The following is the final installment of my interview with Alex Chediak on the new book he edited- 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life: Defining Your Dating Style. A preview of the book is available on the publisher's site. Part I of this interview. My review of the book will be posted Monday evening.

ROGER: The other two contributors advance positions that promote deep commitments and parental involvement up front. Could you summarize their positions for us?

ALEX: Yes, you must be referring to Lindvall’s and Wilson’s chapters on The Betrothal Path and The Courtship Path, respectively.   In the betrothal path, the man and woman totally commit to marrying one another at the beginning of the betrothal period; breaking up under any circumstances is unacceptable, that is, it would carry the same sense of stigma as a divorce.  Yet no physical union is allowed in the betrothal period, either.  Rather, the couple is to use this time preparing their hearts for marriage, including the extended opportunity for each to “romance” the other.  This way, the “falling in love” part happens under the protection of total commitment.  And parental approval at the beginning of the betrothal stage is also a key ingredient to guard the man and woman from choosing rashly or otherwise making a poor decision. 

The main difference between courtship and betrothal is that with courtship breaking up in the premarital stage is acceptable in a number of circumstances.  Secondly, whereas the active involvement of both sets of parents is more a vital component in betrothal, in courtship the woman’s parents (and primarily her father) have a more essential role than the man’s parents.  That said, both courtship and betrothal presuppose one believing in male headship in both marriage and a family.  The woman ought to be protected in her father’s household until given in marriage to a man who then takes her into his care.

In the Appendix, I show a continuum chart that compares and contrasts dating from courtship from betrothal.  As one proceeds on the “Betrothal – Dating” continuum, there is, on the Betrothal side, a greater emphasis on preliminary formality, on initial commitment, on the notion that multiple experiences brings emotional damage (rather than a health learning of social skills and spiritual refinement), on the importance of applying a specific method rather than letting a couple employ cultural norms (“when in Rome, do as the Romans”), and on the importance of considering objective criteria (“How long have they been a Christian?  Are her parents believers?”) rather than subjective criteria (“Do I enjoy being with this person?”).   Lastly, one might say that in betrothal (and increasingly as one moves to that side of the spectrum), one first commits to marriage, and then falls in love.  While on the dating side of the spectrum, it is not that objective criteria are necessarily unimportant (certainly to the contributors I gathered for this book objective criteria were important); it is simply that subjective criteria are given a greater hearing in the processes.  In other words, people fall in love, and then commit to marriage.     

ROGER: All of the contributors advocate the involvements of the couple’s parents to some degree. However, for many people in this culture such parental participation is impractical. What is a couple to do when the parents aren’t a part of the couple’s lives?

ALEX: I think each of the contributors would say that what unmarried couples should do in these situation is to more significantly involve other married couples and older Christians in their churches.  I think this is especially true for single Christians living (geographically) away from their parents.  This way, part of a couple’s community is people who have been married for a long time, and are not simultaneously dealing with the same sort of issues the couple is facing.  They can thus speak to the couple from the reservoir of both life and marital experience.  This can protect the couple from unhealthy patterns (e.g., spending too much time alone) and serve to channel their communication and overall tone of their interaction in a positive manner by helping them think through how what their doing now will impact their future in ways they might not have anticipated (e.g., How does each think about the role of “husband” or “wife”?  How much do they value spending time with their extended family?  How will career be pursued, and to what extent?).    

ROGER: Another similarity in all of the contributors you note is their rejection of “casual dating” as it causes a high number of hookups and breakups. Why is this a problem?

ALEX: There are certain websites and other social pockets in our culture in which  there is a growing “hook-up” culture among high school and college students.  By “hook-ups”, I am referring to casual relationships that can be almost entirely based on physical intimacy (e.g., premarital sex and the like).  The reality of this being prevalent among youth has been bemoaned by both Christian and non-Christian social critics alike.   A 2001 survey conducted by Bowling Green State University in Ohio found that one of every three of the local 11^th graders had given up their virginity for a partner who was “no more than a friend”.  So they harden themselves to the emotional ties that sexual exchanges inherently involve, and then its easier to break up and go to the next partner or next experience.   That is a major problem in terms of preparing for a lifelong commitment to one person called marriage.  

It is now commonplace for many high school students and college campuses to have abandoned dating altogether, as the process can become “complicated” once “emotions get involved”.  A much-discussed study by the Institute for American Values entitled “Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right” reported that only 50 percent of college women seniors reported having been asked on six or more dates by men since coming to college.  That notwithstanding, 80 percent of women surveyed said that “being married is a very important goal for me”.   It would take more time to unpack it, but I think we’re reaping the whirlwind of the first generation raised by parents with high divorce statistics combined with a post-modern approach to traditional values and norms.  Male passivity and indecisiveness is combined with the pervasive cultural assumption that women are no different than men is resulting in a “dating scene” in which women are relating to men in terms of more transient gratification with less commitment, the result being greater confusion, and fewer and less successful marriages.  That’s what I touched on in the Conclusions chapter of our book, even though our contributors were overwhelmingly pro-marriage. 

ROGER: In your discussion of marriage you make a strong claim: “Deliberate, lifelong childlessness on the part of Christians often reveals marriages fueled by the drive for mere emotional fulfillment and outright moral rebellion against God’s design.” (194) Do you mean to say that all Christian couples who choose not to have children are sinning?

ALEX: The key word in this statement is “often”.  I do not mean that all Christian couples who choose not to have children are sinning.  What I'm concerned with is an attitude that some bring to marriage that precludes part of the reason God established the institution (namely, fruitful multiplication).   I think there is Scriptural warrant to question the preference not to have children merely because they are too expensive and inconvenient, particularly if other areas of a couple's life also illustrate general worldliness.  This is a far cry from a couple that chooses to be childless (temporarily or permanently) so that they can better give their lives away in gospel ministry among the unreached people's groups.  The concern I have is people viewing marriage merely as an optional institution for their own emotional fulfillment (which, I submit, is the common cultural understanding, which is why same-sex marriage is becoming increasingly plausible for many).  Rather, a more biblical view of marriage is that where there is not a gift of celibacy, God ordains marriage as His good gift for both the enjoyment and sanctification of His children, as well as the propagation of the race.  And this includes not only companionship, but also protection (from sexual immorality, I Corinthians 7:2) and procreation (Genesis 1:28).  Just as some singles downplay the protection aspect of marriage (struggling with self-control in part because they have not received God’s good gift), so some married folk downplay procreation.   I tried to touch on both issues in my Conclusions chapter.