But I think he's wrong about compromise. Here's the comment I wrote over there:
I think the primary problem with this article shows up in your last sentence, which frames all conflict as a strict either/or. Sure, sometimes one person is right and the other wrong, and then talking it out (carefully and kindly) is what’s needed. But sometimes you’re both wrong, or you’re not wrong, but you’re missing information and need to learn more in order to gain the needed perspective.
The other problem is that earlier in the article you’re talking about wants (golf, visiting, etc.) and then later on in the article you’re talking about matters of principle. I don’t think these can be handled the same way. Giving up my wants sometimes makes me unhappy, but giving them up *is* a matter of integrity, because I promised to love, and love involves putting someone else before yourself. It’s charity to sometimes have steak when you like chicken better, you know? It’s not compromising my personhood – lying about my preferences would be, but not insisting on them isn’t.
Finally, I think you’re right about the poisonous effects of bitter *thoughts* about reciprocity, but a great deal of the poison can be drawn by just speaking those thoughts aloud to your spouse. There’s a huge difference between unspoken resentment and an honest statement of, “Okay, we’ll do this thing you want, but you should know it’s going to take a lot of effort on my part, so afterwards can we do this other thing that I like?” That’s good and honest and helpful. (And compromise. :D )But even though I disagree with some of what he said, I think it's a great post, and really interesting, and I recommend it to you as food for thought worth chewing on a bit.
And then come back here and let me know what you think too!
Peace of Christ to you,