I have a million and one things going through my head right now.
I read an article in yesterdays Guardian paper, “To Have and To Hold” by Stuart Jeffries. It’s about our modern phobia of commitment, and it raises some interesting points for me.
“But promises of committment are meaningless in the long term, too – committment isn’t an act of free will.”
Huh? Surely committment is a free-will choice by design – is that not what makes it different from obligation? We make the decision that we will commit to something, and we follow through on that (or not, as the case may be). If we renege on a commitment, that too has been our choice. To me that quote just doesn’t make sense.
Later he quotes Melanie Phillips, who defends the institution of marriage, as saying,
“The law is based on justice; justice requires that you don’t get something for nothing. You don’t claim rights if you don’t enter obligations.”
Jeffries tries to claim that this point is invalid, as cohabiting partners are just as committed to each other as married couples. So why not just get married? If they are that committed to each other what stops them getting married? The fear that it may fall through…? I feel I should reiterate that point: You don’t claim rights if you don’t enter obligations.
I heard a sermon recently on how we are “options” people, but God is an “obligation” person… need to look out my notes from it for further observations.
Loved this quote from it,
“Love has always been difficult, but now more than ever when we seek both freedom from love’s bonds and at the same time yearn for the security it seems to offer.”