property transaction. There are all sorts of rules, regulations and customs outlined or implied, but none of them change the basic nature of Old Testament marriage. The New Testament talks relatively little about marriage, and speaks of courtship not at all.

So just where does anyone get any idea whatsoever that there is even such a thing as "Biblical Courtship" that would have any relevance or application to Christian marriage in the modern world?

Just curious.

[Judy Warner]

Good to have you back, Stuart.

[Gene Godbold]

When Jesus (and Paul) discuss marriage, they go back to Genesis, not the patriarchs, for "original intent".

[Gene Godbold]

It is good to have you back, Stuart.

A friend of mine who met Mr. Harris gently mocked him by calling his book (to his face) "Dating kissed me goodbye". My friend said that approach didn't go over extraordinarily well. :-)

[mairnéalach]

I'm with you, Stuart. We must resist this notion that we can get a detailed program for marriage by looking at the patriarchs. Many good shadows are there, but also many examples of blindness. Only the life and example of the bridegroom--the lover of the cosmos--can teach us how to seek a wife to his glory--just as it teaches us how to mow our grass to his glory, bake a cake to his glory, or change a bedpan to his glory. Not to make marriage seem mundane--but to move it into the only light which can make us understand it properly.

[Bill R]

James, Judy, Mairnealach, all very good, very sound advice. And Stuart, it is good to have our court historian back (or is "court" a dirty word now?)

Gene's point I think is apt: Biblical principles are not necessarily Biblical examples, particularly where the latter are framed by a particular culture. It should make us realize how culturally-bound our our marriage perspectives are.

And everyone should re-read James' and Judy's comments, for the key to a good marriage is less in what we expect to find in our spouse and more in what we ought to become ourselves. You may be surprised as to how that, in turn, affects those whom we meet.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>When Jesus (and Paul) discuss marriage, they go back to Genesis, not the patriarchs, for "original intent".<<<

I was under the impression that Genesis dealt with the Patriarchs--you know, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and the gang. It's their book, really. The "original intent" story of Adam and Eve says nothing much about courtship, implies a lot about the purpose of marriage.

The Christian ideal of marriage comes through the patristic exegesis of the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles--in particular, the typology of Christ as bridegroom and the Church as bride, so beautifully enunciated by Paul, established the respective roles of husband and wife as well as the sacramental purpose of marriage (which stands in stark contradiction to the Old Testament understanding of that purpose).

But throughout the New Testament, there is not one passage devoted to courtship. As in other social situations, Paul accepted the existing structures and institutions, the prevaling mores of his time, overlaying on them key Christian imperatives, but making no attempt to transform courtship and marriage rites. In fact, he could not, since under Roman law, only Roman citizens could "legally" marry--and marriage was above all else a legal transaction for the Romans. Christians therefore were up in the air on how to handle marriage, and came to their own solutions (very different one in the East and West) that transcended Roman and Jewish marriage laws and impressed a Christian understanding upon it. But of courtship, I reiterate, the New Testament says not a word--and if we are to believe the martyrologies of the second century, Christian women were not in the least interested in the type of "courtship" being advocated by some Christians today.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And everyone should re-read James' and Judy's comments, for the key to a good marriage is less in what we expect to find in our spouse and more in what we ought to become ourselves. You may be surprised as to how that, in turn, affects those whom we meet.<<<

I would go farther, and say that the key to a good marriage is both parties becoming one with Christ. In the Eastern Christian theology of marriage, there are three parties involved--the man, the woman, and Jesus Christ. That is why, in contrast to Western sacramental theology, the priest, and not the man and woman, are the ordinary ministers of the sacrament. In Western theology, "free selection" is stressed: the man and woman find each other and commit their lives to God. Thus, they "marry each other", while the priest (or deacon) serves as witness on behalf of the Church.

In Eastern theology, Christ picks the man and woman for each other, and offers each to the other as a free gift. In keeping with the concept of "synergia", the man and woman cooperate with the Holy Spirit to make the two flesh one in Christ. In this case, the priest is more than mere witness--he is the minister of the sacrament, he stands as the instrument of Christ through the Holy Spirit to unite the man and woman and make the two flesh one. This is why, in marriages between Eastern and Western Christians, a deacon may not officiate at the celebration.

If, then, marriage is a sacrament of the union between Christ and the Church, and of God with man, then the success of marriage is proportional to the manner in which man and woman both "live in Christ", "put on Christ", and thus share in his divine nature. To do this, man and woman must do what Paul says--woman must obey their husbands, husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church. This is true koinonia, since a man who loves his wife as Christ loves the Church will never exploit his position of mastery, will never ask his wife to do something she would not wish to do. And woman, obeying her husband in the manner that Christ submitted his will to the Father's (and Mary stands as the exemplary disciple in this regard), would gladly do all that her husband asks, knowing that he will not exploit his position.

Given, of course, that all men (and women) sin constantly in thought, word and deed, this ideal is seldom achieved, yet it remains as the ideal towards which we strive, and the effort is just one element in the process of theosis by which we are transfigured to become partakers in the divine nature. As theosis is not achieved overnight, so perfection in marriage is not so easily achieved, either. Like monks in a monastery, "we fall and get up again, fall and get up".

[mairnéalach]

Stuart, thank you for your succinct explanation of the Eastern ideal. Your description is compelling. I find much beauty in the Eastern approach to matters of marriage, divorce, justice, remarriage, etc. To complement your words, I like to think of marriage in terms of a ministry of reconciliation, like Christ's to us. The Lord provides the vehicle, but it soon stalls without the fuel of forgiveness constantly applied. Just as his forgiveness heals and instructs us on the path of righteousness, making the seeds for our spiritual fruits, our ongoing marital reconciliations heal and instruct us in the path of connubial bliss.

[mairnéalach]

Dominic, it's difficult, isn't it? I do think that Paul expressed it aptly. Being married is hard work, and we ought to give serious thought to where our kingdom efforts should be directed. It is a high calling--being an active portrait of Christ and his love, and raising a godly seed for the church. Though I believe myself suited for marriage, I continue to keep Paul's words in mind, so I may be attentive to the Spirit's leading. It's easy to lose focus on kingdom work and become mired in efforts to please a mate which are not really legitimate, but really self-serving. I think that's what Paul was talking about. We men often become false hearted knaves when trying to attract or maintain a lady's affections. I think it is because it's so hard to keep our spiritual affections properly trained toward their true consummation--Christ. Our hearts are, alas, too easily distracted. "Let he who has a wife, live as though he had none"--profound and holy words, worthy of a lifetime's seeking to understand.

[Gene Godbold]

"our ongoing marital reconciliations heal and instruct us in the path of connubial bliss"

I think Mairnealach is having an Oprah moment.
(Not that I really disagree ;-)

And Stuart,
Though I've done my darndest, I can't say that even *I* have managed to "sin constantly in thought, word and deed", though I have been known to exclude the patriarchs from the Book of Genesis when a massive brainfart welled up from my cranium.

[mairnéalach]

Holy mother, you're right, Gene. I need to shut up and go have a whisky!

[Gene Godbold]

I suppose marriage has its low points, but, in general, I've found it to be pretty nifty (17 years in Feb). Delightful, even. And if you're perceiving marriage as "work" something is probably wrong.

On the other hand, raising "godly seed" can be pretty trying, especially when the "seeds" are young and vigorous and tackle you at the door. Especially when the head of the "seed" violently impacts its..."sower".

[mairnéalach]

Gene,
It is astounding, isn't it? I was married to a "good Christian woman, who of course did not really believe any of that stuff was true" (sorry to mangle your prose, Flannery). One day she decided that my saying bedtime prayers with our little boy was "brainwashing" him, so she found a good agnostic man like herself to go and marry--divorcing me with heart-stopping flippancy. Following Paul as best I could, I held out reconciliation to her until the moment when she decisively put the covenant asunder. Even with such heartbreak, the seven year union was beautiful to behold--because even in the worst of her scorn Christ continued to reveal himself to me in it. To this day, my brilliant little hooligan of a 4-year old son loves the Lord, and the woman who was my wife continues to snarl, gnash and tries to mold him in her unbelieving image--as "her possession" rather than the Lord's. But because of where the Lord has placed me, he so far has had none of it, and the high points of our time together are in worship--in chapel, at dinner, in backyard--where he is being made into Someone Else's image entirely. It's an incredible story; I've learned so much from it--about fidelity, repentance, unbelief. Work--yes! But that's the merry secret of kingdom work; it's no drudge at all, but is full of praise. There is nothing like doting genuinely over an utterly thankless woman to train a person in the ways of joy... oddly enough. But the Lord works through weakness, not strength, it seems.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Though I've done my darndest, I can't say that even *I* have managed to "sin constantly in thought, word and deed", though I have been known to exclude the patriarchs from the Book of Genesis when a massive brainfart welled up from my cranium.<<<

I admit that I am heavily influenced by the Byzantine liturgy, which constantly reminds us that we sin constantly, and that I am the least (worthy) of all sinners.

[Bill R]

"Especially when the head of the "seed" violently impacts its..."sower"."

Ouch! (Didn't know that could cause a massive brainfart, however....)

[Gene Godbold]

No, Bill, you're right. The physiological effects are quite different.

[Nick]

Mr. Koehl in your response to the article I don't think you overcome Mr. Mill's three points. That these three parts of our sacred tradition have existed for so long just *might* mean something.

I also think you gravely overstate women being treated as just so much property in the Old Testament. They were possessed by there husbands, doubt. This is a tradition that Paul doesn't even lift a finger to overcome and in fact strengthens. However, love abounds. Sarah is loved. Rachel is loved. Even Leah earns a place in her husbands heart. The Song of Solomon is revered as a love story. Husband weep over the loss of their wives. Brothers fight for the honor of their sister rather than selling her for a clear profit. Sampson leads a poor life because of the lack of faith he can have in his female companions (all of them).

I see nowhere that a woman's worth is seen in the Divine Tradition as so many heads of sheep even where the Divine Tradition gives supports certain local customs.

[mairnéalach]

Often, if it's a 4-year old rugby player, the head impacts right in sower's old, um, planter box. Something having to do with relative body heights.

Stuart: Hey man, don't you know we're not supposed to be filling our heads with that outdated old jive about being sinners? It's all about God just wuvs us and wuvs us and wuvs us and doesn't expect much if anything from us, ya know? Get ye out of that old harsh church and into Lakewood, pronto!

[Gene Godbold]

You're a better man than me, Mairnealach. I think I'd have gone postal.

[mairnéalach]

'taint me! I merely woke up one day and realized to my utter surprise that Theosis was taking place. Amazing and wonderful in every respect. Praise God.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Dominic,

"I honestly haven't got the drive or ambition to work at a relationship presently, and have never had. I just cannot muster the necessary focus and sustained energy developing such a relationship seems to demand. Life is too demanding in a thousand other ways, and to date my experiences have offered no inspiration to pursue a mate."

The key lies in setting your priorities, which means in turn having a sense of vocation here. Singleness should not be a default mode due to worldly distractions, any more than marriage should be simply because one desires sex or companionship. What you need to do is spend some concentrated time in prayer for a period, asking God whether marriage or singleness is His calling and gift to you, and then proceed accordingly to organize all the other demands of life around the answer.

[Huh?]

"Old Testament marriage is concerned exclusively with procreation, with the continuation of the family name and the increase of family wealth. It is, in short, a worldly, pragmatic institution."

"And that is what marriage is in the Old Testament--a property transaction. There are all sorts of rules, regulations and customs outlined or implied, but none of them change the basic nature of Old Testament marriage."

What Bible are you reading? One that leaves out Jacob serving seven years for Rachel? And is missing the Song of Songs?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What Bible are you reading? One that leaves out Jacob serving seven years for Rachel? And is missing the Song of Songs?<<<

1. Jacob's labor to pay for Sarah is a contractual arrangement. Such agreements are commonly found in Sumerian and Canaanite tablets of the 14th century BC--the time of the Patriarchs. The deal with Sarah's father also included a transfer of property. It's a very common sort of deal.

2. Song of Songs is either (a) a secular love song that made it into the Bible through allegorical exegesis; or (b) it was allegorical all along, which means it's not really about marriage at all. Either way, it comes from the post-exilic period.

[luthien]

Jacob's labor to pay for Sarah???

[Stuart Koehl]

Sorry. Meant Rachel.

[Bobby Winters]

God made Adam. It was not good that Adam should be alone, so He Made Eve from Adam's flesh. Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. This is the ideal set before us, and it is intended not only for Man and Woman but also for Christ and His Church. Also for the Church of itself in order to show us how two can become one and those of us though we are many can be one in Jesus Christ.

Each age has its way in which we struggle to meet God's ideal of marriage, and God's ideal of unity in the church. God meant one man and one woman for marriage, yet Jacob strayed and took a couple. Christianity has strayed and split on a number of occasions. Yet the ideal is still there before us.

I've just finished shoveling ice off the driveway next door, forgive me if the above is incoherent.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart:

1. Of course it takes the form of a contractual arrangement. However, the difference is in motivation. Jacob wasn't after property, he was after the woman he loved. Otherwise, why the seven more years after he got Leah? You'd think he would have settled. So it's clearly not always "concerned exclusively with procreation, with the continuation of the family name and the increase of family wealth," though it may be concerned about those in addition to other things.

2. Or (c) originally meant as both literal and allegorical, in the same way as it's been interpreted since. It's a possibility, anyway, isn't it? And post-exilic or not, it's still in the Old Testament, so I think it does break down your generalization.

[PETER]

Please ,I need further explaintion with Biblical backup; the way and process of successful dating. Thanks for support.