Marriage and Nominal Christianity (article)

[mkgal1]

This is what the article states about "compatibility":

The real issue before every couple is this: none of us is compatible. We’re sinners. That’s why we need something much better and sturdier as the ground of our marriages.


As stated above, no one’s compatible. Why? Because both spouses are sinners, and sin shreds even the most promising union. Compatibility might exist on paper, but as soon as two sinners start living together, it won’t in practice. Your average Hollywood couple looks so happy on paper—everything seems to match up. It’s a fairy tale! But then tensions creep in. Booming bank accounts and sexual attraction are great, but they won’t solve even the smallest issues that develop when two fallen humans unite in matrimony. Not even close.

Sexual differences matter, too. Modes of problem-solving, emotional expression, intuitional differences—all these and more often play into the strange alchemy that is the man-woman pairing. Though we all face challenges, there’s glory in the Spirit-empowered outworking of a complementary marriage. When the man feels like pulling away, he must remember it’s God’s will for him to cling to his wife. Instead of sulking, he fights for his marriage, confesses his sin, and leads in reconciliation.

To me....that all seems to be framed wrongly (and misinterpreting what compatibility is). I don't believe it's sin that gets in the way of compatibility. I'm not even sure where the author gets that from.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

That makes no sense whatsoever. We're ALL sinners...but that has nothing to do with being compatible. If you marry someone you wouldn't be friends with, then maybe you made a mistake. And here comes another problem...the requirement in some churches that young people aren't any where near the other gender...and it's seen as "keeping pure". The whole idea that if a young man and a young woman would be overcome with lust and do the horizontal bop just because they're left alone is INSANE. There's also this idea that it's up to the young woman to make sure the young man doesn't lose his stuff...she has to be modest, "pure" and the young man can never, ever have a lustful thought. Well...that's not healthy either. Young men do not turn into raving, hormonal cavemen when faced with girls in bikinis, and young women are not turned into Jezebels by looking at young men in board shorts.

That leads to another problem...the couple has kept themselves "pure" for all this time and then expected to get down and dirty a couple of hours after the wedding. They both have to overcome the thinking that they are defined by their "purity". It's a huge mind game that can send some young people into misery.

Fortunately, I was older and definitely not "pure" when I got married...Husband and I had the skills to navigate things. We had our problems but...at the end of the day, I think we were better off having had previous relationships before marrying.

 

[mkgal1]

I know----it didn't make sense to me either (that sin had anything to do with compatibility).

I also agree with you about the distancing/separating of the genders some churches encourage. That also allows the lies to be believed----because no one gets the opportunity to actually get to know members of the opposite gender very well.

Your other point about "purity" and "lust"? It just always seemed so contradictory to me. If Christianity is largely about "becoming a new creation".....and since "self-control" is one aspect of the fruit of the Spirit....then how can that be? That is a whole topic on its own.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Your other point about "purity" and "lust"? It just always seemed so contradictory to me. If Christianity is largely about "becoming a new creation".....and since "self-control" is one aspect of the fruit of the Spirit....then how can that be? That is a whole topic on its own.

I believe it's another facet of woman-shaming. Women are responsible for men's thoughts. Women are to make sure the man doesn't lust. Honey, all I can say to that is if he turns into a raving caveman over seeing a little T&A, he's got bigger problems. I wonder if it also has something to do with so many men turning to inappropriate contentography. I've known a lot of men in my life and most of them like a girl who owns her sexuality, sensuality, and while not exactly shoving it in someone's face, but being confident in it, instead of hiding it.

 

[mkgal1]

I totally agree with you (a way to shame women.....and allow men an excuse). That's all a part of a faulty system.

 

[mkgal1]

Like you posted earlier @RedPonyDriver.....about all the cliche's that are doled out to the youth about marriage? I caught this part of the article:

We must remember the future in tough moments: when the baby wakes up for the third time at night; when communication breaks down; when opinions strongly differ. We need a strong, self-sacrificial Jesus and his loving, submissive bride emblazoned on our minds. This is what we’re working toward, day after day, until we’re old and gray and the anniversary cake holds decades worth of candles.

.....and wondered what that even means ("we need a strong, self-sacrificial Jesus on our minds")? That's a great example of those cliche's. When tough times hit......compatibility is certainly going to help (things like compatibility in expectations of how the couple is going to work as a team to care for the baby......what needs to be done......etc). If---for example---he believes in "cry it out".....and she believes in building trust and figuring out why the baby is crying.....they're going to be spending more time on fighting rather than attending to the baby. Obviously a couple can't predetermine everything.......but having a basic foundation of compatibility is going to help (and.....two strong-willed people are probably NOT compatible, as a general rule).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Two strong personalities are ALWAYS going to butt heads (trust me on this). The secret is to be willing to BEND. Both parties need to learn to bend, learn to "pick your battles". I grew up surrounded by strong personalities, and as a result...yep...learned the lesson well. However, there is no room for ego in marriage. Just leave it outside the door and pick it up when you leave for work in the morning.

Unfortunately, it seems that the idea of a woman having that strong personality is not supported by "Christian" leaders. It seems that women are expected to be little doormats, never, ever stepping on the man's ego and if she does then she's a b**l-breaker or some other equally derogatory term. This whole deal of women being the "little woman", being the s-word, and men buying into this over and over again (see Mark Driscoll) makes for a whole lot of miserable marriages. I have friends who had marriages like this...most of them are divorced. The rest managed to shake off the brainwashing and move towards a more egalitarian relationship.

My problem has been, being that I am rather literal, is that when I hear "complementary", I understand it to mean that the couple, with their individual strengths and weaknesses offsets the other's strengths and weaknesses. For example, I'm a pretty good mechanic, my husband is great at organizing. I fix things, he organizes. I could go on and on...but you get the point. I found out that it means something TOTALLY different in a Christian context. And...that's another problem...redefining terms to fit some "biblical imperative" that doesn't really exist.

 

[Dave-W]

I've known a lot of men in my life and most of them like a girl who owns her sexuality, sensuality, and while not exactly shoving it in someone's face, but being confident in it, instead of hiding it.

In the congregation I was at in college, sexuality and sensuality were considered demonic possession. Guys were not to get aroused for any reason until AFTER the "I DOs." The congregational leaders broke up a couple of engagements where they found out the couple where the guy was sexually attracted to his fiancee. I do not think they even considered the opposite was an issue. (where she was sexually attracted to him)

But I did hear of several females (single and married) undergoing exorcisms for demons of sensuality.

 

[mkgal1]

My problem has been, being that I am rather literal, is that when I hear "complementary", I understand it to mean that the couple, with their individual strengths and weaknesses offsets the other's strengths and weaknesses. For example, I'm a pretty good mechanic, my husband is great at organizing. I fix things, he organizes. I could go on and on...but you get the point. I found out that it means something TOTALLY different in a Christian context. And...that's another problem...redefining terms to fit some "biblical imperative" that doesn't really exist.

I think that's part of the reason why that term is used. IIRC.....originally the term was used by egalitarians and was then hijacked by the patriarchal group (because it *does* portray a much more appealing version of marriage to use "complimentary" rather than "women-only submission" or "hierarchical view" etc.). I think it's deceptive, though.....because in practice....it's not a two-way street (by that group)....not when one spouse gets the ol' "final say" and can shut out the other person's opinions. (***but we aren't supposed to talk about that....are we?).

 

[mkgal1]

In the congregation I was at in college, sexuality and sensuality were considered demonic possession. Guys were not to get aroused for any reason until AFTER the "I DOs." The congregational leaders broke up a couple of engagements where they found out the couple where the guy was sexually attracted to his fiancee. I do not think they even considered the opposite was an issue. (where she was sexually attracted to him)

But I did hear of several females (single and married) undergoing exorcisms for demons of sensuality.

Oh wow.....but, sadly, I don't think that's too unusual. "Not to get aroused"? Try that with other natural (and.....*unsinful*..new word ) urges. "Don't get your senses aroused at the smell of that freshly roasted coffee".......

 

[Albion]

One of my friends posted this article on Facebook:
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29037
The premise (if you can't access the link / don't feel like reading it) is that according to the General Social Survey, "Adherence to conservative religious beliefs without attending church regularly is associated with worse family outcomes".
i.e. Christian couples who don't go to church are more likely to divorce than both Christian couples who do go to church and non-Christian couples who don't go to church. (I'm not sure where practitioners of other faiths fit into the picture as I couldn't find the original stats, only those quoted in the article.)
Anyone have any thoughts on why this might be? At the risk of sounding really obnoxious and offending any non-Christians on the board, I would have expected that they would have at least had better outcomes than people who don't have Christian beliefs at all.

One thing to consider...these polls are not always unbiased, and we are not given, in the article, the actual wording that was used.

We are told that "conservative" beliefs are related to something or other, but what is "conservative" could mean quite a lot of different things (especially to Pew research).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Oh wow.....but, sadly, I don't think that's too unusual. "Not to get aroused"? Try that with other natural (and.....*unsinful*..new word ) urges. "Don't get your senses aroused at the smell of that freshly roasted coffee".......

Coffee...yummmmmmmm...the only way I can do the standing and the talking and the adulting thing. Without it I'm an oversized 2 year old having a temper tantrum because my blankie got washed.

 

[mkgal1]

In the congregation I was at in college, sexuality and sensuality were considered demonic possession

Also.....that sounds rather gnostic (and the directions a lot of evangelical churches have gone). God created us with senses and emotions for a good reason (sure.....anything "good" can be misused and misapplied---that doesn't mean toss it ALL out and consider it "evil"). In life, in general, there's the good mixed in with the bad.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I think that's part of the reason why that term is used. IIRC.....originally the term was used by egalitarians and was then hijacked by the patriarchal group (because it *does* portray a much more appealing version of marriage to use "complimentary" rather than "women-only submission" or "hierarchical view" etc.). I think it's deceptive, though.....because in practice....it's not a two-way street (by that group)....not when one spouse gets the ol' "final say" and can shut out the other person's opinions. (***but we aren't supposed to talk about that....are we?).

Yeah...never understood that either. I mean, my dad often got the "final say" with us kids...but often that looked like standing between my mom and us when she'd had enough of our hijinks and the chanclas were about to start flying.

In my marriage, there are times when I put my wishes aside and go along with what he wants, times when I stand my ground, times when we agree to disagree and times when we talk it out and find a compromise. Of those four options, the last one happens about 90% of the time. The other three, well...they happen, but not that often. Neither one of us are THAT hard headed that we insist on getting our way ALL the time. Strangely enough, the one time I stood my ground would probably be considered quite odd by most who don't think women should do that...it was when my husband was so sick that working was becoming a challenge. I told him point-blank that he was DONE. He argued with me about it and I told him that he was NOT going to go back to work. That was a fight that I "won". He's "won" a few too...no cats in the bedroom for example .

However, in the matter of two adults, I would think they would BOTH be mature enough to understand the four options and realize that the last one is the one that mature adults would work towards at all times.

 

[LinkH]

I read different theories in the thread, one that said that couples go to church, feel rejected because they have marriage problems, and stop going. That might happen in some cases, but I don't think that's the norm. I think a lot of pastors deal with couples with marriage problems, and a lot of church people are willing to help, too.

I can think of a couple of other possible explanations. One is the method of evangelism in a lot of evangelical churches these days. The preacher preaches a sermon, and without explaining that Jesus died on the cross and that He rose from the dead, without mentioning repentance from sin, he invites those who want their lives to get better or those who want to experience enteral bliss in heaven after death to repeat a prayer. Those who haven't believed or even heard the Gospel and repented repeat the prayer and are declared Christians.

Then they don't go to church, but they answer that they are born-again Christians on the survey after their marriage has broken up. After all, the pastor at church told them that they were born again because they repeated a prayer after him. I suspect this is a major issue with Barna surveys of born-again Christians. Lots of people claim to be born again who don't hold to basic evangelical doctrines.

Another reason may be that certain Christians or those who call themselves that who aren't that enthusiastic about following the teaching of the New Testament about assembling together may be more likely to be the type who aren't that enthusiastic about following the teaching of the New Testament when it comes to divorce.... or adultery... or a number of issues that could cause marriage problems that end in divorce.

And it may be that the weaker members of the flock stray further away, don't get strengthened by the others, are away from pastoral care and the benefits of other ministries, and are more likely to either stumble in sin or just fall prey to problems that come their way that they could have avoided with some help.

 

[DW1989]

My husband and I do not attend "church". ACTS 17.24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;"

 

[LinkH]

My husband and I do not attend "church". ACTS 17.24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;"

The Greek word translated 'church' in the New Testament refers to an assembly, not a building. The New Testament commands believers to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, but to exhort one another (Heb 10:25.)

Many early churches met in homes in New Testament times, so it wasn't a matter of dwelling in temples made with human hands. And even if the temple in Jerusalem could not contain God, Jesus was pro-temple and so were the apostles. They all participated in worship in the temple. There were meetings on Solomon's porch for saints in Jerusalem, but outside of Jerusalem, believers met in buildings that weren't considered to be 'temples'.

 

[DW1989]

;

 

[mkgal1]

I think a lot of pastors deal with couples with marriage problems, and a lot of church people are willing to help, too.

That'd be great if it were true. I'm particularly thinking of marriages that are in trouble due to things like addictions and abuse---there is a serious lack of genuine help from the church (and too often the victim becomes abused--not helped--by the church as well by even more burdens being placed on them).....and they're better off without the additional shame by leaving the church since there's no support there anyhow (just as @Hotinco mentioned in the beginning of this thread).

This has been my experience (that church becomes a 'safe haven' for these abusive men and women, because not many are willing to accept that a church-going person --that's such a charmer--could be abusive) as this article states:

Domestic violence is not a problem in the church.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of domestic violence in the church appears to be comparable to the general population. Some statistics suggest that 25 percent of women sitting in the pews on Sunday live with domestic violence. The church may sadly end up being a “safer” place for a perpetrator to hide because few would suspect a man who comes to church and is involved in church activities to be violent and abusive.~http://www1.cbn.com/health/behind-closed-doors:-help-for-domestic-abuse-survivors

 

[mkgal1]

More on the unique burden abused women in many conservative Christian churches face:

The Christian woman whose spirit is being crushed by domestic violence is faced with a unique burden. She needs straight answers - not unrealistic expectations or stereotypical platitudes. ~http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/religion_and_domestic_violence.html