I've now read multiple books on dating, and each of them has had its strengths*, but they all generally talked about similar things: biblical manhood and womanhood, and intentional relationships in consideration of marriage.
So when I picked up this book, I expected more of the same.
I was wrong.
I hadn't expected this book to say things that nobody else was saying.
I hadn't expected this book to become one of my anticipated favorites of the year.
It was far more paradigm-shifting (and brainy) than I expected it to be.
Also, the authors win points for proposing an approach to dating that's both simple and gutsy (that is, gutsy in terms of its counter-culture philosophy). See point 5 below for my summary of the authors' prescribed method of getting a wife.
This book's focus was much narrower than the other books: it wasn't trying to say everything there is to say about romantic relationships; it was mainly trying to change how we approach romantic relationships.
--
A few things I learned from this book:
1. We need to take the Bible's typology seriously, especially when it comes to Christ and the Church. We also need to take the image of God seriously.
Implication: Christ is faithful to His bride; are you faithful to yours? Do you want to get married just for your own gratification or also to live out the image of God?
2. The Bible addresses three types of human relationships: marriage (sexual relations commanded), family (sexual relations forbidden), and neighbor (sexual relations forbidden).
Implication #1: Dating is an activity, not a category. People nowadays treat "dating" as a fourth type of human relationship, but it's unwise to create a new category that Scripture doesn't address. A dating friendship is a subset of the neighbor category, not a new (fourth) category.
Implication #2: Since a dating friendship is a subset of the neighbor category, it has the same sexual ethics as the neighbor category (and as the family category). So would you have sex with your sister? If not, then you shouldn't have sex with your neighbor or the girl your dating. Similarly, would you romantically kiss your sister? If not, then you shouldn't romantically kiss the girl you're dating.
3. The security in a dating relationship is false; temporary-until-I-don't-feel-like-it commitment is no real commitment. There's no real security until engagement. Until then, the relationship itself constitutes no real commitment to exclusivity. (The parties can voluntarily choose exclusivity, but this is something self-imposed and not constrained by the relationship category.) In reality, a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" can break off the relationship at any time without having violated any commitment.
Implication #1: Don't trust in the relationship beyond what real commitment there is. Don't set your heart up for heartbreak.
Implication #2: Dating need not be exclusive or committed. It can be, but you're not asking for exclusivity and commitment until you propose.
Implication #3: I ought not try to win a girl's heart until I know what I want to do with it. That is, I shouldn't romance her until I know I want to marry her. As Song of Solomon says, "Do not awaken love until it desires." (Conversely, a girl shouldn't give away her heart until she knows what the man intends to do with it.)
4. Your heart-theology controls your instinctive lust. The more you (really, in your heart, not just in your head) believe Christ's promises, the less your subconscious will want to lust.
5. You can apply all this rather simply in "dating friendships":
a. Date people, with no sex (including kissing), romance, or mandated commitment.
b. When you propose, turn on the romance and the commitment.
c. When you get married, turn on the sex!
--
*Josh Harris'
Boy Meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship was well-rounded and well-illustrated (and not as radical as some people might think...on a side note, I haven't read
I Kissed Dating Goodbye, so I can't comment on that book);
John Ensor's
Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart was a pleasure to read because it was so passionate and poetic; and
Alex & Marni Chediak's
With One Voice: Singleness, Dating & Marriage to the Glory of God was analytical and the most like a procedural manual, and it argued that marriage is normative.
(Actually, I really enjoyed all three, and you might not be able to tell, but With One Voice might have been the most formative for me. But, to be honest, John Ensor's book was the most fun to read, on an emotional, aesthetic level.)
