Interview with Alex Chediak- Part II

October 3, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (569)

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.

Related posts:

1. Interview with Alex Chediak- Part I
2. Book Review: 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life edited by Alex Chediak
3. Book Review: Sex and the Supremacy of Christ ed by. John Piper and Justin Taylor
4. Interview with Mary Kassian – Part II
5. EFBT 2.2: Men and Women in Ministry
6. Interview With Glenn Lucke – Part Four: Advice for Aspiring Writers

Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology