A young man came into my office one morning and said, “It’s not worth it! I see so many of my friends’ marriages breaking up, I’m never getting married. Marriage appears to be such a gamble—and it’s the only game in town where both players can lose. There’s too much risk involved in getting married. I don’t want to end up a statistic.” Perhaps he was running scared and being a bit overly cautious. Yet his concern is echoed by many young people. In some cases this attitude lends itself to the move toward simply living together.
There is risk involved in the marriage process, but the essential element is not so much finding the right person as it is becoming the right person. Both individuals can lose in the game of marriage, but it is just as possible for both to win.
Most couples are not fully aware of the complexities and dimensions of the marital relationship. Marriage means sharing in many areas of life such as:
• Emotional. Sharing the emotional and fantasy levels of life.
• Economic. Sharing the accumulation, use, and distribution of money.
• Recreational. Sharing recreation and pleasure. This involves not only recreation together but allowing your spouse to enjoy recreation with his or her own set of companions.
• Social. Sharing of social and interpersonal activities. Some will be enjoyed together, some separately.
• Geographical. Sharing space, time, and geographical proximity.
• Sexual. A unique sharing of the physical, sensual, and sexual aspects of two people.
• Legal. A couple’s involvement in the civil and legal process of a society.
• Religious. Sharing beliefs, values, and traditions.
What is involved in the process of selecting a mate? What factors, conscious and unconscious (some have said that all couples in love are unconscious!), move people toward one another? What does the evangelical church have to say to a young person about his or her choice of a life partner? Do we say that God has one person that He has selected to be your mate, or is there an unlimited stockpile that you can select from and still be within God’s will? Often the church says only that a believer must marry a believer. That is scripturally true, but there are more factors involved in the selection of a mate than spiritual oneness.
There are numerous reasons for marriage apart from being in love. Pregnancy is still a reason for marriage. In fact, about one-fourth of all marriages occur when the bride is pregnant. Probably many of these marriages would not have occurred had the woman not been pregnant. Research on these marriages shows a relationship between a premarital pregnancy and unhappiness in marriage.1 In God’s grace, these marriages do not have to end in a higher divorce rate or have a greater rate of unhappiness than others; the forgiveness of Jesus Christ that each person experiences and gives to his or her partner can affect this situation as well as any other.
Rebound is a reason for marriage when a person attempts to find a marriage partner immediately after a relationship terminates. In a sense it is a frantic attempt to establish desirability in the eyes of the person who terminated the relationship. Marriage on the rebound is questionable because the marriage occurs in reference to the previous man or woman and not in reference to the new person.
Rebellion is a motivation for marriage and occurs in both secular and Christian homes. This is a situation in which the parents say no and the young person says yes. It is a demonstration of one’s control over one’s own life, and possibly an attempt to demonstrate independence. Unfortunately, the person uses the marriage partner to get back at his or her parents.
Escape from an unhappy home environment is another reason for marriage. Some of the reasons given are fighting, drinking, and molestation. This type of marriage is risky, as the knot-tying is often accomplished before genuine feelings of mutual trust, respect, and mature love have had any opportunity to develop.
Loneliness is a reason that stands by itself. Some cannot bear the thought of remaining alone for the rest of their days; they do not realize that a person can be married and still feel terribly lonely. Instantaneous intimacy does not occur at the altar, but must be developed over months and years of sharing and involvement. The flight from loneliness may place a strain upon the relationship. One person may be saying, “I’m so lonely. Be with me all the time and make me happy.” The problems stemming from this attitude are apparent.
Physical appearance is a factor that probably influences everyone to some degree. Our society is highly influenced by the cult of youth and beauty. Often the standards for a partner’s physical appearance are set not so much to satisfy one’s needs but simply to gain the approval and admiration of others. Some build their self-concept upon their partner’s physical attributes.
Social pressure may be direct or indirect and can come from many sources. Friends, parents, churches, and schools convey the message “It is normal to be married; to fit the norm you should get with it.” On some college campuses a malady known as “senior panic” still exists, and in some areas it occurs on the high school level. Engagement and marriage may be a means of gaining status; fears of being left behind are reinforced by others. In some churches when a young unmarried pastor arrives, matchmaking becomes the order of the day Some churches will not hire a minister unless he is married; thus a young minister must either marry before he is ready or spend many months looking for a church.
Guilt and pity are still involved in some marriages. Marrying a person because one feels sorry for him or her because of physical defects, illness, or having a poor lot in life does not make a stable marital relationship.2
What about romance? Aren’t love and romance a factor? Yes, but it is important to distinguish between genuine love and romantic love. Romantic love has been labeled cardiac-respiratory love. This is love with an emphasis on excitement, thrills, and palpitations of the heart. Some people react as though there were a lack of oxygen in the area. Ecstasy, daydreaming, and a deep physical yearning are all indications of this malady. Not only is this type of love blind, it is also destructive. Neither the past nor the future is taken into consideration in evaluating the potential of the relationship. James Peterson aptly describes the dangers of marrying for this reason:
First, romance results in such distortions of personality that after marriage the two people can never fulfill the roles that they expect of each other. Second, romance so idealizes marriage and even sex that when the day-to-day experiences of marriage are encountered there must be disillusionment involved. Third, the romantic complex is so short-sighted that the premarital relationship is conducted almost entirely on the emotional level and consequently such problems as temperamental or value differences, religious or cultural differences, financial, occupational, or health problems are never considered. Fourth, romance develops such a false ecstasy that there is implied in courtship a promise of a kind of happiness which could never be maintained during the realities of married life. Fifth, romance is such an escape from the negative aspects of personality to the extent that their repression obscures the real person. Later in marriage these negative factors to martial adjustment are bound to appear, and they do so in far greater detail and far more importantly simply because they were not evident earlier. Sixth, people engrossed in romance seem to be prohibited from wise planning for the basic needs of the future even to the point of failing to discuss the significant problems of early marriage.
It is difficult to know how pervasive the romantic fallacy really is. I suspect that it creates the greatest havoc with high school seniors or that half of the population who are married before they are twenty years old. Nevertheless, even in a college or young adult population one constantly finds as a final criterion for marriage the question of being in love. This is due to the distortion of the meaning of a true companionship in marriage by the press, by the magazines, and by cultural impact upon the last two or three generations. The result is that more serious and sober aspects of marital choice and marital expectations are not only neglected but sometimes ridiculed.3
Ask college students why most people get married and one usually still receives the answer: because of romantic love. “We are destined to marry each other,” or, “We just have this attraction for one another and marriage is the logical step,” couples say. Such couples often overlook the fact that marriage partners need to fulfill certain qualifications to be suited to each other. In reality, more couples are thrown together by factors other than romance or the logic of intelligence.
There are many limits on mate selection. Physical location is the most significant limitation, a fact that seems highly unromantic.4 The farther two people live apart, the more intervening opportunities there are to choose someone else. There is a limit to how much time and money a man will spend traveling to see a woman when there are other women nearby. Occasionally romantic love breaks all barriers, but those cases are the exception.
Research studies regarding marriage indicate that persons marry with greater than chance frequency within their own social class.5 Any overall tendency for people to marry either “up” or “down” in a social class is negligible.
When a person marries, does he choose a person just the opposite of himself? For years the statement “opposites attract” has been used to explain part of the attraction process. And yet the results of hundreds of studies of married couples indicate that, almost without exception, in physical, social, and psychological characteristics the mates are more alike than different. The exceptions, or those that appear to be exceptions, do not alter this overall tendency.
Within the framework of like marrying like, however, some characteristics appear to be quite opposite in each spouse. Since the fulfillment of needs is at the heart of such mate selection, one will find that some needs in couples are complementary whereas some are contradictory
It is in the area of complementary characteristics and needs that the concept “opposites attract” is seen to be somewhat accurate. The most important complementary needs involve dominance and submissiveness. If a person has a need to dominate he will tend to marry and be gratified by a person who needs to be submissive. If a man marries a woman who has the need to be dominant and he is submissive, there will be some conflict because the social expectations of our society call for the male to be dominant and the female to be submissive. In spite of social pressures, many couples choose to go against the expectation. If one has a need to nurture others, such as giving sympathy, love, protection, and indulgence, he would be happy with a partner who has the need to be nurtured. (Most people, fortunately, are capable of both, and that is healthier.) A person who needs to admire and praise others would enjoy being married to a person who needs to receive respect and admiration. If the needs of one spouse change years later, the relationship could be disrupted. Complementary needs help determine how two people treat each other.
It is important to keep in mind the distinction between complement and contradiction. Unfortunately, some couples label any difference between themselves as complementary. Complementary needs fit so well together that no compromise is required, whereas contradictory needs require a compromise on some middle ground, but not usually on a happy medium. For example, if one is extremely thrifty and the other is a big spender, the needs will clash head-on. If one enjoys social contacts and the other is a recluse, conflict is almost inevitable.6
In our American culture people choose a partner whom they expect to be gratifying to them. It is interesting to note that both engaged and married couples see things in each other that cannot be found through testing. What an individual sees in another person is what pleases him. “What would ever attract him to that girl?” we ask, because we cannot see in her the things he sees. A couple’s choice of each other is based upon a set of relationships pleasing to themselves, which they attribute to one another.
As people date and are attracted to one another, basic needs are met. Much of a couple’s relationship is based upon the meeting of those needs. This means that there are literally thousands of people of the opposite sex who could fulfill those needs if the person has appropriate status qualities. Being held in esteem in someone else’s eye confirms our worth in our own eyes. The need to fall in love and to have someone else fall in love with us does not require a particular person. The first step is having those basic needs met. Then the details of “personality meshing” can be filled in imaginatively. This personality meshing probably determines the future of the relationship established by a couple.
Couples who marry for healthy reasons and those who marry for unhealthy reasons have basically the same motivating forces propelling them toward marriage, but their intensity varies.
Most individuals are attracted to one another by dependency needs. We all have these needs, no matter how healthy we are. Healthy dependency needs reflect a desire to experience a sense of completion. However, when a person has exaggerated dependency needs, there is a desire for completion and for possession.
Self-esteem and its potential for enhancement propel people toward marriage. Everyone wants to receive affirmation of worth and value from another person. Some have the excessive need for their spouses to make them feel worthy, good, attractive, wanted, desired, and so on. Gradually the excessive need can exact a strain upon the relationship.
The normal desire for affirmation, however, is also a strong attracting and maintaining force of marriage. The desire of increased self-esteem and dependency needs both build commitment, which has been called the glue of marriage. That glue is in the process of setting when a couple arrives for premarital instruction.
It is important to carefully assess the amount of dependency needs and need for self-esteem of each person during the process of the counseling. Asking the man and woman about the extent of each of these in their desire to marry has been both helpful and revealing with a number of couples.
Helpful questions include: In what way do you see yourself dependent upon your partner? and, How are you expecting your future spouse to enhance your self-esteem?
Marriage and mate selection is not a matter of chance. Mate selection is very purposeful, and people choose the persons they need at that point in time. On a conscious and subconscious level people do know what they are getting when they marry. In their research of hundreds of couples Robert F. Stahmann and William J. Hiebert state:
Our assumption that marriage is neither accidental nor dichotomous has been influenced by our clinical practice with the hundreds of couples we have seen both in marital counseling and in premarital counseling. In thinking about these couples and the manner in which they chose each other, we have discovered that the couples were apparently performing a task and involved in a process. It has struck us that many couples were involved in the task of finding some way to initiate growth. The growth could be in many areas. Perhaps it was in becoming more outgoing, more self-confident, more intimate, or some other dimension of their personality that they felt needed expansion. The mate they chose, therefore, from the millions of individuals available was exactly the person who could provide them with the kind of growth they needed. Some women, for example, seek out a particular man who can teach them to be tough, just as some men seek out a woman who can teach them to be soft. It almost seems to us that couples in some way find each other and choose each other on the basis of their potential to induce change. It is as if couples are in a strange way performing the task of therapy. Perhaps we could say that marriage is an amateur attempt at psychotherapy.
All of this is a way of saying that we believe that marriage is purposeful and that couples choose each other on the basis of the ability of the other person to help them initiate growth. We think that couples are involved in a task of healing. It is as if many individuals at the point of dating and moving to marriage find themselves to be incomplete in some way Their search for a mate is not haphazard but rather based on some kind of deeply intuitive homing device that relentlessly and purposely pursues exactly the kind of person who will provide them with the stimulation for the growth they are seeking.7
Further complicating the selection of a mate is the factor of the cultural “ideal mate” image, depending upon what marriage means in a particular society. If, for example, marriage is primarily a division of labor and child-rearing, the ideal wife would be one who is physically strong with broad shoulders and broad hips. Descriptions of masculine and feminine characteristics provided by a culture influence the ideal mate images. In one society the ideal woman is sweet and delicate, in another she is extroverted and sexually provocative. Culture defines it; we fit into the pattern.
Cultural definitions of the ideal mate can influence mate selection in two ways. Because this definition identifies what is desirable in a mate, it almost labels the desirability of each person. The closer a person gets to this cultural ideal, the more attractive he or she becomes to a greater number of people. And if the person realized that he is approaching the ideal, he can be more selective in his own choice of a mate and hold out for the one closest to the ideal.
The second way in which this cultural definition of the ideal mate can influence mate selection is called “idealization of the mate.” It means that, even if your choice does not meet the cultural standard of idealization, you attribute those characteristics to the person with whom you have fallen in love.
The choice of the partner is complicated by this human penchant for wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the more insecure a person is, the greater is his need for idealizing his partner.
Most people do not think about mate selection in a logical, analytical manner, but we are unconsciously influenced by these factors and in subtle ways we probably do adhere to them. Yet many people would vehemently deny these ideas, protesting that “it is our love that brought us together”
If cultural images influence one’s selection of a mate, what about the images that parents have of their offspring’s future mate? Parents exert considerable indirect control over the associations of their children; this in turn limits the field of possibilities for mate selection. College students feel this pressure less than those who remain at home. Parents help determine an acceptable grouping of eligibles from which their child may choose a mate.8 Interestingly one study shows that when a woman’s parents disapproved of her relationship with a young man, more than twice as many relationships ended in broken engagements or early divorce as when both parents approved. The approval of the man’s parents does not seem to be nearly as important.9
An interesting theory of who marries whom and why has been suggested by Bert Adams in “Mate Selection in the United States: A Theoretical Summarization.” He describes mate choice as a process and isolates a series of factors that are involved. Adams found that it is more likely that individuals will marry if the following occurs:
(1) A person is dating someone who is near and available in time and space rather than a person who is not.
(2) Physical attractiveness and similar interests also assist in early attraction.
(3) Early attraction is perpetuated and reinforced by favorable reaction by other significant people. If that does not come, the relationship may be weakened.
(4) Self-disclosure is another necessary ingredient so that rapport can develop. It is a matter of learning to feel comfortable in one another’s presence. If the conditions of favorable response and rapport are established, then deeper attraction can develop.10
A deeper attraction will develop, according to Adams, if the couple’s values are similar, there is a similarity in physical attractiveness, or there is a personality similarity. An alternate attraction, however, can intrude and hinder the developing relationship. The alternate attraction could be another person, education, involvement at work, a job change, even a new hobby. The stronger the attraction, the more possible the current relationship could be terminated.
At this point the relationship can move even deeper. The reasons can be either healthy or unhealthy. For example, a person with low self-esteem tends to hang onto a relationship rather than run the risk of developing a new relationship.11
All of this sounds very unromantic. Most people, however, still come back to “we married because we loved one another.” So what constitutes love? Many of the elements involved in mate selection discussed earlier are behind what we call love. But the emotional element of love lingers with us. One romanticist describes love this way: “Love is a feeling you feel when you feel that you’re going to get a feeling that you never felt before.” This is about the only way some people know how to describe their relationship.
What does all this have to do with the pastor and premarital counseling? It has everything to do with the potential success of the marriage relationship. If the pastor is the one conducting the premarital counseling, all the previously mentioned information should be etched upon his mind as he evaluates the motivation for a marriage. One should look for apparent and not-so-apparent reasons for marriage. Through skillful questioning, some of those before-mentioned factors may emerge. It is important to remember that the courtship and engagement period can be a deceptive time when fogged by romance.
Just where does the will of God enter into all this? How does one determine God’s will for a mate? What guidelines can the counselor use?
Many people seem to rely upon inner impressions or feelings. Others say that the Lord revealed to them what they should do, and yet they are a bit fuzzy as to the means of this revelation. Many have the leading or impression that they should marry a certain person. What principles could a person follow? James Dobson has suggested four basic principles for recognizing God’s will for any area of one’s life. Those principles should be applied to any impressions that a person might have regarding marriage.
Is the impression scriptural? Guidance from God is always in accordance with His Word. If a Christian is considering marrying a non-Christian, there is no use in praying for God’s will; the Scripture is clear concerning this situation. In searching the Scriptures, verses should be taken within context, not in a random sampling.
Is the impression right? The expression of God’s will should conform to God’s universal principles of morality and decency If human worth is depreciated or the integrity of the family is undermined by some “special leading,” then it is probably not a leading from God.
Is it providential? Every impression ought to be considered in the light of providential circumstances. Are necessary doors opening or closing? Is God speaking through events?
Is the impression reasonable? Does the impression make sense? Is it consistent with the character of God to require it?
If a person has numerous mixed feelings about marrying the other individual, if there is no peace over the upcoming event, and if the majority of friends and relatives are opposed to the wedding, the decision ought to be reconsidered.12
As most people eventually get married, it is important to be aware of the traits that make an individual a better partner and give him or her more potential to make a marriage work. Eight basic factors have been called marriageability traits: adaptability and flexibility, empathy, ability to work through problems, ability to give and receive love, emotional stability, similar family backgrounds, similarities between the couple themselves, and communication. If those elements are present, there is a greater likelihood of marital satisfaction and stability. As the counseling proceeds, one should be evaluating the couple in light of those factors.
Perhaps all these factors could be considered as some of the elements of compatibility. Many couples ask, “Are we compatible?” Compatibility can mean how well the intrinsic characteristics of two people fit. Compatibility between individuals can also determine how easily a relationship can be established. However, this provides only the potential for a good marriage; it is necessary, but not sufficient. The more compatible the better, but the potential must be activated and used. Compatibility is a matter of becoming and developing as well as being.
No two people are ever entirely compatible. My answer to the question, “Are we compatible?” is, “No. No couple marrying is compatible. It’s a matter of your becoming compatible during your early years of marriage.”
Adaptability and flexibility are necessary ingredients. This means the person must be able to adjust to change with a minimum of rigidity. He must be able to accept the differences in his partner, adapt, and work toward a different lifestyle if necessary.
In his book Letters to Philip, Charles Shedd tells the story of two rivers flowing smoothly and quietly along until they came together and joined. When this happened, they clashed and hurled themselves at one another. But as the newly formed river flowed downstream, it gradually quieted down and flowed smoothly again. Now it was broader and more majestic and had much more power. Shedd suggested that a good marriage is often like that. When two independent streams of existence come together, there will probably be some dashing of life against life at the junction. Personalities rush against one another, preferences clash, ideas contend for power, and habits vie for position. Sometimes, like the waves, they throw up a spray that leaves you breathless and makes you wonder where the loveliness has gone. But that’s all right. Like the two rivers, what comes out of this struggle may be something deeper, more powerful than each river was on its own.
This is what occurs in the adaptability process. Ephesians 4:2 says, “Because we love one another, we are willing to make allowances for one another” (Amp).* It is vital that one learn to look at the interests of the other person, to consider the other’s needs and ideas, and, because of love, to be willing to allow the other to think and do things differently It means that a person evaluates his or her spouse’s differences as being only differences—not marks of inferiority
Empathy is a positive characteristic necessary for all interpersonal relationships, and especially for those who are married. It is the ability to be sensitive to the needs, hurts, and desires of others, feeling with them and experiencing their world from their perspective. If they hurt, we hurt. If they are excited, we can be excited with them and understand and perceive their feeling response. Romans 12:15 tells us that we are to rejoice with those who rejoice and to weep with those who weep. This passage from the Word of God seems to reflect the idea of empathy
Judson Landis, one of the foremost family sociologists, has said that the most marriageable people are those whose ability to empathize is high. They are able to use their empathetic ability in a very positive manner. They can control their words and actions so they do not say the wrong things that will hurt the other individual.
A third marriageability trait is the ability to work through problems. Problems, conflicts, and differences are part and parcel of marriage. Some couples run from and ignore problems or give each other the silent treatment. Couples who accept and properly dispel and control their emotional reactions, clarify and define their problems, and work together toward solutions will probably remain married.
The counselor can alert engaged couples to the fact that their lives soon fill with unanticipated and unplanned-for changes. Often changes in our lives come upon us without warning. We are not prepared for them and have not planned what we will do in the event they occur. But much of the time we can anticipate and control changes. Ignoring the inevitable and refusing to think about and plan for these changes will make adjustment to them even more difficult. Ask the couple what major changes they will undergo during the first ten years of marriage.
There are some potential changes that most couples would rather not face. They can choose not to plan for them in their marriage.
Some couples react to changes in their relationship by creating distance; they separate or divorce. Often this response comes when each partner believes that the other person is responsible for the trouble in the marriage. Both of these solutions—refusing to plan for changes and creating distances from the marital partner—are the result of believing that change occurs outside of themselves. This belief will hinder growth and positive changes that can take place in marital relationships.
Everyone needs to expect change in marriage, say David and Vera Mace:
We need to see marriage in new terms, as a continually growing, continually changing, interaction between a man and woman who are seeking the warmth and richness of the shared life. Marriage has too often been portrayed as two people frozen together side by side, as immobile as marble statues. More accurately, it is the intricate and graceful cooperation of two dancers who through long practice have learned to match each other’s movements and moods in response to the music of the spheres.13
All changes, whether predictable or intrusive, hold the potential for growth; they are also risky. Untimely or unexpected events upset our plans, their sequence, and fulfillment. They bother us because they are thrust upon us, leaving us feeling powerless. No one likes to feel out of control and thus a person resists, reacts negatively, or feels overwhelmed instead of seeking creative possibilities in this inevitable situation.
Robert Mason, Jr., and Caroline L. Jacobs put it this way:
Unfortunately, many marriages die prematurely because too many husbands and wives choose to ignore the inescapable fact that people do change.
People can grow apart even when they truly love and care for each other. For some the resistance to change is so deeply ingrained that acceptance of change, even in someone they dearly love, is almost impossible. However, since it is an indisputable fact of life that people do change, and since this is one of the major reasons listed by couples as the source of problems in marriage, couples would do well to explore in depth their ability to adjust to the many changes which are inevitable in the years after marriage.
Difficulties might be anticipated if:
1. Either person seems locked into a way of thinking or behaving which allows for no difference of opinion or new ideas.
2. Either has communicated to the other what he or she wants in a husband or wife and gives the impression that he or she will not tolerate any deviation from this rigid stance, now or in the future.
3. One of the individuals demonstrates a desire to grow and improve while the other seems determined to maintain the status quo.
4. One or both show a noticeable lack of curiosity or interest in the changes which are occurring around him or her from day to day.
5. Either gets upset easily or acts as if the whole day is ruined if things do not go according to schedule or plans are changed. The individual who is unable to adjust to change before marriage is not likely to be able to adjust to change after marriage.14
Any new change carries a time of risk, insecurity, and vulnerability But many of life’s events can be planned for in advance—such as having a baby—and can bring security and satisfaction. Some aspects of the various seasons of a marriage are fairly predictable in the changes they bring. These also can be anticipated. As a person moves from his twenties to his thirties, to his forties and fifties, he will display characteristics that most people have in common. Becoming parents, having adolescents, the empty nest, the midyears, becoming grandparents, and retirement are seasons we are aware of; we know when they are upon us for the most part. Some events, however, come as a surprise and bring tension, pain, and unexpected circumstances.
The ability to give and receive love is a trait that needs both elements for success. The giving of love involves more than just verbalizing it. It must also be evident in tangible ways that are identifiable and recognizable to both parties. Behavior, actions, and attitudes convey this in a meaningful manner. But just as important is the ability to accept love from another. Some people have such a need to be needed that they feel fulfilled by giving. To receive and accept love threatens them and lowers their sense of self-worth. If this non-acceptance response is continued, usually the other partner will give up or find someone else who will accept his love.
Emotional stability—accepting one’s emotions and controlling them—lends balance to a relationship. We depend upon a person who has a consistent, dependable emotional response. Extreme flare-ups and decisions based upon emotional responses do not lend themselves to stable relationships.
The more similar the family backgrounds, the more contributions each can make to the marriage relationship. The greater the differences—economic, cultural, religious, being an only child compared to having several siblings—the more adjustments must be made. Those adjustments can add even more pressures to learning to live together. Naturally, the more mature the couple, the more easily the adjustments can be made.
Another trait, closely tied to similarity in family background, is similarities between the couple themselves. Earlier it was mentioned that like tends to marry like more than the opposite. If a couple has similar interests, likes and dislikes, friends, educational level, and religion, the marriage relationship is greatly enhanced.
The final trait that is necessary for a love relationship to develop is communication. There are differences in ability styles, and beliefs about communication. Free interchange of ideas is essential. Communication is the ability to share in such a way that the other person can understand and accept what is being said. But listening is also involved. True listening means not thinking about what you are going to say when the other person stops talking. It means not making value judgments as to how the other person expressed himself and the words he used. It means that if you are really listening you can reflect back both the meaning and feeling of what was expressed. The tendency in our culture is for men not to communicate on a feeling response level, to verbalize less, and to be more solution-oriented instead of talking about the problem. This puts a great strain upon the marriage relationship.
One of the most important elements in the communication process is the couple’s ability to learn to speak one another’s language. Learning to discover the meaning of words of one another as well as the ability to speak their style will create a very close, intimate relationship. More will be said about this in chapter 9, but do keep in mind there are significant differences in male-female communication. This will affect your own style of responding to a couple and could hinder the establishment of rapport and the level of understanding if you are not aware of it.
Consider for a moment some of the differences in male-female communication styles. Generally speaking:
• Women use intensifiers when they talk such as, “That movie was so enjoyable,” whereas a man avoids emphasis and intensity and in response to the same movie might say, “It’s fine.”
• In communication, women tend to be cooperative whereas men tend to be competitive.
• Women tend to regard questions as a way to maintain a conversation while men view them as a request for information.
• Women are more likely to share feelings and secrets whereas men like to discuss less intimate topics, such as sports and politics.
• When men talk, they want a purpose and an agenda.
• When men initiate a conversation with a woman, there is a 96 percent chance it will continue, but when a woman initiates a conversation with a man, there is a 36 percent chance it will continue.15
Men and women also listen in different ways. Men generally express listening sounds comparatively infrequently and when they do, it is usually meant to indicate “I agree with you.” A man may tend to listen impassively without giving his wife feedback like nodding, gesturing, changing facial expression or making sounds. One of the books the counselor can recommend for the woman to read during the premarital counseling is Understanding the Man in Your Life (Word).
Numerous studies during the past two decades provide additional indicators of marital success. Those who differ radically from the norm in these characteristics often believe that they will be the exceptions and will make their marriage work in spite of gross differences. For a few it may work.
Various studies point out the importance of significant relationships with other people. If a person has experienced warm and satisfying relationships with both his father and mother, his marriage will be influenced positively If the parents were affectionate, firm, consistent, and fairly well adjusted in their own marriage, this contributes to the new marriage relationship. Another interesting factor centers on friends of both sexes: if each person has friends, and these become and remain mutual friends after marriage, the marriage relationship will be enhanced.
Environmental conditions in the person’s background, both social and physical, can influence the marriage somewhat. A happy childhood, lack of poverty, and completion of extensive formal education can contribute to success in marriage.
The socioeconomic level of a man’s parents seems to affect the economic status of his own marriage. Research has indicated that stability and adjustment of the marriage are directly related to the income of the husband. The lower the husband’s income, the greater the possibility that the marriage will be more unstable and maladjusted.
Another factor affecting marital success centers on particular events in the person’s past and the timing of those events. Marriage at an early age is not favorable to a healthy adjustment nor to marital longevity A brief whirlwind romance or a premarital pregnancy is an additional adverse condition. A good work record, definite and reasonable occupational plans, and a low residence-mobility factor contribute positively.
The most difficult factors to measure are the psychological attributes of the individuals. Yet they are important. A strong interest in family life, just as strong a commitment to make it succeed, and a willingness to work together are the positive points. Even if one person within a relationship will exert effort there is more chance of that marriage succeeding than if both just coast along.16
A very interesting finding for marital success is the level of emotional independence. Those who adapt well to marriage have been able to leave home emotionally or psychologically. They are no longer dependent upon their parents to take responsibility for their lives. They function as an adult. Second, they have had an opportunity to live alone after they have left home and before marriage. This involves surviving on their own. They have assumed adult responsibilities such as buying groceries, cooking, laundry, and budgeting. Again and again these findings emerge in the literature on families.
Why is it that those who leave home psychologically adapt better?
Let’s answer that question by considering the problems of those who haven’t left home. They keep getting involved in family problems. They bring their family problems into the marriage and they become a marital problem. Because they have not yet left home psychologically, they tend to look for spouses who will continue the parenting of their parents. They also tend to have more physical ailments than others. And finally, those who have not left home psychologically tend to come from homes where the parents hang onto them.17 In other words, they don’t want their children to grow up and separate from them. This is why using the Family History Analysis as one of your major tools in premarital counseling is essential.
As you work with a couple, discover whether they have left home psychologically. If they have never had an opportunity to live away from home (and this means being on their own and not having someone else take care of their needs), encourage them to either live on their own for a while or begin functioning as an independent adult while living at home. I have suggested both and sometimes it is an easier transition to have them live on their own even though financially it could be a hardship. If they are still at home, parents may resist letting them purchase food, cook meals, do laundry, or make their own decisions, and so forth. But it’s a necessary transitional step in their development and for the health of their upcoming marriage.
Couples who have reported happy marriages appear to concentrate their energy on their relationship. Those who seem less happy concentrate on situational aspects of marriage such as home, children, and social life as sources of their marital happiness. Feelings of happiness in marriage have a direct correlation to the way the partners are relating to one another.
Other studies reveal that in the area of communication, happily married couples differ from unhappily married couples in the following ways: They (1) talk more to each other; (2) convey the feeling that they understand what is being said to them; (3) are able to discuss a wider range of subjects; (4) preserve their communication channels and work on keeping them open; (5) show more sensitivity to each other’s feelings; (6) personalize their language symbols; and (7) make more use of additional nonverbal techniques of communication.18
In the past several years, an unexpected factor has developed concerning the success of a marriage—whether a couple has lived together prior to marriage. When the trend of cohabiting prior to marriage started, the assumption was that this would be healthy for a marriage relationship. The startling results have shown just the opposite effect.
Several studies have found that couples who live together first tend also to get divorces first. University of Wisconsin researchers report that 38 percent of couples who lived together before they married were divorced within ten years, compared with 27 percent of couples who married without cohabiting first. The finding—which follows a smaller 1987 study that found a 30 percent higher divorce rate among couples who had lived together compared to those who hadn’t—surprised many experts who assumed that living together helped iron out potential marital problems and thus lessened the chances of eventual divorce.19
In an article entitled “Marriage: The First Years, What Holds You Together …” the author writes, “If a couple lived together before marriage, they were twice as likely to have trouble later on. A little over one-third of the couples in the study had lived together before marrying. Of those marriages, more than one-quarter—27%—were found to be “distressed” after 30 months.” Of the 64 percent who did not live together beforehand, only 13% reported later distress.20
A recent study of 17,000 couples who completed the PREPARE inventory found that cohabiting couples had significantly lower premarital satisfaction compared to couples where the two people lived alone before marriage. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the cohabiting couples fell into the low satisfaction group, whereas almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the couples where both partners lived alone fell into the very satisfied group. Premarital satisfaction was measured by an average Positive Couple Agreement (PCA) score summed across all the PREPARE categories. The high satisfaction group represented those who scored in the upper third of the sample, whereas the lower satisfaction group were those who scored in the lower third.21
One final element that must be present for any possibility of success is commitment. Robert Blood has summarized it best:
Commitment is dangerous. It can be exploited. If my wife takes my commitment for granted, she may rest too easily on her laurels. Perhaps commitment should be not simply to each other as we are but to the highest potentialities we can achieve together. Commitment then would be to marriage not simply as a status but as a dynamic process. Let me commit myself to a lifelong adventure, the adventure of living with this woman. The route of this adventure has been only dimly charted by those who have gone before. Because I am unique and my partner is unique, our marriage will also be unique. We commit ourselves to undertaking this adventure together, and to following wherever it may lead. Part of the excitement of marriage is not knowing in advance what either the joys or the sorrows will be. We can be sure, however, that we will be confronted with countless challenges. Commitment provides the momentum for going forward in the face of those challenges.22
All these facts, then, should be part of the pastor’s filtering system as he works with the couple. The counseling session will give him an opportunity to determine the potential qualities of the future relationship as well as family and individual differences. And if the minister or counselor doesn’t assist the couple with this process, who will?
1. David Knox. Marriage: Who? When? Why? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), n.p.
2. Ibid., pp. 36–42.
3. Lyle B. Gangsei, ed., Manual for Group Premarital Counseling (New York: Association, 1971), pp. 56–57.
4. J. Richard Udry. The Social Context of Marriage, 3d ed. (New York: Lippincott, 1974), p. 157.
5. Ibid.
6. Robert Blood, Jr. Marriage (New York: Free Press, 1969), pp. 38–43, adapted.
7. Robert F. Stahmann and William J. Hiebert. Premarital Counseling (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980), p. 18.
8. Udry. The Social Context of Marriage, p. 187.
9. Ibid.
10. Bert Adams, “Mate Selection in the United States: A Theoretical Summarization,” ed. Wesley Burr, Reuben Hill, F. Ivan Nye, and Ira Reiss, vol. 1, Contemporary Theories About the Family (New York: Free Press, n.d), pp. 259–63.
11. Ibid., pp. 264–67.
12. James Dobson. Dr. James Dobson Talks About God’s Will (Glendale, Calif.: Regal, 1974), pp. 13–21, adapted.
13. David and Vera Mace. We Can Have Better Marriages If We Really Want Them (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), p. 9.
14. Robert Mason, Jr., and Caroline L. Jacobs, How to Choose the Wrong Marriage Partner and Live Unhappily Ever After (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), p. 40.
15. Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, Why Can’t Men Open Up? (New York: Clarkson B. Potter, 1984), pp.70-71, adapted.
16. Udry, The Social Context of Marriage, p. 236.
17. Robert E. Stahmann and William J. Hiebert. Premarital Counseling (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1987) pp. 85–86.
18. Carlfred B. Broderick, ed., A Decade of Family Research and Action (Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations, 1972), p. 66.
19. “Heartbreak of Cohabitation Ends in Divorce,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 1989.
20. Mary Ellen Schoonmeker, “Marriage: The First Years, What Holds You Together …” Family Circle, September 1, 1988, p. 99.
21. Stewart, Kenneth and David H. Olson, “Cohabiting Couples and Premarital Satisfaction,” PREPARE/Enrich newsletter, November 1988.
22. Blood, Marriage, pp. 10–11.
*Amplified New Testament.