God's Design For Youthful Romance

 

by Jonathan Lindvall

 Articles are reprinted by permission

 

 

Part 1:Youthful Romance: Scriptural Patterns

 

        Part 2: Scriptural Romance: The Dangers of Dating

 

    Part 3: Comparisons: Dating. Courtship, Betrothal

 

    Part 4: A True Romantic Betrothal Example

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youthful Romance:

Scriptural Patterns

by Jonathan Lindvall

Copyright 1992, 1997 Jonathan Lindvall

Contact us for permission to re-publish this article. (We're fairly easy to get along with.)
You are permitted to print out individual copies of this article for yourself
or for a friend as long as you print the entire page and notify us that you have done so.

Article is reprinted by permission

 

Have you ever wondered why in scripture a legal divorce was required to break an engagement (betrothal)? I wonder if the answer to this question might possibly point us toward scriptural principles that would provide protection for Christian young people against the wounds so many of us, their parents, still bear from our "dating" experience.

Many of us recall with real regret the broken relationships during our youth that have scarred us. Even those of us who were blessed to be trained with strong scriptural conviction against sexual immorality still usually participated to some degree in the seemingly obligatory dating rituals that even the church has conformed to. Personally, I cringe at recollections of unintentionally playing emotional games with the vulnerable emotions of my dating partners--leaving my own and others hearts bruised in the wake.

As in our younger days, while our young people seek to find their balance between the pressures of hormones, peer acceptance, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, it seems that the church looks on benignly assuming that multiple dating experiences are healthy preparation for later marital stability. The problem is, dating is a temporary romantic relationship. This temporariness logically necessitates a conclusion--"breaking up."

Western culture has, for some time, been experiencing an ongoing epidemic of broken marriages. Is it possible that although "breaking up is hard to do," the more you do it the better you get at it? Years ago, as a young, single Youth Minister I came to the conclusion that dating was preparation for divorce rather than for marriage. This led to a whole series of insights showing the benefits of "courting" as opposed to "dating."

Historical Roots of Dating

Questioning the institution of dating is a rather novel notion to most Americans. After all, how else would one ever get married? Few realize, though, that dating is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. It arose out of the eighteenth century philosophical movement we now call "Romanticism" which emphasized, among other things, passion rather than logic. Writers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau lamented that Western civilization had fallen into the "error" of exalting reason over feelings. He proposed making decisions based on emotions rather than intellect.

This philosophy had far-reaching implications, impacting the arts, literature, government, and many other areas of society. Of interest to our discussion, though, is its effects on relationships between men and women. While love between husbands and wives has always been assumed, it was generally not perceived as a pre-requisite for entering marriage. Rather, it was understood that married partners would grow to love one another. Other factors in weighing marriage decisions were generally considered to be more significant.

Throughout history Christians have taken the scriptural mandates to love their spouse (Eph. 5:25; Tit. 2:4) as implying that love follows marriage. In other words, you should love the one you marry. Christian Romantics taught the converse: you should marry the one you love. At first glance there may not appear to be much conflict between these two ideas. But as we will see there are significant differences in the long-term fruit of these opposite teachings.

Some Romantic philosophers took their assumptions to their logical conclusion and proposed that one might have, and appropriately cultivate, emotional love-feelings for one who was not their spouse. This might take place both before and after one was married. Those who continued to hold to the sanctity of the physical relationship within marriage portrayed the emotion-only love affairs as noble, extolling secret romances in which the parties fanned the flame of their passions without giving release to physical affections.

The church has rightly rejected the proposition of being married to one person while harboring romantic feelings for another. However we have largely accepted the practice of emotion-only romance between non-married partners prior to marriage. We generally have taught that it is acceptable and even healthy for Christian singles to cultivate and express such feelings toward one another without requiring any permanent commitment as long as there is no physical involvement. Thus Christian young people are encouraged to kindle temporary infatuations into fever-pitched passions without fulfilling their lusts physically. While Jesus taught us to pray as children to our Father, "Lead us not into temptation" (Matt. 6:13) by accepting the world s dating patterns we lead our young people into temptation. I fear that those of us who promote such dabbling with hormonal temptations fit perfectly Christ s dire warnings about "offenses" toward children and the reference to "millstones" for those who cause them (Matt. 18:6-7).

Emotional Rights of Marriage

Marriage involves certain ownership rights. Husbands and wives own one another. This applies to more than simply the physical relationship. My wife must not only save her body for me, but her emotions as well. I would be devastated to find that, while my wife was physically faithful to me, she had romantic feelings toward another man. My wife and I owe one another fidelity emotionally as well as physically. We all quickly understand the ownership right husbands and wives have not only of their spouse s body, but of their emotions as well.

Somehow, though, we see no inconsistency in teaching our young people that while prior to their marriage they must save themselves physically for the one God has chosen as their life-long partner, it is healthy for them to be emotionally promiscuous. We permit, and often encourage to the point of pressuring, our young people to give their emotions to first one and then another dating partner. Privileges that God intended to be reserved for His ordained institution of marriage are now flippantly given to this recent man-made institution we call "dating." We have even gone so far as to encourage emotional faithfulness within "steady" temporary relationships. Thus, young unmarried Christian couples who have an understanding that they are "going out" regularly with one another now enjoy the seeming security of emotional ownership rights once reserved for marriage. But as this perceived security is demolished with the inevitable "breaking up" of the relationship our young people develop jaded perspectives and calloused hearts. This "broken heart syndrome" is the all-too-typical experience of many Christian young people. The church seems to be generally either ignoring the problem or simply overwhelmed. Yet our children are being wounded, sometimes irreparably! Does God have an answer?

Emotional Preparation for Marriage

As I have shared these thoughts around the country, honest thinkers often puzzle aloud, "You seem to be rejecting dating. Are you suggesting that we return to arranged marriages, where young people marry someone they may not love?" I really don t believe loveless arranged marriages are God's design, but I certainly see the devastation that has resulted from today s dating patterns. And I am certain God has a solution to the broken heart syndrome for us. Could it be found in the scriptural institution of betrothal?

Let s return to our original question. Why, in scripture, was a legal divorce required to break a betrothal? Further, what is betrothal? Isn t it simply what we now call engagement? Apparently not. Almost universally Bible scholars note that while Biblical betrothal was similar to present day engagement, it was quite different in some significant points (c.f. Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, Unger's Bible Dictionary, Freeman s Manners and Customs of the Bible, etc.). In the Mosaic law, as we will see, God Himself ordained betrothal and specified the rights and responsibilities involved.

In the story of Christ s birth we have an interesting illustration of the practice of betrothal. Joseph was deliberating what he should do with Mary, his betrothed wife, having learned that she was pregnant. Because he was "a just man" he determined to "put her away secretly" (Matt. 1:19). He and Mary as a betrothed couple were committed to marriage. Joseph could only break this commitment if he "put her away" according to Deuteronomy 24:1. The only other alternative was to publicly accuse her as an adulteress, in which case she would be executed by stoning. Scripturally there were three distinct marital states: unmarried, betrothed, and married. Although betrothed couples were not permitted to be physically intimate, they were considered married in the sense of owning one another. For example, if a man seduced or raped a virgin who was not yet betrothed he was required to pay the bride-price to her father and (if the father so desired) marry her (Ex. 22:16-17; Deut. 22:28-29). However if he did the same with either a married or betrothed woman he (and possibly she) was to be executed as an adulterer (Deut. 22:22-27). Although betrothed couples were not yet married, the woman was already referred to as the man s wife (Luke 2:5). By Jewish custom (and Biblical mandate by some interpretations of Deut. 24:5) the betrothal period was one year. If the groom died during that year, his betrothed bride was still considered a widow although the marriage was never consummated. I wonder if this scriptural two-tiered marriage institution may be more than just a curious tradition, a sociological fluke. The law is intended to serve us, even under the new covenant, as a tutor (Gal. 3:24). In scripture physical relations were reserved for marriage and still forbidden during betrothal. What purposes could be served, then, by an officially binding betrothal? What special privileges belonged to betrothal? Clearly the betrothed young people were officially authorized to at least cultivate their emotions of love toward one another. Could this be God s solution to the problem of marrying someone you don t love? I have concluded that God s best for me is to teach my children not to allow themselves to cultivate romantic inclinations toward anyone until they know God has shown them this person is to be their life-long mate. Thus, my children do not participate in dating. Ideally, they don t even allow themselves to dream about romantic relationships. Certainly there will be struggles, but to the degree that they allow me to protect them from the emotional scars my wife and I bear, they will be spared the regrets we suffer.

Personal Testimony

I thank the Lord that he helped my wife, Connie, and me to save ourselves physically for one another. At our wedding we were able to present our bodies to one another as virgins. Yet we both bear deep regrets over our romantic experiences with others prior to our marriage. Perhaps more selfishly, I occasionally am reminded of the fact that Connie had other boyfriends before she was committed to me. I sometimes ponder wistfully what a wonderful thing it would be if I were the first man she had knitted her heart with. She wishes the same about me, but with pain I recognize that I didn t save my heart for her. It is my intention to spare my own children the regrets I bear.

Actually, though, my own later experience did somewhat follow the scriptural principles I now see more clearly. I wanted to marry a wonderful Christian young lady my parents liked, but didn t feel was God s choice for me. Thankfully I purposed not to even discuss marriage with her without their full blessing, although they insisted that they would not hinder me if I proceeded. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to persuade my parents that I knew God s will, I finally committed myself to die to the vision I was sure was of God. I was certain God would work miraculously in revealing His will to my parents. My father, particularly, hinted that I should pray about marrying Connie. After initially resisting the suggestion, I agreed to pray about it. In time the Lord showed me I was to marry Connie.

Although I was not yet "in love" with her (regrettably I had allowed my emotions to focus on the first girl), with my parents encouragement I sought and acquired Connie s parents blessing to marry her. All this took place before I had much emotional attachment to Connie, and certainly before she was at all interested in me. When, with her parents blessing, I proposed to her she had absolutely no idea I was even interested in her. Neither of us were "in love" with the other. In time Connie concluded that I was God s will for her. It was during our engagement period that we actually "fell in love" with one another.

A Practical Recommendation

Let me paint a scenario for you using my own daughter as an example. At age twelve, I took Bethany out to dinner one evening and presented her with a golden necklace with a heart-shaped pendant formed like a padlock. There was a small keyhole and an accompanying key. I presented the pendant and necklace to her and asked her to "Give me your heart" (Prov. 23:26). I explained that I wanted to keep the gold key as a symbol of her trusting me with her emotions. I specifically asked her to not entertain romantic thoughts toward any young man until she and her mother and I together conclude that he is God s choice to be her husband. (There is scriptural precedent for the young people involved to be consulted and consent to a marriage arrangement.) I explained that at the beginning of her marital engagement I would give the gold key to her betrothed, and that although she might not yet love him, she would then be free to aim her heart toward him. Bethany unreservedly entrusted the symbolic gold key into my care, and with it, her heart.

I submit the betrothal model as a more scriptural and much less hurtful pattern of youthful romance than the typical dating game, or even the pattern I defined as "courtship." Just as we teach our young people to reserve themselves physically for marriage, I believe the scriptures call us to train them to reserve their romantic emotions for the betrothal period immediately preceding marriage, having enjoyed the benefit of God-ordained protectors (parents) in helping them seek and find His will for their lifelong companion. In this area, as well as every other area of our lives, our obedience to Scriptural patterns can demonstrate that God s design for us is far superior to anything the world has to offer.

The Dangers of Dating: Scriptural Romance

by Jonathan Lindvall

Copyright 1996 Jonathan Lindvall

Contact us for permission to re-publish this article. (We're fairly easy to get along with.)
You are permitted to print out individual copies of this article for yourself
or for a friend as long as you print the entire page and notify us that you have done so.
This article was originally published in Home School Digest.

Article is reprinted by permission

The subject of romance is one of the most captivating topics dealt with by human beings. From childhood relationships between boys and girls was one of my fascinations. Later, when something like "Dating" was the announce theme for a youth meeting, I was quite motivated to attend--quite attentively. Even as an adult I still find the issue of relationships between men and women to be intriguing. I've even noticed that older people--grandparents--seem to enjoy my presentations about Scriptural patterns for romance.

Why is romance seemingly universally captivating? The scriptures indicate that God Himself created this interest. It seems that initially Adam had a total lack of awareness of his need for a wife. God was the one who evaluated the situation (Gen. 2:18) as, "It is not good for man to be alone." We don't have a hint of Adam complaining of loneliness. Poor Adam apparently didn't even know he had a need. How was God going to stir up a desire for a "helper comparable to him?"

The Genesis 2:19-20 creation account implies that God used a tactic many parents through the ages have emulated in allowing their children to learn the basic facts of pro-creation by observing animals. God set Adam to work studying a new creation. "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him."

Now obviously God didn't intend for Adam to find a wife among the animals. What could that last line mean? As Adam was studying and naming all the animals, he must have begun to notice a startling pattern. There were two of each kind of beast and bird! Slowly it must have dawned on him that he alone of all God's creatures lacked a mate. I can imagine God's pleasure at watching the realization dawn upon Adam that in fact "It is not good for man to be alone" as God had said, and he was quite alone.

But now that Adam realized his need, what should he do? Could he still trust God? What was the Lord's requirement of Adam now that this first God-ordained dissatisfaction had arisen? The Lord wanted Adam to rely on Him for miraculous provision. He made Adam relax and go to sleep!

It is God's design that most young people marry and raise up "godly seed" (Mal. 2:15). Thus at a point in their youth he stirs up their interest in members of the opposite sex. In the face of this new interest, what does God want Christian young people to do? Go to sleep emotionally! This is one of the earliest and most practical applications of the discipleship mandate (Luke 9:23-24) in the lives of most young people. "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it."

Throughout our lives we find that only when we surrender to God and rest in His agenda do we experience His perfect design. We must die to ourselves and our natural inclination to fulfill our dreams in our own strength. This self-denial is nowhere more critical than in the area of romance.

While recognizing that God's normative pattern is for most young men and women to marry, Christian young people are called to surrender to the distinct possibility God would call them to remain single all their lives. I have heard countless testimonies from married Christians whose experience is that it was only after they surrendered their desire for romance and "went to sleep" emotionally, that God brought them together with their mate. The only way to resurrection is through death.

The Broken-Heart Syndrome

But contemporary American dating practices preclude such emotional self-denial. The essence of dating is flirting. Dating is recreational romance in which each party intentionally endeavors to cultivate the other's desire, while recognizing the relationship is most likely temporary.

Even in the church today most cannot imagine proceeding from singleness to marriage without the institutional flirting of dating. Most Christians have assumed that it is normal and healthy for young people to experience several dating relationships prior to selecting a spouse. These recreational romances are assumed to be emotional preparation for marriage.

Let's ponder this assumption, though. Are temporary romantic relationships really God's ideal? As a young couple become romantically involved with one another they begin to bond emotionally. They increasingly share their hearts with one another. Their thoughts and imaginations are focused on their partner. They begin the God-designed process of becoming "one" even if there is virtually no physical relationship. They become one heart long before they become "one flesh."

They both understand, however, that the dating relationship does not involve any permanent commitments and that either party is free to break up the romance at any time, for any reason. They likely both dread the prospect of breaking up and hope that perhaps this is the relationship that will stick. In most cases, however, even Christian young people proceed through a number of serial romances before their marriage.

So in breaking up these two hearts that have begun bonding are ripped apart. They each leave the relationship with at least some degree of heart-break. They might either display varying degrees of emotional devastation or simply toughen their feelings. Either way they leave the relationship emotionally wounded or scarred.

But soon the pain of breaking up is forgotten as they develop a new romance with a different partner. In time, however, this relationship results in another heart-break and more emotional wounds that leave scars. Over a period of several years a young person will experience a number of such emotional bonds being severed. Some of the romances are serious and others admittedly so casual that breaking up is hardly painful at all. Yet the cumulative effect is that the young people's hearts are becoming increasingly calloused.

Some young people respond to this sequence by developing strategies to play the game in such a way as to always be the heart-breaker rather than the heart-broken. Even for Christian youth such flirtatious manipulation of others' emotions sometimes becomes a source of increasing arrogance with each conquest.

Finally the young person finds the one they will eventually marry. But the memories of past romances, the pattern of jilting partners when they lose their initial intense appeal or to avoid being vulnerable to being left oneself, the insecurity from fear of being dropped again, and the callouses cultivated to protect from further pain all become barriers to emotional (and later physical) unity. Yet we still insist that dating is somehow healthy preparation for marriage. Isn't such emotional promiscuity more likely preparation for divorce than for marriage?

Scriptural Perspective on Emotional Purity

Paul addressed this very issue in 1 Thessalonians 4. In verse three he gives us the context by writing, "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality." In other words moral purity will require "sanctification." Sanctification and holiness mean being set apart, separate, unique, distinct. God wants His people to be different. In the next two verses he continues with this theme that we should "know how to possess" (Greek ktaomai = acquire) our "vessel in sanctification and honor" in a manner that is noted to not be "like the Gentiles who do not know God." (The Greek word for "vessel" above is the same as the that used in 1 Peter 3:7 to refer to the wife as the "weaker vessel.")

Apparently the structures and strategies we Christians use to acquire a spouse are supposed to be markedly different from those used by non-believers ("Gentiles who do not know God"). Are our romance patterns in the church different from those of the world? I'm afraid they are quite similar. Our culture's pattern is this dating scenario and the church has come to accept this as normal. Dating isn't even a long-standing tradition, having been develop within this century. But the really critical question is "Is it scriptural?"

In verse 5 Paul clarifies that our acquisition of a spouse is to be "not in passion of lust (desire)." This is apparently to be the marked difference between the way of the ungodly and those who are living holy lives. Was Paul really saying passion and desire should not be involved in the decisions regarding marriage?

Over the last several centuries since the era of the Romantic philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau and others, a subtle shift in assumptions has impacted Christians' as well as the world's views of romance. These men proposed that rather than base our lives on reason, we would be better served by allowing our emotions to direct us. This philosophy came to be called Romanticism, and gradually impacted all of culture: art, music, drama, literature, architecture, and, of course, family relations--especially those between men and women.

Previously decisions regarding if, when, and who to marry were based on such factors as wealth, status, political connections, or, for spiritually discerning Christians, God's will. It was not unheard of for a couple to marry based on emotional attraction, especially among the upper classes, but it was certainly not the norm.

In the last several centuries, though, Western Culture has gradually embraced romance as a basis for marriage. To even question this notion raises the horrifying spectre of loveless marriages of convenience which are endured for the sake of propriety. Visions of "Fiddler on the Roof" and the song "Do you love me?" seem absurd to us.

Before we confront the romantic assumptions, let's address this question of loveless arranged marriages. If a married couple finds the passion of their romance to be dimming, is that an indication that their marriage is over? Without for a moment exalting loveless marriages imposed on young people against their will, let's consider their benefits in cultures where romance is considered irrelevant to marriage. In fact, in such cultures there seems to be less social disintegration stemming from divorce and even an enviable sort of peace and happiness based on the security of stable family relationships. Furthermore, reportedly a sincere affection eventually is recognized in most of these arranged marriages.

The scriptures clearly teach, however, that love is not only recommended, but required in marriage. Husbands are commanded to love their wives (Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:19). In Titus 2:4 Paul directs his young protege to exhort the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands. God designed marriage to be a loving union. But does this mean He meant for decisions regarding marriage to based on love?

Today we believe young people should marry the one they love. Does the scripture ever support such a notion? The Bible teaches us to love the one you marry. Aren't these the same?

God never intended our emotions to lead us. Emotions are a wonderful blessing but they can be extremely fickle. We can easily be deceived by our feelings. This does not deny their delight, or imply they are to be avoided. God wants us to experience intense emotions, we are simply not to allow those emotions to dominate us. Rather than leading us, our emotions are to follow us.

Paul commanded us to "Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say rejoice" (Phil 4:4). But what if I don't feel joyful? Rejoice anyway! As we obey the command from our will, even when we don't feel joyful, the emotions of joy generally begin to appear unexplainably. The emotions follow us rather than leading us.

Similarly, Paul told the Colossians (3:14) to "put on love." But isn't it hypocritical to act lovingly when I don't feel love? No! It is an act of sincere obedience! The wonderful result, though, is that when I will to love unlovely people, my emotions begin to come into line and I find I am beginning to feel true affection toward them.

I have occasionally dealt with men who assumed they should divorce their wives because they no longer loved them. What would you say to such a man? What does the Bible say? "Love your wife!" A man would argue, "But you don't understand, I don't love her anymore." The Biblical response is, "Shame on you! Love her anyway." But people in our culture have a hard time imagining how you can, from you will, command your emotions.

If a couple marries based on love, what happens when the passion of romance settles down and they get used to each other--less distracted by their emotions? Today the epidemic of divorce is affecting even Christian marriages because we are led by our feelings. This pattern is set early on during young people's dating experiences. What if our marriage decisions were based entirely on God's will confirmed by our authorities, with a confidence that God would bring romance to us as a blessing on our obedience?

In the scripture we are considering (1 Thes. 4) Paul comes directly to the point in verse 6: " that no one should go beyond and defraud his brother in this matter" of acquiring a spouse. Clearly we must all, whether single or married, commit themselves to scripturally-based limitations of pre-marital or extra-marital physical intimacy (like 1 Cor. 7:1, "touch not"). The scripture nowhere gives license to single people to hold a different standard than married people. Whatever is wrong for me to do with your wife is wrong for my son to do with your daughter.

Clearly there is a line that "no one should go beyond" outside of marriage to uphold moral purity in physical relationships. But is there similarly a line regarding emotional purity? What did Paul mean when he warned each not to "defraud his brother in this matter?" What is defrauding?

Fraud involves deceiving or misleading someone. In business defrauding is cheating-- leading someone to expect certain benefits and then, after they have begun limiting other opportunities based on this expectation, backing out of the deal. Defrauding is inciting in someone else a desire that you are unable or unwilling to fulfill. Does this ever happen in romantic relationships? Isn't that what flirting is?

Apparently Paul here was saying, "Don't cross the line physically and don't even flirt with their emotions!" God calls us to both physical purity and emotional purity.

When should a couple fall in love? Should they flirtatiously incite each other's emotions through dating to see if the chemistry is right? This makes defrauding very likely. Is it possible that God's best would be for young people to save themselves for the one they will marry not just physically, but emotionally as well? The scriptural design of irrevocable betrothal provides us with a structure for releasing emotions with virtually no possibility of defrauding. Betrothal allows a couple to fall in love before the marriage but after the commitment has been made. In the second part of this article we will explore this scriptural ideal for youthful romance. But let me conclude this part with a brief testimony.

Personal Testimony

As I write this my wife Connie and I are just a couple of weeks from our twentieth wedding anniversary. By God's grace our story illustrates this principle of emotional self-denial. Our marriage is incredibly romantic, but it is not based on love. Our marriage is founded in God's will.

When I was 19 years old I came to the conclusion that dating was unscriptural. I was the youth minister in a church my father was pastoring at the time, and persuaded my youth group to join me in repenting of our previous practices of emotional promiscuity.

I proposed a pattern I called courtship. In this structure young people would only become involved with one another romantically if they had the full blessing of both sets of parents, they were old enough to marry, and they were seriously contemplating marriage. Although I was unaware, at the time, of how courtship, as I defined it, still failed to measure up to scriptural patterns, I am grateful that I publicly committed myself to this practice. This spared me much potential heartache. (In the second part of this article I will discuss the unscriptural flaws of courtship and why it does not go far enough.)

After several years of publicly promoting courtship I became interested in marrying a wonderful Christian young lady. After much prayer I approached my parents for their blessing. To my dismay they refused, insisting that while she would make a perfect godly wife for someone else, they were convinced she was not the one God would have me marry. I persisted in seeking their blessing, going to them repeatedly over a period of many months. I am now so grateful for their courage in withstanding my pressure as their answer remained steadfast.

A couple of times they suggested that I pray about marrying Connie, but I wasn't interested. And I could tell Connie was not interested me--the boisterous pushy youth pastor. Finally I determined to "die" to the vision of marrying the young lady I was interested in, expecting God to resurrect my hopes miraculously. Instead, my father asked me to pray about marrying Connie. We prayed together about this until I became convinced he believed I was to marry her.

Finally I concluded Connie was God's will for me, but I wasn't in love with her. Still, with my parents' blessing I visited her parents and asked their permission to marry her. I had to explain that we had never gone on a date, I had no idea of Connie's interest, and that Connie was completely unaware of my interest. They thought my approach was a bit strange, but they seemed to like the fact that I was honoring them and committed to avoiding defrauding Connie. I began to get a bit excited when they gave their blessing.

The next step was finding a way to break the news to Connie. With my father's help I arranged to take Connie on a date without her knowing it. As we sat in the restaurant I informed her that I had asked her parents' permission to marry her. She was shocked! She asked, "What did they say?" When I told her they had given their blessing her response was, "Do I have to?" I hastily clarified that she had the final say in the matter.

It took God four months to make His will clear to Connie. She insisted that she was not going to be pressured into this. Finally, when we became engaged, although there was certainly a measure of excitement, neither of us could honestly say we were in love. But we knew this was God's will and we were confident the romance would come. And you know, it did! Our marriage is one of the most romantic marriages I know of, but it is not based on love. It is based on God's will and the emotions follow rather than lead our obedience.

Many Christian parents are increasingly questioning the teen social structures we experienced during our youth that are now being passed on to our own children. Most of us bring regrets into our marriages, but are much more alarmed to ponder how much worse things could have been. We realize the dating relationships we thought were so delightful actually made us incredibly vulnerable. I, for one, am immensely grateful that God's grace was apparently protecting me from devastation. Most of us realize our lives could easily have been much more scarred than they are.

Yet, when we ponder recent trends such as the acceptance of "date rape" and other perverse mind-sets, we recognize that the flaws in the American dating patterns we survived can no longer be overlooked. The vulnerability we thought to be relatively harmless in our own youth is now being exposed as a significant danger. Thus many families are questioning, or outright rejecting, dating as an acceptable and necessary scenario for preparing for marriage. We are seeking a better, safer design, a more biblical tradition, for our young people.

Even if we could be assured that our young people could withstand temptations inherent in dating and somehow be protected from seductive predators looking for naive victims, some of us are questioning more deeply the very principle of pre-marital romance. I am thankful that when Connie and I married neither of us had experienced physical intimacy with others. Yet we both brought the memories of previous romantic relationships into our marriage. Most couples I talk with acknowledge that such baggage has hindered their marital unity both emotionally and physically.

In the first part of  this article, we considered 1 Thes. 4:6 and Paul's charge to avoid both "going beyond" the limits of physical purity and "defrauding" others by inciting desire. The institutionalized flirtation of dating is a direct violation of this command. It would be ludicrous to go on a date without flirting with one's partner. That is what dating is for. It is expected that each dating partner will experiment with their own, and the others' emotions. In the physical realm such experimentation would correctly be labeled fornication! Why have we come to accept temporary, casual, serial romances in the domain of the emotions?

In a budding romance two single people begin to increasingly view themselves as a couple. Even if there are no commitments, they are seen together and treated as a couple. As their emotions focus on their partner, certain hopes begin to be fulfilled which leads to anticipation of greater delight in increasing one-ness. This eager expectation is what we call romance. In a more objective manner, social scientists have called this process "bonding." In a sense the couple is becoming glued to one another emotionally.

God created this romantic impulse. The Bible refers to the ultimate outcome of this process when it says (Gen. 2:24). "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Becoming one flesh would certainly be possible without any emotional unity. However the scripture makes it clear this is not God's design. Husbands and wives are supposed to love one another (c.f. Eph. 5:25; Tit. 2:5). God wants them to bond emotionally as well as physically.

The problem we face today is that for several generations young people have been encouraged to experiment (flirt) with the emotions of a variety of romantic partners before settling into a permanent romance in marriage. In each romance, however, they begin the process of emotional bonding. Then, when they "break up" they must rip apart the bond. This leaves one or both parties wounded. But the wounds eventually heal and they move on to the next romance. But after each romantic relationship their healed wounds leave scars--memories that will impact all future relationships, including the one God clearly wants to be permanent. This is the baggage so many of us regret bringing into our marriages.

In mandating that church leaders be "one-woman men" (Literal translation of 1 Tim. 3:12; Tit. 1:6), scripture clearly holds this as the ideal for all. I wonder if we have taken this far enough. To my regret and shame, I confess that during my youth I gave other women my heart. Emotionally I have not been a one-woman man. While I was not physically promiscuous, I was emotionally promiscuous.

For example, during my youth my family traveled with my father for two years as he conducted a prayer conference ministry in various churches. In many of the churches we visited I would be attracted to one of the young ladies. After leaving I would cultivate a correspondence relationship and we would exchange love letters. At the time everyone thought this was rather cute and innocent.

But today there are certain parts of the country I dread traveling to. I just know some day I will be preaching righteousness and holiness in some church and some woman will stand up in the back and wave, calling out, "Yoo-hoo! Do you remember me?" To my chagrin it will be one of my former love-letter correspondents whom I defrauded. I enticed these to desire emotional relationships that I should have reserved for my wife.

In fact, several years ago my wife and I were running the tape exhibit at a homeschool convention where I was speaking. A woman who didn't know Connie was my wife came up and asked her if she knew me very well. Connie rather tentatively admitted she did know me pretty well. This woman proceeded to announce, "Well I used to go with him."

You can imagine what was happening in Connie's heart. She pointed to me and said, "Why don't you go and talk with him."

The woman came up to me and asked, "Do you remember me?" I puzzled for a moment and couldn't place her. She told me her name. I still didn't remember her. She mentioned where she was from, and all of a sudden my face reddened. I remembered her, all right. I was so embarrassed! The woman said, "That lady over there told me to come and talk with you."

I swallowed and announced, "That lady over there is my wife, Connie."

This exchange was incredibly awkward. Why? There had never been anything physical between us, but still I felt shame. Why? I have regrets regarding both my own and Connie's memories of dating relationships. I wish I was the first fellow my wife had ever been romantic toward, and she wishes the same regarding me. If only we had each avoided recreational romance altogether and saved our hearts, not just our bodies, for one another. I believe this is a God- given, instinctive desire.

How can I spare my own children such regrets as Connie and I bring to our marriage? Clearly purity is ultimately a matter of the heart. Of course it is possible to practice dating and maintain physical purity and, theoretically perhaps, even emotional purity. But is it likely? Is there some pre-marital romance pattern that makes both physical purity and emotional purity more likely, or better, virtually certain. I believe God's word gives us such a structure in the practice it calls betrothal. But before considering this let's consider another popular alternative that is similar, but definitely not identical to the scriptural pattern.

Is Courtship the Answer?

As a single youth pastor in 1972 I was challenged through the ministry of a very godly man, to develop scripturally based convictions to guide my dating. Try as I might, I couldn't find any scripture to validate dating at all! I saw the need for some new scenario to replace dating--but what might that be? At that time I came across the term "courtship" in my reading. I wasn't quite sure what courting was, but I knew my young people had no better idea than I, so I decided to use this term and give it a meaning that might provide a more scriptural direction for youthful romance.

By God's grace I persuaded my small youth group to give up dating and replace it with this new (actually old) thing we called "courtship." I defined courtship as a romantic relationship between a young man and woman in which both were of marriageable age, had the full blessing of their parents, and were seriously contemplating marriage. Thus we eliminated casual dating and unauthorized dating.

In Part One of this article I briefly shared my own testimony of how God used my commitment to courtship to spare me from marrying the wrong woman. I was committed to not proceeding toward marriage without the full blessing of both my parents and those of the young woman I would marry. God used my parents refusal to spare me (and the godly young woman I was interested in) from marrying the wrong person. Through my parents, the Lord led me to the beautiful romance of marrying Connie.

As a result of this "courtship" experience I began promoting courting as a biblical alternative to dating. I have been gratified, over the years to see many others begin seeing the dangers of dating and begin promoting courtship instead. It has been exciting to hear the delightful testimonies of newly married couples who had committed themselves to courtship and were spared the regrets and scars of teen dating experiences. Courtship is unquestionably better than dating.

Yet, occasionally I began hearing other reports that were not so encouraging. Some made statements that courtship was not "working." I felt rather defensive. How could courtship not work? Several parents told me their young people had committed to and practiced courtship, but had still experienced being defrauded. I remember an instance where a father told me his daughter had courted one fellow and the relationship didn't pan out so she courted a second fellow. It was determined that this situation wasn't the right one either so she courted a third fellow, and then a fourth. This man declared that courtship didn't work, as his daughter had clearly been defrauded.

I challenged him that what he was describing wasn't really courtship, but simply dating by the name courtship. He insisted that it really was courtship. As I asked him for the basis for his contention he quoted back to me my own definition of courtship: "a romantic relationship between a young man and woman in which both were of marriageable age, had the full blessing of their parents, and were seriously contemplating marriage." He reported that in each of his daughter's courtships all three of these pre-requisites were met. But in each case the relationship ended without leading to marriage.

I was stumped. Indeed it appeared that these were, in fact, courtships. They fit the definition of courtship that I, and everyone else I know, use to distinguish courtship from dating. Courtship simply had not worked for this young woman. She was still defrauded. Hopes and expectations were incited that were not fulfilled. She still experienced repeatedly what I call the "broken-heart syndrome." How could courtship not work?

Such accounts forced me to return to God and His word. I was dismayed to have to admit that just as dating is nowhere found in scripture, neither is courtship. The word "courtship" is certainly never found. Not even the idea of courtship, a romantic trial period before committing to marriage, is ever found in scripture.

Before we move on to what the scripture does show us, let me illustrate more specifically some of the inadequacies of courtship. I'm thankful for the numerous couples who have had blessed courtships. Many have gone through courtship, gotten engaged, and gotten married as one-man women and one-woman men. I thank God courtship has been such a blessing to so many. Courtship is definitely moving in the right direction, as it at least recognizes the dangers of dating. But it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't conform to the scriptural ideal.

What is the problem? Courtship still leaves the door open to defrauding! Although it implements the scriptural principle of parental authorization, providing significant safeguards, it is still defined as a trial emotional relationship one can back out of. It is still, at the core, experimental romance.

Several years ago another father came to me explaining that his 14-year-old daughter was not ready to get married, and knew it. She was persuaded that courtship was superior to dating. However, she had come to him asking permission to court a young man. The father wanted my recommendation.

Consider this situation. The young lady recognized and welcomed the need for her father's authorization. This provided her a God-ordained protection. Yet she still didn't understand the need to avoid defrauding. Her understanding of courtship was simply that it was parentally authorized dating. She didn't want to marry the fellow. She only wanted to enjoy the thrill of a temporary romance. But temporary romance, whether called dating or courtship, implies there will be an end. At the end of a romance there is always at least one broken heart. We're back to "the broken-heart syndrome." Courtship as parentally authorized dating is probably better than unauthorized dating. But it is still romantic experimentation and makes defrauding virtually inevitable.

In another case a family was committed to courtship and had thoroughly instructed their young people in the process, giving specific directions to their 19-year-old daughter on how to respond to any advances that might be made by fellows. At one point a committed Christian young man in their church asked her to go with him on a date. As she had been instructed, she sent him to her father. The father was impressed with the young man's demeanor, godly reputation, and courage in coming to him. He informed the fellow that their family had repudiated dating in favor of courtship, explaining what that meant and why they had made this commitment.

The fellow was impressed, and even persuaded. He verbalized a desire to practice courtship rather dating himself. Of course, he then asked if he might court the daughter. The father really liked the young man and gave his consent for them to begin a courtship.

After a period of courting, the young couple came to the father and announced that they were now quite certain the Lord wanted them to marry. The father was a bit put off and refused to give his blessing. As his daughter became resistant to his authority he came to me asking my counsel. What should he do? How could he persuade his daughter to fully submit to him?

I had to explain to this father that he himself had unknowingly sown the seeds of this rebellion. When he authorized the courtship, he hadn't authorized marriage. Thus all he authorized was an experimental relationship. Essentially he authorized his daughter and this young man to defraud one another! It's no wonder she was resistant to his authority now. She likely had felt her father had already begun preparing her to accept the young man as her authority.

Many who are practicing and promoting courtship today suggest two stages of authorization. In the first stage the couple is authorized to begin courting--to get to know one another and find out if they are emotionally compatible. (Doesn't this sound vaguely similar to the rationale for a couple living together for a time before marriage--to find out if they are compatible?)

In the second stage the couple must seek and receive authorization to become engaged. Authorization at this step is not a certainty. Thus the possibility of a broken heart is quite distinct. The benefit of this scheme seems to be that neither the parents nor the young people need to be convinced of the appropriateness of an ultimate marriage at the first stage. However, this leads us back to leaving the door open to defrauding.

In another situation a godly father saw the dangers of dating and committed to avoiding them (Prov. 22:3). He trained his three daughters to be emotionally as well as physically pure--to save their hearts as well as their bodies for the man God would have them marry. They were being well-trained to be one-man women. Their family committed themselves to courtship as a means to maintain this purity. The man and his wife were so delighted to guide their first two daughters through courtship and engagement into wonderful, godly marriages.

Their third daughter also was guided through courtship and became engaged. Everything seemed to be going along fine until her fiance got cold feet. He changed his mind, deciding she wasn't the one God wanted him to marry after all. This godly young lady was devastated-- defrauded! She later ended up going through courtship, engagement, and getting married to another fellow. She was physically pure but what about emotionally? She could never claim to be emotionally as well as physically the one-man woman she had dreamed of presenting to her husband.

Many will suggest she was spared. And undoubtedly in God's redemptive economy He took a bad thing and made it ultimately good (Rom. 8:28). In most of our cases he used the dating patterns we followed to bring us into the marriage he wanted for us. But does this validate dating? Hardly! Our Redeemer redeems bad things, making them good, He redeems ugly things making them beautiful. God uses many imperfect vessels. This does not, however, mean he is giving His approval to the tools He redeems. He has blessed sincere commitments to purity in courtship. But this does not mean it is his ideal. Our practices must be judged by scripture, not experience.

The scriptural pattern of betrothal would have made the defrauding this young lady experienced impossible. How? Unlike today's engagements, in the biblical structure once a betrothal was committed to, it was binding. In our society, an engaged couple can call off the wedding at any point. Even just a few moments before the marriage vows are made it is still understood that either party could change their minds. A betrothal, on the other hand, instituted a covenant that was irrevocable except in very specific circumstances.

Probably the best example of this is found in Matthew's account of the birth of Christ. Mary and Joseph were not yet married, they were only betrothed. The betrothal did not authorize physical intimacy. (It obviously authorized something, though, as we will see.) When Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant he was troubled, knowing he wasn't the father of the child. He wanted to call off the wedding. But he couldn't just call it off. The only way he could call off the wedding was to divorce Mary! But they weren't married yet! How could they get a divorce? In the biblical design it took a legal divorce (on scriptural grounds) to revoke the betrothal covenant. Thus betrothals were not entered into lightly because they were virtually irrevocable.

No one denies that this was the practice throughout both the Old and New Testament eras. But does this mean we are to practice it today? Just because the Bible describes a practice should we make it a standard for Christians everywhere and at all times? Note the descriptions of men's apparel in scripture. They wore what we would probably call gowns or dresses today. Should American Christian men wear dresses and sandals because Jesus did? I don't think so. The Bible's descriptions are not binding upon us. But they are at least worthy of our consideration.

Does the Bible do more than simply describe Betrothal, though? Yes it does! Let me make a case for this by starting with some basic, indisputable principles. First, 1 Thessalonians 4:6 clearly forbids defrauding in this matter of purity between men and women. Therefore only those traditions and practices which support both physical and emotional purity should be options for Christians. Anything tending to undermine such physical and emotional purity by facilitating the building of false expectations should be viewed, at best, as "provision for the flesh" which we are told to avoid (Rom. 13:14).

Second, God's people are to avoid making promises they cannot or will not keep. The Psalmist gives us a list of attributes of those who may dwell in God's presence. Among these is "He who swears to his own hurt and does not change" (Ps. 15:4). We have taken engagement promises too lightly, as simply a final trial period before making the truly binding vows. I understand that there was a lawsuit in one of the Southern states recently where a jilted fiance won a "breach of promise" suit based on unrevoked laws making engagements binding.

Betrothals, or engagements, have been deemed binding by serious Christians in our own society until quite recently. For example in 1959 the Family Life Committee of the Lutheran Church-- Missouri Synod (arguably the most conservative, evangelical Lutheran body in America-- especially at that time) published a book entitled Engagement and Marriage dealing with this subject as a current controversy. They reported their own substantial surveys in which "[a]lmost half of the Missouri Synod families responding accepted betrothal as equal to marriage in the sight of God." They further reported, "Sixty-nine per cent of the clergymen in the Missouri Synod regarded betrothal as binding as marriage."

But does the Bible itself address this issue directly? Beyond descriptions does it actually prescribe binding betrothal? In Deuteronomy 22:22-29 God mandates distinct penalties for immorality based upon one's marital state. A married woman who was immoral was to be executed along with the man who committed the adultery with her. However if a man committed fornication with a non-betrothed virgin neither of them was executed. He was simply required to pay her father a dowry and marry her without the possibility of ever divorcing. (Interestingly Exodus 22:16-17 clarifies that if her father refuses to permit the marriage, he must still pay the dowry even though he may not marry her.)

There seems, at first glance, to be a double standard here. Why would the same act, committed by two different people be punished differently? Quickly it becomes clear, though, that in one case a marriage covenant is in place and has been violated, while in the other case this is not true. Apparently this is the definitional difference between adultery and fornication. In the case of adultery, at least one of the parties is already married, making the immorality a violation of an existing covenant.

But now we turn, in this passage, to the point of our discussion. God specifically deals with one other marital category: the immorality of a man with a virgin who is betrothed. The way we think today, we would class her with the single virgin and say the immoral couple must marry. But God didn't do that. He required their execution, and was even more graphic in describing their stoning. Apparently even though the betrothed woman is unmarried this immorality is classed as adultery because a marriage covenant has been entered into.

In the Bible when is the marriage covenant made? It is not at the wedding, but at the betrothal! In fact this is why in numerous passages a betrothed couple is referred to as "husband" and "wife" even though they are not yet married (c.f. Deut. 22:24; Matt. 1:19-20, 24; Luke 2:5). Some have insisted that because these are already called husband and wife betrothal is the same as marriage. This is not the case. Not until the wedding is physical union authorized. But then what does betrothal authorize?

I have been accused of promoting loveless arranged marriages. The specter of being married to someone you don't love is enough to scare most contemporary people into the deception of the emotional defrauding of dating. Clearly the Lord wants husbands and wives to love one another as we pointed out earlier from Ephesians 5:25 & Titus 2:5. Yet when are they supposed to begin to bond emotionally, or "fall in love" as we would say today?

My father actually taught that it was a sin to "fall in love." He said that when you fall you don't know where you are going to land. The whole love-at-first-sight idea pre-supposes we are ruled by our emotions. Our emotions are fickle and can easily mislead us. Is it possible to "fall in love" with the wrong person? Absolutely! I know. I did it! Thankfully my parents would not bless a relationship they knew was not God's best for me.

In our culture we are taught to marry the one you love. Nowhere in scripture do we find this encouraged. Instead the scripture teaches us to love the one you marry. There is a vast difference between these two. Are we to be led by our emotions or by God's will?

My father taught me that my emotions should not lead me. Emotions are a wonderful gift from God, but they are not to lead us. Solomon provided this parental direction (Prov. 23:19) "Hear, my son, and be wise; And guide your heart in the way." We are to guide our emotions rather than being led by them. I was confident that my father was right that God would grant me a wonderful romantic relationship with whoever He chose for me to marry if I would simply surrender to His will. That is exactly what has happened. My marriage to Connie continues to be remarkably romantic and exciting, but it is not based on love. It is based on willing surrender to God's will.

In considering these statements one might, at first glance, feel they make true romance impossible. To some, romance is only exciting if it is sneaky, unauthorized, illicit. On the contrary, God wants romance to be restful, delightful, pure. Authorized romance does perhaps lose the adventure a thief experiences, of risking getting caught. But God's design for love between a man and a woman is that of Adam and Eve before they sinned. Genesis 2:25 tells us they "were not ashamed."

The most romantic book in the Bible, Song of Solomon, repeats an interesting warning three times (SoS. 2:7; 3:5; 8:4): "I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, Do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases." Young people need to be careful to not stir up romantic desires until the right time.

This is a critical issue. If we leave the door open to being romantic prior to a commitment we continue to make young people vulnerable to defrauding. Yet we don't want them going to their wedding altar without being in love.

But when and how should they begin cultivating romance? Clearly it would be beneficial to have developed some passionate feelings for one another before the wedding. But how can this be delayed until after the commitment to marry? It appears that this is at least one of God's purposes for betrothal. The scripture doesn't specify all of the purposes for betrothal--only that it was a period of preparation prior to the actual physical union during which the commitment to move on to marriage is irrevocable.

At the very least, though, the betrothal authorized the cultivation of emotional anticipation for the bride and groom. Now that the decision of who to marry was finalized they could focus on that person without risk of heart-break, or defrauding. Clearly betrothal authorized romance! During this time the couple's hearts grew to eagerly anticipate the delight of becoming wholly one. As their thoughts turned increasingly toward their betrothed there was no fear of rejection, no guilt of deception or unauthorized presumption, no need to hide.

I am convinced this is a scriptural design for pre-marital romance that desperately needs to be recovered today. We keep encouraging our young people to play on the freeway of heart-break, knowing they will learn the games of dodging flirtation and hoping they will not get hit by a speeding immorality.

In scripture God not only uses betrothal and marriage as an illustration of His relationship with us, but He also reverses this, teaching us about the proper relationship between husbands and wives by studying His dealing with us (see Eph. 5:22-33). It is interesting that the church is likened to a bride, with Christ as the groom (John 3:29, Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17). But has the wedding taken place yet? When is the "marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:9)? This is a future event we all look forward to. But that means the church is not yet married to Christ! Oh no! Could He change His mind and call off the wedding? No! We were bought, have been redeemed by Christ's own blood. The dowry has been paid!

The church is not married to Christ yet. We are betrothed to Him! We will never fully understand our relationship to Christ without understanding betrothal. Paul said (2 Cor. 11:2) "For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

 

 

 COMPARISONS OF
Dating, Courtship, & Scriptural Betrothal

by Jonathan Lindvall

Copyright 1994, 1997 Jonathan Lindvall. Permission hereby given to reprint this page only in its entirety.
Contact us for permission to re-publish this article. (We're fairly easy to get along with.)
You are permitted to print out individual copies of this article for yourself
or for a friend as long as you print the entire page and notify us that you have done so.

Article is reprinted by permission

 

 

A True Romantic Betrothal Example

by Jonathan Lindvall

Copyright 1997 Jonathan Lindvall

Contact us for permission to re-publish this article. (We're fairly easy to get along with.)
You are permitted to print out individual copies of this article for yourself
or for a friend as long as you print the entire page and notify us that you have done so.

Article is reprinted by permission

This article is tentatively planned as the concluding chapter of a book on the topic of God's design for Youthful Romance. Thus it is assumed that the reader is already acquainted with the foundational scriptural arguments against current dating and courtship practices and for the Betrothal Model being described and proposed.  

Matthew & Maranatha Chapman were married in 1988. They consciously purposed to offer their lives and wedding as a demonstration of their understanding of the relationship of the Lord Jesus and His bride. For them, being made ready themselves for the Lord as members of His bride, and helping other Christians in doing the same, is what they believe their calling in life and ministry to the body of Christ to be, and they wanted this expressed and demonstrated in the way they approached their marriage.

Although their unique story illustrates many of the betrothal principles discussed in this book, until more recently neither of them had ever heard of such a thing as "courtship" and certainly while they were still single they were largely unaware of the dangers and fallacies of dating. By the grace of God, however, and with Maranatha's father's help, they purposed to pattern their marriage as a testimony and symbol of God's design. Thus they were blessed to lay a scriptural foundation for their relationship from the very beginning.

According to his own confession, Matthew was anything but a model youth a father would want to marry his daughter. But the Lord gloriously saved Matthew when he was 19 years old. He soon determined to devote the rest of His life to the Lord's work. He soon enrolled in a ministerial program at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. During those years, he preached at numerous churches and revival meetings, and was active in street evangelism. Upon graduating, he began a one-year staff position as a ministerial intern at Highland Baptist Church, a large congregation in Waco.

The Lord used Matthew's time at Highland to reveal and deal with various of his most significant weaknesses. The Lord had already regenerated him, but his selfish motivations still needed to be dealt with. Matthew grew disturbed, lacking understanding of God's design for pruning and chastening those He loves. As his confusion and discouragement with the Holy Spirit's purging and breaking process became increasingly apparent, others began to be worried about him as well. His fellow intern and roommate suggested that he ought to seek counsel from Stan Owen, a godly man at Highland known for his unusual wisdom. After initial resistance, Matthew conceded his need for guidance and went to see Stan.

What began as an initial appointment turned into a long-term discipleship relationship that was extremely fruitful for Matthew. Stan gradually became a spiritual father to Matthew. With his help Matthew was able to recognize and cooperate with the painful refining process the Lord was using to correct many flaws that would have undermined later fruitfulness for the Lord. During this time Matthew also began to pursue and develop his trade as a finish carpenter.

Over the next few years the Lord steadily continued to work deeply in Matthew's life as he was living in this discipleship father-son relationship with Stan. Meantime the Lord was opening doors for his speaking ministry, and often the two of them would minister together. Matthew was intent on pursuing God without allowing any distraction. He had particularly struggled with the distraction of Romance and had purposed to give this whole matter to the Lord.

At one point as Stan was spending time with the Lord in prayer he felt impressed that his daughter Maranatha was to one day become Matthew's wife. Because there was a significant age difference between them, he doubted this idea was from the Lord, but as he prayed about this, he became increasingly certain that God was making His will known. Eventually, as he prayed over this matter, in his own heart Stan gave Maranatha to the Lord and to Matthew. He wisely said nothing to either of them, though, waiting to see how the Lord would bring this about.

One evening, not long after this, as Matthew and Stan were traveling to a speaking engagement, Matthew confided a distraction that was troubling him. "I have a confession to make," he told Stan. "Something is wrong with me. No matter how hard I try to avoid thinking about it, I find your daughter, Maranatha, very attractive. I don't know what to do about it."

Matthew was certain this attraction could not be right since Maranatha was so much younger than he. Thus he was shocked when Stan responded, "Have you ever considered that this may be a good thing? How do you know this isn't from the Lord?" As he pondered this Matthew's hopes began to rise. But Mr. Owen quickly began putting on the brakes. While he acknowledged the possibility of the Lord's direction in this, he sternly warned Matthew not to touch Maranatha, nor speak with her about the matter without his consent. He specifically cautioned Matthew to be careful to avoid doing anything to draw Maranatha's heart to himself. She wasn't ready for marriage and romance, and her father had purposed to specially guide and protect her.

At the time of Maranatha's birth, Stan Owen felt the Lord revealed to him that her life would be a particularly significant demonstration of Christ's love for His church. He gave her the name "Maranatha," meaning O Lord, Come. He was certain she had a special purpose to fulfill in demonstrating God's heart and ways.

Matthew purposed to be very careful in how he related to Maranatha. Following her father's instructions, as well as his own growing fear of the Lord and the innate recognition that she must be protected, he guarded his mouth and even his eyes from displaying any particular interest in her.

Meanwhile, unbeknown to Matthew, Maranatha had also begun confiding to her father an interest in Matthew. She was completely unaware of his attraction toward her at the time. Mr. Owen purposed to avoid encouraging her interest, but wondered if it might be of the Lord. He challenged Maranatha to keep her heart pure and focused on the Lord. As time went on, however, Maranatha found her attraction for Matthew increasingly distracting. She even began having trouble sleeping at night. She regularly confided her struggles with her father.

Mr. Owen knew Maranatha was not ready for marriage and as he observed her struggle he eventually realized he must step in and relieve her. Knowing that if this relationship was of the Lord, He would resurrect it at the proper time (and such time was not soon), he instructed her that she needed to give this whole matter up to the Lord and truly die to it. He gently directed her to completely give up any hope of ever having Matthew. She was to wholly give herself to the Lord without any lingering desire for Matthew. After a struggle with her own emotions she chose to trust and submit to her father and came to the place of surrender. God gave her the grace to completely give up all interest in Matthew. She entered into rest and, for the first time in quite a while, was able to sleep peacefully.

Still mindful of this principle of necessary death and resurrection, Mr. Owen now encouraged Matthew that he needed to completely give up his interest in Maranatha to the Lord, because she was not ready and he would only be tormenting himself to hold onto any hope. If she was the one God had for him, there was no hurry. If not, dying to this hope would spare him further unnecessary distraction. This was quite a struggle, but, in time, Matthew also saw the wisdom in laying it all down, and he came to the peace of surrender and entered into rest. Shortly thereafter, he was able to focus his attention so completely on the Lord that he rather successfully put Maranatha out of his mind.

One day, about one year later, in the early fall of 1987, as Matthew was driving and communing with the Lord, he was surprised to find his mind focusing on Maranatha. He was somewhat dismayed and immediately began trying to put these thoughts away. As he struggled to put his mind back on the Lord, he suddenly felt that the Lord gave him a specific and surprising word. (He vividly remembers the very time and spot as he was driving over a bridge crossing the Brazos River in Waco, Texas.) He felt the Lord tell him "I am giving you the desire of your heart. Don't be afraid of it." Matthew immediately sensed the Lord was referring to Maranatha. He was excited, but wanted to be certain his own imagination wasn't deceiving him.

At the next opportunity Matthew shared with Stan what he felt the Lord had shown him. Stan took this in thoughtfully and confirmed that it might well be the Lord. As they continued discussing this Matthew proceeded to ask for permission to propose marriage to Maranatha. Mr. Owen promised that he would pray about it and get back to him when he had an answer. He again reminded Matthew to say nothing to Maranatha of the matter, and to be careful that he did nothing to draw her heart unless and until he was authorized to do so. He encouraged Matthew to keep focusing his full attention on the Lord.

During the next several months, Matthew periodically asked Stan if he had heard anything, to which Stan would reply, "Nothing I am ready to share." Though these conversations were disappointing, Matthew resigned himself to waiting, and respected Stan's determination to wait for the Lord's time and design.

Throughout the previous year or so the Lord had been revealing much to both Stan and Matthew concerning the mystery of Christ's relationship with the church. In light of this, they had spent hours discussing and seeking the Lord about God's eternal purpose of preparing a bride for His Son. A by-product of these discussions focused on how an earthly marriage might be different from the typical Western experience if it were consciously patterned after the design revealed in scripture--the picture of Christ, the heavenly bridegroom, coming to take his bride, the church.

On Christmas Eve, 1987, Stan gave Matthew a Christmas card that he had made himself. On the front it said, "This year for Christmas, I am going to give you the greatest gift I could ever give you." When Matthew opened the card, there was a beautiful photograph of Maranatha. Included on the card were some instructions: "On January 1st, you may ask Maranatha to marry you." As Matthew looked up, Stan said, "On the evening of this coming New Year's Day, you may propose to Maranatha."

Mr. Owen went on to articulate further expectations to Matthew. "Don't you dare kiss her or do anything physically intimate with her, or the whole thing is off!" In addition, Stan informed Matthew that, even though he was allowing him to take this step toward marriage with Maranatha, she was still not completely ready, and he would not give her to him until he was confident she had reached such readiness, which "could be months or even years."

On New Years Eve, Matthew was visiting with the Owen family and, in her father's presence, asked Maranatha, rather casually, if she would like to go have some Chinese food with him the next evening. She was surprised and delighted, but puzzled. She immediately glanced at her father questioningly and, receiving his smiling nod of approval, agreed to join Matthew the following evening. She began wondering if perhaps God was, after all, resurrecting the romantic hopes she had put to death. She did not ponder this for too long, however, purposing to keep her heart from getting ahead of her.

That next evening of New Year's Day 1988, as Maranatha was getting ready to go out to dinner with Matthew, her father asked her to plan on going out for breakfast with him the next morning. This struck her as both unusual and interesting, because she knew her father to be one who seldom initiated going to breakfast unless there was something specific he wanted to talk about.

At the restaurant that evening Maranatha and Matthew chatted about various things of mutual interest. All the while, Maranatha was growing increasingly impatient to find out what was going on. Finally, she told Matthew about her unusual appointment to go out for breakfast the next day with her father. Then she asked, "Do you have any idea what he wants to talk to me about?"

Matthew smiled and answered, "I think I do."

"Please tell me," Maranatha pled.

Matthew looked into Maranatha's eyes and evenly began to explain his attraction to her, his sense of God's direction, and his desire to marry her.

Maranatha's countenance lit up with both excitement and astonishment, but she then responded cautiously, "Does my father know you are saying this?" Matthew gently assured her that Mr. Owen had given his blessing on his proposal and that the decision was now up to her. She immediately relaxed in the delight that God was indicating His blessing on this through her father's protective authorization.

Matthew made it clear that he could not offer her an easy, secure life. He explained God's claim and call on His life, and that this might include privation and other forms of suffering. He wanted Maranatha to consider seriously the potential cost to her of marrying him. He particularly noted that because of their relatively large age difference, she would likely someday be widowed, with a number of years still left to live on this earth. Finally, he asked her to not give him an answer at least until she had talked with her father about all these considerations.

The next day Stan Owen took his daughter out to breakfast. He assured her of his blessing and they discussed all the benefits and risks of her marrying Matthew. Ultimately all that mattered, though, was an assurance that this was God's will, which they both believed it was. Later that day Maranatha delightedly communicated her acceptance of Matthew's proposal.

Matthew and Maranatha agreed with her father that they should save physical affection for one another until they were married. But when would that be?

In the following days the young couple enjoyed discussing and praying about the actual wedding plans with her father. Mr. Owen made known his wishes that he wanted to give Maranatha to Matthew in a fashion that would glorify God and demonstrate the relationship of Christ and His church. Matthew was already prepared for this and wholeheartedly agreed, recognizing, however, that he didn't know what all that might mean practically. Mr. Owen began sharing more of his vision for a wedding that would reflect the various pictures given in the scriptures of Christ and His bride.

Matthew and Maranatha joined Mr. Owen in committing to having their wedding be a demonstration of Christ's coming for His bride. For example, in the Bible times apparently neither the bride nor groom knew exactly when the wedding was to happen. The parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13) reflects this commonly accepted practice. Jesus seemed to also allude to this in Mark 13:32 when he said, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Matthew and Maranatha agreed to allow her father (and his spiritual father) to set the day and hour for their wedding without telling them. When the time approached he would warn them to be ready and give a sense of the nearness of the event so they might focus on final preparations. He promised to give them both, but especially Maranatha, a window of time in which the wedding would occur, so that she could see to it that she was constantly ready for his coming for her during that period of time.

They all recognized that marriage engagements in our day are not considered sacred promises. Even for most Christians the engagement period still offers a final opportunity to consider the seriousness of this life-long commitment to marriage before making the decision final. Thus it is not unheard of for Christian couples to call off an engagement after having publicly announced their intention to marry.

In the Bible, however, this was not true. Prior to a marriage the couple would enter into a betrothal. The betrothal involved a virtually irrevocable covenant. The only way to revoke a betrothal was through a legally recognized divorce! And scripturally, divorce was only allowed because of moral impurity.

Recognizing this reality, Matthew and Maranatha desired to enter into a betrothal and do something that, for American culture, was more than engagement and yet less than full marriage. To accomplish this, on February 22, 1988, Stan took Matthew and Maranatha to a Justice of the Peace and they became legally bound in matrimony. Yet before God and with those whom they had close fellowship, it was understood that the consummation of their marriage, or any intimate physical affection, was not authorized until the actual wedding, which was to take place later. This was their way of implementing the pattern of the irrevocable betrothal as it was practiced in the Bible.

During the betrothal period it was Matthew's task to prepare a place to take Maranatha to live together after their marriage. This was recognized as symbolic of Christ's words (John 14:2-3), "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."

One of Maranatha's tasks during this betrothal period was to make for herself a white linen wedding gown. This was a conscious effort to model Revelation 19:7-8, "Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints."

Stan Owen's task was to plan and organize the entire wedding, as portrayed in Matthew 22. Since Matthew and Maranatha did not know "the day or the hour," it was not incumbent upon them to "carry the ball" for planning and pulling off the wedding, though Stan did periodically ask for their input concerning certain things.

The primary focus of the betrothal time for all concerned, however, was to encourage the knitting together of Matthew's & Maranatha's hearts as husband and wife. Their betrothal was recognized as an authorization to communicate the depths of their feelings with one another and to release their emotions to one another, adding to the cautious friendship relationship they already had walked in as brother and sister in the Lord for more than four years.

Mr. Owen still faithfully directed both Matthew and Maranatha to avoid physical affection until their wedding. He particularly cautioned them to guard against impatience. Especially since Maranatha was rather young, their wedding might be quite a long way off yet. Though they hoped that the time would be soon, they nevertheless resigned themselves to the real possibility that the wedding could be a matter of years down the road, much like Jacob's seven year betrothal to Rachel (Gen. 29:18-20). Yet they were both naturally quite motivated and energetically prepared in every way they could, as quickly as they could, just in case the wedding should suddenly be announced.

One evening the following summer Matthew was having dinner with Maranatha's family. After dinner Mr. Owen abruptly and unexpectedly announced that they would play a game. Matthew had already been coached on what was to transpire. Mr. Owen quickly had Matthew sit on one side of the room and Maranatha on the other, with himself in the middle. First he turned to Matthew and asked, "Do you have anything you want to say to Maranatha?"

Matthew immediately responded, "I love you, Maranatha."

Then Mr. Owen turned and pointed to Maranatha and asked, "Do you have anything you would like to say in response to Matthew?"

She was puzzled and the only thing she could think of to say was, "I love you too, Matthew."

Mr. Owen smiled in satisfaction and pointed back to Matthew, saying, "Do you have anything else to say to Maranatha?"

Matthew repeated, "I love you Maranatha." Then he added, "Be ready for me when I come!"

Now Maranatha was getting excited. Mr. Owen then pointed back to her and asked, "Do you have anything else to say to Matthew?"

Maranatha quizzed impatiently, "Does this mean our wedding will be soon?!?" It had only been a little over six months since they had become committed to marrying. During their betrothal they had repeatedly reminded each other of their willingness to wait years. Could their wedding be just around the corner?

Matthew grinned and repeated, "Be ready for me when I come!"

Immediately the other members of her family surrounded Maranatha and quickly led her away out of the house. From that moment until the actual time Matthew went to get her for their wedding, they did not see or talk to one another. Maranatha was taken to stay at the home of a Christian family where she was to wait until Matthew came to claim her as his bride. She was only told that the wedding would be some time within the next three weeks.

Her father did make it somewhat easier for her by assuring her that Matthew would come to take her sometime between 3:00 p.m. and midnight on the appointed wedding day. But Maranatha wasn't told what day that would be. She was instructed to keep her bags packed, her hair fixed, and her wedding dress on every afternoon and evening until midnight, until Matthew came for her. Day after day passed and Maranatha yearned for her bridegroom. Now that she knew the wedding would be soon it was becoming very difficult to wait peacefully. As she purposed to focus on the Lord in prayer, new insights were opened to her as she found herself longing for the Lord's return as well.

Matthew was also instructed to be ready to go and pick up his bride the moment her father gave him the word. He looked forward to the day when he would be authorized to claim her fully as his wife. As he waited, he found himself identifying strongly with Christ's yearning for His bride, the church. Spiritual treasures were opened to him that he had never understood before.

One evening as Maranatha was waiting expectantly for Matthew, her father appeared and told her he wanted to take her to dinner. He assured her this was not the night Matthew would come for her. He wanted to have one last opportunity to prepare her for her imminent marriage. Mr. Owen took her to a very nice restaurant and over dinner began expressing his delight in Maranatha's servant-hearted trust toward him up until this point. He explained that she would soon be required to transfer her whole-hearted allegiance to Matthew. This might conceivably even require her to follow his leadership in opposition to that of her father's at some point. Still, he wanted her to fully entrust herself to her husband as her new leader.

This memorable conversation continues to be a cherished memory for both Stan and Maranatha. And Matthew is so grateful for the wise preparation this was for the transition of Maranatha's loyalty to him. Stan was fully releasing his daughter a heart-wrenching experience. But in so doing he laid the foundation for a much more fulfilling parental relationship with her. Furthermore, rather than losing a daughter, his wise handling of this relationship ensured his acquisition of a loyal, unthreatened son-in-law.

Finally the day came when Stan Owen notified Matthew that everything was ready and it was time for the wedding feast. He also explained that from the time Matthew claimed Maranatha they would be married. He was giving his daughter to his spiritual son/disciple.

Matthew was ready. A "friend of the bridegroom" drove Matthew to the home where Maranatha and her attendant were waiting. Upon arriving, he bounded out of the car and up to the front door. Without knocking he entered the house with a SHOUT (as he had been instructed based on Matthew 25:6 & 1 Thes. 4:16), "Maranatha!! Maranatha!!"

When she heard his voice, Maranatha jumped up from where she was sitting with shock and joy. Matthew once again cried out, "Maranatha!" She hurriedly grabbed her packed suitcase and she and her attendant joined Matthew and "the friend of the bridegroom" in the waiting car. Neither of the newlyweds knew where they were being taken, but that was not their greatest interest at this moment.

The car pulled up to a rented banquet hall in the middle of a park in central Waco. There were approximately 150 friends and family members there waiting for them. As Matthew and Maranatha got out of the car, the guests, who were lining both sides of the walkway leading to the banquet hall, began loudly and joyfully singing a majestic song Stan had written just for this moment:

The bridegroom cometh,
The bridegroom cometh,
To catch his bride away!
The bridegroom cometh!
The bridegroom cometh!
No longer shall he delay!

The bride has made herself ready
Her name, Maranatha, "Lord come!"
The feast is now set before you,
So enter your joy and be one!
The bridegroom cometh!
The bridegroom cometh!

Matthew and Maranatha savored the moments strolling slowly and joyfully to the wedding hall between the assembled witnesses as they sang through this song several times. They were ushered into the beautifully decorated candle-lit hall and seated at an opulently embellished table set for just the two of them. At this point, the wedding feast began! Matthew and Maranatha were served all of their favorite dishes, which were prepared by a sister-in-Christ who is a gourmet cook, and whose husband served as their butler during the meal. All the guests enjoyed a pot-luck dinner and sat at tables which surrounded Matthew and Maranatha's. As the newlyweds dined they were treated to the delightful music of a harpist playing praises to the Lord, interspersed by other musical presentations by various ones. Then the guests began bringing their gifts to be opened and received one at a time, so that Matthew and Maranatha could share that moment with each individual or family who was giving to them. Matthew and Maranatha felt like a king and queen.

Earlier that day, Matthew had felt the Lord wanted him to pray for a specific amount of money needed for their honeymoon, but he didn't know how much to pray for. He asked for wisdom and began calculating. He figured $1500 would easily cover the expenses for a nice time alone for a week, as well as for things they would need in the few days immediately following their return. So he prayed for the Lord to confirm His pleasure by supplying $1500 for their honeymoon. At that time, he only had enough to pay for their first night's hotel stay, but not enough for the rest of the honeymoon trip he had planned. No one else knew about this prayer request which he felt the Lord had initiated. He was a little anxious, but trusted the Lord, not having any idea how the Lord might provide this sum. But at the wedding feast, during the time when people brought their gifts to the newlyweds, in addition to the presents that some gave, cards and envelopes containing money literally began to pile up on the table. Later that night at their hotel room, Matthew and Maranatha counted the monetary gifts. All together they totaled just over $1500.

The ceremonial celebration continued after all the gifts had been presented by the guests, in admittedly untypical, but Biblically instructed order. Everyone began to dance Jewish folk dances around the couple, and in time, Matthew and Maranatha joined in as well. Many there had never done anything like this before, but the dancing turned out beautifully appropriate to everyone's delight. As they danced they began praising and worshipping the Lord.

Opportunities were provided for various ones, including both Stan and Matthew to share what was on their hearts. Among other things, they explained to all those present the reasons for this betrothal and marriage being conducted in such an unusual manner. They spoke of the Lord Jesus and the bride He has been patiently waiting for, and how Matthew and Maranatha wanted their lives spent to that end. They noted that they desired this wedding to be a picture of, and an intercession for, the Lord accomplishing His purpose and being joined to His bride.

There was a time for those attending to pray for Matthew and Maranatha's marriage union and the family to come. Another ceremonial highlight was a time of all sharing communion.

Before Matthew and Maranatha publicly articulated their previously prepared vows to one another, she sang the following song, which she and another sister-in-Christ had written together:

Chorus:

You've captured me, O Lord.
I'm Your bride Your prize
You've called me, and wooed me.
I'm the joy of Your heart!