One thing I’ve noticed is that when Christians speak about relationships everyone is very concerned with the physical, but frequently neglect to talk about “how far we can go” spiritually, emotionally, socially and ever other ‘ly’ that are part of our humanity. This means that I’ve seen couples who in many ways act like they are married but just don’t have sex.

Some have no problem with this, partly because I think they see ‘going out’ as a preparation for marriage. We play  at Christian marriage (but maintain certain physical boundaries – don’t live in the same house and don’t have sex) as a way of learning if we are right to get married. This sees courting, dating or going out as (apologies for the bad graph!):

The relationship is a series of steps growing together physically (emotionally, spiritually and socially are ignored or simply assumed) but stopping short of sex. Marriage does start anything so much as formalises an existing level of relationship and provides the final bit of security to go ‘over the line’ have sex and consummate the marriage, becoming just a bit more one. You would hear stuff like (and I’ve said it) physical intimacy and covenant security and designed to grow together. The level of physical intimacy should be appropriate for the level of public commitment before people and God to each other.

The other version I’ve heard might look a bit more like this:

In this one, all forms of intimacy are purposely limited until marriage and it is then and in some ways only then does the relationship really start to grow in intimacy in every area. Many secular psychosexual therapists find this one very troubling. (In fact they probably view the Christian first graph as really being like this!) They say that if you have jumps or significant changes in the type of relationship that it is damaging to mental health and the relationship. The jump needn’t be this big and couple can take time to grow and discover each other in deeper ways (I think this is what the two week honeymoon was for). Indeed in Israel:

If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

What then might it look like to have social, emotional and spiritual boundaries?

We know that rules like: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” … are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Colossians 2: 21-23).

That said, in what way might we choose to demonstrate love for one another by the way that we relate to the person we are going out with? One thing we thought about was that we would try and not be the first or last person we talked to about different things. Jesus is the first and last and has given us a network of friends, parents, those who care for and pastor us individually at church. By maintaining these relationships and going to these people first we choose not to take on a role to one another that is appropriate for marriage. To not be the first person or the last is a hard thing, growing together we want to take on that role for each other but it seems like that to do so would be to act like we were already married and create a sense of intimacy that was not rooted in covenant commitment.

What got me started off was this post by Adrian Reynolds, blogging at Strangers & Aliens:

It relates to non married couples and the oft asked question “How far can we go?” Oh, if I had a pound for every time I’ve heard that. Driscoll’s reply:

When you ask, “How far can I go?” you are essentially asking “How far can I push sin?” That’s the wrong question. The right question is “When is the right time?” to which the answer is “Marriage.” Think of it like this. The Scriptures say “treat younger women as sisters” (1 Tim 5.1-2) so guys, would you hang out with your sister? Yep! Would you hug your sister? Sure. Would you go to the cinema with your sister? Why not? Would you touch your sister in any sexual way at all? NO! NO! NO! There’s your answer.

It’s a great way of answering this pastoral hot potato – much better than the Joyce Huggett approach of my youth – which is putting all sexual activity on a scale and then “drawing a line.” Driscoll’s line might seem more subjective (no hard and fast rules of what’s in and what’s out), but is actually (in the long run) more objective, culturally sensitive and, of course, Scriptural.

What do you reckon? Which graph most links to Driscoll’s response? Do you think his guidance fits with Colossians 2? Interested, as always, to hear you’re thoughts.