Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.

---

I'm in the raising kids phase, which I expect to take another 15 years (which will take me up to a grand total of 30 years of marriage, God willing). But I already wrestle with the question of whether it is an unarguable good, and if so, why, to remain married thereafter, if that isn't bringing me happiness.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.

---

I'm in the raising kids phase, which I expect to take another 15 years (which will take me up to a grand total of 30 years of marriage, God willing). But I already wrestle with the question of whether it is an unarguable good, and if so, why, to remain married thereafter, if that isn't bringing me happiness.

---

What about bringing happiness to someone else?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Lots of interesting comments and experiences.

What I was most interested in, however, was perhaps the demoralising effect of the ideal on all people ie singles, divorced, widowed after a less than happy marriage, those struggling in marriage (ie everyone currently married). I think only one poster addressed tghis directly. Life is never as good as it could be. We make the best of it. My old granny had a set of bridge cards on which was printed "Life ain't about holding the good cards, it's playing a bad hand well".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Forgive me, Erroneous Monk, I have no right to be commenting on this. God has never blessed me with a spouse. I just know, from observation and discussion, how difficult marriage is.

In a way, you may be answering my question. Because (I'm guessing?) your marriage doesn't live up to the ideal (no marriage does, it's "just" a matter of degree), you have become demoralised and are questioning the concept of Christian marriage ie a lifelong union, for better or for worse. You may be in the "worse" part at the moment, but chances are you will get out of it, only to face "even worser" times further ahead, with maybe some better (or even great) times in between. You need to dig your heels in and refuse to bail out.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I get a little bit annoyed by this idealization of marriage that I see in (primarily) evangelical circles. Particularly the part where it's expected that every single person will find their partner and live happily ever after.

Because I've seen people fall in love with this ideal and berate themselves for not being able to follow the "heavenly guideline" and jump into relationships and fall apart when it turns out this person isn't "the one", and get desperate because they're getting old (they're be 25 in TWO YEARS!)

And then a week later they're in love again and it's the one this time, I promise, Mary Sue!

---

I don't know much about these things, but this approach sounds very superficial to me. I thought evangelicals were supposed to be serious-minded people when it came to serious things like marriage. Do the churches really encourage this kind of carry-on?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I get a little bit annoyed by this idealization of marriage that I see in (primarily) evangelical circles. Particularly the part where it's expected that every single person will find their partner and live happily ever after.

Because I've seen people fall in love with this ideal and berate themselves for not being able to follow the "heavenly guideline" and jump into relationships and fall apart when it turns out this person isn't "the one", and get desperate because they're getting old (they're be 25 in TWO YEARS!)

And then a week later they're in love again and it's the one this time, I promise, Mary Sue!

---

I don't know much about these things, but this approach sounds very superficial to me. I thought evangelicals were supposed to be serious-minded people when it came to serious things like marriage. Do the churches really encourage this kind of carry-on?

---

I've seen it encouraged. Of course, this may be a subset of evangelical Christianity specific to the Pacific Northwest, but yeah, there's a very heavy duty seeking-a-partner culture in a lot of the young, hip church plants and a lot of passing around books and pamphlets about how to pray (and dress, and groom, and act) until you find your perfect spouse.

Although it's mostly aimed at the young women, particularly in churches that don't let women take roles in leadership. Funny, that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
This may be a subset of evangelical Christianity specific to the Pacific Northwest, but yeah, there's a very heavy duty seeking-a-partner culture in a lot of the young, hip church plants and a lot of passing around books and pamphlets about how to pray (and dress, and groom, and act) until you find your perfect spouse.

Although it's mostly aimed at the young women, particularly in churches that don't let women take roles in leadership. Funny, that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.

---

Which previous age was this? Speaking to my Grandma, it was very much the norm for her generation in the 40's and 50's to not have sex before marraige. And she was certainly not upper class. I think this was the expected and practiced norm for the majority of people of all classes for quite a large proportion of western Christian history.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
What I mean is that you marry young to a like-minded evangelical believer. Both parties are virgins on marriage but nevertheless develop a wholly satisfying physical relationship. Both demonstrate humility and Christian self-sacrificial love towards the other as they grow in Christian discipleship. There is no I fidelity or lack of trust. In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly. Health and financial and other challenges are overcome by spousal praying together. The marriage endures until death does them part.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Although I attended a MOTR CofE church, where relationships were never talked about (the choir and bellringers just seemed to pair up and marry each other), I also belonged to a more evangelical youth group. We occasionally had talks on tape and also had marriage and relationship books recommended to us to read. My main recollection of both was that they were rather unrealistic and so felt rather cynical of their advice. It seemed to make more sense to talk things through with your partner and do what you both thought best, which might be very different from the conclusions another couple might come to.

We had several cases where people who were previously ardent Christians walked away from the faith round about the time of forming serious relationships, as they found the strictness of evangelical requirements didn't sit well with their wish to sleep / live together before marriage.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
What I mean is that you marry young to a like-minded evangelical believer. Both parties are virgins on marriage but nevertheless develop a wholly satisfying physical relationship. Both demonstrate humility and Christian self-sacrificial love towards the other as they grow in Christian discipleship. There is no I fidelity or lack of trust. In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly. Health and financial and other challenges are overcome by spousal praying together. The marriage endures until death does them part.

---

That's a mix of a variety of things - some moral choices, some reasonable good luck, some completely unrealistic good luck. The idea that by making a particular religious choice you can get the lot as a package is pure fantasy.

Some of it is achievable - you never have to be unfaithful to your spouse unless you choose to be, for example. Some you can influence (good parenting doesn't guarantee well-adjusted children, but it does shift the odds). Some is a matter of pure chance. If your local evangelicals think that godliness and prayer insulates you from bad luck, then you have been unlucky in your selection of evangelicals - the majority have a rather more sensible take on Christianity than that.

What I don't like about the picture is that it links the idea of 'a good marriage' with being lucky in other areas of life. And that, for me, devalues marriage. Marriage is about making a commitment to a flawed, imperfect person, in a flawed, imperfect world, and then learning how to love in that situation. It's about a love that tries to cope with adversity, that needs understanding and forgiveness, that might actually cost something to exercise. That means that I can still have 'a good marriage' if my life is a bit of a mess. That seems to me a more inspiring, more realistic, more Christian, and more romantic, conception of marriage than the model you describe.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
...(the choir and bellringers just seemed to pair up and marry each other)...

---

Well, that's bellringers for you, isn't it? When my brother got engaged, his Tower Captain's first question was 'Does she ring?'

It was only later that I thought of what he should have replied: 'Yes- like a steeple bell in a gale...'

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.

---

Which previous age was this? Speaking to my Grandma, it was very much the norm for her generation in the 40's and 50's to not have sex before marraige. And she was certainly not upper class. I think this was the expected and practiced norm for the majority of people of all classes for quite a large proportion of western Christian history. [/QB]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
This may be a subset of evangelical Christianity specific to the Pacific Northwest, but yeah, there's a very heavy duty seeking-a-partner culture in a lot of the young, hip church plants and a lot of passing around books and pamphlets about how to pray (and dress, and groom, and act) until you find your perfect spouse.

Although it's mostly aimed at the young women, particularly in churches that don't let women take roles in leadership. Funny, that.

---

I don't see a problem with Christian women being proactive about finding a suitable husband, but I don't understand falling in love every five minutes and getting hysterical about it!

It's unsurprising that the leaflets should be aimed at women because in most churches women are more numerous than the men, and therefore they have a harder time finding a spouse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Spiffy, you mention the Pacific North West. Is this a sort of Mark Driscoll effect?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:


I totally see a problem with Christian women being proactive about seeking husbands because, hey, some of them might like wives. Or not to get married ever. Put me in the latter boat, actually. It may be great for other people but I don't see the need for a spouse in my life.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have seen the kind of thing Spiffy mentions in hip student-heavy churches (in the UK so no direct Driscoll effect but I fear the leaders are probably influenced by him).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If Christian women don't want husbands then they don't need to be proactive about finding husbands, obviously! I don't think women should be pressured into getting married, but I don't have a problem with a church offering advice on these matters; that's what some people want from a church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have seen the kind of thing Spiffy mentions in hip student-heavy churches (in the UK so no direct Driscoll effect but I fear the leaders are probably influenced by him).

---

Really? I have spent quite a lot of time in that type of church and never once seen pamphlets circulating on the topic of how to find a partner.

Maybe people thought I was a lost cause.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
And what if the church isn't offering any other guidance to young women except "Get married you loser"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:

Thirty-three years of marriage and counting! To refer to the title of another thread, it sometimes feels like heaven, sometimes like the other place. A strong, enduring relationship between two flawed people (of course I always think his flaws are worse than my own!!!). An ongoing learning process. Not easy at all. And a great blessing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.

---

Am I to understand that you consider that looking for happiness or considering happiness is a secondary concern as it pertains to marriage?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

...mutual society, help, and comfort...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.

---

Am I to understand that you consider that looking for happiness or considering happiness is a secondary concern as it pertains to marriage?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
historians will tell you that the norm then among the lower classes, expecially in rural areas, was that marriage only happened when a baby was on the way -- because the man's mother and the woman's mother needed the cash from their wages until a new household was set up.

Take into account, as well, that for many centuries until the mid-1800s, there were many large areas in England where (where people could only travel by foot or horse) there were no clergy, and no provision for marriages to be performed.

John

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
I've often heard the argument from people who were young in the 1940s-50s that nobody 'did it' then. However, if you look at the statistics for the number of children who were adopted during that time (often tidied away so that it was kept hushed up) it is obvious that rather a lot of people 'did it' then. I used to buy a magazine where, every month, there was a whole long list of people trying to find their birth parents, who had to give them away. And that's only the ones who wanted to know, and only the ones who bothered to write in to the magazine.

I guess there were those who lived a very sheltered life who thought that everyone was the same as them, and those who lived in a much less cocooned world.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.

---

Am I to understand that you consider that looking for happiness or considering happiness is a secondary concern as it pertains to marriage?

---

I dont think in my parents' generation it was sought or expected, although obviously desirable. If it came along, good; if not, you accepted it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Also, Leprechaun, we've got almost a whole planet in between us, so it's not surprising our cultures are different.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have seen the kind of thing Spiffy mentions in hip student-heavy churches (in the UK so no direct Driscoll effect but I fear the leaders are probably influenced by him).

---

Really? I have spent quite a lot of time in that type of church and never once seen pamphlets circulating on the topic of how to find a partner.

Maybe people thought I was a lost cause.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do evangelicals, or evangelical leaders, really present their families as 'perfect'??

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

the glossy image of some American evangelical TV couples. All shiny white teeth and skinny bodies

---

quote:

---

my friends of this type are horrified by the thought that someone might actually enjoy performing oral sex on a man, which is one of those things I'm told Driscoll encourages (but he says it's to show your man that you're submissive or something? Instead of because, you know, it's fun!)

---

...then the attractions of an evangelical marriage become evident. Who wouldn't want a submissive wife that looks like a porn star!
(Stand by for incoming!)

And best of all - it's a relationship 'approved' by God.

Where do I sign up?

--------------------
God loves you so much that He created Hell, just in case you don't love Him back.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all a delusion. A lie. The divorce rate for evangelicals is higher than for atheists and the national average.

Anyone surprised? Considering all the other denial, deceit, dishonesty.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all a delusion. A lie. The divorce rate for evangelicals is higher than for atheists and the national average.

Anyone surprised? Considering all the other denial, deceit, dishonesty.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all a delusion. A lie. The divorce rate for evangelicals is higher than for atheists and the national average.

Anyone surprised? Considering all the other denial, deceit, dishonesty.

---