In modern society it is a frequent occurance to see couples divorce. It is a disturbing thing to see, yet, interestingly enough, not so disturbing as even 50 years ago. In Hollywood it is not uncommon to divorce after a week or a month.
The Bible acts as a “Marriage for Idiots” workbook. Yes-the ideas are difficult to work out in our own selfish and sinful lives-but it is not for lack of knowledge. The Bible gives us the reason WHY marriage is good. It tells us what NOT to do (BEFORE marriage and DURING), what TO do, why we should and shouldn’t do these things, HOW we must do them, and what will happen if we do-or don’t. The Bible also tells us the ONLY biblical means this covenant is broken…and that, only because we are sinful. It even clearly lays out a perfect example of marital unity-that of, Christ and the Church.
So why is it that this black plague falls on not just those who “don’t know better” but those who do? Certainly there are MANY different reasons…but here is one in particular that I think may be more the culprit than one might first assume. It is an important thing to ponder as well, if that pondering may lead us to the truth and thus encourage us to take better care of our marriages…as good as they may be at the present. Wait one moment while I get up on my soapbox….
Ugh-ummm….
Okay. Have you ever noticed that often times the divorce of everyday people (Hollywood people excluded, as always-they are they’re own sort.) occurs later in life? How many times have you heard about a couple’s marital relationship disintengrating after 15, 20, 30 years of marriage? While studying in Nursing school, during a lecture on “mental health and childrearing”, it was said that more than half of the divorces that happen today are with couples who have been married for 10+ years. Frankly, at first, I couldn’t understand it. If you can stand each other for 10, 20, or 30 years, why wouldn’t you be able to put up with one another for the rest of your lives? Then, it occurred to me. AH HA!
It was happening at a time when the kids were growing up and moving out…going to college, getting married, getting apartments and careers of their own. Their adult lives had been put on hold, for the glorious cause of child-rearing…but they sacrificed wholly themselves and their interests and put the children first in everything. The desires of their heart were overshadowed by the desires for their children and so nothing outside of their children was cultivated. Instead, these areas were left to starve, shrivel, and die away. But first, weeds grew up and around them so that the damage could not be seen until they had already turned to dust.
Suddenly, their livelihood had up and moved on…and they were left with nothing. No longer were the kids the focus of their lives as they had been for so long-and what was to take the place of the empty void where their children had once been? Nothing. Unfortunately, one of these starved areas was that of the spouse. Somewhere along the way, the love had been lost and the children had grown around it and kept two souls united in parenting, but not in love. Then, when the children moved on, it was obvious that the love had been lost.
I have had this in my head for years now. I read a book a very long time ago and just recently brought it out again to look through. It is called Christian Living in the Home by Jay E. Adams and I would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a random recommendation. :-) (If you disagree with me, that’s okay-at least I have Mr. Adams on my side! :-) )
He so aptly points out,
“Although he must leave his father and mother, the man must cleave unto his wife….Unlike the parent-child relationship, the husband-wife relationship is permanent. According to scripture, it must never be broken. While the parent-child relationship is close, it is never described in terms of “one flesh” or “cleaving”…But a husband and wife must join and continue to live in unity of soul, spirit, and body throughout the remainder of their lives. Nothing but death must be allowed to break that unity.” (page 52)
He then reminds the reader,
“God put a husband and wife in the garden, not a parent and child.” (page 52)
So there you have it. We make our children into idols and sacrifice everything we have for them and their love. As a brief side-note, I want to ask this question. All this is done in the name of what? Are we doing our children a favor? Certainly not. By putting our CHILDREN before our husbands (or wives) we are teaching our children to be comfortable being “first” in peoples’ lives and by doing so, we are teaching them to be uncompassionate, selfish, greedy, impatient, and all those other bad things. :-) We exemplify a distorted view of marriage. We become over-protective of our children and less able to let them go (which can in turn ruin future relationships with their spouses, hence the stereotype of mother-in-laws.) Finally, and sadly, if this seperation leads to divorce, obviously all are affected by that. Even future generations.
So what must we do to keep this from happening? The answer is simple. Put our spouses first in our lives. Talk about things other than the children. Do things solely for your husband (or wife). Be greedy with the time spent with your spouse. Have time alone-without the children around to distract and preoccupy your thoughts. Cultivate your love.
“You see, love doesn’t come, as fool’s believe, full blown from the head of Aphrodite. Love must grow. It has to be watered, nourished, and cared for. It must be cultivated. It has to be weeded too. Love has it’s problems, but real love can grow tall and strong when it is cultivated as God says.” (page 100)
“The best way to be a good father to your children is to be a good husband to their mother.”
-unknown
8 comments:
I just accidentally erased my whole comment. GRRRR.
I hadn't really thought through what I was writing before, anyway. Here's a second try, replete with the thoughtlessness of the first.
I tentatively agree with much of your post--tentatively because I think that some could misuse his statements to not care as fully for their children as they should (probably those who would look to indulge more of self than they ought, anyway, whether or not they had children). I also think that his quotes (granted, I don't know the context, and am probably assuming all sorts of wrong notions) place too vast a gulf between the role of wife and mother, or rather between the roles of husband/wife and parent/child. The childrens' mother is the wife who is married to the father of her husband's children. All roles are bound and wound around each other, and I think it's oversimplifying things to separate the two entirely. That having been said, I emphatically agree that "...love doesn’t come, as fool’s believe, full blown from the head of Aphrodite. Love must grow. It has to be watered, nourished, and cared for. It must be cultivated." What I don't understand is his next statement that "It has to be weeded,too." because I don't know what "weeds" he is referring to. I agree that weeds grow up to choke out godly love and that they need to be uprooted, but if he is referring to an "excessive" love for a child, then I disagree. One can never have too much love for one's child, although one CAN express love in wrong and unhealthy ways or even think a self-motivated need for their children is truly love. The latter two should be weeded out, but a true and God-given love for children will never interfere with or supplant one's love for one's husband or wife--it will supplement and support it instead. And love has no bounds. We don't have to take love from one in order to give it to another. (If this was the case, my love for John would have been transferred to Millie, and my love for Millie would have been passed along to Annie, leaving the first two bereft! A side note in this too-long diatribe: I remember telling my Mom before Annika was born that I didn't understand how I would have enough love for TWO children because I already loved the one so much.)
I also agree with your insight that "By putting our CHILDREN before our husbands (or wives) we are teaching our children to be comfortable being “first” in peoples’ lives and by doing so, we are teaching them to be uncompassionate, selfish, greedy, impatient, and all those other bad things." This is why we must as husband and wife--best friends--put not each other but our Lord first in all things and teach our children to do the same. If this is how we live our lives, our love for our children will not weaken our love for our spouse. A cord with three strands.
I also agree that husbands and wives need to spend time together, talking and growing closer as friends. I don't know if this was their intent, but for as long as I can remember, after my parents got all of us kids ready for bed or at least somewhat settled, they would go in their bedroom and lock the door. If we came downstairs, we could hear their voices through the door, talking and sharing their day with each other and preparing for the next. I like that. They didn't take time away from us, but they did give important time to each other.
Anyway, thanks for your post. I really enjoyed it, and I'd like to borrow the book sometime to find out how wrong I was to assume things. And I DO agree that husbands and wives need to continually spend time strengthening their love, even though my brief stint as Devil's Advocate made it seem otherwise. :)
I am the most nitty of nit-pickers. You can banish me, if you'd like. John likes "precision of language" and often catches me speaking unclearly (big surprise, there), so I couldn't pass up the chance to catch someone else (not you, Rebecca!).
Another fragment of a quote, perhaps entirely different in its totality, states, “Although he must leave his father and mother, the man must cleave unto his wife….Unlike the parent-child relationship, the husband-wife relationship is permanent. While the parent-child relationship is close, it is never described in terms of “one flesh” or “cleaving”…But a husband and wife must join and continue to live in unity of soul, spirit, and body throughout the remainder of their lives. Nothing but death must be allowed to break that unity.” (page 52)
He then reminds the reader,
“God put a husband and wife in the garden, not a parent and child.” (page 52)
Again, I think this is an oversimplification of complex and over1apping familial roles. God gave Adam his wife as a helpmeet; the woman provided help and companionship, but, in her, God also provided His chosen means to continue the human race. If He had placed a parent and child in Eden, reproduction, the admittedly essential part of the husband-wife relationship if physically possible and one way in which we can "replenish the earth", would have been entirely bypassed.
Also (as if that comment wasn't enough!), the parent-child relationship IS permanent, although the relationship does (or SHOULD) adjust once the child leaves the home (e.g. the parent gives counsel instead of commands, etc.). Although this relationship can be severed for valid reasons (i.e. disowning), and we are never commanded, like we are for marriage, to be bound for life, the general case in healthy parent-child relationships, as it is in healthy marriage relationships, is that the participants do remain close for life. The first example from scripture that I thought of was the example of Joseph and his father Jacob. Even after Joseph has been living in Egypt with 2 children of his own (see Gen. 48:5), he helps his father move from a place of famine and gives him "a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land..." (Gen. 47:11). When Jacob is close to death, he calls Joseph to him and gives his a double portion of his inheritance, while also blessing the worthy brothers born of Leah. (Those who have sinned against him, though, like Reuben, do not receive a blessing.) Even though he is grown and has his own family, Joseph remains close to Jacob, and their relationship ends only at death. I think this passage, too, is a good example of the lack of closeness in a parent-child relationship, too, due to sin or wrongdoing, just as a marriage will lack closeness if sin is present. (Although I don't mean to equate the husband-wife relationship and parent-child relationship, of course.)
None of this is new to you or would be to the author, but at least I've satisfied my "precise language" requirement for the day. Thanks for enduring. :)
(oh! and I'm the Queen of your Comments section again! Do I get a crown or something...?)
Queen Abby~
Thanks for your response…it has added some necessary thought to my original argument and served to clarify things left somewhat vague. For the responses, I found it easier to keep your wording and respond afterwards-saved me typing it over. I hope you don’t mind!
"That having been said, I emphatically agree that "...love doesn’t come, as fool’s believe, full blown from the head of Aphrodite. Love must grow. It has to be watered, nourished, and cared for. It must be cultivated." What I don't understand is his next statement that "It has to be weeded,too." because I don't know what "weeds" he is referring to."
This quote I found in a different chapter but it seemed to apply and serve as an adequate epilogue to my “essay”. The chapter where it was found was in a chapter called “Loving Leadership” in which contextually, it was referring to man and wife on the verge of divorce. He was saying that a failed marriage may seem impossible, but it can be saved…Love just isn’t there-it must be worked on. The ungodly things that are causing a rift between man and woman need to be discarded, and holy things taken up. I thought it worked well with my thoughts, not because children are weeds (hehehe) but rather, that marital love is an ACTIVE love. I wanted to stress that we mustn’t forget to work on it, nourish it and let it grow. Children can consume our days so much so that we take for granted our marital love and therefore don’t cultivate it as we should. We are content to know it’s there somewhere…which can be dangerous because perhaps it won’t be years later. So you see, he really wasn’t referring to children at all in that quote.
"One can never have too much love for one's child, although one CAN express love in wrong and unhealthy ways or even think a self-motivated need for their children is truly love. The latter two should be weeded out, but a true and God-given love for children will never interfere with or supplant one's love for one's husband or wife--it will supplement and support it instead."
The intent of my argument (and Jay Adams statements) was to denounce the unhealthy expression of love, not to put a limit on it. You know the sort, over-indulgence, non-discipline, dependence upon, etc. These things are to the detriment of both child and spouse. Certainly, our children deserve all the love we can give them…but so do our husbands. Not that by giving of one we sacrifice the other entirely…but it is possible to be so devoted to one so as not to give enough to the other. Maybe you have a tremendous LOVE for both of them, but you don’t balance it equally. A great example would be if you are so focused on your child that when your husband comes home from work you tell him all about the children and don’t even bother asking him about his day. Or if you make dinners only that the children like, and never think of what your husband might like. Those are just superficial examples, but the main thrust of the argument remains…a spouse should be seen to first. I agree though, that a God-given love for children will supplement and support your love for your spouse. It seems to me, there are few things as unifying as holding hubby’s hand while watching our child who is a piece of both of us both in genes and character. The best way to avoid these unhealthy expressions of love was not in what I said but in what you said.
"This is why we must as husband and wife--best friends--put not each other but our Lord first in all things and teach our children to do the same. If this is how we live our lives, our love for our children will not weaken our love for our spouse. A cord with three strands."
This is a wonderful insight, that unfortunately, was missing in my original thought. It really is the entire thesis of thought, so…oops. As always, we live for the Lord and must act accordingly. Well put!
"Again, I think this is an oversimplification of complex and over1apping familial roles. God gave Adam his wife as a helpmeet; the woman provided help and companionship, but, in her, God also provided His chosen means to continue the human race. If He had placed a parent and child in Eden, reproduction, the admittedly essential part of the husband-wife relationship if physically possible and one way in which we can "replenish the earth", would have been entirely bypassed."
As for the quote about “leave and cleave”, I had some problems with this while I was reading this because it seemed to me to be incomplete. What you say is true and he could have expounded upon that fact, but I took the import of his idea as this. That as our children will leave us, our spouses never will. Certainly, our duties are not eradicated when our children move out, our responsibilities just change. Our boys become men and leaders in their home, our girls become women under the headship of her husband. We are still their parents, we just fulfill that role differently. I guess I decided Jay Adams meant that though children will leave and our roles will change, our spouses never will and our relationship will not change in it’s essence…perhaps it will get better but the duties thereof will not change. It seemed to me he was putting into perspective our relationship as spousal versus parental and encouraging us to put the spousal relationship first so as to strengthen it to withstand the years.
I think that you would enjoy reading the book, and it may clear things up since I took random quotes from here, there, and everywhere. Quotes, just plucked without context, is hard for anyone to understand completely. It seems to me we (and J. Adams) are in perfect agreement. I just need to work on expounding upon certain areas and perhaps qualifying here and there. Since we own this book, next time we see you (soon?!?!) I will bring it along and you can borrow it as long as you like (although it is a very quick read!). Speaking of books, do you still plan to loan me that one you were referring to in your last letter? If so, we can do a trade-off! :-)
I'm agreed that we're agreed!
it's funny. my time spent speaking "adult" talk falls so far short of the bulk of each day's time that your blog is a refreshing way to let some out.
perhaps too much, but, still, thanks.
and as soon as i find that book you may borrow it, of course, and you should see if leah has it, because i think it'd be cool for her to read the one part i'm going to earmark for you. (i think i've told her about the excerpt before, but i'm not sure.)
i hope you haven't bought an a. geddes calender yet, or that you have enough room for one more, because one of my friends just sent me an unexpected calender gift in the mail, and our grand total for this new year(before giving some away)is seven calenders for a four room apartment...but who wants a calender in their bathroom...make that seven calenders for three rooms.
your letter/calender/maybe book is almost ready to be shipped. look for possible arrival by the week's end.
Don't tease me now, Abby. ;-)
BTW~I like adult conversation too so feel free, ANYTIME.
In this discussion, I learned one very important thing...blog comments allow much more room than I had at first anticipated. :-) THink of all the wonderful damage that could be done! hehehe.
it's all packaged and ready to be shipped, but i didn't get it out today because i was house-bound. tomorrow's the day! (and to think you've been waiting so long for this dull package...i should slip some gold dust into it to make it worth your while...)
Post a Comment