Does a Marital Partnership Preclude Husband and Wife Becoming One?

[mammal_mama]

I just heard someone present the idea that marriage can be egalitarian OR it can be a union into one -- but not both at the same time.

Whereas I, personally, don't see egalitarianism as meaning that both partners in a marriage are "the same." I think we are all unique, so every marital union is going to be "complementary" in the sense that each partner is good at different things.

I just disagree with the formal idea of complementarianism because, rather than encouraging couples to just get to know themselves and one another, and figure out, together, the best ways to live out their lives and raise their families, it seems to be very prescriptive and to assign roles.

I also find the idea that a wife always needs to make her words sweeter to be a bit annoying. I mean, I think we should all treat one another with gentleness, respect, and consideration. I honestly can't agree that women are generally more prone than men are to speak in ways that are harsh and insensitive, so why on earth would women need to be more careful?

At any rate, I definitely think my husband and I are two very different people. Some of these differences are probably affected by our biology, but I think our biology interacts with all our different traits and so the end result is that each of us is totally unique.

I actually don't get the impression that most people who are pro-egalitarian marriage are also pro-dividing everything up 50/50. So why are some people implying that if you don't have a hierarchy, and if you don't see your husband as your "head," then you can't really enjoy the beauty of being one?

How is a top-down organization more interconnected than a tree, or a spiderweb?

[cappuccinosmom]

I guess it really depends on perceptions and definitions. In my experience IRL, people who are self-described egalitarians have tended to be very "separated" in many areas of marriage. <shrug> That's my experience. Doesn't mean it can't happen another way, but I can understand someone having problems with the egalitarian setup, depending on what they've seen or heard.

As to "sweetness", again, it's a perception thing. In my experience, women do have a particular tendancy to abuse with words, and a particular ignorance of how devastating those words can be. Of course both men and women should be kind and careful with how they speak. Generally when I've seen any commentary directed at women, it's from women, recognizing their own failures and warning about that particular trap we may fall into.

In general, I have not experienced mainstream complementarian folks to speak exclusively to women or make rules exclusively for women. I've been a regular listener to focus on the family (don't flame me) and Family Life, which are well known to be complimentarian when it comes to marriage. They spend as much time, if not more, urging and encouraging men to be responsible, kind, loving, gentle, and self-sacrificing in marriage. Aside from the fringes who are exceedingly rigid, complimentarianism is not a set in concrete form, but a general principal that will look different in different marriages.

[Thao]

I think there are extremes on either side - the complementary marriage where husband dominates the wife being the extreme on one side, and the egalitarian marriage where the partners are very separate being the extreme on the other side. To say that either extreme is the true nature of the arrangement is a distortion.

So why can't an egalitarian marriage can't be a complete union? Did the speaker say?

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Thao

So why can't an egalitarian marriage can't be a complete union? Did the speaker say?

It wasn't part of a formal talk; someone just made a comment on a thread. This person didn't directly say that egalitarian marriage precludes oneness between husband and wife -- but simply that she'd started out with egalitarian ideals and ended up valuing becoming one (this is just a paraphrase and not this person's exact words).

And it wasn't in this forum, where the debates can happen, so I didn't question the speaker.

It was interesting to me, because it's kind of a recurrent theme that I remember from back when I was in fundamentalism.

I think cappuccinosmom is right that some egalitarian couples may be more inclined to each go their own way. I think egalitarian couples may be more likely to "write their own marriage" -- and some may decide they prefer vacationing separately, or having separate bank accounts, and so on.

Of course, I've also seen some very large complementarian or patriarchal families where husbands have to work long hours to provide while wives handle everything on the home front, and they may go for several days without even having a chance to talk to one another.

So I guess it can work both ways. Personally, I feel closer to people who aren't in a role of authority over me.

[Smokering]

I think cappuccinosmom is right that some egalitarian couples may be more inclined to each go their own way. I think egalitarian couples may be more likely to "write their own marriage" -- and some may decide they prefer vacationing separately, or having separate bank accounts, and so on.

I don't really see those as egalitarian vs complementarian issues. My parents would have what you'd probably define as a complementarian marriage, but Mum handles the finances and Dad travels alone to conferences... Complementarian doesn't mean hand-holding in every single domestic task - sometimes it means the couple recognising that one partner has a gift for a task that the other does not, and leaving him/her to it.

[zinemama]

Can you explain more what "becoming one" looks like in the context of marriage? I'm having trouble seeing how either of these models has anything to do with that goal.

[JMJ]

I'm not sure I'm clear on how you are defining egalitarian marriage. Certainly, a marriage would work best if both partners value each other more highly than they value themselves. I do think that marriage is a complementary relationship. Two people cannot be the same, and both the husband and the wife bring important gifts to the family. It works better to capitalize on the gifts that each one brings rather than to try to force both into a mold that is not who they are.

I think that one thing that I do see in some people who are trying for an egalitarian marriage (though, to be perfectly honest, it's present to a certain extent in every marriage between imperfect people) that would interfere with becoming one is a focus on one's own self and what I get to get out of this relationship rather than a focus on how I can better love my spouse. If I am concerned about myself apart from my husband, that is a sign that we are not one. If I am focused on love and service of my husband and the health of our relationship, that leads to oneness.

[Bluegoat]

I think that JMJ is probably on the right track, if I'm understanding her correctly.

Egalitarianism could be understood to be a way of saying "I am not going to be in this marriage unless I am treated as an equal partner" or maybe :in this marriage, everyone will get what they deserve" - and that would be meant to be a good and positive thing by both.

But I think that in the end, that is not enough for unity. Imagine if in our everyday journey to live in Christ we only hoped to get what we deserved, or looked to make sure we were equal, or even that we could maintain our own life, sense of self, priorities, even our dreams. These things would all likely cause real failure. And marriage is compared especially to the unity between Christ and the Church, which involves self sacrifice and submission on both sides.

Now, I think this is something both men and women are called to do - but that isn't usually what is meant by egalitarian.

In my own marriage I can't say I've ever felt like I was having to "submit" or put my husband in the place of the "head". Pretty much any time I've felt I had to give way, I think it would be the same had I been the husband - and there have been plenty of times he's given way to me - maybe more than I have.

[mammal_mama]

I see an egalitarian marriage as one in which neither spouse is "over" the other. And I think egalitarian marriages are all going to look different, just as complementarian or patriarchal marriages all differ a great deal based on the individual uniquenesses involved.

I agree with zinemama that neither model, in and of itself, has anything to do with becoming one.

To me, becoming one with my husband is about thinking of him as a part of my own body, and filling the needs of my husband and children simultaneously with filling my own needs. Along these lines, I also think mutual submission plays a big part in becoming one.

[cappuccinosmom]

To me, becoming one with my husband is about thinking of him as a part of my own body,

What's interesting is that my husband (definitely complimentarian) has this view of marriage. In fact, it is a Biblical command to men, a very specific departure from the "property" view of women that was culturally normal at the time.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

What's interesting is that my husband (definitely complimentarian) has this view of marriage. In fact, it is a Biblical command to men, a very specific departure from the "property" view of women that was culturally normal at the time.

Yes. I think the main difference is that my husband and I both see one another as part of the same body, whereas according to the literal interpretation of the verses in Ephesians, the husband is to see the wife as part of his body, but the wife is to see her husband as her head.

And, of course, the head is also a bodypart. But we do tend to see the brain as the part that guides all the other parts. According to my view of marriage, my husband and I both have equal access to the brain; one of us may have more expertise in one area, and another in another, but we don't feel any need for one of us to dominate the other.

Of course, I hear some complementarians say that this description of mutual submission is exactly what their own marriages are like, only for whatever reasons, I prefer to think of this as egalitarian while the complementarians prefer to think of it as complementarian. So maybe these labels really don't mean all that much.

[Shami]

My dh also has the view that he is to care for me as his own body. The Bible says for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. This verse doesn't get near the coverage as wives submit to your husbands.
How does this play out in our marriage and make us more one?
Dh is quick to apologize to me and often feels he is lacking in caring for me. He always asks me how I feel about things and what do I want to do about...whatever. He values me and my thoughts on any subject. He believes that he will answer to the Lord for how well he has cared for me. He feels responsible for me physically, spiritually, and emotionally. I've not seen him lose his temper in the 4 years of our marriage.

I told you all about my dh first so that you could maybe understand why I can submit to someone like this.

On my side, I am strong and opinionated, but I view him as my head. We discuss, sometimes argue, and pray together about matters we are facing. If after praying, we still do not agree about the matter at hand (this is rare), I will let him make the final decision and continue to pray about it. I fully trust that my dh has prayed and is following what he feels the Lord is asking of him. So, I can follow my husband since I know he is doing his best to follow the Lord.

If you read these verses as a law and you try to follow them in a legal way then it is more like a do this and don't do that, hard core religious thing. However, if you view these verses as this is a loving, trusting relationship then it doesn't have a top down hierarchical feel. When I give up my opinion and let him make the final decision I have complete peace and rest. I never feel as if he is running over me.

One last thing, he never says to me or reminds me that I am supposed to submit, and i never remind him to love me as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. We just try and take care of our own side.

[cappuccinosmom]

So maybe these labels really don't mean all that much.

Maybe.

I do not think the emphasis on the "one body" thing for men in that one passage means anything more than a command for them do set aside cultural norms and commit to the one flesh union rather than an ownership or domination-based marriage. "One flesh" is found in multiple other verses, and applied to both husband and wife.

*If* husband and wife are following the commands that complimentarians view as different roles, the result *will* be very much like the egalitarian idea of mutual submission. We're just coming at it from a different angle, I think.


Like this, actually:

One last thing, he never says to me or reminds me that I am supposed to submit, and i never remind him to love me as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. We just try and take care of our own side.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

Maybe.

I do not think the emphasis on the "one body" thing for men in that one passage means anything more than a command for them do set aside cultural norms and commit to the one flesh union rather than an ownership or domination-based marriage. "One flesh" is found in multiple other verses, and applied to both husband and wife.

*If* husband and wife are following the commands that complimentarians view as different roles, the result *will* be very much like the egalitarian idea of mutual submission. We're just coming at it from a different angle, I think.


Like this, actually:

So, maybe the husband-as-head thing in Ephesians was more of a "gateway" drug, intended to ease people of that culture and time period into full-blown equality and mutual submission in marriage?

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

To me, becoming one with my husband is about thinking of him as a part of my own body, and filling the needs of my husband and children simultaneously with filling my own needs. Along these lines, I also think mutual submission plays a big part in becoming one.

When you say that you think of your husband as a part of your own body, are you meaning that literally, or metaphorically? I mean, I can understand the concept of the marriage, the partnership, the bond itself between two people, being something stronger than each of them as individuals. And I get having shared goals and aspirations, ways of living, etc.

But literally considering one person part of the body of another...how does that work? What body part would that be? Not trying to be facetious here! I'm just baffled. I mean, even as a breastfeeding mother, I didn't consider my babies to be parts of my body, although they were attached to me from time to time. And though my dh and I are, uh, also attached from time to time, I just don't see anyway to think of him as one of my literal body parts.

[cappuccinosmom]

In the context of the Biblical verses being discussed "one body" (or "one flesh") has a couple of different facets.

1. It's a spiritual reference to the unique bond of marriage--at least the way God created it to be--as lifelong, two individual souls coming together "as one"
2. The marriage is not two people doing their own thing, but two people working together as a unit to glorify God, care for each other, and raise up their children.
3. For the men, in the verse given, it means to go against the cultural flow and give their wife the care and consideration they would give themselves. IE: selfishness and self-serving behavior is out. Serving the other and seeking to care for their needs is in.

[Shami]

I'll just add to Cappuccinosmom's post.
Here are the verses in Ephesians so that you can read it for your self.

Ephesians 5

28 In the same way the husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife loves himself.

29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church,

30 Because we are members of His Body.

31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.

32 This mystery is great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church.


Christians believe that we are all members of the actual body of Christ. Christ is the Head and we are the many members which make up His body, the church, His expression on the earth. We have a physical body and we should care for our spouses' bodies (their whole being) as we would care for our own body. We should care for it as our own in the way that Christ cares for us, His body.

If you look carefully at the last verse you see that the marriage union between husband and wife is a great mystery, but Paul is speaking with regard to Christ and the church. Our marriage union is a picture, or a type, of Christ and the church. Christ and the church are joined as one and for eternity we will be joined to Christ as our husband for eternity.

[zinemama]

Ok, now that makes more sense. From the OP and the first few posts, it wasn't clear to me that this discussion was centered around any particular religion, though I realize now that this is a Christian concept you all are discussing. Still, Shami and Cappucino's mom, you make it clear that it's more about loving the other person the way you love your own self - A union of souls, the partners working together. Not actually considering the other person a literal part of your own body. Correct?

[cappuccinosmom]

Right. No, dh is not literally my head. Funny thought.

There is an element of "mystery" to it though. What is presented is a spiritual matter and I have difficulty explaining it in terms that I or anyone else can understand. It's more than just a partnership or even a union. But I don't know how to explain it.

[Shami]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Ok, now that makes more sense. From the OP and the first few posts, it wasn't clear to me that this discussion was centered around any particular religion, though I realize now that this is a Christian concept you all are discussing. Still, Shami and Cappucino's mom, you make it clear that it's more about loving the other person the way you love your own self - A union of souls, the partners working together. Not actually considering the other person a literal part of your own body. Correct?

Correct...sort of. It's not literal in the physical sense, but it is literal in the spiritual sense.
I'll give you this:
When Saul (who became Paul and wrote 14? epistles in the NT) was persecuting the church, breathing threatening and murder, he was binding up the believers to take them to be judged and many times imprisoned or killed. When Saul was on the road to Damascus a light flashed and he was blinded. Here is Saul's conversation with the voice of Jesus.
3 And as he went, he drew near to Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.

4 And he fell on the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?

5 And he said, Who are You, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute.

Saul (Paul) never personally saw or met with Jesus while Jesus was alive on the earth. Yet, the voice said I am Jesus whom you persecute.
So how could Saul persecute Jesus? Saul was actually persecuting the believers, the body of Christ, the church.
By persecuting believers Saul was persecuting the literal physical and spiritual body of Christ.

I try to see all believers, including my dh, as a part of the literal, physical and spiritual body of Christ.
So, when I take care of my husband, I am really taking care of a member of the body of Christ.

Just as our physical body has many members joined to one another with the same blood flowing to every member, so Christ's body has many members, joined and knit together in love with the Spirit flowing among us. All believers have the same Holy Spirit as our life flowing through every member.
The Head is Christ, the body is us, all the members joined in an organic life union with Christ. The problem is that the world cannot see our oneness because we Christians are so divided by our practices, doctrines, and culture. Christ did not intend for the members to be so divided. Sorry that's another topic.
But that is the background info for you, and as hubby and wife, we are joined by this Spirit to be one in an organic union.

This is also why prayer is so important in our marriage. It is so that we can contact this Holy Spirit who dwells within us in order to become one in every matter in our marriage. It is only in this Spirit that we can really be one since we are both our own people. It is the Spirit who makes us one.

In our marriage there are three opinions: My opinion, dh's opinion and God's opinion. So, we pray to reach God's opinion and drop our own opinion.

Hope something made sense here...like Cappsmom said, it's really hard to explain.

It's not a physical joining like conjoined twins, but I see him as a member of the body of Christ in a physical sense and a spiritual sense.