An article by Laura Munson in the Sunday papers describes how she reacted when her husband of some 20 years announced to her that he no longer loved her and was moving out. Standing in a calm place, she told him that she didn't "buy it", and that he had no right to expect the children to be concerned with his happiness; rather what had to be done was to find him a place where he could find "the distance he needed, without hurting the family".  She outlines how she stuck to that position, did not react negatively or emotionally towards him, but continued to run the family. While he was unreliable in his relationship to the family during that summer, turning up at home as and when he pleased, she "loved him from afar", cooking dinners and looking after the family pets and horses. This treatment eventually resulted in his return to the family, and the two of them having the difficult conversations about the ordeal.

Laura talks of the reactions she got from her friends to her stance - those that remonstrated with her to get a lawyer and kick him out, those who thought she was being weak. But her position was that his unhappiness was not her fault and was related to his hurt pride, a mid-life crisis.

As I read her story, I pondered on her decision to behave the way she did. It appears to have had a good outcome for her family, but is it applicable in all circumstances? From a Christian perspective, one could argue that her restraint of her internal emotional experience was a Godly response, a self-sacrificial one. Yet her words suggest that her motives were related more to her personal commitment to her own happiness than to a sacrificial position.

There were two main points about her behaviour that concerned me. Firstly, her response was based on the presupposition that she was OK and that he was not. That he was the one who needed to examine himself and to change for the marriage to work. Whilst she was prepared to call him to account for self-reflection, she seemed convinced that the problems in the marriage were nothing to do with her. This is not my experience when I am working with couples in marriage counselling. Quite often one person in the couple openly or covertly suggests that the other partner is the problem, and that all that needs to happen for the marriage to be fixed is for them to change. As the relationship is explored in detail, what frequently emerges is a rupture in the relationship at some time in the past, which means that the couple are not able to be intimate with each other and minister to each other deeply in times of crisis.

My other concern with Laura's response is in the area of intimacy. In the face of her husband's rejection of her, she hid from him, and avoided for herself, her natural reactions of hurt and pain. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked and were unashamed in each other's presence. They were completely revealed to each other, completely intimate with each other. Laura has avoided that intimacy and I wonder what that will be like for them long term.  She has dealt with this deep pain of his rejection alone, hiding that part of her experience from him.

My reflections remind me that it is hard to be wise in such circumstances. I see a marriage restored, but my concerns remain. These situations need to be approached with humility, care and love.