2/27/2004 01:18:00 PM|||Andrew|||I've been reading through Boundaries in Dating, a book by two psychologists which goes through a lot of different issues in dating; I've learned quite a bit from it, and taken many of their words to heart. There is something that they mention, however, which both brings me great joy and great sorrow. They talk about Josh Harris's book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and say something very insightful about it.

"For many people the pain and suffering of dating becomes too much, and they are ready for an alternative. And out of this motivation, we concur with the followers of the no-dating movement and its proponents. The pain of dating is not worth it if it does not lead to anything good. We understand Mr. Harris's motive for writing this book.

But we disagree with his conclusion."

In general, I think that the book gives good advice for people using the casual dating paradigm. Clearly, these two writers have the credentials and experience to know a lot about the subject they write about, and they offer well thought out, Biblical solutions. And I think they are right, and the fanatics that Josh Harris has created are wrong, that dating is not this evil beast seeking to devour Christians.

But here is my great dissappointment: while they offer good suggestions on Biblical behavior given the paradigm of casual dating that prevades our society, they never really stop to consider whether the paradigm is, in itself, the best one. I think that their great experience as psychologists hurts them here, because they don't seem to see past the dating system. They suffer from what is known as the "is-ought" fallacy. Just because something in the world is a certain way, doesn't mean it ought to be that way. A hundred years ago, the most prominent pre-marriage ritual was the courtship, something much closer to (thought not quite the same as) what Josh Harris describes in his second book, Boy Meets Girl.

So my question is, why one over the other? Just because most people are casually dating does not mean that everybody should, in the same way that just because most people courted some years ago meant that everybody should do that. If that was the case, the paradigm would never have changed.

I think a middle road is required, a road which examines both casual dating and courtship, without any assumptions about which is the "best" way of doing things. I'm not about to write a book on the subject, but here are my thoughts sketching out a sort of middle road. It seems to me that Josh Harris is right in his first Habit of Highly Defective Dating when he says, "Dating leads to intimacy, but not necessarily to commitment." Harris offers much anecdotal evidence to support this idea throughout his book, and it is something I've observed around me as well. However, I've also noticed that the converse seems to be true of courtship-style relationships, based on my observations of others and my own experience: courtship sometimes leads to commitment, but not necessarily intimacy. My suggestion is that these two opposing trends can be explained in terms of different kinds of people.

Some people tend to seek after intimacy first and foremost, and for these people casual dating may not be the best mechanism for them to find a good life partner. It may in fact work out, by the grace of God, but I think it much more likely that they end up commiting to another person only because they want to hold onto some really close level of intimacy. The problem is that when intimacy wanes (and it will, from time to time) and commitment is shaky, there is potential for conflict, seperation, and divorce. Joey from the TV show Friends seems to be a good example of this type of person.

Some people tend to seek after commitment first and foremost, and for these people courtship may be a dangerous mechanism to use. They are perhaps more likely to overcommit, moving beyond what intimacy is there merely for the sake of having a stable, orderly relationship. The problem is when intmacy between two people of this type never really takes off after all, and they are left unhappily married, less likely to divorce because they value commitment so highly. A good example from Friends would be Ross, of course. ;)

And so it seems to me that a middle road must be found by each person indivdually. This middle road requires self examination, which is never popular, and a conscious movement away from natural tendency. Someone who values intimacy highly might make a conscious decision to hold back from intimacy until there is more commitment. Someone who values commitment highly might make a conscious decision to be sure that an appropriate level of intimacy is already there before commiting. I doubt either person attempting to hold back in this way will fall into the opposing trap, but will be much more likely to find a relationship where intimacy and commitment grow together, in tune with one another.

And so I suggest a mechanism more fluid than either the casual dating so prevalent in the secular world or the fanatical courtship sweeping the evangelical world. Dating ought not to be a matter of rules and regulations, but of balanced, growing, relationships with the end goal as much in mind as the present time. To consider it as a tool in itself seems wrong to me, but to reduce it to nothing more than a means to an end is also wrong.

As always with anything that I write, take these things with a grain of salt. I don't claim to be expert on any of these things (particuarly not this subject), but I'd like to think that I'm decent at analyzing the things I see. Ultimately, if you disagree with me, that's absolutely fine. Your view on dating is ultimately much less important than your relationship with God. And my tendency is to think that if you're doing all right there, that God will bless you in all your affairs, dating or otherwise.|||107791671196990053|||