The Bible Basis of Courtship and Marriage - Glenn Conjurske
The Bible Basis of Courtship and Marriage
Introduction
A little tract has lately been put into my hands entitled, “Marriage: How it should be contracted,” by Ronald E. Williams, of Winona Lake, Indiana. The author is undoubtedly a good man, seeking to do good, but I believe the doctrines of this tract are as likely to do harm as good. The doctrines are hyperspiritual, and, like all hyperspiritual doctrines, they lump together nature and sin, and condemn all in the lump. It is not my purpose to single out Brother Williams for censure. It is not the man I desire to censure, but the doctrines. Yet I fear that my frequent practice of dealing exclusively with principles, while I leave persons alone, may give the impression that I am beating down straw men. Those who appear before the public as teachers of truth may expect their performances to be judged. This is right. Paul says, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge.” (1 Cor. 14:29). This judgment is to be immediate and public. Perhaps if this were done in the church, where Paul prescribes it, there would be less occasion for it in print. Yet all who put their doctrines in print must be held responsible for them, and it is no breach of charity to correct them in print.
The Bible and Marriage
But before addressing Mr. Williams’ tract, I make one general observation on all hyperspiritual doctrines concerning marriage. It is commonly their way to insist very forcefully on basing our practices on the Bible alone, but there is fundamental weakness in this position. The fact is, the Bible is not a marriage manual. It was not given us to teach us what we may know by nature or experience. There was no need for this, and if the Bible were entirely silent on such matters, that would be no argument against them. I heard not long ago of a seminar at a feminist women’s convention on “Lesbian Flirting Techniques.” It is likely enough the poor things stand in need of such a course—for the whole business is as much “against nature” as it is against God—but it would be an impertinence to teach a woman how to flirt with a man. She knows that by nature. No doubt this power may be very much misused, but so may every other power which is resident in feminine charm or beauty. That does not make any of those powers evil. The mutual attractions of masculine and feminine natures are the creation of God, and are therefore “very good.” If the Bible said never a word, therefore, about love and courtship, that fact would speak nothing against it. But the Bible is not silent on these matters. It says enough to give its sanction to the normal propensities of the romantic natures with which God has created us, but much of this Scripture is ignored by the hyperspiritual. They commonly make Isaac and Rebekah the foundation of all, while they ignore most of the rest of Scripture. This is hardly right.
The Problem with Hyper-Spiritual Doctrines
Mr. Williams objects throughout his tract to forming marriages on the basis of “romantic sentiment,” and says, “Many modern Samsons and Esaus are paying the price of their rebellious, fleshly choices in their problematic marriages.” No doubt. But to imply that making romance the basis of marriage is the equivalent of rebellion and fleshly choices is not true, and it is not fair. And on the other side, it is also true that many are paying the price of their hyperspiritual mistakes, in their unsatisfying marriages, and this tract is likely to increase their number. The author is rightly concerned about the failure of so many marriages, but attributes the failure to the wrong source. He says, “It is a rare, if not non-existent, young person who is wholly and completely prepared to consider this vital decision free from flesh, romance, desire and sentiment. Whereas Hollywood, movie magazines, and most of society would have us believe good marriages are based upon modern romance; decades of disastrous divorce statistics made up from the shattered homes and lives of its unwitting disciples are the awful evidence of its utter failure.”
The Definition of Romance
But what can he mean by “modern romance”? Romance is not modern, but as old as the Garden of Eden. It was certainly romance which knit Jacob’s soul to Rachel’s, when he labored seven years for her, “and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her” (Gen. 29:20). And this, of course, before he married her. It is strange indeed that the Spirit of God should inform us of this, and in such glowing terms, if it was all a dangerous mistake, or an evil. As for “desire and sentiment,” Paul says, “If they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:9). This is not only desire, but burning and overwhelming desire. “If they cannot contain.”
The Importance of Romance in Marriage
We would of course agree with Mr. Williams that a man ought not to enter into marriage solely upon the basis of desire and romance, without due consideration of character and spirituality, and if this were all he had to say, we would have nothing to object. But he wants to see young people wholly and completely free from the considerations of romance and desire. This is a surer way to make bad marriages than it is to marry solely for romance, free from any considerations of character—for the lack of character may be changed, where the lack of romance cannot. A good marriage is much more likely to happen by chance than by “working at it” after putting together a mismatch.
Romance and Character in Marriage
In fact, there are two things necessary to secure a good marriage. Those two are romance and character—romance to make the marriage, and character to keep it. If men who lack character marry on the basis of romance, and their marriage fails, hyperspirituality points to this as the proof that it is wrong to marry for romance.
The Problem with Misunderstanding Love
But there is a deeper and more complex problem here. Years of observation have settled me in the firm persuasion that very many who supposedly marry for love are not in love at all, and never have been. Every normal man—to speak from the man’s side only, though the same things will apply on the woman’s side—every normal man is “in love” with femininity. He feels therefore a natural and very strong attraction towards everything feminine. That attraction exists in many varying degrees, and it is a plain fact that a man cannot fall in love with every woman towards whom he may feel some attraction. Yet on the basis of this attraction, which for lack of experience and lack of sound instruction he ignorantly mistakes for love, he marries a woman—not that he is in love with her, but because she is a woman, and because she happens to be available. He has, of course, some “romantic sentiment” towards her, as he likely has towards a hundred other women, but he is certainly not in love with her. When a man is in love with one woman, she becomes, as Solomon says, “the lily among the thorns.” All other women lose their charms. He wants her only, and cannot desire another. This, and this alone is love, and I am persuaded that a great many who marry on the supposed basis of love have never possessed it. Their marriages quickly become stale, precisely because they are not in love. If they have character, they make the best of it, though it is not likely to be very good, or ever to satisfy the needs of their hearts. If they are lacking in character, they separate—and the advocates of these hyperspiritual doctrines point to them as another proof that love is no basis for marriage.
Nature and Scripture Agree
But it is nature which makes love the basis of marriage, and nature is the creation of God. Besides, nature and Scripture are entirely at one in the matter. Paul says, “She is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). “Only in the Lord”—that is, a person of true godliness. But “to whom she will.” This assumes the existence of romance, desire, and sentiment—for what woman ever willed to marry a man without this? Perhaps the young and naive, who understand little of the needs of their own nature, or who have been indoctrinated in hyperspiritual views, may will to marry a man without romance, but they will have a long time to repent of it.
The Flaw in Hyperspiritual Views
But these hyperspiritual views never fail to throw out the baby with the bath water. Because some marry for romance without character, and find themselves in a bad marriage, they will have us marry for character without romance. Mr. Williams writes, “Because marriage is boldly and clearly presented in the Bible as a life-long commitment, it obviously is a union that should not be entered into on the basis of romantic sentiment, careless thinking, or careless desire. To put it another way, `love’ is a lousy basis for marriage!” We are not sure exactly what the author may mean by “careless thinking” and “careless desire,” but it matters little. The terms are obviously intended to denote something evil or harmful, and they are linked together with “romantic sentiment” in order to discredit that also. But leave careless thinking and careless desire—surely no necessary accompaniments of romance—out of the question, and wise and reasonable men will be left with just this: Because the Bible presents marriage as a life-long commitment, it ought to be entered into on no other basis than that of strong romantic love—not, of course, without reference to character or godliness. “Wedlock’s padlock,” an old proverb rightly affirms, and because when we marry we are locked in, we had best be certain in advance that we are locked into love, and not drudgery. God’s ideal of marriage is “be thou always ravished with her LOVE”—a very strong expression, which certainly means much more than “getting along,” or being best friends. This is not some spiritual or hyperspiritual sort of so-called “agape love,” but lovers’ love, and none other, as the same verse (Prov. 5:19) proves when it says, “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.” But no such thing is possible in the absence of love. They must be very naive who suppose that the physical gratifications of marriage can satisfy, without love. That “burning” which, according to Paul, ought to move us to marry will be allayed by nothing but love—and of course romantic love. This love is of God, and it is surely no sin to desire it, nor any mistake to use all of our faith and wisdom to secure it. Indeed, it is the mistake of a lifetime to marry without it. It is not possible to be always ravished with a love which does not exist.
The Fallacy of Arranged Marriages
But the advocates of these hyperspiritual views will not grudge us the possession of love—some sort of love, at any rate—provided we acquire it after we commit ourselves to marry. Mr. Williams continues, “As hoary-headed married couples with decades of marriage together would tell you, love is learned primarily after marriage. They would testify of how genuine Bible love was learned, and that it grew as their years together passed.” But what can he mean by “genuine Bible love”? We suppose this term is designed to stand in contrast to the “romance” which he everywhere slights. It is evident he cannot mean romantic love, for we hardly need learn that. Yet it is certain that romantic love is “genuine Bible love.” The love of which Solomon’s Song speaks so eloquently—which is strong as death, a most vehement flame, which many waters cannot quench—is certainly romantic love, as was Jacob’s love for Rachel. True, the Bible speaks of other sorts of love also, but romantic love is as much “true Bible love” as any of them.
Conclusion
But as always, the advocates of these views must stand upon Isaac and Rebekah, while they seem unaware of the existence of Jacob and Rachel. Mr. Williams continues, “Isaac and Rebekah had never met or even had opportunity to `fall in love’ prior to their marriage, they simply trusted the providence of God in the wise counsel of their respective families.
“Notice the progression of thought: 1. She became his wife'; 2. and he loved her’. Please note that Isaac loved Rebekah after they were married. He then found out what Bible love for a spouse really meant. Any hoary-headed wife or husband who has spent several generations with his or her spouse could tell us the same fact; love came later.”
But this is full of fallacy. To be sure, Isaac loved Rebekah after he married her, for (as the writer says) he had no opportunity to do so before. But what then? Ought we all to marry those we have never met, and trust the providence of God for the love which our hearts stand in need of? If not, the example of Isaac is wide of the mark. It proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. Those who are the most forceful in recommending the example of Isaac and Rebekah would not themselves follow that example if they had opportunity to do so. Would they, on the “wise counsel” of their father, marry a woman whom neither he nor they had ever met? If not, let them leave Isaac alone. Jacob loved Rachel before he married her, and this is surely the ordinary and God-ordained way to enter into marriage. God did not endue our very natures with all of those emotional incitements to marriage that we might ignore them all, and marry without reference to any of them. These folks do not ignore their natural tastes for food, and trust the providence of God. They would not so much as go to a restaurant, and tell the waitress to bring whatever she pleased, and trust the providence of God for a tasty meal. How much less ought we to do so for a lifetime commitment. This would be better called folly than faith. In Isaac’s case there was an apparent spiritual necessity for the course taken. He had no prospects for marriage in the land of Canaan, and the call of God (so Abraham understood it, at any rate) prevented him from going to the country from which his father had come out. Most of us are under no such necessity, and to insist upon using none but Isaac and Rebekah (or, as some hyperspiritual teachers do, Adam and Eve!) as the proper pattern for choosing a mate only betrays the weakness of the system.
But, we are told, Isaac found out after marriage what “Bible love” for a spouse was. But again, why “Bible love”? This is evidently meant to designate something different from the romantic love which the whole race knows by nature, and which is the only possible basis for a satisfying marriage. If by “Bible love” he means anything other than romance, it is a grand mistake to try to make a marriage of it. “Be thou always ravished with her love,” the scripture says, and this cannot refer to anything but romance, as I have shown above.
Well, but hoary-headed spouses can tell us that love came later—that is, it came after marriage. Pardon me, but the implication of this is really injurious. This assumes, and is apparently designed to convey the thought, that if we have love before marriage, it isn’t real love. It is only some ephemeral thing called “romantic sentiment.” But more. To use hoary-headed couples, who have spent several generations together, to illustrate Isaac’s love for Rebekah is not fair. It is setting aside the plain and obvious sense of the text. The Bible says (Gen. 24:67), “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her, and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” There is nothing here about any love which is the growth of several generations of marriage. “She became his wife, and he loved her”—then and there, not after several generations of marriage.
But more. The real danger here is that, in all ordinary cases, if love does not come before marriage, it is almost certain that it will never come at all. Of course Isaac’s love for Rebekah came after he married her—or we might better say, when he married her. He had never met her before. But if a man knows a woman, if he is close enough to her to enter into courtship and engagement, and yet is not in love with her, it is next to a certainty that he never will be, and never can be—for no man can manufacture romantic love at will. Yet the doctrine of this paper encourages a man to marry such a woman, with the assurance that love will come later. There is no basis for such assurance. It is against the experience of the whole human race.
Well, but hoary-headed saints can tell us that love did come later. Yes—“Bible love,” by which term Mr. Williams evidently does not mean romantic love. There is no reason to expect romance to come later, and every reason to expect the contrary. And the whole tenor of Mr. Williams’ tract indicates that he does not so much as mean romantic love. He uses the term “Bible love” only to contrast it with romance. As for this “Bible love,” we surely hope that it will “come later,” but when it does it will never satisfy the romantic needs of romantic natures. Those who marry without romance consign themselves to unsatisfying marriages, which cannot answer the divine ideal or the purpose of marriage.
But more. The notion that love is to come after marriage completely spoils marriage as a type of Christ and the church. “Husbands love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). The love came first, and moved the Lord to give himself for the church, before he possessed it. He loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might win it to himself. And again, “We love him because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Hyperspirituality in another sphere has denied this also, contending that if our love for Christ is not founded purely upon what he is—purely upon his own glories and perfections—it is then selfish love. But against all such notions stands this plain word of God, “We love him because he first loved us.” In all of this the love of Christ and the church exactly corresponds to the love which is designed to subsist between husbands and wives. The man’s love for the woman comes first, based upon what she is. Her love for him comes as a response to his love to her, and is based primarily upon how he treats her. She loves him because he first loves her. It thus very plainly appears that while love is the only proper basis for marriage, it is also the only proper basis for courtship. No man has any business to court a woman unless he is in love with her.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “court” as “To pay amorous attention to, seek to gain the affections of, make love to (with a view to marriage), pay addresses to, woo.” The synonym, to “woo,” is defined as, “To sue or to solicit (a woman) in love, esp. with a view to marriage; to pay court to, court.” No man can honestly court a woman unless he is in love with her. Alas, these same hyperspiritual doctrines which do their best to empty marriage of marital love have also so redefined courtship as to leave it an empty name. Some reduce courtship to a cold and mechanical process by which the couple seeks to determine whether it is the will of God that they should marry, meanwhile doing their best not to fall in love. Others make it a period before marriage, in which the couple is to get to know each other, and fall in love if they can, after they have already committed themselves to marriage. None of this is courtship at all, but a travesty upon the very term. Courtship has no place until a man is in love with one woman. It consists of his taking that love, which burns in his heart for her alone of all women, and employing that love to win her heart for himself. This is what the Bible calls “the way of a man with a maid” (Prov. 30:19). It is the fourth and crowning example of those things which are “too wonderful for me”—for it is a plain fact that a man who is in love with one woman possesses an almost irresistible power to win her heart.
And the Bible not only recognizes such courtship on the purely human level, but employs it also as a type of the Lord’s drawing and winning of his people. “Therefore behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her. … And I will betroth thee unto me for ever” (Hos. 2:14 & 19). Again, “Thus saith the Lord: I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness” (Jer. 2:2).
It thus plainly appears that the Bible basis for courtship as well as marriage is certainly love—and of course, romantic love. And thus appears one of the primary evils of dating, as it is commonly practiced. A man pays amorous attention to a woman, and woos her heart, when he is not in love with her—when he is as it were only “shopping around,” to see if he may perchance fall in love with her. This is wrong. If a man courts a woman when he is not in love with her, he deceives her. When once he is in love with her—and not merely because she is female, but because she is herself—he possesses a power to win her heart which will not be easily defeated. This is courtship, as it is seen in both nature and Scripture—a man’s employment of his love for her in order to win her love for him, and of course with the intent to marry her. This is the type of the love of Christ for the church. If they do these things in Hollywood, this does not make them evil. They eat in Hollywood also, and eating is not evil. Not that I suppose there is much of true romance in Hollywood. To be in love with love, or with marriage, or with masculine or feminine charms, is another thing altogether from being in love with a person. And at any rate, romance did not originate in Hollywood, but has been the true and God-ordained foundation of courtship and marriage since the beginning of human history.
The Conclusion
But to return to Mr. Williams’ tract. The main purpose of this tract is to insist upon “parental guidance” in the choice of a mate, but though the author speaks often of this parental guidance, he is very vague as to what he means by it. We get the impression that he is beating around the bush, afraid to say what he actually means. His use of Isaac and Rebekah as the example of the proper course, his speaking against choosing our own partner, and his slighting of “romantic sentiment,” compel us to suppose that he actually means something more than parental “guidance.” So far as guidance is concerned, we certainly have nothing against it. Indeed, parents ought to exercise authority and control as to whom they allow their children to marry—and before that, whom they allow their children to have as friends, and where and with whom they spend their time. If parents would exercise their authority in these matters, there would be little occasion for Mr. Williams’ tract. Parents ought also to exercise authority in forbidding marriages with improper persons. They ought certainly to provide guidance with regard to the character and fitness of a marriage prospect—and more than guidance. In this matter they ought by all means to hold the veto power. But in initiating or arranging marital relationships they have no place. There is surely no need for parental guidance to initiate love. Nature will provide all the guidance needed on that point, and the interference of anyone is uncalled for—though in the case of shy and backward young people, parents may do very well to provide opportunity for them to get to know each other. But parents have no ability to beget romantic emotions in their children, and any attempted guidance in such a matter is impertinent and out of place. There is no call for it, and nothing to be accomplished by it. And if parental “guidance” consists of advising or arranging marriages without romance, then that guidance is a very great evil. That this is the sort of guidance which Mr. Williams recommends is evident from the fact that he prescribes that love should come after marriage.
At the end of his appeal the author says, “You may date around, have your own way, choose your spouse for yourself, if you wish, but this is not God’s best for you.” Here again we see the same fallacy which characterizes the whole paper. The good and the evil are all lumped together, and all condemned in the lump. To date around, as it is usually done, is an evil, and is, as another has very aptly said, a better preparation for divorce than for marriage. To “have your own way” is no doubt meant to designate something evil, and it certainly is something evil if it means rebelliously to have our own way, regardless of the will of God. But in the matter of choosing a spouse it is not only possible, but very proper, to have our own way and God’s way also. “She is at liberty to be married to whom she will.” It is GOD’S will that we marry whom WE will—“only in the Lord.” This is plain enough, and this it is which is always set aside by these hyperspiritual doctrines. To “choose your spouse for yourself” is no evil at all, unless it is done against the will of God, without regard to character or godliness. That it often is done so, no one doubts, but the existence of evil is no reason to condemn the good. We may throw out the bath water, and yet save the baby.
Observe, I have nothing against Mr. Williams. I do not know him. If I knew him, I would doubtless esteem him as a good man, which I believe him to be. But these hyperspiritual doctrines—though widespread among good people—are not good. The most important, and therefore the most solemn matter belonging to this life is marriage. As an old proverb says, “Marriage is destiny.” And another, “Marriage makes or mars a man.” And yet another, “An ill marriage is a spring of ill fortune.” These proverbs are true. But these doctrines are false, and tend directly to the making of the bad marriages which they seek to prevent. I have no desire to label Mr. Williams with the reproachful term “hyperspiritual.” I do not use the term reproachfully, but the doctrines themselves are hyperspiritual, wherever, however, or for whatever reason good men have embraced them.
Glenn Conjurske