Why Courtship Needs to Get Back to Fundamentals: Part 2

In case you missed it... 
Why Courtship Needs to Get Back to Fundamentals: Part 1

Common Problems with Courtship (in my experience)

First of all, I want to clear up some terminology issues. Umstattd made the point in his article that the word “dating” meant something different to some people (like his grandmother) than it does to others (like him). I think the same is true for the word “courtship.” Umstattd makes a list of bullet points which summarize “courtship” in his view, and I think he is fair in saying that they sum up the most common view of most who advocate and engage in courtships today. However, I think it is important to point out that these bullet points do not necessarily reflect the basic foundational principles of courtship, at least how I understand it. But because some proponents of courtship (Wilson, for example) espouse these ideas, I want to make sure I address them.

Playing the “Most Godly” Card

One point that Umstattd touched on briefly (under the heading, “But Isn't Courtship Biblical?”) was the idea that courtship is the "most Godly" way to approach romantic relationships. Here I have to agree completely with his (brief) argument and his conclusions. There are many examples in the Bible of relationships and marriages begun by methods that look nothing like courtship. Just because there is an example in the Bible that follows a certain method does not mean it was an example that God intended us to follow. So because there is no clear model for relationship navigation, I would say that courtship is not inherently more “Biblical” than other methods.

Wilson, on the other hand, disagrees, referring people to his book on courtship (Her Hand in Marriage) to back up his points. As I've mentioned, I have not read the book cover to cover, but I've seen enough that I think I can summarize it. Basically, Wilson's view is that children, especially girls, are under the protection and authority of their fathers until marriage. It is the father's job to guard the purity of his daughters, to screen her suitors, and to be intimately involved in her choice of romantic interests.

This, he says, is the “Biblical” way mainly due to a passage in Numbers regarding the vows. Chapter 30 verses 3-5 reads, “When a woman makes a vow to God and binds herself by a pledge as a young girl still living in her father's house, and her father hears of her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then she has to make good on all her vows and pledges. But if her father holds her back when he hears of what she has done, none of her vows and pledges are valid.” (MSG) Ostensibly, the fact that the passage mentions that the young woman lives in her father's house is proof that all young women ought to remain in their father's house until they are “given in marriage,” a phrase which Wilson also tries to use to support his point. And the fact that the father was given the authority to nullify the young girl's vow supposedly means that he has control over all her decisions.

Granted, Wilson would not put it that way—he tries to soften his argument by saying that a father needs to be understanding and loving, and that's all well and good... but I'm sorry, this passage by no means places any command over Christians of today regarding the way that their lives and relationships need to be conducted. Wilson seems to take the view that Jewish culture had a corner on the market for How God Wants Life to be Lived.

For example, in another of his books (The Federal Husband, which I also haven't fully read), Wilson spends the last few pages pontificating on how we need to make our wedding ceremonies more “Biblical.” One point he makes is that weddings in the Bible typically involve feasting for days on end, and because we usually only have a few hours for a reception, this, in his opinion, is “clearly something we need to work on.” (p. 107-108) Pardon me? Are all Jewish traditions binding on me? Apparently not all, for a page or so later, Wilson admits that no one wants to return the tradition of consummating the marriage on the premises of the wedding (agreed!). So why must we “work on” including feasts in our wedding ceremonies but not follow other Jewish traditions, such as holding the wedding by surprise in the middle of the night? This is also “Biblical” (see Matt. 25, for example), and even contains much meaningful symbolism and parallels to the second coming of Christ. Why wouldn't we want to do that? Simple: because it does not fit our culture, and there is no command over us to follow the cultural traditions of an ancient society.

This applies to the cultural traditions on which Wilson's argument for courtship is based as well. As Umstattd rightly points out, most arguments for the Biblical nature of courtship really offer greater support for arranged marriage. I'm not saying that isn't a valid option for some people (especially in other cultures), but I don't think most fans of courtship are advocating that. So if we are modifying the method anyway, why can't we modify it a little further?

The bottom line is, we may be able to take ideas from Scriptural examples and cultural traditions mentioned in the Bible, but they ought not to be made into hard-and-fast rules of conduct. There are many viable ways of approaching romantic relationships, including several different examples in the Bible. We just have to do our best to trust God to lead us down the path that is right for us.

Overbearing Parents

This point is closely tied in to the last one. I have heard several stories of parents who get far too involved in their childrens' love lives... turning away perfectly good options for suitors, making strict lists of rules for their children to follow during their courtship, even setting out to tear established relationships apart because they've decided they don't particularly like the person their son or daughter has chosen. I can understand why some people, perhaps even Umstattd, have a very bad taste left in their mouths regarding courtship when it involves parents such as these.

Yet Wilson thinks this is not a problem with the system, but the user. As regards courtship in general, I might agree... but as for the level of parental control that Wilson himself advocates over a child's romantic relationships, I would agree with Umstattd that this version of the system, though it may still work for some people, is indeed fundamentally flawed.

As we have seen, Wilson would argue that fathers are guardians of their daughters' purity and are the authorities over their daughters' relationships. While we know that ancient cultural traditions are not binding on us, doesn't the Numbers passage above prove that daughters at least ought to remain under the father's authority until marriage in this way? No, it doesn't. Explaining that in detail is beyond the scope of this post (perhaps another day), but I will summarize.

First of all, you'll see that the verses specifically say that a woman is under this authority “as a young girl.” Several commentaries indicate that this phrase speaks of girls under the legal age (in Jewish culture) of twelve. I think most of us can agree that it is appropriate for preteens to remain under their parents' authority!

After this age, however, it was a different story. John Gill, quoting another author, writes: “[O]ur Rabbins say, [a girl] of eleven years of age and one day, her vows are examined, whether she knows on whose account she vows and consecrates, or devotes anything; one vows a vow that is twelve years and one day old, there is no need to examine them.” In other words, in the case of a girl who was of the proper age (12 or older), any vow that passed her lips would be binding. She was an adult in the eyes of Jewish law and would be permitted to make her own choices without input from her father.

Granted, the fact that arranged marriages were still common implies a certain level of parental control over the match. There is some evidence that the children were able to give their input (also beyond the scope of this post), but ultimately, that is beside the point when (again) you realize that cultural tradition does not equal Biblical command.

I would agree with Umstattd that the role of the parents in their childrens' relationships, at most, ought to be that of an adviser and mentor rather than a guardian or matchmaker. Why? Because, as my dad likes to say, as parents, we are not raising children—we are raising adults. Adults need to make their own decisions, and those who are on their way toward adulthood need practice in making their own decisions. Will they make mistakes? Almost certainly. But so will we as parents! And we cannot insulate them from pain forever. Pain is unavoidable... it is a part of growing up. We cannot allow the fear of our children experiencing pain to stunt their growth. In some cases, our over-protection can cause more pain than their own mistakes ever would have. If we tug at the leash in an attempt to prevent them from making mistakes, they will tend to tug back and may resent us for restraining them. If we allow them the freedom to make mistakes, however, they will tend to come back to us for help.

So, as Umstattd felt the need to clarify in his second post, I am not saying that parents shouldn't be involved. I believe in most cases it is best if the parents are involved—getting to know their child's boyfriend/girlfriend, giving them input on their choice and on how the relationship is going, and generally just being there to give advice and help wherever the son or daughter may need it. But I believe in general (unless there is a blatant sin issue that needs to be confronted), it ought to be more the choice of the son or daughter to come to the parent, not the other way around. No one likes unrequested advice.

High Pressure Situations

Umstattd makes the assertion that courtship is the rough equivalent of engagement. In at least some circles, I would say that this assertion holds true. With the guy asking the father's permission to court, and with the intention of finding a spouse being forefront on the couple's mind, it can indeed feel like a pre-engagement of some kind.

This was actually the one wrinkle I would identify in my own courtship journey. My dad had experienced his older daughters hanging out in co-ed groups, getting to know guys in a friendship environment, eventually expressing feelings for each other, and then having the guy ask after his daughters once they were already significantly interested in each other. I, on the other hand, was rather awkward and uncomfortable around guys my age, and I never really developed those male friendships on my own. When my husband first expressed interest in me, my dad was hesitant to give his blessing because he felt we barely knew each other (he was right). But I pointed out to him that neither of us were the type who would just naturally get to know each other in groups, as he suggested. And besides, in my opinion, courtship did not carry any commitment other than “I want to get to know you better to explore the possibility of marriage.” If it did not work out, it really was not the end of the world. My dad listened to my thoughts, and in the end we came to more of an understanding on this point.

In order to reduce the amount of pressure on courting (or interested) couples, I think we need to realize is that courtships ending in a parting of ways rather than in marriage does not present a “failure” of the courtship system, but rather a success. If a couple can determine whether or not they would make a good match, it is a successful courtship—even if the answer is “no.” (For those keeping score, Josh Harris specifically says this in Boy Meets Girl.)

So anyway, I agree with Umstattd that these things can be taken far too seriously at times. Even Wilson does not deny this. Where I would disagree with Umstattd, however, is that this is a necessary feature of courtship. I will say that most people I know of do include the asking of the father's permission in their definition of the term. From what I recall, Josh Harris is of this opinion, although I believe he allows for circumstances which may make it impossible or impractical. Personally, I think it is a courtesy thing that many parents appreciate, so it is often a good idea. But I don't consider asking for parental blessing to be essential, at least for adults.

On a side note, though, Umstattd has apparently gotten a lot of flack for saying that girls who direct a guy to their dad ought to be left alone. He has his reasons, and I can respect that... but I can't agree. For me, I did somewhat assume at the time of my own courtship that asking the father was an inherent feature of the system. But I also wanted it that way. I trusted my parents and wanted their advice and blessing. If my (now) husband had come to me first instead of my dad, I would have been thrilled... but I absolutely would have told him that I'd like to discuss it with my parents first, and probably would have wanted him to talk to them as well to see what they thought of him. If he really liked me enough, he would have respected my wishes and gone through with it. If not, I would not have considered him worth my time. So potentially, guys who follow through on the "don't ask Dad first" advice might very well miss out on some quality girls who really just want their parents' opinion. Just because parents might want to be involved does not mean they will force their opinions on the two of you. Mine never did.

Too Many Rules

This point is related to abstaining from sexual activity before marriage, and it involves what some people would call the problem with the “purity culture.” Some of you are already very familiar with this idea, but for those of you who are not, suffice it to say that many feel (and I agree) that in response to our sex-saturated culture, some have swung way too far in the other direction. I'm talking teen girls being called “sluts” for merely holding a conversation with a guy, being told that looking a boy in the eye is a form of flirtation, and that ANY physical (and sometimes even verbal) interaction with the opposite sex is “defrauding their future spouse.” I hope I don't have to point out why these things are utterly ridiculous.

Even when these views are tempered to somewhat less ridiculous levels, there can still be such an emphasis on purity that a young person can feel guilty for merely being attracted to someone of the opposite gender. This kind of mindset can cause a lot of problems for someone wrestling to sort out their romantic feelings. Don't get me wrong—I am a big advocate of sexual purity before marriage, and of trying to guard ourselves from getting too attached to anyone too quickly. But I think there are some common misunderstandings about purity that need to be cleared up. Here are a few of the ones I consider most important...

• As I've said above, we all make mistakes. We can't live life in constant fear of pain or failure.
• External controls only do so much. No amount of modesty can prevent a guy from lusting after a girl. No amount of accountability can keep someone from sin if the desire to sin is stronger than the desire to obey God. The ultimate form of problem prevention is self-control, which comes only by the power of the Spirit.
• While it is always better to avoid sin in the first place, God is always there to forgive us, to wash away the stains and scars and make us whole and new again. Sexual sin (or involuntary violation) does not make us permanently damaged goods.
• There is a certain level of contemplation of the opposite gender that is perfectly healthy and normal. Finding a girl attractive does not equal lust.
• Finally, and most importantly, while what we do with our minds and bodies is important, purity is ultimately more about the condition of the heart. We don't need to worry so much about rules... If our hearts are dedicated to pleasing God, doing honorable things with our minds and bodies should flow out of that desire naturally.

In my experience, many users of courtship are not clear on these points, which can result in a lot of confusion, heartache, and hindrance in relationships... even after marriage. Once again, however, I would contend that these strict purity beliefs are not inextricable features of courtship.

Not Enough Fish in the Sea

Another point on which I agree with Umstattd is that, in my experience, the circles in which many users of courtship find themselves do not easily present them with a lot of options for a mate. This could be the case for a number of reasons, but I would say from what I've seen that most of the time it is due more to homeschooling than courtship. Homeschoolers do not always have a large pool of like-minded friends—some are rather secluded.

However, this is no reason to forgo homeschooling. There are plenty of ways to work around this (also beyond the scope of this article, but Umstattd has some decent suggestions at the end of his original post). The problem for some young people is that their parents have such strict rules about parental authority and opposite sex interactions that they are not free to take advantage of these options. Basically, this problem can happen as a result of all of the above issues.

So to sum up, I would agree with Umstattd that the above features and beliefs surrounding courtship—what he seems to believe are the fundamental principles—are indeed fundamentally flawed. I hope I have showed sufficient reasoning to help make it clear why I draw this conclusion. But as I have said with each of these, I do not feel that they represent the heart of courtship itself. More on that in the next post...

Why Courtship Needs to Get Back to Fundamentals: Part 3