Courtship, Part 2: What’s Important and What Isn’t

Last updated on: August 7, 2012 at 10:42 pm by Libby Anne

Courtship, Part 2: What’s Important and What Isn’t 2012-08-07T22:42:12-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I explained in Part 1 why the idea of a parent-guided courtship was appealing to me. In that post I described the courtship process that I grew up expecting. Here I am going to focus on one aspect of that: the process by which the father vets his daughter’s prospective suitors. This is, after all, how the father is supposed to protect his daughter from a disastrous match by helping her choose a husband.

My father made a list, a list of qualifications that any young man would have to meet on order to obtain permission to court me. The list wasn’t all that long, but it was non-negotiable. Everything on that list could be placed in one of three categories: religious beliefs, political beliefs, and ability to provide. For my father, being a good husband meant having proper religious beliefs, proper political beliefs, and being able to provide.

My father’s vetting process really wasn’t all that intensive when compared to some. Some fathers influenced by the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements come up with lists of questions that run on for pages, or insist on getting to know the prospective suitor in a process through which the suitor must essentially first court the girl’s father – all before ever saying a word about it to the girl in question. The process of evaluating a potential suitor is something so discussed in Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull circles that Vision Forum offers several resources on the topic for parents.

The questions asked and the vetting process vary from family to family. This makes sense given that the ultimate authority in the Christian Patriarchy movement is not given to some distant leader but rather to each individual father. What I’m going to discuss here is a tendency I have seen toward valuing doctrinal purity over things like good treatment and the ability to carry on a healthy relationship. Because of the diversity in the practice of courtship, the severity of this problem may vary from case to case.

With that caveat, it seems to me that it is doctrinal purity and the ability to provide that matter most for fathers in the Christian Patriarchy movement when evaluating their daughters’ potential suitors. Even the questions that do relate to carrying on healthy relationships generally seem to simply go back to the proper gender roles endorsed by Christian Patriarchy – and in my father’s case, such questions did not exist at all.

I’ve written about this before, in a post called “What About Love?”:

I recently shared my father’s list of requirements with a valued friend of mine. She was completely taken aback. “You mean, there’s nothing about loving you or treating you well on that list?” she asked. Uh, no. I had never thought of it that way, but there wasn’t. It was all political and doctrinal purity and the ability to provide. She then told me that when she started getting serious with the man to whom she is now happily married, her father asked her only two things: “Does he love you?” and “Does he treat you well?” When she answered yes to both, he gave his hearty approval. To her father, it was love and good treatment that mattered, and everything else was optional.

This conversation made me see just how problematic my father’s list, and his valuing of political and doctrinal purity above all else, really was. After all, an awful, controlling, hateful, abusing man who only wanted to marry me to make me his servant would get my father’s blessing if he met my father’s political and doctrinal purity test and could provide for me. At the same time, my loving, adoring, hard-working husband was unable to gain my father’s blessing no matter how wonderful he was simply because he was a member of the wrong denomination and voted for the wrong political candidate. There is something seriously wrong with valuing doctrinal purity above love and kindness.

In other words, doctrinal purity matters more than the ability to carry on a healthy relationship, or even being a healthy and non-abusive person in general. I.e., doctrinal purity matters more than whether the young man is an emotional manipulator, or a potential abuser.

I’ve written before about how little I was actually taught about how to carry on a healthy relationship. I suppose I thought that if I followed the right rules – remained a virgin, married via a parent-guided courtship – a healthy relationship would be the natural and effortless result. It is in the same vein that my father, like so many other fathers in Christian Patriarchy circles, believed that if a young man had the proper doctrinal and political beliefs and was able to provide, then he must naturally be fit and upstanding husband material. How could he not be? Follow the rules/check all the boxes = things work out perfectly.

Now it could well be argued that my father felt that so long as he made sure any suitor met some minimum requirements I would be the judge of whether he treated me well, whether he was kind and compassionate, whether he knew how to carry on a healthy relationship, etc. The problem with this assumption is that the entire rationale for courtship is built on the girl’s inability to properly evaluate suitors without being “blinded by love” or beguiled by a manipulating young man. With this justification, courtship only works if the father only lets through young men who are gaurunteed husband material.

In the end, then, when evaluating prospective suitors what really matters in the courtship crowd is proper belief as opposed to healthy practice. The reason is simple: there is an assumption that proper belief leads to healthy practice and that improper belief leads to unhealthy practice. In other words, someone with correct doctrinal beliefs will naturally be a good and trustworthy person, and someone with incorrect doctrinal beliefs will naturally be a potential abuser. This thinking is so black and white, so bare of the nuance of real life, so deaf to the reality that being a Christian does not automatically mean someone is a good person, and that the correlary is also not true.

But within the mindset of Christian Patriarchy, this thinking makes perfect sense. It is really only natural, within this structure, that what matters most, above all else, is correct doctrinal belief. That correct doctrinal belief, then, combined with proper political belief and the ability to provide, was the sieve through which my father planned to strain any of my potential suitors. And when, partway through college, a young man did become interested in me, and when this young man didn’t meet the requirements of my father’s list, my father refused his permission for a relationship to proceed.

This young man’s character did not matter; how he treated me did not matter; the selfless service he exhibited toward others did not matter. All that was important was doctrinal and political purity, and whether or not he could provide for me.

Previous Post

June 22, 2012

Raised Quiverfull: Do You Wish You Could Go Back?

Next Post

June 22, 2012 Worthwhile Reads: Religious Homophobia

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the mother of John the Baptist?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Deborah Elizabeth Mary Hannah