About the “WE!” in marriage
Yesterday I posted about controlling behavior in relationships. Rev. Lee H. Baucom, Ph.D. left a brief comment, that compressed a lot into a short space.
Seems to me that the church, and its members have forgotten what “two become one flesh” means. It is not about one taking over or one losing one’s self, but two creating a much better, stronger one, a WE! That has huge ramifications in every area. In decisions, it is about finding what is best for both, not one being in control.
What I think gets overlooked in many marriages and other matings is that each partner has to expect change in their lives. Massive change. And change is measured in pain. I think some women refuse to face having to change, or appreciate that the guy might be taking a reasonable look at the amount of change they face, when the complaint is raised about “fear of commitment”.
And I fear I cringe at the “two creating a much better, stronger one, a WE!” The part I have trouble with, is that forming a union shouldn’t be the point of marriage. Marriage, mating, should be with the intent to produce children. Children raised to propagate their parent’s faith, their patriotism, their culture, and their values. Without children, there is little to distinguish any two adults cohabiting from a sacred matrimony. The wedding should mark the beginning of a family, and a family with children should be the intent and goal of any couple considering marriage, handfasting, or other mating ritual.
Or they are just dating. Maybe room mates with “benefits”. Whether they pay the state fee, whether they get the church to bless their venture, if the whole concept of marriage is to bring two adults together with the church’s blessing – you make a *very* strong case for marriage for tax dodges, for citizenship workarounds, for open, group, or same-gender unions. I think that forming a family is the point of marriage.
Marriages between adults because of infatuation, devotion, even caring and commitment are all OK – except we see so many people divorce when the point of the wedding – the fun, the sex, the euphoria, and infatuations wear out.
Mercedes Lackey in her fantasy novel Arrow’s Flight describes a fictional rustic custom, of requiring the bride to be pregnant to form a binding marriage. That makes sense to me. Let any adults with a pregnancy among them be married. If they aren’t making a family, they don’t need, or deserve, Church or state sanction for their relationship.
And what if I’m too old to have kids and still want to get married some day ? I strongly disagree with your last sentence.
Loving Annie’s last blog post..SWEET MEMORIES
Loving Annie,
I know. I have trouble with that part, too.
Yet what I read of marriage in the Bible is that we are to be “fruitful and multiply”. In the old testament the implication of marriage is really clear – to produce soldiers for faith and God for the next generation’s wars – to defend the church.
In history, marriage has been used to secure agreements – and inheritance. Ancient Greece had laws requiring any “citizen” to marry and raise sons for the army.
When you focus on marriage and mating being for the benefit of the individuals binding their lives together – you open the door for same-sex marriage, for all kinds of issues, including marriage and divorce for convenience.
Not all families have children. It isn’t clear to me how to distinguish couples that make a family, and those that share affections and an address while it lasts.
I recall a time when seniors needed to divorce to survive tax and income screening rules. When couples considered whether the tax advantage was to stay single or marry. Those times may or may not return. We have already seen that the combined assets / heritage issues have spread to room mates and unmarried couples.
I just don’t buy that marriage is just for creating a family with children. Two can make and be a family. Nor do I buy into, “hole concept of marriage is to bring two adults together with the church’s blessing”. That may have been where the concept originated, but I believe it is a joining of two people committing to one another. Not just committing today, but everyday, from this point forward. It’s an announcement to each other, and the World, that you have chose and made that commitment to each other.
I could say so much more, but this is sounding like a soapbox, so that’s it, for now.
This confirms my darkest fears embedded in the evolutionary psychology. That all these cohabitations, the entire world-wide anti-marriage/anti-women campaign in fact happens exactly due to woman’s fertility ‘secret’: “can she have children? If not dump her!”. Modernity allows to check it, by impreganting her without being in a committed relationship. And even in case of positive positive, marriage “does not need to happen” in a man’s mind. It’s no longer fantasy books. One just can’t be both a man AND fully comprehend this terror that a woman undergoes at the same time.
Searchingwithin,
Thanks for your comments.
As I replied to Loving Annie, this one is tough for me. Because I do know families without children. I also know married couples with children and grandchildren that haven’t yet learned to make a family, nor do they seem on the road to knowledge.
Tell me that you don’t know anyone that rushed a marriage decision because the bride became pregnant. Tell me that single mothers don’t get treated differently from married mothers. Marriages, handfastings and other mating rituals are about providing a home for dependents – children, mostly. It isn’t just at high school graduation that “children are our future.” It is true all the time. And the family is the basic unit of care for children. Foster care, residential facilities, and adoption are all last-resort measures for good reason.
The other part of your comment is about how two people pledge a life-long commitment. Only that isn’t true. Most people at the altar can honestly assess their mood and emotional state, and honestly say, “I love you.” And mean what they say. They don’t forsee ever changing their affection and devotion to their partner. When they pledge “til death do us part” they know for a fact that is BS. Because everyone living in America today knows someone that is divorced. Where in the past marriage vows were enforced – to the point of jailing runaway husbands and incarcerating and returning runaway wives – today they are not. People are free to divorce – even when the church where they were married doesn’t premit divorce. Instead of finding those vows a binding force on one’s decisions and actions, they are set aside. The vows are disregarded because they have been overcome by events.
The form of the marriage vow is still there. But people feel free to “follow their heart” when something unexpected comes up. Or when they are unhappy with their partner.
And don’t forget marriage is the one sacrament the Church recognizes, that permits one to have sex. Otherwise, sex is a sin for unmarried people (“better to marry than to burn”) (fornication), sex is a sin when not with your spouse (adultery). Laws against fornication and adultery, implementing Church teachings, are still on the books, still valid in many places. They are seldom enforced any more.
The reason? To keep children in the teachings and faith of their parents. To keep marriage “sacred” – that is, under regulation by the church.
Back a few years ago, and probably still today, if the bride and groom don’t share a church and faith, the officiating priest or pastor will counsel the couple – about what teachings the children will receive. Marriage is about creating a family, and raising children.
Yes, the Church will marry people beyond child-bearing years. And just how does that differ from same-sex marriage? The point is either to create a family, or to bless intercourse between adults. One or the other.
I refuse to count noses, and exclaim, “I got one female nose, and one male nose, so let them marry!” or “My count came out wrong, don’t let them marry!”
Jura,
The issue you raise is quite different from what I wrote about.
I agree that fertility is not what determines a woman’s worth. I would never consider infertility a reason to end a marriage, to discard a mate, or to denigrate anyone. Not the least of which, is that often several women suffer before the man is shown to be the infertile one. Fertility is *not* affected by faith, or character, or morals. Fertility does *not* reflect divine blessing on a particular individual. Collectively, mankind is blessed with fertility.
Know, Jura, that not all communities or cultures are taught that a woman’s only place is to bear sons. Well, the ancient Greeks did, according to Plato’s “Symposium”. But the Greeks cried love as a blessing of their Gods, and meant between a mature man for a pubescent boy. They felt marriage was a duty to the state to raise sons for the army. I think they were all bent.
I think we all recognize the unfair double standard, that makes a woman responsible for birth control and not the man.
And I fully agree with you about the horrors of unexpected pregnancy. That is one reason I don’t think we should have sex before being in a committed relationship. If he won’t wait, if he isn’t interested in a relationship – then you can’t afford to waste your time with him.
Jura, being married isn’t all that defines life. First, you have to assure that your spouse-prospect is worth your while.
Since I made the comment that led off this blog, I thought I would respond.
The Bible is very clear about the purpose of marriage: to be “helpmates,” support for each other. Later, the couple is charged with “being fruitful,” but a man and a woman fit together as mutual support.
Not having a child or not being able to have a child does not reduce a marriage. In fact, the New Testament points to the fact that having children may keep us from the task of awaiting Christ’s return. In other words, the “be fruitful and multiply” is challenged, if not overturned, by the New Testament.
I’m not advocating that we stop having children. Only that marriage is a partnership. “For this reason. . . becomes one flesh” does not say “by having children.” That is part (and an important part) of marriage, but not the only thing.
Sure, we have over-emphasized romantic love as the basis of marriage. That is why I think marriages must rely on commitment, a promise to be together, as the basis of working through difficulties.
I will stick with WE.
Rev. Lee H. Baucom, Ph.D.
author of Save Your Christian Marriage
Dr. Baucom,
Thanks for your comment.
I am not sure where to start. I know the modern practice is that marriage is the mating ritual approved by the modern church, and the emphasis is on the relationship between man and woman. I believe that this strict, Italian-merchant-prince type arrangement – “giving” the bride to the groom, single couple, was hammered out as a teaching of the church, long after the time of Christ. Devout followers of Christ have at times “held all things in common” (group marriage), and other practices. I am not sure if you concede the doctrine of the LDS, but the Mormons believe their teachings are the word of Christ, too. The Mormons are one instance where “one man, one woman” marriage form is clearly a secular choice bending their belief in the “Law of Abraham, (a.k.a. the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, or Celestial Plural Marriage)” (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_mass.htm) to fit the (to them, arbitrary) laws of the United States.
Making a marriage, or other mating, makes no sense as a bond between a couple. There must be consensus between them, about what community they will be part of – or none. I know that for church weddings where a couple didn’t share a common denomination of the Christian Church – part of the officiating pastor’s counseling was to bring to agreement which teachings any children would be raised in. Perhaps that doesn’t happen any more, but for me the message is quite clear: Marrying in the church is to build a unit of faith, with a couple agreeing to abide within the church’s teachings, and raise their children accordingly.
The facile and superficial attention made to “the marriage vows” in recent times (last 50 years is recent??!?) shifts the focus from the community of the family and the fact that a family is being formed of two individuals (or, is it the descendants of two families from a community?) – to the ephemeral feelings and emotions and partial knowledge of the couple.
Where the couple share an interest and understanding of their community, where they intend to form a family, there is a truly firm foundation for their mating. That community might be a congregation, might be a rural or farming lifestyle and particular location and group of people. The community might be academia, might be mission work, might be colonizing the wilderness, or the moon.
Where a couple comes together because they are lonely, or for financial security, or for lust – they haven’t agreed to a way of life. There are no underlying assumptions to weigh against momentary opportunities and temptations.
The church, the courts, and the nation have invalidated the sanctity of any handfasting or marriage vow. You cannot pretend to hold such vows sacred for your self or for others, and see that adultery is no longer reported as a crime, nor prosecuted. You cannot pass a federal law about “personal responsibility” – for tracking people not paying child support pursuant to a divorce decree. You cannot claim your church “doesn’t believe in divorce” – and not bar divorced people from membership.
Today we worry that our “credit score” might bar us from doing personal business. It used to be that violating your given promise or vow, would cause you to be unable to conduct any business at all. Your word, as in your marriage vow, witnessed and signed by a state official as having been made, as basis for applying “married” laws and regulations, including tax status – and serving as a basis for infant dependents.
Promises to each other are well and good, but they are not held to be binding if feelings or circumstances change. When a couple assumes a role of “family” in a “community” they take on an identity, a larger responsibility and awareness, that gives them the basis for working through difficulties.
There is a reason to involve families, friends, and community in the wedding ceremony. There is a reason that the reception involves a portion of the community – the couple is making itself known, as before times of easily kept written records, by face and by their actions, as now becoming a couple, and a family within the community.
You are certainly correct that a marriage is to be a partnership. I contend that the enterprise that that partnership is engaged in – is to participate in their community as a family, and if children bless the union, to raise those children as members of that community. Leave the faith, the community, the patriotism out of the formation of the union – and you have two people making promises that they know will be broken whenever the time comes to move on.
You are right about the elements of support a community offers a couple who may or may not be engaged in the task of raising children together. They are definitely made stronger by having more committed resource people around them and if they are fortunate enough to have their kin around them so much the better.
But this is living in Elysian fields. We are now a mobile species and few people remain around the neighbourhood they grew up in for the whole of their lives. Most people move around a lot – for study or for work opportunities. And so live far from their family. With the erosion of personal time through ridiculous workloads and employer expectations, people are gradually backing out of any activities that take up their precious spare time and are not work related. So church attendance may be one casualty as may participation in civic, community and philanthropic ventures. Which means less chance of community. And less chance of support.
We have 30 % less leisure time than previous generations – heck we don’t even have the time to eat right half the time nowadays. With this reduction in participation the roots we grow are unlikely to be strong or healthy – back to the isolated couple struggling along alone in marriage. Let’s not forget too the tendency of Western parents to view their children as fully grown at 18 and throw them out into the wide world to cope for themselves.
This is a cultural phenomenon. There are plenty of cultures in the world that support their adult children much much longer – including when they get married and have families of their own. Western societies with their bias for independence and success and not talking about the things that are going wrong create a microcosm around each newly married couple that isolates them from forces that could support them through their relationship as they learn to live together.
I disagree that the purpose of marriage is solely to raise children although I acknowledge that this is certainly an important task charged of marriage in many cultures and faiths around the world. I have recently been reading ‘The road less travelled’ by M Scott Peck and he states that the purpose of marriage (I think he says marriage and not love!) is for each partner to support the other to become the very best person they can be to celebrate God’s wonder and glory throughout life. And this can happen at any age. That was my theory from years ago although Dr Peck words it better
I believe that relationships exist to grow us and that marriage is the ultimate in intensity, intimacy and trust. When that trust is abused it is an awful experience to go through, but despite that you will have grown – and perhaps you can use that as food to create and celebrate God. I think marriage should be about each person building up the other through loving actions to self actualisation – the highest manifestation of evolved selfness that person is capable of.
On a side note about breaking the marriage compact when the time comes … a bill was presented some time ago in Germany which aimed to wipe marriage for life and instead introduce seven year contracts – the couple could each decide at the end of seven years if they wanted to renew or not
If not the contract simply wasn’t renewed and each would go their separate ways!
I can honestly say I did think I was marrying for life. That is why I stuck around for so much pain and grief and kept going back to try something new or love him better or be a better ‘wife’ whatever that is. It never crossed my mind while cutting the cake that I could ditch him at a convenient juncture somewhere in Tomorrowland. I expected to have my babies with this man. To see the world with him. To work hard and create a beautiful nest with him – and I thought love could conquer anything that stood in my way. It didn’t. And I am now ten years older. And things just got progressively worse. Had I not been married to him I probably would have walked after year one.
Kaiako,
Thanks for visiting. I am sorry your marriage ended painfully.
I agree with you that “I disagree that the purpose of marriage is solely to raise children”.
I have come to feel that forming a marriage is about creating a home, a home as an expression of a personal “culture”. When you revere and live the teachings of your life, whether from church or parents, community or wise leader, I think you will be compelled to share those values. Your lives will express what you are living, you will interact with your community as a basic unit of culture, both adapting to and contributing to your environment.
The closeness of a home, the intimate sharing, is naturally disposed to creating babies; our bodies and parent cultures have all evolved to expect and depend on this. With a solid, chosen partner and home, raising those children in the values and culture you live should be a natural progression.
When Paul Harvey was celebrating long-lived marriages – 50 to 80 years – many came from the Midwest, from times of relative isolation and often before mass communication. From times when couples had fewer “modern” influences – sex-based marketing and regular contact with non-family valued people.
Today there are still many communities where “family values” are important. My sister in Minnesota celebrated her 35th anniversary this year, and most of her family and friends around there are still married. Such communities are stable, often smaller (in modern terms), and often rural. Families interact at the family and community level on a regular – weekly – basis. And this, I think, is the reason to hope, and provides an attractive model for what family and home should, and could, mean.
When your community is focused on meeting developer needs for new housing developments instead of values, events, and traditions to enrich and preserve families – at the cultural, not cash flow to the community, level – you picked a horrible place to live.
Realtors want to create markets for sales. People look for a “neighborhood” with a “good school” and low taxes or crime rate. That is like picking a partner because he/she looks “hot” and stirs fantasies of exciting intimacies.
Some seven years ago I spoke with an Amish man that had left the life and teachings of his people. But when he married and had children to raise – he returned. With children, he came to understand what the community and teachings really meant to him as a person, and as a husband and father. He saw what his community meant to helping raise his children to be reasonably secure, loved, and happy.
I have felt for several years that people have been choosing partners – intimate, mate, or spouse – for the wrong reasons. That they pay attention to words and appearances – which are too easy to manipulate and misunderstand – and are influenced by what advertisements and romance stories imply are virtues. I feel that virtues in a partner start with respect, honor, honesty, compassion, and discipline (the will to complete a task). Loyalty, an aptitude for living in a family and raising children, healthy existing bonds to friends and their own family are essential. And they should be fun and satisfying to be with.
I feel that rather that marrying to create an environment to grow in, the intent should be to create a secure and nurturing culture, shared values, traditions, and expectations.
From what you describe, you picked a guy to marry that lacked some of the virtues of a mate-prospect – respect for you and himself, honor, compassion, and discipline. And you missed a big point – you didn’t share with him a goal, a vision, an understanding of the culture of the home you intended to build. You also didn’t pick someone that was trainable – that would respond appropriately when necessary.
I differ from most romantics. I believe that love comes into being, and also that love can die. My definition of love is, when you wake up, and wonder, “Do I really want to be here?” – love is about dead. If you don’t want love, you can let it go. Physical intimacy, sharing time and space with someone, involve the body, and the body will form physical bonds, adapting to another, as strongly as our emotions entangle with those we respect, adore, and call “ours”. So grief always follows taking someone to ourselves, whether friend or partner.
Love is a way of life. If we don’t choose to be family for our partner, we let our love – and their affections – down. Acts of disrespect, of deceit – these add up quickly.
That is why I consider that the most essential step in forming a happy marriage is to consciously choose to make a family (whether or not you intend to have children), and to pick a mate-prospect with character and healthy emotional bonds. The second step is to assure that your partner-prospect is also intent on forming a family, and knows what a family is.
I was told (paid several hundred dollars for the privilege) that *her* responsibility in a relationship, is to make it fun for him. That a relationship is 100% *her* responsibility, and all on his terms. And that if it isn’t fun for *him*, prior to making a commitment, his responsibility is to walk away.
This bothered me. I eventually came to realize that making him happy was an easy rule to understand. If she doesn’t *enjoy* making him happy, she doesn’t make him happy – and either or both walk away. But this does point out that we are responsible for leaving someone that isn’t fun or fulfilling to be with. And he has to make being with him rewarding for her.
As for the responsibility and 100% thing, I think that is mostly the difference in how men and women look at things, and results in a healthy perspective on both sides. Both partners have to adapt, to make a place in their lives for the other, and to learn to live – and love – from a place in someone else’s life. Women call this “relationship” and men typically don’t understand what that word means to women. By making the “100%” declaration, one broken and unnecessary communication failure is defused, without changing the impact that each needs to adapt and share the life of the home.
Blessed be.