“It is not good that the man should be alone,” the Lord said when looking upon the first man. “I will make him a helper fit for him.
I had probably read that verse hundreds of times without grasping its full significance. Almost every time, I read my own preconceived meaning into the text, rather than trying to grasp what is actually said. Now it seems rather clear, even obvious. Adam didn’t need a “soulmate,” for he already had the most perfect lover of his soul already in his Creator. What he needed was a “helper,” someone like himself who could share his burdens, his joys, his humanity. God’s immanent nature was a presence that provided all the love that Adam needed. But God’s transcendent nature prevented him from being the type of companion that the first man would need to fulfill his role in the Garden. Adam needed someone both enough like himself to share a mutual understanding and different enough to provide a degree of uniqueness and mystery.
The institution of marriage, under this model, becomes the joining together in a one-flesh union of two individuals, a physical embodiment of the mysterious paradox of unity and diversity. However, it would be mischaracterizing the role of helper to confuse it with a yin-and-yang style complementarity. Recognizing the differences between the male and the female should not cause us to forget how much alike we are and how many individual needs we share in common. Too often our culture encourages us to buy into the myth that the perfect spouse is one who completes us, rather than one who can aid us in our journey in becoming whole.
But in what ways would this “mutual help” model work in the institution of marriage? On this question I’ve been primarily influenced by the Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. As philosopher Al Wolters has noted, one of the key features of Dooyeweerd’s thought is the “stress on the priority of concrete lived experience (what he calls ‘naïve experience’) over the abstractions of theoretical thought.” Dooyeweerd believed that God created certain laws and norms of reality that were irreducible yet interrelated. He outlined fifteen “spheres of human life and experience” that, though broadly useful for all areas of life, provide a useful framework for understanding the state of “wholeness” as it applies to marriage.
When taken on their own, these spheres are inadequate and lead to an unfulfilling reductionism. Taken together and in proper proportion, these aspects can lead to fulfillment and the creation of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Here are twelve of the spheres of life that relate directly to the role of marriage (since Andrew Basden has already developed this line of thought, I’ll borrow heavily from his examples):
The biotic has to do with organic life functions, and health. We fulfill this not only by creating children, but by helping each other to maintain health and caring for the other when ill.
The sensitive/psychic has to do with feeling, emotion, psychology. Helping each other to maintain psychological health is an oft-overlooked aspect of marital life. We fulfill this in such ways as being tender to each other when the other has been psychologically hurt or being sensitive to each other’s feelings.
The making of distinctions is the province of the analytical/logical sphere. By helping each other reason things through, we aid our spouse in making decisions about how to live wisely.
The formative has to do with human construction, creativity, and achievement—including history, technology, and culture. Working together on a project to achieve a goal and valuing what the other has achieved in the past is a primary way in which we carry out this role. It also leads us to value our spouse’s culture and traditions when they differ from our own.
Symbolic communication—speech, writing, signs, song, and so on—is the lingual sphere. This requires not only listening to our spouse and trying to truly understand what they are saying, but also helping them to communicate with others.
Social is the sphere of social interaction, forming relationships and social institutions. This entails being an appropriate part of the other’s web of relationships, ensuring that relationships that I form with the other sex are open and appropriate, and that my spouse is fully aware of them, so that they do not develop in ways that would harm our relationship.
The economic deals with frugality and the skillful, careful use of the household’s resources. We fulfill this by working together to understand what resources we have and in what way each is limited. It also leads us to refrain from becoming frustrated when the actions of our spouse impose limitations on us, requiring us to respond creatively to the economic challenges.
The aesthetic has to do with harmony and surprise, with play and the arts. We should find ways to “play” together with our spouse. And if one has artistic talents, then the other should aid and not impede them, doing so for the glory of God rather for selfish reasons.
Juridical is the sphere of giving what is due, providing justice, recompense, and retribution. We are called to give what is due to each other as husband and wife, but we also must help our spouse fulfill responsibilities both to other family members and to those outside the home.
The sphere of the sacrificial has to do with self-giving love, with agape. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church,” admonished the Apostle Paul. “Wives, submit to your husbands.” The sphere requires that we be self-giving, as opposed to self-defensive and self-serving.
The pistic covers the areas of faith and faithfulness, the ultimate vision of who we are, and true religion and spirituality. Throughout our days on earth we are to help our spouse get to know God in all his fullness, joining together in worship and prayer.
For a culture weaned on the Jerry Maguire-esque myth that others are here to “complete” us, the idea of a mutual help model of marriage will seem strange and daunting. But we can only be completed by the one who created us. We can’t expect a spouse to be our fulfillment. What we can hope is that he or she will hold our hand when we are sick, comfort us when we grieve, talk to us about our fears, hopes, and dreams. What we can expect is a helper. But that will be enough. That is what marriage was created for.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here. A version of this article originally appeared in Comment magazine, the opinion journal of CARDUS.
RESOURCES
The Dooyeweerd Centre for Christian Philosophy
Al Wolters, Christian Philosophy, Anyone?
Andrew Basden, Mutual Help in Every Sphere of Life
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female?' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.""
No one should "separate" by divorce a duly and truly married couple: not the state; not the Church; not the husband; not the wife. Not even if one spouse justifiably thinks the other spouse has not lived up even to the most minimal legitimate helper expectations. (For the sake of simplicity, I will not discuss the complex issues of the meaning of "porneia" or "unchastity" in the Matthew account of Christ's stark ban on Divorce-Remarriage or of the Western Church's Annulment praxis). That means the two transcend their individual identities and their marriage has a force that exists separate and apart from their individual identities, expectations and promises. Having entered into their marriage commitment, neither spouse can withdraw depending on whether he or she thinks the other spouse is living up to his/her end of the helpmate bargain.
In truth, Marriage is--to use a once popular term: "the old ball and chain" that links us indivisibly to our spouse. Or, to put it another way, it is the wonderfully liberating adventure that God devised to enable both spouses to have a greater existence together than they ever could apart. That is my best guess at what Christ meant (although His ways are so far above mine that I am only seeing dimly and knowing only in part at this point in my journey).
I don't know that I would agree that "a husband and a wife are to lose their individual identities". Certainly, the marriage is a bigger thing than the two individuals involved, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And I agree that "marriage has a force that exists separate and apart from their individual identities, expectations and promises".
You are certainly correct that God's plan and design for marriage, and the human beings made in His image who inhabit it, is for permanence and lifelong faithfulness. But the individual personalities of husband and wife, while properly subordinated to the marriage, and to each other, are not erased in the process.
----------
Good article, Joe. There is a fitting complementarity of husbands and wives, and when human masculinity and femininity come together as they are made to, a marriage can sing. But, finite and fallen as we are, we can never 'complete' each other fully; only God can do that, and we set ourselves up for heartbreak if we try to force each other into the 'God-shaped hole'.
It's a shame that selling "happily ever after" is so easy and appealing, or that romance and infatuation are so wonderful and powerful, yet somehow lead people to believe it will always be that way to some degree. As hard as marriage can be, it's really not all that hard when you understand it correctly.
"I don't know that I would agree that "a husband and a wife are to lose their individual identities". Certainly, the marriage is a bigger thing than the two individuals involved, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And I agree that "marriage has a force that exists separate and apart from their individual identities, expectations and promises". "
Perhaps you're right. I don't know for sure what Christ meant, other than that Divorce/Remarriage is verboten. As to what one flesh means, the one identity thing was my halting attempt at understanding Christ's teaching. Maybe the identities remain distinct persons in something like a union of persons that can be said to be one flesh? A two leaf clover to mimic my namesake's useful analogy?
In marriage, we are bound together in deep and even mysterious ways, but we shouldn't make of it more than it is (which is a major part of what I take Joe Carter's point to be) - it is for this life only; "in Heaven, they neither marry nor are given in marriage."
Apologies for bringing up what has been called the 'third rail' - the topic of contraception , since many well intended marriages may be plagued by this unnoticed flea that is causing havoc and couples unaware as to where the problem lies !
If sexual union in marriage is like renwal of the covenanatal oath and that is the only intent God has for same , then it is not difficult to see how misuse of that oath can have serious consequences , like all false oaths - one being witnessed by God and His heavenly court !
Many of the Catholics are familiar with the Miraculous Medal and the associated Dogma of Immaculate Conception - tradition being that parents of Mary , Sts Ann and Joachim were so holy ( and loving) that they were blessed to bring forth their daughter , in a noncarnal union of holy embrace , of total unity , while at the temple gates - such would have been true also for our first parenst on down , if not for the fall !
It is not that difficult to see how this Dogma and truth gets brought to our attention in a timely manner for our times where disordered appetites in this area cause such wide spread problems !
http://www.amm.org/vcart/medal2.asp - for the medals that can be made available in bulk for ministries .
Bl.Mother mentions in her message related to this medal , how many persons do not ask for the needed graces - one such grace could be for protection of marriage , to be able to live in Godly unity and be nurturing of children .
May The Mother's love help and heal so that submitting to each other in The Lord , the wives can help the mission of the husband , to be able to be loving like The Lord, to His Bride , The Church , for us children !
"The mutual help model sounds right to me but, the culture's missunderstanding of it is not, I think, what is driving the marriage crisis. It has much more to do with most people's inability to recognize the important emotional needs of their spouse, and work to fulfill them. Sure God is the only one who can meet our deepest longings but, is this what you would say to a couple who are contemplating divorce: "you need to realize that only God can make you completly happy,"?"
The biggest cause of the marriage crisis was the total abandonment by most Protestant churches of Christ's teaching on Divorce-Remarriage. In the 1960s when Protestantism represented about 2/3 of the US population, most Protestant churches acquiesced in the culture's abandonment of the principle of the lifelong nature of the marital commitment and "liberal" divorce laws followed. To this day, almost no Protestant church does anything more than pay lip service to the "death do us part" vow made in a marriage, even though Christ could not have been clearer that no one should separate husband and wife.
Thank you for highlighting the essence of the Dogma on Immaculate Conception .
The 'tradition' part of it is from Bl.Emmerich's writings ; have not read anything that contradicts same in Church documents .
As many would know , it is her writings that led to the discovery of the house where Bl.Mother spent her last days in Ephesus , now a pilgrimage place for both Christians and Moslems .
It is a delight to see Dooyeweerd's name (and of course thought) show up on this public square, especially at a time when I'm having to do some hard reflection on the nature of marriage myself in the context of "concrete lived experience."
All I will add to this synoptic account of the spheres of life and experience is this suggestion, prompted by questions of individuality in the comments: A followup piece that will introduce -enkapsis- as a kind of relationship. Without this we are apt to mistakenly see husband/marriage or wife/marriage as a part/whole relationship, misunderstand the interlaced relationship between the (distinct) marital and familial communities, and a whole lot more.
It might be a lot to ask of a single followup blog post, but I'd love to see you give it a shot!
I've advised young couples that one of the most importnat thing to learn in a marriage is forgiveness. Every community, from the first disciples to a married couple knows the need for forgiveness.
Also, on a less idealistic note, one finds that the reasons a marriage can "make it" is often that one's spouse does not have a trait or characteristic which is an "automatic rejection." While good things keep a couple together, a highly rejectable fault (in the opinion of one partner in the marriage), could drive strife into the marriage. The absence of "the negative" tends to be what keeps marriages from suffering collapse.
