B
I've often heard it said by people that one should not go into a relationship or marriage thinking or hoping that the other person will "complete" them, or "make them whole", etc. Henceforth we will call this "taking identity" in your significant other.
Why would taking that approach be a problem though? Is it because people are too selfish to "complete" anyone? To only give and never take? Is it just setting yourself up for disappointment? Or do people think it's "too much commitment" or "too clingy?"
Philosophically speaking, I find this view to be quite appealing, however. Think of it this way:
It seems apparent to me that God created us with not one, but two "holes in our hearts" as they say: one would be for our longing for God and the heavenly, and the other would be for human companionship (male-female companionship; e.g. emotional and physical intimacy). God said in Genesis (as I'm sure you all know), "It is not good for man to be alone...", implying he created us to desire this kind of companionship. In fact, we need companionship to be made whole in this area (if one's worldview etc allows for such a thing).
So if we take identity in Christ (hopefully) to complete and fill one hole in ourselves, why is it frowned upon to take identity in your significant other?
If anything, I think if more people found "totality", "completeness", or "oneness" with their significant others, we would find the divorce rate to be drastically lower. The Western idea of love is pretty shallow in the sense that it is found almost entirely on affectionate feelings and not commitment. We love only on the basis of an implied contract, and once that contract is "broken" (due to inconveniences, typically), we leave instead of saying to ourselves "I am bound to this person and they to me; we have no choice but to stay together."
(Of course if they're beating you or otherwise abusing you, that's a different story. I know as well as everyone else that there are exceptions to these sorts of things.)
I'm not saying I'm some sort of ultra-clingy freak who falls maniacally in love with people on the first date (nor that I want to be), but I think what I'm saying is I think we as a culture need to start treating relationships a little bit more "permanently" like they were intended to be. Upon marriage, the two individuals "become one flesh", and I seriously don't think we as a culture really stop to fathom what that truly means. Heck, in many cultures there isn't even such a thing as dating, people just marry! And you know what? Statistically they're generally happier than us on the whole, because they know love isn't about feeling, it's about "oneness", and they have that identity in each other that as it was meant to be.
Thoughts?
Why would taking that approach be a problem though? Is it because people are too selfish to "complete" anyone? To only give and never take? Is it just setting yourself up for disappointment? Or do people think it's "too much commitment" or "too clingy?"
Philosophically speaking, I find this view to be quite appealing, however. Think of it this way:
It seems apparent to me that God created us with not one, but two "holes in our hearts" as they say: one would be for our longing for God and the heavenly, and the other would be for human companionship (male-female companionship; e.g. emotional and physical intimacy). God said in Genesis (as I'm sure you all know), "It is not good for man to be alone...", implying he created us to desire this kind of companionship. In fact, we need companionship to be made whole in this area (if one's worldview etc allows for such a thing).
So if we take identity in Christ (hopefully) to complete and fill one hole in ourselves, why is it frowned upon to take identity in your significant other?
If anything, I think if more people found "totality", "completeness", or "oneness" with their significant others, we would find the divorce rate to be drastically lower. The Western idea of love is pretty shallow in the sense that it is found almost entirely on affectionate feelings and not commitment. We love only on the basis of an implied contract, and once that contract is "broken" (due to inconveniences, typically), we leave instead of saying to ourselves "I am bound to this person and they to me; we have no choice but to stay together."
(Of course if they're beating you or otherwise abusing you, that's a different story. I know as well as everyone else that there are exceptions to these sorts of things.)
I'm not saying I'm some sort of ultra-clingy freak who falls maniacally in love with people on the first date (nor that I want to be), but I think what I'm saying is I think we as a culture need to start treating relationships a little bit more "permanently" like they were intended to be. Upon marriage, the two individuals "become one flesh", and I seriously don't think we as a culture really stop to fathom what that truly means. Heck, in many cultures there isn't even such a thing as dating, people just marry! And you know what? Statistically they're generally happier than us on the whole, because they know love isn't about feeling, it's about "oneness", and they have that identity in each other that as it was meant to be.
Thoughts?