| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 437.1 | | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Apr 17 1992 11:41 | 46 |
| Re: 421.192
Hi Alvin,
>To say that the Bible spells out the responsibilities of husbands and
>wives is not the same as saying that the husband has extra
>responsibility.
Point taken. You are correct. It's just as a husband I feel that
way. :-)
>And doesn't it seem possible to you that there are wives who don't
>respond to the "sacrificial" (whatever that means) love of their
>husbands?
Yes it is certainly possible. You are right that we do indeed have
free will. But what actually happens? Wives do respond...
>By the way, are we talking about the Bible here, or are we talking
>about Paul's Epistles?
Last I checked, Paul's Epistles were in the Bible. :-)
>The correct word is "fortunate", *not* "lucky"!
As I have often told my wife, the correct word is "blessed", not "lucky".
>As I read you, you seemed to say if it wasn't for the husband, a good
>marriage wouldn't be possible.
Let me address that point directly. Good marriages are not possible
without concerted effort from both spouses.
>>..... the responsibility for the health of the marriage (after the
>>initial years) rests squarely on the husband's shoulders.
>This is hog-wash.
Oink. I very much stand by that claim. Why? Because (again) wives
will respond to the agape love of their husbands. Therefore, the
husband can practically guarantee a committed marriage by the love
he expresses to his wife.
More in the next reply.
Collis
|
| 437.2 | If Only He Knew | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Apr 17 1992 11:42 | 26 |
| I had to look through 5 of our marriage books before I found what
I had referred to. (I have 5 more to read that I bought at the
marriage weekend that we went to 3 weeks ago. If reading could
make a marriage, I'd be all set!)
The claim:
"If a couple has been married for more than five years, any
persistant disharmony in their marriage relationship is
usually attributable to the husband's lack of genuine love."
The author is Gary Smalley; the book is "If Only He Knew". The
principle is simple - if the husband loves his wife as Jesus loves
the church, their marriage will be a strong, committed, harmonious
relationship for the long-term.
From the back cover of the book, "Gary Smalley, a graduate of the
University of California at Long Beach and Bethel Seminary, has
spent seventeen years learning, teaching, and writing about the
essential biblical ways to form godly relationships. As Bill Gothard's
assistant, he spoke in over sixty cities across the U.S. and Canda.
Today, he is invited throughout the country to teach his marriage
seminar in churches, businesses, retreats, and conferences. Gary,
his wife Norma, and their three children live in Phoenix, Arizona."
Collis
|
| 437.3 | Gary's real life experience | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Apr 17 1992 11:45 | 67 |
| An excerpt from Gary Smalley's book after the priniple expounded:
I knew by Norma's facial expression that I had offended her one
morning. I immediately said, "I understand what I just said was
too harsh, and I shouldn't have said it. I would like to ask you
to forgive me."
"Okay, I'll forgive you," she said.
I thought to myself, "You know, this whole thing is one-sided here.
It seems like all the pressure is on me to act right. What about her?"
So I said, "Hey, how come I'm always the one that has to ask
forgiveness when I do something wrong? Why don't you ask me to
forgive you any more? This is one-sided, isn't it?"
Then she looked at me and said, "I'd be happy to admit where I am
wrong and seek your forgiveness *if* I have offended you."
"Well, that's just too much! What an arrogant statement. What a
terribly selfish thing to say," I said. "There are lots of things
you have done to offend me. I can't remember the last time you
admitted you were wrong and sought my forgiveness."
"Well, what are some of my offenses?" she asked.
"Give me a minute and I'll think of a lot of them," I said.
"Well, what are they!" she asked again.
"Just a minute and I'll think of some," I said, stalling for time.
I thought and thought, but I couldn't come up with even one. I told
myself, "This can't be true." But I couldn't think of a thing she
had done to offend me.
Finally I said, "But I can think of some things I'd like to see you
change about yourself."
"Well, what are they?"
"Even though we've been married five years, I'm going to come up with
the first exception to this thing of it being all my fault. (I was
pleased with myself.) There are some times whey you don't respect
me and you don't honor me as a special person in your life. Sometimes
your words are cutting and disrespectful...*now how is that my
responsibility*?
We sat down at the kitchen table and started going through each item.
It took only ten minutes for us to figure out that every time she had
been disrespectful to me I had either rolled out of bed grouchy or been
critical of her most of the day. I hadn't earned her respect. It was
amazing. All three things I had felt *she* should change were a direct
result of *my* failure to love her in a genuine way.
Now I have to admit the whole episode left a bad taste in my mouth. Even
today, when I'm tired or a little down, I think to myself, "This is crazy.
I shouldn't even tell people this because it'll make wives run all over
their husbands." But just the opposite is true. When a man treats his
wife with gentleness, when he is loving and understanding, and when he
does most of the things described in this book, she will respond to him
on every level. She'll desire intimate conversation with him, she'll feel
emotional love for him, and she'll respond to him sexually. The only
exception, as I mentioned before, occurs when a wife is romantically
involved with another man.
Collis
|
| 437.4 | | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Apr 17 1992 11:55 | 27 |
| BTW, in several of the other books I was reading last night,
I found statements that back up this principle in a
different way. I can't remember if it was Dr. Wheat's books
are H Norman Wright's books, but the question posed to 5
divorced women he was counseling was,
"Would you take your husband back if you knew he would
love you, cherish you and care for you needs?"
All five answered, "Yes, in a minute". One woman also noted,
"But he would never do that." Since the counselor knew the
man, he had to agree that there was little hope of change.
Does this mean that a wife cannot save her marriage? No.
Agape love and following God's design have been known to save
what people would call the most unsavable marriages. Does this
mean that the husband can always save the marriage? No.
If she has been pushed to far - particularly if she has found
another man - she may not respond.
However, can a man insure a committed relationship once it has
started and lasted a while? Yes! That is the hope that we have.
We were made to love our wives and our wives were very much made
to love us. They *will* respond to our love! Incredible and
wonderful. God is *so* good.
Collis
|
| 437.5 | | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Wings of fire: Percie and me | Fri Apr 17 1992 12:08 | 16 |
| Collis,
I'm having a problem with this and I guess it boils down to being too
simplistic. I would say for a great deal of my life, I would have
believed what was written in those books. But from personal experience
and sharing experiences in groups with others, I think the issues
are too complex for that. Many men and women come from disfunctional
families. They have childhoods where love was denied, where they were
abused in one form or another. Often people can't love others because
they haven't learned to love themselves yet or believe they are not
worthy of love. A lot of selfwork and therapy of some form needs to
happen before the person is capable of being in the type of loving
marriage you are describing.
Ro
|
| 437.6 | RE: .1 - we're getting closer | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Fri Apr 17 1992 13:38 | 85 |
| Yes, I agree. A separate note is very appropriate. Thanx for
suggesting it, whoever suggested it.
RE: .1
> >To say that the Bible spells out the responsibilities of husbands and
> >wives is not the same as saying that the husband has extra
> >responsibility.
>
> Point taken. You are correct. It's just as a husband I feel that
> way. :-)
Ah, now here's a piece of insight that we just might be able to agree
on! Let me begin by drawing a poor analogy. Most people know that
the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope can speak with extra
authority ("infallibly" is the word ordinarily used) on matters of
faith and morals. Some people misinterpret this and think Catholics
believe anything the Pope says is to be taken as "The Truth". Not
true! What the pope says can only be considered infallible if he
first declares that he is speaking from the Chair of Peter (someone
help me here. There's a term for it). To complete the analogy, if
you're saying that, *speaking as a husband*, you believe that a
healthy marriage is the husband's responsibility, then I read that as
a declaration of ideals and thus everything I said is moot. It's like
a team member saying, "as long as I'm playing a certain position, I
play it like it was the most important position in the game!" Good
attitude! But the coach knows *every* position is important!
> >By the way, are we talking about the Bible here, or are we talking
> >about Paul's Epistles?
>
> Last I checked, Paul's Epistles were in the Bible. :-)
In the Christian Bible, yes, but not in the Jewish Bible. Please read
my comment as a subtle expression of a small bias against Paul,
possibly unwarranted in this conversation. But to come right out with
it, I know that there are Christians who believe in the literal
interpretation of the Christian Bible and who come up with some really
strange views on the place and the roles of women based primarily on
Paul's letters. I know from your writings, Collis, that you don't
fall into that category of Christian, so, please, don't take offense.
> >The correct word is "fortunate", *not* "lucky"!
>
> As I have often told my wife, the correct word is "blessed", not "lucky".
Speaking as a Christian, yes, "blessed" would be the right word for
you. But I'm an agnostic and prefer to use the secular term. I
believe we mean the same thing! :^D
> Let me address that point directly. Good marriages are not possible
> without concerted effort from both spouses.
I knew you were a man of reason! :^D
> >>..... the responsibility for the health of the marriage (after the
> >>initial years) rests squarely on the husband's shoulders.
>
> >This is hog-wash.
>
> Oink. I very much stand by that claim. Why? Because (again) wives
> will respond to the agape love of their husbands. Therefore, the
> husband can practically guarantee a committed marriage by the love
> he expresses to his wife.
Well, I think the operative words here are "practically guarantee".
Again, if you're speaking as a husband, no argument. But, please, let
me share this with you. When my marriage ended, I had to deal with
guilt. "Oh, if only I'd done this. Oh, if only I hadn't done that."
Very heavy stuff. I could have wallowed in it forever! And I've also
met divorced people who deal with bitterness. "That so-and-so! What
an *ss!" In either case, the first step to gaining peace of mind and
perspective is to accept that, "it takes *two* to make a good
marriage", and then move on from there to forgiveness (of self and the
former partner) and a new, healthy relationship. The reason I reacted
so strongly to your statement is because I know there are those who
will read this who are getting or have gotten a divorce and are
dealing with feelings of guilt and bitterness. Don't get me wrong.
Having ideals and trying to live up to them is part of taking
responsibility. But one has to be careful when expressing ideals to
label them as such.
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 437.7 | RE: .3 - good reading, but it expresses my point, too. | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Fri Apr 17 1992 14:31 | 26 |
| Your excerpt from Gary Smalley's book is a wonderful example of one
man's experience in resolving a conflict in his marriage by acting
according to his ideals. Beautifully written, too! If he is
addressing other husbands, there is much insight there. (I'd like to
have read his wife's recounting of the same incident. :^D )
But I notice two things:
1. Mr. Smalley did not act alone, even if he can take credit for
initiating the conversation. Both of them engaged in that
conversation which proves they're like minded and want to make the
marriage work. In this regard they share the same ideals and
principles.
2. Mr. Smalley added the little disclaimer about, "when a wife is
romantically involved with another man". (Actually, it doesn't
have to be with another man. It could be she's involved with her
life.) People do change their minds. So when we encourage people
to live according to certain principles or ideals, that
encouragement shouldn't include (even indirectly) a guarantee that
then everything will always work out.
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 437.8 | | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Apr 17 1992 17:41 | 46 |
| Re: 437.6
>Most people know that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope
>can speak with extra authority...
ex-Cathedra, I think is the term.
>To complete the analogy, if you're saying that, *speaking as
>a husband*, you believe that a healthy marriage is the husband's
>responsibility, then I read that as a declaration of ideals and
>thus everything I said is moot.
The responsibility is 100% on both spouses. What I'm saying is that
the husband has much the better odds of succeeding should he follow
godly principles of marriage and practice agape love (practically
100% chance of success).
>> Oink. I very much stand by that claim. Why? Because (again) wives
>> will respond to the agape love of their husbands. Therefore, the
>> husband can practically guarantee a committed marriage by the love
>> he expresses to his wife.
>Well, I think the operative words here are "practically guarantee".
Admittedly, there are no 100% foolproof guarantees when we deal with
another person. From my understanding, though, this principle is about
as close as we can get. Wives will respond to agape love from their
husbands.
>In either case, the first step to gaining peace of mind and
>perspective is to accept that, "it takes *two* to make a good
>marriage", and then move on from there to forgiveness (of self and the
>former partner) and a new, healthy relationship.
Yes it does. And, yet, one committed spouse can make a good marriage
by bringing the other spouse around. It happens regularly - although
it is *so* difficult that it is usually a life-transforming experience.
>But one has to be careful when expressing ideals to label them as such.
I don't mean to express it simply as an ideal. I truly believe that
this is the case. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my personal experience
coincides with the experiences of the Bible-believing authors on marriage
that I've read.
Collis
|
| 437.9 | | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Apr 17 1992 17:41 | 28 |
| Re: 437.7
>1. Mr. Smalley did not act alone, even if he can take credit for
> initiating the conversation. Both of them engaged in that
> conversation which proves they're like minded and want to make the
> marriage work.
What woman who gets married does *not* want to make her marriage work?
I haven't been to a wedding yet (although I guess I really haven't been
to that many) where the bride did not want to make her marriage work
and was willing to take some steps in that direction. Now, after a
few years of marriage, it is not uncommon for a wife to have lost hope -
but why is this? That's the key question. It is here where the husband
needs to take a close look at whether or not he has loved his wife
with the agape love she needs. If he hasn't does that mean that she
has no responsibility? No. She also has a responsibility to love with
agape love *regardless* of what her husband does or does not do. However,
again, the point is that women will almost invariably respond to such love,
men are quite apt to not respond to such love.
>2. Mr. Smalley added the little disclaimer about, "when a wife is
> romantically involved with another man".
Once the seeds of failure in a marriage are sown and have sprung root
to the extent that the wife has left one commitment and started a new
commitment, even agape love may fail to stem the tide.
Collis
|
| 437.10 | | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Apr 17 1992 17:42 | 33 |
| Re: 437.5
>I'm having a problem with this and I guess it boils down to being too
>simplistic.
Indeed it is rather simplistic. I, too, think that something as
simplistic as this needs to be examined very closely to see if it
is really true. My experience in my marriage and what I've seen
around me confirms this. I can literally wrap my wife up in loving
feelings for me if I give her two or three days of constant agape love.
It's amazing. She will want so much to *give* to me. And yet,
knowing all about my wife that I do, I can honestly say that she
has a lot of issues in her life to deal with - many the same issues
that are common to women (and wives) such as self-esteem, a hectic
schedule, a need to accomplish something to feel good about oneself,
etc. Yet when I give her selfless love responding to her needs
(after first finding them out!), a well springs up in her that
blesses us both. Is this typical? I believe that it is.
>A lot of selfwork and therapy of some form needs to happen before the
>person is capable of being in the type of loving marriage you are
>describing.
I hear you, Ro. What Gary Smalley is saying (and I am agreeing with
him) is that it is in a women's nature to respond to agape love from
her husband. Regardless of the problems in her life, she will respond
to this love. This does not mean that she doesn't have a lot of issues
to deal with. It does mean that when she is loved in a selfless way,
she will respond with love. And that is the main criteria of a
successful marriage, is it not? One where each other is the most
important person in the world?
Collis
|
| 437.11 | Maybe closer to a truce? :^( | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Fri Apr 17 1992 19:26 | 30 |
| > >But one has to be careful when expressing ideals to label them as such.
>
> I don't mean to express it simply as an ideal. I truly believe that
> this is the case. .............................................
Just to be clear, by "it" I presume you mean "the husband is
responsible for a healthy marriage". Maybe we should agree to
disagree here? If I understand you correctly, this is a statement of
fact (I disagree) *and* an ideal, or principle, that a husband should
act on as if it were fact (I totally agree).
I will also have to respectfully disagree with your justification for
calling this statement a fact since I see your understanding regarding
a woman's nature to always respond positively to a man's unconditional
love implicitly puts this nature/ability on a pedestal and also
implicitly denies the possibility that a man is capable of the same.
I believe that at their best adults give and receive love equally as
well. Notice, I said adults, not men and women. To illustrate, I
detect *your* marriage experience is one of positive growth, by which
I mean, "gaining better perspective". Wouldn't you say that with this
growth you are currently responding to your wife's unconditional love
*better* than when you were first married? Do you see an end to this
growth? Does that mean that as you grow in this ability, your wife
becomes *more* responsible than before to give you unconditional love?
Or, shall I put it, she will become more responsible for your healthy
marriage?
Peace (and Happy Easter, Collis),
Alvin
|
| 437.12 | | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Mon Apr 20 1992 11:31 | 45 |
| Re: 437.11
>>I don't mean to express it simply as an ideal. I truly believe that
>>this is the case. .............................................
>Just to be clear, by "it" I presume you mean "the husband is
>responsible for a healthy marriage".
No, both the husband and wife have responsibility for a healthy marriage.
What "it" is is:
a wife will respond to her husband's agape love producing a committed
relationship (with several minor exceptions)
>I will also have to respectfully disagree with your justification for
>calling this statement a fact since I see your understanding regarding
>a woman's nature to always respond positively to a man's unconditional
>love implicitly puts this nature/ability on a pedestal and also
>implicitly denies the possibility that a man is capable of the same.
I explicitly say now that anyone is *capable* of doing this with God's
help. Any man or any woman.
Personally, I do put the willingness to respond to agape love with love
on a pedestal whether it is exhibited by a woman or a man. Again, women
seem to universally do this in my experience and in the experience of
this author (Gary Smalley).
>Does that mean that as you grow in this ability, your wife becomes
>*more* responsible than before to give you unconditional love?
It is not a matter of responsibility on the wife. The responsibility
has clearly been given to both the husband and the wife (just look at
their vows). If anything, the husband has the greater responsibility
for loving his wife (as he is directly commanded to do in Ephesians).
So, let's remove the idea of responsibility from the discussion. It
is not a relevant difference between the husband and the wife. What
*is* a relevant difference is the willingness (of the will!) to respond
to agape love (and the inherent tendency to respond).
Peace to you, Alvin,
Collis
|
| 437.13 | RE: .12 - disagree with responsibility and inherent tendency | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Mon Apr 20 1992 13:55 | 89 |
| RE: .12
> a wife will respond to her husband's agape love producing a committed
> relationship (with several minor exceptions)
And, implicitly, a husband will not respond to his wife's "agape" love
producing an "uncommitted relationship" (oxymoron alert). Your "minor
exceptions" are, for me, the "proof of the pudding", i.e., your
statement is not a fact and shouldn't be used to justify your ideals.
Just for the record, from the Random House College Dictionary:
agape (a.ga.pe) 1. the love of God or Christ for
mankind. 2. the brotherly or spiritual love of one
Christian for another. 3. unselfish, platonic love of
one person for another; brotherly love.
For the sake of this discussion, I am personally more comfortable with
putting the third definition first, but I grant that you are using the
definitions in the above order.
(There's potentially another topic in the making here, by the way,
with the "problem" (in my view) of certain Christians who insist on
using their own vernacular both inside (no problem) and outside (big
problem) of their groups. For example, using the word "fellowship"
instead of the word "socialize". Maybe I'll start that topic myself
and expand on my thinking there.)
> Personally, I do put the willingness to respond to agape love with love
> on a pedestal whether it is exhibited by a woman or a man. Again, women
> seem to universally do this in my experience and in the experience of
> this author (Gary Smalley).
It used to be my "experience" that women tended to be more health
conscience than men. Nowadays I'd say they were about equal in this
area. This "willingness to respond to agape love ...", I would say,
may be either a man's distorted view of the whole or (as another noter
pointed out) social conditioning. In either case, this ability does
not rank pedestal status, but rather should be considered a skill to
put it in its proper perspective.
> >Does that mean that as you grow in this ability, your wife becomes
> >*more* responsible than before to give you unconditional love?
>
> It is not a matter of responsibility on the wife. The responsibility
> has clearly been given to both the husband and the wife (just look at
> their vows). If anything, the husband has the greater responsibility
> for loving his wife (as he is directly commanded to do in Ephesians).
See, from my perspective, at it's best Ephesians is a statement of
ideals. If you choose to live using this as your guide, more power to
you. But speaking of marriage in general (not just marriage between
two Christians), I would say ideally each partner should act as if
he/she had the greater responsibility to love it's spouse but
recognize that, in fact, the responsibility is shared equally.
Ephesians, at it's worst, is the writings of one who's advising people
of another time and another culture, and I'd question you about
accepting such advice without taking this into consideration.
> So, let's remove the idea of responsibility from the discussion. It
> is not a relevant difference between the husband and the wife. What
> *is* a relevant difference is the willingness (of the will!) to respond
> to agape love (and the inherent tendency to respond).
Well, looking at your previous paragraph, I'd say *my problem* is your
use of the idea of responsibility (and I quote, "the husband has the
*greater* responsibility for loving his wife" (emphasis mine)), so we
can't remove it from the discussion.
And I would also say we obviously disagree about this "inherent
tendency" idea. To use another poor analogy, I'm a very bad baseball
player. Now you could say, without an in depth examination, that's
because, as a mumble, I have an inherent tendency to not be able to
hit a ball very far or run from one when I should be trying to catch
it. I would say I can easily point to the environment I grew up in to
explain this lack of skill on my part. With practice and good
coaching I might be able to be a better player, but would I always be
a poorer player than someone who's been playing since he/she was five
years old. Is that because of this "inherent tendency", or because
I'll never be able to acquire an equal amount of experience? Just so,
in my view, with the ability to respond to agape love. I'd say it was
a skill and if someone is better at it than someone else, it's not
because they have an "inherent tendency".
Hope your Easter was happy.
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 437.14 | | COLLIS::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Mon Apr 20 1992 16:06 | 44 |
| Re: 437.13
>And, implicitly, a husband will not respond to his wife's "agape" love
>producing an "uncommitted relationship".
There's no need to try and figure out what I implicitly mean. I have
stated explicitly what I mean about husbands. Many husbands do not
respond to their wives agape love. Many husbands do. That's what
I have observed in my personal experience and what my reading tells me.
>Your "minor exceptions" are, for me, the "proof of the pudding",
>i.e., your statement is not a fact and shouldn't be used to justify
>your ideals.
I believe it to be true. It is confirmed by my personal experiences.
It is not a scientific fact (nor, I expect, could it ever hope to be).
It seems I have struck a nerve with this. You are evidently of the
belief that there are some (presumably a significant number of) women
who will not respond to agape love of their husbands. Is that true?
re: agape love definition
I would define agape love as a commitment of the will to do what is
best for another regardless of self-interest or response of others.
>Well, looking at your previous paragraph, I'd say *my problem* is your
>use of the idea of responsibility (and I quote, "the husband has the
>*greater* responsibility for loving his wife" (emphasis mine)), so we
>can't remove it from the discussion.
Sure we can. We can agree to discuss whatever we agree to discuss!
Note that I also said that husbands and wives *both* have responsibility
and that it was only in the context of Ephesians that I brought up the
idea that if there is a greater responsibility, Biblically, it rests with
the husband.
Re: inherent tendency
You are quite right that it is often hard to tell what tendencies are
inherited and what tendencies are learned. I see most all of the
evidence pointing one way in this instance and call it as I see it.
Collis
|
| 437.15 | RE: .14 - speaking objectively, not as a Christian | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Mon Apr 20 1992 18:03 | 71 |
| RE: .14
> There's no need to try and figure out what I implicitly mean. ......
Got me! :^( You're right! Trying to figure out what you implicitly
mean is an exercise in futility. But commenting on the implicit
meanings *I* find in your observations is perfectly legitimate. I'll
try and be more careful about my wording in the future. Sorry.
> It seems I have struck a nerve with this. You are evidently of the
> belief that there are some (presumably a significant number of) women
> who will not respond to agape love of their husbands. Is that true?
Yes, you struck a nerve because I'm sensitive to this topic for
reasons I have expressed already. And my position is, it doesn't
matter how many women will or won't respond to the agape love of their
husbands, I don't recognize that as a legitimate justification for
assigning responsibilities, generally speaking.
> re: agape love definition
>
> I would define agape love as a commitment of the will to do what is
> best for another regardless of self-interest or response of others.
Yes, I am very comfortable with that definition. From now on in this
discussion, when I use "agape love" this, too, is what I will mean.
> Note that I also said that husbands and wives *both* have responsibility
> and that it was only in the context of Ephesians that I brought up the
> idea that if there is a greater responsibility, Biblically, it rests with
> the husband.
So, "speaking as a husband", and, "speaking as a Christian", would be
good preambles here and having said as much I would be left mute. My
original comments were prompted because the note that started this
dialog stated the following as a matter of fact:
RE: 421.180
> ............................ The unconditional love of a husband for
> her wife will always (or nearly always) ........ keep a marriage together,
> .
> .
> .
> ..... the responsibility for the health of the marriage (after the
> initial years) rests squarely on the husband's shoulders.
You may believe this as a husband, fine. You may even hold that there
is something Christian about it, as an agnostic I'm not free to say
one way or the other. But as someone sensitive to the fact that there
may be people reading this who are struggling with divorce, I felt I
had to point out that this is not an objective observation on the
dynamics of marriage.
RE: .14 (again)
> You are quite right that it is often hard to tell what tendencies are
> inherited and what tendencies are learned. I see most all of the
> evidence pointing one way in this instance and call it as I see it.
My I respectfully suggest that, without thinking about it, you came to
the conclusion that the way a woman responds to agape love is an
inherent tendency. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, since all of us
jump to conclusions about lots of things we haven't thought through or
been educated about. My intention was to show that this response
could just as easily have been the result of other factors, since I
believe men can have the same ability.
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 437.16 | Back to what this conference was suppose to be about | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Thu Apr 23 1992 14:49 | 14 |
| Well, since Collis was good enough to give the base-note a general
title, and since this is the forum for finding out what Christians of
all persuasions think, let me ask this:
What are the principles that Christians believe a Christian
marriage should follow?
Please let me point out that I'm specifically asking about *Christian
marriages*, *not* marriages in general. That way I won't pollute any
further discussion here with my heathen ideas on the latter subject.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 437.17 | the basics ;') | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Wings of fire: Percie and me | Thu Apr 23 1992 15:00 | 9 |
| Alvin,
Being a 'liberal' Christian, I suspect my principles might be less
Bible-oriented. Mine are: love, spirituality, respect, equality,
honesty, and fidelity. Most importantly, both people doing the *work*
of the marriage - communication, responsibility, and maintenance.
Ro
|
| 437.18 | In the ideal | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Peace: the Final Frontier | Thu Apr 23 1992 16:17 | 19 |
| Alvin .16,
I'll speak in terms of the ideal, because that's what kind of
guy I am.
Marriage partners should encourage, support and facilitate each
other's growth, healing and wholeness. Each partner should strive to see
that of Christ in each other. Each partner should strive to find the
Christ between them, at the center of their relationship.
Marriage should be full of sex, imo. At least, for me it should.
I personally do not see that marriages of convenience or prearranged
marriages as a bad thing necessarily. I see more problems when a relationship
is veiled with thick layers of romantic delusions. Disillusionment can be
intolerably painful.
Peace,
Richard
|
| 437.19 | 8^) | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Wings of fire: Percie and me | Thu Apr 23 1992 16:27 | 11 |
| Richard (.18),
<< Marriage should be full of sex, imo. At least, for me it should.
You rascal. I had the word passion (ie sex) in my reply, but shyly
removed it. Glad you emphasized it in yours! ;')
Really liked your reply, especially seeing 'the Christ in each other'.
Ro
|
| 437.20 | RE: .18 - an aside | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Thu Apr 23 1992 17:06 | 13 |
| RE: .18
> Marriage should be full of sex, imo. At least, for me it should.
Somewhere I was reading that in the Jewish tradition having "marital
relations" (blush :^D) on the Sabbath is greatly encouraged! I've
already started a note asking if Christians should be good Jews, but
this, it seems to me, is one example where the traditions should have
been picked up lock, stock, and barrel! :^D
Peace,
Alvin
|
| 437.21 | | VIDSYS::PARENT | The girl in the mirror | Thu Apr 23 1992 17:36 | 11 |
|
Opinion only:
Marriage should contain in healthy doses, life, love, faith, passions
(all of them), and the willingness of both partners to share all of
them.
It's sorta like growing vegatables, the wind, rain, sun, and soil
all contribute, not one will make a tomato.
Allison
|
| 437.22 | RE: .21 - Kudos on a nice REPLY | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Thu Apr 23 1992 18:37 | 0 |
| 437.23 | | SA1794::SEABURYM | Zen: It's Not What You Think | Thu Apr 23 1992 20:12 | 20 |
|
I sometimes get tired of beginning my entries with this disclaimer,
but once again...
Not being a Christian I can't give you a Christian perspective
on this subject. Having been married for.....well long enough
to say I have learned a thing or two about the topic I think
the following things have played an important part in why
our marriage has worked out very well so far:
Loyalty, listening, respect, loyalty, listening, cheerfulness,
loyalty, listening, trust, loyalty, listening, sex, loyalty,
listening, sillyness, loyalty, listening, honesty, loyalty,
listening and patience
This is by no means a complete list and I betcha can't guess
which ones I think are important.
Mike
|