I recently read Sheldon Vanauken's A Severe Mercy. I'll post it in my book list, along with my thoughts about it, at the end of the month, but wanted to chat about some things he said about marriage. The following are some rules or principles that he and his wife set when they first started dating, realizing nearly immediately that they would marry each other.
Total trust - There was only one answer; total trust. And, we said, if that trust were ever violated, even the least bit, then a quick end; for trust could never be restored. But until then, however risky, the trust had to be total.
United front - About in-laws, we said, the only possible thing was a completely united front, politely and firmly rejecting any sort of interference. (p.32)
Possessions can't be burdens - Now we considered possessions as divisive. / Over-valued possessions, we decided, were a burden, possessing their owners. We decided to own nothing that we couldn't be comfortable with - reproductions not originals, cheap bindings not rare editions. This idea of the burden of possessions we held to - and years later when we got our first glossy new car, we hit it severely with a hammer to make it comfortably dented. (p.33)
Sharing - 'Look,' we said, 'what is it that draws two people into closeness and love? Of course there's the mystery of physical attraction, but beyond that it's the things they share. ... If one of us likes anything, there must be something to like in it - and the other one must find it. Every single things that either of us likes. That way we shall create a thousand strands, great and small, that will link us together. Then we shall be so close that it would be impossible - unthinkable - for either of us to suppose that we could recreate such closeness with anyone else. (p.35)
Preventing creeping separateness - The killer of love is creeping separateness. / Taking love for granted, especially after marriage. Ceasing to do things together. Finding separate interests. 'We' turning into 'I". Self. Self-regard: what I want to do. / This was the way of creeping separateness. / The failure of love might seem to be caused by hate or boredom or unfaithfulness with a lover; but those were the results. First came creeping separateness; the failure behind the failure. (p.37)
Spontaneity - If one of us had an impulse - to stop and listen to a bird, to go for a walk in the night, to cut classes, to do anything - we both followed it always. (p.39)
Affirmative - If one of us arrived at a belief, we both accepted it unless it could be disproved; we considered that any affirmative was more to be trusted than the negative. (p.39)
Courtesy - Whatever one us us asked the other to d0 - it was assumed the asker would weigh all consequences - the other would do. Thus one might wake the other in the night and ask for a cup of water; and the other would peacefully (and sleepily) fetch it. We, in fact, defined courtesy as 'a cup of water in the night'. (p.39)
Appeal to love - What it meant was simply this question: what will be best for our love? Should one of us change a pattern of behaviour that bothered the other, or should the other learn to accept? Well, which would be better for our love? Which way would be better, in any choice or decision, in the light of our single goal: to be in love as long as life might last? No argument could prevail against it. The Appeal to Love was like a trumpet call from the battlements of the Shining Barrier, causing us to lift our eyes from immediate desires to what was truly important. (p.41)
I love that they made their relationship a top priority from the start, that they assumed the best and put each other first, and that they proactively guarded against anything that could tear them apart. Their marriage was a team effort with both players giving it their all.
So, what do you think of the list? The one I question is about broken trust being impossible to restore. I know of couples who have worked through broken trust and have happy marriages, but I don't know if they'd say they have total trust or almost total trust. Maybe there's always a little lingering doubt. I'm not sure. Otherwise, I think the list is really good. I know we do well in some areas, lousy in others, and haven't really considered at least one of them.
3 comments:
I find it easier to never trust, that way I am always surprised when things turn out positive. But I am a cynic.
Steve and I discussed the one about always liking the same things. I noted that I threw away a pair of pants he hated, he noted it took me nearly two years to throw them away.
Did you say a man wrote this book? It kinda sounded like a women.
Tania
In my experience total trust can be restored. And what did they mean by a quick end if trust is broken? Are they talking divorce? I think that is extreme.
This is a good list. A few of them wouldn't work in our marriage. But that is us. We do make our marriage a priority. We didn't from the beginning, paid for that and worked through it. But we do now. It does look different at my house than theirs though.
Sounds like a good book. Is it only about marriage?
Tania - Love the pants story. :) Yes, the author is a man, but his writing is kinda ... oh, poetic, for lack of a better word. Really descriptive, etc.
Kelly - You guys were one of the couples I thought of in regards to the trust thing. As to the "quick end", they did mean divorce. While I'd advocate for trying to work through broken trust, I understand where they were coming from. Kinda "all or nothing". The book is not just about marriage. In fact, it's not really about marriage at all. It's more about their relationship, their exposure to Christianity, and how those two things worked together.
Maryanne - Totally get what you're saying about trust. FWIW, they came up with their rules as non-Christians. I think another, perhaps more accurate, phrase would have been "assume the best". That would acknowledge the potential for broken trust without being suspicious.
About the separate interests, we're kinda like you. Tim spends time fishing with guys, I'm going out of town with girlfriends, etc. I'm fine with us having some separate things, but I think there's some risk when you do more things apart than together. It's that whole "creeping" part of it, the gradual addition of separate activities, the decrease in things done together, and then the realization that you have no shared life after your kids fly the coop.
Post a Comment