Courtship/dating

[Hetta]

I found this a very interesting article. I did date and didn't do 'courtship' but I am happily married. Of my eldest two kids who are dating, one has set the date to get married next year, while the other states that she will get married around 21/22 to the SO. In both cases, this is the first person that that person has dated and one relationship has lasted 5 years, the other a year so far.

So it seems from this article that courtship has failed, and the writer is very good at enumerating why. These were issues I suspected when I first heard about this policy of "courtship" and only dating a member of the OS you intend to marry.

Thoughts?

Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed by Thomas Umstattd

 

[bluegreysky]

IKR? how do you "intend to marry" someone unless you date them on the reg? haha flawed logic.

I do however believe in marrying your best friend, because you would probably know that person better than someone you only went on dates with for awhile.

I think it's highly important to mix up between going on romantic dates and doing normal stuff. If you only go on dates with them, you will only see the happy good fun time side and not the serious side. What are they like if you go to church together? how about at their parents' house? a day of errands? what about volunteering? how do they interact at work?
Good to know.

 

[Niffer]

I was best friends with my husband before we started dating.
I think using dating as the only way of getting to know the other person isn't the best idea, being friends first prepares you for dating later on..

 

[LinkH]

I found this a very interesting article. I did date and didn't do 'courtship' but I am happily married. Of my eldest two kids who are dating, one has set the date to get married next year, while the other states that she will get married around 21/22 to the SO. In both cases, this is the first person that that person has dated and one relationship has lasted 5 years, the other a year so far.

So it seems from this article that courtship has failed, and the writer is very good at enumerating why. These were issues I suspected when I first heard about this policy of "courtship" and only dating a member of the OS you intend to marry.

Thoughts?

Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed by Thomas Umstattd

If they mean by 'courtship' something like 'going steady' or almost an engagement, I can see how their neo-courtship would cause problems. I have seen a few episodes or series of episodes of the Duggars. I was interested because I have girls and I'm looking into this courtship thing. One of the series of episodes I saw was about the oldest son getting married, and I saw some episodes about two of the daughter's courtships.

One of them was online chatting with a 'humanitarian aid' worker from Nepal. He'd been Jim Bob, the dad's prayer partner for about a year. He'd called him and asked if he could, and Jim Bob would pray for him.

From what I hear, the Duggars are Independent Baptists, part of the patriarchy movement, and into home-school. They sound like the type of family this article addresses.

Jim Bob prayed with this guy for about a year, and he thought the boy might be a good match, personality wise, for one of his daughters. He encouraged them to chat. So they chatted online for a year or so and he invited them to Nepal. They went over there with the cameras, and the young man asked Jim Bob if he could enter into an 'courtship' with his daughter. Basically, it sounds like a pre-engagement type thing. They'd been chatting for about a year. Then he goes back to the US and hires a song writer to write a song about them meeting in Katmandu. The song-writer calls them and asks to sing them a song when they pass him on a park bench, and the guy proposes (all after asking Jim Bob's permission.)

I think this sort of thing can work. They got to know each other before 'courting.' They were basically doing online 'dating'. I think this kind of courtship thing can work if the people have a relationship beforehand, e.g. lots of time together at visits between families or home school conferences.

But if they just meet, see some common shared interests (church and homeschool) and consider each other attractive, ask dad about courting and go into a 'courtship' where they are expected to marry, that doesn't make sense.

In the 'good old days' a girl could court with multiple suitors, couldn't she? In the movies written off Jane Austen and Charles Dickens novels, the suitor would visit the family home of the girl of interest. In one novel, two men show up at the same time. The girl of interest plays the piano. At some point, the man expresses his feelings. If returned, he may ask the father's permission and propose marriage to the girl. Courtship wasn't this serious pre-engagement sort of thing.

I do think our dating culture is messed up. There is a high expectation of dating couples to engage in fornication after a while, and I can understand why Christians would want to re-write the script for dating, courtship, and return to older models. Some of the experiments with it may not quite work out.

 

[Hetta]

LinkH you need to read the article. This isn't about the Duggars.

 

[LinkH]

IKR? how do you "intend to marry" someone unless you date them on the reg? haha flawed logic.

They say they used to do that with arranged marriages. The groom lifts the veil and gets to see what his new bride looks like. Royal marriages could be arranged like that and some regular folk's, too. But I suspect most regular farmers and workers married people in their social network in their community that they knew growing up.

 

[bluegreysky]

Well what kind of life is that? marriage to meet someone else's expectation, not for love. life dictated by someone else and you don't get to choose someone to share it with that feels like a best friend and takes your hand while you tackle adventures together.... your life is governed by business and social appearance and carrying out someone else's legacy. no thank you.

 

[mkgal1]

They say they used to do that with arranged marriages. The groom lifts the veil and gets to see what his new bride looks like. Royal marriages could be arranged like that and some regular folk's, too. But I suspect most regular farmers and workers married people in their social network in their community that they knew growing up.

That's why (in the article) it says that courtship is much closer to arranged marriages (but in a culture that arranged marriages aren't the norm). What the author said he's discovering is....well, you should just read the article, Link.

 

[mkgal1]

Well what kind of life is that? marriage to meet someone else's expectation, not for love. life dictated by someone else and you don't get to choose someone to share it with that feels like a best friend and takes your hand while you tackle adventures together.... your life is governed by business and social appearance and carrying out someone else's legacy. no thank you.

I agree!

There's a quote that goes something like, "Don't allow people to make choices that you have to live with the consequences for".

Nothing should be more personal (and private) than whom we marry. Making it a group activity or family affair completely takes away the intimacy of it (the actual meaning of 'intimacy', not the euphemism).

 

[mkgal1]

I loved this article! It's answered so many questions of mine---mainly about how to right the system that's so backwards (courtship). The other question I'd always had was *what* courtship actually was---this makes that clear why it's so difficult to understand:

After 20 years there still is no general consensus as to what courtship is.

and

The courtship movement eliminated dating and replaced it with nothing. Or, put another way, they replaced dating with engagement. The only tangible difference between an engagement and a courtship is the ring and the date.

I hope that adults will start passing on this mentality (the idea that a date is just a chance to get to know someone better) and that commitment and exclusivity are down the road---not a place to begin. It's also interesting--the idea of not seeing someone twice in a row--actually promotes a more casual and fun atmosphere instead of moving into a serious relationship too soon.

Great thoughts.

 

[mkgal1]

The Bible tells us that we know wisdom by its fruit---right?

Wasn't courtship promoted as a way to avoid divorce and "throw away" relationships, temptation, and heartbreaks? Because.....according to this article....it doesn't appear to be "working"....yet "dating" as was done in the 20's and 30's seemed to have great fruits: less temptation....less heartbreak....more fun......more self-awareness...long-lasting and loving marriages.

 

[Inkachu]

First, let me say that I am a proponent of courtship as opposed to dating, but these terms are so varied and loosely defined, that a person really needs to narrow down what they mean when they're using them.

The article says these are the hallmarks of courtship. I've commented on each of them.

• The man must ask the woman’s father’s permission before pursuing the woman romantically. NO. This has nothing to do with courting, and everything to do with subscribing to patriarchal oppression of young women.
• High accountability (chaperones, monitored correspondence, etc). NO. I have no idea where this idea comes from, but I find it insulting and a bit gross, to have someone hovering around a couple who are trying to get to know each other and have a relationship.
• Rules about physical contact and purity. (The specific rules vary from community to community). I believe rules set beforehand are a great idea, but I believe they should be set by the couple, not by any community.
• The purpose of the courtship is marriage YES. This is the big difference between "dating" and "courting" to me. Dating is mainly seen as fun, hanging out, spending time, no serious commitment or intentions most of the time. Courtship is saying "I want to see if we're a good match for marriage".
• High relational intentionality and intensity Not sure what that means, specifically, but it sounds like they're saying that courtship is supposed to be "jump in and get married ASAP". I don't agree with that at all.
• High parental involvement. Fathers typically hold a “permission and control” role rather than the traditional “advice and blessing” role held by their fathers. NO again. Fathers don't own their daughters nor their daughters' relationships. I do think a suitor should strive to get the blessing of the young lady's family, but it isn't always appropriate or possible. The young lady may very much intend to have a courtship relationship before she marries, but may not have a father around, or may not have a good relationship with him.

Again, these words are extremely broad in their definitions, and it's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly what we mean or what we believe about them without getting into a long and involved discussion.

The article has some interesting points, but seems to contain a lot of hearsay and "I heard" or "I've seen" or "I read about" without citing any actual sources. I think he's trying to cram way too much into a single article, and this topic is just too big and broad.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, this is the kind of thing where I think that Christianity does itself a great dis-service in how it puts such a weird focus on sexual-purity. How could you not see that "courtship" defined this way would have a ton of intrinsic problems that almost doomed it to failure?

The kinds of things the author talks about (with respect to what his grandmother told him) kind of reminded me of the rules I had about dating when I was single. For me - it was very important to distinguish between what I believed to be relationships of circumstance vs. relationships of choice. Far too often I saw people end up in the former - and rarely were they better off for it.

What I mean by that is - I had a lot of rules like "I will not date someone closer than 20 miles to me".

Why?

Because...that was the ideal distance where her driving to see me became an inconvenience - and I could surreptitiously avoid that nonsense by "kindly" offering to drive to see her.

If I drove - then I knew for certain that I would leave at the end of the night. Every time some woman came driving over to my house - there would always be something like "one glass of wine too many" or "one extra episode of Seinfeld too many" - blah blah - and she'd end up trying to spend the night.

Stuff like that are the makings of relationships of circumstance. They start staying over - their stuff starts showing up - it becomes easier for them to stay - and boom - you're in what you think is a relationship simply because that other person is around too much.

When I drove - I knew that I wouldn't drink. I knew that I wouldn't stay later than it was comfortable for me to drive home. Doing that afforded me the opportunity to keep a clear head about what I thought about the girl.

So - I had a bunch of different "rules" to help keep the appropriate distance so that I didn't get sucked into one of those types of relationships. Was a great idea, I think.

 

[mkgal1]

I agree....I think those rules you set in advance were great ideas, too.

I totally agree that people often end up being in what they think is a relationship simply because the two of them are together all the time. That's one reason I liked the rule of not seeing someone twice in a row (although it sounded odd at first).

When I was looking for that quote on not allowing others make our decisions for us when the consequences don't affect them (I never did find it ) ....I found this one:

“I fell in love with him. But I don't just stay with him by default as if there's no one else available to me. I stay with him because I choose to". ~Veronica Roth, Allegiant

That's what I believe marriage ought to be---really *wanting* to be with that person, not by default or merely circumstance.

Choices need to be made when we're informed of what's really in front of us. I don't see how that can be done without *casually* exploring those choices (and courtship seems far from "casual"---which is part of the need for chaperones.....which is creepy and unnatural).

I think you went about things in a very wise way.

 

[Inkachu]

I didn't date my husband. As far as I'm concerned, we courted. We knew almost immediately that we were meant to be together, but we wanted to use our time together to get acquainted and form a good foundation for our future before getting married. I don't think we ever called each other "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" because it was more serious and more intentional than that. I know that he was accidentally calling me his wife by the time we formally got engaged, because that's just how we viewed each other. We just knew. There was no permission from anyone, there was no chaperoning, but we did have rules about physical affection and other things. So it was definitely a courtship and not a dating scenario.

 

[mkgal1]

I used to be fully on-board with the idea of courtship (without really having a grasp of what that even meant since it's not really defined beyond "not dating"....."not doing what others are doing"....and "others" was implied as...you know.....those non-Christians (gasp) ).
I think I had absorbed that mentality by being heavily in the home school/fundamental church environment at that time.

In fact... I dug up this thread from four years ago. The guy was asking about moving the relationship from friendship into something more serious, but I jumped into the conversation of what's suitable for marriage---but this girl the OP was talking about hadn't even been approached about anything other than friendship with the guy. Isn't that a bit premature to bring marriage into it?

*It's kind of embarrassing to look back on my four year old posts...but here it is:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7486623/

 

[mkgal1]

I didn't date my husband. As far as I'm concerned, we courted. We knew almost immediately that we were meant to be together, but we wanted to use our time together to get acquainted and form a good foundation for our future before getting married. I don't think we ever called each other "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" because it was more serious and more intentional than that. I know that he was accidentally calling me his wife by the time we formally got engaged, because that's just how we viewed each other. We just knew. There was no permission from anyone, there was no chaperoning, but we did have rules about physical affection and other things. So it was definitely a courtship and not a dating scenario.

What changed my mind about the idea of "dating intentionally" and "we just knew" was a couple of relationships my daughter went through (and she'd not begun dating until she was 18). People can pretend to be someone they're not for quite a while (not saying all do....just that it's possible). IMO.....we need to not make commitments when we don't know for sure. Knowing "for sure" takes evidence....and it takes time to gather evidence. Like that article said.....we never *really* know "for sure"----marriage is always a bit of a jumping off into something unknown, but we can be as informed as possible (like EZoo said....with a clear head).

I'm of the belief that once we do make a commitment to someone.....it's easy for us to overlook things that ought not be overlooked.

I'm glad it worked out for you, Inka. I just don't think it always turns out that way.

 

[Inkachu]

In fact... I dug up this thread from four years ago. The guy was asking about moving the relationship from friendship into something more serious, but I jumped into the conversation of what's suitable for marriage---but this girl the OP was talking about hadn't even been approached about anything other than friendship with the guy. Isn't that a bit premature to bring marriage into it?

It depends on what you mean by "bring marriage into it". Should he spend five minutes with her and then propose? Of course not! Should he sit down with her and grill her on her beliefs about housework and childrearing? No! But should he keep "could this relationship become marriage-worthy" in the back of his mind as he gets to know her more? Certainly.

I think it's rather insulting to say that people who approach members of the O.S. with the ultimate goal of marriage being part of the equation, are somehow being weird or overbearing or crazy. They're being purposeful and intentional, and that strikes me as a more godly way of seeking a spouse than just trying out a bunch of people like you're trying on clothes, and always tossing them aside when they don't fit the bill, and usually giving them vast amounts of your time, energy, emotions, and (all too often) physical intimacy in the process. I mean, something as commonplace as "kissing on the first date" - that's an idea that is utterly common, even in Christian circles. Do we ever stop and think, WHY on earth would you give something as personal and special as a kiss, to someone you JUST met? That's your body. That's your heart. That's your affection. Those things are priceless and should be earned, not given away! But we do it. And we do it without thinking. I'm saying "we" here as a culture, obviously, not directing that at particular people.

That's what bothers me. The lack of intention. The lack of examining what we're doing and why we're doing it. The lack of valuing ourselves enough to say that we're worth waiting for, we're worth the other person's effort, patience, and exclusivity. And vice versa.

I dunno, maybe I'm just not explaining myself well. I suck at putting things into words sometimes.

 

[Inkachu]

What changed my mind about the idea of "dating intentionally" and "we just knew" was a couple of relationships my daughter went through (and she'd not begun dating until she was 18). People can pretend to be someone they're not for quite a while (not saying all do....just that it's possible). IMO.....we need to not make commitments when we don't know for sure. Knowing "for sure" takes evidence....and it takes time to gather evidence. Like that article said.....we never *really* know "for sure"----marriage is always a bit of a jumping off into something, but we can be as informed as possible (like EZoo said....with a clear head).

I'm of the belief that once we do make a commitment to someone.....it's easy for us to overlook things that ought not be overlooked.

I'm glad it worked out for you, Inka. I just don't think it always turns out that way.

I don't agree that you can't know "for sure" without time and evidence and you can never "really" know for sure. I knew for sure. I still do. All I can say is that God made it obvious. It wasn't something I discovered or found out through time and examination. And yes, I agree, my situation was one that you don't see very often. But I can't help thinking that maybe God wishes He could work that way more often, but many times people just don't allow Him to.

Also, don't mistake me for meaning that I knew my husband inside and out and we had a perfect relationship from day 1, cause that is not what happened lol. We've had some VERY bumpy patches. But what has never been in question is that we were put together by God and we're meant to be together. I didn't have to know him for months or years to know that. I "suspected" it within 24 hours of first talking to him. My certainty just grew little by little after that. It wasn't that I didn't know from the beginning, but I was cautious, I was afraid to hope, I didn't want it to be "too good to be true". I remember saying that it felt like I was along for a ride that I had no control over lol. God said "Here's your guy" and that was that.

I'm certainly not advising that people start marrying the next person they have the warm fuzzies for. I would just like to see more young Christians waiting for that "divine green light" feeling... hard to describe, I guess. It's the difference between "I think I want to marry this person" and "I am absolutely certain that God ordained this relationship". In fact, even knowing that I was meant to be with my husband didn't make me want to rush to the altar. It actually made us both want to be more careful and more cautious, because we knew we had something extremely precious.

Am I making sense? Probably not. Sigh. I should just be quiet.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, and I know that this is a tangent, the part that gets me about the issue is how things get conflated that IMHO ought not be put together.

Like, I've had people ask me in the past what my intentions were with various women I've known that I had absolutely ZERO intentions with (romantically), and it seems that they have a hard time with that concept. It's like for many - if you're talking to someone of the OS - you need to be mindful of those types of issues.

The fact is though - I've known quite a few women in my life that I genuinely liked as people and could have hung out with ad infinitum - but never would have had an interest in for anything other than conversation.

...and for some odd reason...I often found myself in the past having to explain that to people (often with resistance on their part) that had a "courtship" mindset.