Who's who

I was just reading the story of Jesus clearing the temple (Matt 21:12-16; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47; John 2:13-16) and I have been trying to discern just what I can learn regarding marriage, from this passage.  It seems to be a significant story, but I have had a hard time fitting this into my relational paradigm--or perhaps, fitting my relational paradigm to this example of Christ and the church.

Then, I had a thought: I need to first figure out who is 'the church' in this story.

It's easy to presume that the people in the temple are 'the church' and that he is angry with 'the church' and taking that anger out on 'the church.'  But, further along in these passages, it talks about 'the chief priests and teachers of the law' trying to think of a way to kill him.  These were people in the temple, and around the temple, but are they 'the church' that Paul talks about in Ephesians chapter 5?  The more I think about it, the more I would say, 'no.'

The church = willing followers of Jesus

So, if the church is made up of the willing followers of Jesus, then what do we see about the way he is treating them in this scenario?  Well, my NIV Study Bible says that in the outer courtyard, there were merchants selling animals for the Passover at unfair prices.  They were taking advantage of all of the pilgrims who had taken the trek to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover.  The merchants were not 'the church.' They were taking advantage of 'the church.'

Jesus is protecting 'the church.'  He ruffled some feathers and, I dare say, offended some rather prominent individuals--to the point that they wanted to kill him!  But, he stopped them from trampling His followers.

Note to self: Risk some ruffled feathers.   Stand up for my family.

The 'S' word: submit

Does that word give you hives?


We don't really like to talk about submission very much.  Recently, I heard a co-worker talk about how much she HATES to hear sermons on marriage because she can't stand the subject of wives being 'submissive' to their husbands.  I think this comes from a misunderstanding or rather misrepresentation of what the Bible says about wives and husbands.  The thing that is so despicable is not the way a wife would be submissive, but the way of a husband--am I right?  No wife wants to feel like she's under the thumb of her husband.

She doesn't need to be.  I don't believe the Bible is asking for that at all.  Let's start with what the Bible does say:

Ephesians 5:21-26


^"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
"²² Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
 "²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . "


Ok, so we see the word submit in there, right?  'Submit to one another. . . ' that doesn't sound so bad.  But, when we get to the part about the husband being the head of the wife, we all get a little tense, don't we?

I do.

There's something about my understanding of that verse that has just never really settled in my mind.

The issue comes up when we have a disagreement, right?  When we both disagree and our desires are mutually exclusive, who wins?  Who gets to break the tie?  I've heard one philosophy: the man has 51% of the vote.  I've seen that kind of philosophy carried out even more often than I've heard it or others like it.  That, I think, sums up the traditional conservative, evangelical view of a husbands headship--even from some of my more liberal peers.  When we disagree, the husband gets what he wants.

So, my question is: can we back that up with an example of Christ and the church?

Just this evening, I'm thinking about all of this and something occurred to me: maybe I should look at what the Bible DOESN'T say:

It doesn't say that the husband is the one to enforce the submission.

It says that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church.

I can't find any example of Christ enforcing his way on the church.

In the example of Christ, I see a servant.  A protector.  A kind-hearted friend, always choosing to do the right thing, giving everything up for his willing followers.  He never forces his way on anyone, he simply asks and lets each individual make his or her own decision, e.g. the rich young man(Matt 19:16-29; Mark 10:17-30; Luke 18:18-30) or the woman at the well(John 4:1-26.)

My conclusion: husbandly leadership is leading two people to a consensus rather than pushing one viewpoint aside when the two have not yet reached a consensus.

See also: leadership.

A Momma's vacation. . .

A couple of days ago, I had a GREAT idea!  It turns out that it would have been even better had I come up with this idea 5 days prior.  Better luck next time!  The good new is, there will be a next time!  Let me explain:

I was on vacation with my family last week.  It was great!  We started out with a weekend celebrating our anniversary.  Then, we took the kids and explored the town we've inhabited for the past five months.  The museum, the Science Center, an orchard--lots of fun options.  Friday morning, I was lounging with the boys and and enjoying the break from my usual Friday work routine.  I realized that Mrs O was up and around doing the same things she always does.  This was not unlike any other Friday for her.  Well, I was home.  So, she was caring for one extra boy all week!  My wife needs a vacation!

I started thinking about all the things I know about Mrs O.  I was thinking about things that we could do that would make it feel like a vacation for her.  I know that she does not love the task of planning meals.  It's an endless mental puzzle to figure out how to make something tasty for grown-ups and tolerable for kids while trying to make sure that everyone gets a balanced diet.  EVERY day.  THREE times per day.  Seven times, really, if you count all the snacks. . . did you ever notice that pre-schoolers are kind of like Hobbits?  Anyway. . . 

. . . so, I decided that we should make a plan to go out to eat more on vacation.  

Yes.  

That really was my first thought.  

Then, I realized that I could do some meal planning and grocery shopping before the vacation and make the meals.  You should have seen the look on her face when I told Mrs O my plan!  Imagine how she would have felt if I had thought of this before our vacation instead of the end when we only had three days left!  

Like I said at the beginning, there WILL be a next time.  And since I have all this time to think about it, it's going to be bigger and better than just a few meals and groceries:

Laundry.  Groceries.  A free day for Momma to go out. . . by herself!

It's beginning to sound like a bit of work, but I think I can do it.  Afterall, this is the stuff she does week in and week out.  And if it is a ton of work, and I am worn out at the end of my vacation, then I can go back to work and rest!

Note to self: Momma needs a vacation--probably more than I do!

Man of the house: the 50's man and the puppy dog.

(c) 2004, Lexington, KY.  Eric Graf photography.

I've been thinking for a long time about the conflicting thoughts and emotions I have when I think about my role as 'the man of the house.'  I think this is one area--one of many--where traditions, both social and religious, should be called into question.  I have thus far been dissatisfied with what I perceive to be the general consensus in either group.

I think about this a lot.  Every man wants to be 'the man of the house.'  I know that's a general statement, but I believe on some level, it's true.  It won't always look the same, but in some way I think we all want to be 'the man.'  I think that's why I have such a tough time with silly things like pink shirts, purses, matching attire and. . . the aisle.  Now, just to be clear, I do all of those things.  I don't think I've ever even complained about any of them, because I realize they're silly.  That doesn't mean I don't feel silly while I'm holding her purse, and I don't spend any extra time in the aisle.  But, she's never even tried to force any of these issues and for that I'm eternally grateful.  She's never been anything but grateful for the things I do. 

That being said, let's get back to my quandary about roles: there seem to be two major camps.  Most people I see fit one or the other. . . more or less.  I don't like either one.  I have seen both kinds all over the place, and the funny thing is, the happiest husbands--and correspondingly happiest wives--I've seen don't fall into either category.  I call them, the 50's man and the puppy dog.

The 50's man has 51% of the vote.  He of course gets input from everyone, and then HE makes the decision.  He always is employed full time.  His wife may work, but preferably not full-time and she can't make more money than he does.  After all, he is The Provider.  If she does work, she should still not neglect the household chores. 

The contemporary husband is very doting.  He does his best to fulfill the every whim and desire of his beloved.  Everyone knows how he has fallen for her and some might even feel a bit badly about how hard he has to work to keep her perfectly content.  He tends to follow her around like a little puppy dog.  I had one such friend that used to joke, "I'm the man of my house.  My wife said I could be."

So, it seems you can fall into a bit of a ditch on either side of the husbanding continuum.  Where's the middle?  Well, I don't think it's in the middle.  I think it's an entirely different philosophy altogether.  I think the husband and wife are happiest when they are a team.  When he dotes on her and she admires him.  When he responds to the things that undermine her security and when she allows him to be the problem solver that he wants to be.  When there's no hierarchy.  When we don't think of it as one being strong and one being weak, but rather one being strong here and the other being strong there.  When we are each free to give and receive input without judgment.  When we can each be loved as we are: fallible, imperfect, and wonderful.

Man of the house: irrational fears

You know how women sometimes like to have the kids wear matching shirts, or dresses or whatever?  I mean, this is big, right?  It's worth an extra load of laundry to make sure everyone's matching article is clean so we can all wear it at the same time...it's like family photo time, except it's just another day.

This one may not be as universal...I don't really know.  I do know, that if my clothing matches the kids clothing, it makes me feel like a kid.  I don't like it either when I match Mrs. O.  I don't exactly know how to articulate how I feel when that happens...I just know that I don't like it. 

My initial temptation is to ask, "What's the big deal?  Why does she like this so much?" 

But then, I have to ask myself, "What's the big deal?  Why do I dislike this so much?"

Man of the house: irrational fears

Ok, can we just be honest with each other?  Men have some irrational fears. . .at least, I do.  I'm afraid of 'the aisle.'  I don't even like to think about walking down the aisle.  I know I'm not the only one.  This avoidance is nearly uniform across the male gender.  I know this because I see lots of men in all other areas of the grocery store. . .yeah, the grocery store aisle.  I don't believe I have ever seen another man in this aisle.  Sometimes, I wonder if I'm the only man who has ever ventured there.
I remember the first time I went down that aisle.  I agreed to go.  It seemed like the right thing to do until I got there.  How tough could it be?  Why is it that I step down the aisle and it instantly feels like it's 300 degrees in there.  Ugh, I didn't realize there were so many choices. . . Super Thin?  Extra long?  Ultra Absorbant, Active, Over-nighters with Wings???  I just have to pick something.  If I just keep standing here, someone is going to see me. 

Ahhh, regular!  Here we go.  That must be what I need. . . I mean, I don't need them. . . Nevermind.
What am I so afraid of?  They're not going to hurt me, but just looking at the logo gives me hives. . .