CHAPTER TWELVE

WHAT ABOUT LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE Marriage?

Should Christian couples live together before marriage? What about living together if they are engaged? How does the value approach affect the issues of living together, engagement, and commitment.

In order to deal with these questions, we now should ask, What is commitment anyway; is it the same as being exclusively with one person? What was the nature of commitment and sexuality in biblical times? Those two questions are important and will be addressed in this section. But first, let's consider a more fundamental question about our sexuality: Why can't sex be something that two people can just enjoy together without any strings attached? That sure would simplify things, some advocates of living together claim.

SEX AND COMMITMENT

First, we must remember that sex is not a mere biological desire that needs to be fulfilled as does our appetite for food (see chapters 5-6). Sex is much more than mere biology--it is God's guarantee that we will not give in to our tendency toward isolation but will instead become relational people. The sex drive keeps us working on friendships, forgiving each other, and being willing to give love one more try even after the pain of betrayal. It keeps us believing in love and investing in intimacy. Because of our sexuality, we are driven to fulfill the deepest potential within us--to reflect the very nature of God by loving and being loved.

Second, real love and intimacy is delicate and fragile. It is full Of value and potential, much like a young fruit tree. If cared for properly, a fruit tree will produce a harvest for years to come. But to protect and nurture this tree, the gardener must be committed to its care, willing to spend much energy and attention to it. Otherwise it can be easily damaged, even destroyed. Planted in the wrong place, the tree may be trampled and ruined. Watered improperly, it will remain small and become stunted and sterile. Left unprotected, it can become food for some gopher or a rabbit; within minutes the little animal can strip the tree of its bark and kill it.

Little rabbits may not seem ferocious, but they can devastate a garden. For four years I lived in a small but beautiful area northwest of Los Angeles County called Conejo Valley. I quickly discovered the origin of its name: thousands of little rabbits--conejos in Spanish--ran wild. At first I considered them to be cute little creatures, and I enjoyed watching them hop out of the bushes or across the road. But' after I planted some fruit trees in my yard, my opinion of them changed. I discovered that those cute bunnies made their living by sneaking into gardens and stripping the bark off the base of young' saplings.

One night the cones banditos savaged my trees. I didn't notice the damage the next day, but several days later the trees appeared to be sick. I looked closely, and the trees, though still standing, were bare from ground level to about a foot above the ground. The nursery expert told me there was nothing I could do. Trees die when their bark is stripped in a full circle around their trunks. All he could recommend was that I buy and install small plastic protectors to put around the base of the remaining trees or that I paint the trunks with a special paint that the varmints don't like.

In other words, if my trees were to grow into maturity and bear any fruit, they had to be protected. The rabbits were just one of many dangers that my trees would face; they also needed protection against insects, drought, frost, and disease. I had never realized that growing fruit trees was such a big deal.

The same principle applies to a new friendship or love; it needs to be protected from all sorts of dangers and diseases. That's why sexual expression in the Bible is always related to commitment. Commitment is the safe, fertile, protected environment that allows the "tree" of love to grow. A quality commitment is like the shields that I wrapped around the base of those young trees. With a quality commitment, the new relationship will have a chance to live and grow. Without it, the relationship will surely die.

Let's apply this now to the subject of singles and sexuality. According to the Bible, sexual and genital intimacy are appropriate when protected by the appropriate commitments. But if such commitments are lacking, sexual expression is inappropriate--in some cases so inappropriate as to incur the death penalty (in the Mosaic law). Why is this the case? Why is commitment such a big deal? And isn't being with one person in an exclusive relationship a sign of deep commitment?

COMMITMENT IN THE BIBLE

Commitment is a key concept in the Bible, though the idea often goes unnoticed because it is cloaked in religious language. In Hebrew, the primary word for commitment is berith, while in Greek the word is diatheke. In Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, both words are translated by testamentum, from which we derive our English word testament. A testament is simply a covenant, an agreement. It is similar to our modern words commitment, contract, and deal. All of these words would today be apt translations of berith and diatheke. So central was this word to biblical theology that Jerome labeled the two parts of the Bible Vetus Testamentum and Novum Testamentum, from which we get the titles Old Testament and New Testament. What this means is that the two parts of the Bible could better be translated today Old and New Covenants, Old and New Commitments, Old and New Contract, or even Old and New Deal. A covenant or testament is simply an agreement between two parties, usually qualified by two requirements: mutuality and legality. A covenant is considered valid if it is mutually entered into and agreed upon, and if it is recognized as binding by the community.

But there are exceptions to both conditions. Concerning the requirement of mutuality, for example, some covenants are one-sided; they are known as unilateral covenants. An example of this would be the parents' commitment to love a new child. The child is incapable of agreeing to an arrangement with the parents, but the parents nonetheless bind themselves to their new offspring. They commit themselves (usually implicitly, but it can also be made explicit) to loving their new child regardless of response. The parents will love unilaterally, even in the face of open rebellion (a common occurrence in the teenage years). God's commitment to love Israel is also an example of a unilateral commitment. God's love toward Israel is still active, even though they have rejected Jesus, God's own Son and their Messiah (see Romans 11).

In spite of such exceptions, most commitments still carried the two requirements of mutuality and legality. This was especially true in the area of sexuality. If a man wanted to lie with a woman but did so without her consent and without the approval of the community, he was judged as having committed the terrible crime of rape. For instance, when Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, Dinah's brothers were unwilling to forgive Shechem--even though Shechem wanted to marry Dinah and pay whatever bridal price her family designated (Genesis 34). They refused Shechem's offer of marriage and the generous bridal price, and instead killed every male relative of Shechem. In their minds, the crime of rape could not just be swept under the carpet but demanded vengeance. Shechem's crime was so heinous because he tried to divorce sexuality from commitment and disregarded both of the requirements of mutuality and legality.

But what if it had not been a rape; what if Dinah were a willing partner and yet betrothed to another man? His case would have been little improved, because it would have still lacked the requirement of legality. This requirement, codified in the Mosaic Law, made both people guilty and subject to death (Deuteronomy 22:23).

If the virgin girl was not betrothed to another man and willingly has sexual union with the man, the situation was only slightly different: Instead of the death penalty, a bridal price had to be paid. "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins" (Exodus 22:16-17). Thus, even mutual consent by the individuals was not enough to make a couple married.

A COMMON MISUNDERSTANDING

This flies in the face of a common misunderstanding of marriage in the Old Testament. This common misunderstanding is that in the Old Testament, marriage occurred whenever two people expressed personal commitments to one another, not during a later public ceremony or recognition. Therefore, it was acceptable for the couple to be involved sexually after betrothal and before the marriage ceremony or feast. An example of this thinking is Bishop John Shelby Sprong's brave but misguided work, Living in Sin?--A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality. Sprong writes,

I call on churches of this land to revive a concept of betrothal and to install it as a valid option and a sign of a serious commitment, even though it falls short of the legal status of marriage. In many ancient societies a man and a woman were pledged long before they were married. That betrothal sometimes meant that they were bound in a relationship of commitment that, in some instances, permitted sexual activity. That institution of betrothal met very real social and economic needs in those ancient societies. There are today quite different social and economic needs in our society, which perhaps a newly defined and revived institution of betrothal would meet once again.

I am proposing that we revive the word, with a new definition. By "betrothal" I mean a relationship that is faithful, committed, and public, but not legal or necessarily for a lifetime.... To make it a bit broader I would include the somewhat more vague category of "an engagement to be engaged."

As Sprong himself notes, this idea of allowing sexual expression in an engaged or pre-engaged state is not new. Unfortunately, this raises more problems and questions than it answers: If the commitment is not for a lifetime, then precisely what length of time is it for? Ten years? Ten months? Ten days? And how would a pregnancy be handled? He claims, "The conception and birth of children would not be appropriate to this relationship of betrothal" But what about the couples who, even though they take precautions, find themselves pregnant? And what of the couples that choose to dissolve the semicommitment?

The relationship of commitment to physical intimacy was discussed in detail in chapter 9. But many still accept Sprong's faulty interpretation; consider, for instance, the two case studies in "A Single Speaks." Both believed the lie that sex before marriage is acceptable to God. Both have regretted their decisions.

A SINGLE SPEAKS

One Woman's Story
In my high school youth group, I was told by our youth minister that fornication and adultery were sins that could be committed only after marriage. That's what I wanted to hear, and I became sexually involved with the man I hoped to marry--but didn't! I do feel that if I had known what fornication meant then, I would have understood that sex before marriage was wrong even if it was with the one you were planning on marrying. I would not have gotten involved in it, since at that time in my life I was very conscientious about obeying God. But since I saw adultery as something committed only after marriage and didn't know that fornication meant sex outside of marriage, I was under the impression that this was an area that God didn't address.

Then a friend told me that he learned in college that having sex, in the Old Testament, was the same thing as getting married. Because of all these things, I weakened my defenses and gave in. It was only years later through much pain and searching that I came to a more enlightened view. I really feel a disservice was done to me by my Youth Pastor and church in this area.

One Man's Story
I started dating my [future] wife as soon as I joined the church group. She was also a new Christian, but already she was so different from the other women I had dated and slept with. We were taught that a Christian couple shouldn't have intercourse before marriage, and we made that our goal. But then someone else told us that, in the Bible, engagement was the same thing as marriage; so once we were engaged, we became very active sexually. That was a really hard time for us, because we thought it was OK, but we were ashamed of it and wouldn't tell a soul about it! We even lied to the minister who married us, when he asked us in premarital counseling if we were sexually active. In spite of what we had been told, we still knew deep inside that it was wrong. Since our marriage, we have spoken many times about how we wish we had waited, and about how we wish that "friend" hadn't been so "helpful." What naive, baby Christians we were.

The debate, however, continues, even in evangelical seminaries. Once I was part of a panel discussion entitled "Singles and Sexuality," held at a southern California seminary. The other three panel members had quite different agendas from my own. One single woman argued for the appropriateness of "free genital expression' between singles of either sex or even between singles of the same sex. The other panelists believed that all sexual expression before marriage except penetration was acceptable. I was trying to point out that temporary celibacy is a way to protect and assert value.

During an interesting and sometimes heated discussion, we all agreed on one point: sexual expression should be tied to commitment. Once we began to discuss specifically what was involved in a commitment, though, it became obvious that we again were poles apart in our views. The other panelists felt that private mutual commitment was enough to permit very intimate sexual relations. I stressed that mutual commitment was a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite. In addition to mutual, private commitment, there needed to be a public affirmation or ratification of that private commitment before any sexual expression was appropriate. This is because the success of the marriage depended not only upon private commitment, but also upon the community's commitment to honor and support the union.

This very important point is often overlooked. The union of a man and a woman, especially in biblical times, did not involve only those two people. It had great impact upon their families and communities, and its success depended on the community's recognition of that union. Sex and commitment alone did not constitute a marriage. It was commitment and the community's affirmation that created a marriage.

Many singles however, accept the idea that engagement is close to marriage in God's eyes. One man told me why his fianc`e and he were sexually active. "In the Old Testament, the couple just promised to love each other and then moved in together. They didn't have any ceremony or piece of paper like today. The commitment was the marriage. We know that we are committed to each other, so we feel that in God's eyes we are married. The marriage ceremony will only make that public and legal."

"Well," I responded, "you are close to the truth. In the Old Testament, there was no piece of paper signifying marriage, only one for divorce. And even in the early church, there were no wedding ceremonies that we know of; that all came centuries later. But there is one problem with your thinking--you two are having sex in secret, whereas the couples in the Old Testament did not. Before the two of them ever went into their tent together for the first time, their families and community knew what was happening. But your family and church doesn't know what's going on. As a matter of fact, you're trying to keep it a secret.

"And even if an unmarried man and woman wanted to marry and mutually consented to sex, they were not considered married in the Bible. They would be married only after the father of the bride agreed to the union and the bridal price was paid. The marriage was not a given--the father could refuse the couple and no marriage would take place.

"So you see, you're only halfway there. The mutual commitment you share together is a great start, but you still need your community's affirmation and support. Then you will truly be married."

Like it or not, marriage is not only a personal event; it also is a cultural and community phenomenon. As long as we humans are involved in communities, the success of any commitment is dependent on the respect the community gives to that commitment. A tragically common and extreme example would be the rape of a married woman. In that violent instance, the marriage commitment between her and her husband is not respected by the other community member that perpetrated the crime, and the negative consequences are crippling. Many marriages have been destroyed because they could not endure the scars that result from rape.

A less extreme example can be seen in a woman who becomes attracted to her married male co-worker. If she respects his marriage commitment, she will not act out her attraction and nothing will ever come of it. But if she does not respect his commitment, she may make suggestive comments, and actually proposition him. If his marriage is struggling (as every marriage does at some point), her aggressiveness may have destructive consequences.

Let me give a lighter example. Sometimes singles begin to date, but they try to keep their romance secret from their other single friends or from the church singles group. They do this for many reasons: some are very private people, others want to keep their options open, still others are afraid of failure. But whatever the motivation for secrecy, the community is unable to respect their commitment and can actually make it tougher on them. Other guys may keep asking the woman out on dates, not knowing that she is seeing one man exclusively. Other women may show similar attention to the man, inviting him to dinner or to the theater. This couple has much more pressure on them because of their decision to be secretive. They have to deal not only with each other, but also with all the other interested parties. How much easier it would be for the couple to be open and honest with their friends about their budding romance. The friends can treat their beginning steps up the ladder of commitment with respect and understanding. They can offer encouragement, advice, and keep their distance. In addition, friends can pray for God's blessing on the new couple. But all these benefits are forfeited if the budding commitment is not made public.

Among baby boomers and post-boomers, the "C" word is not always well received. Commitment means time, energy, and of course, the possibility of rejection. Some won't move toward increasing levels of commitment for fear of pain, the pain of losing the person they care for. But if we value someone, and our care for the person deepens, we must continue the journey to deeper commitment. When we do that, we give room for love to blossom and a fuller intimacy to occur. We can know the other person better; we can help him or her more; and we surely learn to value the person more deeply.

THE REAL TEST

Remember that both sides of the singles' value triangle work together. Increasing commitment means granting the other person greater value. How will this affect a deep commitment--say, engagement? When singles start dating, enter into exclusive relationships, and the fires of passion are enflamed, it gets tough to abstain, even if that is what the couple wants to do. Some singles try to withstand the temptations by the strength of their personal willpower. Still others know they can't do it and ask God for supernatural willpower. But in spite of prayers, discussions, and resolutions, sexual desire does not diminish in Christian relationships as dating proceeds. Once the relationships begin, there is an enormous pull toward sexual activity.

At some time in a romantic relationship, particularly during engagement, the desire for physical intimacy and for sexual activity can grow in strength, and the expression of physical love probably will seem a very natural response. As a pastor I have found that the "wait until marriage" theology of single sexuality loses its influence for engaged couples as the marriage approaches. It works somewhat for those who have no love interest, but for those who feel that God has blessed them with a future marriage partner, it becomes more difficult to wait as the wedding date approaches.

Repeatedly I have heard engaged Christian couples, even church leaders and seasoned, dedicated Christians, confess in premarital counseling that they have become sexually active. As one professional, conservative seminary-trained, single man (let's call him Jeff and his fianc‚e Julie) said, "Yes, we are involved sexually." Immediately after this confession, he, like other singles, launched into a passionate defense of their sexual activity.

"You've got to understand, Rick, that we believe God has brought us together and this marriage is His will. We think that in His eyes we are already married, even though the public ceremony hasn't taken place yet. The ceremony will just confirm for everyone else what has already taken place in our hearts."

"Why have a ceremony, then?" I asked.

"Its a cultural, legal, and family thing," Jeff responded The mutual event has already happened in our commitment to each other. The ceremony just affirms that commitment. It doesn't create it."

"Then why do you want a church wedding," I asked, "if it's not a spiritual event? Why not call a justice of the peace or a judge to officiate?"

"Well, we are Christians, of course. We made our commitment before God. God is the center of our life together, so we want the ceremony to reflect that."

This short account of a much longer conversation just displays that intelligent Christians can and do rationalize and defend most anything, given enough time and interest in the issue. At this point in the conversation, I felt pretty unimportant as their pastor. I even mused to myself, in a quick daydream played out in my head, that the whole ceremony should be adjusted to fit Jeff's view:

"Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to witness what has already happened...
"Who has given away this woman a few months ago to be married to this man?
"Did you take this woman to be your wife...
"Did you take this man to be your husband...
"You may kiss your bride again...
"I pronounce legally what has already happened physically months ago...

As I counsel sexually active Christian couples who try to justify their involvement, I discover a legion of defenses and rationalizations. Some are weak, of course, but some are pretty good. Several times I was forced to admit silently, "Hey, that is a pretty good reason. I wonder why God said no to that?" For a time, I was able to appeal only to God's command to abstain, fully aware that guilt and obedience were the only tools I could use for leverage.

My whole approach was radically transformed and improved when I began to instruct engaged Christian couples about the positive side of single sexuality. Rather than try to convince couples that they ought to obey God, I now spend quite a bit of time teaching them God's reason for creating the idea of temporary abstinence in the first place. Understanding this positive side is not easy, because it involves grasping a completely new approach to sexuality (making a paradigm shift), but the results have been fascinating.

After learning the positive side to single sexuality, Jeff said, "Hey, I like that idea. I really want Julie to feel that she is valuable to me."

Julie then made one of her few comments. Softly, she said, "Jeff, I love you and love the way you treat me sexually, but I gotta admit that I feel sort of cheap. I mean if our family and friends found out, or if I got pregnant, I would feel like scum. I know you love me, but I don't feel very lovely."

Jeff also admitted feeling guilty about sex before marriage but blamed his weakness in that area to a lack of any positive reason to wait. But after we discussed the positive aspects, Jeff quickly changed positions and with much excitement committed himself to temporary celibacy before the marriage--not because he had to but because he wanted to. He was now being obedient to God, understood why, and was happy to do so. He was able to experience the biblical truth that "His commands are not burdensome" (I John 5:3).

What changed the command from a burden to an opportunity? The difference was that Jeff, for the first time, grasped the positive side to his own single sexuality. The positive approach is the only thing I have found that actually helps Christian singles desire to remain celibate until the marriage night.

Because of this, I suggest that every engaged couple study this approach to biblical sexuality as a part of their premarital preparation. It provides a much needed guide to engaged sexuality, but it also helps them understand and prepare for sexual intimacy after the ceremony. Commitment plus value--that is the formula for appreciating our sexuality and finding pure joy in our sexual lives.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

THANKS FOR VISITING! GOD BLESS YOU!

[ Index | Internet | Salvation | Computer | Botany | Study | Personal ]