Equal work

[yeshuaslavejeff]

To ignore things from our past---and to just consider it all "former self"---is honestly where I believe a lot of Christian marriages fail.

Nobody is saying to ignore our own past, sins especially.
But they are dealt with by the blood of Jesus, as recorded and explained in Hebrews, and a clear conscience is immediate with rejoicing, with great joy after the devastating and embarrassing conviction in spirit/life/ soul/ and repentance and being born again.

All of the past might be dealt with then God's Way (not man's way which fails), and God's Way is right and true and leads to the narrow road to life, and to true obedience and true freedom. Man's way leads to death and destruction and loss of life, loss of testimony, loss of power, loss of truth, and so on. (I don't know about any of the ones , any of the ways , mentioned in this thread specifically).

Just like the physical healing JESUS and the Apostles and disciples saw frequently wrought by the hand of God,
so also the spiritual, (forgiveness), soulish, mental and life healing
were wrought God's Way, by God, when they /we/ trust and obey Him.
On the opposite direction going, in society, in the world's ways > whenver anyone, anywhere , puts their trust in men/man/ ways of the flesh/ etc/ God curses them according to His Word.

 

[mkgal1]

Nobody is saying to ignore our own past, sins especially.
But they are dealt with by the blood of Jesus, as recorded and explained in Hebrews

For one thing......I'm not considering just "sins" from our past that we carry forward (regardless that God has forgiven us.....that doesn't mean that shame and defensiveness automatically wash away and we're healthy and know how to properly relate to others in all sorts of difficult circumstances).

We're getting off topic, though---so in order to respect VG's thread, I think I will create a new one to continue this conversation (if you care to?). Here it is: What does it mean that we're a "new creation in Christ"?

 

[ValleyGal]

NM

 

[mkgal1]

When I say helper, I mean that as an egalitarian phrase

I knew that's what you meant....I just wanted to clarify since that word has been tied to other teachings (that neither of us agree with).

 

[ValleyGal]

NM

 

[ValleyGal]

I knew that's what you meant....I just wanted to clarify since that word has been tied to other teachings (that neither of us agree with).

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[mkgal1]

I had been saying that all along... but now my resentment has become contempt - especially with that last comment.

By "that last comment".....you mean his comment about needing to get rid of resentment (hopefully not *my* last comment)?

 

[mkgal1]

he says we need to get rid of our resentment.

Forgive my idealist attitude.....but couldn't that mean he's willing (maybe?).

 

[ValleyGal]

NM

 

[ValleyGal]

NM

 

[mkgal1]

That is how you influence someone...a soft answer turns away wrath. That kind of talk would have softened my heart to him and likely opened up one very tiny window of hope.

It gets really messy--for sure--once there is resentment (and that certainly impedes healing and restoration and makes communication difficult).

When I posted earlier.....I wasn't aware that this conversation was personal (I was thinking more in a general sense).....but I'm still of the opinion that even when communication isn't properly well-spoken (like Geri Scazzero unleashing just how she's felt being married to Pete all those years prior)....it can still be healing. Her words were hardly a "soft answer", but Pete knew she was being sincere. But....like you've said---it takes two. Do you feel as if you two have gotten everything out on the table? Have you asked him--point blank (something like)---"do you *want* a divorce--is that your choice over working on this marriage?"

 

[mkgal1]

but just to come out and say "we" need to get rid of our resentment only breeds resentment.

It doesn't have to. Isn't it true? Isn't that what will be necessary?

 

[FireDragon76]

The strength of the Lord will get a person a long way, yes, but we are human, with human capacity. No one - not even God - will stay in relationship that is not reciprocal. Remember, God divorced Israel for a time. Relationships are reciprocal. And both must contribute.

This sounds coldly utilitarian. And I don't think that's a good thing.

 

[ValleyGal]

NM

 

[ValleyGal]

NM

 

[mkgal1]

I think it does. After all, you likely would not feel all fluffy and warm if someone who is resentful towards you came up to you and said "you are resentful and need to get rid of it." If you're resentful, you'd likely resent being told you're resentful, and if you are not resentful, you'd likely be unpleasantly surprised at the accusation - iow, be a little resentful.

But that's different than what you posted that he said (it sounds more like what you heard....or how you processed it). You'd written that he said, "WE need to get rid of our resentment". To me....that sounds like teamwork and equal accountability. I don't mean to be hard on you....it's obviously all your decision.....but I've learned that when walls have been built, we need to look past specific words and look to how we can move forward (that's IF both wish to move forward). IMO.....marital communication isn't about "fluffy and warm"....it's about honesty (in love, of course). Truth seems to be the ONLY thing that can give way to true intimacy (but it does take humility and motivation on both sides....for sure).

 

[mkgal1]

Back to Gottman's statement that both parties need to accept influence from each other---to me that means the difficult-to-hear things especially. If we get offended that our spouse makes a negative comment about us....doesn't that breed an environment of insincerity? Both parties need to feel open to say what's on their minds (unpolished and unrefined)---obviously not unnecessarily cruel and insulting--and for it to be "heard".

 

[ValleyGal]

NM

 

[Zoii]

I couldn't afford a cleaner, so my marriage paid for it, sadly.

Interestingly, egalitarian marriages are not just about how to divvy up the work, either. It's also about each person investing the whole self, believing in the other to do their part. Iow, it always takes two to make a marriage work. Unfortunately, it only takes one to destroy it...by not investing in it. I hope the people reading here will make sure their spouse's love tank is always full. When one tank empties, the marriage can't function.

I also tend to wonder about the whole "equal yoke" issue being about far more than whether or not the other is saved. From some of my social psychology studies, it seems to me that they used two metaphors: "birds of a feather flock together" and "opposites attract." While opposites do attract initially, their marriages are less likely to survive long-term than the birds of a feather. I think being equally yoked is also about a lot of other things, like upbringing, how information is interpreted, frame of reference, and qualities such as optimism, initiative, energy level, etc. I was amused once to read that couples to go to bed together at the same time also have longer surviving marriages. Personally, I can see why.

Anyway, I'm just saying that being egalitarian and being equally yoked are much greater than the obvious. And it makes sense... when you "become one" the more alike you are to start with, the easier it is to become one. And as long as both invest, it's also easier to stay one.

Sorry for the rambling... just processing the separation and impending divorce....

Im sorry Valleygirl. It must be very hard for you atm. I hope you're ok (hug)

 

[ValleyGal]

NM