Relocating To Elfland

I grew up in Christian communion that was fiercely critical of “dating” and endorsed a sort of “courtship” model (though we didn’t use that term) of getting guys and girls together. The prevailing view was pretty rigid and, like many youth who grow up in rigid systems of faith or practice, I was glad to leave it behind when I came of age.

Then I became a father, and then a pastor. Nearly a decade later, while I’m still suspicious of rigid systems, I’ve seen enough of the “casual dating” ritual that prevails both inside and outside the church to believe that it’s absolutely ruinous. In many cases, it’s a hotbed of immorality, and not always for the reasons one might imagine (the backseat of a car, etc.).

I should disclose one or two things up front. I believe fervently that God made men and women different, and that the differences play out (because they’re supposed to) in the romantic “dance” between a man and a woman. I believe that, as in actual pair dances, the man’s romantic role is initiatory (he moves), and the woman’s role responsive (she moves with him); and in saying this I intend nothing rigid or formulaic. I’m not saying the woman should never initiate anything; I’m certainly not saying the man isn’t often in a position where he must respond to the woman. What I am saying is that, by creational design, a man is to offer to a woman a series of commitments, showing himself worthy of her trust, respect, and love; and if he isn’t man enough to do this, she’s in no position to – indeed, she shouldn’t – give away her heart, her body, or her life to him.

Now here’s the rub. Among evangelical Christians there’s an understanding (sometimes!) that a godly girl shouldn’t give her body to a guy until he says “I do,” until he commits himself to her in the form of marriage vows. We get that from the Bible without much difficulty: premarital sex is sin. But puzzlingly, among these very evangelical Christians, there’s often no conviction that a woman’s heart, like her body, is to be given away only to a man who shows himself worthy of it through a series of honorable, manly – one might even say, sacred – commitments.

Let me illustrate. If a young man becomes my daughter’s friend, that’s fine: I’ll encourage her to be discerning in her choice of friends, regardless of their gender. But if he wants to be anything more than a friend to her, I’ll want to know (and if I’ve taught her well, she’ll want to know) how he plans to demonstrate that he deserves anything more. Let’s suppose he asks to escort her to a dinner party, and let’s suppose for the sake of argument that I consent. Now, if at any point in the course of the evening he were to ask her to unbutton her outfit, I would break his face (non-metaphorically, of course). And lots of Christian dads are with me on that. But what if for weeks, dragging into months, he were to continue to lavish attention on her, making himself seem like a charming prince and drawing her to “unbutton” her heart more and more; but when asked what his plans and intentions are, he couldn’t give a satisfactory answer? He wants her heart (maybe it’s something else he wants), but he hasn’t made any commitment to which my daughter’s giving her heart away would be a suitable response. He hasn’t said, “I do.” He hasn’t said, “I will, on this date” (with accompanying ring). He hasn’t even said, “I will, I just have to figure out when, and I hope you’ll wait for me.” Yet meanwhile he’s treating her heart as if it’s already his. He’s toying with her. I would argue that he’s violating her. The manly thing would be to say, “I really, really like you; but we have to stop seeing each other romantically until I’m ready to commit, because otherwise I’m setting you up for a possible heartbreak, and I care for you too much to do that.” One would think this sort of chivalry wouldn’t need to be spelled out; but alas, a very different scenario plays out all the time in Christian circles, canonized (I’ve even heard Christian parents extol it) in the scourge that is “casual dating.”