You’ve seen it all before: Boy meets girl, boy and girl flirt, boy and girl fall head-over­shoes in love, boy and girl sleep together, boy and girl break up. And that’s usually just the first twenty-four hours.

Okay, maybe that hasn’t actually happened to you, but all of us have experienced that story line vicariously dozens of times or more. Every Friday night, millions of single Americans crowd the movie theaters and live out their romantic/sexual fantasies by observing the action on the screen. Many in the audience leave the theater yearning for intimacy (or at least the back seat) and, in effect, say to their date, “Let’s go out and try what we just saw,” or perhaps, “If only you could be like that!”

The pattern unfolds with unceasing predictability, partly because a movie or TV drama with the title The Restrained Adventures of Temperate Tommy and Disciplined Diane wouldn’t attract much of a following. The silliness of the title is instructive. Among other reasons, the concept is ridiculous because we have been pro­grammed to know what is supposed to happen when boy meets girl, and don’t really want to hear otherwise. (One wonders if romance had more variety before the advent of movies.)

Apart from the influence of the media and the need for discernment, the pertinent issues here are the nature of the American version of romance and your involvement with it during the teen years. What do you believe about dating?

Dating American-Style (or How to Think You’re Having More Fun Than You’re Having)

Most people spend many hours agonizing over decisions to be made in various romantic relationships before committing to a one and only partner. Yet, typically we spend little time evaluating our cul­ture’s assumptions about the dating-to-marriage ritual that seems as natur­al and inevitable as breakfast in the morning. But, just as eggs and bacon have been discovered to be a less-than-healthy way to begin the day, the American pattern of matchmaking has its own kind of social cholesterol. Four characteristics of the contempo­rary dating scene are worth examin­ing.

First, dating tends to be exclusive.  Even on the first outing, a dating duo is referred to as a twosome, a distinc­tive unit that precludes other attach­ments. One expectation in dating is to take the vague idea of pairing off and refine it into a specific, identifiable claim. “We are a Couple.” The boy-meets-girl phenomenon often leads to some measure of commitment, which grants to each person certain rights and privileges, at least until they break up. At the Altar of Going Steady, the pair will vow “till somebody better comes along do us part.”

Second, dating is about romance, a storybook concept dependent on “falling in love”—preferably in idyllic terms, complete with the blushing glance, the rush of the first touch, and an obsession with the beloved. One could say that the primary purpose of dating is to have romantic fun. Each time you go out, especially with some­one new, you have high expectations that here is your big chance to find romance—affection, understanding, excitement, or whatever you think you’ve been missing so far. In fact, you have sweaty palms and lose your ability to speak coherently because you keep hearing the internal ques­tion, “Does he [she] like me?” Even if you just met, even if you don’t like each other and there is a spoken or unspoken agreement that continuing the relationship is out of the question, both of you persist in acting “like a date” when on a date. The romantic tenor of dating, irrespective of com­mitment, is so ingrained that when Mom begins to worry about “Hannah’s dreamy eyes”, daughter snaps back, “Relax. I’m not going to marry him!” Silly Mom, dating is about swooning and crooning, not about marriage.

Third, dating pushes a couple toward privacy. How can they coo and “get to know each other” unless they find an aviary all to themselves? By definition, dating is about being “a couple”, and being a couple requires intimacy, and intimacy requires seclu­sion. End of discussion. Please close the door on the way out so that we can be alone.

Fourth, dating encourages sexual activity. When blankets of “roman­tic” devotion and downy pillows of love language are expressed in private (see above), sexual intimacy seems to want to, well, hop right in bed, too. The expectation in the American dat­ing scene is that the physical expres­sion of love gradually increases as dat­ing becomes more “serious”. Of course, sometimes the expectations do not wait for any sort of commitment. Men often expect women to “put out” after a certain amount of time or money has been spent on them. One of my friends in high school declared that if a girl was not sitting “thigh against thigh” with him by the time they left her driveway, he would turn around and drop her off. (An idle boast, I’m sure, but at least his heart was in the wrong place.) Women may not expect their dates to “put out”, but without some show of physical affection, a woman may doubt her partner’s commitment or her own desirability.

“You Belong to Me!”

What conclusions derive from this analysis? I have come to think that the American ver­sion of boyfriend/girlfriend usually leads to a quasi-marital state that could be called “emotional fornication*”. The Biblical mandate about sex is clear but difficult. The privilege of sex requires the lifetime commitment of marriage. Might there be some other aspect of relations that requires the commitment of marriage? I believe so. Just as physical union is meant to be delayed until marriage, emotional loyalty with another person should not be consummated until that time.

“Emotional fornication” refers to the premature expression of loyalty to one another. Like physical fornica­tion, it attempts to live out one of the privileges of marriage without the responsibility of making a lifelong pledge. After having made death-do-us-part promises on their wedding day, the bride and groom now have heavenly permission to be responsible to each other. The Biblical directive is “do not act united until you are for­mally united”. The dangers of prema­ture commitment, like those of pre­marital sex, stem from snatching a gift of God Out of its proper context. The quasi marital status that “going steady” amounts to is simply a coun­terfeit version of the marital state that is not meant to have God’s blessing. Elisabeth Elliot explains this situation in Passion and Purity.

Unless a man is prepared to ask a woman to be his wife, what right has he to claim her exclusive attention? Unless she has been asked to marry him, why would a sensible woman promise any man her exclusive atten­tion? If, when the time has come for a commitment, he is not man enough to ask her to marry him, she should give him no reason to presume that she belongs to him.

The kind of exaggerated possessive­ness that marks most “seriously dat­ing” couples is a distortion of the prin­ciple that married people have a right to demand faithfulness from their partner, that a certain amount of jeal­ousy is appropriate, and that spouses are accountable to each other for their time, among other things. As dating becomes exclusive, many feel they have the right to say, “Mine! Hands off!”

The following exchange might take place between any couple.

“So where were you last night?” inquires Ross.

“I went to a movie with some friends,” responds Erin. “Is that so terrible?”

“Which friends—male or female?” asks Ross. “I’ve got a right to know. I mean, haven’t we made a commit­ment to one another?”

Realizing her transgression, Erin admits, “You’re right. I should have told you my plans.”

Although the above conversation sounds innocent enough, the assump­tions (and jealousy) behind Ross’s cross-examination are justifiable in the case Of married couples. Sometimes individuals make life-changing deci­sions (such as refusing a job or trans­ferring to another college) simply to meet the demands of loyalty in a dat­ing relationship. If the couple chooses not to marry, each individual still must live with the practical conse­quences of those choices.

Dating is emotional fornication if the couple attempts to live as if they have already taken the vows of mar­riage. The privilege of “holy jeal­ousy”—the right to have the other account for certain decisions and the claim to exclusive attention—is part of the experience of being married. It reflects part of what the Bible calls being “one flesh”, for there are many “unions” that marriage implies. For example, on our wedding day, my wife and I vowed to be intertwined not only physically, but also psycho­logically, economically, and emotion­ally. To be “one flesh” is to live together before God and the world as a unit, no longer “Greg” or “Janet” (or even “Greg and Janet”) but “the Spencers”. Since we have undertaken to function in society as a kind of sin­gle organism (not that we do this admirably all the time), it is entirely appropriate that we know each other’s plans and see ourselves as caught up together in the privilege, responsibili­ty, and mystery of our union.

Of course, because we are still unique and sinful individuals, we have the potential to abuse these privileges. Sex could be abused in adultery or manipulation. Loyalty could be abused in extramarital commitments (“emotional adultery”?) or in the cre­ation of an oppressive, confining atmosphere in the home. Even so, the promise of exclusivity and total fideli­ty is only proper in the context of marriage. In a Christian marriage, each partner belongs to the other, sec­ond only to his or her commitment to God.

In marriage, the task of honorable accountability is difficult enough. In dating, since the strings of “going steady” are never strong enough to bear the weight of such loyalty, this holy jealousy nearly always deterio­rates into possessiveness. The critical determinant seems to be that if an experience is at the heart of marital “privilege”, the experience should wait until after the wedding. There are many ways to cheat the union of being one flesh. For example, does “going steady” warrant partial sexual intimacy? Contrary to popular prac­tice, the Scriptures teach otherwise. Outside the protection of marriage, the responsibilities of sexual expres­sion and its consequences—including the vulnerability to emotional pain and the need to honor the declaration “I give you my all”—are virtually ignored. Likewise, the responsibilities of loyalty are not protected outside of marriage; the preparation to bear one another up in sickness, frailty, depres­sion, and so on. To modify a recent advertising slogan: “We should call no one ‘mine’ before it’s time.”

Yet it is also hard to wait if “every­one else” seems less patient. The older you get, the greater will be the pres­sure to “have a steady”. But, as in all moral dilemmas, the primary issue is one’s faith. Why wait for a vow of loyalty? Why sacrifice today’s joy for tomorrow’s promise? Because you trust God. You trust that He knows better than you do, that He has your best interests in mind, that, in fact, His ways are ultimately more pleasureable and less painful than your own.

So What Does Confirmed Bachelor St. Paul Know about Dating?

Unfortunately, the Bible does not have a special section on dating (or on such other contemporary issues as TV or nuclear weapons). But there are many texts that discuss rela­tionships. Two especially sound ones come from the pen of the apostle Paul: Romans 14 and I Corinthians 7. In the Romans 14 passage, Paul comments on the specifics of minor doctrinal squabbles and then lists a guiding principle or two for our deal­ings with other people. He argues that once we do not live to please ourselves but the Lord (vv. 7-9), our behavior should strive for what is found in his kingdom: righteousness and peace and joy (v. 17). Specifically, we should “do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (v. 19). Sound advice for any interpersonal situations including opposite sex relationships. A related queston might be, “Does dating encourage peace, harmony, joy, righteousness, mutual improvement— and all other noble qualities? What has been your experience?

When Paul directs his teaching toward singleness in 1 Corinthians 7, he suggests that the unmarried state has at least two advantages over being married: less divided devotion to God (vv. 32, 34) and fewer troubles from societal and family pressures (vv 28, 33). Paul believes that the single-minded pursuit of the Lord is easier for the single person not distracted by the responsibilities of marriage. If this is true, for single people to act as if they were married would be the worst of both worlds. The advantages of singleness would be lost without gain­ing the advantages of marriage.

Two principles, then, are pertinent to followers of Christ who are not yet married: (1) you should encourage the pursuit of peace and mutual edifica­tion in all your relationships, and (2) you should take advantage of your single state as a way to avoid entangle­ments that could draw your attention away from the discipleship to which every Christian is called.

Given these principles, premarital possessiveness (what I’ve been calling emotional fornication) does not mea­sure up very well. First, dating one person exclusively is often not peace­ful. Many conflicts erupt over what freedoms are permitted or denied. Jealousy, too, causes conflict, as do the decisions one has to make so as to honor whatever promises have been exchanged. Second, sexual expecta­tions rarely lead to “mutual edifica­tion”, let alone harmony. The Battle of the Blouse is waged often, and when it ends in unconditional surren­der, both combatants have ceased to ask what is good for the other. Third, the emotional upheaval caused by suc­cessive infatuations and breakups “disrupts the peace”, and it can accli­mate you to the idea that canceling a commitment is an acceptable way to resolve conflict. Aren’t you then learning patterns that make you more comfortable with divorce? Fourth, the state of steady dating inhibits the free­dom that is the blessing of singleness, yet cheats you of the comforting secu­rity that is wedlock’s glory. Since most young people are usually either “on the make” or with one word could become “on the make”, they live in fear of not being attached or of becoming unattached. God’s designs for singleness and marriage are means to be free from these fears.

In light of Paul’s standards, American-style dating practices do not appear to be conducive to relational or moral health. Even so-called innocent or casual dating can be destructive because it assumes the legitimacy of common romantic standards. As you examine your own experience, do the problems inherent in emotional forni­cation ring true?

If you’re still with me, you may be wondering if I remember what it was like to be a Christian single, possibly lonely and confused about how to relate to the opposite sex without coming across as that none-too-rare species, the Tongue-tied, Red-faced Footswallower. Yes, I do remember all that—but I have also since learned that there is a better way to journey toward each other than to head off down the dating path, hand-in-hand with the first dashing or compatible person around. Although there’s a slight chance you might avoid the poi­son oak and thistles and make it to the right camp site, you may also suffer deep scrapes and ugly bruises. Sometimes the “better way” requires you to backtrack and try a new path altogether.

In the Beginning, Friendship

What I’m suggesting is that you replace the cycle of Dating! Engagement! Marriage with Friendship/Courtship! Marriage. We have seen that whenever “dating” essentially means “mating”, its rituals and rules run counter to Paul’s call for “peace and mutual edification”. Yet, despite what your raging hormones, the media, and some of your peers are telling you, Paul’s lofty goals are with­in your reach—especially if your het­erosexual relationships begin as friendships and continue on that basis until there is joint agreement that mar­riage is a distinct possibility.

The American version of dating, as summarized by the four characteristics we’ve been discussing, is diametrically opposed to the make-friends-first axiom. First, whereas dating tends to be exclusive, friendship is inclusive and open ended. Three friends are better than two, and four better than three, as long as the newcomers mesh with the orientation and personalities of the old groups. Second, dating is seclusive and seeks privacy. For friends, however, solitude is not advantageous except when discussing confidential or sensitive subject mat­ter. Third, as they participate in pub­lic, socially-oriented experiences, het­erosexual friends can relate interper­sonally yet avoid dating’s romantic orientation. C. S. Lewis said in The Four Loves, “Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest.” Fourth, whereas dating raises expectations of physical response (no matter how “spiritual” the two people think they are), friend­ship arouses only such personal expec­tations as trustworthiness and sympa­thy.

A man and woman who simply want to get to know each other do not strive for exclusiveness, privacy, or romance. In fact, their focus is usually not on the relationship but on the commonality that binds them. Does this mean that a man and a woman should never go together to a movie and for coffee afterward? It depends. The most helpful way to distinguish between dating and friendship is not to make a legalistic list of things one can and cannot do, but to work at answering the question: “What do same-sex friends do?” If they treat each other the way you are treating your opposite sex friend, you can be more confident that you are not slip­ping into emotional fornication. Perhaps Paul had this relational style in mind when he wrote about treating “younger women as sisters, with absolute purity” (I Tim. 5:2).

Some things are rather clearly defined, however. Do friends hold hands? Do friends “make out” on the couch? Does George get mad when Bob visits Sam? Not in most normal same-sex friendships. But do friends go to movies? Do friends go out for coffee or a sandwich together? Do friends have some measure of commit­ment to each other? Of course they do. Friends don’t stare into each oth­er’s eyes, or talk a lot about their rela­tionship, or worry about whether it’s okay for Teresa to have a conversation with Steve’s roommate in plain sight of everyone. But whether the friends are named “George and Bob” or “Teresa and Steve”, they can care deeply about each other. True friend­ships share a sense of loyalty that never deteriorates into “I belong to you” possessiveness.

In addition, because friendship is not expected to lead to romance, the pain, regret, and destructive patterns of “going steady” and breaking up” can be sidestepped. Many men and women never think of relating to the opposite sex except as potential roma­natic or sexual partners. Think of the joy that is missed when half of the human race is eliminated as a source of companionship and emotional sup­port!

Of course, given the mysteries of person-to-person attraction and our culture’s preoccupation with sensuali­ty and instant gratification, a commit­ment to platonic friendship swims against the prevailing current. Those who decide to follow this path may find that it is preferable to stick to group activities and avoid situations which are not stereotypical dating events.

Does this mean that those who choose to explore friendship first will not later become infatuated and want “something more” from the relation­ship? No. That’s the hardest part. That powerful sense of attraction is not sinful per se, but it does make maintaining a platonic perspective dif­ficult. The key is in your commitment to the Friendship/Courtship/Marriage cycle, and in your willingness to for­sake some immediate pleasure for future gain. That’s where your Christian community can be especially supportive.

The Lost Art of Courtship

So what happens when you discov­er that friendship is not enough? Some couples who are friends for a while may discover a serious, mutual attraction that they would like to pur­sue “romantically”. Because that sounds so businesslike, I’ll put it another way. What if Teresa and Steve begin to feel like they are “falling in love”? In the pattern that I’m suggesting, they would not begin to “date”, at least not in the tradition­al sense of the word. In fact, we would do well to dispense with the idea of “dating” altogether. Instead, Teresa and Steve would begin to “court”. I know that may sound like a hopelessly out-of-date idea, but I mean to propose a new vision of “courtship” that shows how different it is from “dating” in motive, expecta­tions, and practice. They are as dis­similar as whole grain rice is from instant rice. Dating, too, is a counter­feit; it may taste okay at first, but it doesn’t have any substance.

Here is the difference in rather stark, hard terms. Dating is misdirect­ed illusion; it is as an end in itself. Dating is about play-acting marriage without enjoying all its benefits or committing to its responsibilities. Courtship focuses on marriage. Romance will be part of the experi­ence, but it is not the intended goal. In dating, jealous possessiveness is expected. In courtship, the couple is trying to discover if some form of healthy possessiveness (marriage) is in their future. Courtship is a conscious, mutual, evaluative movement toward a marriage that is based on friendship.

Although we cannot always easily categorize our attractions and our intentions, the difference in perspec­tive will affect our choices. People expect that their dating “careers” will include a series of sexual and emotion­al attachments and subsequent detach­ments. Those who court anticipate that they may commit to courtship only once in a lifetime (though given current relational patterns, this would be rare). In dating, couples ask, “What can we do to have romantic fun?” In courtship, couples say, “Sure, let’s have some romantic fun— but let’s also find out if we are right for each other.”

Have I made courtship out to be a drab, strictly rational examination of a couple’s compatibility quotient? I hope not. The excitement of contem­plating marriage and beginning to sort through the implications of spending a lifetime together is intense and won­derful. Is courtship just a morally sanctioned version of dating? Is it:

“As long as we don’t date over and over again, it’s okay?” No. Courtship may add the seriousness of potential vow-making (and baby-mak­ing), but it does not subtract the joys of romantic attraction.

There will be some similarities between dating and courtship. As couples court, the characteristics of dating—intimacy—will become more noticeable. Courtship obviously entails spending significant time together and thinking of each other in more personal terms. Yet, even though the casual nature of dating is replaced in courtship by a more sin­cere, evaluative orientation, the prohi­bitions against physical and emotional fornication (so often ignored in dat­ing) still hold. Although the desire for physical contact seems to grow with a will of its own, Christians must avoid “even a hint of sexual immorality” (Eph. 5:3) and, specifically, situations igniting a fire that can only be quenched in sexual intercourse.

While courtship encourages the growth of emotional commitment and accountability, Christians ought to resist their yearning to be “wedded” to the beloved. To give the other the freedom you have no right to restrict, you must suppress your desire to grasp and possess. You might rephrase the sexual question in these terms: “how far can I go emotionally?” The safest response would be to go only as far as will allow you to remain free to act as a single person, as spontaneously as God desires—and to respect and encourage that impulse in the other person. What harm will come to you if you live out your desires premature­ly? The modern litany of relational chaos may become your personal recitation. What harm will come to you if you suppress the urge to live out all your physical and emotional desires? None. We all have to sup­press certain desires every day. (For example, I may have to put off my coffee break so I can finish this chap­ter.) In fact, the waiting may make the fulfillment all the sweeter.

The more I talk to students about their dating experiences and see their pain and guilt, the more motivated I become to recommend a different way to prepare for marriage. Although wooing-toward-wedlock has no built-in guarantees against overstated dreams and clammy hands, the advan­tages of courtship make it a com­pelling option. For one thing, the implication that marriage is a distinct possibility increases the chance that the courting pair will welcome feed­back from more mature couples or even seek formal advice from a Christian counselor. Courtship is an arrangement into which one does not enter lightly. Because courtship’s link to marriage makes it less likely to be an on-again/off-again involvement that “going steady” often is, courtship blesses friendship. Instead of all het­erosexual relationships operating “on trial”, tormented by the other’s exact­ing checklist, the evaluative experience is restricted to courtship. Relieved of such pressure, precourtship friends can be free to enjoy each other’s company, and courting couples can honor, and not be threatened by, the platonic aspect of their relationship.

All in all, courting couples would seem more likely to make informed marriage commitments than couples whose vision is clouded by romantic fairy tales. Filled with the knowledge of the other in a variety of character-revealing circumstances and open to the constructive criticism of loving friends, courting couples tend to base their choices regarding marriage on secure foundations.

Courtship is such a serious stage in a relationship that it is logical to ask, “How will we know when to begin courting?” Since any human relation­ship is somewhat of a “mystery” in that it has many undefinable elements unique to the individuals involved, the best I can do is respond rather obscurely and hope you get the point. When should you enter courtship? When you can do nothing else. When—out of your desire to act wise­ly instead of upon the whimsy of infat­uation—you can suppress your attrac­tion no longer. When—after experi­encing the richness of friendship—the potential of marriage seems an appro­priate idea to explore. Courtship actually begins when you are ready to acknowledge that, barring unforeseen complications, the two of you will probably get married. Sounds simple, huh?

Having remained friends long enough to test their basic compatibili­ty, couples then may choose to test the possibility of marriage. Courtship is romance for the sake of marriage, a phase that one enters humbly, acknowledging all that is necessary to forge a strong marriage. Courtship is a nerve-racking, tenuous, discomfort­ing challenge. It is also a wonderfully exciting period of life.

Breaking the Pattern

So, now what? What if the ideas in this chapter ring so true that you are ready to live them out? What if, after years of “dating”, you are ready to ask, “How do I stop this emotional fornication?” (Most of you won’t say that out loud!) Here are some suggestions that will help you get started on that personal makeover.

First, changing your perspective requires a clear sense of where you are headed and what you want to avoid. In a culture that drenches you with messages to the contrary, you will more faithfully remain steadfast if you keep a destination in sight. If you decide that you want to reject emo­tional fornication and accept the courtship model, consider what images will keep that vision before you and what propositions will remind you of the way you would like to go. Take specific steps to resist the obsession with sensual romance that exists in our world. For example, laugh at the commercials that claim that romance equals happiness or that chewing this gum or driving that car, etc., will make you irresistible to just about everyone. Temptations tend to recede under the light of truth, espe­cially when the brightness is applied with humor. Martin Luther once remarked that the proud spirit of Satan cannot endure to be mocked. Christians are called to both hate evil and cling to the good. Although romance is a gift from God and there­fore is not “evil”, it has been inflated to proportions that resemble idolatry. If you can recognize the idol, will you knock it off its pedestal?

Second, recognize that in a world with an unheavenly bent, living by faith is not just a matter of bearing down and “doing good” with gritted teeth. Trusting God about relation­ships is as difficult as trusting him about other matters. You can be cer­tain that you will sometimes experi­ence failure, that you will require his mercy and patience often. Most of us carry a substantial amount of guilt about past relationships. With the weight of this burden on our shoul­ders, many of us have become deformed, even crippled. We need healing and transformation, not mere­ly the removal of the load. And, indeed, this is what God promises. If you renew your faith in Jesus as the Healer and Helper that you need, his grace will abound.

Third, I have become convinced that the Friendship/Courtship plan may not be achievable outside the con­text of Christian fellowship. As Os Guinness said, pursuing a way of life contrary to prevailing social norms requires a community that also oper­ates contrary to those norms. Without much imagination, you can probably see the difficulties of trying to replace dating with the friendship approach in a social environment that accepts dat­ing as the appropriate pattern for het­erosexual relationships. How could this be accomplished without a sup­port system? My students have told me that, after discussing this point of view with others, they made an overt commitment to form a group for men and women who wanted to spend time together without the pressure of pair­ing up. Romances sometimes devel­oped, but the confirmed values and dedication to friendship within the group make it much easier for individ­uals to avoid “emotional fornication”.

Finally, remember that the joy of significant, loving relationships is always within your reach. Is American-style dating a necessary pre­requisite for deep sharing and emo­tional intimacy? No. Although you will need to be on guard against sub­jects and situations that are physically and emotionally seductive, the heaven­ly conversations of kindred souls, where eternal truths are discussed and treasured, is even more attainable. The courtship perspective sets you free to pursue that joy.

The concept of emotional fornica­tion is not merely a curious play on words. The simple reminder comes:

we reap what we sow. During an age when countless relational disasters cause many to refer to themselves as “damaged goods”, we would do well to heed the apostle Paul’s admonition toward peace and encouragement.

This article by Greg Spencer is excerpted from the book A Heart for Truth: Taking Your Faith to College (See review on page 15.) published by Baker Book House. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

*I would like to thank Jack Crabtree for coining that phrase.