"How of much ME do I give up for WE?"

That was a question asked in a marraige preparation class. It's something about which many young couples, engaged and newly married, wonder. Am I still an individual? Am I still a person by myself? Or do I have totally give up everything I am? Women, in particular, seem more prone to struggle with this - notably because they understand that the Bible says they are to submit to their husbands. Perhaps more men should wonder the same more often.

A Sports Analogy

Let's change the context of the question. Suppose we're on a football team, and one of the players asks the same question. He wants to know how much who he is as an individual he is expected to give up for the team. He wants to know whether he can still be himself when he's in practice or in a game. He wants to know how much he can just do his own way.

What's the answer? How much of "me" would he have to give up for "we" if he's serious about being a member of a winning team?

The answer is "All of it." Does that mean he's not an individual? Of course not. What it does mean, though, is that in every thought, every decision that he makes that can affect the team - he is expected to think as a member of the team. If he wants to run a particular reception pattern because he likes it, but that isn't the pattern of the play that was called, what should he do? Run the called pattern. If he wants to run a different pattern, he can suggest it, but he has to run the plays that are called.

Can he move when he wants to move, go in the direction he wants to go, hit who he wants to hit? He is constrained by the rules of the game, and there are penalties for breaking those rules. If he breaks the rules, the team suffers. The penalties can cost the game.

Okay, obviously when he's on the field, he has to do what he needs to do for the team - but what about when he's not on the field? THEN can he do anything he wants? Well.... yes and no.

The principle still applies: Any decision that affects the team he is expected to make as a member of the team.

What if he's in the mood to do drugs or commit come other crime? Can that affect the team? Yes. What if it's not something so serious, just smoking or eating fattening foods that taste so delicious? That will affect his ability to perform on the team, so he has to make those decisions in the context of being on the team. What if he wants to skip a few workouts, a few practices, and he wants to take a vacation? Can he make those decisions based on nothing more than what he wants? If course not.

A team member must think in terms of being a team member. Every choice that affects other players on the team have to be made in the context of the whole team. All it takes for a whole team to lose a game is to have one player that refuses to get with the program.

Does that mean he is no longer an individual? Of course not. He will play his position in the manner God has gifted him with talent, he's honed that talent, and according to his character and nature. In matters not directly pertaining to the team, he has total freedom. If he likes working on cars, he can still do that, so long as his hobby doesn't take from his role on the team. If he wants to do charity work, or if he wants to appear in commercials or movies, or if he just wants to hang out with friends or family, he can do that if it does not interfere with his role on the team.

And there are things he can do that are not required to be on the team that can be of great help to the team. Charity work is one. Making appearances at various functions, charitable, political, and media events can help the team - but they are not required to be on the team. He has the minimum expected role to play, but that doesn't mean he has to stop there. He can make himself far, far more valuable to the team in many ways.

He can be an encourager, the person who helps others be motivated to do their work. He can help others with their role, spotting them on weight training, supporting them in their training and practice, and helping them do what they need to do. He should also realize that if he's not the quarterback or the center or a defensive line man, that it is not his job to tell them how to do their job, but he can take the role of someone who helps them do their job better and helps motivate and inspire them. He can compliment them on a job well done and offer support when they make mistakes.

As a member of the team, he has to do a lot of things, he can do a lot more things, and in all the thing that don't affect the team - he has total freedom.

Back to Marriage

After that analogy, getting back to marriage requires virtually no explanation. When we choose to marry, we join a team. The same principle applies. How much of me was at that wedding? All of me. How much of me married Wendy? All of me. So how much of me is on this team? All of me.

I am still an individual. I am unlike any other husband I know, and no husband I know is exactly like any other husband I know. In the things that don't affect the team, I can still do what I choose for myself and my other roles. There are certain activities that I enjoy that I still get to enjoy because which outside activities I choose do not affect my marriage, but when they do, I choose in the context of being married - and not just married abstractly, but married to Wendy.

I naturally think in terms of Wendy. When I see something, if I know what she would think or feel about it, that thought naturally flows to my mind. When I see what movies are playing, I naturally think in terms of which one's she would like to see with me and which I would have to see without her. She likes action films, and I like romantic comedies, so there are very few that we cannot enjoy together. I have an affinity for certain types of horror films, and she doesn't like most of them, so those I know I will either skip or see alone.

In short, all of me is married, so all of me is subject to the needs and best interests of the team.

If We're On the Same Team

My martial arts classes are packed with lessons on more than physical techniques, and among my most frequent "non-martial arts" topics are spiritual issues, personal growth issues, and, of course, marriage issues. One of my most common analogies is this:

Suppose Wendy and I are taking a short cut through an alley, and in the middle of the alley a robber jumps out with a knife and tries to kill and steal and destroy. At that moment, what should we do? Should Wendy push me for leading her down this alley? Should I shove her back because she pushed me? Do we start hitting one another? OR, should we fight the robber first? Then, AFTER we've defeated the robber together as a team, we can discuss whether or not we will ever go down an alley again, and if so, how we will choose our alleys.

Obviously the answer is that we should fight together. In our case, Wendy and I are both high ranking martial artists who know how to fight as a team, so we would clearly work together. If I was married to someone who did not know how to fight, then I would fight and she would operate in a supporting/helping role. But we'd fight together.

What if it isn't an alley? What if it was a financial process we were trying? What if it wasn't a robber, but some financial reversal that could wipe out everything we've worked toward and, if we're not careful, has the potential to wipe out our future as well? Should we fight one another? Should we yell and scream and throw things and slam doors? Or should we come together as a team and tackle the problem together?

Some couples wince a that metaphor because they are inclined to fight. Some, often the same couples included, have a sense of revelation strike their hearts because it suddenly gives them a new viewpoint on their role as a team and how they should address problems when they arise.

The Two are ONE

In all the time Wendy and I have known one another, from associate to friend to spouses, we have never once had a fight. For some reason when I say this, even professional marriage counselors get a look of concern on their faces - as though NOT having fights was somehow unhealthy. The problem, they say, with couples that don't fight is that it almost always means that one or both are afraid to disagree with the other. That is certainly not the case with us.

One of our teachings if that if you never have a disagreement, a difference of opinion, or a difference in perspective or understanding about something - then one of you is unnecessary (more on that in a moment). But why would you fight about it?

A Movie Analogy

I like science fiction, and I like swords and sorcery fantasy. Star Trek and Lord of the Rings came out at about the same time, and I had to choose. In this, I was double minded. The science fiction fan in me wanted to go see Star Trek. The fantasy fan in my wanted to go see Lord of the Rings. Both sides had a dialog in my head as I sorted out which one I wanted to go see in a particular week. I was in disagreement with myself.

So, should I yell and scream and throw things? Should the science fiction fan part of me slam doors and call the fantasy fan in my an idiot? Should the fantasy fan in me shove me down and berate me for wanting to see Star Trek when Lord of the Rings was obviously more important? Of course not - that would be silly. If I did that to myself, I'd look like a lunatic. Of coure, I reasoned through any rational considerations (show times, when I might see the other one, whether they were special engagements, etc.) and considered my preferences - then I made a choice.

So if Wendy and I are no longer two, but ONE, why should I behave any differently just because the disagreement is taking place in two different brains? That's why we don't argue. When we disagree, which is not all that rare, it is more often because of a difference in perspective or taste, not a matter of right and wrong, of genius and idiocy. If she and I did not ever have different perspectives, then one of us would be unnecessary.

Back to the Movies

A reader might note that I like analogies. There was a movie, Proof of Life, that is only one of many to show a commando operation. There was a man who escaped from the prison camp who gave his perspective on the location of the camp. There was the military cartographers that drew up the military maps that they used to compare the escapee's map with what was in the country so they could find the camp and determine where the transports could land and how the team might enter. Once there, they left a spotter on the hillside who kept an eye on the camp so the insertion team would know when the kidnapper thugs were coming. Then there was the insertion team that had to go in the camp, go in the buildings and get the people out they were there to rescue.

Which perspective could they have done without? None of them. They needed every single perspective to accomplish their mission. The spotter could not tell them "don't go in that building, go in the other building, it's safer" if the insertion team knew the person they wanted was in the first building. The insertion team couldn't say "well, I don't see anybody, so I'm going now" if the spotter tells them that a bad guy is coming down the trail on the other side of the building. They all have to work together. If one side ignores the other, the mission will be a failure.

Different Perspectives

Suppose God could bless you by doubling your brain power? Suppose God came to you and said "I will expand your awareness so you can double what you can sense, and you can double your ability to solve problems?" Would we say yes?

He did. That's marriage. We get two brains joined on one team, doubling our awareness, expanding what we know and the things we can do, and doubling our ability to solve problems. That is, of course, if we work together.

It's a blessing! We would not argue with ourselves if God expanded us as individuals, why would we argue with our spouses if the same principle applies?

The Principles Lead to Practical Skills

Of course the Principles lead to practical skills, and many of us operate in our natural selves which often forgets that God Himself says the two are one. When one person argues and fights within himself, we call that a psychosis and that person needs treatment. When one couple argues and fights within themselves, its a problem in a marriage that also requires work.

We can learn how to disagree and still communicate. The basic process is this: Understand, Define, Be Understood. Usually we start with the end and never go to the beginning.

We can learn His Needs, Her Needs, Their Needs. If you have Willard Harley's Book His Needs, Her Needs, that's a good start, though I must note that I slightly disagree with some of his explanations and solutions.

We can learn the Language of Emotions. This can both help us understand what's going on inside us and understand what's going on with our spouse.

We can learn about and cultivate the Love Stack, including mastering the principles of the Phileo Bank Account.

Perhaps most importantly, we can work on ourselves, forging ourselves on purpose in Spirit, Soul and Body in cooperation with the Holy Spirit and God's Design. This includes seeking our responsibilies, not rights, when God gives His instructions for marriage - as discussed in Marriage: The Bible Backside and the attached page, More on Bible Marriage Verses.

Couples might discuss the "he wants, she wants" based upon the desires they brought into the marriage, but when they differ there is another question to ask. It isn't whether they will do what his family did, or what her family did... they have to ask "What will OUR family do?"

Another thing I find important is to actual state your principles during discussions - explain WHY you have a particular desire, and ask for the same in return. Often, there is a way to accomplish both "whys" by doing something innovative that might not occur to you if you just discuss conclusions. Also, when we have to articulate a position, it often lets US see what we're really saying. For instance, I heard a Christian couple discuss violence as something they thought was always wrong, and killing was always evil, so they didn't want their children to ever play with toy guns or play violent video games - but they did not pause long enough to realize that according to their standards GOD is evil! It also meant that the allied soldiers who fought the Nazi's in WWII were just as evil as the people gassing the prisoners in the concentration camps. They had not considered that the issue might be right and wrong rather than violence and non-violence.

Is there more? Of course! That's actually really GREAT news! It means that no matter how much we learn, we never have to stop growing. Wendy and I are excited about the progressive revelation of Truth that He gives us, and the progressive mastery of skills we sometimes forget to practice. In fact, one of my fantasy Sunday School programs would be a five year ongoing cycle of marriage lessons - hundreds of marriage lessons taught in a never ending cycle...

When Should Someone Learn Marriage Skills?

Which brings to mind a perspective that I find odd brings so much opposition... I think marriage skills should be taught to children. The FIRST laboratory for relationships is what we call the Family of Origin. Many of the habits and skills we take into marriage came as a direct or indirect result of the home in which we grew up. Most of it results from picking up what we saw in our parents or rebelling against it. The rest flows from our experiences, and those rules we might not even realize we're picking up.

So the first level of teaching children is simply to do it, not just living out a good marriage in front of them, but, from time to time, explaining parts that are age appropriate. I've found that even children can follow most of the lessons - and, in fact, often they are better than adults at figuring out the right answer just by asking them good questions.

The home is also where they practice their first relationship skills - with parents, siblings and their other relatives, friends and family friends. I've heard it said that the number one indicator of how a person will treat their spouse is how they treat their parent of the opposite sex. That makes the child-parent relationship a perfect place to practice.

Wendy decided at the age of 12 that she was going to learn to do it right, and she did. What impact might it have on our sons and daughters if they actually understood good relationships BEFORE they got in a relationship at all? The more common pattern is to get involved, make mistakes, and salvage what's left - and if a marriage gets in trouble, then we might seek help or get divorced. Seldom does it occur to us to train in the skills we might need beforehand - something we do in our profession and sports, but not the more important things in life.

I would be interested in feedback on these thoughts, so please email me at SokeScot@aol.com.