The Problem with Pragmatism

Because I was "banned" from posting on the Boundless Blog, I could not enter the discussion today. However, I do still read the blog, and one of the discussions caught my attention. It was about my previous article on Scott Croft. Motte Brown wrote the following:


I understand that people have different opinions on this issue. But one of the main points Scott makes is that the long you date, the more prone you are to sinning physically.


No reasonable person would argue that physical temptation does not increase — a lot — the longer two people date who are attracted to each other and who grow to love each other. Sadly, statistics and anecdotal experience both indicate that even the vast majority of Christian couples who spend time in dating relationships of any length, sin physically.


I've yet to see any of the "From 'Hi' to 'I do' in One Year" detractors address this inconvenient truth of long-dating relationships. Is it simply a matter of self-control and accountability? Or do you believe a certain amount of sinning physically just comes with the territory of any dating relationship?



If this is one of Mr. Croft's main points, then it is easy to see why there are so many detractors. Allow me to be "unreasonable" here, and try to address Mr. Croft's [what I believe is] pragmatism. First, Mr. Croft says that "the statistics" indicate that, the longer the relationship goes, the better the chance for physical sin. I want to know, what statistics? There is no footnote, or citation for that. I think what I would probably get back is something like a survey in which the rate of premarital sexual relations would be shown to be higher in those who have dated for more than a year.



However, that is easily challangable. First of all, who was surveyed? Were only Christians surveyed? If only Christians were surveyed, then how committed were the majority of them to their Christianity? Were they people who only attended church on Sunday, and maybe singles ministry because it gives them a good time? How involved were their parents? How many of them were dating for the purpose of marriage? Did they already have problems with sexual sin before this? Were they still virgins when they engaged in sexual sin? You see, there are a huge host of questions, and it is funny for Motte to think that this is even a good enough point to bring up. The reality is that most of the time there is going to be more than one factor.



Secondly, I know more than enough people who have dated for more than a year and are still sexually pure. In fact, two of my best friends are about ready to graduate from college, they have been dating since High School, and are still virgins. My parents are, likewise, a good example of this. We also need to keep in mind that our generation never heard of this modern view of courtship before folks like Joshua Harris came out with it. There were many people who got married as virgins after long engagements before and after these books came out.



However, again, the fatal flaw in the reasoning of modern courtship is the idea that the physical can cause us to sin. The Bible does not tell us that our sin comes from our situation, but rather, from our heart. Worse than that, as I mentioned in my previous post, by adding unbiblical commands to the scriptures, the Lordship of Christ is thrown out the window. Again, I have to ask why it is that Joshua Harris, Albert Mohler, Boundless, etc. keep adding to the word of God. By doing so, they are setting up boundaries for couples that are not under the Lordship of Christ. Because the command "You must get married in a year" has absolutely no Biblical authority, and therefore, it is an easy one to break. Notice, as I said on my last post, Eve tried to do the same thing. They figured "Hey, we will be less likely to eat the fruit if we don't even touch it." If this reasoning didn't work in paradise, what makes them think it will work here?



In fact, here is a parody on this argument. 1 Corinthians 10:14 tells us we are to flee idolatry. Now, does that mean that I should not witness to a Hindu, because I will be more likely to be deceived, and thus commit idolatry if I witness to a Hindu? 1 Timothy 6:10-11 tells us that we are to flee the love of money. Does that mean that we are not to be rich because it is more likely that we will end up loving our money if we are rich? The problem with this is that 1 Corinthians 6:18 was never intended to be a command to not do things that might increase your chances of being tempted.



Worse than that, back in Biblical times, you would often times have the man work for the girl's hand, such as Jacob who worked seven times the amount prescribed by Mr. Croft in his article. Such could not be wrapped up in a year, and the couple would have to wait for it to be done. There simply is no Biblical evidence for this viewpoint, and, in this case, there is evidence against it.



Again, we have to ask ourselves the question. Where does sin come from? Why do people sin? That is the heart of the error of the modern courtship movement. James tells us in James 1:14 that sin comes from the heart. As long as modern courtship advocates keep focusing on environment rather than the heart, it will be impossible for them ever solve the problem altogether. The only consistent modern courtship advocate is the one who would be willing to go up to their girlfriend or boyfriend and tell them that they would hurt them in a second if they were ever in another environment. I do not know of any girl that would ever date a guy who said that to them.



Again, this is what happens when you go to pragmatism rather than trying to wrestle with these issues from the word of God. You will always end up with an inconsistent, irrational view of reality rather than allowing the scriptures to tell us about these things. That is the problem with pragmatism. What "works" is not going to necessarily be what is the most Biblical. For instance, if you are angry with someone, and want them to go away, threatening them with a gun will certainly accomplish that goal. However, is such Biblical? And if we would not accept a pragmatic, unbiblical solution to a problem such as that, why do we accept a solution that binds to the contience of God's people something not found in God's word?

Scott Croft Keeps Throwing up Circular Arguments

Most people are aware of Scott Croft, the attorney who has wandered into Biblical Studies. A while back, Scott Croft presented this argument against premarital kissing:

I believe the Bible to teach that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sin, and all romantically oriented physical activity is sexual activity. In my view, this includes premarital kissing.

His argument appears to be in this form:

1. All sexual activity ouside of marriage is sin.
2. Premarital kissing is a romantically oriented physical activity, and therefore, a sexual activity.
3. Therefore, premarital kissing is a sin.

Of course, we can easily challange premise #2. First of all, what does Mr. Croft mean by a "sexual activity?" His language is ambiguous. However, his definition could only take on one of two descriptions, sinful or not sinful. If he means "sexual activity" in the sense of something romantic that is not said to be sinful in the Bible, then he refutes his own argument. However, if he means a "sexual activity" in the sense of an action which is said to be sinful in the Bible, then he would be under obligation to prove that premarital kissing is sinful sexual action from the text of the Bible. I am pretty sure he wants us to take the second interpretation, however, he retreats to ambiguious language so he doesn't have to prove this interpretation. He can then go off quoting all of these passages which talk about extramarital sexuality being wrong, and no one will bother to challange him to prove that his definition of a "sexual activity" is consistent with how the Bible uses such terminology. Thus, I would say Mr. Croft is wrong to say that a romantically oriented physical activity is a sexual activity, as the Bible never defines it as such.

Also, he uses a really bad argument that says that, if we are not married to someone, then we are to treat them like a biological brother or sister, and then cites passages talking about spiritual brothers and sisters as if it had any relevance. If we want to go that route, we could use the following argument:

1. If we are not married to someone in the church, we are to treat them as biological brothers and sisters.
2. Biological brothers and sisters are not allowed to attend marriage counciling with each other, since it is immoral for brothers and sisters to get married.
3. Therefore, if you are unmarried, you cannot attend marriage counciling.

Or even better yet:

1. If we are not married to someone in the church, we are to treat them as biological brothers and sisters.
2. Biological brothers and sisters are not allowed to marry each another.
3. Therefore, no two Christians are allowed to marry each other.

Of course, now Scott Croft's argument has destroyed marriage altogether.

Now, I keep on wondering how it is that Mr. Croft could make such bad arguments. I mean, what is the modivating factor for such horrendus argumentation? Well, Mr. Croft has now penned an article allegedly proving that relationships that are over a year long are somehow wrong, and I think it is very telling.

His arguments are, again, assuming things that have yet to be proven. He assumes that long relationships are the cause of sexual sin, completely ignoring James 1:14 which says that it is by our own evil lusts which we are tempted. He also tries to quote 1 Thessalonians 4:6 which has absolutely no relevance whatsoever since the context is about sexual sin, and has nothing to do with how long it takes to get to marriage. Worse than that, he, again, assumes that it is somehow "defrauding" someone because you have not made a commitement to that person. The problem is that Mr. Croft, and virtually everyone else in the modern courtship movement, makes the mistake of thinking that commitment can only occur in marriage. Thus, all I need to do is hold that commitment can occur outside of marriage, and the problem is gone.

The reason I bring this up is that Mr. Croft has pretty much admitted that his entire series has been one long circular argument. In the very same article, Mr. Croft writes:

To put it simply, "not acting married before you're married," perhaps the sum total of the principles we've discussed in the rest of these columns, gets exponentially more difficult the longer a pre-marital relationship persists.

Now, where in his entire series did he ever prove from the scriptures that premarital kissing and long relationships are "acting married before you are married?" I hope he does not mean that they are acting like you are married because it is something that married people do. Married people do a whole lot of things that even modern courtship advocates do. I think what he means is that these actions that he is saying are wrong are inherently marital. However, where does he ever bother prove from the scriptures that these things are inherently marital? He doesn't, and what that tells me is that this entire series of articles were nothing but one long circular argument. His fundamental premise assumes that these things are only to occur in marriage, and low and behold, when we get to the conclusion we find that the fundamental premise is that these things are only supposed to happen in marriage.

Again, the circularity of Mr. Croft's arguments just scream out the fact that he has terrible prejudices against long relationships and romantic physical activities, and these series of articles have been nothing more than an attempt to rationalize his prejudices. He has never even attempted to prove this foundational premise from the Bible, and he, and other modern courtship advocates assume it with every argument they make. Of course, this is this mindset of modern courtship advocates. While Mr. Croft may have gone to the scriptures in this series, he has not gone their to prove his basic assumptions, and thus, his basic assumptions must be rejected as unbiblical. If that is the case, then his entire argument comes down with them. Thus, Mr. Croft has not presented "Biblical Dating," because, at the crutial points of his arguments, he refuses to go to the Bible, and just keeps on throwing up circular arguments.

Mr. Croft is an attorney. Thus, it is unbelievable to see him throwing up arguments that would make him fail any class in first order predicate logic. Why does he do this? I think because he has a prejudice against premarital kissing and long relationships, and knows that he cannot defend that prejudice from the Bible. However, this is not a game. Because of the fact that the boundaries Mr. Croft is asking people to set up are unbiblical and irrational, he is asking people to set up boundaries which have no authority. What is the problem with this? The problem is that if you set up boundaries that are based upon unbiblical principles, then they have no authority behind them. Whenever you are tempted to cross these boundaries, you have no reason to keep your boundaries because they have no authority behind them. Once you cross them, the authority of your boundaries as a whole have been effectively undermined. However, if you build your boundaries upon the word of God, then you have boundaries that have the authority of the almighty king of the universe behind them. That is the only chance we have of remaining pure before marriage.

I would like to close with pointing something out from the story of Adam and Eve. God gave Adam a commandment when he first created him. As we all know, Adam and Eve disobeyed that commandment. However, I don't know if people have noticed that, when Eve tells the serpent what God has commanded, she doesn't exactly get it right. Here is a comparison between the commandment that was given to Adam, and the way Eve relayed it to the serpent:

Genesis 2:16-17 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:2-3 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

Now, where did the bold phrase come from? The woman appears to be adding a phrase making the command much more rigerious than what God had actually commanded. However, did it end up working? Did adding a more severe command to the command God had already made in any way shape or form prevent Eve from eating of the fruit? Of course not! And if this didn't procedure didn't work in paradise where there was no sin, what makes the modern courtship advocates think that it will work now, when we live in a culture of sin? You see, Eve had an easy answer for the serpent. It was "Thus Saith the Lord." However, she refused that lordship of God over her life, and she fell into sin. That is where sin comes from. That is why boundaries must be set up with Biblical authority so that we can say that it is God who is Lord over our lives, and when temptation comes, we will recognize that the boundaries we have come directly from our Lord. That is the only chance we have of defeating temptation.

One of my pastors would like to see courtship simply defined as a relationship in which there is parental involvement. I agree. I know that most of the modern courtship advocates agree that parents must be restored to a more preeminent role in their children's relationships, and for that, I commend our modern courtship friends. I only wish they had stopped there. The rest of this stuff is nothing more than a relic of 19th century parenting. I propose that we, instead, go back to the word of God, and allow our relationships to be based upon the sound exegesis of the holy and God-breathed scriptures.