The Need for Need
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 07/08/2008 at 2:12 PM
I hope all you Americans had a good Fourth of July. I watched fireworks with friends and thanked God for the freedoms I enjoy in this country. While you were celebrating, you may have missed a little jewel of an article Friday. I did.
In "Looking for Love like a Peasant," and excerpt of A.J. Kiesling's book Where Have All the Good Men Gone?, she considers the need for neediness:
Jewish rabbi and relationship expert Shmuley Boteach, known as the "Love Prophet," believes he knows why singles today find it so hard to discover their soul mate. His theory is so sound and makes such sense in our confused world that I wish I had invented it. When it comes to love, Boteach writes, we've become a generation of "aristocrats" in search of the perfect match, when the real secret to lasting love — the attitude of a "peasant" — is available to us all along.
To explain what she means, Kiesling quotes Boteach from his book Dating Secrets of the Ten Commandments:
I often ask people, "Aren't you going to get married?" At that point I hear a strange response: "When I meet the right person." Sure, the idea is reasonable, but the sentiments are rarely so. Usually what I am hearing is a person telling me that they are waiting for a person to come along and impress them with their eligibility. This is the thinking of aristocrats, and leads nowhere. In dating, you should always be a peasant.
Ouch. That hits pretty close to home. Sounds a little like what I refer to as "identity baggage." Here's how Kiesling describes the difference:
The "needy, beautiful peasant" approaches the possibility of romance from the starting point of "What do I lack?" and looks for someone who can fill that need. Their main asset on the Potential Soul Mate test is their vulnerability.
Need, the rabbi asserts, is the dirty little secret of dating that no one wants to admit. But when you're looking to fall in love — when you're looking for the happiness that comes from giving yourself fully to another — it's all about "opening yourself up, exposing your vulnerabilities, and creating a space where you and a lover can grow together." In short, Boteach says, it's about realizing that need is good.
If you've been single for any length of time, you've probably been coached that it's best to not appear needy — ever. But Boteach's theory seems to contradict that. What do you think? Is need a missing ingredient in finding love?
1. Isaac McPheeters said the following at 3:00 PM on Jul 8:
1
I think that recognizing our dependence on others is important, but I think that many young people out there would say they're not missing it. They are already trying to find that perfect person to satisfy their needs, and when the person no longer meets their needs in the relationship, poof. That's the end. I recognize, however, that you're not talking about a selfish sense of need.
I would think that more than recognizing need, recognizing the requirement for selflessness and sacrifice in a relationship is more important (i.e. satisfying the other person's needs).
2. BDB said the following at 3:15 PM on Jul 8:
2
Here's a thought exercise: take a few single moms, and ask them what they are looking for in a man. More likely than not, they can describe the burden of handling all the leadership of the household alone; the challenges disciplining their children, etc. They've got a pretty concrete role in mind for a man to play.
Then ask some never-married non-parent women what they're looking for. Do they describe practical needs, or something fluffy and romantic? If they believe they have a calling from God, can they articulate a role for a man that is compatible with that calling?
If the purpose of marriage is founding a family, then both single moms and non-parent single women should be looking for the same thing, right? Why is it different? Elisabeth Elliot tells men to look for a woman who will accept his calling and leadership. How many women are willing to accept leadership? Why or why not?
3. Ruth said the following at 3:33 PM on Jul 8:
3
At some point in life we need to take the responsibility to weave our belief (Christianity) with our behaviour. The Bible commands Christians to be humble and I believe that admitting that need is a driving force behind dating expresses raw and real humilty. Humility sometimes feels like an open wound and often times I believe that people are afraid of exposing their wounds ( shortcomings, flaws, etc.) because those around them have the power to throw salt in their wounds. Very few people provide bandaids or healing if you will. But when a person comes along and is willing to provide a bandaid instead of throwing salt in the wound that person commands attention and is worth knowing. Being willing to take the risk of exposing your wounds and then receiving a band aid from the one whom your interested in or love is a strong sign that that person is a person worth loving. So I guess need (humility) is the missing ingredient to finding love worth having.
4. Tami said the following at 4:16 PM on Jul 8:
4
To tell the truth, this article made my head ache...
First off, it seemed to contradict just about everything else that's been run on this site, with regard to "soul mates" and coming from a position of "need."
I agree that we can't walk around acting like we don't need other people. We are created for intimacy and fellowship. And, I agree that we should approach relationships with an attitude of humility, in recognition that we have strengths and weaknesses that balance one another.
At the same time, what is the definition of "need"? Is it really healthy to seek fulfillment in another person? If I was to follow this article's advice about wandering the world like a needy peasant seeking love in another, then I think I'd be setting myself up for heartbreak.
"Need" seems to imply a lack of wholeness. I don't "need" another person to make me whole. At the same time, even as I am complete in Christ, I recognize that there's no way I can be all God intends me to be without fellowship -- in church, and in marriage.
Instead of "need," I like the term "interdependent." We don't stand alone, nor do we rely fully on another person to meet our needs. We work together, like lacing fingertips.
So, I don't know. Maybe these are things the article really is getting at, and the wording just didn't resonate with me.
5. RW said the following at 4:21 PM on Jul 8:
5
terminology-wise i'd make a distinction between "need" and "want" because in my mind they represent two very different attitudes when approaching marriage or anything else for that matter. As the article you're referncing says looking/longing is a good a biblical thing and that's what i'd call a "want" attitude.
That being said, the difference between need and want is patience. Want (i.e. a deep longing for marriage) is a great thing but feeling like we must have something, that we need it, and functionally demanding it from God is a show of impatience and distrust. Contentment is what God calls us to in all areas of our life and feeling as if we need a spouse is missing the bigger picture that marriage is a means of grace from God to see our need for Him that much more clearly. Only He can truly satisfy us.
6. BDB said the following at 5:01 PM on Jul 8:
6
I should mention that men can also become so independent that there's no role for women in their lives. I think that this may be one of the reasons that children of divorce are more reluctant to get married: they've learned to be independent and may not have successful experience relying on others.
At the risk of criticism, I'm going to use laundry as an example. On my recent trip, a couple of the moms on the trip took control of the one washing machine. They offered to do my laundry. But frankly, they were pretty defensive when I said I'd rather do my own. After all, I've done my own laundry for 24 years, it's not like I needed help (even if all the controls were in Japanese.) They tried to take over the kitchen too.
On reflection, I suppose they were trying to do what they knew how to do. It's the role they played in their families at home. Take that away from them, and they have no role to play; nothing to contribute.
7. Adam said the following at 5:04 PM on Jul 8:
7
"...its about realizing that need is good"
As a single 27 year old guy, this can be a very challenging idea.
Being vulnerable and admitting need tends to evoke one of two reactions in me. Either it will spur me towards finding a way to get that need met. Or it will knock me into a type of discouragement or depression. Both of which have thus far failed to yield positive results.
I also find that concentrating on need can rob me of the joy to be found in the single years. The needs may be God-given, but I haven't seen any promise that God will meet them in the near future. So I find myself trying to be content and productive in this awesome stage of life; yet asking, seeking, and knocking for someone that can meet those needs and move into the next stage.
8. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:35 PM on Jul 8:
8
I'll second BDB's comments.
9. CrochetDiva said the following at 6:11 PM on Jul 8:
9
Hmm... This discussion reminds me of Edward T. Welch's point from his book When People Are Big and God Is Small that we don't have a "need" to be loved by others and that the idea we're all empty love tanks is a fallacy. Rather, "to be loved" is a strong desire.
Welch opines that our actual needs, beyond those for life-sustaining things like water and food, are (1) to be saved by God, (2) to worship and obey Him, and (3) to love other people.
So... now... how does one approach the issues presented in the article and in this blog post?
(Sorry, I don't have the book in front of me to provide proper quoted text or citations. It's well worth reading, my sibs in Christ. Check it out from the library or purchase a copy!)
10. NA said the following at 6:28 PM on Jul 8:
10
I liked the peasant vs. aristocrat example, but it also made me feel a bit torn. I need to have some sort of peace in my heart when I am pledging my life to someone. Every day I see and hear about people getting divorced or staying in marriages where they are repeatedly abused or disrespected in some form, e.g. infidelity, and it makes me wonder...would things have turned out differently had they been more selective in choosing their mate? I don't want those things to happen to me so I have to be really stringent when I involve myself with someone and if he doesn't meet the requirements on my "list" (smile) he's history!
But seriously, the article sort of made me feel as if I should marry the first person who brings it up and that really doesn't sit well with me. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem expressing that I am in need of a husband. I truly want to be married and sooner rather than later. But in this day and age, I must admit, there are some things that need to be addressed first as everyone doesn't take marriage seriously or realistically.
In response to comment #1, I think that marriage is about sacrifice and meeting each other's needs, but I also think that as a culture we have been taught to look for the person who can meet your needs and not vice versa. Personally, I believe relationships are about exchange and balance and what we can do to uplift each other. No one likes to feel that they are being drained or taken for everything they've got. No one likes to be taken for granted.
In response to comment #2, I am a never married non-parent under 30 and here are some things I would like in a relationship:
1)We find each other attractive
2)Just like we know a tree by its fruit, I should be able to recognize that my potential mate has a relationship with God because his lifestyle reflects this
3)If he brings up marriage, I cannot take him seriously unless he is ready to:
# Commit to a monogamous relationship with me for life
# Speak with my parents and/or pastors about it and have counsel from these or other Godly people who have successful marriages
# Openly discuss a financial plan for the new household that includes tithing
# Have blood tests and share/discuss results
# Propose
11. Fred Walker said the following at 7:55 PM on Jul 8:
11
It's like what Rocky said about Adrian, "I got gaps, she got gaps, together we fill gaps."
With 'need' Boteach really did hit the nail on the head for me and I'm grateful to God for another timely Boundless article.
12. Rachael said the following at 8:23 PM on Jul 8:
12
Just in response to BDB's question: " How many women are willing to accept leadership? Why or why not?"
-->There are verses about submitting to the husband (Eph. 5:24, Col. 3:18), but whenever submission is considered, love should be simultanously considered and absolutely not ignored. Husbands are to love their wives - (Eph. 5:25, Col. 3:19).
Perhaps if some Bible-believing women who accept those verses yet struggle with the idea of leadership of husbands, it may be because they have personally witnessed, experienced, or heard of selfish leadership/dictatorship without love. Just a thought.
I want to submit in my future marriage. But I'm also aware that it's possible for a man to be very selfishly dominant and not Christ-honoring. Likely a lot of women are this way as well - of course everyone's selfish to some extent. But somehow selfishness coupled with power isn't the most coveted characteristic out there...
13. Don said the following at 9:40 PM on Jul 8:
13
I'm still having a difficult time figuring this articel out. It really didn't make much sense to me, and seemed to contradict itself. I'll read it again and see if a second reading reveals anything.
14. DannieA said the following at 11:23 PM on Jul 8:
14
re: BDBs comment...there is some truth to that.
as having turned 30, I've been befriending guys that are mid to late 30s. If they've been single....they are so against needing a woman and stop pursuing relationships....or then their mentality changes and they are adamant of not wanting kids and think that women they date (me) should be content to not have kids....grrr.
maybe I need a single father to date????
15. Kelly said the following at 5:35 AM on Jul 9:
15
Is need a missing ingredient in finding love?
Quite possibly. But if I'm needy, I'm depressed. I love my single life, I really do love it. I acknowledge that things could be better if I had a deep relationship with another person... but to dwell on that makes me upset. (Trust me, I did that for a couple of years in my mid-20's and I don't want to relive that!)
I have so much joy in my single days.
16. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:27 AM on Jul 9:
16
BDB said:
"How many women are willing to accept leadership? Why or why not?"
Like Rachael said, willingness depends on love...
Thing is that accepting someone's leadership over you and submitting to that authority requires TRUST...which is also a part of love.
You can't submit to someone you don't trust. But if she trusts him, she should be more willing to submit to his leadership.
And to trust him requires him loving her and thinking of her needs...and making it evident in his actions and decisions that her and their family's well-being is truly important to him.
Problem is, one doesn't come without the other. They are interdependent. A man isn't likely to love in this way if she doesn't trust him. She isn't likely to trust him if he doesn't act in this way.
Amir said once that its something that you should do regardless of what the other is doing...and that is HARD.
17. Mike Theemling said the following at 7:17 AM on Jul 9:
17
Very interesting article. I think a lot of the confusion comes down to the true meaning of the word "need".
Do we mean "need" in terms of just pure physical survival? Or is it our non-negotiables in choosing a partner? Or perhaps what every person longs for emotionally? Perhaps a combination of all the above and other interpretations.
The article does raise a very good point that since we (men and women included) can often support ourselves and meet our basic physical needs marrying for utilitarian purposes (the peasant mindset) takes a backseat to marrying for more abstract reasons (e.g. the soulmate concept).
However, being pragmatic about it, any particular behavior standard (in this case, expressing "needs" openly) is only successful if others adopt and/or approve that behavior themselves. The reality is that most people are turned off by such upfront declarations in the same way that most young adults reject the pure courtship model that some have tried to advocate. The author acknowledges most of us are aristocracy. That means then that unless you are willing to find people who will act like peasants, acting like one yourself romantically will not get you married.
Dating as most of us know it is not about being upfront at all. It's about highlighting your strengths, minimizing your shortcomings, and selling the idea that the two of you together will be mutually benefical. No one wants to feel like they got the fuzzy end of the lollipop when the vows are exchanged. Ideally, we would all like to be upfront and appreciative of such frankness. But in reality, it would most likely keep most of us single for the rest of our lives.
18. Claire said the following at 7:27 AM on Jul 9:
18
Fred, #11: It's like what Rocky said about Adrian, "I got gaps, she got gaps, together we fill gaps."
HAHAHAHAHA! That just cracked me up. So great... :)
Could I just also add, "Mind the gap" as well?
19. whs said the following at 7:53 AM on Jul 9:
19
Need in the excerpt refers to your deficiencies and vulnerabilities.
I am horrible with a schedule and I often have to stop and think about what day it is. Although this is something I know I need I am also aware of my resistance and fear of someone controlling my schedule for me.
There is a difference between humbling yourself and making your needs visible; and desperation which involves who you choose to meet those needs.
20. Sarah P. said the following at 8:02 AM on Jul 9:
20
Amir and BDB: Methinks you two doth protesteth too much. If you are so secure and together and all that, why are you reading Boundless? :D :D
Why not let the ladies do your laundry and all that jazz, even if you can do your own? We're supposed to let you hold doors for us, right? :D
21. Helen said the following at 8:20 AM on Jul 9:
21
DannieA (#14): I am in my mid-30s, and I have been in this situation too. But at least I got the line "I do not want children" early enough, so I did not waste time in a relationship that was leading nowhere, as I could not think of a marriage being voluntarily without children. And this is a subject that I raised very early on with the one who recently became my husband, because this was a non-negotiable point for me. I guess everyone, men and women, can become too "comfortable" in their single life style...
22. Suzanne said the following at 8:58 AM on Jul 9:
22
Tami,
I think that's the issue I had with this idea, too...the terminology. "'Need' seems to imply a lack of wholeness." Scripture tells us that we have been given everything we need for life and godliness. So we should act accordingly. At the same time, too much strength or an "I'm just fine on my own, thank you!" attitude could prove to be a barrier to romance.
23. Matt from DC said the following at 9:53 AM on Jul 9:
23
Well said BDB.
Rachael #12: BDB isn't ignorant of the existence of selfish Christian men. He's just approaching it from one angle and pointing out a discrepancy he has observed. You seem smart enough not to marry a selfish man who doesn't love you. I hope you are and I hope you get to live out Biblical submission in an atmosphere of Christ-honoring sacrificial love.
NA #10: Your third criterion is quite interesting. Certainly, there must be an ordering for those events? Why get blood tests if you haven't accepted his proposal. Why propose if he didn't pass muster with your parents/pastors. When you say "brings up marriage" do you mean a quasi-proposal or would you also exclude casual discussion of marriage? I like to find out, on the first date usually, why a woman is interested in me and what she wants. I start that off by telling her why I'm interested in her and what kind of relationship I want. That way we have a defined relationship, our intentions are out in the open, and we may agree or disagree to deepen the commitment of our relationship. So that brings marriage up in the beginning. Would you stop that kind of discussion? Just curious about what you mean based on what you said.
DannieA #14,
You don't live in the DC metro area, do you? *cough* *cough*
24. BDB said the following at 10:09 AM on Jul 9:
24
Rachael (#12) wrote:
>>it may be because they have personally witnessed, experienced, or heard of selfish leadership/dictatorship without love. Just a thought.<<
Let me give an example.
Say a woman feels a call to missions in a specific poor Asian country. She's ready to move there at age 25, but doesn't want to do it alone.
Would she rule out a relationship with, say, someone who wanted to invest his time in a poor Asian country, but do it in short stints over a period of years? The best example are doctors who go to a country for two weeks, and do a whole bunch of surgeries in their specialty over those two weeks.
The first is a full-time mission, the second one that leverages North American resources and focuses them. Both callings help poor Asians.
One of the reasons I ask is that most of the missionaries I know do not live their entire lives in another country. 3-5 years is common, 10 years is effective but less common. So, in terms of submitting to her husband's calling, will she insist on cutting off any relationship if a man isn't ready to move overseas permanently now, or be flexible and consider a call to live somewhere as potentially 5 years out of a 50-year marriage.
25. BDB said the following at 12:46 PM on Jul 9:
25
Sarah P (#20) wrote:
>>Why not let the ladies do your laundry and all that jazz,<<
I did notice that the married men on the trip voiced no objection to having women they were not related to do their laundry. It is a different perspective. Not one I'm used to.
26. Tami said the following at 1:14 PM on Jul 9:
26
BDB (24) -- my thought is, that if I was in such a position, and I saw the relationship as a "keeper," that I would take the time to seriously consider the higher interests and values at stake, rather than simply dismissing the guy just because he didn't have the exact same vision that I do.
These higher interests would be: the same heart for a certain people group; the same heart for missions work; the same heart to work with others in this capacity; and a specific love for the other person with whom I'm considering a marital relationship.
How things would specifically play out would become a joint venture; one that would hopefully be the richer for the two working in prayerful unity. I'm also working off the assumption that the man in your scenario is a respectable one with a serious desire to follow through on his calling -- well, I think I'd be pretty excited at the prospect of serving with that man.
And given that none of us can *really* know what's going to happen to us in the next hour -- much less the next five to fifty years -- I would still give this man serious consideration.
On the other hand, if I had a heart to go into full-time missions, and the guy was like, "Can't we just send a check every month?" it would be harder for me to make the adjustment.
Given that most of the full-time missionaries I know both feel strongly called to serve as missionaries (and seem to sense the call both individually and as a couple), I think that God has it in mind to put like-minded people together. (Or is it that He brings the people together and gives them a common vision? Oh, His mysterious ways... ;)
Personally, I feel a strong sense of my gifting. I couldn't marry someone who denied that I had those gifts. However, I really *do* want to serve with my husband, however that looks.
And yeah, I'm not cut out to be an overseas missionary. :) Though I admire and support them so so much!! I think I'd have to give a hardcore missionary fair warning about that. I wouldn't want to ask him to give up his calling for me. That's not something I want to answer for on That Day. :)
27. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:15 PM on Jul 9:
27
Sarah P: I can't answer for BDB, but I blog here because I enjoy harassing people like you. ;)
28. DannieA said the following at 2:52 PM on Jul 9:
28
Matt from DC:
No I'm not from the DC area....I'm a so. california gal.
why? ;)
29. NA said the following at 3:46 PM on Jul 9:
29
Hi Matt [Re: #23],
I think you are a diamond in the rough for telling a woman up front why you are interested and what you truly want.
I have no issue with casual discussion of marriage...I welcome it...it's part of getting to know a person.
As for my little list, I think I would reserve it for the quasi-proposal mode.
These were a small group of items that I've recently thought up to help in the thorough process of gauging whether or not the man is truly serious because this is my life, I can't allow anyone to play with it. These thoughts also stemmed from a relationship I had with a man who I'd known for 5 years and dated for 3 of them. For over a year he kept saying he wanted to marry me, blah, blah, blah in the "quasi-proposal" mode you mentioned. So I wanted to explore that and take some affirmative steps...sit down with our parents or with pastors (and that choice was his) to prepare ourselves...see if this could really work. He said he would could do it, but it never came to fruition. So I concluded that he was not serious about it. In hindsight and in my reading of the many articles on this site, I think this stems more from me trying to make a courtship out of something that was just plain 'ol worldly dating!
Anyhoo, I feel that if a man is truly serious about marriage nothing would stand in his way.
So I guess there could be an ordering to my items, but if we are seriously considering marriage, I want the man to know what the deal breakers are up front...save us both time and effort. So yes, I need to know before he proposes if he is even willing to have blood tests, disclose finances, etc. so there will be no confusing things when it is actually time to do it.
30. NA said the following at 3:50 PM on Jul 9:
30
Right on the money Mike! [Re: #17]
31. BDB said the following at 4:06 PM on Jul 9:
31
Tami (#26) wrote:
>>my thought is, that if I was in such a position, and I saw the relationship as a "keeper,"<<
So, there's an interesting observation. Here's a couple of mine:
1) In the U.S., both men and women are so focused on looks first, that they never even have a conversation with someone to find out if they have the same calling. They dismiss them before they get to that point.
2) In Cambodia, I ran into a surprising number of Western single women. They were all taller than me. But they immediately wanted to know who I was, where I was from...and why I was there. Their description of their calling was usually included in the first five minutes of the conversation - something that never seems to happen in the U.S.
And picture this: if they're taller than me, and I'm taller than all the Cambodians, imagine how well they can see over the crowd...
(And, for any of you Canadians, if you have a blonde friend from the Toronto/East London area who is doing a master's degree in Neuroscience and just got back from Cambodia, I had lunch with someone in the Taipei airport and neglected to get her e-mail address...oops)
32. Erin KT said the following at 5:06 PM on Jul 9:
32
I like reading here because everyone always has such reasoned opinions. I do wish sometimes we all came to some sort of consensus.
I found this article challenging as well. And like people have said contradictory to both what has been written here before and the culture in general. "Don't be needy."
Here's my two cents... I think it's more about the way that you present yourself rather than the way that you are. And like Mike (17) said its about honesty. Everyone has needs (older people less so than younger like the built up baggage) but we've been conditioned to cover up every need that we have and present a perfect picture.
So I agree that honesty is the best policy. But my question is "is reveling your needs an attractive thing?" Or like Mike said even if it's a good concept; do both parties kind of have to be on the same page? Maybe there is away to reveal your needs without "acting needy." Plus "acting needy" generally implies that you are asking your dating partner to fulfill those need which is likely not a good idea.
33. Chrysti said the following at 6:26 PM on Jul 9:
33
I think coming from the perspective of "need" can be seen as selfish in a way, yet at the same time, it has a good point. At the same time, we need to figure out what the other person needs so we can have a fulfilling relationship.
And there is such a thing as too needy, as Erin KT (#32) said.
34. Mike said the following at 7:33 PM on Jul 9:
34
This article caused a double-take for me, as well, but along a slightly different line. It seemed to be suggesting we jettison the standard advice to think more of what we bring to a relationship than what we're going to get out of it. In other words, it's almost like the author wants us to think in terms of what needs we have that the other person's going to fill instead of what we bring to the table.
I'm not sure that's what he intended, but that's how it came across to me. Kind of gave me a screwed-up brow reading it...
35. Rachael said the following at 8:55 PM on Jul 9:
35
Matt (23),
I was just answering as to why some women might be hesitant about submitting to leadership. I think this would be my fear if I saw potential signs in a potential husband. And sometimes women's emotions and intelligence are different things. Unfortunately, sometimes emotions rule even when the intellect knows better or wonders. I don't think I will marry a man who leads without love. However, if I wasn't seeing someone now, I think I would realize that I could end up with someone who struggles with leading out of love. Knowing myself, I might let the good outshine the bad and feel like "I could handle this." While I wouldn't enjoy the negative aspects of such a relationship, I don't think I'd be able to say: "I'd never marry a man like that." Another reason women might hesitate to submit to Christian leadership might be that they have never seen an example of what mostly loving, Christ-honoring leadership looks like. Not everyone has the luxury of observing this as a child. Especially if people haven't seen many couples who have a solid (with leading/submitting) relationship, it could be good for them to be able to observe some of the daily leadership that takes place in solid Christian homes to see what it looks like and to know what they might be able to have one day.
BDB (24),
If a woman feels her missionary calling doesn't match her potential husband's, I don't think this is necessarily a leadership issue but a 'right one' issue...God might be shaping her heart to desire that calling.
If a woman is already married, I believe she should submit to the husband's idea about the overseas stuff.
Cheers everyone :)
36. Rachael said the following at 1:02 AM on Jul 10:
36
If one is needy, they should also be give-y. Along with balance, part of the issue may be the terminology -- neediness vs. humility/vulnerability/openness/honesty....
Being emotionally "needy" has a negative nuance...and if someone was constantly looking for something for his/herself and not looking out for others, it would be quite unpleasant for that person's partner to deal with the required high maintenance.
But there's something attractive about humility and openness. And not just in a romantic sense, but in a human sense.
One person from my church jumps into my mind. Although we're just acquaintances and I don't even know if she knows my name, I somehow admire her. She seems to be a person of spiritual depth and not one to put on a facade of having it all together. There's some level of openness about her, and I like that. A beautiful openness doesn't have to consist of exposing deep dark secrets to anyone and everyone. It is not about hanging your head and wearing the sackcloth with a frown. It's about putting on the clothing of humility and sharing a bit of the heart rather than just spit out the book answers.
In thinking of a gentle openness, I also think about a friend of mine who I just met with today. She is a person of depth and comes across as a loving, open, humble person.
A strong sense of loving humility, a sense of human/personal frailty, and a wonder/love of salvation are characteristics I admire.
Maybe that's different from being "needy"...but really, we are all "needy"...it's how we deal with that neediness and to what extent we pour our neediness on others. Are we giving of ourselves and loving to others or are we leeches latching onto all we can get?
37. Fred Walker said the following at 2:46 AM on Jul 10:
37
Claire, #18:
"Fred, #11: It's like what Rocky said about Adrian, "I got gaps, she got gaps, together we fill gaps."
HAHAHAHAHA! That just cracked me up. So great... :)
Could I just also add, "Mind the gap" as well?"
Haha, good call :).
38. Kelly said the following at 4:09 AM on Jul 10:
38
BDB said:
So, in terms of submitting to her husband's calling, will she insist on cutting off any relationship if a man isn't ready to move overseas permanently now,
BDB - I've noticed you've often commented on your passion for missions and a man and woman's callings/desires matching on that.
One thing I can say is that IF I met a Godly man, who fulfilled all of the basic criteria (and those of us who read Boundless regularly should know what this is), then of course I would open my mind to what his calling/career options were.
That's what real love will do for you. It's not a trial to submit to your husband's calling, it's a joy that you can go with him! And whatever plans you may have made on your own can be fit into this new structure, or let fade away.
e.g. I have plans to move to Canada next year, but should I meet someone with whom there's the potential of marriage, OF COURSE I would restructure my plans. Then again, I'm one of those people who moves all the time and am used to constant change. ;)
39. Matt from DC said the following at 9:44 AM on Jul 10:
39
NA,
Aw shucks, thanks for the compliment. Also, thanks for opening up and sharing some of your story. Your earlier statement makes a lot of sense now. Good for you for realizing what you did about that relationship and moving on. Now you'll be prepared to recognize those kind of guys when you run in to them.
Rachael,
I know what you mean about overlooking the bad and seeing only the good. It's so easy to say to yourself, no, I can overcome these glaring problems, let me just shine brighter and love harder. I love having a spiritual mind now because I could never see these things before (and stuck around in bad situations)! I also like what you said about observing the daily leadership in godly Christian homes. I didn't have the luxury of seeing that growing up, either. I think a great way to get this experience is to find a mentor who is much older and learn from him/her in his/her marriage.
DannieA,
Why? Because I'm a single father and I don't have those two hangups you mentioned. In fact, I have the opposite desire. I want a godly wife and I want to fill the backyard with kids. The yards in the DC area aren't too big ;)
40. Rosalie said the following at 12:53 PM on Jul 10:
40
Hi
Na (#10), Just curious about what blood tests you consider so important they are a non-negotiable? Do you mean HIV? Unless the person I was considering marring had came from a area with particularly high HIV rates, or had a person history of ‘high risk behaviours” (ie before coming to Christ had multiple sexual partners, homosexual behaviour, or IV drug use, and I would probably also include multiple very early blood transfusion or a needle stick injury from a HIV positive patient if they were a health professional – for which they would likely already have been tested) I would not consider this an big issue. I’ve heard in the US (I’ve never lived / worked there so this is just hear-say) that some insurance companies will increase your premiums simply because you have had an HIV test (even if the result was negative) since it is usually an indication of being involved with high risk behaviours which would you at increased risk for HIV / other problems in the future.
If someone does have a sexual history (which obviously they would need to have repented of an changed their ways if they were considering marriage) then swabs for sexually transmitted infections (Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, etc) would probably be of greater benefit from a public health point of view (these are extremely prevalent in most Western countries).
Or do you mean blood tests to look at other markers for other disease (ones that aren’t sexually transmitted but that can affect your life-expectancy). Personally I won’t consider these a big deal although I would have a discussion about both of our family histories of medical conditions. Not that any of that would be a deal breaker but it’s information I would like to known about what to look out for / what conditions we might have to face as a family in both future husband and children.
If you or your prospective spouse comes from a family (or specific ethnic group) with a high risk of certain genetic conditions for which gene testing is available, this seems like a logical pre-marriage step.
I must also confess that I am 5 months away from being a qualified medical doctor so I probably take a different stance of this stuff to most other readers.
On the other tread, about the mission thing: As someone who is praying (as well as actively seeking open doors) about the possibility of serving God in developing countries for a least a season, I would struggle to seriously date a guy who completely ruled out going overseas. I don’t feel specifically called to a country or area of the world (although wherever I went medical missions would probably be a component). It also has to do with the type of person I am (someone who enjoys travel and adventure) and a guy who just wanted to stay put in his comfortable Western lifestyle won’t appeal to me. However I must say I have never actually been presented with this dilemma so I might actually act differently if I did meet a man who was on fire for God but felt very strongly his calling was to stay in his home country. I’m also aware that when I meet my future husband, God may use what his calling is to confirm what mine is (to go / not to go overseas, where, what mission organisation etc) if He hasn’t made it clear to me already.
41. BDB said the following at 2:17 PM on Jul 10:
41
Hmmm...let me try a different tack to show how a calling might evolve.
Say that you felt called to teach English as a Second Language. There are several different ways to fulfill that callng:
1) As a public elementry school teacher in California.
2) As a full-time ESL teacher in the U.S. for immigrants.
3) As a full-time ESL teacher in the U.S. for college students from overseas.
4) As an ESL teacher for wealthy Europeans coming to the U.S. for an "English school/holiday"
5) As a short-term missionary in a developing nation, using the Bible to teach English in a class - and providing a vacation for the regular missionary teacher who can take a break while you teach.
6) As a full-time English teacher with an outfit like "Quality Schools," I know a woman from my church who is going for a 2-year stint to Yemen.
7) As a full-time English teacher in a wealthy country like Japan.
8) As a full-time English teacher in a poor country as a Missionary.
9) Running an ESL for-profit school.
10) Providing substantial finanial support (U.S. $500+/month) to a missionary teaching English somewhere.
I've worked for 2 of the above listed types of organizations, and I saw a few of the above options in Cambodia. I know people in each of the categories listed above. But you can see how having a calling for "ESL" can manifest itself in many different ways, and may show up in several of them over the course of a lifetime. And some of those expressions of the calling don't require leaving North America. (Though I hasten to add, travelling overseas is really neat and everyone should try it at least once. If you want to travel overseas, it would probably be a mistake to marry someone who never wants to leave the states. Or provinces.)
The Westerners I met in Cambodia pretty much all started coming on a short-term basis. They made the decision to move there after several trips. (And they warned me - if you keep coming back, you'll fall in love with the place and move here, too.)
42. BDB said the following at 3:48 PM on Jul 10:
42
Um...I guess I should make a stab at trying to tie my post back to the topic.
What I'm trying to illustrate is how a person with one calling could legitimately follow that calling - and be married to 10 different types of people. The common thread would be needing someone who would be willing to listen to the challenges of working with people from different cultures. There are definitely some who are so critical of non-Americans that it wouldn't be a good fit.
Living overseas in any capacity obviously takes a certain kind of person; wealthy country or poor country. Someone willing to try and learn the language of the host country is going to have a much better experience than someone who refuses to try.
And I don't think being "needy" is necessary. The single women I met overseas were acutely aware that it would be easier to be in living in another culture while married. It had nothing to do with their own skills, it's just a cultural expectation that's so much stronger.
This is going to seem like a silly example, but bear with me. One of the things we did as a medical missions team was hand out de-worming medication. It's something people in country do every six months. But the medication can cause birth defects, so it was very important to make sure women taking it were not pregnant. So every women of child-bearing age was asked before being given the medication.
Most of the time, they would giggle and say, "I'm not married."
Incidentally, I didn't meet any single men. But I did meet men married to Asian women. All those women had a calling of their own. I'm sure this was in part because the men were in some kind of ministry serving the poor of the country. But their wives were also commmited to either their or a similar calling. They might work for an NGO serving the poor, while their husband worked for the church in a ministry serving the poor.
43. NA said the following at 4:01 PM on Jul 10:
43
Rosalie [Re: #40],
We are living in a time of great deception and as I've said before, not everyone takes marriage seriously, and honestly, I am not sure everyone is forthcoming about EVERYTHING that occurred in their past.
And not to say that everyone is a liar or everyone indulges in high risk sexual behavior...it could be that the person was a virgin but had an injury that required a blood transfusion...anything could have happened.
I just think it's of utmost importance [for me] to know my spouse's health status before marriage(and for them to know mine), and yes I did mean test for HIV and other STI's but having a physical and knowing they are generally ok is important to me as well.
I am not an MD but I do work in healthcare and all STI's cannot be detected by a physical exam (as some people can be asymptomatic), so in some cases blood tests are warranted. And yes, I am an African-American woman and as far as I know, HIV affects us in America more than any other demographic - I do not want to be counted in those horrible statistics.
And as for the cost of an HIV test, I really don't think that is an excuse, it's done for FREE in some many places nowadays. And really, if it comes down to my life or some possible slack from insurance companies, I'd choose my life - in a heartbeat.
44. Tom Neven said the following at 4:06 PM on Jul 10:
44
Rosalie (#40)
At one time almost everyone required blood tests before a marriage license could be granted. My wife and I were married in Switzerland long before anyone had ever heard of AIDS, and we still had to get a blood test.
Maybe someone with more medical knowledge than I can explain the thinking behind this.
45. DannieA said the following at 4:57 PM on Jul 10:
45
Matt from DC said: #39
"Why? Because I'm a single father and I don't have those two hangups you mentioned. In fact, I have the opposite desire. I want a godly wife and I want to fill the backyard with kids. The yards in the DC area aren't too big ;)"
Well I live in a townhome in Moreno Valley and I don't even have a backyard so I"m sure you outdo me in that department LOL.
You sound like a great guy! Sometimes long distance friendships are a great way to start ;)
46. Julia H said the following at 5:04 PM on Jul 10:
46
With all the interesting developments in alternative fertility these days, I would be inclined to get a blood test just to be certain my intended wasn't a blood relation through a sperm or egg donor or an adoption or unfaithfulness or something along those lines. Maybe at least a frank discussion of one's origins with one's parents would at least be required - that is for those with more "liberal" parents.
47. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:33 PM on Jul 10:
47
Tom,
I know that its especially important for Jews to get blood tests prior to having a marriage certificate issued...and the reason could probably carry over to why anyone would be required...
There's a disease that is recessive that causes a lot of health problems in the offspring of two carriers of the hereditary trait. I'm under the impression that if both carried the trait, they weren't given a marriage certificate.
I know there is one such disease that is incredibly prevalent among jewish offspring...but I'm not certain of why anyone else would be required to have such a test.
Anyone with more knowledge is free to correct me if I'm wrong =p
48. Rachael said the following at 9:59 PM on Jul 10:
48
As for BDB (41)'s post, in relation to a state in the Pacific NW -- for option #3 and maybe #2 in community colleges...most positions seem to be part-time....just an FYI. But you can combine schools and in my state get benefits if you've worked 50% or more for 2 consecutive quarters or something...
49. Rachael said the following at 10:03 PM on Jul 10:
49
Matt from DC:
Thanks for the response. Yeah it would be neat if close intergenerational (and inter-marital status) friendships happened more often. I think it would be really neat to see examples of regular, Godly leadership and submission in day-to-day tasks.
50. eddie ssemkula said the following at 6:16 AM on Jul 11:
50
I also second BDB
complementary is the word--interdependence is even smarter
51. Matt from DC said the following at 9:49 AM on Jul 11:
51
DannieA,
Touche! Write me at my firstnamelastname@firstnamelastname.com and I'll be in touch.
Have a great weekend, all.
Matt Lawson
52. DannieA said the following at 10:26 AM on Jul 11:
52
will do
have a great weekend