There are few things that depress me more than finding someone who intuitively understands what it took me a lifetime of painful experience to realize. Sara Butler, who is junior to me in age but senior to me in intellect, has some insightful thoughts on the subject of marriage. After highlighting an intriguing article on people's expectations of marriage, Sara notes:
The root problem here, it seems to me, is a bad understanding of marriage, which should be just as much about what you give to the other person as what you get out of them. In fact, giving and getting are probably bad ways of thinking about it period; maybe it's better to think about what you create as a couple together. The most important thing, I suspect, is to stop thinking about yourself as an individual in a specific kind of romantic and sexual contract and start thinking about yourself as a part of a whole (greater than the sum of its parts and all that)
No doubt she is smarter than I am. But perhaps part of her wisdom can be attributed to her also being better reader than I am. After all, you only have to read as far as the second chapter of the Bible before you come across the key to understanding marriage:
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." (Gen. 2:18)
I’ve probably read that verse hundreds of times without grasping its full significance. Almost every time I’ve read my own preconceived meaning into the text rather than trying to grasp what is actually said. Now it seems rather clear. Adam didn’t need a “soulmate” for he had the most perfect lover of one’s soul already – God. What he needed was a "helper", someone like himself who could share his burdens, his joys, his humanity. God’s immanent nature provided a presence that provided all the love that Adam needed. But God’s transcendent nature prevented him from being the type of companion that the first man would need to fulfill his role in the Garden. Adam needed someone both enough like himself to share a mutual understanding and different enough to provide a degree of uniqueness and mystery.
Marriage, therefore, becomes the joining together in a one-flesh union of two individuals; a physical embodiment of the mysterious paradox of unity and diversity. We should not, however, make the mistake of mischaracterizing the role of helper for one of a “yin and yang”-style complementarity. Recognizing the differences between the male and the female should not cause us to forget how much alike they are and how many individual needs they have in common. Too often we fall for the myth that the perfect spouse is one who “completes” us rather than searching for one who can aid us in our journey into becoming whole.
But in what ways would this “mutual help” model work in the institution of marriage? On this point I’ve been influenced by the Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd and his “theory of modal aspects.” Dooyeweerd believed that God created certain laws and norms of reality that were both irreducible yet interrelated. He spelled out 15 “spheres of human life and experience” that can be used, I believe, as a framework for understanding the state of “wholeness” as it applies to marriage.
When taken on their own, these spheres are inadequate and lead to an unfulfilling reductionism. Taken together and in proper proportion, these aspects can lead to fulfillment and the creation, as Sara said, of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. (Since Andrew Basden has already developed this line of thought, I’ll borrow heavily from his examples, using 11 of the 15 aspects.):
Biotic – (To do with organic life functions, and health): Creating children; Helping each other to maintain health; Caring for the other when ill.
Sensitive/Psychic – (To do with feeling, emotion, psychology): Helping each other to maintain psychological health; Being tender to each other when the other has been psychologically hurt; Being sensitive to each other’s feelings.
Analytical/Logical – (To do with making distinctions): Helping the other reason things through; Helping each other see clearly what is important in a situation we are thinking about.
Formative – (To do with human construction, creativity, achievement; includes history, technology and culture): Working together on a project to achieve a goal; Valuing what the other has achieved in the past; Valuing the other's culture and traditions.
Lingual – (To do with symbolic communication, by speech, writing, signs, song, etc.): Listening to the other, and trying to truly understand what the other is saying; Helping the other when they are trying to communicate to people outside; Helping the other when they find explanation difficult.
Social -- (Social interaction; forming relationships and social institutions): Being an appropriate part of the other's web of relationships; Ensuring that relationships that I form with the other sex are open and appropriate, and that my spouse is fully aware of them, so that they do not develop into wrong directions.
Economic – (To do with frugality and skilful, careful use of resources; to do with the household): Working together to understand what resources we have and in what way each is limited; Not being angry when the actions of the other imposes limitations on us, but rather creatively responding to them.
Aesthetic – (To do with harmony and surprise, also with play, also with the arts): Have times of 'play' together; If one has artistic talents, then the other should aid and not impede them, doing so for the glory of God rather for selfish reasons.
Juridical – (To do with what is due; with 'justice' and recompense / retribution): Give what is due to each other as husband and wife; Help the other to fulfil responsibilities they have to others outside.
Sacrificial --(To do with self-giving love; agape): "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church." "Wives submit to your husbands." Both is self-giving, as opposed to self-defence.
Piestic – (To do with faith, faithfulness, ultimate vision of who we are, and with true religion, with spirituality): Help each other to get to know God in all his fullness; worship and pray together.
For a people weaned on the Jerry Maquire-esque myth that others are here to “complete” us, the idea of “mutual help” model of marriage will seem strange. But we can only be completed by the one who created us. We can’t expect a spouse to be our fulfillment. What we can hope for is that they will hold our hand when we are sick, comfort us when we grieve, talk to us about our fears, hopes, and dreams. What we can expect is for them to be a helper. But that will be enough. After all, that is what marriage was created for.
1
So, does this have you come down against gay marriage (not biotic), or for it (other helper reasons)?
I've long felt that my wife and I have "become one flesh", phsyically - in the bodies of our children. Where her DNA and mine are mixed. And it is the creation of life which makes marriages "sacred".
(Sorry not to have been a long time reader ...)
posted on 04.02.2004 6:18 AM2
Hi Joe--
This may be sort of off-topic, but I just posted a review of Dr. Laura's new book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, on my blog. It deals a bit with people's expectations of marriage.
posted on 04.02.2004 7:17 AM3
My thought on marriage is that it is more similar than different from the love that Christ calls us to. Therefore, love in marriage is sacrifical. I think God made the differences between men and women in part to require sacrifice from each for it to work best. This applies to everything from sex to living location to how much time you spend with other people.
posted on 04.02.2004 7:38 AM4
I appreciate your thoughts on marriage. I couldn't help but feel gratitude, though, as I read it that I am Roman Catholic, because the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a sacrament--holy, sacred, indissoluble. Thus, when we come together as husband and wife, we know love is not about simply finding a soulmate or self-fulfillment; it is about perseverance, humility, and self-sacrifice, until the day we die. We know we are in it for the long haul, no matter what--which makes us that more committed to doing whatever it takes to make it work, including emptying ourselves of ego and placing the spouse's needs above one's own.
Pax.
posted on 04.02.2004 12:23 PM5
Unfortuantely, sacrament isn't strong enough with all the 'annullments' going on. It seems not credible that there were so many sacramentally invalid ceremonies.
Marriage is a blood covenant, like the others in the Bible, and can only be broken by the death of one of the spouses. Hence the vow "till death do us part".
posted on 04.02.2004 4:54 PM6
Thank you for sharing this. You have some wonderful points, as do those who have commented!
I am young and single, yet I do think that marriage is meant to be service to the other person - service and self-sacrifice. Yet I think that doing so only serves to encourage the blooming of a stronger, deeper, longer-lasting love.
Perhaps the lack of truly understanding marriage we see in society today is the cause of so many divorces and annullments and marital discord. Nowadays, at least culturally, it is all about "soul mates" (and again, this is a need only God Himself can fill!) and "whatever makes me happy" and "me, me, me." It is very discouraging. But then, there is always hope. I think that once we realize how wonderful loving others through service not only is but makes us feel, the easier it is to give ourselves to others.
posted on 04.02.2004 10:47 PM7
Joe,
First of all, thanks for putting my blog in your end of week roundup, I'm honored. I see your blog as one of the standard bearers so it is an honor to be noticed by you.
There is one thing I think is lacking in the Dooeyward model. Knowing that Dooeyward comes from a Reformed tradition, I would think that the first question of the Shorter Catechism would become the overriding framework for all spheres of activity - our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This includes marriage - the two come together in a partnership that leads to greater glory and enjoyment of God. This is a paradigm statement that overrides all spheres.
My concern is that the "Mutual Help" model won't go far enough if it doesn't put the shared commitment to the glory of God and shared desire to enjoy Him at the top of the list. The pietistic and sacrificial modes come close to stating this, but I am concerned that they are only two of eleven. I would say that what is expressed in the catechism is the dominating ideal of marriage, to which all other aspects are subservient. Therefore, the pietistic and sacrificial modes permeate all the other modes.
Again, the mutuality model sure beats the individualistic model of marriage, but it still leaves the door open for marriage partners to become disappointed in the other. In our current age of narcissism, the tendency will be to focus more on our partners' failure to fulfill their mutual duties toward one another.
I would also say that Genesis 2:18 is a means to an end in the creation story. When God created woman as a helper, it was only secondarily to render mutual help to him. It was primarily to give him a partner to help in the task God gave him - the creation mandate to fill the earth and subdue it. Thus the picture of marriage is not of two individuals looking toward each other. Rather it is two individuals, holding hands, both looking forward toward God and walking toward Him.
Thanks for giving me space to share this (long-winded) opinion and thanks for opening this important topic up for discussion.
David Wayne - the Jollyblogger
posted on 04.03.2004 6:09 PM8
Hey David,
There is one thing I think is lacking in the Dooeyward model. Knowing that Dooeyward comes from a Reformed tradition, I would think that the first question of the Shorter Catechism would become the overriding framework for all spheres of activity - our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This includes marriage - the two come together in a partnership that leads to greater glory and enjoyment of God. This is a paradigm statement that overrides all spheres.
Absolutely. In Dooeyward’s philosophy, every sphere is subordinate to God.
My concern is that the "Mutual Help" model won't go far enough if it doesn't put the shared commitment to the glory of God and shared desire to enjoy Him at the top of the list. The pietistic and sacrificial modes come close to stating this, but I am concerned that they are only two of eleven. I would say that what is expressed in the catechism is the dominating ideal of marriage, to which all other aspects are subservient. Therefore, the pietistic and sacrificial modes permeate all the other modes.
Most of the misunderstaning, I believe, lies with my weak explanation of Dooyeward’s thinking. In his view, modal aspects are both intrinsically related and yet individuated. So even though all the aspects work in balance they are all, ultimately, aimed at the same goal -- serving God.
Again, the mutuality model sure beats the individualistic model of marriage, but it still leaves the door open for marriage partners to become disappointed in the other. In our current age of narcissism, the tendency will be to focus more on our partners' failure to fulfill their mutual duties toward one another.
You’re right, though I don’t think any model can prevent the narcissistic desire from coming to the fore. We are all fallen, selfish beings more interested if finding ways to fill our own needs rather than imitating Christ by serving others.
I would also say that Genesis 2:18 is a means to an end in the creation story. When God created woman as a helper, it was only secondarily to render mutual help to him. It was primarily to give him a partner to help in the task God gave him - the creation mandate to fill the earth and subdue it. Thus the picture of marriage is not of two individuals looking toward each other. Rather it is two individuals, holding hands, both looking forward toward God and walking toward Him.
I think that is a great way of putting it.
posted on 04.03.2004 6:20 PM