Dating vs Courtship.

Inasmuch as it is possible, the unmarried man and woman should go directly from being “asleep” (no romantic involvement with the opposite sex) to being “awake” (having a wife/husband).
truelovedoesntwait.com/general-biblical-issues/definitions/what-do-we-mean-by-betrothal/

I just saw your comment, Nathan, after I was going to post this. :P

http://truelovedoesntwait.com/the-path-to-marriage/young-marriage/take-a-wife-in-your-youth-foolish-boy/

http://truelovedoesntwait.com/the-path-to-marriage/a-small-correction-to-the-courtship-graph/

http://truelovedoesntwait.com/general-biblical-issues/the-authority-of-the-father/to-betroth-or-not-to-betroth-a-response-to-michael-pearl-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-318

http://truelovedoesntwait.com/the-path-to-marriage/the-binding-covenant-of-betrothal/an-open-letter-to-my-christian-brother-concerning-his-quasi-committed-relationship/

Please read these! They are making it a lot clearer to me what courtship and betrothal mean.

Courtney, I talked to a man who courted yesterday and he said that lust depends on the person, not the method. If you're in love with someone, there're probably going to be temptations to lust. He also recommended that I not ask anyone about it to avoid making them awkward, which I had already thought of; so I decided not to carry out that experiment.
As for that quote you posted: I don't know about you; but for me, marriage before love would be very awkward. Gross!
Also, sorry; but I really don't have time to read all those articles. I've already checked out the graph thing; and I'm sorry to be rude; but I think that is absolutely ridiculous. All they were doing was talking with parents, which would happen anyway, and the article made it look like they were watching an X-rated movie! And the sexual graph going up doesn't mean they're having some mad passion or anything. The feeling graph going up isn't bad. They're making courtship look like some cult or a hypnotic drug! However, I may not need to read them anyway; because… your comments about getting hung up over stupid stuff that won't affect marriage in the long-run has really made me realize that this whole betrothal thing has some great things about it! I've always been kind of nervous at the thought of being a match for her. So maybe marrying before you know the worst of each is actually not a bad–is actually a good idea! You just did something few people ever do! :-D Good job and thank you! I'm convinced! That part of it is wiser than what is done in courtship–but courtship is still admirable.

Dani, I totally agree with that quote you posted about relationships! However, even if a relationship is intended to be about marriage and is sincere, I think it should be avoided until the people are ready for marriage. But if teens are in love and are setting wise standards, there's nothing unwise about it. That person may be drawn to someone else, yes—but that can happen at any age; the fact that one is a teen has nothing to do with it. So people of all ages just have to be careful to become consumed by love.

Carissa… I'm proud of you!

Here's the conclusion I've come to: WE NEED SOMETHING IN BETWEEN COURTSHIP AND BETROTHAL.

I know…..DATING!

What is this cult anyhow….'truelovedoesn'twait'.

Probably where Jim Jones got his relationship advice

This is Dating vs Courtship

Not Courtship vs Weird Silly and Stupid Arranged Marriages

It's not a cult, Noah…

Nate. This is Noah. You took him seriously?

Excellent point, Noah. But betrothal and arranged marriage are something different, from what Courtney is telling me. Other people might do it in different ways… not sure.

@Sam, I knew he didn't literally think it was a cult.

Hi, Courtney! I am sorry I have not responded yet to your post. I have been pretty sick these last couple days. I was, however, able to read those articles that you posted, and they were very interesting. :)

1. You responded to my first statement by saying that, though there are many who hold to your non-negotiables, that does not mean that more than one person will be attracted to you. I agree with you that this is a possibility. However, it has been my experience that multiple people CAN be interested in the same person and who have similar backgrounds. Thus, it would appear that, under a betrothal paradigm, the "spoils" (pardon the term) would go to whoever asks the father first. Even though the woman might perceive that both young men are interested, betrothal would seem to argue that you should marry the first man merely because he has a few core qualities and expressed his interest first. It allows little room to distinguish KEY differences that do not relate to the non-negotiables.

2. Now, I think it is important to understand what that term means. You stated that they are "everything that would or could cause serious incompatibility with the young woman." This, however, does not sound any different than that for which the blog you quote attacks the courting paradigm. If we must discover "everything" that could possibly harm a marriage, than we, in your opinion, are reaching too high still. One of the main parts of betrothal, according to the blog, is not to investigate every potential problem in a spouse, but rather to make sure only that critical, "red line" problems do not exist. To say that no one can marry someone if there is a potential for serious incompatibility falls into the same trap as that which you accuse courtship of falling into. It destroys what a "non-negotiable" really is. A "non-negotiable," in my opinion, is something Biblically mandated for a marriage (i.e. the man must be a Christian, of the opposite gender, etc.) and would be a sin to allow. It can also include important "vision" things that relate to the overall purpose of the marriage (such as both spouses committed to having children and homeschooling). Then there is something called the "negotiables." now, by definition, "Non-negotiables" implies that there is such a thing as negotiables. Negotiables are those things that you look for in a future spouse, but about which you or your father are willing to speak with the young man. Back to the plane analogy, I would say that, yes, good wings and rudders are necessary, but they're not non-negotiable. The form is still a plane (a man acceptable to marry the daughter). Minor defects (that some planes could fly perfectly well with and with which some planes could crash), however, can quickly become great, and if not rooted out, can become disastrous. Negotiables do not necessarily have to be present in order for you to marry the potential suitor, but it is something that could potentially become an issue and which should be addressed or thought carefully about.

Let's say, for instance, a suitor comes to you. You know he follows God and holds to your other "non-negotiables," but you know that he also has had a history of anger issues (something that is not a non-negotiable). Just because he follows God and meets your non-negotiables (as determined by your father), does not mean you should rush to marry him because you know he has this problem. Time, in my humble opinion, should be taken to prayerfully consider or speak with the young man regarding this. If you feel that God is really leading you to marry the individual (or to help him overcome his problem), you can follow His guidance (it is, after all, a negotiable). If, however, you feel that this is something that could, overtime, grow to be dangerous, I would argue that God would call it foolish to rush knowingly into danger. Anger and violence are not something to simply cast aside, nor are they necessarily a non-negotiable. This is where I think a time of careful contemplation is necessary. The woman (with her father) need to decide and speak with the young man regarding potential tares that are not necessarily biblically-mandated for marriage.

1. I have an important question, though, that I feel has not been really addressed both by the blog and by you. What is the suitor's role in this whole process? It seems to me that what you are saying is that the man can go to the Father of a girl he likes, get his permission for marriage, and marry the girl. There is no period to distinguish whether the GIRL adheres to the non-negotiables! This cannot be determined through the Father (I have known far to many individuals who have made their child seem better or more marriage-worthy than they actually were). Nor is this easily determined simply by observation. On the contrary, at least some time needs to be spent for the man to know whether the girl he is attracted to holds to the same standards to which he himself is held. If the girl must be strict, the man (the instigator of the relationship) needs to be even more so. He takes upon himself the responsibility for the relationship, and if he rushes into a marriages where the girl's standards are high but in which the girl is not truly a believer herself or immature, that is a major problem. Betrothal seems to focus too extensively upon the girl throughout the process, to the extent that it ignores the other half of the conversation.

Courtship does a good job in addressing this issue, as it allows time for both the man and the woman, not merely to hear of or fleetingly glimpse their potential partner's character, but to actually see it. Courtships are generally not long, and they do not (as the blog states) allow the partner into every crevice of the other person's heart before marriage. It does, however, let them see the big picture, to witness the presence of the non-negotiables (affirmed by the woman's father) and to also see some of the potential costs of the marriage (anger problems, impatience, etc.) These things can be prayerfully discussed and potentially resolved before pain comes. This leads directly into marriage.

On the whole, courtship is far less cautious than the blog is making it out to be. It is specifically intended for marriage; however, it allows both parties to see more fully the importance of their decision and to seek advice and guidance from God and others.

I hope you understand where I am coming from. :) I think I understand your position, but please feel free to clarify any mistakes I may have made in my post. Again, I really appreciate your comments. :)

EDIT: Also, I noticed this quote from the website, and I was wondering what you thought about it. It seems different from your description, so I wanted to know what you thought.

"Biblical consent is not the ‘consent’ of dating or courtship. It is not a ‘veto power’ over their father’s decision, it does not presume to cast judgment over their father’s actions. If they fail to consent, they are being disobedient: they are breaking a binding covenant that their father has made. It is adultery, and the punishment for adultery is death. Scripture shows this adultery several times; although it never shows the daughter or son’s outright refusal at the point of betrothal."

This personally strikes me as wrong and unbiblical, but what do you think?

It's not a cult, Noah...

It could be.

I don't see a problem just regular old dating.

I don't see a problem just regular old [datin'].

It depends on how you're datin', I think.

What do you mean by "regular old d____"?

Haha! Not sure how my comment is something to be proud of…but whatever. Thanks :)

I think you are right, that lust partially depends on the person, not the method. The method can have something to do with it, however. And, yes, marriage before love would be very awkward! I agree wholeheartedly!
That's fine. From what I can see, you've been pretty active on that site anyway. :)
I don't agree with everything that graph represented either - but I think it did make a point and have some truth in it.
And just because courtship may not be the best way in every respect doesn't mean that betrothal is the best way in every respect.
I agree - courtship is still admirable.
And after reading that quote Jimmy posted, I know for sure that I am not totally for betrothal! I don't think it is disobedience for the child to not want to marry the one his/her parents picked out. That part makes no sense to me.

I agree with that conclusion. :D I still have to wade through all the specifics, though.

I know.....DATING! What is this cult anyhow....'truelovedoesn'twait'. *Probably where Jim Jones got his relationship advice*

Have you actually read the front page?

I'm sorry you've been sick! I agree - I have been enjoying reading on that website as well.

1. Yes, I agree that it is a possibility for more than one person to be attracted to the same person, but unless this happens at once, it shouldn't matter, right? I think that if, by chance, this happened to me, I would be forced to take a little more of a courtship view of the situation and get to know them both. I do believe that my dad will be gifted with special discernment in being able to tell the very real differences between suitors.

2. My statement, that the non-negotiables will include everything that would or could cause serious incompatibility with the young woman, I think you misunderstood. I meant that the non-negotiables, that my non-negotiables, will be those things that if a suitor did not have, I would not marry him. Period. If, after that test, there are still serious incompatibilities in the marriage, we either missed something important in the non-negotiables, or we are not choosing to love and forgive and work with each other.

With your plane analogy, I believe that my non-negotiables will also include those things which are necessary for a plane to have in order to not crash. I would hope that every Christian girl's non-negotiables would include their suitor being a MAN. :P I think with that analogy, good wings and rudders are necessary enough to be included in the non-negotiables. The non-negotiables (at least mine) will include everything necessary for the plane to fly properly and smoothly. NOT just being a plane. :)

I believe everyone will have struggles in their life. I'm not going to be able to find someone who doesn't struggle with anything. I believe God will give my father and me the discernment and discretion to decide how far the non-negotiables should go. They won't be hard and fast rules with each individual, I think they will change a little with different people who have different backgrounds and different personalities.

1. I'm not sure of the answer to this question. With betrothal, it might be necessary for the suitor to have HIS list of non-negotiables that he gives to his parents and prays about in the girl of his choice. There are other ways to find out about people's character - your siblings or theirs, someone who knows them well, etc. And I think there should be time, but just enough to do what is necessary. There is no reason to draw it out further.

I agree with that about courtship, but I also think that in betrothal, if you have the non-negotiables set high enough, but not too high, that problem is overcome. I do believe God has a major part in this as well - He will give all the parties concerned discernment to make the best choices on different issues, big or small.

The role of the non-negotiables, I think, is to make sure that you are not being too picky with your spouse. To be sure, there is a limited set of those things where you absolutely wouldn't marry someone who had them, but as long as your spouse doesn't have those things, I think you'll be fine. Marriage is for becoming perfect.

I think I understand where you are coming from. :)

I do NOT agree with that post! I believe the ultimate decision should rest in the hands of the child. I do hope that I won't have to use that "veto power", but I think that it is very important the the decision should rest in the hands of the two parties most involved. After all, it is their life. Nathan said it well, that the love in a marriage must needs be voluntary as well. The father shouldn't make the binding covenant until the children have agreed.

That quote really seems to be advocating arranged marriage. I suppose they could say that if the children agree, it is not arranged marriage, but what if the children agree only because they don't want to be disobedient?

It strikes me that way too.

What do you mean by "regular old d____"?

You can type the word dating now. I'm on my tablet now, I was on my laptop last night. :)

I know.....DATING! What is this cult anyhow....'truelovedoesn'twait'. *Probably where Jim Jones got his relationship advice*

Have you actually read the front page?

It would turn me into a koolaider!

Courtney, I think if betrothal is done in the ways you told me, it's about as wise as courtship. But there are several poisons mixed in with it on that website, as well as many outrageous slanders on courtship.

I agree with that, Nathan.

Would you mind expanding on the "poisons" you've seen? I don't think I've seen quite several.

I don't enjoy having to say these things about people; but there were several instances of slander about courtship–such as saying that it is "defrauding by definition," just for one example. Perhaps it can be defrauding in some cases; but nobody's ignorant enough to really believe a generalization such as was made. And betrothal is far more defrauding than courtship ever could be. It is also very legalistic, saying that God teaches betrothal. God does not teach betrothal; they're putting words in God's mouth. Betrothal was the way marriage happened in the cultures of Bible times, and it was practiced by both the righteous and the wicked. Also, it seems to promote the idea that when a father betroths his child to someone, they're married whether they want to be or not. They refuse to use the word "force;" but what else is it to be called if the child must either marry the person or disobey? The fact is: true love is always voluntary. And if the fathers pronounce their children betrothed to each other, that doesn't marry them. Marriage must be voluntary and the vow must be made voluntarily by the person getting married.

Oh; and I forgot to answer a question that was asked a while ago about Isaac and Rebekah. In that culture, that was just one way of doing things; but it was not the best nor worst way. In our culture, doing it the way they did would be dangerous and foolish. Also remember that there was a semi-miraculous aspect (the servant praying for a sign at the well).

Well, "by definition" doesn't necessarily mean that it is always that way, does it? I suppose it depends on how the person uses it.

Wait - if God teaches betrothal (if they're right), then how is following it legalistic? I'm not sure that God teaches betrothal, myself. He did give several examples of betrothal in the Bible though, and we have to assume that He put those there for a reason.

I do not agree with that idea that "when a father betroths his child to someone, they're married whether they want to be or not". BUT, if the child agrees beforehand to this betrothal thing, and agrees to trust their father to pick out a spouse for them, then it wouldn't be force, would it?

Well, there have been many, many arranged marriages throughout history, and those people often learned to love each other, even when they resented it at the beginning. Right?

I do agree that marriage must be voluntary and the vow must be made voluntarily by the person getting married. BUT again, if the child agreed beforehand to this betrothal thing (including the husband/wife relationship as soon as your father betroths you), then it would be voluntary. Wouldn't it?

Yes, I agree with that. But tell me - how would it be SO much different in our culture than in the culture back then?

One thing that has interested me is how during wars, young men would take up writing with a young woman, either back home or from a foreign country. They would get to know each other, and agree to get married, all through letters! Sometimes they would get married as little as twenty minutes after they first met. And those marriages were very strong, too!

Following betrothal is not legalistic; but judging people who don't is. God does not teach betrothal; betrothal was simply the method used by people in those days–both righteous and wicked.

If the child agrees beforehand to marry whoever the father picks, then yes; it is voluntary.

Your comment about arranged marriages is true–God has used arranged marriages for good; but the end does not justify the means.

To do things the way Isaac and Rebekah did nowadays would be foolish; because you can't trust people now like you once could. Jacob warned his servant to pick a wife only from a certain people–I forget the name–but nowadays, you just can't trust people like that. (And even what Jacob did was, to a small degree, presumptuous.) And don't forget the rare act of God at the well.

It is interesting to read about war situations like that. I think that writing is actually an excellent way to get to know someone; because their character comes out a lot. But twenty minutes? What. are. you. doing?! :-)

<blockquote! Sometimes they would get married as little as twenty minutes after they first met. And those marriages were very strong, too!</blockquote>

We're gonna try that. Except we'll make it 2 minutes.

<blockquote! Sometimes they would get married as little as twenty minutes after they first met. And those marriages were very strong, too!

We're gonna try that. Except we'll make it 2 minutes.</blockquote>

#BeatThatSuckers!
xP

True, I agree with that.

You're right. But again, if the child agrees beforehand, then would you still classify it as an arranged marriage?

You mean Abraham? ;) I agree with that.

Yeah. I wouldn't want to do that. Twenty minutes just sounds…crazy. Two weeks even sounds really short. :P

Yes; it would still be classified as an arranged marriage. And this discussion hasn't changed the fact that arranged marriages are generally unwise–for either of us, I trust. So doing it that way is not a good idea. (And yes; I meant Abraham.)

Today, it hit me how the concept of betrothal, as it was practiced in the Biblical era, much better represents Christ's relationship with the Church. A man and a woman get married; then the man prepares a place for her; and when that's done, there's a celebration feast; and when the man takes her home, they consummate.

I am open to differing opinions on this–and I know none of you will hold any opinion that's dangerous. Here are the essential points:
~Man loves woman and prays about her.
~Man speaks to his father about the matter.
~Man and his father approach the woman's father and the woman's father runs the test of "non-negotiables."
~Woman's father informs her of the man's interest in her and encourages her to think about it in a positive light.
~Woman prays for about the matter and considers the man.
~If God draws the woman's heart toward that man, she tells her father that she does want to marry him.
~They make the vows and are pronounced married.
~Man makes all the necessary arrangements for their life together.
~The is a formal ceremony/celebration.
~The man and woman live happily ever after.

This is my idea of betrothal. I personally would prefer to have a courtship process before getting married so I know what to expect; but we would both make a commitment beforehand not to get hung up over things that would have no effect in the long-run.

I think I agree with you on that.

I hadn't thought about that…but yes, it does much better represent that relationship.

I'm not sure about the formal end points of the preparing of the home, the celebration, etc. yet…Mr. Ohlman defines betrothal in one place as the period of time between being married and consummation. I wanted to ask him or someone - why prolong the period of betrothal? I just wondered if you had any thoughts on this.

Doesn't it seem to you that the True Love Doesn't Wait articles seem to be saying that the guy would be a clueless as the girl as to what was going on? (That is, until the parents came to an agreement.) That takes us right back to arranged marriages, though.

I think that would be a good commitment, but wouldn't it be better to be more specific? See, even if you make that commitment, one of the parties might discover something that they feel would have an effect, but the advisers and other party feel that though it is a flaw, it can be dealt with. You can still cut off the courtship nearly as easily, don't you think? That's what I like about the covenantal properties of betrothal - it's not nearly as easy to back out and defraud the other person.

Well, if the guy is the one who started the relationship, that means he only knows that the parents are trying to work something out with the girl–but he marries her against her will, he doesn't truly love her. If the parents are selecting the guy's spouse as well, then yes; he would be clueless. Arranged marriage from any angle; foolish for any angle.

As for your last paragraph: nobody should go against their conscience.

"not to get hung up over things that would have no effect in the long-run."

Like what? The little things such as, the way she eats, how they talk when annoyed, the way they react to stressful situations, the music and movies they like, etc?

Are those things that'll have no effect in the long run?

Yeah.

And that, my not-so-dear Nathan, is where I disagree with you.

Those things do matter, a great deal, as you'll be living with that person for the rest of your life.

Despite all my kidding, I could never marry Carissa due to the fact that we disagree on music.

I'm not giving up my rock and dubstep, and she wouldn't want to trade her classical for any of that.

The small things matter nearly as much as the big things, if not more in the long run.

Agreeing theologically is a given. Agreeing practically is not.

Those things *do* matter, a great deal, as you'll be living with that person for the rest of your life. The small things matter nearly as much as the big things, if not more in the long run.

Agreed.

I have to admit: my first thought when I read what Sam said was "Musical differences?!" Sam and Carissa, that is something that could sensibly keep you from falling in love with each other. However, if two people are courting, and that situation comes up, and they already love each other, it would not be worth rejecting each other over by any means.

Okay, let's use Sam's example. Two people are courting. One likes rock and the other likes classical. Neither wants to give up their favorite style. What to do? You have two obviously simple options. One would be to, instead of giving up your favorite style, learn to also like their style. Compile one's favorite rock pieces and the other's favorite classical pieces and put them on shuffle. Enjoy each other's differences and learn to appreciate what they like; but that doesn't mean you have to give up what you like. The other option is: if the first option just can't work out, the one who likes rock can listen to rock on his own, such as on his was to work; and the one who likes classical can listen to classical on her own, like when her husband is at work. Everybody's happy! Now, musical differences may be one reason Sam and Carissa will probably never be interested in each other; but if two people have already started courting and already love each other, musical differences are not worth rejecting each other over.

Let's use Courtney's example. She wants to have a home business when she grows up; but if her suitor tells her he won't allow that, is it really worth rejecting him just for that–especially if she loves him? Not at all. Any marriage will probably cause changes in one's personality.

By the time you start courting someone, you should know them well enough beforehand to know their musical preferences. And, that's not always going to happen. I don't see Carissa suddenly enjoying KPOP, nor do I see myself rocking to Mozart. And, music should bring the family together. Sure, there'll be differences, and everyone will be able to enjoy their own music on their own, but mostly, they should be agree.

Music doesn't have to "bring the family together." And let's admit it: music just isn't worth rejecting someone over. In cases like you and Carissa, it may be worth not falling in love over; but it should not fail a courtship. Now, like you said, you'll probably know someone's musical tastes when you start courting them.

Besides, a perfect match is not necessarily someone who is similar to you in a lot of ways; it's someone you can relate to and love and cherish mutually. When that happens, you will naturally enjoy and appreciate your differences. If you don't have many small differences, great; but if you do, don't reject them over something like music. Seriously? You would put music over the person you love?

Music is something that affects you on a deep level. If you can't reconcile your differences there, perhaps you don't love them.

Alls I'm saying.

It's the small things that make or break a marriage.

I agree; if you love your music more than you love them, you probably shouldn't marry them.

And if it's the small things that make or break a marriage, what if your tastes or opinions change after you're married? In a long time, it's very likely to happen. And what are the chances you're going to find someone who agrees with you on "enough" small things? Just work out the small things together; it's part of marriage and will probably happen anyway.

Music is something that affects you on a deep level. If you can't reconcile your differences there, perhaps you _don't_ love them.

I'd agree

^Why is it Sam and I everybody does that to…? Facedesk^

Agreeing in theological matters is a given. And agree with you I don't. I think you guys are missing the point of marriage. Can we try to define the purposes of that? Throw out some more if I missed any

1. Children. It is the only acceptable way to "increase your quiver".
2. The man to support and defend the woman. The woman to support and -cook for- love the man.
3. These together are supposed to be building each other up, for the service of the Lord. This last point I think is the most important. Tell me what you think.

Good points, Sauroc; but they should be able to have a good relationship, too. The special husband-wife love is not technically necessary for marriage; but it should be there for the marriage to turn out well. Otherwise, you just never know what will happen. However, Sam is taking it way too far with the whole music thing. Unless both people are very stubborn–and remember that mules can't have children–things like are not, in Courtney's words, non-negotiable.

Actually, Carissa, I do think that if you're going to reject someone because of something so trite as music tastes, you probably don't love them in the sense we're talking about.

Good points, Sauroc; but they should be able to have a good relationship, too. The special husband-wife love is not technically necessary for marriage; but it should be there for the marriage to turn out well. Otherwise, you just never know what will happen. However, Sam is taking it way too far with the whole music thing. Unless both people are very stubborn--and remember that donkeys can't have children--things like are not, in Courtney's words, non-negotiable.

Okay, maybe I went a little overboard. But all I'm trying to say is this: just because two people believe the same way, it doesn't automatically make them compatible for marriage.