The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
My boyfriend, Phil, was recounting
my housing dilemma with his co-worker last week when the perfect solution was
offered.
"So, why don't you just take the plunge?"
With just four months looming before The Big Move (that is, the move to the city where I will start medical school), I had been given 30 days notice to move out of my current apartment in Washington, DC. At the time of Phil's conversation, I was struggling to find a short-term lease, or even a glorified storage space, to live in.
As Phil continued to regale me with the details of this conversation, I rolled my eyes impatiently. His co-worker was only about the fourth person in twenty four hours to suggest what was obviously the perfect solution. Unlike the phrase suggested, though, "taking the plunge" wasn't referring to a shotgun wedding and ensuing trail of moving boxes from my residence to Phil's. Phil's co-worker was referring to "cohabitation," "getting serious," or any of the other presently savvy euphemisms for moving in together.
I had already explained to my landlady, my boss, two of my own co-workers, and an old classmate that no, moving in with Phil was not an option, no matter how convenient it seemed. To them, though, we were both acting prudish and unreasonable. With a shaky economy, hefty student loans in the future, and the average rent in DC being upwards of $1500 per month, why would any engaged-to-be-engaged couple actually fork out rent for two separate apartments? Especially for only four months.
The reasons for avoiding living together before marriage are plentiful, though.
Namely, living together challenges God's original plan for marriage. Marriage, sex, and living together all went hand-in-hand in the Bible. Stories, such as Isaac's marriage to Rebecca, illustrate this (Genesis 24:67). Upon being married, Rebecca moved into Isaac's tent and they lay with each other. The three came as a package deal.
Choosing any element of marriage without the others introduces disharmony. For example, living together without a marriage covenant introduces stresses that can break a relationship that isn't bound by a spiritual commitment to each other or to God. Having sex without being married introduces known sin into our lives-something that Isaiah 59:2 says separates us from God. Each component of the marriage institution was intended to bind us to our spouse. Without one of more tie, the relationship is exposed to unnecessary strain and usually, it breaks.
As Adventists, living together before marriage also sends a mixed message about who we are and what we believe. After all, how could a group of people so adamant in their convictions about Old Testament health messages flagrantly condone couples living together before marriage? 1 Thessalonians 5:22 says to avoid even the appearance of evil for this reason. Christians are called to be light (Matthew 5:16) in a way that is consistent, in all areas of their lives. When we act in a contradictory manner, we don't just hurt ourselves, we confuse those who are looking to us as an example (Matt. 18:6).
The circumstances that God puts in our life are often tests of how much we will trust Him. Living together is a situation that couples should look forward to as part of a lifelong commitment, not a solution to financial woes, current living stresses, or convenience. And, as a "peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9), the basis for the decisions we make about pre-marital sex, living together, and marriage should stem from God's Word-not the opinions of co-workers, friends, or others. After all, "unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain" (Psalm 127:1).
- Shayna Bailey's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
 | Shayna Bailey | Shayna Bailey is best known for her weekly relationship advice column, "Unplugged," published in Insight magazine. She also provides a young adult voice for Christian dating and relationships in several other venues including print magazines, blogs, and Christian seminars—which she frequently hosts. Shayna's first joint book, The GODencounters Devotional: Pursing a 24/7 Relationship with Jesus was released this spring and is available at your local ABC. She holds a B.A. in Psychology from the Johns Hopkins University and is a full time medical student in Washington, DC. |
User login
Search
Connect
Translate Page
Subscribe
Comments
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
Shayna,
Can a man/boy and a woman/girl, be roommates/housemates, or do they necessarily have to have sex. If you don't trust your boyfriend or he doesn't trust you, get keys to lock the rooms at night. People's gossip is just that gossip, and if you are faithful to yourself, sex doesn't HAVE to be part of the package until the big day.
Regards, Douglas
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
Douglas,
This isn't a question of trust, as I read it, but of purity--honoring and upholding the institution of marriage (which pre-dates the wedding vows). I'm not answering for Shayna, but in the past I've known of two failed relationships that started with cohabitation (one in separate rooms, as you suggest). In both cases, they thought they'd be strong enough to hold back on their sexual urges. One of those couples ended daitng for a few years without a firm comittment toward marriage. Sex clouded their vision, and each didn't "sense" what God wanted in the relationship. I sincerely doubt that any Christian with a firm grasp of God's plan for healthy sexuality will ever stay "faithful to herself" by moving in with her boyfriend. That is like putting a chocolate cake in the fridge and saying you're only going to eat the spinach next to it. It's asking for trouble, and setting onesellf up to temptation.
Leila.
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
You are absolutely correct in your reasoning as to why young persons, of all faiths, should not "move in" prior to marriage.
Truth Seeker
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
Douglas,
Yes, a female and male can be roommates and not have sex. HOWEVER, the issue in such an arrangement is not one of trust, but of obedience to God (John 14:15-21). As noted in the blog, the biblical model of marriage does not include living together prior to marriage. Doing so introduces unnecessary strain and temptation and is not representative of a Christian lifestyle that does not condone sex before marriage. As for the gossip that may ensue from living together, as stated in the second to last paragraph, our behavior as Christians should CLARIFY and ENLIGHTEN others seeking to know more about God (2 Corin. 2:15, 2 Corin. 5:17, 1 Corin. 15:34). Living together, while not married, does the opposite.
Shayna Bailey
Staff Blogger, Adventist Today
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
Leila,
You are correct in your interpretation of the blog's intended message. The instructions that God gives us regarding purity are for our own benefit--to spare us from unnecessary hurt, pain, and deception. Living together before marriage introduces temptation and puts a restriction on the sexual unity that God intended married couples to have. The result, as you pointed out in your case examples, is often broken relationships and devastation that lasts well beyond the conclusion of a relationship. Thank you for sharing your friends' stories.
Shayna Bailey
Staff Blogger, Adventist Today
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
Leila, that chocolate fudge cake could be beside spinach 4 blocks away, in a 2nd appartment and the same temptation be there, staying over, etc.
Either you or Shayna, define purity for me. I have heard pre marriage individuals talk about it, but I have never seen or heard a definition.
Just cuious how a relation develops with your definition of purity. Is kissing allowed, where are the lines drawn, so you don't even "lick the frosting of the choclate fudge cake" , eh?? No PDA is part of the deal, out of his apartment and away from the choclate cake by what time???
Regards, Douglas
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
Douglas,
You seem to be a smart enough guy (minus your need for badgering females in this forum ) to find the definition on your own. But I offer you a clue. Check the Bible on "fornication." Maybe start with 1 Thess 4 or Ephesians 5. Happy researching.
Leila
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."-Matt. 26:41
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
LMG,
Your accusation of badgering females on this thread is unwarranted. If a woman can not define purity, she won't know how to act or present oneself.
On a date at one of our schools, a young lady came to a high curb and I put my hand on her arm only to be told, "Be careful!!!". My impression of SDA women is they do not feel comfortable with the lines of affection leading up to engagement and marriage. In fact some are outright prudish. One date, telling me when she sat on my lap, " I thought we would save this until we were engaged."
Is the thought of the desire for the marital intimacy considered by some SDA women to be sinful? Because they sure act like it sometimes.
I saw a young Youth Pastor all of a sudden announce his engagement to marry the Senior Pastor's daughter. Strange it surprised a lot of people because they never saw affection displayed between the two of them until that time. What a poor example for the youth he was leading, IMO.
Regards, Douglas
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
Douglas,
The definition of "purity" to which the blog is referring is: abstinence from sexual activities prior to marriage. As for your question about what SPECIFICALLY is acceptable or not acceptable (i.e. "licking the icing"), the Bible defines (inappropriate pre-marital) sexual activities as lustful thoughts (Matt. 5:27), actions towards others (sexual immorality, impurity, and orgies; Gal. 5:19-21, Gal. 6:1), and demoralization of our own bodies (1 Corin. 6:18). Several other helpful verses (e.g. on fornication) are also posted in the original blog and by other commenters. Ultimately, 1 Corin. 6:16 says that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and 1 Corin. 6:20 says that we should honor God with our bodies. Like with every decision about Christian lifestyle, the determination of what is "honorable" is one that must be defined by the individual. For some, kissing, hugging, making out, or sitting on someone's lap as you suggest, may be completely fine. For others, it is not.
I do disagree with your statement that the same degree of temptation still exists between a couple wherever they are, though. No matter what one's personal decision about pre-marital sex is, temptation is heightened by 24 hour exposure to a love interest in the same household. This type of temptation simply does not exist if a couple is living apart from one another. More importantly, though, because we find our source of truth in the Bible, we should be following the biblical model which, as the blog stated, does not include living together before marriage.
Finally, because I sense a need to curtail the tone of comments being posted, I would encourage all commenters to exercise caution and respect before posting. Douglas, I believe your questions to be sincere, but some--namely, your challenge to the female commenters to define purity and then minor diatribe about the prudishness of Adventist women--are offensive to other commenters (noted by Leila). Your experiences have been truly unfortunate, but they are not representative of all women. More importantly, though, your past personal wrongs have been addressed in the comments of earlier blogs. I appreciate you sharing your stories, but the comment section is intended to generate discussion only DIRECTLY related to the blog. Individual hurts simply cannot be rehashed, or worked through, in this type of forum.
Shayna Bailey
Staff Blogger, Adventist Today
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
out of a part we gain our knowing and out of a part we prophesy
We are - well - an "Elderly Couple" now. Times and times ago I "married" the sweet girlie out of social, economical, legal, financial, locational and whatsoever necessities and out of my obligation to her - untimely, quite out of a sudden and in austerity. So what. The mutual commitment is to be dated at least to two years before
We believe in Matthew 5, 28 and in upholding this ideal. We remebered and still remember Song of Solomon 2 : 7 and 3 : 5. And we were and still are aware of Malachi 2 : 14 (You know this text , saying something essential about a man/woman relationship?).
May I ask about the accidentals and the essentials of a "wedding" and "beginning a marriage" (or "living together before marriage")? Obviously the minister, the magistrate, the priest, the notary, the father, the guide, the maiden are accidential, God as the witness of your unique covenant is inevitable (!), is essential. There is an act mentioned here and there : Gen 24 : 67 or Song of Solomon 3 : 4 - 8 : 2 or Matthew 1 : 18.
Now, am I right that Philemon, getting it about slave Onesimus and slave Calpurnia, just had a twinkle in his eyes and gave them a separate chamber of their own ?
And please, did you have your first and your second and your third date to there discuss the last Wall Street Journal or the next SS Quarterly ? - Most of all of us were touched by the visions of the Song of Solomon - were we impure in our attempts ?
Cheers,Blessings !
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
You gotta do better with your reasoning though. Leviticus 18 goes on and on about who you should not have sex with and I would point out that if it is not her time of the month sounds like any non close relative or non married woman is fair game as long as your not at an orgy! Seriously though, let's take a look at Tamar or Ruth, why would the bible hold these women in esteem if their choice of having sex before marriage was a sin? And, I would point out that much of their motivation was financial! Paul does write with a question as to why we would want to become one with non spiritual people but give some more concrete verses besides the same ones people use to convince us that we shouldn't eat meat!
I found it interesting when in the old testament someone who had taken a virgin, he was required to pay a virgin fee but did not necessarily have to marry her and there was no other punishment? Sounds like a non sin issue to me. Don't get me wrong, I am against casual sex but doesn't sound like your relationship is casual.
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together
It is incredible how we throw verses together to support our particular viewpoint. The Biblical canon was established over approximately a 1500 year period. During that time, sexual mores varied widely. If we accept the Biblical account regarding Rebekkah & Isaac, they simply moved in together and were considered married. Adam and Eve were simply introduced. In Jesus' day, the wedding at Cana demonstrates a more involved ceremony. In our day, the civil government claims an interest in the process.
The creation of a "one size fits all" answer is tempting because it makes it so much easier to judge right and wrong. But one size does not fit all. If an elderly couple moves in together but does not marry in order to keep their Social Security benefit so they can afford their medicine are they sinning? If they remain together until one of them dies, are they married? They will not be producing any children if that is a worry. There may be gossip, but how will you prove the relationship is not platonic? Hire a detective?
Often we cite the phrase "avoiding the appearance of evil" to justify all manner of cruel actions against people like this. This shows that 1)we do not have the correct translation of this particular passage and 2)we use such language to negate the 5th commandment by bringing dishonor and shame onto our elderly members. Jesus said it was wrong to negate the commandments of God with the commandments of men.
It is interesting to note that there is nothing in the decalogue about fornication. Also the cure for fornication per the texts that do mention it is marriage between the virgin so violated and her violater. This is to safeguard the family and provide a safe, secure, supportive environment for the raising of children. It is also clear from the context that the fornication mentioned is fornication by younger people. This obviously is not an issue for the elderly.
Re: The Ideal Economic Solution: Moving in Together