Wives and Husbands

Tyler did an excellent job Sunday in part 1 of a 2 part sermon over 1 Peter 3. Yes, this is the passage that starts out wives, obey your husbands. He started out with the observation that there is a spectrum of how pastors apprach this passage. The one extreme, which seems to be most dominant, is to qualify the passage to death. These sermons spend an nordinate amount of time saying what Peter didn't mean and very little time on what he did. Tyler intentinally tried to move more towards the middle.

I'm not so patient. I'm just going to jump right to the other side and say, without any qualification, that if you are a wife you have a responsibility to obey your husband. This passage immediately follows Peter's call for servants to obey their masters. Or in more modern terms, employees obey your boss. And it precedes the call for children to obey your parents. I think that God views all 3 of these relationships the same way, in terms of day to day operation.

I'm a huge fan of Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace. When it comes to personal finance, Dave says to lok at yourself as You, Inc.. You are a business. And in making financial decisions, act and think like a business. Businesses turn a profit from which they can expand, reward hard work, and be charitable. Dave also says that the only ship that doesn't sail is a partnerSHIP. That is true in all of our human relationships, even marriage.

There are never two equals. One will always dominates the other. That is the nature of free will. If we all agreed then there really is no choice. In a friendship, you will bth move in and out of the dominate role. If one person feels unequal, then they simply avoid the relationship.

That is much more difficult in a business. Nothing would ever get done if employees quit over every disagreement. In an effort to maintain the relatinship, both parties agree on the dominate and submissive role. I obey my boss.  Now, through God's providence, I work for someone who elects to accept my input. And I constantly remind myself that she is not obligated to do that. It is a reflection of her character (a good reflection, in my opinion).

Peter sets the same thing up in marriage. Like a business, one person has been assigned the dominate role. I cannot say this strongly enough - marriage is not a partnership of equals. It is a boss/employee, or servant/master relationship. And I am not going to qualify it at all. No if's, and's, or but's. The passage is very, very clear.

Peter understood the objections, especially regarding abusive relationships. He addresses it right there - obey anyway and let God use your example. Does this mean a wife should never leave an abusive husband? No. It means that as a wife, you need a strong, deep relationship with your Heavenly Father. And if He tells you to leave, then don't hesitate. But just like a boss r husband, the choice is His to make, not yours.

And this is where I think we go so wrong. God has always been about building relationships. Like children, He starts us with a few simple rules and principles. Then expands on them as the relationship blossoms. The default, the start, is that wives surrender their right to make these choices. They vow obedience, meaning that the final decision rests with their husband.

If you are a wife (or ex-wife) looking for an excuse, throwing out objections and what if, I am saying that you are approaching it all wrong. You are looking for a way to do what is wrong. Instead, you should be looking for more ways of doing what is right. Stop searching for the boundaries of obedience. Start looking for the deep inner field far away from the scraggly edges that is full of soft grass and bubbling brooks. If you go looking for the edge of the cliff, you'll just fall over.

Does this offend you? It should. You should feel this deep inside. Because that is our fallen nature, the one that rebels against God's authority in all of its forms. You are entirely correct that your husband, no matter how well intentioned, at some point will abuse this for a selfish end. And as a husband, I accept that you will, at sme point, disbey for equally selfish reasons. Now we have a conversation about forgiveness. But these facts do not, in any way, change God's authority structure. Marriage, like every ther business on the planet, will never work without obedience.

I want to end with the example that comes to my mind - my grandparents. My grandmother was Italian. Full bloded Italian. She told her father that she could never marry an Italian man because there was only ne head of the house. My brother and I could hear my grandparentds arguing. Even if we were there, my grandmother did not back down from giving my grandfather her opinion. My paresnts once jked they could start a reality TV show - MeeMaw and PeePaw. 

I remember sitting in their downstairs, watching TV, hearing them argue through the thin walls of my grandfather's study. He had donated money to some conservative cause. And my grandmother didn't agree with it. They yell back and forth. And when they were done, she comes out, winks at us, then went upstairs and cooked dinner. I realized something that time, that my grandmother went into that argument aknowing she was going to do whatever my grandfather decided. She said her piece, believe me. And she left the decision in his hands. She went upstairs and did the most loving thing she could - made dinner.

I know that my grandparents had some very rough times, long before I was born. I don't pretend it was easy for my grandmother or grandfather. I do know that they both spent time every day reading God's Word and praying. And instead of arguing over who was in control, they argued over facts and opinions. Leaving God always in control. My grandfather was a wonderfully generous man. My grandmother's submission allowed God to direct his generosity. Whereas her control would have killed it. God works when our hearts line up with His. Blind obedience makes no sense. Then again, neither does one righteous man dying for the sins of the world. Somehow, God makes it work.

Forgiveness

Renee wanted to talk to Vania on the phone last night. Vania was at Deanna's apartment. So I e-mailed Renee that Vania wasn't available. Her reply: thanks for letting me know. And here's the really weird part - it made me angry. 

I'm trapped in Renee's pattern again. Renee did something hurtful. She is in the wrong. Then she pretends that nothing happened. Renee purposefully acts as if it's all my fault because I was hurt. She feels entitled to get away with what she did. That's our relationship. 

This is not what Jesus meant when He asked us to forgive. This is enablement. Renee wants to continue in her sin. It is a means of deflecting responsibility for what's been done. It is avoidance, not righteousness. It is a lie.

Renee did not decide to be polite on her own. Well, maybe, but given what I know about her, there is someone else in the background telling her this is a good idea. This person listened to Renee's lies, accepted them as their own, and acted on that belief. They put their faith in Renee. They judged me, based on a lie, without any regard for the truth. That bothers me. Okay, way too light. That makes me angry.

Judge Not

Almost everyone has heard where Jesus said "judge not lest ye be judged" (KJV). It comes from the passage where He talks about trying to take out a speck of dust from someone else while there's a log in your eye. Our pastor described it as a large beam stuck in your head, smacking everyone as you keep turning around. I picture the Three Stooges swinging a ladder around.

Jesus wasn't telling us to stop judging. He told us the right way to reach a judgement. Look inside first. Is this really something God wants said? Am I satisfying my own need to feel superior? Jesus says connect with our Heavenly Father first. That doesn't always mean I'm right. It does mean that either way, I learn something about Him, about me, and His relationship with me. Yes, sometimes God lets me get it wrong so that I learn what He already knew.

Jesus told a famous parable about forgiveness. A guy owes his boss $500,000. He doesn't have the money and begs the boss for more time. The boss forgives the entire $500,000 debt outright. The man leaves and runs into a buddy who owes him $100. The buddy doesn't have the money yet and asks to wait until payday. The man gets furious and starts berating the guy. The boss gets wind of the incident. He calls the guy back in and tells him to pay the full $500,000. The point being, extend forgiveness because we're forgiven.

Being me, I notice something else about this story: you are not entitled to forgiveness. Even in dealing with other people, they are not required to forgive you. You have an obligation. If they forgive you, then that speaks to their character. If they don't, then you still have to speak to your character.

Renee grew up in family constantly in debt, behind in payments, taking things that aren't theirs. You can see it even in the way they treat each other. Pretending you did nothing wrong is normal for her. Righteousness comes from herself, her insistence on the truth of delusions, aka self-righteousness. And yes, that makes me angry. We all have hot buttons. This one is mine.

I rely on open and honest communication. I have a huge blind spot relationally. And I cannot navigate a relationship with explicit directions. If someone is busy covering up their sin, they certainly aren't having open communication. And it's impossible for me to relate. I'm not talking about tact. Tact is telling me in a manner that best suits the circumstances. Tact is different from deceit. This is deceit - pretending that a lie is true. Odd, I hadn't planned on this coming full circle.

Disclaimer

Before anybody freaks out, let me throw in this disclaimer. While you are not entitled to forgiveness, I try and adopt a stance that forgiveness is the first route. Notice even in Jesus' parable that the boss forgave the guy at the outset. Forgiveness is how God always intended us to relate with each other. And ironically, forgiveness is what builds strong relationships. Sacrifice being right for a deeper connection with another person.

Here Nor There

 I remember you telling me once about hearing "I just like having you here". You feel insulted, like an object to be possessed. This popped into my brain while I was reading this morning. 

I would tell you the same thing. I tell Vania all the time. Though I have to admit, it probably has a better effect surrounded by "I love you". It's not a statement of possession. It's a statement of intimacy.

I can't speak for any one else. I just know for myself, that the words you hear and the meaning I intend to convey don't match. I attach emotions with places. That probably sounds very strange. I didn't realize until reading Temple Grandin's book Thinking in Pictures. All of my memories and dreams are about places. The house I grew up in. The school I went to. Church. College.

There were people in those places. But my connection is with the place. Other places don't exist. Really. I have a difficult time grasping the reality that there is way more to the world than the place I can see. It just doesn't register emotionally. And when that reality intrudes, it is emotionally jarring. I think that's a large part of my reluctance to visit new places. And why I am thankful for friends who drag me along.

My connection with people has always been tenuous. It's not a lack of desire or disregard for their value. I just can't connect with someone who is in a different place. It feels alien. I can't imagine Deanna and Lucy in school. Their school time was separate, different, foreign. Intellectually, I know they were at school, walking hallways, sitting in lectures. But somehow it isn't real. There's no connection.

I'm getting off topic. The idea of sharing a place with someone else is an expression of emotional connection. Or the desire for emotional connection. We have a place connects easier with me than you and I. Vania and I can sit on the couch doing completely different things. I watch TV. She plays on her tablet. Yet we still connect emotionally.

In Dungeons and Dragons, characters have this measure called presence. That's how I think of it, I enjoy her presence. I enjoy classical music, bluegrass, museums, watching sports live, the beach, the forest, etc.. I like sharing those things with someone else, way more than the thing itself. "I like having you here" means that you bring something special those things can't. And it's an admission that I want more of it.

Like I said, I can only speak for myself. If I were the one saying to you "I just like having you here", it isn't a declaration of possession. It's an expression of emotion. Granted, a struggling expression. A seed trying to break through its own husk and take root. And fertilized, it will grow, looking more and more like what you expect.

Anyway, another perspective.