Christian Dating

#6

ok a brief word on Christian dating, perhaps a few more later...

I am a strong advocate of Christians dating! I believe that many churches and Pastors misdirect many young Christians about Christian relationships, to the detriment of those young Christians. I have heard Pastors say that you should just find someone and marry them, that theres no need to be selective; or that our desires for specific qualities in people aren't relevant or important or are "un-Christian" ideas to hold. Heres my view - Christians are not merely spiritual beings, therefore to say that we just date on the basis of someones "good heart" or " great personality" is nonsense! Thats about as logical as the statement "if you can't love the one you want, then love the one you're with." The Physicality of another human being, and whether we find them attractive, beautiful, desireable etc...are very important and shouldn't be shunned, as all too many a truly "spiritual" Christian does, as simply being the worldy ideas that have lead to all of our world's problems with body image etc...i also believe that making sure that someone complements the other person (emotionally and spiritually) is also very important, and all of these factors should be taken into consideration before a long term relationship and definatley before marriage are even considered. Hence why dating is such a vital part of the descission making process for relationships and eventually for marriage, for it allows for this process of initial inquiry, but protects us from receiving deep wounds. Soloman wrote many many verses about the physical beauty of his wife in the song of songs, and his wife spoke also of his. God is the creator of physical beauty, as well as emotional and spiritual beauty, so we should not seperate these, as if physical things or physical beauty is not important, for the talking down of the physical is not Christian, its gnostic, and it is a heresy in the eyes of the church.

Dating should be non-committal, casual with established boundries that set out what is acceptable behaviour in order to protect the parties that are involved. It should be about getting to know people on a one on one basis, without crossing into physical contact, like kissing etc. Because that sort of stuff is reserved for a committed relationship that will hopefully begin after a period of dating different people where you come across someone that you have decided to enter into a relationship with and the feeling is mutual. So if i can use a shopping anology, and i think i can...dating is browsing for clothes, going out with someone is buying the clothes and marriage is putting on the clothes, and breaking up is - taking the clothes back to the shop within 10 days to receive a full refund! And i know we've all been put back on the clothing rack a few times in our lives?

So dating is not some worldy meat market that focuses on the really attractive people getting together and all the unnatractive people miss out, as it is so often portrayed by the Church. Rather it is a safety measure to allow people to get to know each other one on one, but still allow for freedom to not go any further, which is so much more caring that going out with someone for a month, being physically intimate and getting our hearts all involved, and then figuring out that we don't want to go out any more, or finding out that they don't want to go out anymore, so we break up and people get scarred. Yet this is the model that the Church has been promoting, and we wonder why our churches aren't getting along as real communities; well one reason may be that its because they're full of broken, rejected people that once went out with each other! Because the system of relational interaction that the church offers is flawed, because it doesn't allow for people to explore relationships, it only allows for singleness or full committment, which is rediculous. People change their minds, they don't see a persons real character for about a month in a relationship, and then feel trapped because they've made a committment - especially if the person they're dating is a part of their social group and breaking up with them may lead to them being isolated by other members of the group. Dating helps to minimise hurt and complication, it doesn't irradicate it, but it allows us to take a risk, and yet have a safety net, and thats what getting to know people should be like.

The only loving thing to do is to establish with a person an honest and open dating relationship, where each party catches up one one on with different people at the same time, getting to know them, but still maintaining those boundries so we protect our hearts (Prov 4:23) as God tells us to. And in the end some people may be a little dissapointed that relationships didn't eventuate, but its a much more loving system than the heartbreak that errupts from the constant break up of committed relationships that happens in churches at present. And at the least we would all get to know each other a lot better, and have some great memories of hanging out together, that may lead to some lifelong friendships!

Mr White

Christian Dating

#5

Dating's a harsh, cruel, and bitter mistress. But people tell me it's fun - so I attempt to join the party. As far as i can see, there are 3 major elements to a "romantic" relationship: Emotional intimacy, physical intimacy, and commitment. The balance of these three things, I believe, is vital to a healthy relationship. Let us look at some types of relationships that are around us.

1) The one night stand/Sex buddies:
These "relationships" have a high level of physical intimacy, usually a low level of emotional intimacy, and an extremely low level of commitment. I'm reminded of the first episode of Grey's Anatomy (the only one I've seen), where after waking up together, one of the "lovers" asks the other their name. Such a relationship has no long term potential, and as such, is embarked upon lightly (where serious things are involved). God's glory is not considered in this kind of relationship.

2) Pseudo Marriages
This kind of relationship may hit alot closer to home for some of us. If we haven't been in one, we probably know others who are. They can happen alot around the church. These relationships have a very high level of emotional intimacy, a lowish level of physical intimacy (making out, hugs...), and a mid to high level of commitment. That might sound ok, but high emotional intimacy and commitment crave sex. And fair enough. A solution is just to get married, and have sex - a viable option (the apostle Paul recommends it). My opinion is, if you're not having sex - your relationship shouldn't be mega intense. If you get to a stage where you start to think: "I love this person - I don't see what's wrong with having sex" - then get married. If you're not sure that they're the one, however, then your level of commitment isn't ready for sex.

The questions "should christians 'date'?" and "is courting a better option" are interesting, but the difference between them is, in my opinion, semantics. The question of what this looks like is more important.

Friendship: All romantic relationships should start at friendship (i.e. you should know them, and get on with them). At this stage emotional intimacy, physical intimacy and commitment are all fairly low. There are often hugs and high fives involved, but not much else. We share with each other stories, and talk about how stuff's going, but don't go much deeper. And while we can't really "break up" with our friends, we can start to phase them out of our lives.

Early dating: This next step starts with an upage in all three areas. We start sharing more about ourselves with the other person (but still hold alot of stuff back). We may start holding hands, or do the old arm around the shoulder at the movies. Commitment, too, goes up. More time is spent with the person, and while at the friendship level we don't have a problem with our friends going out with (dating) people, we might now want the "special someone" to only be holding hands with us.

Mid dating: Again, more of the three areas. We share more, we touch more, we are more commited. These continue to increase until marriage.

Marriage: Before marriage there should be a level of all three areas that we don't breach. In emotional intimacy, there should be things about ourselves that we don't share with our fiancee's (one fiancee per person). In physical intimacy we should hold back our bodies to some extent (i.e. no sex). There should be a level of commitment that isn't reached until marriage - you should be able to break up with your fiancee the day of the wedding (before the ceremony), if that's the right thing to do. However, after marriage, couples should be free to share all of themselves, emotionally and physically, being confident in the strength of the relationship.

These aren't rules - but I definitely believe that it's important to have a balance between commitment, emotional intimacy and physical intimacy.

As for dating in the church, it's hard. It's hard because it's good to start off casually - low levels of all three. But there can be a pressure in the church when people start dating (this can be fuelled by gossip, grrrrr). My thoughts are, keep it casual, and build the relationship - don't have really high expectations for the relationship, but have high expectations of your behaviour in the relationship. Whenever i'm encountering a potential partner, my prayer is always "God, give me the strength to act with integrity in every situation".

My prayers are with you all in such an endeavour as this.

Mr Black

Christian Dating

#4

In seems impossible in contemporary society to even toy with the idea that dating may be wrong. Let us cast our minds back, however, a couple of hundred years ago, or, in fact, back 2000 years ago, to the time of Jesus. From the Bible, we can gather, albeit loosely, that marriage was arranged, intimacy before marriage was frowned upon, and there was little talk of boyfriend/girlfriend relationships. Furthermore, it seems as though commitment always preceded intimacy.

In Western culture, the idea of arranged marriage seems oppressive, against all notions of love, and a violation of any freedom that we have. Yet it is only in Western culture that these views exist. The majority of cultures today still promote arranged marriage, and the culture in Jesus' time certainly did. It was only if the 'passion became too strong', that one should get married. Only after the marriage, could any passion be consummated.

This makes sense, to an extent. To become intimately involved with another requires a certain degree of vulnerability, trust, and sharing of self. Without commitment, it seems rather silly to engage in a deeper relationship. Even today, with our liberal thinking, most would want to be 'dating' before kissing, and dating for a while before going further. Can it therefore be said that certain levels of commitment allow certain levels of intimacy?

Let us look at commitment first. Various definitions give insight as to various meanings of commit, including 'to bind', 'to pledge' and 'to give in trust'. To be partially committed, however, seems to be contradictory. To say 'I am committed to you, unless', 'I am committed to until', 'I am committed to you for a year', or any other variant upon this theme, seems to negate the very nature of commitment. It appears as though one is either committed, or not. This is perhaps where the first point of confusion in a Christian relationship occurs: 'we're not married, but we are committed.' What does that mean?

To base our relationship on the ultimate commitment, that of God to us, seems to rely upon a covenant structure, rather than a contract. A contract is of course broken as soon as one end fails to meet their end of the bargain. A covenant, however, remains in tact. Demonstrable by that fact that 'while we were still sinners, Christ died for us'. Marriage mirrors this sentiment in its vows 'to love and to cherish, in sickness and in health, till death do we part'. Commitment which is not 100% seems not to be commitment whatsoever.

Some would thus argue, that no intimacy should occur until marriage, and few still would hence argue that this includes emotional intimacy: the sharing of deep secrets, and of that which makes us most vulnerable. This said, however, in a friendship, there exists a certain intimacy without any commitment at all; in a close friendship, there exists only implied commitment, and yet a deep intimacy. The pain suffered from a split of this nature would be comparable to that suffered in a broken relationship. No wise man would counsel against friendship, so perhaps emotional intimacy should be encouraged before any sense of true commitment.

A relationship where sexual desire exists, however, that is emotionally intimate, struggles without any physical intimacy, which draws us to another interesting question. Are there varying levels of physical intimacy, or are they all so closely connected that they can be considered one? A passionate, long, deep kiss, could mean so much more than quick sex. Quite probably, the meaning of the physical intimacy would be directly proportional to that of the emotional intimacy. As such, perhaps the yardstick should measure how intimate, rather than the act itself. Does this then allow non-intimate sex? By no means: such a thing, if it exists, cannot be healthy. It does, however, indicate, that intimacy can be a problem without venturing into what is generally considered to be physically intimate.

Where then does this leave the crux of the matter: should Christians date? It seems as though the question remains, although some guidelines may arise. Don't become so intimate that if the relationship ends, you would be deeply and permanently scarred. Do not arouse love until it so desires. Ensure that there is some form of commitment, if only the exclusivity of the partner at the present time. Get married sooner than later.

Mr Grey

Christian Dating

#3

In answer to your first question regarding whether Christians should date, with all the intimacy that goes with that, I believe that yes, it is appropriate. I think that we ought to do our best to be part of our culture, to live in accordance with it, as far as that is possible while still serving and glorifying God. It is therefore more clear when we do differ from popular or accepted culture (such as by refraining from sex before marriage), and hopefully the reason for our abstinence is either clear to those who are around us, or we have thought about it suifficiently to be able to give our reason when questioned. This philosophy applies similarly to our use of money, attitude to other people, particularly those who are seen as 'poor (physically, mentally, socially, economically)' in the eyes of the world, and to hopefully everything else we do.

That said, I also do see the logic in dating rather courting, as it would appear that the chance to get to know each other on a more intimate level than just friendship prior to marriage is a good thing. That said, it can not be denied that the divorce rate is much higher now than it ever was in the history of arranged marriages. Perhaps that is a function, however, of more relaxed attitude to marriage, and a 'do what you wanna do, stuff the consequences' attitude. Perhaps it also says a bit about how much people, and perhaps particularly wives, put up with in their marriage in the past. So ultimately, I think the statistics (more divorces from dating leading to marriage than from arranged marriages) do not paint the whole picture, and that dating is a good concept.

On singleness, I consider it an admirable state of being, perhaps coming more into vogue in popular culture, if not in Christian circles. I also think that there is sometimes a bit of an assumption that the grass is always greener on the other side, that a romantic relationship or marriage is so infinitely better than not having one. This may be true to a limited extent, but I do think that there are reasons for God to call individuals to singleness, and that there are advantages to being single that are not immediately evident, such as independence, and the ability to serve and follow God without having to consult anyone else. Of course, an ideal marriage may display these features too, but who has the perfect marriage?

That will just about do, I think, except to say that dating should, I believe, always be conducted with the knowledge that this may not be the person you are going to marry, despite how infatuated you both may be, and maybe a safe rule of thumb is to always act in such a way that if you break up, you would still be welcomed by their family into their house and a friendship would still be possible (this eventuality ought to be established by your conduct throughout and at the termination of the relationship, rather than being pursued following the termination of the aforementioned relationship).

Mr Green

Christian Dating

#2

I think everyone should be having lots and lots of sex. No, i think dating's fine, should not be a long process, commitment, then intimacy (ie, intimacy is a reward for the commitment). Relationship's should be based on a love for god, and his word should be used as the practical basis for the relationship.

Mr Blue

Christian Dating

#1

My father once said to me that I should date as many girls as I possibly could at the one time… after my initial shock I soon gathered that what he meant by ‘dating’ was far different to the modern ideal. In many churches there is the idea that there is three distinct categories of heterosexual interaction. Friendship, dating and marriage. These categories are clearly defined and the step up to the next level of the relationship is relatively public at each step. This is convenient because the Church community can easily monitor each relationship and assumed, often wrongly, that each relationship falls neatly into a defined category.

However in real life relationships do not progress as simply as this, there is often no defining moments where a friendship turns into an exclusive dating relationship. And nor should there be. During the initial stages of the courting procedure (courting is not an event) friends can enjoy flirting, and dare I say it even kiss, without deserving the title of dating. Instead of seeing sexual relationships as three distinct categories I suggest that we should look at relationships as a continuum of commitment and intimacy (and later passion) all that should proceed at roughly the same rate. When reaching a psychological hurdle like becoming ‘ an item’ in a dating relationship, this natural progression of commitment and intimacy can be disrupted. The title of dating should have less emphasis and does not imply love, or too much commitment. These come later in your dating relationship, and do not materialise as soon as you are ‘going out’.

How long should a dating relationship last before you get married, or breakup? Let's assume that these are the only inevitable options, marriage or breakup. Lots of Christians get married young and that's fantastic. You should go out with someone for as long as it takes for you to establish whether you can marry them. As soon as marriage ceases to become an option, you should breakup.

There are reasons why people stay in long-term relationships even though they don't consider their partner as a suitable person to marry. People fail to choose to breakup through fear, fear of being lonely, fear of not finding anyone else. Fear, albeit an incredibly effective motivator, is a dangerous one.

Take as long as you need to take to either rule out marriage or to affirm it. Once you reach this point, breakup, or get married.

Christians can enjoy their sexuality whether in a friendship, dating, or married. However the level of passion, commitment and intimacy should all coincide. Sexuality need not be repressed if not in a dating relationship, just expressed a different way, perhaps through flirting. It is not okay for Christians to repress their sexuality or to be frigid. The phenomenon of the Christian massage is an example of Christian’s denial of their full sexuality, through the so-called innocent act of giving your friend, probably of the opposite sex, a back rub. Sexuality CAN also be innocent, and CAN be expressed without shame in the eyes of God. Who said sexuality was not innocent, God? No! It's just that in today's society media often shows explicit sexual behaviour, which is definitely not innocent. It is the job of modern-day Christians to take sexuality back and to practice it innocently and in good faith, not to deny it.

Mr Pink

Welcome!

welcome

to the official

wise men of the round table

discussion site

please refrain from any:
- any personal attacks;
- derogatory comments;
- abuse;
- obscene language;
- generally unhelpful conduct.

by posting here, you acknowledge that people reserve the right to change their stance,
and whilst arguments may arise, the nature of this discussion board is not to argue, but to explore concepts and ideas from a christian perspective, always relating back to the bible for scriptual evidence.

please keep topics based, if only somewhat, around the original guidelines. if new topics arise, please move discussion to a new thread.

i hope this helps you all to question aspects of your life, and live a more christ centred life.

may god continue blessing you,

tim