s/o Duggar/courtship threads - criticism from former courtship advocate

[Shahrazad]

 

Curious how you explain healthy non-Christian marriages.

Coincidence, LOL.

 

 

[idnib]

 

 

Having trouble with quotes...

 

It's not true that divorce is not an option in the situations I am talking about. Divorce is possible in my religion and community. Outside of that, my parents have lived in the U.S., without any family input, for the entirety of their marriage. My father was here for years before that. There are divorces in arranged marriages, just at a much lower rate.

 

I'm not saying arranged marriages are perfect (I'm not in one myself) just that there are so many options for finding suitable marriage partners, from arranged marriages to lots of dating around. I was speaking more in response to the "how will anyone find what they really want without dating lots of people?" question.  :)

[mommaduck]

As for a less extreme example, I think that telling women that it doesn't matter who their spouse is, they can fix their marriage just through "putting Jesus first" is pretty dangerous. It is exactly that mindset that convinces women to stay with incompatible, unfaithful partners or much worse, with abusive spouses because they think that if they just work on it enough he will quit beating them black and blue.

 

ETA: Btw, I actually HAD an "arranged" marriage and I still think this is crazypants.

 

Enter the Pearls! *smh*

[mommaduck]

You guys are way overthinking this. Pick any two random, different people. Those are the ones we use around here.

 

Logical thinking requires that all the variables be taken into consideration. It's not overthinking. Hitler was a mentally sick person. He did not have the capacity. You really should read up on his life.

[HS Mom in NC]

Yeah, but as Joanne so frequently points out, it takes two people to make a marriage work and only one to break it. If a couple marries because they are both Christians and that is all they think it takes, what happens when one struggles with the faith or leaves altogether? If they weren't compatible otherwise, they will probably end up divorced. This isn't a hypothetical - there are people on these boards who are no longer "equally yoked" but have stayed together because they still like each other because they had things in common besides religion.

 

Thanks for pointing this out.  It needs to be said a lot more frequently in religious circles.

 

I'm one of those people. Even with both sharing the same faith there are compatibility issues that have to be addressed. Let's remember that we have Christian denominations for a reason-different people will have different interpretations of what the Bible teaches and  who or what is a final authority on religious/moral matters, etc.  Add in those issues to the endless financial, lifestyle and  childbearing choices that abound, and it's foolish not to choose a spouse based on compatibility beyond religion.

 

Once one spouse leaves the faith then those compatibility issues matter even more if the one hasn't changed so much that those have gone out the window too-they often will.  The naivete among many believers when it comes to compatibility issues is pretty surprising. Both being believers is not enough and is no guarantee things will stay that way.  

 

Most churches do a terrible job supporting people in these type of situations because they aren't even aware of that it's a possibility.  It's like Hebrews Chapter 6 isn't even in their Bibles or if it is, they just skip over it because it's too messy or scary to think about. When you hear sermons about marriage, how many of them include believers married to each other or two unbelievers who married then one converted to Christianity?  All by my count.  I've never heard a sermon about two believers marrying and one leaving the faith but they stay together and now have to make decisions based on completely different worldviews and morals.   It's always been an unspoken assumption that the unbelieving spouse would leave and the believing spouse would not stop him/her. Not every unbelieving spouse chooses to leave.  Inexperienced leadership has left this conspicuous void for a long time and it's time they woke up, faced reality and addressed it. Same with pre-marriage counselors. "What are you planning to do if your soon to be spouse walks away from the faith in the future?" I've never heard of one who asks these kinds of questions. It's time they started.

[idnib]

Yeah, love is over rated.   :)  I am fascinated by the arranged marriage....I know it can be an abuse of power that really makes life miserable for some women, but obviously that is not how it is always done.  

 

I would say anytime there's a relationship there's a potential for abuse. There can be arranged marriages which lead to an abuse of power. It's also true that people can get into abusive situations because they are blinded by emotions and can't see the other person clearly. This is where having the family involved helps as well. They are more objective and the elders often have more wisdom and insight about others in the family as well, such as the in-laws.

 

So, either way has the potential for abuse. 

[mommaduck]

Thanks for pointing this out.  It needs to be said a lot more frequently in religious circles.

 

I'm one of those people. Even with both sharing the same faith there are compatibility issues that have to be addressed. Let's remember that we have Christian denominations for a reason-different people will have different interpretations of what the Bible teaches and  who or what is a final authority on religious/moral matters, etc.  Add in those issues to the endless financial, lifestyle and  childbearing choices that abound, and it's foolish not to choose a spouse based on compatibility beyond religion.

 

Once one spouse leaves the faith then those compatibility issues matter even more if the one hasn't changed so much that those have gone out the window too-they often will.  The naivete among many believers when it comes to compatibility issues is pretty surprising. Both being believers is not enough and is no guarantee things will stay that way.  

 

Most churches do a terrible job supporting people in these type of situations because they aren't even aware of that it's a possibility.  It's like Hebrews Chapter 6 isn't even in their Bibles or if it is, they just skip over it because it's too messy or scary to think about. When you hear sermons about marriage, how many of them include believers married to each other or two unbelievers who married then one converted to Christianity?  All by my count.  I've never heard a sermon about two believers marrying and one leaving the faith but they stay together and now have to make decisions based on completely different worldviews and morals.   It's always been an unspoken assumption that the unbelieving spouse would leave and the believing spouse would not stop him/her. Not every unbelieving spouse chooses to leave.  Inexperienced leadership has left this conspicuous void for a long time and it's time they woke up, faced reality and addressed it. Same with pre-marriage counselors. "What are you planning to do if your soon to be spouse walks away from the faith in the future?" I've never heard of one who asks these kinds of questions. It's time they started.

Well said!

[Shahrazad]

I gave you a less extreme example in the case of an emotionally and physically abusive husband and a victimized wife. According to your logic, they could make it work and have a successful marriage if they just love Jesus enough.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I am well versed, thanks. It's hyperbole.

Logically, the argument is not valid. Premise, middle terms, syllogism, definitions, conclusions -- all of 'em -- invalid.

 

You can't make illogic logic by renaming it hyperbole if it still requires all definitions to be changed.

[mommaduck]

nm 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

Having trouble with quotes...

 

It's not true that divorce is not an option in the situations I am talking about. Divorce is possible in my religion and community. Outside of that, my parents have lived in the U.S., without any family input, for the entirety of their marriage. My father was here for years before that. There are divorces in arranged marriages, just at a much lower rate.

 

I'm not saying arranged marriages are perfect (I'm not in one myself) just that there are so many options for finding suitable marriage partners, from arranged marriages to lots of dating around. I was speaking more in response to the "how will anyone find what they really want? without dating lots of people" question.  :)

 

I agree with you.  Historically arranged marriages worked for many societies.  I agree that it's not a great fit for modern Western culture, but I'm not going to decide that dating several or a lot people before getting married is going to work for everyone here on out. The idea that we need to come up with a one size fits all scenario is crazy to me.

 

I had a neighbor from India who was a well educated woman of the world who had no problem with her marriage being arranged as she was able to say no to any person her parents presented.  I think it was one or two she said no to before it was arranged to marry her husband.  It worked out really well for them and they were very happy aside from their fertility struggles. Who wouldn't be upset by that? 

[fairfarmhand]

 The idea that we need to come up with a one size fits all scenario is crazy to me.

 

 

This is my beef with courtship.

 

The idea is presented in most circles that to please God you must court.(often old testament cultural examples are given of a father finding the spouse for his child.) Or if your child dates, he/she is of loose morals.Or if you go on a date you are "giving away pieces of your heart."

 

 Ironically, my "dating" husband had few struggles with temptation until he met little old "courting" me.

 

Us sneaking around to try to find a way to get away from overbearing supervision put us in situations that we shouldn't have been in. It would've been better if we could've gone to dinner together without worrying about being "outed"

[Rosie_0801]

Simple. If both individuals are committed to loving one another, serving each other to the best of their abilities, communicating clearly and respectfully, and not giving up on one another, you have a solid marriage.

 

Marriages can break while both parties think they're doing the above. 

 

I'd have thought everyone here was old enough to know that.

[HS Mom in NC]

This is my beef with courtship.

 

The idea is presented in most circles that to please God you must court.(often old testament cultural examples are given of a father finding the spouse for his child.) Or if your child dates, he/she is of loose morals.Or if you go on a date you are "giving away pieces of your heart."

 

 Ironically, my "dating" husband had few struggles with temptation until he met little old "courting" me.

 

Us sneaking around to try to find a way to get away from overbearing supervision put us in situations that we shouldn't have been in. It would've been better if we could've gone to dinner together without worrying about being "outed"

 

Please see my post upthread about how there are all sorts of variations on the courtship issue.  I think people need to stop using the word without an explanation because it's as useless in most conversations as using the word homeschooling.  There's a big difference in a free range childhood, exclusively interest driven unschooling homeschooler and a very structured, intensive Trivium based Classical homeschooler. If you just go around using the term homeschooling and then get into the practical details about goals, curriculum, teaching techniques and content, it causes confusion among the outsiders and newbies and resentment among the veterans.

 

There are courtship advocates who recommend being around someone in a group setting before choosing to court them. They recommend not starting the courtship process unless the courters old enough and stable enough for marriage-just in case it goes that way.  They recommend being around each other's families a lot so they know what they're possibly getting into. They recommend never assuming your courtship will end in marriage-they consider a courtship that didn't end in marriage to be just as successful as one that did.  They don't have a problem with one on one courting in public places like restaurants and movie theaters, etc.  They think parents and siblings should be around the courters and family to point out any red flags that might be missed by the courters being infatuated with each other. That's very similar to old fashioned dating with the exception of not starting to do it if you're not ready to married, which is a very different mindset and tone.  The reason some people might be surprised to hear this is because this type of courtship advocate isn't so zealous and dogmatic about the details that they're shouting it from the mountain tops and claiming it's God's will for everyone.

 

Now that the boardies reading this have been enlightened about the range, they can pass on the good news-there's a type of courtship that isn't crazy and controlling. They don't want to be lumped into the crazy courtship crowd anymore than you want to be lumped into the crazy homeschooler crowd.

[DesertBlossom]

As for a less extreme example, I think that telling women that it doesn't matter who their spouse is, they can fix their marriage just through "putting Jesus first" is pretty dangerous. It is exactly that mindset that convinces women to stay with incompatible, unfaithful partners or much worse, with abusive spouses because they think that if they just work on it enough he will quit beating them black and blue.

 

ETA: Btw, I actually HAD an "arranged" marriage and I still think this is crazypants.

 

This only works if both spouses "put Jesus first."  

 

Maybe we all need to define exactly what we mean by "put Jesus first."  For me, it's about developing Christlike attributes, like kindness,  forgiveness, love, charity, etc, etc. You take 2 people who may not have very much in common, but are committed to being kind and loving and forgiving and they are probably going to be very happy together.

 

Likewise, if you take 2 otherwise good people who have a tendency towards selfishness or holding grudges or having a "what's in it for me?" attitude and that marriage probably will not last very long. I know plenty of otherwise "good" people who treat their spouses like dirt. That's not "putting Jesus first" no matter how often they go to church or how religious they claim to be.  I know lots of wonderful people who tried really hard to make their marriages work, but the other spouse was a jerk (to put it mildly, in some cases). Those types of marriages aren't going to be happy. And abused women (or men) absolutely do not have to stay in those kinds of relationships, ever. 

[Rosie_0801]

Thinking and doing are two different things. Communication is arguably the most crucial cornerstone of a relationship. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest.

 

Yeah, they are. One's doing can only be informed by one's thinking. A lot of abusers think they are decent people so from their perspective they are doing exactly what you say they should do. 

[Seasider]

I personally know at least a half dozen beautiful, marriageable-age young women who are waiting, waiting, waiting for a guy to step up and approach their father. Waiting without going to college. Waiting while refining their childcare and cooking skills. I wonder how long they will wait before they grow bitter.

 

I also know a very dear, wonderful young man who finally walked away from the girl he thought his lifetime match because her parents tried to micromanage the courtship; every time he met the bar, they raised it a notch. He knew he could not endure a lifetime of that treatment.

 

On a happy note, I know a large number of Christlike young adults who enjoy casually spending time with one another in large group, small group, and occasionally one to one settings. They are conducting themselves respectfully, managing their personal relationships quite admirably, have access to and wise counsel when they feel the need. I have every confidence in their future success, whether it be in wedded bliss or purposeful singlehood. I am very thankful to count three of my children among them.

 

Strict courtship and promiscuous flings are the ends of the spectrum; as in many other matters, I suspect the best approach lies somewhere in the middle.

[HS Mom in NC]

Also, I'll point out that the mild courtship folks I'm talking about have daughters who get a marketable skill set through a college degree or some sort of skilled labor certification.  They don't all stay at home until they're married (although more people are doing that due to the economy and cost of higher education.)

[Mrs Mungo]

Eh, I'm of the opinion Mother Teresa and Hitler could make a successful marriage, if they both desired to do so.

This comes across as extremely naive at best.

 

Have you never known anyone with narcissistic or sociopathic tendencies?

[Mrs Mungo]

I have said this before, but my aunt advised me to go out on lots of dates, but to not *continue* to date someone that I wouldn't want to marry. So, I didn't continue to date guys who drank to excess, who smoked, who pressured me to go home with them, etc. I went on a LOT of first dates in college. It worked out well for me. ;)

[Wheres Toto]

The problem with encouraging casually dating is that in mainstream American society, there isn't the norm for it any more. There is pretty much either hanging out in large co-ed groups or hooking up with all the health and emotional dangers that casual s*xual intimacy poses. The kind of innocent casual dating that I did before DH and that my mom did before her first serious BF in college (who is still friends with both my parents as he's a great guy even if he wasn't my mom's Mr. Right) no longer seems to exist outside of certain subcultures like apparently LDS.

 

I don't believe in the patriarchal, semi-arranged, almost no physical contact prior to marriage courtship model, but I do believe in a "dating with the purpose of finding a marriage partner" type of courtship.

 

I"m not sure where you live but I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country, and the above is not what I'm seeing. 

 

  There is a lot of hanging in large groups, but there's also casually dating where the "couple" goes out occasionally, may accompany each other to school events and gets to know each other, or long (or short) term dating of one person to see if it goes anywhere.   Yes, there are some teens having casual sex without any relationship but for the vast majority it is not that casual - they are in what they consider a committed, exclusive relationship. 

 

Unless we are using different terminology and you mean any relationship that doesn't lead to marriage is automatically casual?

[maize]

Also, I'll point out that the mild courtship folks I'm talking about have daughters who get a marketable skill set through a college degree or some sort of skilled labor certification. They don't all stay at home until they're married (although more people are doing that due to the economy and cost of higher education.)

I've seen the kind if courtship you're talking about, it is more what I would call real courtship and also very close to what I called dating when I was at the point of being interested in getting married. I think this group was trying to move away from dating as a series of involved but not committed relationships, and emphasizes more of a serious approach to relations with the opposite sex with the intent to find a lifetime partner. It was never about the parents controlling their children's lives and relationships. I appreciate you posting to point out that courtship is not necessarily synonymous with controlled, parent initiated relationships and marriage.

[Mrs Mungo]

I"m not sure where you live but I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country, and the above is not what I'm seeing.

 

There is a lot of hanging in large groups, but there's also casually dating where the "couple" goes out occasionally, may accompany each other to school events and gets to know each other, or long (or short) term dating of one person to see if it goes anywhere. Yes, there are some teens having casual sex without any relationship but for the vast majority it is not that casual - they are in what they consider a committed, exclusive relationship.

 

Unless we are using different terminology and you mean any relationship that doesn't lead to marriage is automatically casual?

I agree. I am the oldest grandchild on both sides of my family. My younger cousins both hang out in groups and go out on dates in the traditional sense. They are too conservative for "hooking up."

 

I also have teenagers. It is worth pointing out that most of the teens in our circles are home schooled (or were and have recently started college), but those we know are both hanging out in groups and dating in pairs in the traditional sense.

[maize]

I"m not sure where you live but I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country, and the above is not what I'm seeing.

 

There is a lot of hanging in large groups, but there's also casually dating where the "couple" goes out occasionally, may accompany each other to school events and gets to know each other, or long (or short) term dating of one person to see if it goes anywhere. Yes, there are some teens having casual sex without any relationship but for the vast majority it is not that casual - they are in what they consider a committed, exclusive relationship.

 

Unless we are using different terminology and you mean any relationship that doesn't lead to marriage is automatically casual?

What I have seen is that the kind of casual dating where a guy or girl can go out with a different person every weekend, or three different people in one weekend, in a fun "hey let's go bowling and get to know each other a bit and have a good time" way without any particular expectation that more will come of it than a fun evening doesn't exist in many places anymore. It seems even in settings where dating doesn't necessarily mean sex there is a sense of even one date being the beginning of an exclusive (even if temporary) kind of relationship.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Compatibility is all well and good, but no marriage will work if work is not put in. 

 

...

 

I refuse the notion that a happy, healthy marriage is just based on the luck or skill in selecting the *perfect* companion. That's nonsense and yet something our culture seems to buy wholesale and teach to our children. So sad.

 

Who said no work is required? The whole point of us mentioning the importance of compatibility is that it reduces the amount of work needed. If both people have the same standard of cleanliness, then they won't fight over the other being a slob. If they share hobbies, neither will feel neglected by the other going off every Saturday to do hobbies with other people. If they both follow the same way of eating then there won't need to be battles of whether to allow non-kosher food/meat/gluten/etc in the house. Finding someone with a similar lifestyle isn't a guarantee, it just makes everyday life a little easier.

 

We needed to learn how to communicate

 

What is one spouse supposed to do if the other spouse doesn't care about feelings (because they have Asperger's or something) and they just don't see what the point of them is? Some things like this just can't be fixed easily, if ever. A woman who wants a very romantic husband would be miserable with one of these kind of guys. He, likewise, would be frustrated with her.

[maize]

Who said no work is required? The whole point of us mentioning the importance of compatibility is that it reduces the amount of work needed. If both people have the same standard of cleanliness, then they won't fight over the other being a slob. If they share hobbies, neither will feel neglected by the other going off every Saturday to do hobbies with other people. If they both follow the same way of eating then there won't need to be battles of whether to allow non-kosher food/meat/gluten/etc in the house. Finding someone with a similar lifestyle isn't a guarantee, it just makes everyday life a little easier.

 

 

What is one spouse supposed to do if the other spouse doesn't care about feelings (because they have Asperger's or something) and they just don't see what the point of them is? Some things like this just can't be fixed easily, if ever. A woman who wants a very romantic husband would be miserable with one of these kind of guys. He, likewise, would be frustrated with her.

This exactly. The romantic husband is a good example; one of my good friends really, really loves romantic gestures from her husband, they are immensely important to her--and he has a romantic bent himself and enjoys thinking these things up and carrying them out. My husband is utterly pragmatic and doesn't have a romantic bone in his body, and I would find being married to someone who thought little romantic surprises would make me happy highly irritating. Of course dh and I have areas of friction in our lives, but we spent enough time together before marriage to have a good idea that we could comfortably live married to each other long term. There were others I dated that I could tell after a few weeks spending time together I would not be happy permanently attached to, and still others where there was never enough mutual interest to date at all or to go out together more than once.

[PinkInTheBlue]

I'm going to assume the comment about successful non-Christian marriages being a coincidence was a joke. I'm going to just assume that.

 

I had a very Christian marriage and my ex-husband was a preacher. I tried to be the very best version of a good, Christian wife I could. I read the Bible, prayed, loved and supported my husband. I can honestly look back and say I did everything I could. I can't possibly tell you how happy I am that it has been 16 years since I was in that marriage and situation.

 

Having a Christian dating relationship and marriage was a disaster. I regret the years of teaching "True Love Waits". Not for whether or not my opinion on premarital sex has changed but more the attitudes behind more of it. It feels like it was really a precursor movement to the courting movement. Somebody's value is not wrapped up in their sex life.

[mommaduck]

PinkintheBlue, yes, I believe it was said tongue in cheek ;)

[Jenny in Florida]

I"m not sure where you live but I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country, and the above is not what I'm seeing. 

 

  There is a lot of hanging in large groups, but there's also casually dating where the "couple" goes out occasionally, may accompany each other to school events and gets to know each other, or long (or short) term dating of one person to see if it goes anywhere.   Yes, there are some teens having casual sex without any relationship but for the vast majority it is not that casual - they are in what they consider a committed, exclusive relationship. 

 

Unless we are using different terminology and you mean any relationship that doesn't lead to marriage is automatically casual?

 

I wonder, too, because I also see plenty of young people doing what I would consider perfectly normal dating. Around here, the terminology I hear is that one "dates" someone when it's casual and non-exclusive. When both parties change their Facebook relationship statuses to indicate they are "involved," that person becomes the boyfriend/girlfriend. Those relationships are exclusive but not necessarily headed toward marriage. Obviously, I haven't discussed these things in detail with the teens I know, but my impression is that even several months of boyfriend/girlfriend partnering does not necessarily imply sex. 

 

I've read a lot of books and articles that suggest some kids are living very different lives, but I don't think it's the majority.

 

Edited to add: I was a little nervous to do so, but I hit Google to see if I could find any stats to back up my impressions. Fortunately, the first thing I found was a report from the CDC.

 

As of 2013, 46.8% of American high school students had had sex ever, 34% had had sex in the past three months, and 15% had had four or more partners in their lives.

 

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the percentage of teens who have ever had sex has actually decreased in the past couple of decades.

 

Taking into account that this includes teens up to age 18 or 19, I really don't think the picture is as dire as some folks want to paint it. Would I prefer to see kids wait a little longer? Probably. But if more than half of all high schoolers are still virgins and only about a third of them have had more than three partners, it's not like there's a big old orgy happening out there. Obviously, there are plenty of teens who are dating and not having sex at all and most of them are having sex relatively infrequently and with a very limited number of people.

 

Edit to add to my edit: The HHS article beaks down the age groups a little more. Among ninth graders, about 32% have had sex. The percentage increases with each grade, topping out at 62% among 12th graders.

[Shahrazad]

Yes, PinkInTheBlue, I was being sarcastic ;). My husband and I aren't Christian, we are Muslim.

[Trish]

This isn't hyperbole. This is a logic fail. We have to assume the worst because with Hitler there was no best. If you were Hitler it wouldn't matter that your husband was Mother Teresa...

 

Why am I explaining this? I'm not even sure.

 

Hitler, Mother Theresa and God walk into a bar. Hitler and Mother Theresa are dressed in fig leaves...

 

[LucyStoner]

Simple. If both individuals are committed to loving one another, serving each other to the best of their abilities, communicating clearly and respectfully, and not giving up on one another, you have a solid marriage.

 

Compatibility is all well and good, but no marriage will work if work is not put in. Love is so much more an action than a feeling. The above was just an absurdity to demonstrate the point - the individuals and their qualities matter far less than how they choose to act, think, and respond within the context of their marriage.

 

Great people have made terrible spouses, and milk toast people have had incredible marriages. There is more to it than chemistry, compatibility, and what society might deign valuable or desirable qualities.

 

I refuse the notion that a happy, healthy marriage is just based on the luck or skill in selecting the *perfect* companion. That's nonsense and yet something our culture seems to buy wholesale and teach to our children. So sad.

 

 

Plenty of people are just not going to be happy married to certain people or to ANY PERSON.  Unhappy people can't really have very happy marriages.

 

Perhaps the issue is in the definition of "successful"?

 

Maybe any two reasonably non-nasty people can have an on paper milquetoast marriage, but no, every random pairing of two people can not have a fantastic marriage. 

[Trish]

That's why I am in favor of courtship. But it isn't a magic bullet.

 

Magic Bullet?

 

Now my mind is going off in the direction of the Kennedy assassination.

 

I think the metaphors are having a drunken Friday might happy hour.

[DesertBlossom]

I gave you a less extreme example in the case of an emotionally and physically abusive husband and a victimized wife. According to your logic, they could make it work and have a successful marriage if they just love Jesus enough.

If a person truly loves Jesus, then they follow his example and live the commandment, specifically to love one another. "Loving Jesus" means living a Christlike life. And abusing your spouse is absolutely not that. I absolutely beleive that any 2 people could make a marriage if they were committed to being (or learning to be) selfless, kind, forgiving, etc.

[LucyStoner]

Magic Bullet?

 

Now my mind is going off in the direction of the Kennedy assassination.

 

I think the metaphors are having a drunken Friday might happy hour.

 

My mind goes to a vibrating mechanical, uh, alternative to marriage. 

 

[Rosie_0801]

If a person truly loves Jesus, then they follow his example and live the commandment, specifically to love one another. "Loving Jesus" means living a Christlike life. And abusing your spouse is absolutely not that. I absolutely beleive that any 2 people could make a marriage if they were committed to being (or learning to be) selfless, kind, forgiving, etc.

 

People can think they are doing their utmost to be selfless, kind and forgiving while their partner is absolutely not experiencing that at all. If they think they are doing their 100% very best in those areas, how exactly are they going to commit to being better? How does one commit to being better than they can imagine? How does one commit to being better than they are capable of being? How do you make someone believe their best isn't actually their best?

 

Could well be that humanity is more complicated than some people around here think.

[DesertBlossom]

People can think they are doing their utmost to be selfless, kind and forgiving while their partner is absolutely not experiencing that at all. If they think they are doing their 100% very best in those areas, how exactly are they going to commit to being better? How does one commit to being better than they can imagine? How does one commit to being better than they are capable of being? How do you make someone believe their best isn't actually their best?

 

Could well be that humanity is more complicated than some people around here thin

 

I said two people doing that could make a marriage work. 

 

Being able to change does require a certain degree of humility. Being able to admit that you have shortcomings (and we ALL do) and being willing to try to change them. I think everyone is capable of change, regardless of bad or already good they are. There are plenty of people who think they are perfect, when in fact they are self-centered jerks who hurt the people they claim  to love.  As for how to make them realize that?  Some people never figure it out. Some people experience a life-changing event or nearly lose everything which causes them to reevaluate their own behavior. 

[HS Mom in NC]

And for the record, having sex on the first date is not at all unusual or looked down around here, but not as common as the expectation of sex by the third date.  So yes, there are a lot of people who aren't excited about the current dating culture and even if they have no objections to premarital sex, even they have objections to expectations of promiscuous sex all the time.   I think the article downplayed that a lot and ignored the reality in many circles of equal but opposite cultural norms putting pressure on singles.

[Joanne]

This only works if both spouses "put Jesus first."

 

Maybe we all need to define exactly what we mean by "put Jesus first." For me, it's about developing Christlike attributes, like kindness, forgiveness, love, charity, .

These attributes are common to all people of maturity, wisdom, and personal growth. I see them (and many others) embraced, developed and encouraged by people of all faiths and people of no faith.

 

Sorry, but I am not a fan of the phrase or idea of "Christian values" because I find it inaccurate and exclusionary.

[Desert Rat]

I'm screwed. I only like Jesus. Explains a lot.

You made me spit out my water. :)   

 

I think it explains a lot about me, too! 

[FaithManor]

Yah, I am not sure where the idea that only Christians exhibit kindness, love, charity, forgiveness....my cousin is an atheist and she is amazing in her ability to show compassion, unconditional love, mercy, and grace. I see these traits in great measure in my dh's Buddist uncle as well as in numerous secular organizations employing people from a myriad of backgrounds doing things like digging wells in Uganda or running free medical clinics in Nicaragua, etc.

 

 

[mommaduck]

Maybe you'd make an awesome nun, Sadie?

 

Not sure your kids would be thrilled, though!

Why would you assume that?

[maize]

Why would you assume that?

Oh lighten up.

 

Mom runs off to a convent leaving kids behind...

[mommaduck]

Oh lighten up.

 

Mom runs off to a convent leaving kids behind...

 

Given that in our faith there are those that do become nuns after they're done raising their children, it didn't seem funny, but rather insulting. Given that she had no problem using other insulting examples, I figured this was another ignorant jab about people and people of faiths other than her own.

[albeto.]

 

Curious how you explain healthy non-Christian marriages.

 

We just don't know that we love Jesus.  :closedeyes:

[mommaduck]

We just don't know that we love Jesus.  :closedeyes:

 

Yeah...interesting that no response was actually given. I was explaining to my son that I was raised in a church where we were led to believe that only Christian marriages are stable and last. The only Christians have a basis for morality and ethics. Only Christian children will turn out well. Etc, etc. I'm still a Christian, but I've come so far in my growth and thinking to know that this is NOT true. I'm grateful for my church (entirely different than what I was raised) that recognises the importance any and every marriage, regardless of faith (many of our saints were in mixed faith marriages or had marriages where one partner converted to another faith). And I believe some of them were long term marriages (they weren't all tales of husband's killing their Christian wives or some such). It really made me look at things differently. I've come to know MANY people of other faiths with lasting and loving marriages. That tells me that healthy marriages are based on something more basic than a particular faith.

[albeto.]

NO. According to my example, they can make it work if they love one ANOTHER enough to respect, communicate, serve, and cherish the other person. And do these things even when they don't feel like it, when the other person has wronged them, when they aren't being very lovable or fun or healthy or patient.

 

I don't believe even an abusive relationship cannot be healed if both people want to do so. Forgiveness is powerful and healing can occur. But I have never and would never advocate a woman or man stay in a dangerous situation. The law is there to protect us for a reason and the governing authorities must be involved in a case of abuse. Nowhere did I say anyone should stay if they are being hurt, and I'm grateful I have never been in a church or received counsel from someone who believes that.

 

What I do believe is that even an abusive person is not beyond God's power to forgive or be saved. Whether or not their spouse takes them back if they change is so very individual and I wouldn't presume to know the answer to that. But if both spouses committed to making their marriage better, deeper, more tender, and more enduring, I firmly believe they can learn the skills to do so and keep trying and adjusting until they've found what works for them.

 

Someone in unrepentant sin, which abusing a spouse would absolutely qualify as? That spouse has every right and reason to seek safety and legal redress. Even forgiving them doesn't mean being an emotional or physical punching bag. If the other person leaves, I believe the remaining spouse is freed from obligation to a marriage with them by way of abandonment.

 

That's what happened with my mom and dad. Mom couldn't make it work when she'd already been given up on, and she didn't have to. But does that mean she and her second husband had a perfect marriage with no issues, fights, or differences? No. It means they both have worked on themselves and their relationship and committed to the other person.

 

This is an example of subjective, experiential thinking. It's the idea that explains how our experiences are assumed to be rather universal. The fact of the matter is, love, respect, service, charity, and good communication are all impossibly personal to define. What you identify as being loving I identify as manipulative and abusive. So then feeling loving isn't the answer. It couldn't be. It also doesn't explain arranged marriages, or marriages in which the two spouses find different ideals and goals favorable. Two (or more) people can feel as loving and respectful as they can possibly feel, and yet not have what it takes to make a marriage successful. This is a fact, which makes your explanation here rather awkward, even if it is a highly popular one. Your first idea about loving Christ more than the spouse is illogical at best, and rather silly when it's broken down and looked at in any detail. 

[albeto.]

I am well versed, thanks. It's hyperbole.

 

It's interesting from my point of view to watch the reaction to a comment I assumed right away was meant as hyperbole. It's particularly interesting because I don't share the same opinion about both parties, which makes this imaginary union that much more interesting to ponder. I think of Hitler as a guy wrapped up in the social-economic groupthink of his time. He took it to extreme measures, being supported by people he trusted and respected all the way. So too did Agnes (Mother Teresa). Both of them did rather horrifying things when they most likely genuinely believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing overall. I think it's a handy example of how little we may understand and interpret another person's intent based on their outward behavior. I think this is why your earlier prescription - Christ - is worth calling out. People do all kinds of things they believe to be good with all kinds of noble intent, but that doesn't make them socially appropriate, in society as well as in a marriage. 

[mommaduck]

No randomness about it. You've said plenty of offensive things on this thread. However, if that is how your sense of humour runs and you're pleased with yourself, then carry on. I'm starting to realise that I can't take anything you say seriously.

[albeto.]

Albeto and mommaduck, I'm done explaining this. I explained my position in detail both on this thread and privately. I indicated these were my own experiences and the counsel that helped me with my marriage, and that I am a firm believer in the efficacy based on personal experience in having dragged a relationship (with a solid foundation of friendship, attraction, and compatibility) back from the brink.

 

My point is that your personal experience is just that - personal. To offer it as advice, as you clearly did in your first post, is not only factually errant, but potentially offensive (as I think has been illustrated already).

 

I didn't make a blanket prescription for everyone else, I wasn't talking about unbelievers (note, the original blog was written by a Christian, I talked about courtship and marriage from that perspective alone), I specifically indicated that I don't believe abuse should be dealt with quietly or without interventions for safety, and I've been very clear and forthright in explaining my position both on the premise and the out working of it in my own life, having run the gamut of relationships from typical to abusive to a successful courtship model as an adult.

 

I don't follow the abuse reference, but you did make a blanket prescription when you linked the article and quoted the "best part:"

 

"A marriage is kept from failure by both spouses loving Christ more than each other..."

 

This is a rather straight forward statement you offered. I disagreed and gave my reasons. No hostility from my end. Just a conversation. It's all good. ;)