Nearly eleven years of marriage has shaped who I am today. If I'd married a different sort of man, I wonder, how would I be different?
Married to someone less bookish and more outdoorsy, perhaps I would be more into gardening and would possibly even spend the night in a tent. If I lived with a sports nut, I could see myself cultivating a taste for football or soccer. A man with a fiery personality could stoke my own tendency to rant and rave. If I married a man who was less romantic, I probably wouldn't miss the surprise dates and the special gifts. Pfft, right.
I play the game with Darren's life, too. With a foodie wife, he'd have long conversations about delicious meals they'd enjoyed. With a politically savvy wife, he might be involved in local elections and attend county supervisor meetings. Married to a high achieving woman who reveled in busy, crazy, colorful life, he'd crawl into his cave and never come out. So just back off, woman. He's mine.
Although it's fun to speculate, I'm pretty happy with the person I've grown into. As Elizabeth said of Darcy, in essentials I'm still very much the same; it's just that Darren has smoothed out and filled up rough places in my personality.
I was thinking of the Destiny Game today after reading this article by Debi Pearl.* The following article, written in Debi's engaging style, is yet another reason why I avoid their toxic take on life.
An excerpt:
As Adam was created in God’s image, Eve was created in Adam’s image. God could have shaped two clay figures and breathed life into both, but he chose to take the woman from the man’s own flesh and bone. I have come to see that tiered process as very significant, making it consistent with nature that the woman should be the helper in the chain of command.
God did not create women as he did men, strongly fixed in one type or another. Being created in the image of man, we are more muted and flexible in our types.
She goes on to explain that it's the woman's job to "blend her life" into that of her man's. What she does, how she dresses, how she acts depends on what her husband needs her to be. In fact, it becomes very clear that Debi herself has no real conception of who she is apart from what she does and who her husband is. The only constant is that she "loves God." Otherwise, she is flexible, a "kaleidoscope of colors" designed to "fashion her life" into what her husband "needs her to be."
This thinking is delivered as the Biblical way to live. It's fed to young women who, in the Pearl community, have only marriage to look forward to as their calling in life. No wonder these young ladies are "unnerved by the burdens of marriage." Nothing like the prospect of losing your personhood to fill you with longing and joy!
I've had to adapt and change to live with Darren. But he's adapted and changed for me, too. I can play the Destiny Game out of curiosity, but I rest in the security that Darren married me for who I am, not for what I would do for him.
-- SJ
* I'm officially staking my flag in the anti-Pearl camp. What good they have to say isn't worth the bad theology, worse philosophy, and utter arrogance that they peddle. I've mentioned my allergy to the Pearls' child-rearing ideas before.
When accused that his methods -- touted as the only Biblical way to discipline, by the way -- led to the death of young Lydia Schatz, this was Michael Pearl's response.
10 comments:
:) I really like the two of you together. Keep on growing together, please.
I enjoyed this post. There is no healthy marriage where one person loses their individuality because they are shaping themselves so perfectly around their spouse. There's give and take, there may even be sacrifices made, but this has to be from both parties. Your Pride and Prejudice description perfectly sums up my feelings about it.
I rarely see such balance, but you and Uncle Darren do a wonderful job demonstrating what it looks like to your children and your niece. I applaud you. :)
I too was saying "huh??" while reading that article. As if we don't have any opinion on who we're attracted to or marry in the first place?! Anyways, I do like the Pride and Prejudice quote you mentioned. :)
Wowzers! I could climb up on my soapbox and take a flying leap but good sense tells me to refrain. You handled it well enough. And, thank you for modeling a healthy, vibrant, and God honoring/pleasing marriage for other bound up believers. (I don't even know your marriage but I can confidently say this simply from reading this blog post.)
Put me firmly in the anti-Pearl camp for many reasons.
First, I have obviously been changed by my marriage in many ways. We both adapt to the needs, strengths, and weaknesses of each other.
On a particularly positive note, I have become a father I never would have had Amanda been different. She lets me do what I want with the kids, and feels no need to correct or instruct me. This, combined with the fact that I have had each child (along with the others) alone overnight starting at 3 months, has meant that I have had to “raise my game”, so to speak.
I also would say that Pearl is full of mortadella on a few other points. I see no scriptural basis for the idea that only the male is made in God’s image, and that women are merely in the likeness of men. If so, it is a rather poor facsimile, to say the least. Or maybe it is a cleaner and more attractive impressionist painting? Either way, this completely ignores the fact that the “image of God” in context differentiates us, not from each other, but from the rest of creation. Man needed a companion which was his equal, or else a cat would have done as well. I could go on, but I would rather go read something less irritating.
And don’t even get me started on the whole color thing. It should be Red, Blue, and Green; or alternately, Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow. Excuse me while I go bang my head into the wall.
"Nothing like the prospect of losing your personhood to fill you with longing and joy!" Bahahaha!
I totally agree... there is balancing out of character that needs to happen on both sides. We can play the destiny game if we want, but I think there is a reason that God led us to marry the one that we married. My husband balances me out in many ways that I didn't even realize at the time we got married, and vice versa. There is a certain level to which we must adapt to each other (yes, both of us), but also a certain level to which we both NEED each other to be the people God created us in order to make our team work.
While I believe I'm to be a "helper" to Josh and that this is significant, I bring my own unique talents to that "help". I'm not to change into someone else to be that helper. Nor should my identity be found in my husband.
I have no idea who the Pearls are, except what you've mentioned here, but I have issues with the twisted-ness of the quote you have here starting with the first sentence. Woman was not created in the image of man, despite the fact she was taken from Adam's rib, but in God's image (Gen. 1:27). A goog point to remember!
What? You are not a Pearlite? SHOCKED! (HA!) I know a few women who have followed this advice and sadly, their husbands look a little bored. I think we are supposed to bring ourselves into the marriage not just for our sake, but for theirs too.
Is it possible to second flag staking? I didn't know anything about the Pearls until the past year or two and find them and their influence horrifying!
Oh holy moly cow. Sara. I cannot even comment what I want to comment, because I would leave a BOOK. I will leave it with my first reaction:
The "Man" in "let us make Man in Our image" in Genesis refers to "mankind" - not to gender. "Male and female created He them" says that God created man AND woman in His image.
And OH MY GOSH I am done.
Post a Comment