If you want your marriage to be “two united into one,” you’ll have to learn to collaborate …

We begin to see God’s design for marriage as early as the second chapter of the first book in the Bible.

It’s there in Genesis we read, “This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one,” (Gn. 2:24).

Single people are often told by ministers this is God’s plan for marriage, but they’re usually not effectively taught how two people “are united into one” in a way that is so mutually satisfying that they nurture — and enjoy! — the relationship for a lifetime.

That doesn’t mean they don’t hear a lot of things about how two “become one.” Some teach …

Self-denial. Many well-intentioned people teach to love your spouse well, you have to live a life of self-denial. But scripture doesn’t tell us marriage is a lifetime of self-denial! What some mistake is that an essential quality of a disciple of Jesus is denying ourselves (e.g., Luke 9:23). It is true that loving someone means to look after their best interest, and in doing so we’ll have to learn to practice selflessness. But marriage isn’t about so denying yourself you become enslaved to your spouse.

Compromise. Compromise is routinely taught as a primary essential ingredient in marriage, but that’s usually by people who either don’t understand what compromise really is, or the harm constant compromise can cause to marriage. Compromise is the act of negotiating against a person so you can push them to give up something so that you can get something you want. Human beings tend to remember longer and more deeply the things they have to give up. If you’re consistently demanding your spouse give up things they want so you can get what you want, you’ll build into your marriage a foundation of resentment that can eventually ruin the relationship.

So then, how do a man and woman who are united together “become one”?

By collaborating.

It’s through collaboration that a couple creates …

… not just what he wants …

… and not just what she wants …

… but something that couldn’t exist without the two of them coming together.

It’s true that at times that might require an act of self-denial, or giving up something, but collaboration goes beyond that. In the award-winning, internationally-renowned Couple Communication workshop I’m a certified instructor for, we equip couples with effective communication skills so they can collaborate together, and that collaboration process includes couples communicating with each other about their wants by addressing three aspects of their desires:

What I want for me. Instead of thinking you have to immediately forget about yourself, the fact is you’re part of the relationship! In any setting, you’ll likely know what you would like for yourself, and you should communicate that as just one step in your communication process. BUT, you continue on to the next step …

What I want for you. The Couple Communication workshop teaches couples to purposely fully consider their spouse, and identify what they would like for their spouse. BUT it still doesn’t stop there, it goes on to a third step …

What I want for us. This step is remembering that beyond self, and beyond just your spouse, there is the “us” — that “two united into one” — and points couples to give thorough and preferable consideration to the “us” part of the relationship.

As both husband and wife share with each other, “This is what I would like for me,” and “This is what I would like for you,” and “This is what I would like for us,” they’re honestly revealing thoughtfulness for one’s partner, while also acknowledging their own desires, and ultimately considering how any or all of that could create the best possible outcome in “This is what I want for us.” Couples use their communication skills collaborating on these three components until they reach a mutually satisfying outcome. Often through such collaboration, some of his desires, and some of her desires, are melded together for an “us” outcome, resulting in creating something that couldn’t exist without the two of them working together, and without having to negotiate against each other or making every aspect of marriage about self-denial.

An example shown in a training video is a couple using their communication skills about an issue identified by the wife as follows:

ISSUE: “You have a lot of furniture you inherited by the passing of your parents, and it’s taken up the entire garage so that we can’t park our cars there.”

Wife – What I would like for me: “I would like to be able to park my car in the garage, instead of on the street.”

Wife – What I would like for you: “I know the furniture has a sentimental value to you, and so I would like for you to be able to keep it and use it.”

Wife – What I would like for us: “I’d like to see if we could work out storing the furniture some place else so you can have it and eventually decide how you would like to use it, and so we can park our cars in the garage again.”

In this case, the wife knew what she desired for herself (to be able to park her car in the garage again), but she also considered her husband’s desires (a sentimental attachment to the furniture), and wanted to work with her husband to find a way to mesh these desires in an outcome both (“us”) would be satisfied with.

During that time, the husband used his listening skills. Now he responds …

Husband – What I would like for you: “I can see you would like to be able to get the cars off the street and back into the garage again, and I can understand that.”

Husband – What I would like for me: “And you’re right, I don’t just want to get rid of the furniture to open the garage up again, the furniture does mean a lot to me and I think I can eventually find uses for it.”

Husband – What I would like for us: “I’d like to see if we could find some space to move the furniture to for the short-term, without having to pay to rent a space, and that would give me time to go through all the furniture while also opening up the garage so we can move the cars back in there.”

So the couple collaborated on possibilities … one was they owned a cabin and perhaps the furniture could be stored there … they had a friend who might have space for a trailer of furniture to be parked … but they also owned a business and realized there was plenty of space in their warehouse to store the furniture until the husband decided what to do with it. That was the final outcome (storing the furniture in their warehouse), and outcome which:

– Took into consideration what the wife wanted.
– Took into consideration what the husband wanted.
– Strongly focused on what would be best for the “us” of their relationship.

Compromise was already in place – the wife had to give up use of the garage so the furniture could be stored there, and she was feeling frustrated about it. If compromise would had been practiced again, the husband might have to give up the furniture so the wife could park her car in the garage, but he would resent the loss of the family property. But it wasn’t necessary for either the husband or wife to “deny themselves” in this case because there was an outcome that met both their desires – he could keep the furniture, and the garage could once again be used for their cars.

Key to this kind of collaborative communication is realizing marriage is more than one’s own personal desires, or just the desires of your spouse, but about the “us” — two united as one — and learning how to collaborate to foster a mutually satisfying relationship.

Again, that doesn’t mean there won’t be times where we should deny ourselves for the sake of our spouse, but when we focus on collaborating with our spouses, we more consistently land on outcomes both approve of and support. That makes for a more satisfying marriage and places the emphasis on the “us,” or being united as one.

How do you deal with issues in your marriage? Does one partner always have to deny themselves? Are you always negotiating against your spouse to get them to compromise so you can get what you want? Or are you working together to create something that couldn’t exist without both of you united together?

Scotty