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.

I am what I am

I was just picking up my journal to write a few things and began reading some past entries.  This has been a big year of transition for me and I've done a lot of thinking introspectively.  I came across an entry where I was journaling about who I am, or maybe even deeper: what defines who I am.  

Where do my roles come from?  With particular regard to marriage, where do my roles come from?  In Ephesians 5, Paul indicates that I have a God-given role as a servant--a leader, following the example of Christ, himself.  Trouble is, I don't always feel like a leader.  I don't always feel like leading, or serving.

So, then I took these thoughts related to marriage and compared them to the business world--this seems to work quite well with one exception: in the business world, I believe, the gender issue disappears.  At any rate, I have a role at work.  That role was given to me by someone else.  I don't really get to define that role, I just have to accept it.  There are leadership aspects to that role at work and sometimes I don't feel like leading.  Sometimes, or rather often, it's a lot of work to lead.  

So, if I don't feel like leading, can I put that role aside?  Can I delegate the leadership to someone else?  I don't think so.  I can delegate the tasks that are under my authority and responsibility, but doing so is leading, isn't it.  The only way to avoid leading would be to ignore my responsibilities altogether.  

My conclusion: if I believe that God defines who I am and my role, then I need to act like the thing that God has declared me to be.  Acting otherwise doesn't make me something else.  It doesn't make me not-a-leader.  It just makes me a bad one.

Money, Money, Money

Money is one of the big things that couples fight about, right? Yes. I'm right. Admit it. You two argue about money just like everybody else. Anytime we've got two people with finite resources and infinite ways to spend them, we get tension. So, what to do about it?  Make a plan.

Men: in many cases, I think this is your job. There are a lot of women who do the day-to-day financial managing. In a lot of cases, I think they do a better job than their male counterparts! But, what I have noticed during many conversations is that lots of women don't like to come up with the plan--especially during times of transition where perhaps some things need to be cut. So, let's play to our strengths. In my family, this works best when I make a preliminary plan. I make decision about what I think we should cut and I make a plan that works, i.e. a plan that spends 100% of the budget, or less.  Then, Mrs O and I can sit down and talk about it together.

Why is this my job? Mrs O can budget, right? Yes. She does a fine job at it. Making budget cutting decisions is stressful for her, though. I can give her a gift by absorbing that stress. I call it slaying her dragons(with little boys at home, we frequently have a 'knight in shining armor' theme!)  By slaying dragons, I mean that I can respond to the things that cause her tension.  It's not that she can't do it herself, but simply that she feels supported, protected, and secure if I respond to her fears and stressors on her behalf.

On Insects and In-Laws...

The other day, Mrs. O. was telling me that Little E. has begun killing bugs for her.  So, I started thinking about insects and how I react to them when I'm around Mrs. O.  If I am in the outdoors with Mrs O. and we see a huge spider, or snake, or (insert creepy crawly thing here.)  What’s her response?  What’s my response?  What if the spider is on me?  What if it is on her?  Well, the reaction is quite different!  For example, I learned early on that I have a better chance of removing the offending party if I don't tell her about it ahead of time.  Should I alert her to the presence of the crawling companion, she is apt to jump wildly making it nearly impossible to remedy the situation.  She, on the other hand is likely to simply let me know that I am being accompanied by a small friend and not make much of an effort to remove it.


Now, I know.  I can pick out a few friends, couples, who don't follow in our footsteps.  I can think of one or two gals that are probably thinking, "I'm not afraid of bugs!"  AND, I can think of a few guys who are thinking, "I'm not killing her spiders."  That's not the point.  The point is that there are uncomfortable situations that we all face--dragons, if you will.  All the dragons must be slain, whatever they may be.  Why do I feel compelled to act on behalf of Mrs. O?  Why does she not feel that same obligation.  Why am I not hurt by that...at all?


Consider another situation: relational conflict.  What if your friend were involved in some sort of conflict with you?  What about the ongoing relational journey with your in-laws--think about both sets.  How does Mrs. O. respond to those types of situations?  How does she feel?  How do I respond and feel?  For us, it works much better if I take the lead on the more difficult conversations whether with friends, my family or hers.


It builds security for Mrs. O. when I take the lead in dealing with creepy crawlies and in-laws alike.  That is not to say that in-laws are creepy crawly...at least not in our case!  It is also not to say that Mrs. O. can’t handle it.  I've seen her in action.  She is perfectly able to handle difficult conversations with poise.  It's really an issue of security.  She feels secure if I am willing to engage and 'slay the dragon' on her behalf.  It will not rock my security to engage with another person on issues of my family.  It will not rock my security to be the one to engage when there is danger ahead, be it the not-so-itsy-bitsy spider, an intruder, or a relational afront.  Conversely, it will not build my security significantly if Mrs. O. were to kill the spider, though I would be much obliged.


Now, like I said before, I acknowledge that these are two simple manifestations of the security issue, so everyone will not be the same.  The issue of security is a big one for a lot of people, though.  There are a lot of husbands who could do a lot of good for the environment in their homes if they did a few simple things to build the security of their wives.  It could be as simple as turning out the lights and locking the doors before you go to bed.  Just being the one who takes care of it can make a big difference.


Moral of the story: She doesn’t need me to slay her dragons for her, but it makes her feel like a princess if I do.


Do you agree?

On leadership

Mrs. O. and I were talking the other day...I was actually talking and she was listening.  She gets really excited when I talk, but that’s another story.  She had commented on my lack of frustration that my laundry was a little behind, so I was explaining my theory: It’s all my job anyway.  I think it boils down to my definition of leadership.

The traditional view of husbandly leadership--at least the one I grew up believing--takes more the role of the tie-breaker.  The man gets 51% of the vote.  When we can’t agree on a particular issue, HE makes the final decision.  That’s what wearing the pants is all about, right?  Well, here began my quandary.  I couldn’t find any biblical example of Christ that supported such a view of leadership.  What I did find was something entirely different: washing feet.

Jesus washed his disciples feet.  The lowliest of tasks.  Now, if anyone had any reason to say, “that’s not my job” it would be Him.  He didn’t say that.  What did he say?  In my own words: I am your Lord and teacher.  I have covered everything from the most kingly of duties down to the most menial.  There is no task that is below you--you are not greater than I am.

It’s simple.  Logical.  Maybe that’s why I like it so much.

I concluded that it is my responsibility.  Basically, everything is ultimately my job if I am the leader.  Laundry, dishes, mowing the lawn, training the kids...everything.  I can’t do it all myself, and I don’t have to.  Mrs. O. is here to help, but it helps to view it as though she is taking jobs off my list.  If I take the ‘it’s not my job’ approach, then I’m either going to blame her or feel guilty for anything left undone.  But, I can throw out the expectation and the guilt goes with it.  

Now, the attitudes shift.  I end up being grateful for the things Mrs. O. does, and she thinks I’m being so gracious if I’m not stressed by the fact that she has ‘fallen behind’ on one of the jobs that she usually does.  

Why would that stress me out?  It was my job in the first place.