What kinda egg are you?

I had an interesting discussion over facebook. Someone wrote the original article and I (as well as other responded) my responses are indicated with my name. Below are the posts. For any readers out there, let me know what you think.

The Independent Relationship
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 5:32pm
Written by N.J.

Since 2005, I have served as the relationships columnist for the local NY Times paper, the Gainesville Guardian. In the three years and 156 articles I have written, one theme consistently underscores the problems I am asked to "solve;" how to maintain one's independence while in a relationship.I have read numerous articles throughout the years that extol the virtues of being independent. I have heard men and women alike sing the "independent" anthem to the tune of Destiny's Child (men substitute "fellas" for "women"). There are conferences, seminars, CDs, DVDs, books, movies, stage plays, and music that promote independence as, not an option, but an imperative in our relationships. Yet, I must submit to you today that, as a married woman, the idea of an independent relationship is a paradox at best and fundamentally impossible.***NOTE: 1. I believe that marriage is the only destination for a romantic relationship between 2 single people. If you disagree with this basic belief, please refrain from replying as this article will not apply to you. 2. What I am about to say is based on my Christian beliefs. If you do not believe the same, please refrain from replying as this article will not apply to you. THANKS!***Let us look at the book definition of Relationship:"1: the state of being related or interrelated, 2: the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as a: kinship b: a specific instance or type of kinship, 3 a: a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings b: a romantic or passionate attachment."Now, let us look at the book definition of Independent:“1: not dependent; 2: not subject to control by others; 3: not affiliated with a larger unit; 4: not requiring or relying on something or someone else; 5: not looking to others for opinions or guidance in conduct; 6: not requiring or relying on others; 7: showing a desire for freedom”If you look closely, you will clearly see that the very definition of relationship is contrary to independence. Following are a few questions that stem directly from the provided definitions:1. How can you be related or interrelated to something you are not affiliated with?2. How can you be connected or bound to something that you are not subject to control by?3. How can you be romantically or passionately attached to something that you desire to be free from?I have read several articles here on Facebook that lament marriage, dating, or any other form of relationship where one is no longer God of their universe as a financial and social burden. Authors have said that our world would be better if men could just be freed from the shackles of paying for dinner on dates, or buying a wedding ring. Other notes encourage women to stop looking to men for ANYTHING and get their own stuff, satisfy their selves sexually, and do anything else they can do to be as self-sufficient as possible. Allow me, however, to fill the vacuous space that argues the contrary.First of all, marriage is GREAT! Is it a walk in the park or a bed of roses, of course not. But was getting your degree easy? Is advancing in your career a piece of cake? NO! Nothing worth having will ever come easily, especially not something that requires you to devalue your immediate wants in favor of the mutual benefit of long-term happiness. The problem that I have with this continual push for “independent relationships” is that it goes against the very grain of our humanity. Genesis 2:18 (NKJV) says, “Now the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet for him.” Now, I want to draw your attention to a couple important points. The bible does not say that man cannot be alone; the bible says it is not good that man be alone. Therefore, man CAN be alone, but it is not the best situation for him to be in.The Hebrew word for “good” is Towb. As usual with most words in a foreign language, the English language does not do the word “Towb” justice. As used in this specific scripture, the word actually means “sufficient, satisfactory.” In other words, when God created the very first relationship, he recognized that independence was not sufficient or satisfactory. Now, before you get all huffed up and ready to justify how great you are as an independent woman or man, let us take a look at the next part of this scripture.God goes onto say, “I will make him a helper meet for him.” The Hebrew word for “meet” is the word “’ezer,” which means “complementary.” The word “complementary” means serving to fill out or complete: mutually supplying each other's lack. When God created man, if it were best for him to be independent, he would have left him that way. If it were best for a woman to be independent, God would have created her that way; yet, he did not! For one to truly be independent, they must be fully self-sufficient. Yet God says that the woman was to complement the man. How in the world can you complement something that lacks nothing?Paula White got it all wrong when she titled her book, “You’re All That!” In fact, you’re NOT all that and people who think they ARE all that never reach their fullest potential. Why? Because God created man and woman to mutually supply each other’s lack. You are born lacking and no amount of material wealth, academic degrees, fame, or status will meet the lack that you were created with. Have you ever wondered why people who seem to have it all rarely have stable relationships? It is simple; when you begin to believe that “you’re all that” and you see your partner as a want instead of a need, you will continue to be incomplete, going from person to person or bedroom to bedroom looking for the fulfillment that only a DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP can bring. Good marriages, solid marriages, are based on the mutual recognition that I not only want my spouse, but I need my spouse. If you are only in a relationship because you want to be, what happens when you stop wanting to be in it? In my four years of marriage, I have had days where I wanted to ring my husband’s neck. But guess what? He’s had those days TOO! Yet, because we know without a doubt that God brought us together to complement one another’s weaknesses, and because we are not so naïve as to deny that we have weaknesses in the first place, we can submit to one another’s strengths.Some of you may read this and shrug it off, preferring to maintain your semblance of independence. I ask you this question (rhetorically); are you happy? When the friends are gone home to their spouses, when only the perfume remains on your pillow from the one night stand, and when the men only call after midnight, can you honestly say that you are satisfied? When you make it to Senior VP and the job lays you off after 25 years of advancement, will you be able to say, “yeah, but the sacrifice was worth it?” It is often at the end of our life when we realize just how dependent we are as human beings on the relationships in our life. No one has ever said on their death bed, “I wish I would have slept with more women” or “I wish I would have worked more hours.” What they say is, “I wish I would have shown my spouse how much I truly love them” or “I wish I would have spent more time with my children.”It is my prayer that you discover and embrace your dependence while you have time to enjoy it, and not when you only have moments to regret it.

K.C. wroteat 9:29am on August 6th, 2008
Yaaaaaayyyy! I get to be the 1st to respond ;o)I kinda agree w/ most of what you said, but I do wish a couple of things would've been clarified. We have to look at the possibility that when most people say they want to maintain their "independence" in a relationship, they really mean "individuality". You're still two people, but you're one team. I SUPER AGREE with the part about you your spouse being your compliment, not only providing what you lack in the relationship, but as a true reflection of yourself so that you may become a better individual.Also, I don't want anyone to feel like "Control" is something that a relationship is built on. You do not have to relinquish control of your life to your spouse. But the Lord did say a man should love his wife as Christ loves the church, and in that aspect, spouses do not make each other do what they want the other to do, but they should be doing what's best for the household. And just as we are obedient to Christ because we know he wouldn't do anything to harm us or lead us astray (it's what's best for us), we should trust our spouses and believe that what they've requested of us is best for the relationship.

K.C. wrote at 9:37am on August 6th, 2008
And my last PSA for WOMEN.....The bible says "when a MAN findeth a wife HE findeth a good thing." please do not misunderstand this article to mean that YOU NEED to go FIND a man. Your mission in the bible is to be the best you possible. God will bless you with a spouse when you are prepared to be a wife. The roles of both are very defined in the bible, and I don't recall a situation where the lord has ever told a woman to get up and find herself a husband....On the same note, when God blesses you with a good man, don't get ignorant, and siddity, and caught up in the Sex and the City syndrome. You will mess around and miss your blessing. Books are not judged by their cover, or price tag, but by their content and the pleasure they bring. Who a man is today may not be what he is blessed to be years from now. (Think back to the guys you liked in high school and where they are now. You want a spouse, not the popular pick of the week)

BG (Southern Georgia, GA) wroteat 4:54pm on August 6th, 2008
I completely agree N.J.! Excellent points.

LJ wroteat 10:53pm on August 6th, 2008
N.J..........What a word! As I read this I could agree with all of your points. This is definitely an on time word with the way women and men alike desire to be married, but can't seem to understand complimenting that a God Ordained spouses bring to each other lives. Also another thing which my pastor Apostle Dannie Williams always points out is that God commanded the man to love his wife as Christ love the church, and if a man can do that a wife will automatically love her husband. I definitely needed my husband to find me, and I need my husband everyday. And he too says the same thing all the time. You're right you definitely have your days when you want to ring your husband neck...and he vis versa, but if at the end of the day misunderstandings can be resolved--which in Godly marriages should be an automatic--you are living the life of a married couple. If you don't mind I wish to share this word that you have imparted with my pastor. WHAT A WORD!

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:51am on August 7th, 2008
Hey N.J.! Long time no see…write :0)I can really feel K.C.’s comments. I think there is a HUGE difference between independence and individuality. I also believe you can’t only be (and only consistently be) independent from someone or dependant on someone. I feel that if you want to be independent then marriage probably isn’t for you. But if you want to maintain your individuality I feel that it is completely necessary in a marriage. I like the “team” analogy. If you choose to get on a team then you have to know that you must work with the other team members in order to win the game. But also everyone has their own INDIVIDUAL position. The position is different from the other members on the team but just as necessary. If everyone decided to play the same position, the team wouldn’t get anywhere. Before you join the team you should be “all of that.” Now it depends on what connotations you want to put on that phrase (cockiness, etc, if so then that’s NOT what I mean) but in order to be a good team player you need to know you position and the game well. As K.C. said when you are ready to be a wife God will present you with a mate. And as children of God I would hope we all think we are “all that”. I feel like God brings together two whole people who are happy with their lives and God brings each of them a helpmeet to make life even better. Also every person isn’t either happily married or having one-night stands. Something about that feels out of touch with the variety of women in the world and a tad judgmental. Let’s say this assessment is true, then if you are an “independent” person (which I think is a problematic term because no one is completely independent) and you are sleeping around smelling the “perfume remains on your pillow” are you really ready to be the wife God wants you to be? What is the stage between screwing around and marriage?
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:52am on August 7th, 2008
I feel it is the space between women wondering around feeling unfulfilled and those in successfully marriages are women are full of themselves (not in a negative way) and enjoying life, but has a firm grip on themselves, their ideals, beliefs, goals, and can write a list of all the things that brings her joy. She is living a full life and is constantly filling herself and opening herself to be filled by her creator. It’s when she reaches a point where she is a complete person (not seeking anything outside of God and knowing God will provide her with her needs and desires) that God will bring her a complete man. I feel like if a woman feels like she NEEDS a man to be complete her then there is some more self work that needs to be done. And if she feels she can be “independent” and still play on a team, then her ball-hoggin days will come back to bite her and the team will lose. But before she gets on a team she shouldn’t be pouting on the sidelines or in the stands, she should be studying the play book, training her mind body and spirit, grasping a better understanding of why she wants to be on a team, and what she can offer the other player involved. If she is sitting in the stands longing for her chance to jump in the game, I feel very sorry for her. There is so much happening that God is allowing to happen, has created for her to see and experience and she is missing it. All of it.I remember a sermon on singleness and marriage. It appears that God wants us to be married in order to stay out of sexual trouble and not that it is impossible to have a fulfilling life and be single. Look at Paul. 1 Corinthians 7 says Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:52am on August 7th, 2008
4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.The fact that Paul is presenting marriage as an option and not a requirement is a big deal and should be acknowledged. We also have to take in to consideration the circumstances in which the bible talks about marriage and the idiosyncrasies in most West Asian cultures. With Adam, before Eve he wasn’t dealing immorality and he simply was the only man on earth! Come on now. He truly needed SOMEBODY. With King Soloman he didn’t NEED anyone, he had plenty of concubines but for him to be a better man of God, God felt he need Bathsheba.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:52am on August 7th, 2008
For most of the women in the bible they NEEDED a man not because God wanted them to be complete women but because the culture (that was is place before and after Jesus) set up gender roles in that way (ie. Why Mary caught so much flack, Ruth and Naomi’s story etc). And as we see, Paul is a man of God and was single. Now, I’m a good ole Southern Gal who wants to have a husband, kids, a nice big house, and anniversary vacations in Jamaica. So I want to be married. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be or I’m not happy now and it is unfortunate that singleness is being presented in such a negative way and the bible doesn’t even present it as such. Thinking of the goal of such as article… if the goal is to reach single Christians limiting their life possibilities to one-night stands and unfulfilled sadness is offensive. Or if the goal is to reaffirm the sanctity and pros of marriage to a married Christians audience (or preaching to the choir) than the nail was hit right on the head. But if the goal is to really help women be the best Christian women they can be then maybe we can think of different ways of addressing an issue that isn’t as once sided as we would like to think. Interesting article…awaiting more discussions! Tell your husband I said Hi!
__

M.A. wroteat 1:29pm on August 7th, 2008
Wow Melissa, great points. Very well put! To truly know what Gods wants for an individual, one has to have a PERSONAL relationship with him. Having real love for God is yet transformed into a relationship if both persons are evenly yoked. How can you really understand what Gods want for you, if you never speak to him? If one desires to be married, and its in Gods will, then it will come to past. I believe inorder for one to be whole with another, they need to know who they are as a child of God. Now and Days so many get caught up in marriage for superficial reasons, that they forget about the actual marriage. Well, when I look at the recounts of Jesus, he was not worrying about getting married, he was about Gods business! As christians, aren't we to be more like him??? Anyways let God's Will be done!

M.A. wroteat 1:29pm on August 7th, 2008
Great Article N.J., I like they way you elicit people to think!

N.J. wroteat 4:44pm on August 7th, 2008
Hi, Melissa. I read your replies and want to re-emphasize my point (which your comments lead me to believe was missed). As I said, this article is aimed at filling the vacuous space that argues in favor of dependent relationships. Both you and K.C. are absolutely correct; there is a difference between individuality and independence. This is why the note is titled "The INDEPENDENT Relationship." I am only addressing independence. Further, it is not addressing singleness, and certainly never offered "happily married" or "one night stands" as the only two states a person could be in. Still further, I am perplexed by your statement regarding how "singleness" is portrayed when "singleness" was not portrayed at all. I asked very specific, circumstantial questions that, if they do not apply to you, should not cause offense. Not sure where that came from; I read the article over again and did not see that anywhere in it. How you are offended by something that is not there is confusing to me; but, I think I was clear in what I said. Where something was not clear, it is better to ask a question than create a wrong conclusion.

Melissa Crum wroteat 5:38pm on August 7th, 2008
The portrayal of singleness that I am referring to is more so in your last paragraph. You say, “I ask you this question (rhetorically); are you happy? When the friends are gone home to their spouses, when only the perfume remains on your pillow from the one night stand, and when the men only call after midnight, can you honestly say that you are satisfied? When you make it to Senior VP and the job lays you off after 25 years of advancement, will you be able to say, “yeah, but the sacrifice was worth it?” “If seem to be asking the question to single women. Not a specific single woman (unless I missed that) but single women in general. You said the article was not addressing singleness but you clearly were. You painted a picture of singleness and one for dependant marriages. It doesn’t seem as you are simply addressing dependant relationships but rather stating that they are ideal and placing the single woman in a not so great light (e.g. Senior VP answering midnight calls). You said, “The bible does not say that man cannot be alone; the bible says it is not good that man be alone. Therefore, man CAN be alone, but it is not the best situation for him to be in.” But this again doesn’t necessarily support dependant marriages but rather unions between two people (maybe marriage, maybe not but doesn’t appear to specify dependant marriages). I was simply arguing a different side.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 5:46pm on August 7th, 2008
Also you stated, “you see your partner as a want instead of a need, you will continue to be incomplete, going from person to person or bedroom to bedroom looking for the fulfillment that only a DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP can bring.” You are arguing that ONLY dependant relationship will complete an individual. That is where I disagreed and I was arguing that, that is incorrect and I addressed scriptures that said so. Again I am simply addressing the advocating for dependant relationships in the article that wasn’t presented it as an option but a need all show should reach for. You reiterated the title of your article. I’m clear that you stated independence and not individuality. The truth is most people use the words interchangeably. That is why I stated my distinction.Last couple of points: I’m not offended. That’s too strong of a word. I could see how someone would be offended but maybe the word I’m looking for is disappointed (I don’t think that works either). Hmm, can’t think of a word. The English language is so subpar. I don’t think anything was unclear, I don’t feel as if I came to the wrong conclusion and if I had a question I would have asked it. Interesting discussion.
__

N. J. wroteat 7:39am on August 8th, 2008
A few thoughts, Melissa. You say that Genesis 2;18 does not necessarily advocate dependent marriages, just a union of some kind. Let's take a look just 6 verses down in the same chapter. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh." First things first; wife is the title of a married woman. Next, you are not "one flesh" and independent at the same time. Finally, God used the Hebrew word 'ezer to describe what the woman would be to the man; his complement. Allow me to reiterate that you cannot "complete, serve to fill out," or "mutually supply one another's lack" if you are "complete" to begin with. In your original reply, you sighted 1 Corinthians 7;1-4 and said that Paul argued that we should only marry to stay out of sexual immorality. This interpretation should have caused you pause when you consider what God said in Genesis 2;18, which (mind you) had nothing to do with sex. In v. 7. Paul says, "for I wish that all men were even as myself." This begs the question, "well, Paul, what were you?" Answer; he was celibate. Why? Because he came out of the school of thought that the physical body (flesh) needed to be conquered and the only way to do that is to not "feed" it. Finally, this note is not for women; it is for men AND women. If you look at the questions I asked towards the end, the first is for a man or woman, the second for a man, the third for a woman, and the final one for a man or woman. The English language is indeed subpar. This is why I always go back to the original text of the bible when I study a concept. Like God said in Isaiah 55;8-9, "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways your ways. for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:39pm on August 8th, 2008
I stand corrected. The verses in Genesis do directly speak to marriage, but my major point was the dependant part which feels to like a loss of individuality (not independence). I align the idea of two married people having “one flesh” to the team analogy. You NEED your team mates to win the game. You NEED your husband/wife to make the marriage work.I have a different analogy. This is how I think of “completeness”. I’m an artist…visual person. So I think of cake ingredients. As an individual person we hope to be able to maneuver through life joyous. One individual is an egg. A good egg, a complete egg isn’t cracked or full of hormones, yoked spilled out everywhere. The egg can stand alone, give life or provide sustenance. If the egg is cracked, broken, yoke no longer in tact, it is looking for someone, something to patch it up. Once broken it is rendered helpless. I feel like some women are walking around broken hoping for someone to fix their shell. Often times many women believe the person with the glue is a man. (Now I know you were addressing men and women but I am only speaking for women). And the “fixing” is believed to happen in the bedroom. Now, if she is broken and yoke everywhere there is no human solution. She thinks a man can come along scoop of the mess, hold on to or put it back in the shell but it never seems to work out that way. That is where God comes in and puts her back together. Now a whole egg.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:40pm on August 8th, 2008
There are some downfalls in being an egg. Eggs are fragile. But they can still maintain a good life. There are a whole lot of things that make an egg and a number of processes that had to happen in order for the egg to be in existence. But let’s not be so quick to think that its walking around all hard with this tough exterior. If the egg , woman, is smart she will use her shell to her advantage and realize that God gave her a shell because her yoke isn’t supposed to be touched or handled by just any body (One could argue that, that is where the armor of God comes in, to protect her in her fragility). Its cool to be an egg. An egg can do a lot of things and could lead a nice life as an egg. On the contrary, one could argue that the egg could be put to greater use if it were presented with some other ingredients. Let’s say this egg was used in a cake. (For this analogy, let’s say the man consists of the rest of the cake ingredients). Now once the egg decides to be a part of a cake (one flesh) then it can never return to being an egg ever again (I could take this further into death of the husband, divorce etc but I’m not). The egg HAS TO merge with the rest of the ingredients to make the cake work. To make it taste good. One of the crucial necessities of making a cake “a cake” is that the woman (the egg) has to lose the shell. The armor she put on for so long. The protection that has been broken time and time again. The covering she has had to run to God to fix and have mistakenly offered to men to repair after she removed the armor of God when she wasn’t supposed to. She has to trust that God has brought her the right cake mixture and that she can trust the man with all of her yoke. The most vulnerable part of her. I believe women who want to be independent are afraid of removing the shell. Or they have become so bitter inside that they have boiled their yoke so hard that it really and truly can’t be mixed with anything.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:41pm on August 8th, 2008
At least not the homogenous mixture that God says should be a part of a marriage. She might find some mayo-man and they make some decent egg sandwiches but its not the same. It doesn’t require her to have faith in either the man or God. (Now she could turn her boiled yoke into liquid again but that is a task for God cause can’t no human make that happen! Ain’t God miraculous?!) Most likely those women who wanted “independence” are women who are already cracked and feel themselves about to break or have been broken too many times before and want to prevent it again. Too bad they don’t realize THEY can’t. The situation, relationships, spiritual connections (wanted or unwanted), is much bigger than them. Ok, so now the woman has decided, allowed herself, to be a part of the cake. One could argue that now she has vanished in the sea of pound cake and lost herself. Her individuality. But not so fast. If it weren’t for the egg the cake wouldn’t stay together. If it weren’t for the egg you wouldn’t be able to taste the heaviness the thickness the texture of the cake (maybe vanilla flavor could be used in this instance..gotta taste the vanilla flava!). Some of her is gone. The shell. But she doesn’t really need it anymore so she doesn’t miss it. One can’t quickly decipher the eggs just by looking at the cake but we know its there. People don’t just see eggs anymore. They see a cake. When people see him they see cake. They see one flesh. And being a cake it great. But being a cake comes with its trials and tribulations.

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:41pm on August 8th, 2008
You gotta go through a blender/mixer, get crammed in a pan, just stuck in an oven in less than desirable heat. All the while compromising with these other ingredients, this man, trying merge successfully. After a while the cake comes out, cools off, and is ready to be presented to the world. All I am arguing against, and don’t think we differ that much, is the egg NEEDING to be a part of a cake. It felt as if the argument was that people are walking around day after day hoping and longing to be a part of a cake and I think that is a sad existence. It felt as if dependant relationships were being presented as THE way to be happy and I just can’t believe that God created all of us to wander around looking, longing for another human. That’s feels against God. Anti-God. Wondering around incomplete believing that another human can complete you. Maybe we can agree to disagree.These comment things need to be longer!