PROVING THE GOOD
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess 5:21).
In the Church Weekly of 19 June 2022, I published an article on courtship based on the writings of Prof O S Fowler, author of Manhood, Womanhood, and Their Mutual Interrelations (1875). In that book, Fowler strongly advocates sexual abstinence until marriage and clearly speaks against premarital sex. However, due to its complex phraseology and Victorian-era backdrop, some who read the book may misinterpret or misconstrue his words to mean quite the opposite.
Let me state unequivocally that I have never advocated and do not advocate premarital sex in any form. Fowler himself—who studied theology under Congregational ministers at Amherst College—explicitly promoted abstinence. He wrote, “Sexual freedoms belong only to marriage,” and “Abstinence till after marriage is the only policy, and best for both, the female especially.” Why “the female especially”? Because women in the 19th century suffered more than men from sexual double standards and from the legal and social disadvantages of “free unions” (i.e., cohabiting as husband and wife without a formal legal or religious marriage).
Since Fowler was addressing broader societal issues and moral concerns, I quoted him selectively and with editorial care, using only those portions of his material that dealt specifically with traditional values regarding courtship and chastity.
It is important to clarify that quoting an author does not imply wholesale endorsement of all their beliefs or writings. For example, when the apostle Paul quoted Athenian philosophers in Acts 17:28, he was not endorsing paganism or pantheism. Likewise, our founding pastor, the late Rev Dr Timothy Tow, often cited Confucius to illustrate moral truths, but that did not mean he accepted ancestral worship. Similarly, quoting Dr John Sung does not require us to adopt his Arminian theology. My point is this: I cited Fowler solely for the aspects of his writing that affirm biblical principles on courtship and marriage.
Some may have misread his phrase “Mate first, then love” to mean that a couple should have sex before love or marriage. That is not what he meant. According to Chambers Dictionary (1901 edition), the verb “mate” means “to be equal to; to become a companion to; to marry.” Thus, “Mate first, then love” simply means “Marry first, then love”—which is fully consistent with Fowler’s overall emphasis on abstinence before marriage. It does NOT mean “Sex first, then love.”
In the article, Fowler insists that courtship should be entered into honourably, with a serious intent to marry, and not used as a means of flirtation or physical indulgence. I quoted him for his “good old-fashioned” views on courtship grounded in commitment, as well as his strong opposition to flirtatious or seductive behaviour. Consider these direct excerpts from his writings:
“All sexual familiarities breed contempt. The observation and experience of most women have taught them this fact… ‘I TRIED TWO YEARS IN VAIN, while courting my wife, to get her to kiss me; but she would not, and I married her because she wouldn’t. I would not marry any girl who would. The more she wouldn’t, the more I wanted to marry her.’”
“Courted females, make ‘Hands off’ your motto… ‘Seal our love by engagement and marriage, and all I have and am is yours to possess and enjoy; but till then, touch not, taste not, handle not…’ Sexual freedoms belong only to marriage—are marriage.”
“Abstinence till sometime after marriage is the only policy, and best for both, the female especially… YOU MIGHT NOT MARRY, after all. Then what? ‘Many slips happen between cup and lips.’ Hundreds of heart-rending cases of desertion after engagement have been told, are known to all; and usually caused by that disgust or dissatisfaction be gotten by these very intimacies being unsatisfactory.”
One heart-wrenching example Fowler recounts involves a woman who yielded physically to her fiancé the night before their wedding, only to be abandoned and slandered the next day. Fowler’s tone in telling this story is one of moral outrage, not permissiveness.
He writes: “A MOST excellent Canadian girl of twenty, betrothed, was to be married Monday at 10 a.m. All her preparations were completed; her affianced visited her Sunday evening, and by dint of persuasion and entreaty, under solemn assurance that they were to be married within ten hours, induced her to yield her person; hurt her terribly, without giving any pleasure; and left her that night for good. Monday morning, she, friends, minister, all but her betrayer, were on hand for their marriage. He not only stayed back, but scandalized her as not virtuous, alleging her dereliction with him as proof. But, a church-member, she stood so high that he was not believed. Yet O WHAT HEART-BROKEN AGONY she suffers! It has completely unstrung her nerves. Yet she loves him still! All the details of her case are most heart-rending. Fool she. Devil he. And both have many kindred.”
There are other quotes—not cited by me, but by others—that can easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted. One such example is the following: “Love alone begins, consummates, and perpetuates marriage… Whether their marriage is or is not mentioned, matters nothing. Loving actions and expressions are marriage actions and expressions. He who makes Love to any woman thereby makes marriage to her; and she, by allowing it, consents to marriage, and by reciprocating it marries herself to him… And he who, after having made Love to a woman, discards her, has divorced himself; as she divorces herself who rejects a lover she has allowed to make Love to her.”
However, these words should be read in their proper context. Immediately after saying this, Fowler admonishes: “How monstrous is this sin… Those who perpetrate it ‘sow the wind,’ and must ‘reap the whirlwind’.” This makes Fowler’s meaning clear—he is not advocating casual relationships, but denouncing the sin of emotional and physical exploitation. This echoes 1 Corinthians 6:16, which teaches that sexual union establishes a one-flesh relationship, even if not within the bonds of marriage. Fowler rightly warns against cohabitation and casual intimacy.
Here is another quote that could be misunderstood: “HE WHO ELICITS A VIRGIN’S LOVE THEREBY SEDUCES HER HEART… Her Love for him is desire to have intercourse with him… MALE LOVE CONSISTS IN DESIRE TO IMPREGNATE… THE SIN AND PUNISHMENT OF SEDUCERS rest on all you who call out only to blight… and then discard her.”
Again, when read carefully in context, it is clear that Fowler was describing—not condoning—the moral corruption of society. He explicitly denounced those who manipulate and discard women after arousing their affections. His moral condemnation is evident in his own words: “You deserve to be horsewhipped by her father, cowhided by her brothers, branded villain by her mother, cursed by herself.” Fowler strongly opposed lust, seduction, and unchaste behaviour—his moral stance is consistent throughout.
Here is another passage: “LOVE-MAKING GIRLS… by the very act and fact of making Love… you virtually offer to marry… Not that this is wrong… if you can and want to… COQUETTES… You are thereby… preparing and inciting each other to physical [intercourse]… Young folks… how dare you reciprocate Love till you have acquired this right by betrothal?” Someone interpreted this to mean, “Simply put, Fowler advocated that the amorous couple, especially the female, should take care not to submit herself to the temptation of indulging in premarital sex unless her lover has promised to marry her.”
However, this is a misreading of Fowler’s main thrust and warning. Fowler was not suggesting that premarital sex becomes acceptable once a promise of marriage is made. Rather, his concern was with the moral and emotional consequences of romantic expressions that stir up physical desire without the proper covenantal commitment of betrothal or marriage. His rebuke of “love-making girls” and “coquettes” was not a sanction for conditional premarital sex but a warning against irresponsible emotional entanglements that lead to temptation and potential ruin.
When read in context, it becomes clear that Fowler consistently upholds chastity, self-control, and the sanctity of marriage. For example, when he writes, “how dare you reciprocate Love till you have acquired this right by betrothal,” he is clearly placing emotional and physical expressions of love within the boundaries of formal commitment. His use of strong language serves to emphasise the dangers of arousing affection and desire prematurely. To interpret Fowler as permitting premarital sex based upon a mere promise of marriage is to misrepresent his intent. His overarching message is one of restraint and moral responsibility, particularly in safeguarding the well-being of women, who in his time faced disproportionate consequences from unchaste behaviour and broken promises.
To prove this point, Fowler, on the very same page, writes: “LIBERTIES DURING COURTSHIP. THEY KILL LOVE… Purity always enamors, while sensuality disgusts… Liberties kill Love… Let the experience of every courted woman attest whether all kinds and degrees of sexual freedoms she ever permitted any man to take with her, did not obviously deaden his Love for her. What though she yielded reluctantly, just to oblige him… yet they killed his respect and affection for her, however great both. And he despised her more the more she tolerated, even if they did not extend to intercourse; and if they did, they killed it, because of necessity mutually unsatisfactory. All sexual familiarities breed contempt.” These remarks make it unmistakably clear that Fowler viewed physical intimacy before marriage as morally harmful and spiritually dangerous.
Finally, some readers have misconstrued Fowler’s use of the old proverb, “Make hay while the sun shines,” which he applied to courtship with the advice: “GIRLS, KEEP SUITORS WAITING NO LONGER than is absolutely necessary for a judicious decision. YOUNG FOLKS, ALL, MAKE LOVE HAY WHILE THE LOVE SUN SHINES.”
Here too, context is important. In the preceding section titled “WASTE NO MATING TIME,” Fowler urges young people not to delay marriage unnecessarily: “‘DO WITH YOUR MIGHT’ what you undertake, is both a scriptural and sensible injunction. ‘Whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well,’ is a good life motto. And applies to courtship more than to everything else… Nature’s [marrying] period is short… so make the most of it. Waste no more of your own time, or that of the other sex, than is absolutely necessary to a right [choice of a spouse] and [marriage].”
Thus, the phrase “Make love hay while the love sun shines” should not be read as a call to promiscuity, but as an encouragement to pursue marriage in a timely and purposeful manner. Fowler advocates early marriage and childbearing—ideally between the ages of 19 and 23 (cf. Prov 5:18–19). This is consistent with the apostle Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:9: “But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”
One reader concluded with the assertion that “Fowler believed man’s chief end is to glorify sex and enjoy it forever.” I must firmly disagree. I have found no evidence that Fowler ever made such a claim. On the contrary, his writings affirm principles that are consistent with Scripture: the honour of marriage, the virtue of chastity, the sinfulness of fornication, and the importance of sincere courtship with the intent to marry.
As 1 Thessalonians 5:21 instructs, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” Though Fowler had his flaws (as we all do), it cannot be denied that he expressed truths worth holding onto—especially his call to sexual purity, honourable intentions in courtship, and abstinence until marriage. These principles remain timeless and urgently needed in our generation. JK
