I apologize for the rambling of this post. I'm expressing things as I mull over them, and so am not as articulate as I would like to be. I've observed several conversations of late and I find it unfortunate how "serve" has become a curse. It seems that many equate serving with being walked all over. I think that one of the things that we have lost in the concept of marriage (though we have gained things, as well) is the idea that marriage is for others, for the spouse and children, as well as ourselves. All too easily we are tempted to walk out of a marriage when it is not giving us what we expect or demand. Untold pain to all involved is born as a result.
Women should serve because it is part of woman's role to serve, to make her husband comfortable and loved, to ensure her children have a safe place in her. This truth does not preclude the fact, however, that men should also serve. It is their role to also provide a safe place for wife and children, to protect and love them, to cherish them, to help them feel comfortable and valued. This is not a new concept, and its reality is as elusive today under our "new concept" of a marriage of equals as it has ever been.
I do not know the future of marriage. I am not firmly convinced of who is right and who is wrong in the endless debates on the subject. My mind tells me some things, my heart tells me others. But I can see that one of the primary purposes of the family is to serve each other. Service is at the core of the priesthood as demonstrated by Christ himself, and is the essence of motherhood. I believe it is also the essence of Godhood.
Yes, women should serve men, but so should men also serve women. Her service is intertwined with his. If either breaks their covenant, there is no promise. Both must serve God and each other. I love to serve, even when that service is not accepted. I wish only that I were better at it, and not so easily beset by selfishness both within my marriage as without. Until service—even in the face of ridicule and humiliation—is accepted and performed in spite of rejection, we will never understand Christ well enough to be like Him. He submitted himself to sinners to be mocked so that He might redeem them. We cannot be as He is until we do, to the utmost of our sphere, what He did.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Popular Posts
-
An email to Matt Walsh, after his response to Seth Smith's viral post : I have occasionally read your blog posts, and mostly agreed ... -
I was pondering about what—and if—I should post any more about abuse. At the same time, I was still mulling over Dr. Oz's recent show (y...
-
"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five ... -
There is a fine line between control and persuasion. Sometimes it’s really hard to see the difference, particularly in ourselves. Particular... -
I've been thinking a lot about toxic people and negativity. If it isn't already obvious, I've had a really hard time the last fi... -
I don’t know if what I’m going to write represents more than just me. Maybe I’m alone in feeling this way, but it doesn’t matter. I need to ... -
Sistas in Zion posted this to their Facebook page not long ago. It is a sentiment that I am finding expressed more and more often in the ... -
I may be the only one in the world who deals with this, but in the chance that I am not, I thought to try to share what gets me through it. ...
-
Prologue: I recognize that some are going to want to attack me for these thoughts because they don't agree with them. Before you do so,...
-
I mostly grew up outside of the Mormon Corridor. When I was fourteen, my family moved from Germany to a small town in Idaho. The culture sho...
Well said. I love what you've written, especially the final paragraph. I'm going to read it again, in fact.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. Thank you for putting into words what I have been having a difficult time expressing.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. In losing the meaning of service we have also lost the meaning of servant. To be a faithful servant is a position of mutual respect and honor.
ReplyDeleteTruly well written.
Good post, I agree. Except one thing - You mentioned that if either partner violates the covenant the covenant is void. In my understanding in the marriage covenant we aren't just in a binding promise with our spouse but also with God. If our partner violates the covenant we still have our part of the covenant to uphold with God. This is crucial in my eyes, otherwise we could find the numerous imperfections in our spouse as reason for nullifying our covenant. But if you realize your covenant is also with a loving, perfect Heavenly Father it makes it easier to keep up your end of the bargain in trying times.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comments, everyone, and the clarification, jendoop. You are right, I believe. I meant that if either breaks their covenant with God, there is no promise for that one. There is no covenant between the wife and husband, from what I understand.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a wonderful rendition on service. I think I'm reading divine writing here on the internet! Thankyou for this inspired text. My faith in humanity is ever increased!
ReplyDeleteWhy wasn't the title of your post simply "Why spouses should serve each other in marriage"?
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteA question and a comment: your last paragraph mentions "her service is contingent on his." Can you elaborate on this? That just didn't seem to click with me for some reason.
Also, perhaps I misunderstood, but one of the comments indicated that the marriage covenant is only between us and Heavenly Father. While that is true of most covenants, my understanding is that the marriage covenant, in addition to being between each individual and God is also a covenant between husband and wife.
Steve - because that was not the sort of comment that inspired the thoughts leading to the post, nor was it the point. My point was that woman should serve man in marriage. That is a concept independent of him serving her, though I did mention that as well, in the interest of balance. She should serve in marriage as Christ served in death, regardless of the husband's return service. Service is only a calculated investment if it is not done from charity.
ReplyDeleteJim - "contingent" was not the best choice of words, but at the time I could not think of a better. I have now replaced it with "intertwined".
As far as your understanding of the marriage covenant may go, you may be right. I do not remember enough of the sealing ceremony at this point to say you are not. My memories seem to indicate that my covenants were with God. My understanding of covenants indicate that a covenant can only be between a person (or group) and God. This is an important understanding for me because in the case that one member in a marriage breaks the covenant, that does not release the spouse from the covenant, since the covenant is between them and God, not between them and their spouse.
I've been away for a while but want to clarify who, IMO, the marriage covenant involves. I said, "we aren't just in a binding promise with our spouse but also with God." I believe the covenant is between ourselves, our spouse and God. An interesting thing to ponder when you consider there are also three members in the Godhead.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the marriage covenant, you are correct in that the covenant itself is between each party and God. The confusion, I believe, arises from the fact that husband and wife make this covenant together. When we talk of temple marriage as "making covenants with each other," it is easy to see how this can be misunderstood. Obviously both husband and wife are present when the covenant is made, but the actual covenant is between each party and God and not between husband and wife.
ReplyDeleteFor those interested, a good summary of all covenants we make, including that of celestial marriage, is listed in "Eternal Marriage, Student Manual," pages 40-46. This is available online at lds.org.
Thank you, Jim! I couldn't find a source anywhere on lds.org, and was afraid to use a search engine for distaste towards what else it might have found. I'm absolutely terrible with references, so I really appreciate your effort to find it. Again, thank you!
ReplyDelete