Discussion Questions
The speaker chose the word “courtship” to “differentiate between the practice of the world and the way of the Christian”; what specific differences from typical modern dating does his message assume, and which of those differences would be hardest to defend biblically or live out consistently? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the speaker think “courtship” should look like that makes it different from modern dating? Which of those differences would be hardest to back up with the Bible or to live out consistently?
The speaker connects spouse-selection to “a common vision,” even describing “kingdom economics” and “non-accumulation of wealth” as central convictions; what does this reveal about what he believes God cares about in marriage, and how might that confront the way many Christians treat money as a secondary issue? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show about what the speaker thinks God cares about in marriage when he says couples should share a vision about money, wealth, and “kingdom economics”? How might that challenge Christians who treat money like it doesn’t matter much?
The speaker says he “lifted Abigail up and laid her on the altar” during a sermon about Mount Moriah, surrendering his “right” to pursue her; how does that portrayal of surrender reshape (or challenge) the modern expectation that romantic desire itself is a reliable guide? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When the speaker says he gave up his “right” to pursue Abigail, how does that challenge the idea that strong romantic feelings are a good guide for dating decisions?
The statement, “Marriage won’t necessarily make you happy. It will make you happier, but it won’t make you happy,” assumes something about contentment and sanctification; how would early Christians—who often expected suffering and self-denial—have heard that, and where do you see modern Christians expecting marriage to function as emotional rescue? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the line “marriage won’t make you happy” assume about contentment and growing spiritually? Where do you see Christians today expecting marriage to save them emotionally, and how might early Christians have reacted to that?
The speaker warns about “a situational crush” (mission trips, romantic settings, being in another culture) and gives the test of imagining the person in your hometown; what hidden motives or fantasies does this expose in the way Christians sometimes pursue “missions romance,” and how can a group help each other discern that honestly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What selfish hopes or fantasies can hide behind a “crush” on a mission trip or in a new culture? How can a group help someone test their motives honestly (like picturing the person back in normal life)?
He cautions “don’t tempt the Lord” by “laying out the fleece,” claiming “no really New Testament precedent”; where do you see Christians today using “signs” to justify choices they already want, and how does his alternative approach (“real hurdles I need to work through”) change the way guidance should be sought? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do Christians today look for “signs” from God to support what they already want to do? How does the speaker’s idea of working through real obstacles change how we should look for guidance?
The speaker tells young men “don’t be a chicken” and urges initiating with the father to learn the woman’s beliefs and home life; what view of authority, protection, and community accountability is underneath this practice, and how does it contrast with the individualistic way many evangelicals approach relationships? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it say about authority, protection, and accountability when the speaker tells men to talk to the woman’s father first? How is that different from the more individual way many evangelicals date?
“Listen to how they chew their food” becomes a serious principle: courtship is for seeing flaws clearly, marriage is for overlooking flaws; how does this invert common romantic instincts, and what practical ways can couples actually “work through differences” rather than “push things under the rug” during courtship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea “courtship is for noticing flaws, marriage is for overlooking them” go against how most people think about romance? What are practical ways couples can deal with differences during courtship instead of ignoring them?
The speaker insists, “Who is the woman’s head during a courtship?”—answering that it is her father, not the boyfriend, and that courtship proves “submission to her father”; how would this framework land in your church culture today, and what do you think early Christian communities—who emphasized household order and church authority—would assume about a courting couple’s accountability? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would your church react to the idea that during courtship the woman’s “head” is still her father, not her boyfriend? What kind of accountability do you think early Christians would expect from a dating or courting couple?
His “purity during courtship” standard includes “no hugging, kissing, or any other intimate contact,” plus the warning that “everyone is watching you,” the concern about not “preferring your brother,” and the claim that defrauding “cultivates an appetite” and can even “teach them how to commit adultery on you”; which parts of this argument feel most uncomfortable or extreme, and what concrete boundaries would actually express love for God, protection for future marriage, and consideration for the wider brotherhood? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which parts of the speaker’s strict purity rules (like no hugging or kissing and “everyone is watching”) feel most extreme or uncomfortable to you? What clear boundaries would really show love for God, protect a future marriage, and care about the church community?