Her.meneutics: Marriage: Creating a Partnership, Not Reeling in a Catch

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Making the Most out of Mommy Blogging: The Woman Behind Money Saving Mom | Main | Christian Catfights: Why Women Leaders Don't Support Each Other »

January 27, 2012

Marriage: Creating a Partnership, Not Reeling in a Catch

The old traditions of luring in a spouse still linger today.

Karen Swallow Prior

To all the single ladies:

Last week Groupon offered a ticket to lasting love (at a 76% discount!) by way of your own personal “boudoir photo shoot.” The ad proclaims:

The great Romantic painters had the same goal—to craft an image so beautiful that it would come to life and marry them. Increase your chances of turning images into love using the modern version of painting, photography . . .

The sample photo suggests that the way to transform “images into love” to is throw on some kitschy lingerie, splay yourself in the most awkward position imaginable on a bed, and fork over $95.00 for the picture.

The image might have gone from G-rated to R-rated, but the sentiment in this marketing campaign is strikingly similar to those of the conduct books popular around the eighteenth century. Such literature offered young ladies not only moral and domestic instruction, but also tips on how to attract the best husband. If you’ve read any Jane Austen, then you’ve encountered her satirical treatment of these works: priggish Mr. Collins reads passages from one popular conduct book to the captive Bennet girls, and the heroine of Emma tries to make a love-match by painting an “enhanced” portrait of her friend in hopes a gentleman will fall in love with the woman in the painting.

Since reading (as opposed, perhaps, to seeing) is believing, here are some samples from the original sources:

In his 1765 Sermons to Young Women, Rev. James Fordyce wrote:

Your best emblem, beloved, is the smiling form of peace, robed in white, and bearing a branch of olive … in a female we wish nothing to reign but love and tenderness….
A modest but animated mien, an air at once unaffected and noble, are doubtless circumstances of great attraction and delight.

Dr. John Gregory warns women in A Father’s Legacy to his Daughters of 1774:

The power of a fine woman over the hearts of men, of men of the finest parts, is even beyond what he conceives. They are sensible of the pleasing illusion, but they cannot, nor do they wish to dissolve it. But if she is determined to dispel the charm, it certainly is in her power: she may soon reduce the angel to a very ordinary girl.

Centuries of advancements for women separate Emma and the conduct books from the Groupon boudoir photo offer, yet they all convey the notion that if a woman can project the desired image—angelic in the eighteenth century, erotic in the twenty-first—she will succeed in her quest to catch a man.

When the basis of marriage was economic or political—as it has been for nearly all of human history—it made sense for a woman to direct her wiles toward making “a good catch.” Most times her very livelihood depended on it. But around the time these conduct books were being written, a major shift was taking place in the view of marriage, a shift that occurred through a newly emerging Christian understanding of marriage.

With the rise of Methodism and Evangelicalism in the eighteenth century came an emphasis on individual, rather than institutional, faith. Since the choice of a marriage partner greatly shapes one’s service to God, these eighteenth-century Christians promoted what is called the “companionate marriage” in place of the economically-motivated match. The companionate marriage stressed the importance of a spiritual and personal compatibility, which provides mutual support to each partner pursuing earthly ministry together.

The error of the materially-based marriage was dramatically portrayed in Samuel Richardson’s 1748 masterpiece Clarissa. Attempts by the heroine’s parents to force their daughter into an economically advantageous marriage result in a tragedy that moved readers to tears and significantly helped change attitudes about the basis for a good marriage match. The novel is a rare example in modern times of Christianity truly changing the culture rather than merely reacting to it.

Yet, the old models seem to lurk still, even beyond an inconsequential internet coupon. Consider The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. Remember The Rules? And Christians are, sadly, not immune to this mindset. One Christian book on the topic sounds more like my husband’s recent fishing expedition than a biblical view of marriage. Another popular Christian book reveals all in the title: If Men are Like Buses, How Do I Catch One?

When a husband is something to “catch,” then a woman will employ all the traps and snares she can. In the eighteenth century, these were called “accomplishments”—skills in singing, drawing, dancing, painting—activities designed to draw a man’s attention but rarely, if ever, employed after the wedding day. In contrast, if a husband is considered as a companion in one’s lifelong service to God, then such wiles only work against an authentic foundation for marriage. The companionate marriage was the greatest shift in the view of marriage in all of human history and has extended well beyond the Christian context in which it started. Even so, there is no arena more in need now of an infusion of the Christian worldview than marriage. And I’m not talking about marriage roles here, or the irrelevant complementarian/egalitarian debate. I’m talking about something far more essential and transformative: the very foundation of the marriage partnership. The model of the companionate marriage is rooted in permanence, not performance and so sees a potential mate as a partner instead of prey. For the Christian, it’s not about catching a man, but of being yoked together for life and the consequences of that yoking for eternity.

Comments

Oh yes. I totally agree. I marvel at all the Christian women who can't miss a single episode of The Bachelor. I just may have to write a blog on my constant statement that the goal of life is not marriage. Thanks. Karen.

Karen,

I love how you bring in the classical literature. I'm married to my best friend. I suppose I am in a companion marriage. I never once thought of myself as catching him. I suppose a catching mentality will lead to certain kinds of actions.

I know women feel pressure--especially single Christian women. But from some of the male commenters here, I know they feel pressure too. We need to reimagine this whole thing.

If you had built your article on your last two sentences you would have said something worthwhile. Instead we got the same old tired lecture.

Dr. Prior - your analysis is, as always, insightful. I do think, however, us men bear much of the blame for the "catch" mentality (it is, after all, a very husband-centric mentality). Your emphasis on companionship should challenge men to think more critically about what we (consciously and subconsciously) tell women we're looking for in a partner.

Karen,
Thanks for the insight and connecting today's romantic practices with a better historical understanding of marriage and courtship in general. We tend to forget that there can be historical patterns to our behavior worth re-investigating.

"J" I was just curious about what you mean by the "same old lecture." Have you read Fordyce, Gregory, and Clarissa? Honestly, I am just curious about what you think. No agenda.

Thank you.

The who "catch a man" attitude is often extended into the marriage itself. While many lament that women "let themselves go," I had a coworker tell me that it was okay for her to wear sweats on her day off if she wasn't going anywhere, but that it wasn't okay for me because I'm married. Really? Yes, men are visual, but come on. No woman should be forced to sneak out of bed before the crack of dawn and apply make-up, make sure she's wearing silky undies and doesn't have a hair out of place. That's not marriage. That's prison.

Especially as more women become primary breadwinners or at least co-providers, this becomes increasingly important to talk about. I think we may soon see men trying to catch women, especially if they think women will be able to somehow provide for them financially.
However, how is the compelmentarian/egalitarian issue "irrelevant"? It is exceedingly relevant. Does the wife have a direct relationship with God that is just as valid as the man's? Or does she go to God "thru" her husband? That's at the crux of that debate. If A wife hears one thing from God and another from her husband, who is she to obey? (E. would say love and respect husband, but obey God; C. would say love God but obey husband. Defining expectations in that area needs to be a part of any relationship.

@J: thanks for the suggestion about the last two sentences. Perhaps I'll develop that idea in a future blog.

@Keri: good point about women becoming the "catch," too! As far as the irrelevancy of the complementarian/egalitarian issue, I think it's based on a false and unhelpful binary. The categories exist only within a relatively small, temporary slice of Christian history. An analogy might be this: some Christians think that only the KJV is acceptable, but that doesn't make this a "debate" of any sort or relevant in any way. I'll humbly admit, however, that the world I live in is so far removed from the comp/egal debate that perhaps I am too dismissive of it. On the other hand, I think living inside or outside of that world is somewhat a matter of choice, too.

This was nice to read. I got married just a few years ago--at 27, to my first-ever boyfriend. Because I'd never dated before I got some pretty crazy "catch him" mentality advice from Christian individuals--that I should wear my hair up more, wear more dresses, and--I'm not kidding--that I should always let him think he was right. Basically, they advised that I should pretend to be someone I wasn't--a fashion- and beauty-savvy woman that couldn't think critically--and get the guy to marry me through deception. Lies of any kind are nothing to build a marriage on, and you certainly can't have a companionate-quality relationship if your partner doesn't even know the real you. If you can't attract someone by being honest about who you are and how lacking in dexterity you may be in the curling iron department, then why would you want to be married to them in the first place?

Yaayy! I was just thinking of this recently - what an unhelpful "metaphor we live by," the idea that women must catch (and implicitly, deceive) a man in order to make him interested in a partnership! This metaphor also implies that the female nature is inherently shameful, and should be hidden.
Though I enjoy the questions this article raises, I am (like Keri, who makes a great point) confused at the dismissal of the complementarian/egalitarian debate, a claim that Prior does not explain here. Does she explain her point of view on this issue in some other place?

On the score of egal v. comp topic, I would agree that it's irrelevant insofar as individuals in their individual marriages are probably going to do what they are personally convicted of, what they want to, and/or what works for their relationship regardless of what the CBMW and CBE are saying in their respective blogs and publications. On the other hand, I'd venture to say that most of us go to churches that lean more toward one side or the other, and the debate is very much relevant for those of us with ties to churches that don't lean to the same side that we personally do. Whichever side you're on, it hurts to hear from the Christians you're in primary fellowship with that the way you conduct your most intimate and significant relationship is an affront to God. You can start feeling a nearly irresistible urge to defend your position and find affirmation from Christian sources other than your church, which leads directly into the debate field.

I'm disappointed that this article engages in the shallow reasoning of judging books by their titles, since it seems highly unlikely that the author has read either of the books she so disdainfully dismisses in the second to the last paragraph. How to Find a Date Worth Keeping is not a book about a "biblical view of marriage," nor does it claim to be, but the wise and practical advice it contains may well help many people to learn the skills of healthy relating that will lead to good marriages. I haven't read any of Michelle McKinney Hammond's books, but I doubt that the title of the book mentioned truly does "reveal all." It is unfair to these authors (and to those who might benefit from reading their works) to hold these books up as examples of Christians embracing an outmoded mindset toward marriage without engaging the actual content of the books.

@Charity and @LM: I've not written elsewhere on the egalitarian/complementarian issue, but I did respond to Keri above. I also much agree with the point LM makes in the comment above.

When I say the partnership issue is more "essential" I mean that it comes before the egal/comp matter and that the partnership/companionate model applies to a marriage whether it is egalitarian, complementarian, or something else beyond these two narrow categories.

There is nothing irrelevant about the complementarian/egalitarian debate. In fact it is the single most important debate facing the future of marriage and the church.

The lesson is well pointed out. To much of the whole business comes across as a contest in successful social manipulation.

Dr. Prior, I understand your distaste for the idea of women trying to "catch" men. What do you suggest instead? I don't get a good idea from the article about what women should focus on instead of superficial talents.

Also, correct my history if necessary, but isn't the prospect of "catching" a man much different today in the era of dating and long relationships before proposals? As I understand it, a man and woman could be betrothed after just a few meetings these hundreds of years ago, but we typically spend a year or more with our boyfriends and girlfriends before he gets down on one knee. It would seem that a sexy photoshoot would lose its luster after a year of being with the woman with really annoying habits, so the danger of these "catching" methods seems pretty much nil to me. Anyone able to be duped by these methods was looking for so superficial a relationship in the first place, it would seem. How do you see these methods still posing any significant danger in the modern world?

Blake, those are great points and questions. Perhaps I can write another post (or posts!) on these.

Just to respond briefly, I think you're right that for some, probably most, today longterm relationships (even living together before marriage) preclude the "catch" mentality. That is actually why I am rather suprised to see it still "linger" as I say in the post and why I thought it was worth writing about. As the examples I cite above (and more) show, it still exists even if it is not the norm. And I think the celebrity culture as seen in The Bachelor/ette and other "reality" shows are further influencing and increasing such a mentality. I also supsect (but don't know for sure) that this is a hazard of online dating sites where the first introduction to a person is through a projected image rather than a real person or a connection through another person. (This is not to put down such sites, but just to point out what seems a likely inherent risk.)

What should form the basis for a partnership? That answer is as varied as are the number of marriages themselves. For Christians it is, as I say in the post, the idea of being yoked together for service to God. That is the beginning. Perhaps I will write on this topic in another post. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

I, also, disagree that the complementarian/egalitarian debate is irrelevant in this context. The whole idea of "catching" a man is rooted in what is now called "complementarianism": the idea that a woman's purpose in life is to be a man's "helper" meant that her identity was based on the man to whom she "belonged." This was part and parcel of the restriction of women to home and hearth, so that her only source of economic support was through marriage-- hence, the necessity of making the right "catch."

With the rise of Methodism and Evangelicalism in the 18th century also came a move of the Holy Spirit that resulted in many women showing spiritual giftings that opened ways for them into more public ministry. This in turn led to the rise of female suffragism, and the notion that a woman ought not to have her property and identity subsumed by her husband upon marriage. "Companionate marriage" was an egalitarian notion at its heart: the idea that a wife could be more than a possession, but a companion. Complementarianism, and its harsher form, patriarchalism, represent a movement back towards those earlier ideas about the proper place of women and wives.

If a woman's identity and purpose are not to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," but rather to help and serve a man-- if she should consider herself called only to be the help and support of a man in his calling-- then how can she do anything but look on marriage as her chief goal in life and a man as a "catch" for that purpose?

I think the whole issue is all about complementarianism vs. egalitarianism, and the different results of the two views of woman.

@KR Wordgazer: I think yours is a really great insight. Although most of the Evangelicals and Methodists who were promoting the companionate marriage had views of women's roles that by today's terms would most definitely be described as complementarian, you are correct that even if unbeknownst to them, in promoting such a view of marriage, they were participating in and propelling forward something more akin to egalitarianism even if that was not intentional on their part. Excellent point! Thank you.

As a single Christian man equally frustrated by these issues relating to finding a spouse, I have offered some advice to single Christian women on the other page:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2012/01/real_women_dont_text_back_how.html#comment-564957

KSP: I realise that modern culture has probably corrupted many of secular ideas of dating/courtship/mating but not all Christian men are so corrupted. Also, many of these shows are watched by Christian women (in my experience) out of a sort of prurient interest in the lives of others. Perhaps Christian women can clean up their act, in the same ways that Christian men are supposed to put away the Xbox etc.

@Robert: thanks for weighing in! I definitely was not accusing the men here. Both are guilty of the "catch" mentality, and both contribute to it.

I noticed on the post you linked to your statement against lists. I wrote on that very thing here at Her.meneutics last year. It might interest you: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2011/06/an_open_letter_to_donald_mille.html

Thank you Karen. Good article. I appreciate that you get that people can change, even men. A lot of women get hung up on their guy's past relationships, as if these affect him now, oblivious to the fact that men change and usually evolve -- Christian men hopefully keep on improving.

I have a deep dislike of the popular Christian female concept of “The List”. Having attended Christian gatherings and parties and heard single Christian women discuss their List, some with considerable passion, this guy is not surprised they are single. There is NO man who could meet their List. [I would add that if Christian men produced their own “The List”, ie she must be stunningly attractive, must be interested in football, must enjoy Xbox war games etc, then this blog would probably be the first to go nuclear over it].

I should also point out that I have not read an article by a Christian man complaining about Christian women. Guys do not seem to get as worked up about this issue. My comments were from years of frustration, as a single Christian guy, of reading Christian women attack Christian men for being, in the main, guys with guys interests and guy tendencies. I realise that Christianity has a gender imbalance and that there are far too few Christian men, and that many Christian men are rather pathetic (see the debate at CT on whether MMA is OK for Christians – man up people). The Church has made itself man-unfriendly and many of us who are normal, red-blooded men are Christians in spite of the feminization of the Church, not because of it. If more men could feel at home in Christian Churches, then many of the single Christian women would find spouses. Problem solved.

"The Church has made itself man-unfriendly and many of us who are normal, red-blooded men are Christians in spite of the feminization of the Church, not because of it."

RJE, I'd be interested in your suggestions of making the church more man-friendly. It isn't lost on me that men are generally the leaders of the church but I don't disagree that they could make it friendlier for men. Most of the criticism I hear about men or single men in particular come from married men in the church rather than women in my experience. But as the church is increasingly becoming less single-friendly in general, I've pretty much given up myself, even as a woman.

As a Christian man who has attended Evangelical churches for almost 40 years, I have to say that I don't get this idea that church has been "feminized" and men now run from the church because it is not manly enough. When was church so "masculine" in the past anyway? I think the issue with men and church attendance has little if anything to do with this so-called issue. I think it more likely that any church that is truly teaching what it means to be a disciple and what the true cost is, is going to be losing people, but especially men. Being one myself, I know that we can tend to run from those really tough responsibilities, especially when they include doing real soul-searching heart work that requires us to be vulnerable, honest, and admit our weakness. That is not very "manly," but it is certainly Christ-like.

Katie, you have just underscored why John MacArthur and his ilk are not on my reading list. Thank you, Mark, for your response. Nowhere in the story of Creation does Adam, Eve or God say that Eve is to "allure" anyone. She is a "help" or "strength" (ezer) standing, facing or opposite him (depending on the transaltion of the word "kenegdo")--in other words, his equal. It is sad that the old fallacy of Eve as temptress is still being foisted on the Church.

melinda, what did eve do after eating the apple? Did she stand strong and warn adam to not eat it also, was she ashamed of what she did, or did she tempt adam?

Casey: none of the above. The text says "she gave to Adam, who was with her, and he ate." God also says to Adam that he "listened to his wife," but the only words the text records for to have "listened to" was Eve's conversation with the serpent-- which he would have heard because he was standing right there at the time.

The text does not actually say Eve tempted Adam. Maybe she did-- but that's a conclusion we make from reading, not something directly set forth in the passage.

One century's "accomplishments" is another's "manipulation". We need to call it out, and shut it down, not affirm it.

Casey, since Adam was "with her" it was Satan who tempted him. Blaming another person when one succumbs to temptation blinds one to the need to repent and grow spiritually.

Actually, KR was right, the Bible says that Adam listened to Eve and ate the forbidden fruit.

Thank you, Casey, for your graciousness.

Gen 3:6 - "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." I don't see anything about who was listening to whom, except that they both heard what the serpent said and then ate the fruit.

Cheers,
Tim

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’
Genesis 3:17

It was Adam who chose his own course of action.

And the point I was making in the first place is that the Bible is clear that woman was created to be a help equal to man, not an "allurer" as MacArthur and Eldridge have deliniated us to be. Writers in the earlier eras used the word "temptress" to describe what these modern writers are doing--ascribing this "role" to women as if that is our created function.

Great article and great posts, Karen! I like the companionsip/complementary model. Men and women are different physically and emotionally. Viva La Difference! We should respect our differences and work together to the glory of God and the kingdom. Even so, the bibical model is with the man as head of the wife and loving her as Christ loved the church. Modern feminism influences in the church tend to erode this bibically based relationship amd make something evil of the man being head of the wife. I think the scriptures say they became "one" which seems to make it complementary. Men have unique talent and abilities and so do women. We need to complement each other not dominate each other but do all for the glory of God.

Also, I never have understood how the church is being "feminized"? Would someone expain this to me, please! I loosly head a men's fellowship organized from our
Senior Sunday School Men's Class that meets socially once per month to pray for each other but mostly to just fellowship and enjoy each other's company. It opens with a scripture and then we pray for individual prayer needs . We keep it pretty simple and it seems to enjoy success as the average attendence at the 8 AM monthly breakfast is around 18 men. The women's class in our department now have their own once per month breakfast which they enjoy.

On the other hand our church (average attendence 300+) seems to have problems organizing a men's fellowship. It always seems to be hinged on a special speaker such as a champion fisherman or hunter or on hunting or fishing or camping. Men attend but it never seems to go anywhere because of unknown reasons. Why? Methinks the leadership of churches think to appeal to men the events must hinge around hunting or fishing. Is this true? Why? I do neither but praying for and serving others does appeal to me. One of the best ministries we have adopted lately in our local church is "Fathers in the Field" which pairs men with fatherless boys. Great ministry! I would like to know what it takes to make the church more appealing to men and exactly what makes it "feminized"? What is being done now in my church and others doesn't seem to work. I do miss Promise Keepers as it seemed to appeal to men and it certainly appealed to the more nobel aspects of being a Christian man and husband. Keep up the good work, Karen, and please do let your husband grow that beard:) I am sure he deserves it! God bless you and your blog.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Marriage: Creating a Partnership, Not Reeling in a Catch

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Marriage: Creating a Partnership, Not Reeling in a Catch

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives