Dennis Tuuri

# Courtship and Marriage: A Biblical Model

Let me begin by reading Genesis 2. What I want to do is review a little bit of what we talked about last year. This was intended originally as just kind of a follow-up session from the talk last year—sort of evaluate how things are going, what questions may have come up in various people’s minds about courtship, etc.

I did want to talk a little bit about four S’s: submission, sacrifice, service, and then sex. Submission—the submission of those that are participating in courting relationships to the parents and ultimately to God. Service—that the young man particularly must engage in service and, by means of vocation, is preparation for marriage and preparation for courtship. So service and vocation are linked together. And sacrifice—that there is inevitably involved sacrifice, particularly again on the part of the suitor in relationship to the courtship arrangement.

All parents should be looking for submission as evidenced in the couple. They should be looking for service, really both of the boy and the girl, but particularly the boy in terms of vocational calling. And they should be looking for sacrifice, particularly here on the part of the man involved in the courting relationship. Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed that he might have the church. All of those three really are wrapped up in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so it is a focus on Christ himself that I wanted to put into this talk a little bit, and we’ll do that in a little bit renewed fashion in a couple of minutes.

Last year I spoke primarily on kind of a history in the scriptures of courtship. We looked at case laws, the first marriage, etc. So last year was kind of a focus on the laws. This year, more of a focus on the personal attributes of the Lord Jesus Christ in terms of submission, service, and sacrifice as a model for potential courtiers. And then I also want to, in the last few minutes of the talk, address sexual purity. At that point, we’ll have the mothers, daughters, and younger sons be dismissed as we get to the end of that part of the talk, because I want to speak very frankly.

So that’s kind of what I want to do. And I also, in the context of that, when we came to camp, some other things kind of became evident to me that I wanted to focus on as well. Just by way of emphasizing the review a little bit more, it seems like it’s been a topic of conversation and observation at this camp that there’s a lot of kind of relationships forming and coupling going on—that kind of thing. And I want to talk about that a little bit.

Now, just by way of review, let’s read Genesis 2:15-24 as kind of the model of the first marriage and the first courtship.

*Genesis 2:15-24. The Lord God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” And the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a help meet for him.” And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And whatsoever he called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.*

*But for Adam there was not found a help for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, he made a woman and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.*

*Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.”*

Okay. Now, by way of review, what we talked about last year in terms of what we’re referring to as courtship or biblical patterns for development of a young man and a young girl to marriage is a relationship in which father rules. That’s a simple statement of courtship: dad rules, or dads rule when there’s two fathers involved.

Now dad rules in relationship, not autonomously, but under the role of King Jesus. So it’s not enough to transfer authority for marriage relationships. We understand that’s in the domain and under the headship of the father and under his supervision and care. It’s very important that the father understand that this means he has to exercise that care and control as directed by holy scripture, as he does everything in his life.

So it’s dad rules, but dad rules in the context of what the scriptures say about these relationships and in the context of the first marriage that we are given in Genesis 2. We see that the father here brings the man and the woman together and oversees the relationship to its intended end, which is marriage. We see also that Adam had vocation prior to God giving him a mate. He gave him a job to do in verse 15—to dress and keep the garden. And then after that, he also has this job to do in terms of the classification of the animals and naming of them.

So Adam is involved in vocational calling. You know, vocational calling is a redundant term because vocation means calling. We call it vocational calling. The point is the man should be exercising vocation prior to entering into marriage. That’s the model that we see at least in Genesis. Now I know that Genesis is the creation model, and so it has its own thing going on, but nonetheless it sets up everything else that we understand in scripture.

So Adam has vocation. The father oversees the relationship. We want to look at it that way. The relationship is with a view to marriage—it’s not with a view to recreational dating. It’s with a view to marriage. And sexual response is an intended consequence of the relationship.

Okay? That’s real important, because if that’s the model for the relationships that our children enter into, then our children should enter into those relationships after vocation. We should understand that those male-female relationships that they enter into in terms of dating, courting, whatever you want to call it, should have as its intended goal marriage, and it will, along with that marriage, have intended sexual response.

That is very significant, because that means that if we try just to let kids get together and kind of get to know the opposite sex or a particular party, we must keep in mind that the way God has ordained these things and created us, he creates us with a desire and an end goal of marriage and sexual response. And so to some degree, sexual response is going to be built into the beginning of the relationship.

Okay? So that’s significant to us. Now, we find in 1 Corinthians 7, the authority of the father listed to be able to determine whether the daughter marries or not. Now again, that’s not an ultimate authority, but the covenantal authority of fathers recorded in 1 Corinthians 7, verses 36-38 is seen in relationship to Genesis as being a good thing. It’s not a cultural thing that’s going on in 1 Corinthians 7.

The father has control over whether he wants the daughter to marry or not—to keep his virgin, as it were. Okay, we find in the context of Old Testament history all these courtship relationships going on. We find biblical laws relative to dowries and courtships and engagements, and all of those are in the context of this Genesis pattern that begins the whole revelation in terms of God’s word relative to marriage and the relationship between the sexes.

And that’s why Genesis 2 is so important.

By way of review, let me read a summation of a comparison of dating and courtship. I’m not even sure where I got this last year. I think this was from maybe Jim West’s daughter, one of the books I read. Anyway, had a relation comparison between courtship and dating. Let me just read these by way of review what we talked about last year.

First of all, courtship: God designed one-to-one male-female relationships with a view toward marriage. So God brings Adam and Eve together with a view toward marriage. Whereas in dating, there’s not necessarily a view to marriage.

Secondly, in courtship, man takes the initiative, first seeks permission from the woman’s father. Again, father’s rule. So the man would need permission from the daughter’s father before he can enter into the relationship. He doesn’t autonomously start it going around the covenantal headship of the father. And of course, he also doesn’t take initiative without consulting his covenantal head, his father. So the covenantal headship of the parents is involved in courtship. It’s not involved in dating. Things just happen. Kids get together.

Courtship, third, begins at an age when one is ready to get married. And then, secondly, number four: man is able to be a provider, protector, and leader of a family—to manage finances and to maintain home and property. Those two are kind of linked together. When does courtship begin? It begins when the man and the woman are ready to get married. If vocation isn’t in place and relationship ensues, then you don’t know when marriage is going to be possible. And so what you’re doing is preparing the kids for hope deferred, which makes their heart sick.

So by way of review again, we talked about last year, based on this Genesis model, that Adam has a vocation prior to receiving the helpmate. That’s what she’s there for. In essence, I mean certainly Eve will produce children. There’s a very important part of the mother role that is production of a godly seed. We know that from the prophets that God seeks a godly seed. But in its first instance, she’s created to be a helpmate to the man—not of some potential vocation he may have, but of a vocation he has. Now Adam has vocation first. Okay? And that means he’s ready.

We could talk about this in terms of prophet, priest, and king. For the young man to enter into a courtship relationship, the young man should, to an adult degree, be exercising the office of prophet, priest, and king. He should be a prophet. He should have an intellectual understanding and a way and understanding of the basics of the faith. You know, 1 Corinthians says they should be unequally yoked. And that unequal yoking refers to the intellectual understanding of the faith. It refers to the consecration of all things to the Lord Jesus Christ and it refers to rule.

So in terms of courtship relationships, as good reformational, reconstructionist, transformational Christians, we should not want our children to enter into a relationship or courtship with someone who is not firmly rooted in the faith that we believe in—intellectually understanding the doctrines. Now, you know, we all grow as we get older, but having a basic commitment to reformational truth in the scriptures is a requirement for courtship.

Having a priestly consecration of one’s goods and services: the man has not been able to exercise vocation without, to some degree, exercising a consecration of what material possessions he has. That he’s not yet brought himself into the initial stages of being a priest—ministering to his family in that way and consecrating his goods and services. So he’s not ready yet.

And king—you know, we’ve talked at this church before. Reverend Rushdoony records, I think, in the Institutes this wonderful marriage ceremony where the couple are crowned on the marriage day and there’s a great feast and rejoicing. And it’s to picture, you know, the reign of the husband and the reign of the queen. They’re both kings and queens under King Jesus. And he’s got a dagger in his hands. He’s going to protect his wife and he’s going to protect his family against the devil, and he’s going to exercise dominion.

Well, to a certain degree before a man is approved for courtship, he should be seen as one who has the ability to control or rule himself. And in fact, the time period leading up to courtship will be one in which his ability or inability to exercise rule over himself and his passions and his desires and his goals will be tested as he moves toward a formal courtship relationship.

So, very importantly, courtship begins at an age when one is ready to get married. He’s a provider, protector, leader of a family. He can be at that point in time.

Five: women are prepared to be the mother, a helper to the husband, and able to manage a home. Okay. Six: parental approval and supervision is necessary in the context of courtship. It takes place mostly in a home setting and in home family activities. Well, that last part, you know, that’s probably true to a certain degree, but we would want to say as well that really much of that would also occur in the context of the church and in service and ministry opportunities.

Seven: father screens and works with would-be suitors of his daughter, gives counsel to his son on possible prospects, and approves of any final selections. So again, father’s rule—to rule under the control of the Lord Jesus Christ—and that is an active rule.

Physical affection before marriage is prohibited. You know, the marriage service—what does it say at the end of the service? “You may now kiss the bride.” What significance does that kiss have if they’ve been kissing all along? And in America, probably a far majority of people getting married, I would think. Maybe not. But many people at that altar have done a lot more than just kiss, you see?

And we think, well, we’re not going to let our kids do that. But you see, this physical affection. We talked about verses last year about how it’s not good for a man to touch a woman, you know? I know that’s a reference ultimately to sexual activity, but I know also that the touching is in that same lineage of physical contact producing emotional bonds. And so physical contact should be highly discouraged, certainly before courtship. So it’s very important: “You may now kiss the bride”—not that you’ve been kissing her all along.

Complete privacy is not permitted. Make no provision for the flesh. That’s what we’ve tried to do here at camp. We’ve tried to say, as a church, we don’t want pairs of young people or older people, for that matter, going off by themselves in total privacy. Make no provision for the flesh. The scriptures say we’ve had to lay down that rule. And it’s a rule that I’m sure we’re going to lay down every year we have family camp. And you need to know it’s a rule we’re going to enforce.

If people violate that rule, they should be warned: “Don’t do that.” And if they continue to, we’re going to have to ask them to leave camp. I mean, you know, it’s a sanction, and it has to have things connected to it if it’s a sanction.

Now, if you don’t like that, then you’ve got to talk to the officers and directors of the camp and help us to see why that’s not a good rule to have. But we think this is important: make no provision for the flesh. We’ve said from the councils at Dort, you know, that we all are still living in these bodies, and as long as we do, we have the Adamic nature at play. Our essential identity is in Christ, the new man. But we’re continually having to put off the old man and put on the new man. Even our best works have blemishes of sin attached to them.

And that certainly comes into the relationship of young men and young women looking to marriage. It is absolutely foolish to allow such people to be off by themselves in total privacy. So we’re not going to let it happen here.

Now, if you want to in your home—okay, my pastoral advice is don’t do it. What’s the point? On the upside, I don’t see anything. On the downside, I see plenty of risk. If not sexual intercourse, then at least a physical relationship and aloneness that binds them together covenantally. And if you’ve not even gotten to a formalized courtship, wow, that’s a big mistake. Big mistake.

Okay. Complete privacy not permitted.

And binding engagement. Let me read another little quote I read from last year by way of review again. I think this is from Mr. Andrews, *The Family, God’s Weapon for Victory*:

“Anything that would not be done with a sister that encourages the development of a romantic relationship is off limits in our new model.”

This would obviously be prior to a formal courtship being announced to the couple—at least. In other words, before the father has said “You may court my daughter,” Andrew is suggesting that up until that point in time, even when there may be an interest on the part of a man for a woman or a woman for a man, they should be treating each other as brother and sister in the Lord.

And now listen to how he expands on that:

“This would obviously include the things you could not do—holding hands, kissing, etc. Romantic relationships are exclusive. They are turned inward with the focus on each other. Friendships are inclusive, turned outward with the focus on friends, activities, and ideas of mutual interest.”

Let me read that again. Romantic relationships are exclusive as opposed to inclusive. They’re turned inward as opposed to being turned outward. They have a focus on each other instead of a focus on friends, activities, and ideas of mutual interest.

Now, let me talk about acquaintances, friends, courtship, and then engagement or betrothal, which in the scriptures is almost equal to marriage. Betrothal. Joseph sought to put Mary away privately, as divorcing her from the betrothal. And in the scriptures, the engagement is a very short period of time. And you know, unless the girl gets pregnant or something, you know, this is you’re locked in to that covenant of engagement. So really they’re almost linked in scripture.

And what we’re talking about is saying that until a person courts, they should be friends.

Now, last year I talked about acquaintances, friends, friendlier, friendliest. This is pretty easy, right? Yes, this you know. We have Christian friends and non-Christian friends. Now, the way I’m using the term friend—you may say we should have non-Christian friends. I would call non-Christian friends more acquaintances. If you want to call them friends, that’s okay. But when I’m using the term friend, I’m saying Christian brothers and sisters in the Lord. Okay?

So in the context of this church, among the groups represented, you had friends amongst all these kids. And it’s real obvious that when we approve a courtship, we tell a young man, “Yeah, we think you’re ready to marry.” And the young girl, “We think you’re ready to marry, and we’re going to let you have a period of evaluation here where you’re going to spend time—not now in the context of groups, but in the context of each other—to see if this is what you both believe and we believe you should be doing.”

Oh, obviously at that point is a little movement from friends to a one-on-one in the context of family, church, etc. Okay, but the problem area we’ve got is right here. This is the problem area. What is this all about? And I don’t have a definitive word, but I want to give you pastoral advice on this. I think that this is danger ground.

I think that this whole thing—when you let kids who are not yet approved for a courtship, you haven’t said, “Son, you’re ready to marry because you’ve got vocation. You have demonstrated that you are in the initial phases of being a prophet, a priest, and a king. You’re ready to provide and protect for your family. You’re approved for courtship because you may want to marry our daughter, and you’ve expressed that, and she’s expressed an interest in you. We’re going to let you guys spend time together,” now in the context of the family, to see if you want to move into engagement.

Okay. Up until that point in time, as this friendlier and friendliest thing starts to happen, I think it spills into real danger. I know last year I opened this door—that’s what I did. And I think it was wrong of me. I think I made some mistakes here. Okay.

Now, I think that in the mind of the boy or the girl, they may indeed have this going on. And that’s not wrong. You may, you know, you may look at somebody when you’re 13 years old and have a—I really like that person. I want to marry them. You know, I don’t think that’s wrong. But what is wrong, I think, is for letting this get out of hand and letting emotional attachments build through proximity of these people in terms of friendly or friendliest behavior before they’re ready to be married.

Now, several reasons for that.

First, Dad’s rule. Now, they get counsel from the wives, but you know, dads, our tendency in America is to push the decision off to our wives. That’s wrong. It is your decision. You have to make the call on these relationships. And your wife will find rest in your decision as you hear her counsel—not if you act autocratically and don’t listen to your wife, but what she wants you to do is get counsel and lead.

So men, you’ve got to make this call. You have to take hold of these relationships. And I, you know, I think that what happens is that young men who are pointed toward marriage—that’s the providence of God, that’s what God wants them to be. Okay? This is acquaintances, friends. This is courtship. This is engagement/marriage. And I’m talking about this area here.

Should we let our kids develop friendlier and friendliest stuff before a formal courtship arrangement? At this point, vocation is in place. They’re ready to marry. You’re just trying to figure out if they should marry each other. Okay. At this point, there’s not even necessarily any interest in each other. But the question is, what happens when there’s an interest from one person to another?

And what I’m saying number one: what happens is that Dad should be in charge, getting counsel from the wife. But if you’re not in charge, odds are the young man will be. Young men do not need to be encouraged to move toward courtship and marriage. They do not need that, because everything in them drives that way. What they need to be is kept in an attitude of submission to the covenantal headship of the father, represented. The only way that’s going to happen effectively is by dad doing something. They can’t submit if you’re not doing anything.

See, if all you’re doing is sort of saying, “Well, they’re going to take the head, they’re going to run for the goal line.” I think that probably in a lot of relationships, dad in charge means communicating in black letters, bold. You know, like the Wicked Witch of the East. “Dorothy, go home, son. Go to bed. Leave now. Go home.”

Because if you don’t do that, it’s not the boy’s fault. He’s pointed, and he’s hearing things. It’s the presupposition of wanting this relationship. So, dads, if you don’t get absolute clarity—not because of sin necessarily, though that’s involved too—but just because this is what his job in the relationship is—to go for it. Your job is to make sure he doesn’t go too fast or doesn’t go the way you don’t want him to go.

And young men, when dads speak to you very bluntly, be thankful to God for that. What you should seek in this relationship before you get courtship is clarity. Everybody wants clarity. We should want clarity: Is this going to be a prospect for courtship or not?

So number one: dads are in charge. You got to grab a hold of it. Dad rule. And young men are in submission to that. Okay.

Now, if dad isn’t in charge, a series of things happen. If we let friendlier and friendliest take place before courtship, let me suggest some problems that are going to ensue.

First of all, it’s a stumbling block relative to physical sin. That’s kind of obvious, isn’t it? You got a couple that’s been friendly or friendliest for a year. The physical relationship tends to blur that way. I don’t mean they’ve got to. It doesn’t mean they have to. It doesn’t mean they’re going to, but you put a stumbling block in front of them.

Dads, if you let this coupling up occur at all, I’m suggesting prior to courtship, you’re putting a stumbling block in front of the guy and the girl relative to physical affection.

Secondly, you’re putting a stumbling block in front of them emotionally. I was talking to Howard and Wanita the other day, and he said, you know, the last thing you want to do is have, you know, a guy that might be interested in your daughter come over and have them cook together, or have them do nesting things in the context of the home, because that pulls them covenantally and emotionally together.

And as you let young people get together and couple up before a courtship has been approved, the emotional ties start to get real strong. But you don’t even know if this person’s ever going to be ready ultimately, and you don’t know when they’re going to have vocation in place. You don’t know when they’re going to have a dowy in place. You know, any of that stuff. And yet you let the emotional ties get real thick. It’s a stumbling block. And it is a particular stumbling block for the girls.

You know, I quoted this rock song last year, Tony Basil: “You take me by the heart when you take me by the hand. Well, it’s not just the hand. You take me by the telephone and whisper, ‘Sweet nothings in my ear over the phone.’ And that girl is emotionally tied now to that boy. You put a stumbling block in front of her.

One of the things men are supposed to do is to guard their mates. And one of the things we always have to think about is guarding our wives’ emotions. It’s not enough just to have a dagger and fight off the dogs that might attack. You got to help her from her own sin. You got to protect her emotionally. And young suitors have to learn to protect girls that they’re interested in emotionally.

And I’m saying the best way to protect them is: once you’ve made your intentions known to dad and you’re still in the context of friends, stay there. Stay there until dad says, “Okay, now we’ll move toward courtship. When you move ahead, you’re going to put a stumbling block physically. You’re going to put a potential stumbling block in front of the couple emotionally.”

You know, it’s an excellent booklet. I don’t remember which one it was. I think—oh, I can’t remember—but several writers had made this point: to have a series of emotional attachments, even if they’re not physical, but you’re, you know, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17—I don’t care how you get involved in this friendly and friendliest stuff before you’re in a courtship relationship. You get involved in three or four of these. All you’re doing is preparing the guy and the girl for divorce—for being able to throw strong emotional attachments together and then break them off.

When they’re broken off, it’s like you’ve given away a little piece of your heart, and now you’ve got to heal that heart and build a callous. You see? So if we let our young people couple up in this way, okay, it is a preparation for divorce, not for marriage.

Proverbs 13:12. I referred to it earlier: “Hope deferred makes the heart sick.” You’re not ready to let in courtship yet. Well, when will you be ready? Could be a year, two years, three years, four years—who knows? And after a while, this friendly or friendliest stuff, even if they don’t stumble physically, they may stumble emotionally. And even if they don’t, they’re going to lose hope over the long haul and grow sick. Hope deferred makes their heart sick.

Another thing that happens here is it is a potential stumbling block to the godly marriage that you’re trying to create for your children. Now you say, “Well, why would it be a stumbling block? I’m letting you get together with the opposite sex and moving them toward marriage.” No, because you don’t know who the suitor is yet. You don’t know who the prospective groom is or who the bride is going to be yet.

You see what I’m saying? If you know that and you’re sure this is the person that’s going to marry your daughter or this is the daughter that’s going to marry your son, then set up courtship. But you know, if you don’t have vocational stuff in place, you probably shouldn’t say you know yet. And if you don’t know, then what you’re saying is you’re giving a visual picture to everybody else that this young couple is coupled off.

And so now any other potential suitors for the guy or for the girl—they’re not even going to express an interest to the father, because that person’s spoken for. But they’re not spoken for. But the message being sent is that they are spoken for. So you could actually be putting a stumbling block in front of the relationship that God intends for that couple by letting them couple up prematurely, prior to courtship.

You say, “Well, the same thing’s true of all this stuff in courtship.” Yeah, it is. You know, if you have a courtship and it ends up breaking off, you have these same problems with physical temptation, emotional temptation. But you see, if you’ve pre-approved everything here, you’re not going to have very many of these courtship things going on. But if you think getting together is no pre-approval required or very little, then you’re going to have several of these things going on, and several of these perhaps. It’s just a bad deal.

I believe it’s a bad deal. Stumbling block physically, emotionally, stumbling block in terms of marriage because of the discouragement to other potential suitors, and it’s a stumbling block for sanctification. And you know, John Calvin said when you leave the church, you leave the means of sanctification, because it is in community that people get sanctified and purified and grow. To the extent the churches don’t have community, covenant and community sanctification proceeds at a very slow pace.

Well, you’re saying, “Yeah, but Dennis, but you know, the kids couple up, they’re still in the context of the church.” Well, sort of yes and sort of no, because when they start coupling up at, you know, at the events that we have—Sunday, ministry times, for the earth, whatever it is—they’re both basically together. They’re kind of outside of the sphere of that covenantal community, which is the context for sanctification.

So you’ll put a potential stumbling block in terms of their sanctification as well.

The goal is marriage. Sexual response is intended. Physical and emotional covenantal relationships is what we’re aiming toward. And I’m suggesting that to have coupling up here prior to courtships can be very detrimental.

Okay. Let me speak a little bit now then about the four S’s in that context.

First: submission. Okay, submission.

Let’s turn to 1 Peter 2:11 and read that. If you have your scriptures, this is a passage that probably our wives are more familiar with than us. Very important set of verses.

*1 Peter 2:11-25. Beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lust, which war against the soul, having your conversation or walk honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.*

*Submit yourselves to every ordinance of men for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God that with well-doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as true servants of God.*

*Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear—not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. But what glory is it if, when you are buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? But if, when you do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.*

*For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again. When he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judges righteously. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness, by whose stripes ye are healed.*

*For ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also may, without the word, be won by the conversation of the wives, while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on apparel, but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.*

*For after this manner, in the old time, the holy women also had trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands. Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord, whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well and are not afraid with any amazement.*

These passages speak to submission. Submission to the civil authorities, submission to employment authorities, and submission in the context of marriage.

And very importantly, the submission is not because the person is eventually going to treat you right. That’s not the basis of the submission. The model for the submission given to us in this text is the Lord Jesus Christ, who entrusts himself to the Father who has covenantally been faithful to the Son and who, in whose love, everything that we endure comes forth ultimately from the hand of God. Every stripe we bear for doing what is right even comes forth from God. And so we can bear it. We can keep up. We can be a good model of testifying to the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in adversity, even because we entrust ourselves to the Father in heaven.

Patience is expressed throughout this particular text. Young men desirous of marriage, desirous of relationship—you may not like what I just said about friendlier and friendliest and courtship and friends. But the idea is that if the father, the girl that you’re interested in, believes this is a biblical way to proceed, submit yourselves to the ordinance of men. Submit yourselves not ultimately to the father, but to the Father above, who controls his actions and to whom he has demonstrated his love to you through the giving of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If there’s a vital requirement of any potential courtier of any of our daughters, it should be patience and submission on the part of the young men. And that’s going to be tested in this friendly or friendliest time if we do not let that coupling up go on. There’s a test of that submission. There’s a test of that patience. Well, what’s required of submission?

Adam submitted to the Father. He waited patiently through the naming of the animals. Jacob submitted to the ungodly and the deceitful Laban and submitted to 14 years of hard work for the bride that he loved. The Lord Jesus Christ submitted to the Father, ran his race for the hope that was set before him—the bride of the church—and suffered the cross.

Submission is the work of our Savior, the greater Jacob and the greater Adam. Submission should be required of potential courtiers of our daughters and also of the daughters of those who are interested in our sons.

Sacrifice. The Lord Jesus Christ demonstrated the ultimate sense of sacrifice for his bride. He died on the cross. Adam as well went through a kind of death—a deep sleep—that’s what the picture is in the Genesis text we read. He sacrificed for the sake of God by pulling that rib out of his side and creating his mate. Jacob wasn’t just patient and submissive; he sacrificed hard years of labor for the sake of his wife. And the Lord Jesus Christ, the greater Jacob and the greater Adam, sacrificed for the sake of the bride.

We must have tests of sacrifice for the young men that are to marry our daughters. If they’re not submissive to the rule of the father and if they’re not submissive to the biblical relation, the biblical patterns for courtship, and if they do not sacrifice for the daughter, and yet enter into marriage with that daughter, can we really expect to see demonstrated the submission and sacrifice that we all know godly marriage requires?

That’s part of our problem, isn’t it? We look at our own relationships. Well, you know, I used to say I went to public school and I turned out okay. I used to say that, and I don’t say it anymore because I didn’t turn out okay. The older I get, the more I see that with that public school background, all knowledge is taught apart from God. That’s wrong. And I didn’t come out okay.

And we think, well, you know, we dated and we kind of fell into these relationships and we turned out okay. But you know, the older you get—I hope that you didn’t turn out so okay. I’ve had to work personally for years on certain sinful patterns developed in my youth when I was not doing okay. The same way I’ve seen that a movement from public school to homeschool is necessary for my children. The same way also I see that a movement from the kind of relationships that we entered into in terms of dating, emotional attachments before marriage, etc., is also not the way we should raise our children.

We are trying to build a generation that is better off than we are. Pam Forester was talking to me earlier today about how there’s a correlation as well in terms of our curriculum. When we began homeschooling, most of us, you take the curriculum with a public school, you bring it into the home, and you baptize it by sprinkling. A lot of Christian curriculum does that. But now we have things like what I’m going to talk about this evening—classical education. We’ve got Sonlight, another approach toward rethinking what education is—Sonlight curriculum. See? And so in the same way, when we try to take courtship, we try to take the way we’ve had these relationships in the past—in our past and the culture around us—dating into a biblical model. Our courtship starts to look an awful lot like dating. I think that’s kind of what it looks like here a little bit.

Don’t you think we’re sort of looking that way? Well, that’s okay. We got to be patient, too, as God matures us. But we got to look at it and evaluate it and say, do we really want that same public school curriculum in our homeschool, or do we want to rethink education? Do we really just want to clean up the physical stuff and yet have the kind of dating relationships occur in the context of the church, call it courtship?

I mean, maybe you’ve thought through that and maybe you’re convinced the scriptures say that’s the best model. But what I’m saying is, for the most part, we’re having a hard time, and we’re going to have a hard time thinking it through. We want to be a Reformed church, always reforming in our views of this stuff too. So it’s been a year since a lot of us have first thought about this, and we make refinements, and we should make them on the basis of the law of God and the model of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Submission and sacrifice. And of course, service, which I’ve touched on earlier.

Adam had vocation. Jacob was trained. He did his work, produced fruit. He was very profitable in the context of the husbandry he engaged himself in. He had vocation. The Lord Jesus Christ served and had his vocation in place, as it were, before he’s granted the bride of the church by the Father.

So vocation should be in place. Service, submission, sacrifice. These are some of the qualifications for men. And ultimately what we want to see manifested in potential suitors and to a certain degree also in the daughters is this demonstration of the grace of the Holy Spirit—the gifts of the Spirit—which really are the transferable attributes of the Lord Jesus Christ in submission, service, and sacrifice.

Another example here: you may be convinced that this is the girl for you. We’ve had to rethink—I have, other people in our church have had to rethink—what is calling in terms of the ministry, for instance. The Heidelberg or the Belgian Confession says that people don’t call themselves. They wait for the external manifestation of the call by the church. And we believe ideally what should happen if a man’s called to ministry: he should feel a sense of calling himself. He should see that witnessed to by the church. And he should also see it witnessed by the church he’s going to serve in. And he should also see it witnessed to by other officers of the church. You see, a two or three-fold witness that this is the calling for him.

Now, if a young man feels called to the ministry, that’s what he should seek out. But he doesn’t act like he’s already there, and he doesn’t go on the basis of just his own calling. He desires greatly—I know I did—the testimony of the church to that call, because we all know the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. We could be deluded in our sense of calling. We could be impatient and trying to grab for that robe of authority—the model of the Old Testament over and over—grabbing for authority before we’re ready. Second and third parties. In the case of courtship and marriage, it’s got to be witnessed to by the parents involved. And their witness should bear the witness of the Father in heaven, and these are the things we’ve talked about—in sacrifice, submission, and service.

Another illustration is employment. You know, guys, you may think, “Boy, I really want to work at this particular place. I want to go work, you know, for the Portland Trailblazers in the front office somewhere.” Well, maybe you should. And you go there and you make application, and they say you’re not ready.

Now, it’s not good for you if that employer says, “You’re not really trained, but you can hang around and look at the chair, but you might eventually sit, and you can spend your time thinking about this and kind of mooning around the window looking in at the place you want to work, and maybe you’ll be prepared someday.” That’s not grace to the person that wants the job. Grace and love to a young guy is to say, “Leave here, get your act together. Take whatever courses you need to take. Get whatever experience you need to be hired. And when you come back, boy, with your attitude and those kind of qualifications, we’ll hire you.” That’s great.

You see, I’m afraid that we, too often, the tendency for us is to fall into this thing of letting the relationships kind of cook, kind of develop, you know, when really the grace is to say, “Hey, do this, this, and this, and then come back. In the meantime, don’t think about it, because it’s going to distract you from doing the things you’ve got to do to get ready, and it’s really going to get in your way.”

I know it might sound hard in the short term to young men or young women, but in the long term it’s to their benefit to think that way about it. It’s not wrong to have a sense that this is what you want to do—serve the Lord in ministry. It’s not wrong to want a job. And I don’t think it’s wrong for a young man to say, “I think that’s going to be my wife,” or for a young woman to say, “I think that’s going to be my husband.”

The question, dads, is: once that’s in place, what are we going to do about it? And what I’m suggesting is the relationship, the way we handle it, should be to such an end that courtship is moved toward as quickly as possible, but only when we’re convinced that couple is ready. And until that time, we’ve got to be very careful in terms of letting the emotional, physical attachments grow. If we’re not sure yet that’s the particular person, we don’t want to drive off other potential suitors—the whole nine yards.

Coupling up is can be rather difficult. Okay, that’s basically what I wanted to say apart from the matter of sexual purity. Maybe we can have some questions first, and then address that shortly at the end. Would that be a good way to go? Because some of the questions might be raised by the women, or maybe you’d like your wife to hear questions or comments. Any questions?

—

I had a quick comment and then a question. I was thinking of when you were talking about being ready vocationally—about the proverb. I don’t know exactly where it is that says that they should make ready your fields and then build your house. Building your house could, you know, of course mean a physical structure, or it could mean a covenantal unit. And to get your fields ready—being a vocational thing—was a real confirmation to me.

But my question is: have you thought more specifically about this dowy thing and what it ought to look like as far as this person being ready for courtship? You mentioned both having a vocation in place and provision available for the dowy. Do you feel you know more specifically what that ought to look like?

No, I do know that it should be there. I do know, as I said last year, it’s a protection against the death of the husband. You know, it’s a protection against infidelity on the part of the husband, and it’s also a demonstration to the wife that the husband can provide for the household. So financially it’s an important thing. But I think that, you know, if Bill Gates wanted to [marry] your daughter, he’s got a dowy in place, but I don’t think it’s the kind of guy we’d want to have marrying our daughters.

I mean, you know, you can sell a kidney these days, I’m told, and make a lot of money, which would be a model of sacrifice, I suppose. But, you know, but I do think that the idea is that this is money that’s placed over to the, on the part of the husband. For most of our kids, it’s going to demonstrate a sacrifice to try to accumulate a good portion of money that would provide that kind of stability. And it involves a sense of trust in the girl’s father and in the girl herself that she’s not going to somehow take that money and run away from him. So there is a mutual submission that’s pictured by it. But in terms of what it looks like, if you’re asking for a specific—I mentioned $20,000 last year, you know, I think that if you try to look at the 50 shekels of silver, which is a specific amount, Rushdoony has said that should be about twofold the annual income. I don’t know, but it should be a hefty sum of money. It should be able to give some degree of provision for the wife in case of infidelity or death of the husband.

Is that what you’re asking?

Yes, that is exactly what I was asking. Thank you, John.

What is that proverb you referenced, John? The one about preparing your fields?

Let me look. I think it’s Proverbs 24:27. Do you have that reference? You want to read it for us real loud?

*Proverbs 24:27. “Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thy house.”*

Good. Any other questions or comments, Dennis?

The matter of exclusivity then should only come in at the courtship stage. Then that’s my belief.

Yeah. And at that point, thinking in terms of our little group here, that courtship should then be announced then.

Oh, I’m not sure about that. I think that it has to be announced to the guy and the girl. Of course, some parents think it should be made a public announcement so the church could also be helping in the evaluation and praying for the young couple. That’d certainly be appropriate. Other parents may feel that would put undue pressure, you know, upon the young people. Everybody’s looking at them now, you know. There may be some concerns that way. So I don’t know about public announcements. I don’t know of any scriptures that we can bring to bear on that.

Regarding the comment about people noticing it—it’s noticed anyway. So do you have a particular view on how it should be handled, or have you thought that through?

I have my own feeling about it. But why don’t you share it with us?

Well, I think it should be announced. I think it should be announced to the church.

Thank you very much. Okay. The value of that, of course, too, is that it does produce this clean division between friend and courtship, and everybody knows what’s going on.

Yeah, that would be another value to it. So people don’t look and say, “Gee, is it dating? Is it courting? What’s going on here?”

I just want to make sure I understand. I think I understand what you’re saying, but from what I hear, you’ve said that friendlier and friendliest should come after the courtship is actually formally begun.

Well, I think that any manifestation of it—like I said—I don’t think it’s wrong if a couple, you know, if a guy has a particular eye on a girl and he’s friendliest with that person. We’re going to have friendships, any friendship in the context, whether it’s guy to guy, girl to girl, or girl to guy. You’re going to have people that are friendlier. Now, you’re going to have relationships that are more sympatico.

But what I’m trying to warn against is letting those friendships become coupling up, kind of more exclusive stuff—to use Dave’s words—than staying in the context of the group and thus producing emotional ties, physical problems, and a restriction of other potential suitors for that particular person.

Okay, that helps. Thanks.

Howard, I was wondering if the church offers courtship counseling, because you know clearly you do for betrothal, right? I wonder if you were considering that, because it seems like that’s a pretty big formal step that counseling, you know, would be helpful.

Oh, that’s a good [thought]. I’ve not done that with any. Nobody’s requested that of me, and I’m certainly more than willing, you know, to give advice and counsel on the matter. But probably after what I said today, I might not have as many takers. But you know, I want to make a clear point here, too.

This is somewhat different than I said last year. And I can, you know, this isn’t preaching. This is pastoral advice for the most part. I can say “Thus sayeth the Lord” in terms of a lot of stuff, but what I’ve talked about here in terms of the restriction of the parent on the couples prior to courtship, you know, this is pastoral advice. I’m not trying to get down on anybody. I’m not trying to tell you if you don’t do it this way, we’re going to, you know, bring charges against you or even, you know, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

I’m just trying to say I’ve had some degree of experience. I’ve had some degree of meditation—not just on the scriptures, the scriptures, and then various writers that have taken those scriptures and tried to build courtship models. I’ve had a couple of years of trying to think through the correlation to the homeschooling analogy and how that’s developed and turned. And how now we see—isn’t it wonderful?—for the first, you know, this last couple of years, truly Christian innovation relative to educational or pedagogic models—the classical schools, Sonlight, whatever. That’s great. And that should help us to think through this thing too.

So I, you know, I don’t want you to say that I’m giving you the word here and you got to say “yes sir.” But boy, I feel pretty strongly about this. I think that the way to get going back the other way—and I do feel pastorally I want to give you strong encouragement, you know, to be making this clear delineation between friendship and courtship.

Question.

Yes. Well, I’m thinking about—you know, should there be an announcement before court? I just want to comment on that. Obviously you have a publicly acknowledged thing, besides just having the engagement, betrothal covenant between the two people known in the context of the family. You make that public, certainly at least, to follow the pattern of the Old Testament. That was almost the main event.

And then if you had to make public your courtship—you know, as a parent, you come forth and you say, “Okay, I believe my child is ready for marriage. Okay, we got a dowy in place if it’s the boy. We got character in place. We’ve got calling in place. These things are ready. He’s ready for marriage. And now, you know, my family and this family have entered into an agreement that we’re going to consider. Okay, we’re going to evaluate. Maybe, since they’re ready for marriage, maybe is this the right person?” Then everybody would know that they might see them together, and that they know that’s going on. And other potential suitors or whatever would need to take a backseat and say, “Well, Lord’s will.”

If, and then everybody would know. See, if you see people together by themselves in the context of church functions prior to that, you know, you’re going to think back—”Well, now when I was 12, I was in that. It didn’t always come out good. So there’s been no announcement there. Something wrong here. You know, maybe we need, maybe someone needs to drop a hint someplace.” But then after that, you say, “Okay, well, here’s a limited thing going on.” Sure.

And an announcement makes it a little easier to discern what’s happening for all concerned. I can see the logic of that and the goodness of it. And if there are people here who think that an announcement shouldn’t be public, you don’t feel under pressure like you have to. It probably [would] be a good thing to speak to people like John or Dave or Howard who may think it should be a good thing, and listen and hear them out at more length.

The other thing is that I think it’s really important, and I know that this, you know, is an ideal that we’re going to try to shoot for. We can’t have talks like this in most churches. The stuff I’m laying out for you and the way I’m laying it out for you in the context of this camp and a lot of people—a lot of young people having an interest in each other—that’s clear and obvious to us. You know, I’m assuming a lot about the relationship we all have at RCC and those friends represented here as well, where we’re all kind of extended family.

So this is kind of like family talking about this stuff. And that’s the way I want it to be received. I don’t want it received like this is the word from the church. This is family kind of discussing this stuff together. And I’m really kind of hoping that you all take it in that spirit. And that spirit is the same sort of spirit that would be able to say, “Gee, we see these guys coupled up. Maybe we should ask mom and dad. Maybe they don’t believe there should be an announcement. We should maybe ask them: Are they actually in a courtship relationship?” Boy, I really hope we all have the freedom with each other to be able to ask those questions that maybe, you know, are getting a little close to home. But be understood that first of all, we’re asking in the context of love and concern and care—not trying to be busybodies. That it be received that way. That we ask it that way. And we give grace to each other to try to mutually encourage each other along in this path.

What I’m saying is ultimately we can’t set up enough rules to take care of every situation. What will take care of it? We can’t set up enough case law to clearly teach what courtship is apart from looking at the life of the Lord Jesus Christ—the great model of submission, the great model of service and vocation, and the great model of sacrifice.

And as Christ and his attributes fill our relationships with each other, then we’re going to be able to kind of work through some of the stuff in the context of our Christian community in a good way and encourage each other.

Any other questions or comments?

Do you remember *Fiddler on the Roof*?

Yeah, I haven’t seen [it] in a long time.

There was a woman in that movie they called the Yenta—a matchmaker. You know, she paired up young couples. I was just wondering if anybody is maybe interested, or who’s the matchmaker of the scriptures. Now, what?

Okay. God. But specifically, third person: Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit’s who brings the church and Christ together, as it were. Calls us affectionally. And the Holy Spirit’s the matchmaker to govern these relationships as well.

So, well, most of us have been together for—a lot of us have been together for about 10 years or so, you know. And so in the last, you know, we never really thought about this too much in the first five years. And in the last two years, we’ve thought about it a lot, and we’ve solidified opinions, you know, narrowed down a focus. And it’s, you know, the thought of having a young man have to raise $20,000 and be a reconstructionist postmillennialist—it’s kind of scary to me to think that I could find somebody out there that would be willing to do that for my daughters.

Now, on the other hand, how far can we go with that young man in his position and his theology?

Yeah. I had a person comment the other day that at our church our history has been that we tend to be too critical, you know, of officers and different things in our church. I think there’s a degree to which that’s true. And I think that what we’ve tried to do is articulate a worldview we find in the scriptures. But we also have to, as well as articulating it, say that it is the model that we’re striving to reach. And the error would fall in being overly critical and so not, you know, waiting, you know, for the reconstructionist transformationalist seminary student who’s got 100,000 bucks and all that stuff in place. That’d be an error. That’d be a sin on one end.

The other error would be going so far the other way that we just take ourselves out of the loop. That’s why this is hard—this friendlier, friendliest stuff—because you find yourself as a father involved in trying to take these biblical truths and principles and models and make a real life out of them. You know, I’m not the dad that I should be. I’m not the pastor I should be. I know what the model is. And myself in being a father, myself in being a husband, myself in being a pastor—I’m not it, you know. And I can’t get there next week.

So you know, and so nothing is perfect here. It won’t ever be. And particularly at the particular, you know, depression we’re in as an institutional church in America for the last hundred years, having left Reformation tradition, you know, we got to have a lot of patience. And we got to have a lot of, you know, trying to work things out, particularly as they go along.

The church in Reformation Covenant says that if your daughter marries a Baptist who makes a profession of faith, that’s okay. We’re not—advice is one thing, but the church isn’t going to do anything institutionally. If your daughter marries a person that we don’t believe has a valid profession of faith, then there’s difficulties. If any member of the church—a son or a daughter—marry someone that we don’t believe has a valid profession of faith, that’s where we’ve set the line out here.

But if you let a daughter or son marry a Baptist with, no doubt, we may give you advice and counsel, you know, think about that. But you know, there’s no church sanctions involved with any of that.

So I guess ultimately, you know, the scriptures lay down a specific prohibition against intermarriage between Christians and non-Christians very clearly. I can preach all day, “Thus sayeth the Lord, don’t let that happen.” But in terms of what that Christian looks like and how that profession of faith has matured and developed, you know, that is pastoral advice stuff. That’s a matter of counsel and advice—not a matter of sanctions.

Does that kind of answer it somewhat, John?

Let’s see. I think that’s David? You got the young guys involved here. My question is: How do you guard yourself or watch yourself from becoming too friendly? And how do you know when you’re a friend or going too friendly?

Yeah. See, that isn’t that interesting? Because of course, one of the biggest ways that should be done is by the father of the girl and the father of the guy. And to the extent that dads don’t grab a hold of this—I’m not, you know, not your situation. I’m sure your dad’s doing great—but in general. Frank will let you know. He will, too. But you know, man, if we don’t grab a hold of the situation, that’s the conundrum we leave the kids in. They’re wondering, “What can I do? What shouldn’t I do?” It’s not their job. We’ve defaulted. We’re that missing-in-action guy in the front of that Weldon Hardin book—easy chair, pipe, sitting in the air and paper there. No man in the chair.

Well, you’ve got to grab a hold of the situation to give the young people guidance and direction. So that’s an easy answer. We’re not answering it. I think, you know, but in general though, my point is that I think it’s like that quote I read. If you’re finding yourself becoming inclusive—you and the girl, okay—not in the context of others, as opposed to exclusive, or in exclusive rather than inclusive. Sorry, I got that mixed up. If you find yourself, you know, becoming focused on each other instead of friends, that’s an indication you’re moving in the wrong direction. Unless you’ve gone into a formal courtship deal.

The idea is you look from afar. You go to your dad and say, “I want that girl.” Okay? And he says, you know how to proceed. But you don’t talk to her and you don’t try to get in there apart from the parental oversight. Okay?

Amen. God, I’d kind of reply to John’s, you know, dilemma there. Coming here, we are unschooled in this, untrained, you know, the first generation to try to reclaim this ground. And in the course of my life, I’ve read a lot of stories about the situation of, you know, how do we get an adequate mate? Or do we have to just take, you know, what comes, or whatever? And most of the stories that I can recall are when the child themselves or when the parents or the parents with child said “God, this is what we want”—God had no problem providing the quality of person in time.

And then I’m thinking through—kind of looking at my own experience, what I know of standards of scripture—and thinking, okay, well, what would happen if you have an exemplary child now and this loser comes along interested? Okay. Then what do you do? Well, what the loser needs most is, you know, he doesn’t have the dowy. Maybe he doesn’t have the character yet. And you’re like that employer. You say, “Well, hey, you need to go out and take these courses and do this and do this and this and come back. We want you to come back. We want you to grow.”

Well, part of the reason that they’re probably where they are—character-wise, economically—is because they didn’t have a parent that cared enough to say, “Hey, future is coming. You need to get ready. You need to be working on your dowy. You need to be working on your calling.” And you as the parent in that position now are God’s last—this isn’t reverent, but you’re God’s last chance to get to this guy. I mean, you’re the one now in the calling of God to encourage that person to make those steps.

And you know, your fear is, well, he’ll lose interest and I’ll be too late, you know, and it’s not going to happen. But looking back at my experience when I met Pam, I mean, it was too late. Anything. I’ll do anything, you know. I mean, if there was nobody to say, “John, back off and do this,” I would have been impatient, sure, but I’m pretty sure I would have stuck to it. And I can’t think of anything else that would have helped me more now than a parent that would have done that.

And you know, I’m thinking like, well, what happens, John? What happens to me if something like that happens? I think God could really use us, and it could be a very great blessing if we, with all graciousness, require them to this standard. And of course, if we don’t, you know, what headaches are we inviting for ourselves down the road? But I think, you know, our fears will counsel us to diminish our standards and to, you know, accept less and stuff like that. But—or—yeah, that or simply reject and not train. We don’t want to just reject it out of hand either. I think we could be very much God’s grace to, you know, to really bring that relationship along to where it could really establish a godly home and stand on our shoulders for the next generation.

Yeah. Again, in the history of RCC, there have been times in the past when various people would want to step up and do ministry opportunities, and we’d be saying, “Well, we don’t know, you know, if you’re ready to do this. You have this in place.” And the danger is you can either say, “Yeah, you can do it,” and not worry about trying to help [them] better, or just say, “No, you can’t do it, go away,” and it’s the same with what you’re talking about. The idea is that we should say, “Well, great. There’s an interest here, and whether it ends up with our daughter or our son, we’re going to help encourage that person to godliness so they are prepared, you know, not just give them a cold rejection or lower the standards.”

The idea is, as you say, seeing it as an opportunity, you know, to help that person get equipped. And you know, that’s the end result of all this is that, you know, for dads, this is a lot more work. It’s a lot of stuff involved here. It’s going to mature us as well, just like homeschooling has matured us in various ways. So this will too.

Thanks for the good talk. I do have—I really appreciate the scripture that I used with Leah. Because Jacob did go to Laban ahead of time and express his interest in the daughter. And Laban, being the father, said, “You have to work so long, and she’s yours.” And he made it a nice long extended time. And then he tricked him, which was a sad thing, but on the—you know, after he had done that it says—can I turn to that passage and read it?—because it says, “Now Jacob loved Rachel, so he said, ‘I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter.’ And Laban said, ‘It is better that I give her to you than that I should give her to another man. Stay with me.’ So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed only a few days to him because of the love he had for her.”

Wonderful. And that was exciting. But then you said something about 14 years, and it was only actually he received Rachel after seven. But he still had to work that extra seven years off. Right.

Well, and that’s kind of to David’s question—the friendly or friendliest thing. What you really want to do, young men, is use that. If you start to find yourself moving toward friendly or friendliest, then, instead of letting that become the focus—that romantic relationship—let God use that energy to spin you into this service and get yourself prepared. And that time will go by quickly.

If, on the other hand, you let the guy looking for the job look in the window all day long, you know, the seven years is going to go by very slowly. But if he’s out there preparing because of his love, it’s going to go quick.

Real good. Thank you for sharing that.

Bob, I just like to make a comment and hear you comment on it. It seems to me that the ability to use email can be a stumbling block in this area as well, especially when there are providers that enable five users in a home to have email addresses. And it seems to me that fathers need to very—both fathers of sons and daughters—need to take great care in how that particular tool is used so as to not get too blurry in that friendly or friendliest relationship.

Yeah, very good point. Telephone, same thing. I don’t know, you know, I’m—this may get me in a