SARAH OBEYED ABRAHAM, CALLING HIM LORD

In my previous post I spoke of the obligation that the Apostle Peter laid on us husbands - to treat our wives as we would "a weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7).  I mentioned that this phrase has caused much debate by members of both sexes.  What I didn't mention was that the preceding passage - the one that speaks of wives' obligations - has also been a cause of controversy.

 

The whole passage goes like this:

          "Likewise wives submitting to your own husbands, that if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word, through the conduct of their wives, as they observe your pure conduct in fear  Don't just make yourselves beautiful outwardly - doing your hair, wearing gold jewelry or pretty clothes.  But let your beauty be the hidden person of the heart, in the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:1-4).

          "For this is the way the holy women who hoped in God in past times used to make themselves beautiful - by submitting to their own husbands - as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children you've become, by doing good and not getting scared by any fright" (3:5, 6).
 

Most of this exhortation is pretty straightforward and fits in with Peter's theme.  His readers are addressed as "strangers and pilgrims."  All through this little letter they are exhorted to, "Keep your conduct beautiful among the pagans" (2:12).  This involves an attitude of submission in all human relationships  In the present context - wives to husbands.
 

But it's verse 6 that causes us problems - that reference to Sarah and Abraham:  She "obeyed" him, "calling him lord."  While many have problems with submission, it is clearly a concept used throughout the New Testament.  But obey, call him lord?  Nowhere else in the New Testament are women told to do this.
 

We don't like that word.  To submit is hard enough - to place oneself under the authority of another.  That's also an instruction for all of us - male and female (Ephesians 5:21).  But "obey"?  Children are told to obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1).  Slaves are told to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5).  There are, of course, many other situations where obedience is necessary.  But isn't the husband/wife relationship egalitarian?
 

And she called him lord?
 

Interestingly, many women still promise to "love, honor and obey" in  traditional wedding vows.  Kate Middleton did so in her vows to Prince William.  I believe that Uni did when she said her vows to me (of course that was a loong time ago).
 

In fact, this verse has caused a bit of laughter in our marriage.  Sometimes when we have a dispute and Uni sees that I am intransigent, she'll say (sarcastically I assume), "Yes, My Lord!" or refer to herself as "your obedient servant."  Usually this helps us both to cool down.  It seems we don't really take this passage very seriously.
 

So - what do we do with this passage?  How should we understand it and how should we apply it?  Well, the first thing we should notice is that Peter is not giving this as a command or even as advice.  He is holding Sarah and Abraham as illustrations of the wife's submission.

I believe it would be a good idea to go back to the story of Abraham and Sarah in the Book of Genesis.  Where do we find Sarah "obeying" Abraham?  While I can't find the word "obey" in the Genesis story, we do find Sarah obeying Abraham in his bizarre scheme to lie to Pharaoh (Genesis 12:1-13) and to Abimelech the Philistine king (20:1, 2).  Not exactly exemplary behavior!  We also read where Abraham obeyed Sarah (he "listened to the voice of Sarah") when she urged him to have sex with the maid!  (By the way, the same words are used of Adam in 3:17).

But there's only one place where Sarah calls Abraham "lord":

          "And He (the LORD) said, 'I will surely return to you at this time next year, and see - Sarah your wife will have a son."  And Sarah heard this at the tent entrance behind him.  Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in days, Sarah had ceased the way of women.  And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, 'Now that I am old, will I have my pleasure?  [This probably refers to becoming a mother, although the Good News Bible paraphrases it, "Now that I am old and worn out, can I still enjoy sex?"]  And my lord is old too!"  (Genesis 18:10-12)

          "And the LORD said to Abraham, 'Why did Sarah laugh saying shall I really bear a child when I'm so old?  Is anything too marvelous for the LORD?  I will return to you at this time next year and Sarah will have a son!''  (18:13, 14).

          "Sarah denied saying, 'I did not laugh!' because she was afraid.   But He said, 'No!  You did too laugh!'"  (18:15)  

This is not exactly a picture of the sweet submissive wife that a casual reading of Peter's letter might seem to imply.  In fact, the story of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis is a story of a man and a woman in a stormy relationship as many of the marriage stories in the Bible are.  These are real people, with real personalities that frequently had  real conflicts.

So why on earth would the Apostle Peter use Sarah as an example?  Surely the author of a segment of inspired Scripture must have known that the references he gave would have brought a smirk to the faces of any biblically literate readers.

Is it possible that Peter saw the irony here?  I believe he was doing just that.  Peter was a married man (the first Pope?!!).  And if the traditional dating of this letter at about 63 A.D. is correct, then he had been married for over 30 years.  In the Gospels (ca. 30 A.D.) we find that he had a mother-in-law (Mark 1:30).  Paul mentions that Peter (Cephas) had a wife who accompanied him on his missionary travels (1 Corinthians 9:5; 56 A.D.).  So Peter would undoubtedly have known what married life was like.  Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Peter had chuckled over the Abraham and Sarah stories and related them to their own stories as Uni and I do ours.  And perhaps he mentioned Sarah's "obedience" to bring a little comic relief to his readers.  Sometimes we just take ourselves too seriously.

THE WEAKER VESSEL

Uni and I like to watch movies at home.  At times we have difficulty determining which to watch out of the nearly infinite selection available.  Lately we've been watching some movies of the type often labeled "chick flicks" - those with some sort of romantic interest - no shoot-em-ups, no car chases, but lots of sad faces, tears, kisses and occasional bedroom scenes.

What got me to thinking as I watched the last three was the common depiction of the female lead as having some sort of weakness or need that the male character in some way attempted to meet.

The Notebook - She is an elderly woman who suffers from dementia - loss of memory - which her husband tenderly attempts to recover by reading the story of their romance from her notebook/diary.

Labor Day - She is a single mother, living with her preteen son.  Her husband has left her for another woman because of her depression over her inability to have more children and she feels she can never love again.  But she finds love from an escaped convict who chooses to hide out in her home.

Seven Pounds - She is dying from congenital heart failure, when the male character, trying to find personal atonement for his past, literally gives her his heart.

I'm not trying to make light of these movies.  I cried along with Uni through the pathos, perhaps even more than she.  But I was struck by the common theme.

My first thoughts were of how old-fashioned and outdated these stories seemed to be.  We live in an age of feminine empowerment.  In our lifetime we've seen women's roles change dramatically - women taking on activities that were not long ago thought of as only the province of men.  The women in these movies seemed weak by "modern" standards.  (Of course, the men had their weaknesses too.)

But a passage from the New Testament kept coming to mind.  "You husbands likewise, living together with them in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, granting your wives honor, as fellow heirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7).

This verse is packed, but it is the phrase "weaker vessel" that stands out to me, especially after watching these three movies.  And it is this phrase that has caused much debate in various Bible studies that I have led or been involved in.  There are those men who take this as somehow granting them license to dominate.  There are those women who question the description of them as "weaker".  Arguments from traditional male dominance; arguments concerning relative body strength, upper and lower body strength, child-bearing - I've heard them all.  But is this what it's all about - physical comparison between the sexes?

A little context might help:  Peter is addressing believers who are scattered in a hostile environment.  He addresses his readers as "strangers and pilgrims."  They appear to be recent converts from paganism with all its vices.  They have to live among people who are suspicious of their behavior.

Peter exhorts them to live lives of exemplary behavior as a witness of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.  One of his recurring instructions is to "submit" in their human relationships - "to every human institution" (2:13); "slaves to masters" (2:18); "to their leaders" (5:5); and most importantly in our text, "wives to husbands," especially if the husbands are unbelievers (3:1).

So when Peter urges husbands to do "likewise," he is urging that same submissive spirit on them as on their wives.  It is to be a characteristic of every follower of Jesus.

This passage is not making a comparison between the relative strength and weakness of men and women.  It is an exhortation addressed to men - husbands - about how they are to relate to their wives.  The burden is on us!

Because this verse has been misinterpreted and misapplied in so many ways, I feel it's necessary to say a little about what it does not say.  It doesn't say that the wife is the weaker vessel.  Nor does it say that she is the husband's vessel.

The husband and wife are two "vessels" in the household of God.  This is an analogy that is used elsewhere in Scripture.  They are called "fellow heirs" - two members of equal importance to God.  Because the society of Peter's day was relatively patriarchal - male dominated, there was a need for stressing this equality of the wife and the husband.

And then note this:  he is to live together with her and grant her honor (or value) as with a weaker vessel.  That "as" is important.  It speaks not of the physical condition she is in but of how she is to be treated.

It means that I am to regard my wife as something special.  I am to handle her with care.  This can mean many things and can be carried out in many ways, but it always means that I owe her special treatment.  I must protect her from danger.  I must take note of her actual weaknesses.  I must listen.

I must handle her like fine China!

At this point it would be easy for me to make a list of the various things that I do or have done in this regard and tell every husband reading this that these are his oughts.  But that would end up in frustrating legalism.  My advice:  get to know her.  If you think you already know her well enough, you're doing better than I am after over 60 years with Uni` (57 years of marriage).

And be gentle; don't be afraid of embarrassing her or yourself.  She'll let you know what she likes and what her needs are.

This past Friday Uni and I attended a wedding of a young couple.  Though most of the ceremony was traditional, there was one surprise, one thing we had not seen before.

The groom got down on his knees, carefully removed his bride's shoes and washed her feet!

MY WIFE

Tomorrow I plan to celebrate Valentine's Day with the woman I love.  It'll be our 61st, and I just feel I need to say a few things about her and our time together.

I have to admit that I was inspired by some things our daughter Sherry said on Facebook in praise of her mother.  I was also moved by an article about marriage that I saw and partially read on Facebook.

Many books and articles have been written about marriage.  A few clicks on the "marriage" label on this blog will produce some of my thoughts as well as my responses to the thoughts of others.  I must admit that I find many of these articles boring, especially, though not exclusively, those with a "Christian" theme.  While the secular world has many dumb things to say, I find that the Christian world often has just as many:  "Marriage is not 'for me,'" (i.e., for my benefit) or "marriage is not for my happiness."  Marriage is perceived as some grand spiritual exercise.  Either that or some romantic drama to be acted out according to prescribed rules.  If I read enough of these articles I might begin to believe that my 57+ years of marital happiness with Uni are just a colossal failure.  But I don't think they are.

So maybe I just ought to tell our story.

When I first met Uni, she was 15 and I was 16, she was a high school sophomore and I was a junior.  I was smitten by her beauty, by her smile and her flirtatiousness.  We dated for two years, my last two in high school.  She became my best friend, and I found that she was as beautiful inwardly as she was outwardly.  She demonstrated a genuine love for every person she met.

Well anyway, after I had graduated and she entered her senior year, we got engaged.  We hadn't gone through any deep soul-searching or Scripture searching; we hadn't taken any tests or surveys to ascertain our compatibility; we simply knew that we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.  We were best friends, we were in love and were (don't be shocked!) horny teenagers (1 Corinthians 7:9).

We've been asked by many young people how I proposed (the first step in a romantic ritual).  They're usually disappointed with the story we tell, but here it is.

Uni:  "They've got a sale on rings at the jewelry story downtown."

Me:  "OK!  You wanna go look at 'em?"

Uni:  "Sure."

So we went, we found a set (you could almost see the diamond), and bought it.  And with it came a free tea set.  In the car in the parking lot, I slipped the engagement ring on her finger and said, "Will you marry me?"  And she said, "Yes."

We went back to her house, Uni showed her Dad her new tea set, but kept the hand with the ring on it concealed.

Dad:  "That's nice; what did you have to buy to get it?"  (Obviously he'd seen the ad in the newspaper.)

Uni shyly showed him her left hand.

Dad:  "You didn't ask me!"

Me (stammering):  "Mr. Cook, can I marry your daughter?"

Dad (hesitating -- Dad could look pretty mean if he chose to):  "Well -- okay!"

A year later we were married, the September after Uni graduated.  Within two years of that we were expecting our second child.  We now have two grown married kids and six grown grandchildren -- no greats yet.

I tell this story simply to show that our courtship and marriage did not conform to either the romantic or spiritual ideals that are so often presented.

Our marriage hasn't "succeeded" because we have done all the right things or followed all the rules.  I believe this marriage succeeded because I am married to a woman who knows how to love.

I can honestly say that Uni loves everyone she meets.  Her life has been a life of giving.  Had she not been the loving, giving, forgiving person she is, I doubt that we could have made it.  She genuinely practices the second great commandment.  And she's taught me what love is and how to love.

Not that she is friends with everyone.  She also knows and has taught me that if someone doesn't like her, to simply give them space.  But she still shows them love.

When we were not as old as we are now, she was known as  Aunt Uni to probably dozens of people.  She still is to many.  Now she's Gramma to at least dozens -- Grammaw or Oma or Abuelita.  She's still called Mom by many.

And the older she gets the more love she seems to have for more people.  And for me.

 

HUSBANDS AND WIVES

There's a passage in Paul's letter to the Ephesians that has been regarded by many evangelicals and other Christians as THE passage regarding marriage.  It is taught in many premarital counseling sessions including those that I have led.  Many have testified of its benefit in guiding their marriages and keeping them on the right track.  Yet, for some, it has been a cause for consternation; it is seen as an expression of Paul's misogyny or of the paternalistic views of the biblical writers.  It has been interpreted by others as teaching total male dominance.  It has been used to define roles and lines of authority.  Yet other interpretations seem to reduce it to little more than "be nice."

The passage as usually quoted is Ephesians 5:22-33:

          (22) Wives (submit) to your own husbands as to the Lord, (23) because the husband is head of his wife as also Christ is Head of the church and He Himself is Savior of the body.  (24) But  as the church submits to Christ, so also the wives to their own husbands in everything.
          (25) Husbands ­love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, (26) that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, (27) that He might present to Himself the church glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she may be holy and blemish free.
          (28) In the same way husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his own wife loves himself.   (29) For nobody ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church.  (30) Because we are members of His body.  (31) "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be devoted to his wife, and the two will be one flesh."
          (32) This mystery is great, but I am speaking about Christ and about the church.  (33) However, also you -- each one of you must love his own wife even as himself.  And the wife must see that she regards her husband with reverence.

When I was initially exposed to this passage I was a young single (teenage) male.  I can't say that the home I was raised in conformed very closely to these instructions.  Uni would agree that her home did not reflect them either.  Yet this was presented as the standard we were to build our marriage upon, even though we had no example of how this was to be done.  But we tried.

Anyway, after 56 years of marriage and nearly as many years of studying this passage and of trying to live it out, I felt I'd say a few things about it, especially concerning the husband's responsibility.

First of all, we should note that it's part of a greater context regarding the filling of the Spirit.  Go back a few verses to verses 18-21:

          (18) And don't get drunk with wine, for that is self-destruction, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to each other in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and praising the Lord with your heart, (20) giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God the Father, (21) submitting to each other in the fear of Christ, ...

I believe the husband's responsibility is not emphasized strongly enough in the study of this passage.  This is a problem whether one sees it as the major passage on proper marital roles or whether one opposes it as a statement of patriarchal dominance.

We should notice that the husband is not commanded to "be the head," nor is he commanded to "exercise headship" (whatever that means); we are simply told that the husband is head of the wife.  This is apparently a God-appointed role.  Nor is he commanded, as some seem to read this, to "make his wife submit."

There is only one imperative given to the husband, that is to love his wife.  The word is used six times in this passage.  This is how he is to submit to his wife.  The command might seem obvious, even redundant, to a twenty-first century reader; after all isn't "love" the reason we marry in the first place?

To a first century reader, however, this word might come as a surprise.  Marriages were often arranged by parents, or entered into simply for convenience.  Love was not always a factor.  And a Twenty-first century marriage, even though ostensibly entered into for "love" might be entered into for a number of other factors.

We should also note that the word Paul uses is not simply the word for affection or sexual desire.  The word "love" is agapao, the kind of love that God has, that which seeks the greatest good in its object.  It is the only kind of love which is commanded and it is often given with a comparison:

          "Love your neighbor as yourself."
          "Love each other as I have loved you."

And we husbands are commanded to exercise this love toward our wives "as Christ loved the church."  Of course, by "the church" is meant not a building or a denomination or an organization, but the whole aggregate of humanity who belong to Him.

The extent of that love is also given:  "...and gave Himself for it."  I, as a husband, am to love my wife enough to die for her.  I suppose many husbands, myself included, have at one time or another envisioned ourselves performing some daring act of rescuing our wives -- from drowning, from a burglar, a rapist, or an oncoming freight train -- even to the point of giving our lives, though we'd never know what we'd do till we found ourselves in such a situation.

But there's more; Paul also tells us the goal of Christ's love, "that He might sanctify her ... that He might present to Himself the church glorious ..."  Christ died for us, not simply to pay for our sins and bring us forgiveness; He died for us to make us into all that God had intended for us to be.  This is God's purpose for us, found stated throughout the New Testament -- to make us into glorious beings -- like Christ Himself.

If that was Christ's goal in giving Himself for us on the cross, if that was the goal of Christ's love for us, is not my ultimate goal in my love for my wife to be the same -- or at least similar?  I believe that the answer is yes!

It would seem then that my love for my wife should have the goal of helping her to become all that God intended for her to be -- to put what is best for her ahead of what's best for me.  This idea turns all the traditional thinking about marriage on its head.  In the culture I was raised in, the wife seemed to be a sort of auxiliary to the husband, helping him to reach his goals, career or otherwise.  And even though marriage has changed much in the last half-century, this is still, I believe the understanding.  And for many, this passage of Scripture is believed to reinforce that concept.

This does not mean that the wife is to dominate; the passage teaches the headship of the husband.  But neither does it mean that the husband is to dominate the wife.  It presents mutually submissive roles where love dominates and each partner seeks the best for the other.

See also:

          SHOULD MY WIFE WEAR A HAT TO CHURCH?
          SHOULD MY WIFE WEAR HER JEWELRY TO CHURCH?

          HERMENEUTICS AND THE ROLE OF WOMEN

          A SUITABLE HELPER

HOPE SPRINGS

Uni and I recently went to see the movie, Hope Springs starring Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones as Kay and Arnold, a middle aged married couple who had recently celebrated their 31^st anniversary by upgrading their cable.  Sound boring?

Well yes and no.  The boring exterior, as with many “happily” married couples, covers up sad, deeply frustrated lives.

As we see Kay in her night gown gazing at herself in the mirror, fluffing her hair, primping, our first thought is of how attractive she looks.  Then we are drawn to the sadness in her eyes.  Meryl Streep is a great actor.  She portrays a look I’ve seen before on many married women – friends, family, women I’ve counseled, even at times the woman who lives in my house.

She opens the door of Arnold’s bedroom where he lays reading.  That’s right, they sleep in separate bedrooms!  No not tonight; some excuses I can’t remember.

The movie does not have a complicated plot.  It’s a simple story of a married couple who are trying to bring their marriage back to what it should be and once was (or at least she’s trying.  No secret affairs.  They’ve been “faithful” to one another for 31 years.

Anyway Kay comes across a book on marriage written by a Doctor Feld.  She takes her hard-earned savings and purchases reservations for the two for a week’s intensive counseling in the quaint little town of Hope Springs, Maine (where everyone seems to be something of a therapist – the waitress at the café, the bartender, the maître d’ at the restaurant, the clerk at the bookstore – all except the old geezer at the museum.)

Arnold grudgingly goes along, complaining all the while.  “Didn’t I buy you a new refrigerator?”  “Four thousand dollars for one week!  We could have gotten a new roof!”  Tommy Lee Jones plays a perfect grump!

As we watch the movie in the theater, there are bits of what sounds like nervous laughter from the audience.  There’s enough comic relief to allow this, though I suspect the story is getting a bit too close to home for some.

It took a while for me to get used to seeing Steve Carell as Dr. Feld.  We’re used to seeing and hearing him talking seriously, but saying stupid things.  But here he’s all seriousness and compassion as he questions and counsels Kay and Arnold.  It is here in the counseling room that the truth that by this time we’ve suspected comes out – they haven’t had sex for years.  Arnold can’t remember the last time; Kay can.  Yet they both want it.

We find that the problem is not all Arnold’s fault (though I felt like shouting at him a few times); Kay has her hang-ups as well.

Some viewers may be uncomfortable with the homework assignments and Kay and Arnold’s efforts to carry them out.  Just remember they are married.

The movie does have a happy ending, though I’m not sure how we got there.  In fact, we’re never sure till almost the end if it’s going to work out.

I recommend and have recommended this movie to every married couple – especially if you’ve been married for a while.  Not that every marriage is in the same shape as Kay and Arnold’s, but it is a possibility that any marriage can go this way.  And I suspect that many marriages are moving in this direction.  One temptation is to tell ourselves we’re not this messed up; our marriage is a lot better than that.  Rather, I think we should look for similarities and seek ways to avoid them, to seek correction before we end up like Kay and Arnold.

And for my Christian friends:  no, this is not a “Christian” movie.  It is not, as many in that category, a disguised sermon.  Don’t go see this movie to find simplistic solutions.  You won’t find them here or in any of those preachy movies.  Go to see yourselves!  And if you don’t see yourselves in this movie, the problem may not be with the movie.  It may be with you.

REAL MARRIAGE?

A while back I started out to review a book on marriage, but somehow got sidetracked into writing about my own marriage (WHAT ABOUT MARRIAGE) which I felt was necessary before beginning to write this review.

The book is Real Marriage; the Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together by Mark and Grace Driscoll.  Mark is the pastor of Mars Hill Church, a megachurch in Seattle, which he and Grace started in 1996.

[Actually the reason I chose to read the book is that I was asked to watch the video series of the same name on the internet.  I was informed by friends that it had been of tremendous help in their marriages.  As I couldn’t imagine staring at a computer screen for hours, I decided to buy the book instead.  The fact is that I find sermons a bit boring, especially on a small screen.  With a book, I can pick it up or put it down at my leisure; I can also highlight or mark areas which I want to question or discuss.  And after putting off writing this review for a few weeks, a book is much easier to go back over.  Besides all that, I’m a dinosaur.  I’m more comfortable with a book in my hand than a laptop.]

This book has apparently been of help in many marriages and comes highly recommended by pastors, teachers and authors – 3 pages of enthusiastic blurbs.

The Preface was in some ways encouraging to my skeptical eyes.  It sets the pace for our reading of the book with a series of “don’ts” explaining to us “some ways not to read it.”

Unfortunately, as I read the book, I was drawn back to some of these “don’ts.”

·        “Don’t read as a voyeur trying to figure out our sex life.”  Sorry, but  Mark and Grace reveal so much about their sex life that one doesn’t need to be a voyeur to try to figure it out.  Their story of her shame and his inability to forgive was difficult for me to comprehend.  They freely tell of their sexual activities before marriage, but somehow one act by Grace became a crisis leading to her shame and his unforgiving spirit.

·        “Don’t read as a critic trying to find where you think we might be wrong.”  Again, I’m sorry but that’s the way I read.  I read a book like this as a pastor, teacher and counselor.  I seek to sort out the good from the bad – not just the useless, but that which I feel might be in some way harmful to the undiscerning reader.

·        Some of the other “don’ts” seem to be claims of authority for this book that it doesn’t really have.  This bothers me.

·        I agreed with the final one:  “Don’t copy our methods.  The principles … are more important than the methods.  Principles are timeless and unchanging.  Methods vary … Hold fast to biblical principles and remain flexible and teachable with methods for your marriage.”  A great exhortation to the reader.  However, the authors themselves often fail to make the distinction between biblical principles and simple methods of applying those principles.  And they don’t always make the distinction between biblical principles and those principles derived from other sources.  This failure is one of the great weaknesses of the book.

The first five chapters (Part 1 MARRIAGE) are mostly ramblings, containing personal stories, good advice and a few biblical principles, although one must be careful and “examine the Scriptures … to see whether these things are so” (Acts 17:11).  Some of the handling of biblical texts is downright sloppy.  One example is Grace’s retelling of the story of Esther to picture her as an “example (that) illustrates the repeated command across all Scripture that wives respectfully submit to their husbands” (page 65).  It does no such thing!

It is in Part 2 SEX, that the book comes close to living up to its reputation for both openness and controversy.  It is here, I am told, that it speaks to the present generation.  And certainly, I’d say, it tries to be more open and frank.

Chapter:  Sex:  God, Gross, or Gift? Is probably the best chapter in the book and it does speak well to the present generation which, though saturated with sexual images,  stimuli  and “freedoms” has as many or more hang-ups as my generation.

I did resent the statement that “… one source of the sex-as-gross view is religious and sexually prudish older women who … teach younger women that sex is for husbands and babies but not for personal pleasure” (page 117).  I happen to be married to a “religious” but not “sexually prudish older woman.”  In my personal experience I have found sexual hang-ups just as common among younger people - even the irreligious - who have disconnected sex from love.

Chapters 7 and 8 on abuse and porn are well done and Chapter 9, Selfish Lovers and Servant Lovers, is excellent.  I would strongly disagree, however, with one item in the list “Ways We Are Selfish Lovers” (pages 165-167).  Somehow, to “only have sex when we both feel like it at the same time” does not seem to me to be selfish.  I cannot imagine sex with my wife when either of us did not feel like it.  Apparently this generation has forgotten the concept of “wooing” and “flirting” with one’s spouse.  Of course, sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn’t.  It is then we must respect the other’s lack of desire.

I have mixed feeling about Chapter 10 Can We ________?  The ageistic prejudices of the authors show in the put-down (disguised as a warning) in the opening paragraphs “If you are older, from a highly conservative religious background, live far away from a major city, do not spend much time on the Internet, or do not have cable television, the odds are that you will want to read this chapter while sitting down, with the medics ready on speed dial” (page 177).  Follow this up with the introduction to 1 Corinthians which begins on the same page.  The list of the Corinthians’ questions mentioned on pages 177 and 178 is pure fiction.

In this chapter are a number of questions regarding sexual activities between a married couple.  The questions are in regard to various sexual practices, many of which might seem normal to some, while to others they might seem downright kinky! 

To each of these activities the authors apply three questions taken from 1 Corinthians 6:12.  These are excellent and I believe should be used in every ethical decision we make, not just in the area of sex.  The questions are:

·        Is it lawful?

·        Is it helpful?

·        Is it enslaving?

However, if I may, I’d like to add some comments from an older generation’s perspective.

·        First, love must be the prevailing motive.  As the previous chapter makes clear, we are to be servant lovers.  Many of these activities will be seen as at best distasteful to one (if not both) of the partners.  If so, they should be off the table (or to be accurate, the bed).

·        Secondly, though variety may spice up our sexual activity, it should not be our main goal.  Sooner or later, everything becomes old hat.  Do the math.  If a couple has sex only twice a week, by the time they have been married for 20 years, they will have had sex 20x52x2=2080 times!  There’s bound to be some repetition.

·        Sometimes the familiar is the most comforting and pleasurable.

·        I fear that variety itself could be enslaving and desire for it could lead to seeking it elsewhere.

The last chapter (11) is entitled:  “Reverse Engineering Your Life and Marriage.”  This one seemed to me to be rather bizarre.  It involves homework (Mark gives it to Grace, of course) and questions about various issues in marriage, looking back over a couple’s marriage.  This is to me just a series of useless exercises and can become a form of legalism.  As Uni and I look back from near the last days of our lives and marriage, we have no regrets that we have spent little time making lists.  (We have spent a lot of time talking; why make lists? - Uni)

So, now as I look back over what I have written I have to ask if I would recommend this book.

Well not to the ones it is apparently written for – those with troubled marriages.  While some portions of it would definitely be helpful, others might add to the confusion.  I would recommend the book with reservations to those whose marriages are not troubled and who are also able to discern what is biblical and what is not and what is wise and what is not.

It is difficult to argue with the successes claimed for this book and the video series.  However, I do know that the Holy Spirit is able to take our flawed efforts and use them for God’s glory.  If He has done this in those successful marriages claimed, then so be it.  To Him be the glory!

If anyone desires to read more of my thoughts on these matters, simply click on the words “love” and “marriage” in the topics column of this blog.

WHAT ABOUT MARRIAGE?

I started out to review a popular book I had recently read on marriage.  I have been teaching a Bible class on man/woman relationships in the Bible.  Uni and I have recently been giving informal counsel to some friends and I have also been doing premarital counseling with a couple at whose wedding I am to officiate.  So I thought this was an appropriate time to read and review the book.  However, before I could begin, I felt I needed to say a few words about where I’m coming from.

Uni and I have been married for nearly 56 years and have been close friends for nearly 59.  We got married before all the self-help books were popular.  Books on marriage were few and Christian books on marriage were, as far as I know, nonexistent.  There were few marriage seminars and no marriage retreats or marriage classes to prepare us.  We did, however, attend a three session class presented by the YMCA.  Otherwise, we just leaped into marriage as two teenagers in love.

Our marriage somehow lasted and we raised two reasonably normal kids, both of whom were born before our 22^nd birthdays.  We struggled, financially and otherwise.  We fought.  We made plenty of mistakes.  (And we still do – all of the above – though a lot less than we used to.)

Yet I can honestly say that I don’t think there is or has been a better, happier marriage than ours.  At least none that I know of.

We still have never attended any of those weekend marriage seminars, and the only marriage retreats we attended were when I was the main speaker.  Although I did take Howard Hendricks’ class on the Christian home when I attended seminary -- of course, by that time we had been married for 20 years.

We’ve read very few books on marriage and those we did were primarily to learn what others were thinking.  Not that we didn’t find some of them useful.  But most could be subtitled, “This works for us, so it should work for you.”  Most are some combination of biblical principles (often out of context), practical advice, common sense (all too uncommon), the latest in pop psychology and the authors’ personal experiences.

So how can a couple who are deeply skeptical, almost cynical about all the marriage data out there have such a terrific marriage?  I have no simple answers, no “seven easy steps”; if I did I’d write my own book.  But here are a few thoughts.

The Bible has been our primary textbook, not only on marriage, but on every aspect of life.  If the experts have anything correct and helpful to tell us, it is in some way derived from, or at least in agreement with, the Scriptures.  As Uni has often commented, people wouldn’t need to read so many how-to books if they’d just read their Bibles.”

Of course, the Scriptures must be studied and correctly interpreted.  The Bible is not just a treasury of verses to be mined for whatever the situation requires.  It is a textbook for living.  The passages having to do with marriage are all found in a greater context.  To tear out a few verses to use as “proof texts” is, I believe, to do violence to their original meanings.

For instance, Paul’s commands to wives and husbands in Ephesians 5:22-33 are part of the greater context of the filling of the Spirit (verse 8) and its accompanying characteristics, which itself is in the greater context of the behavior that Paul calls a “walk,” “worthy of the calling with which you’ve been called” (4:1).  In other words, the behavior of those chosen by God and redeemed by the Son (1:3-8).

When Peter gives his instructions on the behavior of wives and husbands in 1 Peter 3:1-7, he is giving specifics of his command to “keep your behavior excellent (or beautiful) among the Gentiles” (2:12).  When he writes of wifely submission it is in the context of this behavior and his great illustration is the submission of Christ Himself (2:21).

I could go on.  But I must give credit to my wife Uni.  Her example changed my thinking, attitudes and behavior.  It wasn’t just her keeping of certain biblical “rules,” but her living out the life of Christ as she saw it in the Scriptures.  She has been reading through that book over and over for more than 60 years and it shows.

We must also live out our husband/wife relationships as an aspect of the greater demands of Christ.  He is the Lord of our lives and He demands total allegiance.  I’m not saying that Uni and I are there yet, but our “success” is directly proportional to the depth of that commitment.  When Jesus demanded of His disciples that they love Him more than any other human relationship, He meant it (Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26)!  As I have said many times before, if my wife did not love Jesus more than she loves me, she would not love me as much as she does.

And then there’s the command to “Love your neighbor as yourself” repeated over and over by Jesus and the apostles.  As Paul said, this is the summation of all law (Romans 13:8-10).  Our marital love for each other is one aspect of that love.

There are of course, many more things that I could say and have said.  But I believe marital relations are a lot simpler than we recognize.

I guess I’ll have to write the review of the book later.

Also see:

            THE CASE AGAINST MARRIAGE
            WHAT IS LOVE?
            I LOVE YOU LORD
            MARRIAGE, AN EVER CHANGING UNION

MARRIAGE, AN EVER CHANGING UNION?

A recent article in The Week magazine (6/8/2012) entitled “An Ever-Changing Union” – (on-line entitled “How Marriage has Changed over Centuries”) got my attention, especially since I have been leading an adult Sunday school class on man/woman relationships in the book of Genesis.  Beneath the title was a line, “Critics of gay marriage see it as an affront to sacred, time-tested traditions.  How has marriage been defined in the past?”

The article went on to discuss the fact that marriage has been evolving since the beginning, which the writer tells us was in the Stone Age.  The article goes on to describe different marriage customs down through history, including the fact that “the ancient Hebrews … engaged in polygamy,” citing of course, the Bible’s statement that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.  (They didn’t note, however, that Solomon was not a typical “ancient Hebrew.”)  We are told that polygamy has been, and still is practiced “in cultures throughout the world,”

The real kicker and apparent thesis of the article is “The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development.”  Wow!  We “traditionalists” are really non-traditionalists!  We’re the odd ones.

The article describes briefly the history of marriage and marriage contracts, secular and sacred.  It even informs us that “male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean” up till the 13^th century.

We are also informed that “for most of human history” love and romance had little, if any role in marriage, that love in marriage was even frowned on in many ancient cultures, and that the idea of marrying for love and/or romance was a product of Enlightenment thinking (the “pursuit of happiness”).

The article concludes by telling us “for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed … and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage.”

The article, I believe, pretty much got its facts straight, though some of its generalizations and conclusions were painted with a pretty broad brush.

I took the article with me on Sunday and read excerpts from it to my class.  Besides a considerable amount of eye-rolling, it also generated a stimulating discussion.  Most of the discussion took us back to matters we had already been studying in Genesis.  We soon left the article behind, however, so I felt that I needed to say a few more things about it.

As a Christian who takes the biblical claims literally and seriously, I have to say that I basically agree with the article’s conclusion; traditional marriage is, if not destroyed, in deep trouble, and this has little to do with whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized.  And this is not some recent phenomenon; it has been going on since the beginning.  And an honest study of the Scripture would verify that claim.

I believe that there are different ways of looking at, even of defining marriage.  I also believe that we need to distinguish the differences, and that we Christians often confuse them; for instance “traditional marriage,” “legal marriage,” “biblical marriage,” are not all the same.

If the article is correct, then “traditional marriage” is as stated, “an ever-changing union.”  Multiple partners, arranged marriages, even same-sex unions have all been, at one time or another throughout history, considered “traditional.”  We would do well to cease our advocacy of traditional marriage.

What about “legal marriage”?  Throughout history, and in many nations today, marriage was and is simply a civil union whatever it is called.  It affords legal protection to the partners and can be entered into and exited through legal means.  And of course, this is the issue today regarding gay marriage.  We may disagree about its morality and we may emphasize that it is not biblical.  But if it is legitimized, it would afford homosexual partners the same rights (and problems) that heterosexual partners have.

As a Christian, as a follower of the Scripture, I am not bound by “tradition” or by someone else’s legal status; I am bound by the Word of God.  And it is my obligation to do my best to ascertain what the Word teaches about marriage.  That is not my aim here; it would take (and has taken) volumes and volumes.  There are a few matters in this area, however, that I believe need clarification.

First, as I have often pointed out to my students, we must distinguish between “description” and “prescription.”  The Bible, as any other good history, describes all sorts of human behavior, often without making any moral pronouncements at all.  This does not necessarily imply that the behavior is approved by God, and it certainly does not imply that it is prescribed by God.  Case in point:  polygamy.  Though it was practiced very early on in biblical history, it is nowhere, to my knowledge commanded or even approved of.  The reference in the article to King Solomon and his multiple wives, does not mention that these marriages are said to have been a leading cause of his moral downfall (1 Kings 11:1-9) or that in this case he was acting in direct violation of specific commands in the Law (Deuteronomy 17:14-17).

Another matter is the Mosaic Law itself.  The Law was not given, as some claim, as a perfect expression of God’s will.  It was given, among other reasons, as a system of regulating the behavior of a redeemed but very sinful, hard hearted people.  So its regulations on multiple marriages, regulations on divorce were not meant to show approval of these acts any more than regulations on sheep stealing.

“If a man takes a wife and marries her, and if it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes … and he writes her a certificate of divorce …” (Deuteronomy 24:1, 2).

“If a man has two wives …” (Deuteronomy 21:15).

“If a man steals a sheep …” (Exodus 22:1).

Jesus when questioned by the Pharisees regarding His position on divorce, took them to the one man/one woman union established by God at creation (Matthew 19:3-6; Genesis 1:27; 2:24).  When they referred to the Mosaic Law of Deuteronomy 24:1ff, Jesus answered them, “Because of your hardheartedness, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not thus” (Matthew 19:8).

By the way, as far as romantic love being some sort of a Johnny-come-lately on the marital scene, perhaps we should look at the story of Jacob and Rachel, which occurred around the 19^th century BC and was recorded around the 15^th.  [Even those critics who desire to date these writings much later are still stuck with a recorded date of nearly 3,000 years ago.]

“… Rachel was beautiful of form and beautiful of face.  And Jacob loved Rachel …  And Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they were in his eyes as a few days because of his love for her” (Genesis 29:17-20).

See also:  THE CASE AGAINST MARRIAGE

                  WHAT IS LOVE?