[SccHarpGirl]

I don't think the point is that a marriage is a failure if it isn't happily ever after, just that if happily ever after is achieved, it is the result of committment and hard work on the relationship.

And I think this brings us full circle to compatability. I think a marriage to just about anyone can be made to work, however, marrying someone who you are compatable with on important issues will make it easier to achieve happiness.

[Thrash]

I wonder what first century Christians, especially Gentile ones, who may have married initially for social reasons, would have done if their mate, who most likely didn't pick their spouse with compatibility in mind, was incompatible and yet realized their dedication to their spouse brought on by their faith and new understanding of love?
Certainly there were instances where their mate was completely incompatible even after a household conversion.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Yes?

I can't really make sense of the prooftexting. For instance, if we're just going full steam ahead with this Jesus/church analogy then tell me what the verdict is on that "marriage." Perhaps there are no immediately obvious markers of a successful marriage.

That doesn't make it any less valid or make your responsibility any different. It just means the marriage is falling short of the ideal.

Why should "ideal" be part of the language in terms of delineating criteria for a successful marriage? When has anyone ever been in an ideal relationship of any sort? So, yeah, that is true but it seems a trivial point. Maybe right after the wedding my spouse is hit by a bus and put into a permanent vegetative state.

Originally Posted by SccHarpGirl

I don't think the point is that a marriage is a failure if it isn't happily ever after, just that if happily ever after is achieved, it is the result of committment and hard work on the relationship.

And I think this brings us full circle to compatability. I think a marriage to just about anyone can be made to work, however, marrying someone who you are compatable with on important issues will make it easier to achieve happiness.

I think you're right on, mostly. And I think an agreement on some basic things is important for a marriage (for instance, believing in the institution of marriage in the first place) but "compatibility" may be overrated. Not to say it isn't very nice and emotionally fulfilling and all that stuff (which is highly desirable and certainly what I would want). But what if your spouse turns out to be a Bartleby or something? I mean, is compatibility a bedrock issue for a marriage?

[bobthecockroach]

My point was simply that the Bible places a certain degree of virtue on mutual delight and love in a marriage. I could've posted the entirety of Song of Solomon, but it's rather long.

"Ideal", I'll admit, was the wrong word. "Potential" would've been better. A marriage in which one partner refuses love is not meeting its potential. It still offers the opportunity to practice the love of Christ, so one can still make ideal use of it, but to imply that a marriage with mutual delight and love is no better than one without strikes me as awfully nihilistic.

[Becky]

I think you're all still thinking way too American and 21st century about all this.

The bible wasn't written for people who had a choice who they married. At least us women didn't. Our fathers chose husbands for us. We couldn't search for "the right one" or "compatibility"

So all those scriptures mentioned in this thread?? None of them are in the context of two people who have mutually chosen each other.

So we are dealing with two completely different questions here. 1. How people should choose a spouse, 2. What to do once married.

You just CANNOT deal with these questions the same way. There is wisdom that you can give a single person, to help them find a mate, that will make things easier for them once married... but when speaking about people who are already MARRIED, compatibility isn't a factor.

I listen to how you talk, and it seriously sounds as if those who are already Married to someone who they don't feel compatible with... should just give up now. But the early church WERE NOT COMPATIBLE with their spouses!
And yet... where in scripture does God tell women how to pick a husband for themselves? Where does God tell us how to test if someone is compatible? If this was THAT important to being married, why are there no instructions in scripture?

You are taking something that is HELPFUL and making it more central then it is. Its an American ideal, simply put, not a biblical necessity.

I think that when two people make an effort to become one, with the power of Jesus in their lives, they will not fail. No matter how different, how unalike, they will still become one. Maybe it will take more work, but don't talk as if its unlikely.

That's why wisdom in choosing a spouse, and wisdom in being married, are NOT compatible topics of discussion.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Becky

I think you're all still thinking way too American and 21st century about all this.

The bible wasn't written for people who had a choice who they married. At least us women didn't. Our fathers chose husbands for us. We couldn't search for "the right one" or "compatibility"

I really don't think this is anywhere close to accurate in reality. By the time of the judges, Samson picked his wife, and there are more than a few other examples. Michael daughter of Saul definitely comes to mind.

Couples still chose each other, but there was a whole lot more veto power going on.

So all those scriptures mentioned in this thread?? None of them are in the context of two people who have mutually chosen each other.

Not entirely true. I can think of numerous examples which lead me to believe that it was more of a family decision than the father.

So we are dealing with two completely different questions here. 1. How people should choose a spouse, 2. What to do once married.

You just CANNOT deal with these questions the same way. There is wisdom that you can give a single person, to help them find a mate, that will make things easier for them once married... but when speaking about people who are already MARRIED, compatibility isn't a factor.

I listen to how you talk, and it seriously sounds as if those who are already Married to someone who they don't feel compatible with... should just give up now. But the early church WERE NOT COMPATIBLE with their spouses!

Some likely were, some likely were not. Some obviously were not because we have instructions on what to do when the unbelieving spouse leaves. However, we also have the fact that Paul instructs women not to marry non-believers which requires they have some degree of autonomy. In numerous cultures in NT times the situation was more class defined than now, but one did find one's own spouse. One danger in making generalizations is that the NT alone incorporates Greek, Roman, Jewish, and even in some areas Gaelic and Germanic cultures. (Galatia, Spain, etc)

The OT spans over a thousand years and touches literally dozens of cultures so we can't hardly make a good solid generalization. However,

And yet... where in scripture does God tell women how to pick a husband for themselves? Where does God tell us how to test if someone is compatible? If this was THAT important to being married, why are there no instructions in scripture?

1 Corinthians 7 as a whole does deal with this issue more from a male side. However, near the end of the chapter, you find this

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

And this part only makes sense if the woman can choose

An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Now Corinth is not Israel and the culture is drastically different, but that group had freedom. I am fairly certain Galatia, Greece, and Egypt would have been far more familiar to us than a father negotiating a spouse solo. Israel, post Hasmonean period had a lot of helenistic ideals as well, so I think it is fair to say that there would have been a broad variety of practices, but moving away from the father choosing a bride long ago by this point.

You are taking something that is HELPFUL and making it more central then it is. Its an American ideal, simply put, not a biblical necessity.

Be careful though, because it is relatively modern in some areas does not mean it is good, or bad.

I saw a traditional bride purchase in PNG while I was there. The uncles had set the bride price, and yet... the couple had clearly chosen each other and had been inseparable as children from all accounts. I find it hard to believe that such things would not factor in to the most traditional cultures because the couples choice does not strictly conflict with societal mores in a lot of cases.

I will just say this. It actually was beautiful and the couple were clearly more in love than most American weddings I have been to.

I think that when two people make an effort to become one, with the power of Jesus in their lives, they will not fail. No matter how different, how unalike, they will still become one. Maybe it will take more work, but don't talk as if its unlikely.

I agree, but it is a whole lot easier to love your best friend than someone whose normal habits bug the crap out of you.

That's why wisdom in choosing a spouse, and wisdom in being married, are NOT compatible topics of discussion.

I could not possibly agree more.

And if you keep looking to see if you are compatible as if there is a question, after the wedding... that sounds to me like looking for a way out.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Probably because the author is working against the popular romanticist ideals most Americans (and American Christians) buy into.

I don't think they do. I think the idealist, romantic notions are about narcisism and lust masquerading as love. Marriage as a whole is depicted as anything but romantic. I'll be blunt. I think most Christians sell romance short in marriage because it takes work, and self sacrificial love to keep alive, and most folks are looking for something that feels so right without work.

On a side note. I get maniacally happy scheming and working to make my wife happy. Work to make your marriage work can in itself be fun and romantic.

What sense? Tell this single person.

I don't know exactly how to put it other than prior to marriage I had a grinding loneliness. The Genesis passage that it was not good for man to be alone was a giant thing that to read elicited a giant, "Duh, cause this sucks" sort of response.

While I do get lonely, I have someone beside me who is every bit a part of my life who has my back no matter what.

I doubt that is going to help, but in a sense, having a helper does make life so much less lonely that I can't really accurately explain it.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

..

Instead of trying to stop playing a role-- again, a move whose aim is your happiness-- try playing a different role whose aim is someone else's happiness. Why not play the part of the happy husband of three kids? Why not pretend to be devoted to your family to the exclusion of other things? Why not play the part of the man who isn't tempted to sleep with the woman at the airport bar?

"But that's dishonest, I'd be lying to myself." Your kids will not know to ask: so?

The narcissist demands absolutism in all things-- relative to himself.

And so "being who you are" becomes not just the primary, but the *only* virtue.

And so when staying with your wife requires doing things you don't want to do or accepting things you don't want to accept, you leave.

I'd say to take this one step further. We choose our own identities, we really do to a very large degree. Instead of playing the role, become it. We change who we are all the time.

BTW, I really loved the quote you threw out there.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I'd say to take this one step further. We choose our own identities, we really do to a very large degree. Instead of playing the role, become it. We change who we are all the time.

BTW, I really loved the quote you threw out there.

Don't you think this puts a little bit of stress on your ideas on compatibility in marriage? Maybe I am reading you wrong...

Ultimately, I don't think its that big of an issue. But, I think maybe this idea of compatibility may be a bit vague...

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Don't you think this puts a little bit of stress on your ideas on compatibility in marriage? Maybe I am reading you wrong...

Ultimately, I don't think its that big of an issue. But, I think maybe this idea of compatibility may be a bit vague...

Not at all. My ideas on compatability are pretty simple.
1) If you have a choice, use it well
2) find someone whose core values align with yours. If you don't it will be one sided and while this is right and can be done, it does not sound like fun or like a smart move to me.
3) Find someone you enjoy being around. Most people in dating put a ridiculous focus on the sexual. While sex is important as an issue in marriage, I would say it is relatively small as a majority of the time I am with my wife we are fully clothed and not engaged in sex. I'd put friendship high in my list of compatibility issues. Because most of the time, your spouse is your companion and friend and that is what marriage really comes down to for me.

Am I saying everything is necessary to do the right thing? Of course not, but I think there are issues where compatibility at a basic level come to the forefront. I knew some really, really great girls in college who were dead wrong for me. One, I was friends with, but we could easily get on each other's nerves by simple things. Another, was very easily steamrolled, and my personality in real life needs to be offset by someone strong and opinionated as well, otherwise without meaning to I can ride roughshod over their wishes while trying not to. To me, that was very important.

There are some things you can't change. As calm and quiet as I can be, I still tend to overwhelm mellower (gentler, more calm, saner, better, might be a better choice of adjective) personalities. I can't help it that a girl I knew got annoyed with the fact that when in a room alone I think out loud.

But these are personality. I don't think you can change that easy. Identity is a different matter entirely. One chooses their identity through choice in music, career, hobbies, etc. We can even usually change what we like if we tell ourselves we like it or that we should like it.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I'd say to take this one step further. We choose our own identities, we really do to a very large degree. Instead of playing the role, become it. We change who we are all the time.

Indeed.

I know, it's hard to keep those emotions in check after your boss has been riding you all day. Yet then the UPS guy comes to the door and you are instantly nice, bright, warm. "Hey, thanks, have a good one buddy! Go Raiders!" You'll say it's an act, but the other way of looking at it is that you think it's worth faking politeness to the UPS guy, but not to your family. See? Does your family need to see the real, irritable you?

Oh, I hear you, my special, special, generation, the one that counts hypocrisy the greatest of all possible sins: "if I can't be myself at home, what's the point?" Because that isn't the real you, there isn't a you. Who you are is what you do. If you come home and are cranky and curt and bossy at home, then you are a jerk. You don't get to say, "I'm a nice person, but I just happen to be irritable every day."

But now I'm drifting (somewhat) from the topic at hand. To get back to it:

Originally Posted by Becky

I listen to how you talk, and it seriously sounds as if those who are already Married to someone who they don't feel compatible with... should just give up now. But the early church WERE NOT COMPATIBLE with their spouses!
And yet... where in scripture does God tell women how to pick a husband for themselves? Where does God tell us how to test if someone is compatible? If this was THAT important to being married, why are there no instructions in scripture?

Not at all. If you're married, you're married, and you should devote yourself to being the best husband or wife you can be. Which is why I said:

"And so 'because she's your wife' is no longer a good enough reason to help out, or write love notes, or give up behavior that bothers her, or take her out, or have sex, or stay faithful. The only reason recognized for doing any of those things is because you feel like it."

Even if you don't feel compatible, you should do those things. Because it's the right thing to do. Even if you don't "feel like it."

As for the importance of compatibility in marriage, it just makes the aforementioned things (helping out, writing love notes, giving up behaviors that hurt the other, going out, having sex, and staying faithful) easier. When you WANT to do those things, it's a lot easier to be a good husband or wife. Compatibility is a spark that gets the fire of mutual love and delight going. Commitment and work sustain it.

But since everyone reading this thread *does* have a choice in spouse, why would you not choose someone you *want* to be with?

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by SccHarpGirl

I did not care for this article. I had to read it a few times to figure out what was so off-putting about it to me. I think the author sounds very bitter. The general theme is "After you get married, your partner will change into someone you barely recognize, and certainly do not love, but you need to stick with them anyway".

I find that in Christian circles far too much emphasis is placed on "Marriage is painful and hard". I know that many people feel the need to combat the disney-esque mentality of "And they lived happily ever after" by providing a dose of reality, to warn people not to split the first time they have a real fight, or wonder just what they've gotten themselves into.

I have been meaning to respond to this post. Sorry it is coming so late.

I do know that you get a lot of Christians trying to combat the unrealistic marriage, and it coming off as marriage sucks. The thing is, we need to find a good way to combat the fact that Christians, like non-Christians, are waiting longer and longer to get married, and Christians are getting divorced at almost the same rate as non-Christians. It sounds like something is seriously wrong with their idea of what marriage is. How do you think we, as Christians, ought to address this poor vision? How might we correct man's unfaithfulness to his spouse? How might two be joined together until death?

I remember growing up and wondering why people would ever get married if it's so awful. But the thing is, I don't believe that people are never compatible. I've dated a few people in my life, and I can definitely say that I'm more compatible with my fiance than anyone else I've ever been with. Are we 100% compatible? Certainly not. Of course, there are things about him that annoy me, and vice versa, we both have interests that the other one tolerates but doesn't love. I recognize that we're going to change, but I hold out hope that we can change together. I guess I believe that in marriage, your partner should help you change to be a better version, a more complete version, of yourself than you could become on your own. And I do think that if you pick the right person, you will have an easier time of it than if you pick the wrong person. I agree that no two people will be perfectly in sync, I don't believe there is "The one" out there, but I do believe that some people you'll get along with better, and have a better time coming together and functioning as a couple.

I do think that love is a choice, but I don't think it's necessary the grueling, painful choice popular Christian media presents it to be. Obviously there will be hard times, but I really think that it's really, critically important for Christians to address the wonderful parts of marriage as well, and that while it's unrealistic to expect people not to change, I think that in a proper marriage the marriage doesn't suddenly transform people into complete strangers to each other (the vibe I was getting from the article), but each partner should help the other grow into their full potential - which should lead them closer to each other and to God.

I just feel that the Christian media has swing so far the oppose way - to the point where very rarely do I ever read anything about what's good about being married.

I'm marrying my fiance not because I think that things will be perfect in the future. I realize that we'll fight. I realize we'll both have moments that make us question whether or not we made the right decision. Not because I'm settling, but also not because I think he's "The One". I'm marrying my fiance because he understands me like no one else. Because he challenges me to be better than I am. Because I think we work better as a team than either of us on our own. Because I love him - both the emotional aspect of love, but also because I make the choice that he is "The One" for me - the article mentions self sacrifice and self denial as if it's a hardship, and yes, at times it is - but a lot of the time, the more I make the effort to love him and try to put his wishes above my own, the easier it gets, and the happier we become. I think it's important to remember the joy of relationships as well as the hardships.

I think Tim Keller's point is particularly aimed at the before-you-get-married angle, which is why it especially comes off negative to you. I know people who are waiting to date, waiting to get married, waiting for that special someone. Not because they think that there is some prince charming out there, but because God has given them a right to a good spouse if they would just wait for it. And, embedded in this, is the assumption that we would be able to spot 'em out as objective lovers (we can tell who is not a good spouse, we can tell who is -- if the evidence isn't clear we're compatible, keep waiting)

Tim Keller, among many others, will be in high praise of marriage as a wonderful, fulfilling institution of love. (Some of that is come across in the article, not sure if you caught it) But he's probably primarily aiming his critique at the Joyce Meyers', Joel Osteens, and others who say God's just so interested in giving us a beautiful, loving spouse and bless us. Because when we realize that our partners are broken, fallen people, one of the gut reactions is "it wasn't supposed to be this way, maybe I did wait on the one God wanted me to have." We get it in our minds that God had a gift, and we settled for less -- now, we think God ordains that we get out of our marriage and go after the other one. ... But this all comes down to why? Because we think that compatibility resides in something else. Compatibility has most to do with faithfulness, and least to do (not nothing, but least) with his tall, dark and handsome, his social prowess, his laugh, his not-failing-often, etc. Though those are important too.

This is all to say, I don't think Tim Keller is opposed to you. He isn't, in general, negative about marriage. He's just a couple bones to pick with people who are destroying the concept of marriage in the West, as if it were some commodity and we are supposed to be smart buyers who can invest in something else if it isn't trending upward. You probably just don't listen to the pastors and speakers at conferences who eat this trash up, or run in the circles where people take it all so idealistically as standard form. Because, it is usually done under the banner of Christ.

Last of all, I want to commend you for recognizing that you are not in an ultimate relationship, and that you love the man with whom you are betrothed. I hope you two don't follow the American stereotype, and continue to be good examples. Grace and peace,

Jonathan

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I could not possibly agree more.

And if you keep looking to see if you are compatible as if there is a question, after the wedding... that sounds to me like looking for a way out.

This is so crucial. I thought it needed to be repeated.