Recommended A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life by Don Veinot

The differences can be confusing, particularly because so many extreme ideas are about, attaching themselves to either term. Many people, for example, think of Josh Harris as being that no-dating-ever-at-all guy — I was one of them! — but near the very beginning [o]f Boy Meets Girl and all throughout he specifies (though perhaps not enough?) that of course one-on-one time with a significant other is important, dates included.

Rather, depth-minded dating — that is, time spent doing activities pretty much together, dinner, movies, walks, et cetera — is a subset of courtship, which can also include family time and that sort of thing, and optimally takes place when either participant is ready to consider what any romantic relationship should keep in mind: Mawwiage.

Dating without being ready for Mawwiage is silly at best, dangerous at most. You’re playing with emotions that aren't ready to be experienced, and hearts that aren’t ready to be given.

But unhealthful “courtship” that basically amounts to the parents and family, church, whatever, running the show, is equally dangerous. This kind of “courtship” disallows either half of the “couple” — if it could even be called that, because they’re still part of the family Collective! — from making his/her own decisions and drawing upon their own connections with God's Spirit and Christian freedom to decide where to go.

Instead, the unhealthful dynamic of others standing between the now-more-mature person and God is enacted, resulting in frustration, lack of growth and relationship issues both at present and in the future.

Unfortunately, though, many sometimes-well-meaning Christian teachers, freaked out over the possibility of either sexual sin or just making any relationship mistake at all, advocate stringent policies, supposedly based in Scripture, for what to do and how to do it and above all don’t do this or that without clear parental permission and et cetera.

I'll go ahead and name names: Bill Gothard. Doug Phillips. And a bunch of their wannabes, such as this guy, particularly in the Christian homeschooling circuit. All of them, dismissing Biblical concepts of personal freedom in Christ and relying upon Him without required mediation of human “authorities” in between, have set up un-Biblical Systems of “courtship” that amount to legalistic, emotion-denying androidal “arranged marriage” methods. They’re wrong and they should be opposed — quite strenuously, too. Not only is correct doctrine and Christian freedom at stake, but the very future of Christian marriages and families and how they are formed, and whether they will even survive. …

In response to this, I received a great PM from one of the forum’s — and this discussion’s in particular — most active participants, challenging much of what I’d said.

The following three-part series consists of my response to her in which I tried to cover three main topics: first, those of legalistic authoritarian views and their ignorance of Grace; second, the resultant System-based construct of anti-individualistic Graceless “courtship”; third, the fallacies of using anecdotes or “signs,” either in Scripture or in our own lives, to find God’s will or prove a System.

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch [R] filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their [sic] full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

All populist-seeming inclinations aside, “bullying” is a byproduct of any kind of free speech. Surely the lawmaker knows this? Will he also, then, “require” that people writing anything for print media, too, provide their email and physical home addresses? Imagine the rightful Hell print media would raise over that, even aside from “right to privacy”-based arguments.

The writer of this story, for example, has posted it online without any accompanying contact information beyond a work email address. Why should internet comment-posters or bloggers hold to a stricter standard? (This article, anyway, gives no indication that Couch requires a blog's original author to post his/her name and contact information — only comments are mentioned.)

Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.

Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.

Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.

Enforcing the bill if it becomes law is the same as policing free speech — which like any restrictions on expressions of thought, not only doesn't work, but only tends to encourage those very thoughts.

Because the Drudge Report today posted the story, and as of now it's the third-to-top Google search result for the terms Rep. Tim Couch, kentucky (not to be confused with a well-known quarterback of the same name), I'm guessing Couch will soon withdraw the preposterous bill, despite whatever “online bullying” problems are supposedly overly prevalent in his district.

By the way, other writers may make the joke about whether Eastern Kentucky even has “online” anything. This blog will not be so impolite.