Stuff Christians Like #19: Kissing Dating Goodbye
Everyone knows that Christians love marriage, particularly early marriage. I mean, the most exciting 7th Heaven episodes were always the ones involving marriage or engagement! If you visit just about any suburban church you will immediately be overwhelmed with the amount of PR dedicated to marriage & family, regardless of the fact that only 1/2 of the population is married. From the picture on the bulletin, to the pictures behind the text on the powerpoint, to the teddy bears on the stage during Mother’s Day, christians love marriage! This is why it can be so confusing when a christian tells you they are kissing dating goodbye. WHAT? KISSING IT GOODBYE???!! Isn’t that the path to the ultimate christian status?!
Here is what you must understand about kissing dating goodbye…
Although they are abandoning the concept of dating, they will argue they are replacing it with something more “biblical”: & they are referring to courtship. At first this can sound hyper serious, and the individual may be so excited that you could begin to wistfully believe that courtship is some sort of higher form of dating. DO NOT BE CONFUSED! The courtship advocates will say the differences lies in the fact that they do not date anyone until they believe they will marry them, and that they ask the girl’s parents for permission to “court,” which could lead to marriage. So, what? pray tell? is the difference between courtship and really intense dating at Bible College? The answer is nothing. As a new member in a church you may feel that courtship is a nuanced position that everyone gets but you, but do not be alarmed…. the non-courtshipping christians don’t get it either.
To aid the newcomer in fitting in dating wise, they should employ some of the following pick up lines and advice, which will allow them to enter the Christian dating scene, without having to kiss dating goodbye…
For girls: keep your eyes peeled for “emo-ho’s.” These guys are rampant at Bible & Christian colleges. If they were non-christians, they’d be frat boys hooking up with a different girl each weekend, but that isn’t exactly allowed. The alternative is for them to enter into emo-ho territory. Their MO is very simple.. they have very brief, yet emotionally intense relationships with multiple girls each semester. Each girl is lead to believe that they are “the one.” So, if you know a guy is in a serious relationship with someone else, yet asks you to go to Starbucks because he “just needs someone to talk to, and his roommates are all not deep enough.” or he wants to hang out with you b/c he, “just wrote new song on his acoustic guitar, but his girlfriend just doesn’t get his musical side,” RUN FOR THE HILLS!
For guys… You are expected to take charge right? Well, here are some pick up lines to help you along:
-God told me we were going to get married, want to go to Friendly’s?
-That’s a great bracelet, “what would Jesus date?” I mean, “do.”
-My favorite book of the Bible is Song of Solomon, do you know what it means in Hebrew?
-You’re my sister in Christ! We have to hug!
-Do you believe in Divine Appointment? B/C I am reading this great book about pre-destination.
-Do you need a ride to church?
-I made this list of the top 10 things I wanted in my wife back in youth group, and you have 11 of them.
-Want to sit next to me in the last seat of the van?
-Can I carry your Bible for you? It looks heavy.
-Can I add your phone number to our prayer chain?
-It’s not coveting if you’re destined to be mine.
-What’s your love language? I have all five.
Meade
amybaker
yngfrnkstn
v02468
May 12, 2008 at 4:23 am
What about, “I have the gift of tongues, want to see?”
This is funny stuff, yet also kind of pathetic. I ended up going to a Baptist university when I was a junior because my dad worked there and I got free tuition. I grew up a Christian, but I was pretty jaded by then and definitely an outsider looking in. My first semester I met a girl who went to the local Pentecostal Church, and for our first “date” we went to her church for Sunday am services, and then I went home with her family for lunch. The service itself was wild, replete with episodes of dozens of people screaming out prophecies in tongues at the same time, and lots of various annointings going on here and there. Then when we got back to her house, had lunch, and immediately afterwards the girl vanished and her father ushered me into the back yard alone and gave me the interrogation of my life. This was his most precious commodity and he wanted to know if he could entrust her to me, yadda yadda yadda, for about 2 hours. Of course, he had his giant bible in his lap the whole time, pointing out various scriptures that were pertinent to his questions about me. We hadn’t even kissed yet - it was literally our first date. It was as if I were asking permission to marry her, and he both scared the hell out of me and pissed me off at the same time.
The next day I called her up and said that I wasn’t sure if we were really right for each other because I didn’t know if I could deal with her parents, and she said that she had cried all night and finally received God’s word to her heart - that it wasn’t His will for us to be together, despite her physical attraction to me. Good stuff. That was probably the weirdest thing I had ever heard a girl say at that time in my life, but I quickly learned that this was pretty much the standard MO for the Christian dater who wants to move on. I wondered why she couldn’t just tell me the truth - that I wasn’t acceptable to her daddy because I was not as dedicated a Christian as he thought I should be.
So when I say all this is “pathetic” I mean that it’s sad Christians feel they can get away with this kind of nonsense and mumbo jumbo. But in a culture where you are expected to spiritualize everything, it’s not surprising.
May 12, 2008 at 8:33 am
While ‘I kissed dating goodbye” is often distorted in the way you mentioned, the actual premise for it (or at least his second book) is that dating for the sake of dating isn’t a good situation to be in. In his second book (which I read) he argues that if you are going to date, at least have a purpose to it - try to get to know them! And that’s about all he said in all 200 or whatever pages of it. (the rest of the pages were stories)
So yeah, I like the principle of dating for a purpose (getting to know the person). I would also agree with Harris that dating with NO purpose is not good.
May 12, 2008 at 8:38 am
Note as well that Joshua Harris wrote his first book BEFORE he ever dated.
At least his second book was written after he got married (if I remember correctly)
May 12, 2008 at 8:55 am
Yup, I’ve read both and like them. I’m a fan of JH if not his exact model of courtship. His sermons at Sovereign Grace are excellent.
JDollar$: That’s a horrible and wonderful story. I’ve got one almost exactly the same except the dad was a cop and he threatened to shoot me in the knee if I ever touched his daughter. We were not even dating.
May 12, 2008 at 8:57 am
this is just about as creepy as it gets for mainstream Christians. it’s disappointing in a way, b/c if your heart is in the right place, as Christians you’re probably not going to fall into most of the traps anyways. in other words, we’re shielding ourselves against something we weren’t going to do anyways. which just makes us end up being weirder.
and let’s be real: the logical extension of this is that we should just man up and pass out chastity belts. that’s what this is about. come on.
May 12, 2008 at 8:58 am
“We were not even dating.”
So you were just “hooking up?”
May 12, 2008 at 9:22 am
Ha, no. We worked together and were friends. I’ve got the belts on order for YG. They have a WWJD logo.
How’s this pickup line “Don’t you have my rib?”
May 12, 2008 at 9:22 am
I didn’t know what hooking up meant back then. I’ve got an embarrassing story in that regard.
May 12, 2008 at 9:25 am
OH MAN MUST HEAR STORY. I have a sweet “Jesus Saves” belt buckle that i will wear next time i see you. it’s so awesome that i have worn it to church both ironically and straight simultaneously.
I also am still in shock, 9 or so years later, that something as depraved as “hooking up” has such an innocuous nickname.
May 12, 2008 at 9:54 am
jdoll: that’s a phenomenal story, I was literally cringing while reading it.
av; I am sorry but I cannot help but make fun of the courtship crews… they take themselves WAY seriously,
and maybe this is just my experience, but most of them I have known are always guys. and they are always guys who screwed up sexually or something and were dating nominally christian girls. It’s like a weird holiness rebound.
May 12, 2008 at 9:57 am
I also love that you pointed out that he wrote that first book without dating… it just kills me when people write really dogmatic books w/o experience in those areas, like the chick who wrote the lies women believe book that said limiting your number of kids was sin, and working as a woman was wrong once you were married, and was evidence you didn’t trust God. Yet… she is still unmarried and has no kids.
May 12, 2008 at 10:24 am
why are there books for everything? why can’t i make a sticker? “Just Don’t sleep together.” shouldn’t that be it? who has time for a book for something that’s obvious. too many freaking books.
Plus all of these freaking courtship people are driving rusty buckets of bolts. If you are courting, I bygod want to see a a horse. I may even go dogmatic and say it has to be a white horse.
May 12, 2008 at 10:54 am
Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
May 12, 2008 at 11:27 am
I loved this one: “I made this list of the top 10 things I wanted in my wife back in youth group, and you have 11 of them.”
Hilarious.
When it comes to dating advice, I’d rather follow Driscoll: keep your hands to yourself, keep your clothes on, love Jesus, get a job, get a mortgage, get married, and then get Song-of-Songs-freaky.
May 12, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I’ve been reading a bunch of Rousseau and Hobbes for a course I just finished, and it’s made me think a lot about the ’state of nature.” This matter of dating and sexuality seems pertinent, since we humans are programmed for horniness, and those adolescent years are so painful and awkward. Everything in us urges us towards sex, yet we are at the point where we are least ready for the consequences of sex. The beauty and innocence of youth only compounds matters, and sometimes it seems like nature - or God - had a good laugh with that one. I suppose what you do have to learn is a little matter of self-discipline and delayed gratification, two things which are essential for success as a mature adult, so maybe it’s not such a horrible joke being played on us after all. It sure seems like it at the time, though.
I have a sinking feeling that because of the way we are made, God is not so against sexual activity outside of marriage as we think God is. I’m not talking about using and abusing others, but natural sexual attraction and mutual love. We (Christians) make a big taboo about it, which probably makes the whole situation 10 times worse, but in reality, people are programmed to mate and to produce offspring. That’s natural.
May 12, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I think the issue is more that society has changed and we are married far later than our bodies were designed to wait. In former societies, you were married much, much closer to the onset of puberty. We now have a later schedule, and an almost extended adolescence, that prolongs marriage sometimes more than a decade past sexual maturity.
May 12, 2008 at 4:42 pm
True dat.
May 12, 2008 at 4:57 pm
So really those polygamists were onto something. Wait what?
May 12, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Plus JDolla$ there’s a huge slippery slope insofar as “how can we possibly deny that these urges, which are innate, are so right to fulfill?” so there’s that.
Well for another thing, they are obscure, but I could probably pull a handful of lessons from history if I spent some time that show that there is a powerful amount of bad that goes wrong from the naturalistic fulfillment of our sexual urges.
Regardless of what your imaginary tiger and whoever that other guy is said. *wink*
May 12, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Well… (smiling) I’ve read that 16 year old FLDS boys are not rushing off into marriage (or sex), and the rare ones that do have a monogamous marriage (at first). The teen girls are being married off as bonus wives for geezers, most of them in their 40’s and 50’s. That seems like a pretty different situation than two young oversexed pups playing doctor because their naughty bits are making them feel that ol’ urge to merge.
May 12, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Fair enough, but I imagine there’s also a lot of “bad” that comes from repression and guilt from being told that natural feelings are “dirty” or “sinful.” To me, if right and wrong aren’t easy to discern, there’s usually at least a “better choice” or “worse choice” to choose from. Trouble is, we (Christians) don’t teach our young people to think, since thinking leads to doubting and doubting leads to apostasy, so how can we expect them to make wise or intelligent decisions, or to use their reason and will to tame the animal nature when necessary?
I see what you mean, though. One extreme is to teach young people that sex outside of marriage is a sin and has its consequences, etc. The other extreme is to say that since sex seems so natural, we should just go with whatever desires we have. That would be the same as trying to argue that I should eat steak and jellybeans every night for supper, since I desire them so. But I wasn’t trying to go that far. I don’t doubt the dangerous consequences of young, casual, unmarried sex. But I do question the “sin” angle for natural urges. To me it isn’t a matter of breaking the moral law, but of behaving with prudence and intelligence and making the best choices. Easy to talk about, hard to do. I suspect Christians take this stuff so seriously because when you make a mistake - or sin - whatever you want to call it - with sex - a baby, a real person with a soul and an eternal destiny - comes out. Yikes.
May 12, 2008 at 9:09 pm
JDolla$: Good point. You nailed the “slippery slope” argument of don’t think bc it will lead to doubts and doubting leads to apostasy. That bit there summarizes so much that is wrong with the christian subculture.
In your second paragraph I think you separate two things I hold together. You seemed like you made a distinction between a moral law and behaving to make best choices. I think those things are one and the same. Since God made the universe with a moral and a physical order, going against the moral law has real world consequences. Lying isn’t just a problem because it breaks one of God’s rules, it’s a rule because it tears the fabric of relationships which is existentially THERE just like gravity. In other words the moral law reveals what the best choices are. LIke Jesus said all the law is summed up in the principle of loving God and loving neighbor.
May 12, 2008 at 11:21 pm
While I wouldn’t agree with JH’s whole courtship thing exactly, I love some of the underlying principles. I really do. Call me a daddy’s girl, but I most definitely want my parents involved in my dating relationships. Not like, arranging marriages for me, but….yeah. I think at this age, it’s good and even necessary. (Especially since I still can’t drive yet xD)
And the whole “dating just to be dating” thing is worthless, stupid, and only for people with low self-esteem. Not fierce Queens girls like me. xD
May 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hmmm, Meade. I guess that was confusing. What I meant was that I don’t believe sexing it up outside of marriage (as long as the person isn’t abusing, manipulating or using the other) is a sin, like lying (the kind of lying that harms others) is a sin, or murder or pride, etc. etc. I think that it’s not always the best choice, though, and therefore often imprudent. Sex is born from love and love is from God, supposedly. The way we make up rules about when and how we use this natural gift is the problem, in my humble opinion. Oh, and the way we use those rules to control and manipulate people through guilt. I guess my point was that I have hard time believing that God is as disapproving about it as we are.
Therefore, I guess I believe that making a bad choice that can lead to challenging, dangerous, or harmful consequences is not necessarily to commit a “sin.” It’s just a case of bad judgment.
The principle of loving one’s neighbor is a great rule to measure this by, I concur.
May 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Regarding dateless relationships, I’m skeptical. I guess it depends on what you mean by “dating.” I had some girlfriends in my youth (now I’m married), and I dated them (each) exclusively because at the time I thought they were fabulous and thought each of them were worthy of marriage. In each of those cases, though, it took the dating part to figure out that we weren’t right for each other, or that it wasn’t going to work out for marriage, and so if you take that part away, all you have is a sure path towards incompatibility. Now, if dating means you try to jump in bed with every partner you can until you finally decide enough’s enough and it’s time to settle down - that’s the “using and abusing the other” that I talked about in the above post, and I do agree that’s harmful to the other, therefore sinful. But dating, if it means spending time together and learning about each other, seems not only harmless, but pretty important.
May 13, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“The principle of loving one’s neighbor is a great rule to measure this by, I concur.”
Just don’t get caught, lover boy.
May 13, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“I guess my point was that I have hard time believing that God is as disapproving about it as we are.”
Actually Scripture seems to be much harder on extra-marital sex than we are, although I don’t really understand why.
May 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm
you’re probably going to need to cite chapter and verse. i’d be interested in seeing them myself.
May 13, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“Just don’t get caught, lover boy.”
Ha ha! Well, we’re talking abstractly, and not about me. I’m an old married guy who’s been faithful to my wife for 13 years. And despite what the bible says about loving one’s neighbor, I’m definitely against adultery.
Regarding scripture’s hardline stance against extra-marital sex, I think that case has been overstated a bit. There’s a lot in there about adultery and some stuff about fornication, but fornication in the NT context often pertained to temple prostitutes and quasi-religious pagan sex, which is a lot different than “hooking up” with your date before you are married, or after you have been divorced.
May 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm
May I go ahead and open Pandora’s Box? I understand looking to scripture for general principles like “love your neighbor as yourself” to apply to particular issues that arise in modern life, but why must we expect scripture to address every ethical dilemma one could be faced with? Furthermore, seeing that some moral “suggestions” directly contradict others in scripture, why look for particular instructions there at all? For instance, the OT clearly calls for the stoning deaths of those caught in adultery. Yet in John, Jesus prevents such a stoning, inferring that perhaps this law is too harsh. Scripture says “Thou shalt not kill,” yet it calls for people to kill other people when certain laws are broken. Murder is different from judicial punishment, one might say. Fine, but scripture doesn’t draw that fine of a line, even if you go back and look at the actual Hebrew words being used.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that instead of spinning our wheels trying to make scripture say things it doesn’t say, or offer a consistent instructive voice where it does not, why don’t we just use the general principles that are both given in scripture and which also seem reasonable to people universally.
Does that make me a Deist?
May 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“Looking to scripture for general principles . . . to apply to particular issues that arise in modern life, but why must we expect scripture to address every ethical dilemma one could be faced with?”
No one said that’s what we’re trying to do. And I know for a fact that no one on here treats the B in that fashion or expects it to answer questions in that fashion. And yet, you really can’t get too far away from the thought that ultimately, most answers for most things are going to be in there. . .clearly they’re not going to say, literally, “save yourselves teenagers” or something explicit about this or other questions. That’s when we’re called upon to fill in the gaps for ourselves, wisely and maturely.
Let’s take your own commandment: Love your neighbor. What, in fact, does this mean? Well I’ll tell you one fantastic application. How about you not sleeping with my future wife? Or me yours? Sorry to make it immediate and personal, but it’s a fantastic illustration that your innocuous, respectful, monogamous, pre-marital tomfoolery has consequences that last far longer than the current mindset would have you think. I know you can’t deny that. That, to me, is a great example of Loving Your Neighbor. Again, personal–I left my one serious ex-girlfriend as little baggage as I possibly could. (Side note she was engaged in 3 months, clearly you don’t take long to recover from Joel). So in that respect I loved her. Similarly, I didn’t give her future husband any reason to hate me, not in that sense. Again, I’m nervous around anecdotal explanations here, but we didn’t need to get it on and I’m supremely glad we didn’t. It’s cloudy enough figuring out whether you love someone enough to spend the rest of your life with them. I think this is a perfect example of a nearly direct application of loving your neighbor, as opposed to cherry-picking some scripture and twisting it to suit my beliefs. In fact, this is the verse I’d cite you as to why we didn’t. So we’re not in disagreement as to the specific verse we need to use, just in application.
All of that said, I’m picking up part of what you’re laying down about how Christians demonize sex, perhaps out of proportion. I think there’s work to be done there. I just don’t take it to the full extent that you do.
May 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I think when Jesus said that the law hangs on the dual commandments of loving God and neighbor he meant that you can’t break the law while loving your neighbor. In other words the law defines what love actually means. So I can’t, for instance, lie in the name of being loving. I can’t fornicate in the name of love because the moral law of God has laid out that according to the innate laws of relationships God wove into creation, part of acting lovingly is only to practice sex within marriage.
Your point about biblical culture being very far removed from ours is well taken. I agree. It makes the work of contextualizing more difficult but (maybe) different from what you are saying I believe it to be possible and even essential.
May 13, 2008 at 4:20 pm
contextualizing biblical culture
Let’s be real, also– No one ever makes that argument about anything other than relaxing sexual standards.
May 13, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Joel:
I completely agree (and actually mentioned a couple of times above) that there are unpleasant consequences surrounding extra-marital sex. This is why God gave us brains and common sense, and this is why we should learn to control our passions and act with prudence. That was my whole point. I also mentioned that meaningless, casual sex where an individual is only using another is sinful because it’s purposefully selfish and treats the other as an object. So I don’t know where you’re getting the “innocuous, respectful, monogamous, pre-marital tomfoolery” idea from. Seems like, in order to be consistent, you need to protect your future wife-to-be from every kind of potential harm that she may encounter before she meets you, so she won’t have any baggage at all, if possible. Not only is that impossible, but probably not very good from her, as everyone knows we learn, grow, and build character through suffering, mistakes and even our sins. So I don’t buy your argument. If my wife had a sexual relationship with a guy she loved before we were married, but she now loves me, why should I be jealous or angry about it? What does it matter if she slept with another guy - apart from perhaps an STD issue, but even then, if you love someone enough, even that can be dealt with. It seems like if I have a problem with it, it’s my sin, not hers, that’s getting in the way, because I’m full of pride and I can’t forgive. If I fell in love with a former prostitute who had slept with 1,500 guys, but I loved her enough to want to marry her - it shouldn’t be an issue that forgiveness and mercy and love won’t solve.
Christians maintain that there’s some kind of spiritual, mystical union that happens between people when they have sex, and so we shouldn’t go around creating those kinds of bonds, etc. etc. I think this is just a way that we spiritualize sexuality, just like we spiritualize just about everything else - and the end result is often just as harmful as the thing we’re trying to avoid or get rid of.
May 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“I can’t fornicate in the name of love because the moral law of God has laid out that according to the innate laws of relationships God wove into creation, part of acting lovingly is only to practice sex within marriage.”
What “moral law of God”?
What “innate laws of relationships God wove into creation”?
As far as I can see, the only laws God “wove into creation” regarding human relationships are laws of attraction, sexual desire (which seem connected to fruitfulness), and love (the need to possess and protect the beloved).
May 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“Christians maintain that there’s some kind of spiritual, mystical union that happens between people when they have sex”
I’m calling bojangles on this vs. what you said before it. Is it okay if your wife sleeps with someone else? Now? Why not? What’s the difference?
JPound£ you’re saying two different things–yeah, it’s up to you to be cool w/ your wife’s past history as it us for you and her. In making that entirely correct argument, you’re not saying the same thing as that whatever came before it is “okay.”
May 13, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I think I get what you’re saying. I could be wrong, so help me to see your point if I’m barking up the wrong tree. Marriage, to me, is a human contract - before God and the world - to remain faithful. It is not some kind of “tying together of souls” any more than other relationships are in a spiritual sense. Sex is emotional and physical, but not inherently spiritual like we try to make it out to be - that’s my entire point.
If my wife slept with someone before our marriage, then I should be able to deal with that. If she sleeps with someone while we are married, that’s a breach of contract and a sin, etc. etc. It seems obvious to me that these are two completely different things, but maybe I’m missing your point.
May 13, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Marriage. . . is not some kind of “tying together of souls” any more than other relationships are in a spiritual sense.
Evangelical Christians absolutely fundamentally disagree with this. I’m really happy with how we’re working to understand each other here, but I’m confused how you’re able to agree in principal with and discuss “inside” Christian concepts such as sin but totally not buy into marriage as a spiritual union. It’s pretty basic and, like I said, fundamental to a Christian’s life.
Similarly, dismissing adultery as a “breach of contract” is also pretty odd. That one scene from Raging Bull plays a ton differently if instead of accusing him of [you know what i mean] his wife , he’s merely perturbed over a breach of contract. Come on.
May 13, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I’m sure this was intended irony by the original author, but I just realized that the book is called “Kissing Dating Goodbye.” G R O S S. Way to disrespect Dating’s future spouse.
May 13, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Joel:
Well, you’re twisting my words again. I didn’t say that marriage & sex are *only* or “merely” a breach of contract. As I said before, sex is both emotional and physical. Of course if someone cheats on you, you will have an emotional reaction, because there are emotional ties there.
But how is sexuality spiritual, exactly? And where does that idea come from? It certainly doesn’t come from nature.
That was my point, you see.
May 13, 2008 at 7:26 pm
yeah i didn’t mean to to twist your words, i’m trying to figure out what you’re saying. . .
i had a whole response written up. then i realized i don’t know who you are.
May 13, 2008 at 7:41 pm
JDolla$: Joel speaks tongue in cheek. I don’t think he’s trying not to give you the benefit of the doubt or twist your words.
It might be useful if each of us defines what spiritual means. I’m not using spiritual in the strict sense of having to do with the part of our being that isn’t made of matter. I’m not talking about the soul. I’m using spiritual as significant to your relationship with God and his design for relationships. Maybe this is exactly what you are disagreeing with.
I agree with your response to if you fall in love with someone who has sinned sexually. It should be forgiven. However before I was married my sexuality was directly related to my future marriage. I didn’t sleep with my girlfriends because I loved my future wife. I abstained from the experience in order to be able to only be with my future wife. Wouldn’t you agree that, although you should forgive all past sexual sins in your spouse, loving your spouse doesn’t begin when you say “I do.”
May 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm
one of the things i deleted questioned whether we are talking Spiritual or spiritual, i.e., higher vs. lower case.
May 13, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Meade:
Hmmm… (thinking). I think all our experiences make us who we are, and affect our future selves to some degree (some more than others, of course). So in that sense I agree that it’s good to consider how your actions may affect those you may one day have a relationship with in the future.
I think where I differ from you guys is that I don’t believe that marriage has anything to do with one’s relationship with God any more than any other aspect of life does. I think it’s a human construct, dependent on the mores of society and convention, and we Christians (and some other religions, too) are the ones who have instilled in it this kind of spiritual significance, for a number of reasons. It’s certainly (in the west) at least somewhat based upon the Platonic myth of “the two halves who have been torn asunder” that’s found in the Symposium, and I think there are some biblical passages that have infused marriage with a certain character that has endured over time, as well (see Paul).
It’s interesting because in some ways this goes back to the FLDS polygamy issue. Those people consider marriage to be a holy union of one man with multiple women, yet mainstream Christians would never agree to that definition. Why? Because of social convention. If a polygamist faction of Christianity would have prospered from early times, maybe we’d all be polygamists.
Anyway, regarding the definition of “spiritual,” I think that’s a great question. What is “spirituality?” Meade says it pertains to one’s “relationship with God,” yet that in itself is a metaphor for something else - what exactly, concretely (not using figurative language) is a “relationship with God?” And what does “God’s design” mean? That’s another metaphor, isn’t it?