The barn floor

One of my fondest memories is working with my grandfather on some of the projects around his farm.  I love telling this story to my boys.  I don't know who enjoys it more, them or me!

I remember one summer working on replacing the barn floor.  We first had to remove all of the equipment sitting on the old floor.  Then we continued by pulling up the old rough hewn boards.  Some of them weren't even nailed down and Grandpa slipped on one of the boards and fell through to the dirt floor, about 8 feet below.

I ran inside to get Grammie and fortunately, Grandpa wasn't hurt.  We continued our job of replacing the boards.  That summer, my cousin was working with us.  He was only about four years old, but he had--and still has--a strong work ethic and enjoys manual labor.

When we got to the point of laying down the new floor on the old boards, we used 2x6 boards and 16d galvanized spikes.  These are fairly thick boards and large nails.  They're not easy to drive.  One of us would start a nail for my cousin and while he tap-tap-tapped away, we'd work on a row of 2x6 boards.  My cousin worked feverishly on his 16d spike.  He missed more than he hit the head of the spike, but he succeeded.  At the end of the day, his spike was fully driven.

My favorite part of the story, though, is what Grandpa said to me at the end of the day.  He brought me over to review the day's work for our four-year-old partner.  There, in the soft wood, were a large number of very small dents surrounding the 16d spike over about an 6 inch circle.  With a grin, he said, "You used to do that!"

Why did I like that so much?  Because in not so many words, he told me, "You have come a long way.  You have what it takes."  He was saying that he had believed in me back when a day's work was driving a single nail and hitting the wood more than hitting my target.  He gave me the freedom to miss my mark, because I would eventually learn to hit the nail on the head.

On Frogs and Princes

I remember hearing a man tell of an experience in a restaurant.  I think he was in New York City.  Anyway, he was unimpressed by the lackluster attention he was getting from his server.

At one point, he summoned her and referred to her as a "waitress."

"Oh, I'm actually an actress!" she replied.  "This is just for the meantime."

"Well, then. . ." he said.  "Act like a waitress!"

That would've made her a good waitress.

Then, the other day, I was listening to a man preach a sermon on marriage.  It was great and he made some great points.  While he was talking, my mind started going crazy. He was talking about how we act differently over time.  He has been married 10 years and he cited ways that he acts differently than he did when dating the lady who became his wife.

How many times have you heard something like: he's not the same man I married. . . or, she's not the woman she was when we were dating?

It's easy to fool ourselves, isn't it?

Am I the same man I was 8 years ago?

Let me ask it another way:

We just bought a "new" car.  I say "new" with quotes, because it is a 1998, and it has 130,000 miles on it.  If we've done our research right, it will last me for as long as I need it.

I'm sure it doesn't drive quite the same way it did when it was new.

When the former owner--who had owned it since 1998--brought it in to sell it, could he argue that it wasn't the same car that he had bought?

That sounds a little silly.

Of course it's the same car.  It's just older.

So it goes with us.  I'm older than I was 8 years ago.  I act differently.  I hope that most of the differences are for the better.  The cool thing is that I get to choose how I act!

Once, I asked Mrs O why some women seem to fall in love with a frog hoping he will be Prince Charming, but then become dissatisfied when they kiss the frog and he's just a frog.  What's a guy to do?

She replied, "Most of the time, it's because she fell in love with a prince.  She kissed the prince and he turned into a frog.  She just wants her prince back!"

Note to self: Act like a prince.

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.

What's in a man?

I had a moment of revelation the other day.  Have you ever had one of those?  One moment I'm pondering this question and the next moment I know the answer--at least, I think I do.  Let's start with the question. 

What makes a man? 

I used to be really worried about this kind of question.  I didn't feel like I fit the mold.  I've never been much of a sports fan.  When I first heard of March Madness, I was in college and I thought it had something to do with Seasonal Affective Disorder!  I know more about cooking crepes and growing roses than I do about cars, basketball, or carpentry and I'm built like a broomstick.  Nonetheless, I eventually became comfortable in my own skin, but then I still wondered: what makes a man?  What is a manly man, anyway?

My moment of revelation came when I started to approach this question like I approach most others.  I started thinking in terms of my faith.  What does the Bible say about men.  What do I think God purposed in me, as a man?  I can't really find many--or any--verses that describe just what a man should be.  The one that comes closest is the one in Ephesians that talks about a husband: Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church.  Perplexing.  Profound.  Pointed.

So, what do I think the answer is?  I think I've had it backwards all along--and I'm not talking about March Madness.  I was aiming to become like a man when in reality, I already was a man.  How silly is that?  I should not be aiming to become like other men, but rather aim to be more like Christ in character.  God didn't create me to be a manly man.  He created me to be a godly man. 

Be a Man

(since this is part three, you might want to start with part one and part two first!)

How do I solve the anger management problem.  I don't want to ignore the problem and I don't want to give in.  I want the problem to go away, and for good.  I'm not satisfied with managing the anger, I want to eliminate it altogether.  Is that possible?

I was ruminating on this subject this afternoon and remembered a discussion I had a couple of years ago.  Mrs. O and I were putting together two raised bed gardens.  I am an avid gardener and I was really excited about the gardens.  I also wanted to include my young son in all of the gardening fun.  We decided to give our then-two-year-old his own space in which to plant, water, dig and weed.  I didn't want to allow him free reign of my gardens for fear that he might mistake heirloom tomatoes for weeds.  As we were setting up the kid garden only feet from my own gardens, I realized that this was no panacea.  I may have isolated space for Little E in theory, but four feet of lawn and an isolating theory are no match for a toddler, right?  What's to say that I'm not going to come home from work one afternoon and find all of my tomatoes in a heap?  What am I going to do if at some later time he turns my gardens into a sandbox or an obstacle suitable for bike jumps or the pole vault?

I think the answer is to 'be a man.'  I think we need to play to our strengths.  Let's be logical.  Let's be the problem solvers we would want to be for our wives if the shoe were on the other foot.  Run through the scenario in your head: think for a moment about your most prized material possession.  How angry would you feel if your spouse or child trashed it. . . on purpose?

Imagine that it happened.

Decide not to be angry.

Decide now how you will respond then.

Imagine that you know for a fact that some day someone will trash that thing that you value so much.  Realize with me that you will still be able to be alive without that thing, and quite happily if you so choose.  Realize with me that the person who trashed it is actually more important to you.  I think these most genuine realizations are the key to the best response.

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

Real men wear pink, right?  What about carrying a purse?  Pink shirts and purses. . . those are a few of the other things I find that cause even the burliest of men to quiver. 

I do have a pink shirt, and I wear if often.  Mrs. O says she really likes pink on me.  So, I'm stuck. . . not really stuck, but I'm ambivalent.  On the one hand, I want Mrs. O to like what she sees when she sees me.  I want to be attractive to her.  If she likes pink, then I will wear it.  I confess, however, that it took me a long, long time to be comfortable in my pink shirt.  I've almost worn it out and just now I'm at the point where I don't feel like everyone is looking at me all day long when I wear it.  I really did feel that way for a long time.  I was suspicious of every glance. . . surely, they're all thinking, "Can you believe that guy is wearing a pink shirt?"

Or, what about if she asks me to carry her purse?  There have been a few situations where Mrs. O has run to the little girls room and asked me to hold her purse. . . so there I am.  Standing.  Holding a purse.  Once again, the looks.  The glances.  I'm suspicious of all of them.  I feel the desire to defend myself: This isn't mine.  It's hers.  She's just. . .

*sigh*

. . . nevermind.

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. . .



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.