# Couples save first kiss for wedding day



## ChristianTrader (May 13, 2009)

Couples save first kiss for wedding day | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean


----------



## Knoxienne (May 13, 2009)

Good!


----------



## steven-nemes (May 13, 2009)

I suppose if that is the thing for them, fine; I can't imagine this being a very popular thing to do, though.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 13, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I suppose if that is the thing for them, fine; I can't imagine this being a very popular thing to do, though.



Or an easy thing to do either. 

That's why I believe in short engagements.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (May 13, 2009)

*Tough, tough, tough...*



by the way, its my first comment!!! WHOOOOOHOOOOOO


----------



## Athaleyah (May 13, 2009)

XBlackWaterX said:


> *Tough, tough, tough...*
> 
> 
> 
> by the way, its my first comment!!! WHOOOOOHOOOOOO


----------



## Knoxienne (May 13, 2009)

XBlackWaterX said:


> *Tough, tough, tough...*
> 
> 
> 
> by the way, its my first comment!!! WHOOOOOHOOOOOO



Congratulations and Welcome!  In 15-20 or so more posts you'll get a Thanks button and you'll be able to thank people for their posts.


----------



## Timothy William (May 13, 2009)

That story is so sweet!


----------



## AThornquist (May 13, 2009)

Cool.  I'm glad for that couple and others who pursue kissless courtships or dating relationships, but I think there is some liberty with this issue. At least from my own perspective, though there is liberty in the decision, the smoochin' may be too emotionally charged. I mean, how could it not be? Besides, if I am a man ready for marriage, I should be protecting my courtship partner from not only my sinful desires for intimacy but also her own emotional attachment that could result from pre-marriage intimacy in kissing. I won't look down on others who do choose to kiss before marriage, but that choice will be discouraged for my little sisters. In general, I don't trust males with the girls, which is partly because I know my own heart; if I am interested in a girl for marriage, a good kiss on the lips could lead my mind to her hips (note the metonymy). And that's sin.


----------



## Berean (May 13, 2009)

> *Tulip Grove Baptist Church*



They should consider becoming Reformed


----------



## AThornquist (May 13, 2009)

Berean said:


> > *Tulip Grove Baptist Church*
> 
> 
> 
> They should consider becoming Reformed



Ha, I know! I read the name and thought, "Ah man, if only..."


----------



## Edward (May 13, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I believe in short engagements.
> ...


----------



## Kevin (May 13, 2009)

Part of me wants to applaud these people for their commitment,

Another part of me thinks that this is an example of the influence of dualism in modern evengelicalism...


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (May 13, 2009)

I actually made this covenant and very much regret my past in this area.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 13, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Part of me wants to applaud these people for their commitment,
> 
> Another part of me thinks that this is an example of the influence of dualism in modern evengelicalism...



Dualism? Explain?


----------



## AThornquist (May 13, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > Part of me wants to applaud these people for their commitment,
> ...



Indeed. What do you mean, Kevin? It takes two to party?


----------



## Beoga (May 13, 2009)

I am glad to see others doing this! 
We will see what happens once I actually get into a relationship and the hormones start to go a buzzin'...


----------



## AThornquist (May 13, 2009)

Rinse your mouth with garlic vinaigrette, man. You won't have to worry about that kiss. Or vampire.


----------



## Kevin (May 13, 2009)

body=evil

spirit=good

All social & cultural rituals that involve any physical aspect are thus "evil" or sinful.

The reason we even consider this an OK example of christian social practice is the we have identified all male/female contact as sexual.

In our modern life we have so much privacy that we consider our current social norms to be normative.

These people are convinced that any contact (i.e. kissing) is a sexual act to be only expirienced in the marriage relationship. I doubt very strongly that a first century christian would have felt the same way. Or else St. Paul's admonition to "greet with a holy kiss" would have been an incitement to immorality.


----------



## AThornquist (May 13, 2009)

Kevin said:


> body=evil
> 
> spirit=good
> 
> ...




Oh, gotcha. You make a good point. Thank you for explaining.

I hope to meet my wife Jacob style, so I must not be a dualist. (Gen 29:10, 11 - Now as soon as Jacob saw Rachel [he watered the flock].Then Jacob kissed Rachel and wept aloud.) Despite tons of family in Tennessee, I hope to divert from this plot line by not being her father's kinsman.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (May 13, 2009)

Kevin,



> These people are convinced that any contact (i.e. kissing) is a sexual act to be only experienced in the marriage relationship.





I take this personally. My wife and I did this not out of any type of dualistic hatred of the flesh, but out of a sense of knowing where kissing can lead. We avoided kissing because we wanted to save it, save ourselves, and relieve ourselves of a lot of pressure that _would_ have arisen had we done so. I respected myself and her too much for this.

It is an area of liberty, true enough, but kissing can lead to touching, and touching can lead to other things. Why call us dualist? Maybe we were just being prudent?



> The reason we even consider this an OK example of christian social practice is the we have identified all male/female contact as sexual.





So it's not okay to think you shouldn't kiss before marriage?



> Or else St. Paul's admonition to "greet with a holy kiss" would have been an incitement to immorality.



I doubt holy kissing had much to do with what couples do today, Kevin.

There are Christian couples I know who went to kissing and no further before marriage. They are *not sinning*. Also, I know of folks who couldn't hold off. Why risk it?


----------



## AThornquist (May 13, 2009)

Johnathan, I do not intend to speak for Kevin but my impression was that he did not say those who don't kiss before marriage are dualists, rather only this trend can be partially attributed to dualism. Others, such as yourself, are not dualists but were careful to guard themselves from impurity that could have been a result of the intimacy of kissing. Again, that was just my impression.

Bear in mind that in the post you quoted from he was primarily describing dualism, not necessarily a position he fully (or partially) holds.


----------



## Kevin (May 13, 2009)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Kevin,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of life is a risk. If I absolutised your premise, I would be imobilised. It is a silly thing to say, in my opinion.

-----Added 5/13/2009 at 11:25:58 EST-----

Sorry, but my comments did NOT show up as a seperate post above. I think that my comments are distinct enough to be clear. If more than one person thinks that they are not I will deleate the above post.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (May 13, 2009)

Many Christians today make light of the relationship between a man and a woman. Casual dating (no intention to marry) is seen as being perfectly fine.

My parents taught me that my lips are for my future wife alone. Why pick up emotional baggage? Here's my viewpoint: when an unmarried girl kisses a guy, she is probably thinking, "Maybe he's the one for me." Until the minister at the wedding says, "husband and wife," that guy might not be the ONE for her. 

Not only that, but I simply don't trust myself. The heart is deceitful above all things. I don't want others to get offended by my thoughts above, but that's the way I see the situation.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 14, 2009)

My dear friend and co-worker came really, really close to this standard with her recent marriage. She had been single for 20 years after being "walked out on" by a louse, leaving her with five little kids. Their wedding was a glorious display of God's grace and mercy and it was a powerful testimony to everyone in attendance.

In this day, I thought that the only kissing most people saved until after their marriage was the kiss of their second or third child at the wedding!


----------



## ewenlin (May 14, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> My dear friend and co-worker came really, really close to this standard with her recent marriage. She had been single for 20 years after being "walked out on" by a louse, leaving her with five little kids. Their wedding was a glorious display of God's grace and mercy and it was a powerful testimony to everyone in attendance.
> 
> In this day, I thought that the only kissing most people saved until after their marriage was the kiss of their second or third child at the wedding!


Thats wonderful to hear..


----------



## OPC'n (May 14, 2009)

Interesting...


----------



## Brian Withnell (May 14, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Couples save first kiss for wedding day | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean



Jean and I. First time I kissed Jean was "You may now kiss the bride."

My daughter said she and her husband did the same.

It is neat being able to model good courting to your children. <grin> Having been a widower makes that a possibility instead of an oxymoron!

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 01:47:49 EST-----



Kevin said:


> body=evil
> 
> spirit=good
> 
> ...



First, I think you underestimate _this cultures_ abuse of sexual immorality. Those from other cultures hug and kiss much more openly than the west. It is typical of Hispanic students at my school to greet each other with a kiss on the check, and a brief hug. But even they do not kiss on the lips and certainly do not kiss "open mouth" other than as a sexual contact.

There is nothing about "body = evil" in the realm of those that kiss after being married. The kiss after the vows of marriage is "body = good" and contradicts the first of the premises. The logic that follows is therefore without merit in the circumstances (if the premise is false, no continued discussion is fruitful).

Heb 13:4 states clearly that sex in marriage is undefiled. What is prohibited for singles is commanded for married couples.

While Paul (and Peter) commanded to greet each other with a holy kiss, that would not have been the same "kiss" that is exchanged in private with a person of the opposite sex, and certainly not as most "date kissing" is practiced. Paul also wrote flee immorality (which would be hard to do while lip-locked).


----------



## Tim (May 14, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> There is nothing about "body = evil" in the realm of those that kiss after being married. The kiss after the vows of marriage is "body = good" and contradicts the first of the premises. The logic that follows is therefore without merit in the circumstances (if the premise is false, no continued discussion is fruitful).



Yes, I agree. It is more about not starting something that one can't finish because they aren't yet married.

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 05:03:12 EST-----



AThornquist said:


> Besides, if I am a man ready for marriage, I should be protecting my courtship partner from not only my sinful desires for intimacy but also her own *emotional attachment* that could result from pre-marriage intimacy in kissing.



Very true and important.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 14, 2009)

Kevin said:


> body=evil
> 
> spirit=good
> 
> ...



Brother, you are completely misunderstanding the types of kisses being discussed. The kissing that should be avoided between dating, courting, engaged couples is very different from that which is merely a social greeting. If you can romantically kiss a lovely lady without having thoughts of more than kissing you are unlike any man I have ever met. I only wish that my wife and I had made a covenant like this young couple. It was unheard of then. . . and look at the consequences of such wisdom among my generation.


----------



## TimV (May 14, 2009)

Just about every interpretation of the Song of Songs that I've read see the young woman having kissed the handsome shepherd before she'd made up her mind which one to marry.


----------



## FenderPriest (May 14, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I suppose if that is the thing for them, fine; I can't imagine this being a very popular thing to do, though.



I know a number of folks who do that in our church... It makes that part of their wedding a very entertaining (and holy) moment for the rest of us!


----------



## Kevin (May 14, 2009)

Lawrence, I didn't misunderstand the type of kissing involved in the discussion.

And for the record I abhor the modern recreational dating philosophy.

However, I have been reading (again) about the Cathar movement. I am espescially interested in the ease that these people fell into the Dualistic Heresy.

The chaste lives of "the Perfect" were is such contrast to the immorality among the Roman clergy, that the people were swept up in following all sorts of pernicious & damnable doctrines.

As I read I saw many parallels with modern evangelicalism (and also some of the conservative wings of the RCC, as well). People that are properly outraged by the immorality in our popular culture (in & outside the church) CAN end up adopting practices that are "sub-biblical", but are very "moral".
 
A good historic parallel would be the recent temperance movement. Many christians were swept away by the (understandable) appeal of a "moral" solution to the (very real) problems of drunkenes. Not for a moment considering that they were adopting an unbiblical lifestyle. For the temperance believer this soon became a (the?) moral issue that was the definition of godliness.

I am convinced that the North American church is still suffering the effects of the temperance movement (moralism, cultural retreatism, and cultural relativism, legalism, feminism, perfectionism, the "holyness" movement, etc).

In the practice of the modern "purity" movement many strange (& In my humble opinion) unbiblical things are being promoted as a way to "guard the heart" of our daughters.

So yes, I think that this has the marks of dualistic moralism, not biblical purity.

I think heathy, robust christian families, filled with children & catechised by mums and dads that have loving monogamous relationships are the solution. Not a movement to take (frankly creepy) pledges & vows between fathers and daughters.


----------



## CredoFidoSpero (May 14, 2009)

I've also been to a number of weddings where this is the case - It is beautiful, and often entertaining . I know one couple that did not even kiss at the wedding because she didn't want their first kiss to be in front of so many people!

I also liked what one girl pointed out in the article - kissing someone your dating is like kissing someone else's future husband or wife. Our culture treats dating (and, God help us, 'hooking up') like an end in itself rather than preparation towards the lifelong commitment of marriage. But I've always taken the view that whoever I date is possibly someone else's future husband, and I want to treat him as I hope other women are treating my future husband .

But I also agree with what others have pointed out her - this is an area where there should be liberty, not absolute rules.

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 01:52:29 EST-----

My  was for Jacob's comment, but I also can agree with what Kevin is saying. I have seen groups who have taken these things too far, and no matter the good intentions, it generally goes bad when we try to establish law where God has given us Grace.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 14, 2009)

FenderPriest said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose if that is the thing for them, fine; I can't imagine this being a very popular thing to do, though.
> ...



This is precisely what makes me uncomfortable! I don't think that my wedding should be an occasion for others to laugh or smile at an awkward public moment. I think I would dispense with the ceremony kiss altogether before I had my first kiss with my husband in front of everyone!  But this is a minor concern, and probably has more to do with my prideful notions of personal dignity.

Most of us probably agree that premarital lingering kisses are dangerous, and it's prudent to avoid it. But I agree with Kevin that the idea that all premarital _affection_ is somehow "less pure" is a little odd. I hug my friends; I certainly hope that someday if I'm engaged to my _best_ friend, I would be free to hug him. Lingering kisses probably are inherently sexual; brief, affectionate kisses are not. I understand why some couples make the decision not to kiss before marriage, but I have a _huge_ problem with the suggestion that this decision (which is nowhere specifically advised in the Bible) is more holy. This is precisely the reasoning that leads some to think that, well, maybe drinking in moderation is _okay_, but complete abstinence from alcohol is _better_. It is not, and neither is refraining from premarital kissing any more holy than staying sexually pure while showing some physical affection. 

This is not to say that one should kiss multiple people, or without commitment; I am just as opposed to serial dating and serial kissing as others on this thread, and I think it's probably _wise_ to save even an innocent kiss for engagement. But must all spontaneity, all feeling and excitement be so carefully quenched? Must every moment in a couple's growth together be so scheduled? Romance and affection are dangerous, but I think they're also good gifts of God that can _possibly_ be enjoyed within safe constraints. 

Of course there are good reasons for a lot of individuals to make a decision to wait until marriage, just as there are good reasons for some to abstain from alcohol. But even as we commend those who take purity this seriously, let's not start thinking that adherence to this particular extrabiblical rule, by itself, makes a couple, their marriage, their wedding kiss, or anything else about them more holy.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 14, 2009)

Kevin, I apologise if you feel that I misunderstood you; and perhaps I did. But, it seems to me that you are drawing inferences in the root cause of why some are taking this tack in their premarital relationship. I know many young people who have taken such a stand. They each come from very solid, non-legalistic families who do a good job in catechising their children. Painting with such a broad brush that would make those who take such a position as being legalistic and dualistic, equating their reasoning to the temperance movement appears to be unjust.

One thing that really does need to be hammered out in this sex crazed world is, 'What is Biblical purity?' I fear that the world has encroached deeply into the church's thinking in this area.


----------



## Idelette (May 14, 2009)

Kevin said:


> In the practice of the modern "purity" movement many strange (& In my humble opinion) unbiblical things are being promoted as a way to "guard the heart" of our daughters.
> 
> So yes, I think that this has the marks of dualistic moralism, not biblical purity.
> 
> I think heathy, robust christian families, filled with children & catechised by mums and dads that have loving monogamous relationships are the solution. Not a movement to take (frankly creepy) pledges & vows between fathers and daughters.



I do not find it strange, nor creepy to abstain from kissing before marriage....there is nothing "odd" or "modern" about this. Some Puritans did not believe in premartial kissing and other affections as well. In fact, in some places kissing in public was a crime! So I think our view today of kissing is much more loose than other time periods. I think the Puritans were much more aware of the sinfulness of our hearts, and how easily we can be deceived by them! Today, many people look at the puritans and criticize them for being legalistic......yet they were quite aware that they cannot enter into Heaven through a checklist of do's and don'ts. Instead, they were consumed with Heaven and purging the sinfulness of our flesh!

I don't see this is an issue of legalism, but how we each interpert "purity" in the Scriptures. I think we would all agree that purity before marriage is a good and righteous thing! So in light of that, I think it is quite prudent to wait till marriage for several reasons.....and I do draw on Scriptural teachings which would lead me to believe this. Scripture does teach about physical purity as well as purity of thought, and kissing does often lead to thoughts of premarital sex. I don't believe it is wise to place yourself in a situation where you will be tempted to sin, and possibly cause your brother or sister to sin as well. How is that an unbiblical or strange practice???

As one man stated before in another discussion.....men do not have to do anything to sin in their hearts; simply thinking evokes desires....how much more would physical affection do that! And to be quite honest, I have rarely met a couple that were affectionate before marriage and that did not at some point in time confess "falling" in the area of purity. 

Personally, it would make me uncomfortable to be affectionate with someone that is not even my spouse yet! I've known several couples that were in serious courtships and engagements and never made it to the alter with that individual. And those people have kissed a fair share of others, and were emotionally attached with people that they did not marry. Personally, I would rather wait till I get married, to know that I did everything possible to avoid temptation and to guard my heart as well as my future husbands'! I believe that kissing is an intimate thing, and something precious to be shared in the covenant of marriage!


----------



## Timothy William (May 14, 2009)

Perhaps I'm a naive romantic, but I like the idea of one's first kiss being in public at one's wedding. Yes, it would be nerve-wracking, and perhaps a little embarrassing, and no doubt the bride would blush and the groom's legs would shake, but I don't think those are such bad things. They could be quite sweet actually.

When I was a teenager I used to have this idea that I wanted to marry the first girl I ever kissed (though not that I wanted to wait until my wedding). Unfortunately my first relationship was somewhat ill-advised, so that didn't end up happening.

Kevin, I can see your point. Back in high school (before I was converted, though I was in a Christian family) I had this idea that I wanted to keep myself special by remaining pure from certain things. So, for example, I avoided relationships (even turning down a girl who asked me out and I wanted to say yes) and alcohol and smoking and p0rnography. I didn't attach any theological significance to it - I regret to say it was largely a pride issue on my part - and I knew the Gospel well enough to know that it didn't make me holy, but I can see how someone else with similar ideas might go further and ascribe theological significance to such abstinence.

Bizarrely enough, it was a form of knowledge of my unconverted state, combined with the doctrine of Total Depravity, which partially contributed to this attitude; I knew I couldn't do anything truly good, so I tried to avoid doing anything significant at all, and remain passive, in the hope that my situation would improve in the future.


----------



## Mayflower (May 14, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Couples save first kiss for wedding day | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean



My wife and i also didn't kiss at all before our marriage, and when we gave our first kiss when we were entering in our covenant marriage, it was very special.
A few years after my conversion i was convinced that kissing and any other psysical intimacy belongs only for those whom are in the covenant of marriage and not outside of it, and by Gods grace He brought a prescious godly wife who hath the same view. After a few months we got married in India.


----------



## Tripel (May 14, 2009)

But if you don't smooch before marriage, how do you know if there's chemistry? 

...that was a joke. But seriously, I don't think it's fair to say that one way is more right than another. Evie said it much better than I can, so I won't bother trying to repeat it.

A few thoughts on the subject:
1) I've NEVER heard a married couple say, "I sure wish we had been more physically intimate prior to marriage". On the other hand, the majority of people I know have said or probably would say that they wish they had had saved more for their marriage.
2) There are things I would like to have done differently in my relationships, but I am glad that my wife and I kissed prior to marriage. I would not have wanted all of the people at our wedding staring as we shared that moment for the first time. 
3) A couple who are mere friends should look like mere friends. A couple who are dating/courting should look like they're dating/courting. An engaged couple should look engaged. I'm not saying that a couple MUST engage in certain behaviors, but there is a growing level of intimacy that is appropriate (and I'd even say benecial) to have at each stage.


----------



## Kevin (May 14, 2009)

For those of you that seemly know nothing about the purity "movement", it involves events that have daughters dressing as brides & making vows to their fathers...

It involves daughter "serving" their fathers by shaving them...

It seems to me that these action are odd, and yes, creepy.

If you that this an OK example of sheparding your daughter, but you think a kiss is a sexual act to be reserved for marriage, then we have a very different standard of acceptable behaviour.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 14, 2009)

In His Grip said:


> *It would make me uncomfortable to be affectionate with someone that is not even my spouse yet!* I've known several couples that were in serious courtships and engagements and never made it to the alter with that individual. And those people have kissed a fair share of others. Personally, I would rather wait till I get married, to know that I did everything possible to avoid temptation and to guard my heart as well as my future husbands'! I believe that kissing is an intimate thing, and something precious to be shared in the covenant of marriage!



In some ways, I understand this feeling, but I would hope that by the time I was marrying a man, the thought of being affectionate with him would not be uncomfortable at all! I think we should be very, very careful, but there is a level of (non-sexual) affection that is appropriate for each stage. 

You're right that not all engaged couples marry, but that's a problem of broken promises. In those situations, whether the couple has kissed or not, someone will be hurt. Kissing _will_ increase a couple's feelings for each other, so it should be regarded as a very serious matter. We've all seen cases of Christians who _didn't_ think it was serious, and it's easy to react by taking the opposite stance. But a kiss at an appropriate stage may seal a promise to marry (a promise that should be kept), and give the couple confidence and excitement about their future. I have never been part of an engaged couple, but surely it is appropriate for them to love each other and to express that love -- within limits. Without some expression, a fallen individual could feel insecure about her fiance's feelings for her, and that insecurity could lead to problems. Yet even verbal expressions could be incitements to lust; the emotional and the physical are so closely connected. Appropriate physical expressions like hugs, brief kisses, holding hands could be _less_ dangerous, especially for many women, than intense words -- and they can reassure the beloved of affection far more quickly and simply than complex speeches.

Affection is related to desire, but is this necessarily sinful? I'm sure that it's difficult to discern when one is feeling sinful lust for one's future spouse, and when one is feeling natural and even "pure" attraction and desire. Of course our desire for the person will increase as we care for them more -- I think men see the dangers in this, and they exist, but a healthy development of desire is also, to be frank, necessary for making an innocent woman feel comfortable before her wedding night. I do not think that a couple should develop their _sexuality_ gradually, but it would seem very difficult to me to go from feeling uncomfortable with affection the week before the wedding, to feeling comfortable and secure about the utmost physical intimacy on the wedding night. 

The whole venture of finding a spouse is so fraught with temptation and even inevitability of sin that if we weren't specifically taught in the Bible that many of us should do it, we might think it best to refrain. Some might see the difficulty of avoiding sin as a reason to make up these kinds of rules, and I certainly agree that we have to figure out what biblical purity means and establish guidelines. But a rigid no-kissing-before-marriage rule, if entered into without consideration of particular circumstances, may do both too much and too little. 

On the other hand, I am not married, and I am always learning new things about these mysterious matters, so all of these above should be taken as nothing more than my thoughts at this time.



Tripel said:


> 3) *A couple who are mere friends should look like mere friends*. A couple who are dating/courting should look like they're dating/courting. An engaged couple should look engaged. I'm not saying that a couple MUST engage in certain behaviors, but there is a growing level of intimacy that is appropriate (and I'd even say benecial) to have at each stage.



Tripel, I think you hint at another serious danger that has to be avoided. The more you make a romantic couple look like mere friends (in an attempt to avoid all the dangers of being more), the more you blur the distinction and create another potential risk for confusion and hurt. When courtships are assumed to be short, and when couples aren't expected to have spent much time speaking privately before entering into a courtship, a young lady may never know if she is very close to marriage or merely friends. Even a well-trained woman could have trouble with her imagination in such a confusing world. Yes, a woman has to guard her heart, but there is also something to be said for behavior that clearly delineates "status." The danger is in separating that behavior from the emotional promise it implicitly makes.

Ah, wow, there really are dangers on every side!


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 14, 2009)

Kevin said:


> For those of you that seemly know nothing about the purity "movement", it involves events that have daughters dressing as brides & making vows to their fathers...
> 
> It involves daughter "serving" their fathers by shaving them...
> 
> ...



Um, the article in question said nothing about the vows to fathers etc. It seems that you come close to making a guilt by commonality type argument. If some groups share X in common then you are going to paint all of the groups with issues that you have with a particular group.

CT


----------



## Kevin (May 14, 2009)

Perhaps we should defer to "the Chairman of the Board" to settle this...


[video=youtube;IX2ECjlyMoI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX2ECjlyMoI[/video]

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 05:50:08 EST-----



ChristianTrader said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you that seemly know nothing about the purity \"movement\", it involves events that have daughters dressing as brides & making vows to their fathers...
> ...



I was trying to clarify what I thought was "odd & creepy". I guess I didn't.


----------



## py3ak (May 14, 2009)

Kevin, what you describe is beyond odd and creepy - it is insane.

And Evie is right on.


----------



## Idelette (May 14, 2009)

Kevin said:


> For those of you that seemly know nothing about the purity "movement", it involves events that have daughters dressing as brides & making vows to their fathers...
> 
> It involves daughter "serving" their fathers by shaving them...
> 
> ...



I just wanted to add that I'd agree with you that there are many things about the Purity Movement that I would disagree with and see as very unbiblical! You are right in that respect......however, the article did not mention that this couple was part of this movement, so I wouldn't associate them with it!

I was simply addressing the issue at hand....which is kissing before marriage! It seemed to me that your comments were directed towards that issue as well.....


----------



## Grace Alone (May 14, 2009)

All I can say is, and I read this on another thread...it is a BIG leap to having your first kiss at the wedding and then having sex that night. I'm sorry, but I can't even imagine that. (I certainly support the rights of those who make that choice, but the thought that kissing before marriage is wrong or sinful, I just don't buy.)


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (May 14, 2009)

Kevin said:


> For those of you that seemly know nothing about the purity "movement", it involves events that have daughters dressing as brides & making vows to their fathers...
> 
> It involves daughter "serving" their fathers by shaving them...
> 
> ...



Why then did you imply that all people who reserve kisses are into this mess? My wife and father-in-law would roll their eyes at this, and most people I know who have done the "purity thing" wouldn't go for it either. Your characterization of "purity people" is akin to rejecting Calvinism because its too much like "hyper"calvinism!!

Your arguments against reserving kissing before marriage (and you have implied we only did it due to dualistic heretical influence, or control of the culture) remind me of those who jump on believers who choose not to drink - not the fundy, pharisaical types like Carry Nation, but people who just don't like the flavor or just don't want to - "you're not using your Christian liberty and are therefore a pharisee!"

Christian liberty isn't just about freedom _to_ do, but _not_ to do. I don't regret for an instant that Jen and I didn't kiss till we reached the altar. I don't regret us setting standards several paces behind "the limit." And the culture of today had nothing to do with this.


----------



## Idelette (May 14, 2009)

Ex Nihilo said:


> In His Grip said:
> 
> 
> > *It would make me uncomfortable to be affectionate with someone that is not even my spouse yet!* I've known several couples that were in serious courtships and engagements and never made it to the alter with that individual. And those people have kissed a fair share of others. Personally, I would rather wait till I get married, to know that I did everything possible to avoid temptation and to guard my heart as well as my future husbands'! I believe that kissing is an intimate thing, and something precious to be shared in the covenant of marriage!
> ...



I appreciate your thoughts Evie, thank you for elaborating! I really do respect your graciousness in responding to my post! I do believe that attraction and desire are natural and good things. But, I think that they need to be placed in proper context. I don't believe that affection in and of itself is sinful.....but I do believe that our hearts are inclined towards sin....and therefore affection _BEFORE_ marriage should be taken very seriously. I think the issue I struggle with, is when people take this too lightly....and then wonder why they fall into such grevious sins. And perhaps, I am responding to a culture of believers around me that did not take these things seriously enough! I see this as being an issue of prudence more than anything.

As far as my comment above, I probably should have restated that...... I don't think I would be uncomfortable _DESIRING_ to show affection towards someone that I am engaged to (in fact, I'm pretty confident that will not be the case  ).....but I am uncomfortable with the _THOUGHT_ of affection towards someone that is not even my husband yet. Regardless of what possible intentions or promises are made, no covenant has been made yet! And I think its a dangerous ground to walk, when we say its okay to be affectionate towards someone outside of the marriage covenant. 

I completely agree with your comment regarding confusion in relationships, and how often that is the case!  But, I do not believe that a kiss seals a promise to marry, I think marriage itself is the seal! I don't think that kissing is essential to growing in intimacy in a relationship. If a couple needs physical affection to gauge where they are in their relationship, then there are other underlying problems. It is a matter of communication and openly discussing commitment to one another, prior to marriage. And I agree with your comment that verbal expressions can lead to lust as well, I also take verbal expressions very seriously! I completely agree with you, that the emotional and physical are so closely tied. These are in fact, the reasons why I think its such dangerous ground to walk!

Someone mentioned how awkward it would be to go from having no intimacy to all of the sudden being intimate on the wedding day......the thing is that regardless of when you first kiss or have relations....it will be awkward! And I don't think that its necessary to develop that intimacy prior to marriage, I believe it will come quite naturally towards someone whom you've waited for and prayed with!

And I realize that many people will disagree with that, and that is fine for them. Personally, it is my conviction that I would rather save this level of intimacy for my husband exclusively. Maybe I'm being too rigid, but I'd rather error on the side of caution rather than fall into sin and start off a marriage union with sinful discretions. 

As Tripel pointed out ....



Tripel said:


> A few thoughts on the subject:
> 1) I've NEVER heard a married couple say, "I sure wish we had been more physically intimate prior to marriage". On the other hand, the majority of people I know have said or probably would say that they wish they had had saved more for their marriage.


----------



## AThornquist (May 14, 2009)

Grace Alone said:


> All I can say is, and I read this on another thread...it is a BIG leap to having your first kiss at the wedding and then having sex that night. I'm sorry, but I can't even imagine that.




I haven't even considered that point yet. The leap wouldn't bother me one bit p) but it seems to me that if my courtship partner and I don't kiss for the purpose of sexual purity, the leap would be worth it. 



And for the record, I am still trying to forget that prehistoric fish invented sex 380 million years ago. Grymir said I'll forget about it, but for now I can't help but understand "fishing without a license" to mean premarital immorality. (And in Vegetales, didn't the people of Sodom slap each other with fish? Oh my )


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 14, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> > All I can say is, and I read this on another thread...it is a BIG leap to having your first kiss at the wedding and then having sex that night. I'm sorry, but I can't even imagine that.
> ...



I think the leap is more of an issue for women.


----------



## AThornquist (May 14, 2009)

Ex Nihilo said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > Grace Alone said:
> ...



I'm sure!  Considering the circumstances, most men could probably care less about the kissing.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 14, 2009)

In His Grip said:


> I appreciate your thoughts Evie, thank you for elaborating! I really do respect your graciousness in responding to my post! I do believe that attraction and desire are natural and good things. But, I think that they need to be placed in proper context. *I don't believe that affection in and of itself is sinful.....but I do believe that our hearts are inclined towards sin....and therefore affection BEFORE marriage should be taken very seriously.* I think the issue I struggle with, is when people take this too lightly....and then wonder why they fall into such grevious sins. And perhaps, I am responding to a culture of believers around me that did not take these things seriously enough! I see this as being an issue of prudence more than anything.



Yvonne, I think your thoughts are very wise and gracious, and I do not think we have any serious disagreements! I think you're so right that many believers do not take these issues seriously enough, and these types are discussions are really useful to all of us.


----------



## Timothy William (May 14, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> > AThornquist said:
> ...



_Cue discussion about whether or not a couple needs to have sex straight away on their wedding night._

Not being married I leave that question for others to answer.


----------



## Mindaboo (May 14, 2009)

My daughter has made the decision to keep her first kiss for her wedding day and it has nothing to do with the purity movement, nothing to do with what others are doing, it is her personal conviction. She has read, prayed, and considered what she thinks is most glorifying to God. She is in no way trying to be a part of a movement, as a matter of fact she is the only girl I know that is doing this. As a matter of fact she came to me and told me this was her plan before I even had time to think about it. I am grateful that she spends the time to think and pray about these things. 

I have met very few, to be honest I can't think of any that haven't gone beyond kissing to some sort of petting before their wedding day. 

A lot of the girls my daughter used to hang around with are going down the wrong path. So many young kids are dating casually, dating serially, and giving themselves away. It is sad.


----------



## Wannabee (May 14, 2009)

My engaged son has vowed not to kiss until they're married. It was his choice, and perhaps fueled a bit by the purity movement. We're not inundated with it. But we pick up enough to glean some things. And, though I'm not familiar with the thing about daughters shaving their father's beards, it sounds kinda fun and bonding. The more love a young lady receives from her father the less likely she is to seek it elsewhere. I suppose context has much to do with the reaction here though.
I know of no men who can kiss with any passion and still guard their hearts from any sexual thoughts. We sin with our minds. I don't want to be legalistic about this, but it's a simple reality that an unmarried man kissing a woman passionately experiences some desire for more. I won't say "all," because there might be an exception. And this is certainly much different than a "holy kiss."
Part of the problem here is that we tend to want our liberty first, as though Christ's greatest gift to men was their liberty. But our greatest desire should always be what brings God the most glory. That's how we should spend our liberty. So, in considering whether or not one should kiss before marriage, the question should be, "Would it bring God greater glory for us to kiss, or abstain from kissing until marriage?"


----------

