The popular buzzword in Christian settings today is 'courtship'. The word 'court' is not a Biblical word and, we would argue, neither is the idea Biblical.

To 'court' can have several meanings. The original meaning, and what still sounds in most persons ears, is for a young man to seek the affection of a young lady with a view toward marriage. Thus in a 'traditional' courtship the young man already desires marriage with the young lady, and the 'courting' is his attempt to 'win her heart'. Traditionally the father or other authority must give their permission for the courting to begin; and this permission implies permission to marry if the courting is successful.

In recent days 'courting' has come to mean something less definite; or perhaps more two way. In modern, christian courting, the young man (often with the approval of his family) seeks permission of the young ladies father (or other authority) to 'court'. This means that the two of them (and their parents) will explore, mutually, the possibility of marriage. Marriage would be assumed to be the 'default' conclusion of the relationship, but either party (or their parents) may at any time break the relationship off before engagement (or marriage) has occured.

This modern courting is hedged about with a series of restrictions and guidelines; designed to prevent the young man and woman, whose hormones are raging and who are involved in a relationship pointing marriageward, to not go 'to far'. It is also built up with lists and checklists of character qualities and skills that the prospective mate should have.

However useful these restrictions and guidelines, however excellent these lists and checklists; they still but paper over the fundamental flaw in the courting design. Courting places the geas for choosing a mate on the young people itself. This is problematic in three different ways:

1) There is no Scriptural basis for this. In none of the Godly marriages that we see in Scripture do we see the emphasis for choosing placed on the young people.
2) It puts the burden for choice on those least likely to make a wise choice: those who are emotionally and hormonally involved; and removes it from those who have the actual responsibiltiy: the fathers.
3) It promotes at least the possibility of defrauding; that the young people will engage their hearts and hormones in a relationship that will no be their permanent covenantal marriage.

Jonathon Lindvall points out another problem, that of the indecisive leadership of the father. If you give permission for George to court your daughter Sue... what, in the end, have you told George and Sue? If, after two weeks, they are both fully committed to the relationship; do you still reserve the right of veto? What position have you put the couple in, who have now committed to each other?


If, on the other hand, Sue comes to you and says George is 'just not right'... yet you, Georges father and George are all in favor... is that OK?