Posted on 09/30/2015 2:40:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
You want to know one reason why so many Christian marriages end up in divorce?
Ronald Reagan once quipped that the trouble with his political opponents, “is not that they are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Well, I’ve had a bee in my bonnet for years over something that far too many of my fellow Christians believe in that just isn’t so. I speak, gentle listener, of the whole “soul mate” nonsense, especially when it comes to finding a husband or wife.
Let me be perfectly clear: No matter how many ads for Christian dating services you hear or trendy books you read, we simply don’t have “soul mates,” at least as our confused culture understands that term. Does this surprise you? It shouldn’t. Look for that concept, by the way, in the Bible, and the only thing you can find remotely close to it is the fierce friendship of David and Jonathan. “Jonathan made a covenant with David,” Scripture says, “because he loved him as his own soul.”
Now those are soul mates, friends. But the Bible knows nothing of romantic “soul mates.” This concept is more New Age than Christian. The Huffington Post gives nine signs that you’ve found your soul mate, the first one being: “You communicate without speaking.” Okay. One New Age website, however, gives three signs you’ve “definitely” found your soul mate: “You just connect without trying,” “Your level of communication is unmatched,” and “You create your own world together.”
That’s cute, it’s nice, maybe it’s even romantic . . . but it’s certainly not biblical.
Now all of this confusion might be kind of funny if it weren’t so harmful to naïve Christians and others who’ve fallen for this idea. Because this idea implies that somewhere out there is that “perfect person” for you, and if your marriage is not exploding with intense communication, romance, and a great sex life, well then maybe it’s because your spouse is not your “soul mate.”
Men who are a little bored with their wives, or vice versa, might be tempted by a co-worker who “understands me so well and is my soul mate, or could be my soul mate.” But frankly, this is a recipe for adultery and divorce, and families end up getting dropped for “soul mates.”
Once I wrote a tribute to C.S. Lewis’s “The Screwtape Letters” called “Screwtape Proposes a Divorce,” in which Wasphead, my invented senior devil, says the following to Gallstone, the junior devil: “That [soul mates] do not exist is to be kept TOP SECRET. … Let’s be blunt: these humans are scouring the globe for someone with whom a relationship will require absolutely no work or compromise. … Many adult humans who have long ago dismissed Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as myths somehow persist in believing this person to exist.”
The “soul mate” concept is unworkable and completely unfair to the real other person in your life. It puts enormous pressure on him or her to perform, to meet our impossible expectations. As Jerry Root and Stan Guthrie point out in “The Sacrament of Evangelism,” putting others in God’s place—expecting them to give us what only He can—is a naked form of idolatry and will only lead to deep disappointment.
Here’s another thing. The “soul mate” idea suggests that marriage is all about me, that I need to find someone who understands me perfectly, who makes me happy. Marriage should be about finding someone you can make happy. In the great teaching on marriage in Ephesians, for example, husbands are told to lay down their lives for their wives, as Christ did for the church.
As J. R. R. Tolkien once wrote to his son, “No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial.”
So folks, let’s drop the whole “soul mate” talk, shall we? Marriage can be wonderfully satisfying, but that’s the result of God’s grace, hard work, and self-sacrificial love. And that is the truth.
“There are two theories regarding communicating with women.
Neither one works.”
—Folk Wisdom
That is a wonderful Scriptural study. Thank you for posting it.
Happy you found it useful!
Many struggle and work at relationships as did Leah, and commitments are commitments even if misguided. Yet souls are designed to connect, even though the world may abuse that knowledge to justify misdeeds.
If a relationship is meant to be, God will make the way. No trail of destruction will be left behind in the process.
As a Christian, I am part of the solution and I knew my doctrine was Biblical. Here it is:
1 Cor. 11
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Yes, you & I are lights to the world by grace. But your doctrine here, “The woman should only follow the man if the man is following Christ”, is not Biblical as 1 Peter 3:1-4 points out. To that degree, you are not part of the solution that is so desperately needed today even among Christians. Don’t go the way of the flesh, like Adam who went along with Eve’s deception, but lovingly help her and stand against the Satanic assault against her and her God-given nature and help bring peace to her and thus to marriages, the home, and society.
IF we do that and give ourselves to the Lord and his will, we WILL suffer persecution, but our reward will be great now and in Heaven, as long as we act from Jesus’ heart of love and not our own self aggrandizement. Grace and truth, today more than ever, is unpopular and we will be attacked by the world and other Christians, but as Jesus said, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
Peter’s teaching doesn’t trump Paul’s teaching on the matter. Put together they clarify the expectation of God for the husband. Clearly, 1 Peter 3:1-4 cannot be endorsing a husband that would sell a wife into prostitution or encourage her to rob or thieve.
Secondly, the Garden in Eden wasn’t an accident, but a purposeful opportunity for two complete innocents to use choice and accountability. Eve was beguiled as happens, but Adam, given two commandments in conflict, chose the better way. The Fall wasn’t an accident, but the great beginning.
It is NEVER a better choice to go against what you know is Gods will no matter how good an idea you think it is. Adam clearly blew it by doing what God said not to do.
Remember, the record shows that God commanded Adam, not Eve, about the Tree (Gen. 3-16-17). It was Adam’s job to shepherd Eve which he not only failed to do, but joined in her rebellion as he is doing today.
Agreed. It is foolish to go against an all knowing, all loving God. But this is the first commandment given to man:
Gen. 1: 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
The verse you cite is the second commandment. So for this purpose a man cleaves to his wife. Adam chose life and procreation over losing the help meet to the task at hand, Eve. It’s truly a story breathtaking in its beauty and consequences for us.
Nonsense. It's just not that hard.
"Admitting" what you understand: now that's the rub.
That's what people ASK for, but what they really mean is unconstitutional ACCEPTANCE!
Gross generalization, that’s not to say that there are none who have the breadth of empathy needed to see deeply into the hearts of the opposite gender.
True, but you can't lead someone who refuses to follow, which is what I believe the other poster was getting at.
I've yet to meet an American woman who will follow her husband unless he's leading to somewhere she wanted to go, anyway.
They will use every gambit they can think of except submission.
The woman's favorite out. Too bad that's not what the Scripture says.
No, silly, the Lord never ordered sin.
Abigail’s apologies for Nabal are an extreme example.
Depends on who gets to define "abusive" now doesn't it?
Being "ordered" into sin is NOT the problem with contemporary women. Contriving a way to see themselves as the victim, when they are actually the perpetrator, IS.
lol. If I had a penny for every time somebody said to me, “that’s not what the Scripture says.” I’d be a billionaire.
1 Cor. 11
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
If Christ is your head, then the expectation is that you will be Christlike, no?
In this case, for us Christians, that would be God. Paul refers to Abraham as an example of a honorable aka non-abusive husband.
That just isn’t true....now go find the data and recant your guestament.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-christian-divorce-rate-identical-to-national-average-31815/
Study: Christian Divorce Rate Identical to National Average
The Truth
Hello?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.