This entry is in response to a blog posted here. There are about a dozen other entries on the same topic; feel free to browse them for more back story if you have time.
The aforementioned blog has caused quite a stir in our church community. The response has been mostly negative, although there have been a few people who understand where the blogger (Darcy) is coming from. I'd like to show where I agree, where I disagree and also deconstruct some of the unfair criticism that has been flung at Darcy.
First of all, the topic is courtship vs. dating, two very loaded terms. Due to the fact that courtship can mean such a vast number of different ideas to different couples/families, it might be best to stay away from this term throughout this post (as much as possible). Also, the word dating tends to have negative connotations to courtship proponents, so I'm also going to abstain from using that term as well (again, as much as possible). Instead, I'm going to discuss relationship principles rather than using terms loaded with presuppositions which change dramatically based on who is considering the terms "dating" and "courtship". I believe either model can and does work as long as Biblical principles are applied. Of course, if we just stuck to principles, we probably wouldn't have the need for loaded terms. ;)
In her posts, Darcy points out some of the grave errors that courtship can cause. While Joshua Harris' name gets tossed about as an example of what's wrong with courtship, I partially disagree. I've read I Kissed Dating Goodbye twice and Boy Meets Girl once, and I never came away from them believing that Harris was pushing some sort of strict formula for having a successful relationship. I've always believe that he was pointing out deficiencies in the short term, or serial dating, model while setting principles for having a Biblical relationship. These principles never seemed rigid to me, but I can only speak for my male viewpoint. Harris' two books helped me understand how I was viewing relationships incorrectly (I was a short term dating junkie who wasn't mature enough to be pursuing romantic relationships), and offered me a more Biblical way to view relationships.
Now, this doesn't mean that I think Harris is the greatest thing ever. Although I agree with him from a general standpoint, I often found his stories of "good" relationships a little strange. Is a guy really giving his relationship with a girl to God when he's burying the love letters that girl sent him in her front yard? That doesn't sound like someone who has truly let go of his feelings for someone. And seriously, how creepy is it to do that anyways? Another area where I vehemently disagree with Harris is this idea that if you have multiple romantic relationships, you give a piece of your heart to each of the people you have a relationship with. I've been in multiple relationships, and can honestly tell you that not a single one of those girls has even a sliver of my heart. I am fully cable of putting my whole heart into my relationship with E, and I am not fearful of my past girlfriends showing up at my wedding so they can each take a piece of my heart. Did breaking up hurt? Sure. Does having past relationships affect who I am? Definitely, but I wouldn't be who I am if those relationships hadn't happened. I learned from them, grew and matured. I needed the bad relationships so I could understand how to have a proper relationship with God and with the opposite sex. And by saying this, I'm not advocating going out and having bad relationships on purpose. But I do think that sometimes, our attempts to avoid pain and hardship rob us of the ability to grow.
I believe the biggest reason Harris's name often gets trampled on by courtship detractors is not so much because what he says is wrong, but because he is the most recognizable name when it comes to discussing courtship. Courtship proponents such as S. M. Davis and Doug Phillips teach a style of courtship that is completely controlling and authoritarian and is closer to betrothal than anything else. These teachings are what many detractors who aren't very familiar with the idea of courtship tend to believe about courting. Unfortunately, Harris often gets pinned with these types of beliefs even though he has never taught them. I'm not saying that Darcy hasn't had some bad experiences with the teachings of Joshua Harris, I just don't believe that what Darcy experienced is really the essence of what Harris was trying to teach. Maybe Darcy is more critical of Harris than I am, or maybe her parents totally misunderstood what Harris was trying to get at, but I've never seen him as the main problem with courtship teachings.
I was not brought up in a home where my parents taught us courtship from a young age (although that did come along once I hit my teen years), and, obviously, I'm not a female, so I'm not really qualified to speak on Darcy's discussions about how these teachings can be emotionally scarring to women, but I've witnessed and read about enough courtships where the ideas of patriarchal headship and parental authority have been taken to such an extreme that the parents consider themselves autonomous and are not accountable to anyone. (Sometimes, they are accountable, but the church they are attending puts parental authority on such a high pedestal that unless the abuse is extreme, they don't do anything.) I can agree with Darcy that I've seen a lot of pride and self-righteousness in how some parents handle courtships, and this is a major issue for me as a guy who's currently in a courtship and for a man who will someday be a father. I don't want to be overbearing or unBiblical in how I deal with my children and their romantic relationships. Darcy is completely right in calling our attention to the abuses that courtship teaching has caused in some cases.
It seems to me that the points that Darcy is making should cause us to objectively and critically consider whether the way we, as parents and as couples in a romantic relationship, are handling our relationships is Biblical, or if we've gotten to the point where we're pushing legalism on others. Darcy's points are not made any less valid because we do or don't agree with how she's handled situations in her past, and unfortunately, much of the discussion surrounding Darcy's blogs have not been about the validity of her points, but rather, about how we should ignore her points because she was rebellious, or because she's cynical, or because we have a tendency to get overly defensive about something we really care about. Just because you've gone through "dating hell" doesn't mean that courtship is the only option. There are plenty of people who have dated and are emotional healthy and plenty of people who have courted and are now forever emotionally scarred. There are no rules or formulas that guarantee avoidance of emotional pain. Whatever you want to call it, dating (and yes, I have no problem with dating as long as there is accountability, transparency and parental/pastoral counsel involved) or courtship or some other term, it shouldn't matter, as long as we're practicing Biblical principles.
18 comments:
Excellent post. I think you gave a very thoughtful and balanced review of the issues at hand. Kudos!
Thank you for posting this! I wish we all could be so objective whether we agree or disagree on any given issue.
Excellent thoughts. :-D
Jason, do you want a mega-comment?? Cause you know I can deliver.
Sure. I know you love to wax eloquent.
Hrm...How do you feel about graphic language?
Mebbe I'll save that bit. It is kind of a central point tho.
Will a 1228 word comment load?? I was being briefish.
I'm going to post in two parts. If it doesn't work we might be looking at a blog response.
So you know how I was talking about reconstitution of “good old days”. I do see that all over some elements of this movement. Like my comments about fundies, I'm seeing an attempt to yoke obedience to parents, parental headship etc to a specific cultural expression of the same. That is however inappropriate and short sighted, ultimately making Christianity the Victorian Imperialist religion hated by many. For those who didn’t get the memo, Victoria has been dead a while.
The comment I tried to post on the girl's blog was "Jesus didn't come to bring us the 19th century for eternity". Christ transcends such things and to tie him to them is to truncate the power of his work. I know several secular humanists who fault Christians with being mired in the 19th century and wanting to force everyone to go back there with them-even on serious issues of morality. We don’t need to hand them that on a platter on secondary issues.
And the 19th century was no golden age-nor are it's principles ones that are necessary right or even safe. Children under the headship of the father meant he could do with them as he pleased, just as he could his wife-which often meant beatings, cruelty and neglect. There’s a reason child protection societies were being formed at this time. Too bad those people ruined the golden age.
I don’t think the sentimentality adds anything to Christianity either. It makes it more a pietistic system of guilt with (in this case at least) girls bearing the intolerable weight of spiritual keepers of virtue (as noted, at the time men were to aspire to be like women and women like angels). It also ironically devalues women as bearers of the imago dei because female value is tied directly to purity (here is where I’d mention some stuff I’m redacting). Remember the Victorian society was one where it was acceptable to use a woman with impunity if she wasn’t “respectable”-the very term tells us women who are less than angelic are worthless and you do not have to respect them. The attitude also tries to erase the work of the gospel, by forcing girls to try to maintain complete purity in and of themselves. Recipe for worldly sorrow right there. Not to mention the denial of our sin nature that pretends this is even possible. That’s what I think the original blog is ultimately getting at. The lack of gospel for the already saved.
And as I said, the reaction is ultimately often shame culture posturing. Wrong and right don’t even enter into such equations, only the group’s will and your disobedience. I’ve often said the one who makes personal attacks really has no argument, but in this case I would argue the purpose isn’t to prove she is wrong, but as said, to shame her for rejecting what the group has chosen as the only appropriate expression for mate selection. If they are to save face, they must attack and denounce the deviant. As I mentioned this is the same motivation for so-called honour killings. Women are the property of their men and don’t DARE shame them. And yeah I do think the argument would look different if she were a man-but as you said, no man would make the points she did because what she speaks to is female experience.
Anyway I think that regressive attitude is surfacing in the comments. She has proven herself to be deviant (even though she is without any real wrongdoing other than rejecting the group norm and exposing its problems) and must be punished as women of her type deserve. Especially since she gives the lie to all the "proofs" that are touted for why this method is better. She shames us and rejects our authority. Thus she must be silenced or others will join her.
She is, in essence, a warning.
Success!
I'm having difficulty editing the other half of the comment. I'll wait to see what you say about that before I post it.
I think your point about shame culture really nails it home. That's one of the things that really bothers me. I don't see it as being any different than politicians who refuse to discuss talking points and instead, mud sling their way to victory. That's usually a very frowned upon tactic in politics, so why should it be used to settle disagreements in the church?
I'm sparing ya here Jason.
Now. To what she actually speaks to. As you know I thought “guarding your heart” referred to sexual acts, because of the way people will justify perversity by saying it’s not really sex if it’s oral, or it’s a hand-job or whatever. And in that context the warnings made sense. You’ve corrected me of course, and this is one of the most problematic aspects (of many) in my opinion.
As stated it would appear a girl's only value is her purity. She becomes little more than the sum of her parts. This is of course nothing new. But the sentimental overlay appears to me to compound the effect. Now it's "spiritual purity" in view-and showing indiscriminate love seems to be basically likened to spiritual or emotional whoring. HUGE problems with this, similar to the problem I have with most conceptions of “emotional affairs”. This is how people are controlled by abusive mates-through isolation from all others, forcing the abused to rely on the abuser alone. So it’s said in many different ways-“If you love anyone else you do not really love me”. And thus a veritable idol is made of the abuser.
Yet men are to love their brides as Christ loves the church. He does not control or manipulate in this manner. He gives ultimate worth to the one who is NOT pure. There is a sense in which he does demand fidelity (as we see in Ezekiel in reference to idolatry) but at the same time he demands we love our neighbours, and that promiscuously. I would argue that the advice flies in the face of that.
The parable of the Good Samaritan really does crush the thought of guarding one’s heart to pieces. I’ve long felt that the priest and levite who left the man dying were, to use the term in question, guarding their hearts-saving themselves from uncleanness in touching someone who was probably already dead. They were remaining pure to God. Yet it is the one who was already unpure by virtue of being a hated minority who was praised. Who was a neighbour? The one who showed mercy.
Jesus doesn't say guard your heart. He says go and do likewise.
To encourage otherwise creates a merit system that devalues and uses other people. There’s the incurvatus-even good deeds are really about me and my righteousness. Yet we should be promiscuous in our grace and love, not thinking of how this might make ME look better or worse.
So is it more important to guard your heart or love your neighbour? I think they will, in many cases, be mutually exclusive because love does include risk or it really doesn't mean anything.
Then too, Christ never guarded his heart. He showed love for all who came to him, even sinful women with whom his interaction was seen as untoward. He lowered himself before all of creation and redeemed a seedy sort of people. If indeed we love because he first loved us, then our love will look like his, and it won’t protect us from harm at all. It won’t protect us from reproach and rumours. It should leave others saying “doesn’t she know who she’s talking to???”
He did not protect his purity by avoiding those who may taint him, but by the power of his divinity made the unclean clean. And now, to we who ARE pure, these things are pure. That people are being taught the opposite is a shame.
I can understand the desire to protect your children emotionally when it comes to romantic relationships, but I think that type of teaching can go too far to the point where we're teaching our children to hide from the outside world. I know not everyone approaches courtship that way, and I don't think it's wrong to desire to protect your children. However, I think it's good that we're open to being mindful of what we're doing and ready and willing to let people critique us both to keep us honest and to help us to better how we act.
Very good thoughts and thank you for being so polite. :) I wish everyone who's talked to be about this could disagree in a kind manner like this. :)
Well as for protecting children, I think you've opened another can of worms Jason.
There's a joke that goes around in this day of antibacterial everything, that kids need to get dirty or they're going to be sickly-so let them eat dirt. Thing is, there's evidence that it's actually true. In the early years, exposure to microbes is vital to the function of the growing immune system, especially when it comes to cell mediated immunity, which has a memory (this is the principle vaccination is based on, as I'm sure you know).
The comparison is that you may actually be doing your child a disservice by sheltering them. And in my experience sheltered children often have difficulty relating in the outside and decidedly non-christian world. Yeah they have some advantages in that they've never gotten this or that sickness. But their body doesn't know how to handle it when they finally do come into contact with it.
So as much as people hate seeing their kids hurt, it is a necessary part of maturing. And generally we consider "broken hearts" from innocent crushes to be part of that.
And I'd also say that there's a second problem in that some really seem to think that applying the right principles will always result in this safeness. Except that they don't.
People will often deny they're being formulaic-I think it really is unintentional, but they are conveying to their children that if they just do a, b and c, things will be well. If they select a mate using a different formula, well, don't blame us when it all goes pear-shaped.
There are some interesting assumptions at play here. First obeying your parents means it will always go well with you. And second using a particular method means it will always go well with you (eg you'll have a good marriage).
But that doesn't take into account that as Christ said, Moses allowed divorce because people's hearts were hard. That is, marriages were arranged by parents and yet...they still ended unhappily. Why? The right formula was used. How could they have failed?
Because our hearts are hard. There is no way to avoid this kind of suffering, not only because we are still sinners, but because the people around us are also still sinners.
So letting your kid experience stuff on the small scale when it comes up (because it WILL happen) I think needs to be looked at like a vaccination-a little pain now saves them from being utterly destroyed by it when they come against it in real life.
And experience can often make us humble-this is the very type of redemptive suffering that we enter in to with Christ.
We've discussed a lot of these issues in depth, and you know I don't disagree. Of course, knowing the theoreticals and actually applying them in practice are two very different things. I'm sure it's very hard as a parent to resist the urge to completely protect your child.
Meh, I think resisting roasting them on a spit would be harder.
Just saying.
Wow that's a lot of comment. You know my thoughts. I'd echo Char's thoughts here on most counts. Parenting like most things evolves as you get "better" at it, and that probably includes giving them a bit more freedom. It's an adventure anyway.
Just make sure the guy trying to date your daughter knows you're not afraid to go back to prison and he'll be fine.
Mem is just trying to share my limelight. You can have the condemnation mem.
Jason when are you going to post another blog for me to comment on?
Post a Comment