NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
January 14, 2007
On marriage
The courts could not rule, to create such abominations as “same-sex marriage” and “three-parent families”, were the people not morally asleep. And the people wouldn’t be morally sleeping, had we not allowed loose habits of mind and feeling to creep over us through several generations.Our ancestors had the advantage of being reared, mostly, in stable homes, and of inheriting a body of folk wisdom through tradition and custom. They might or might not be learned, but when they received commands, suggestions, aphorisms, and hints from such sources as the Bible, or great literature and art, they could assimilate these into a fabric already taken for granted. Whereas, we “postmoderns” have minds that must usually start from scratch, and thus rarely get anywhere. We are like the child left to teach himself how to tie his shoelaces. Nine in ten would go through life with their shoelaces untied. That is why we tend to be utterly astounded by old-fashioned assertions of common sense. For the sense is no longer held in common. We are no longer in possession of the obvious bits, that tie the less obvious bits together. Let me use for my example, to roll eyeballs today, a key nugget of wisdom contained in the old Christian marriage rites. Unambiguously, the man is told to love his wife, and his wife to obey her husband. What an astounding thing to tell a “liberated” woman! But did you also notice: what an astounding thing to tell a postmodern man! This is because our idea of love has been reduced through cheap romanticism to a consumer good. It is “something wonderful that just happens”, like everything else delivered to the malls. While it lasts, people stay together, when it goes, they fly apart. Love exists for them, not they for love. That is why we might have difficulty with the apparent inequality between men and women suggested by that old-fashioned love/obedience "formula". Glib minds have trouble processing anything above the atomic level. For that formula IS unequal. The man is given the harder task. For this is love that is commanded, as inescapable duty, not some slippery romantic love, to be enjoyed for a season. It leaves the man no room for excuses. It hardly permits him to be a tyrant. Two minds reasonably attuned will reach most decisions by consensus. Yet practically, there will be moments when a decision needs making, and the couple disagree. And the man must make such decisions, not for himself alone. Love commands that he sacrifice himself for his family’s good. Moreover, a loving man will, after thinking things through, side with his wife, if she had the better argument. But crucially, a decision gets made. Obviously if the husband tells his wife to do something unconscionable -- to have an abortion, steal, commit fraud, tell a damaging lie -- she cannot say to herself or to God, "I was only following orders." But that problem won’t arise with a decent man. I think women should avoid marrying indecent ones; and try to win over the indecent ones they have married through sanctity and earnest prayer. Sometimes unthinking obedience is necessary. An example would be on the deck of the Titanic. The husband tells his wife to get in the lifeboat. She doesn’t want to, would rather drown with him. But it’s a moment when there’s no time to argue, and she gets in the lifeboat by obedience alone. Now doubling back to where I started, consider the following possibility. No one need tell us to love ourselves, because that comes naturally. It is not to be selfish, that we need to be told. Similarly, a normal woman does not have to be told to love the husband who genuinely loves her. Deep answers deep. But this is where men and women are different, and again, we postmoderns can't handle that. A man can be deeply loved, and not "get it". A woman's love is a responsive love; and reciprocally, she is quite apt to hate herself when she is hated. Men are not like women in that. The whole mechanism of their self-esteem is different. Which is why they must actually be told to love. Nor are women naturally obedient. In fact, men are, by nature, more given to obedience than women, which is why they make much better "team players". They are less sceptical than women, overall. They more easily grant the benefit of the doubt. They are actually more generous in some ways, relevant to the case; though as any woman could tell you, less generous in others. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top