Kissing Nonsense Goodbye
A slew of recent dating books are asking the wrong question
Rob Marus | posted 6/11/2001 12:00AM

2 of 4

But more than a few of these women are confused by his ongoing friendship, and some of them have misinterpreted it, only to be sorely disappointed later when he has to give them the dreaded "I only want to be friends" talk. Although both parties involved are committed Christians, and although my roommate means no harm, some of these women end up feeling hurt and used after their hopes for a long-term relationship are dashed. After all, they thought they were dating.
Perhaps the ambiguity and angst that the prevailing model of dating can create point to the true problem with mere dating. One of the most striking things in the Kasses' book is that, under the old models of courtship, there was little ambiguity about the nature of the relationship. People who courted were doing so because they wanted to be married. Under courtship systems, there was never any agonizing about when to have that other most dreaded of dating talks—the "define the relationship" (or DTR) conversation—because that's how you began the courtship in the first place. If the relationship wasn't defined as "likely leading to marriage," then you wouldn't court. All those misunderstandings and hurt feelings were minimized by having them at the beginning.
However, the strictures placed on courting couples under these systems gave them little privacy to be open with each other. For this reason (and other more banal reasons, like changing sociological and economic models in the u.s. after the turn of the 20th century), this kind of courtship gave way to dating.
Harris and the other authors in this genre aren't doing away with dating—they just want Christians to date with more discretion and accountability than is common in the wider culture.
"It's Not Good for Man to Be Alone"
In 1998, however, Don Raunikar took Harris's idea to the next level. In Choosing God's Best (Multnomah), the Houston psychoanalyst seized upon the concept of courting and did to it what we evangelicals seem to long for these days: he made it formulaic.
In fact, Raunikar's philosophy in Choosing God's Best could be summed up as "courtship good, dating bad." And that's not an oversimplification. Consider these statements from the book: "Dating has a self-centered focus" and "Dating quickly leads to emotional and physical involvement without development of a deep, lasting friendship." Both of these statements may certainly be true, but too much hyperbole can be a dangerous thing. My parents dated before they got married, and they're still together. Don't their 30-plus years of marriage indicate that they managed to develop a "deep, lasting friendship"? Good thing that my mom didn't get a copy of Choosing God's Best from one of her sorority sisters in 1967 before she started dating my dad. Otherwise, my dad's prospects might have been as bad as mine are now.
Raunikar also tends to use God as the justification for his views, as if it is God who hates dating and blesses courting. Consider this observation from Choosing God's Best: "Although the Bible never mentions the words 'dating' or 'courtship,' it does give principles and guidelines for one-to-one, male/female relationships. The Bible says that after God created goodness all around, He looked at man and said, 'It is not good for man to be alone' (Genesis 2:18)."