I admit it: when I tell people I am attempting to write a book on dating, I get defensive. I feel obliged to offer a reason for this book's existence. This section is that defense.
In other words, my goal is to contextualize my work in the conversation that has been going on the last ten years within evangelicalism about these issues. My goal is to offer a fair appraisal of that conversation (and its participants), and to help my book stand out.
I spent the better part of my youth in
Western Washington, but when the time came to depart for college, I
headed down the coast to Southern California. I was ready to trade the
cold and wet winters of Washington for the warmer climate of gorgeous
Southern California-and the beaches and women that went with it. I
eventually persuaded my parents to let me take one of our cars down to
Los Angeles, a large Ford sedan fit only for a poor college student.
On one particular trip down the coast, I arrived in California's
Central Valley in time for a fog that was truly impenetrable. As I
crawled along the interstate, I was routinely passed by cars going 20,
30, or even 40 miles faster than I. Though to my knowledge no one
wrecked that night, I was astounded by many of the drivers'
recklessness.
The world of romance is similar to my
experience that night. On the one hand, there are people like myself
who move slowly out of fear of getting hurt. On the other hand, there
are those who are screaming down the road, oblivious to the danger that
they are putting themselves and others in. Around us all is a thick,
virtually impenetrable fog obscuring our path. For most young people,
"the right way" to find a spouse is shrouded in mystery.
The
problem of finding an appropriate route through romance is partly due
to the nature of the decisions involved. The factors to consider can
be overwhelming: compatibility, parental advice, relationship with
God, future plans and goals, sexuality, the will of God, emotions,
history, occupations, friends, the importance of families, timing,
character, children, etc. Whether consciously or unconsciously, these
issues affect all romantic relationships. Keeping all these factors in
mind and making responsible, informed decisions can seem an impossible
task.
Rather than clear away the fog, Christians have frequently
intensified the confusion. We have the additional task of wrestling
with the "Biblical" teaching about dating. Does the Scripture sanction
one way of finding a spouse? Is ‘courting' the Biblical model? What
does the Bible say? In the last ten years, a cottage industry has
developed around answering these questions. The topic has become a
staple of youth group lectures and dinner conversations for college
freshman and unfortunately, such conversations are often volatile.
Opinions on the matter vary and are deeply held.
The most prominent voice in the conversation about the Bible and dating was Josh Harris's bestselling I Kissed Dating Goodbye. Now over ten years old, I Kissed Dating Goodbye was
a call to replace secular methods of dating with the more traditional,
Biblical notion of "courtship." Not long after the release of I Kissed Dating Goodbye, responses and alternative models of Christian romance began to appear. Vigorous debate has ensued over within evangelical Christianity over
the appropriate way to find a spouse. Unfortunately, there is still no
widespread agreement over what ‘dating' and ‘courting' mean, what
Scripture teaches, and how to apply the various perspectives. Most
young people remain in the fog.
The "dating debate" grew out of
a response to an apparent problem: young people were entering romantic
relationships that lacked direction and purpose, pursuing love and
romance with no intent to marry. In addition to taking young people
through lots of needless emotional pain, these behaviors potentially
hindered young people's ability to remain married. By repeatedly
ending relationships when the emotions fizzled, young Christians would
build a habit of running away when things got tough, a habit that could
increase the likelihood of divorce.
Regardless of whether Harris and others intended it to happen, the conversation about dating has been framed around the decisions that young people make about relationships and the proper institutions
for romance. Should young people ‘define the relationship?' How do we
know we are ready to marry? How do we know who to marry? Should I ask
her on a date or be friends first? Should the parents be involved?
These are crucial questions. But they are primarily oriented around
the proper behaviors of romance and the systems which
aid decision making. In other words, they focus our attention on
externals. And as such, they are ultimately insufficient.[2]
It may be counterintuitive, but the most important issues of romance are not the decisions that we face but the beliefs that we have. The heart and the mind-these are the root of the problem. Everything else is secondary.[3] We make bad decisions because we think badly about ourselves, our world, and God. "What should I do?" is
an important question. But the more important question is, "What
should I believe?" My intent is to avoid the intramural
squabbles of ‘dating' vs. ‘courting' or any other form of finding a
spouse. Rather, my aim is to help you gain categories to think in and skills to make decisions themselves so
that you will be equipped to navigate an increasingly confusing world.
Before we follow the white lines at the edge of the road through the
fog we must first learn to drive the car. It is the goal of this book
to help you learn to drive.
[2]
Unfortunately, my experience with high school and college students is
that "consequentialism" is the dominant ethical system in the
evangelical church. The dating debate is indicative of this sort of
externally, "act-oriented" ethic.
[3] Where "secondary" does not entail "unimportant."
Exit question: am I right to claim that the conversation has been externally oriented?
EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Comments
Response to your exit question: I don't know, but I can easily see how someone like Josh Harris would deny that he's focusing only on externals. I really can't see him (or someone like him) admitting, "Yes, I only want to focus on externals." I haven't read his book in a few years, but I imagine he's got enough material in it about making sure one's heart is in the right place, giving priority to God, or some such to give him plausible deniability on your charge.
Maybe you want to argue that what he says (and others, too) about internal matters don't amount to anything more than platitudes and so, once the platitudes are removed, the typical dating books don't have more than suggestions for modifying behavior.
I also think going back in the final paragraph to your analogy of the car in the fog loses something. If the goal of the book is to help people "learn to drive," what does it have to do with dating, which is navigating "the fog"? "Learning to drive" seems like "Spirituality 101." But your book is about dating.
But maybe you are saying this: Courting, dating, etc. are constituted by a set of externally imposed rules about what to do. I.e., do talk to her father, don't let things get physical, date with marriage in mind, etc. But your book attempts to get a reader to think about the kind of person he needs to be. But then there is obviously overlap between these two: e.g., what kind of person do I need to be in order to not let things get too physical? But then the hard question: How will your book enable people to become the right kind of people? Or maybe you see it as less about directly enabling and more about raising awareness that character issues are equally as important as institutional issues.
Burglar,
Thanks for the extremely helpful comments. A few thoughts:
1) In some drafts of the above, I have exonerated Harris (and other writers) for the way the conversation has been conducted. I think that Harris would agree with much that I will say in the book. And I think his book does have a lot to say about the heart and the internals. However, what people remember--and this is precisely the problem--is the system that he advocates. "System" is too strong--he advocates making decisions in a certain way, but his followers have systematized it. That's what I'm criticizing, not Harris in particular. Does that help at all? (And yes, I now realize I should add something to that effect as a footnote, at least!)
2) "I also think going back in the final paragraph to your analogy of the car in the fog loses something. If the goal of the book is to help people "learn to drive," what does it have to do with dating, which is navigating "the fog"? "Learning to drive" seems like "Spirituality 101." But your book is about dating."
This is a tough issue for me. Yes, my book is about dating. But it's fundamentally about the issues that help us live well in that particular area of life. In that regard, I feel impelled to do some "Spirituality 101" (which is a good way of putting it), simply because most of the young people I have talked to need to start there. In a lot of ways, I see this book on dating as a work of applied theology--which is why I want to save specific applications until the end of the book.
3) "But maybe you are saying this: Courting, dating, etc. are constituted by a set of externally imposed rules about what to do. I.e., do talk to her father, don't let things get physical, date with marriage in mind, etc. But your book attempts to get a reader to think about the kind of person he needs to be. But then there is obviously overlap between these two: e.g., what kind of person do I need to be in order to not let things get too physical? But then the hard question: How will your book enable people to become the right kind of people? Or maybe you see it as less about directly enabling and more about raising awareness that character issues are equally as important as institutional issues."
These are all the tensions that I have wrestled with. You are right that my aim is to help the reader realize what kind of person he needs to be, which is why I save specific applications to dating (the "doing" questions) until the end. However, I have no good answer as to how my book will directly "enable people to become the right kind of people." To be honest, I have thought some about that and I think that my plan is to pass that responsibility off to other folks. In some ways, I want my book to point beyond me and beyond itself to the great tradition of Christian spirituality and thought. This is partly why (as you will see) I am fairly quote heavy--I use lots of Chesterton, lots of Andrew Murray, Augustine, Calvin, etc. I see myself as attempting to raise awareness for other, more important authors. Does that help clarify at all?
Yes, what you say is helpful. So the book looks like this (?): Part 1: Spirituality 101; Part 2: Spirituality 101 Applied to the Dating Life of Young Singles in America Today.
That seems like a good plan.
Would you be worried that Part 2 could become dated (pun intended!) rather quickly?
(Also, the antispam device for this blog is really hard to decipher. Am I the only one who has to submit things two or three times to get it right?)
Actually, it looks like this:
Part 1: The state of Dating and relationships, and a defense of marriage
Part 2: Spirituality 101 through the lens of romantic relationships
Part 3: Specific applications to dating and relationships
I don't have sections on the spiritual disciplines and how to do them well--I refer out to other books for that. What I do is try to defend and promote the disciplines by demonstrating how our spirituality integrates with our romantic relationships. That may be too convoluted and complex (which is probably why it's not published yet), but that's the state of the book as it is right now.
The overall structure is clearer to me, but I'm not sure how you're going to be able to keep the second and third parts separate. And I think a defense of marriage could have its own part. And it's also unclear to me how a defense of marriage can be kept separate from looking at romantic relationships through "Spirituality 101."
I guess I need to hear the whole argument (so I'll just wait to read what you post) in order to see whether you can elaborate the initial steps of the argument without needing to reference points that you put off until later.
Re: Part 1: In what sense do you need a defense of marriage? I think it depends on your audience (obviously). If your audience is tending away from marriage, then it needs defense (or maybe a good PR campaign?). I'm not in touch with the attitudes of young evangelicals on marriage, so I don't know if they are tending away from marriage. If they are tending away, it matters why, too: Because they think it's dangerous, boring, unnecessary, etc. (Related issue: I assume evangelicals are getting married at a later age, thus prolonging their dating time of life.)
I assume you won't be getting into the debate over same-sex marriage, but maybe you will. (If this were a book for Roman Catholics, I would anticipate the usual comments from natural law here. I.e., the natural law position (of Finnis, Grisez, et al.) is that the fundamental distinction of sexual acts is not homosexual/heterosexual but marital/nonmarital.)
Re: Part 2: Yes. I think that there's a good place for books on adapting the basic spiritual disciplines (to take just one aspect of Christian spirituality) to different aspects of life: marriage, business, education, leisure, etc. Can I ask what disciplines you think are central to romantic relationships?
Burglar,
You anticipate the problems exceptionally well. I have had a difficult time separating the sections of the book from each other. I really do see the issues as composing an interlocking whole, which is why I've had a difficult time blogging about them. It's virtually impossible for me to isolate the issues from each other. So as I make the arguments, I probably will be referencing ideas that I will unpack later on.
"Re: Part 1: In what sense do you need a defense of marriage? I think it depends on your audience (obviously). If your audience is tending away from marriage, then it needs defense (or maybe a good PR campaign?). I'm not in touch with the attitudes of young evangelicals on marriage, so I don't know if they are tending away from marriage. If they are tending away, it matters why, too: Because they think it's dangerous, boring, unnecessary, etc. (Related issue: I assume evangelicals are getting married at a later age, thus prolonging their dating time of life.)"
Evangelicals are getting married later, which I think is problematic. I think that evangelical attitudes toward marriage are a lot closer to secular attitudes than most people care to realize, which is why I think marriage needs a good defense. This is one of the main ways in which I differentiate myself from Harris, too. I will try to address the reasons they have for avoiding marriage (boring, unnecessary, etc).
I won't be getting into the same-sex marriage debate. A book has to have its limits, you know. : )
"Re: Part 2: Yes. I think that there's a good place for books on adapting the basic spiritual disciplines (to take just one aspect of Christian spirituality) to different aspects of life: marriage, business, education, leisure, etc. Can I ask what disciplines you think are central to romantic relationships?"
All of them. : ) Specifically, I think the disciplines of reading the Bible and solitude and silence are particularly appropriate for those seeking romantic relationships.
Short answer to your exit question, yes.
I think Burglar makes some good points, but I disagree with their assessment of the car in the fog. I like the car/fog word picture. Dating is not the fog. The crap of life and confusion is the fog. Dating, like marriage or any other relationship we participate in requires a skill (like driving).
You bring up so many deep issues. Christians have intensified the confusion. They not only confuse the correct dating protocol, but Christians can expect appropriate external behavior of marriage partners as well. It’s not healthy to the individuals.
Let me just comment by mentioning a couple of scientific insights I learned after my 17 year marriage abruptly ended.
• The American Psychological Association claims that less than 50% of the adult population is even capable of maintaining a committed lifelong meaningful relationship.
• The initial natural romantic attraction between two people usually consists of one emotionally stable person, and one “needy” person. It is rare that two emotionally stable people will find one another romantically attractive.
Can you see a train wreck coming?? What does this say? Internal issues are everything. All the external behaviors and issues become inconsequential.
You don’t mention the on-line dating phenomenon. I’m not really sold on the on-line dating thing, but I will say that e-harmony has approached the dating world from a totally internal perspective with a lot of success.
E-harmony focuses exclusively on the internal character traits and how we think. The research and data that is available about human behavior now, is hard to deny. Human behavior is very predictable. It’s a science that should not be overlooked. I think it’s compatible with what scripture instructs as well.
I hope your book helps young people develop the skills to not only date with confidence but also to go the distance as well.
bluediamond,
Great feedback--I appreciate it. I do leave the online dating phenomenon aside for now, though it will get a mention later on in the book.
I do have a serious question for you, though. You say, "The initial natural romantic attraction between two people usually consists of one emotionally stable person, and one “needy” person. It is rare that two emotionally stable people will find one another romantically attractive."
Where did you find this research? I would love to see it. It contradicts everything I think and have learned and read (and will say later on in the book). I'd love more information. Many thanks!!!
Most of what I had researched about marriage and divorce contradicted what I had been taught through the church, so I understand the question. I read a lot about co-dependency, infidelity, the divorce cycle, etc... I had read a lot of the christian stuff on the subject, but found a lot of it to be misleading. The secular sources are far more scientific and site a lot of statistics that are alarming to say the least.
Maybe that's why this subject is so important to me for my teenage kids. I don't want them to become victims of the divorce cycle. There is a need for christian dialogue that is culturally relevant that helps young people develop healthy relationships with a realistic view of what lies ahead. Don't stop writing!!!
My response was probably more emotional than objective this time. Next time I'll stick to the exit question and avoid my personal commentary when providing feedback.
bluediamond,
No reason to stick to the exit question. Your personal commentary is precisely the sort of feedback I'm looking for!
The reason that I asked about the research is because I have read a lot of similar stuff, it seems like, and have come to opposite conclusions. In fact, a lot of the research I draw from is not "Christian" at all. It's very secular, yet it concludes that individuals with the same level of emotional competence will almost always enter into romantic relationships together. The imbalances of personality (to put it badly) simply cover up the deeper similarities. But I'll defend that later on in the text.....
Regardless, that's why I appreciate your feedback: when we get to those sections, push back as hard as you can. I value it immensely.
Matt,
I seem to recall reading something similar. I'm not certain, but I think it was in The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck, M.D.
Adding a process question to the mix...are you planning to write the full manuscript from the get-go or are you working on a book proposal?
Joan,
Good question. This is the fruit of a long process for me--some three years ago I submitted book proposals to several major Christian publishers and had conversations with nearly all of them about my work. I got great feedback but never found a good fit--since then, I've finished writing the full manuscript and am going to put it up for free here. My hope is to have a book come from it, but I'll be okay if that never happens! : )
Matt
Hey Matt: I am very interested to see how this goes for you. I am actually working on an article about the economics of giving things away...words, music, art, space, etc. Would love to help in any way that I can. I never dated as a Christian, so I don't have much to add to that part of the conversation.
Joan,
Thanks for the support! I would love to read your article--let me know when it's out. I was very reticent to give it away for a very long time, if only because I had invested so much time and energy in it. So I'm curious to see how this goes myself! : )
There is so much wisdom in understanding the discrepancy between making dating decisions and holding certain beliefs in dating. Beliefs influence decisions, and therefore come before the decisions are made. That being the case, what are beliefs then?
In reading a number of dating books, and in writing about these subjects on my dating site blog, I have discovered over time that to belief something is to feel certain about it. When we make a decision, there is always a belief of why we make that decision backing it up, so only focusing on dating etiquette is to only focus on the superficial aspects of a date, the sensory part of dating and relationships. Etiquette is definitely important, but the causes of those details are even more so important.
A belief can be based in a virtue, and can be found by asking 'What would someone with x virtue do in this situation? - Very much like the widely recognized but seldom used 'WWJD' - If you feel certain that it's important to be a respectful person, then you would ask in all situations, "What would a respectful person do here?" to decide how to act.
It's a bit of an abstraction, but it gets easier over time the more you practice that technique! I'm very happy that there it is a big part of the book!
Linda @ datingsites.org