I have talked with two women in the past week who had this to say about their past jobs:
First, “I'd been there full-time for seven years and part-time for three years, and I really wanted to do something else, but my husband wouldn't let me quit.”
Secondly, “My husband said if I started the training course to prepare for the job and didn't finish it, he would leave me,” and she was afraid to start.
If it's true, what a terrible thing for a husband to demand: “You can't quit. I won't let you.”
If it's true, what a terrible thing for a husband to threaten: “I'll leave you.”
I specifically say, “if it's true,” because it is possible that the first woman was justifying why she kept on working. It is even possible that the second woman was trying to explain away her fear of starting a different career.
Just suppose that what the first woman said isn't exactly how it happened. What a terrible thing for a woman to excuse herself by making her husband look like a tyrant.
Just suppose that what the second woman said isn't exactly how it happened. What a terrible thing for a woman to use her husband as justification for her own fear.
Either way, whatever happened, I know that's not how a good relationship should work. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Don't look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too. You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.” (Philippians 2:4, 5) I can't imagine Jesus not letting someone explore work opportunities. I can't imagine Him threatening. I think His followers would honor Him and one another by honest communication, consideration for others' hopes and fears, and willingness to negotiate.
Marjorie
Scripture quotation is taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label relationship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationship. Show all posts
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Thursday, June 10, 2010
This Is Not About You
Another difficult subject--
While serving as a church staff member, I personally visited with a number of women who experienced the trauma of discovering that their husband had an intimate sex life—albeit an illusionary one—apart from their marriage. The women were hurt. Unbelieving and tearful or "spittin' mad," they were devastated by what certainly felt to them like infidelity.
Pornography, in its many forms, is ubiquitous; its prevalence and its bold specificity are startling. Several of the men were caught up in this, but there were other sexual addictions too that had come to light. The men I refer to profess Christian faith; they are well-respected in their church communities. Even so, they had been lured into a fantasy world where sexual fulfillment held no commitment or responsibility. It seemed to have no consequences. And that is where they were mistaken.
I am not an expert on the diagnosis or treatment of sexual addictions, so I'll not go into that aspect of the problem. But, "What's wrong with me?" the women wondered. "Why am I not enough?" To other women who may be facing circumstances like theirs, I want to pass along a piece of wisdom I learned from one of the counselors. "This is not about you." You cannot be sweet enough, cute enough, glamorous enough to cure the situation because it's not about you. You may be feeling unworthy, terribly unlovely, and hopeless. You are not. You might work together as a couple with professionals who can assist you, but this is his problem and his choice whether to confront it honestly.
Don't forget—this is not about you.
Marjorie
While serving as a church staff member, I personally visited with a number of women who experienced the trauma of discovering that their husband had an intimate sex life—albeit an illusionary one—apart from their marriage. The women were hurt. Unbelieving and tearful or "spittin' mad," they were devastated by what certainly felt to them like infidelity.
Pornography, in its many forms, is ubiquitous; its prevalence and its bold specificity are startling. Several of the men were caught up in this, but there were other sexual addictions too that had come to light. The men I refer to profess Christian faith; they are well-respected in their church communities. Even so, they had been lured into a fantasy world where sexual fulfillment held no commitment or responsibility. It seemed to have no consequences. And that is where they were mistaken.
I am not an expert on the diagnosis or treatment of sexual addictions, so I'll not go into that aspect of the problem. But, "What's wrong with me?" the women wondered. "Why am I not enough?" To other women who may be facing circumstances like theirs, I want to pass along a piece of wisdom I learned from one of the counselors. "This is not about you." You cannot be sweet enough, cute enough, glamorous enough to cure the situation because it's not about you. You may be feeling unworthy, terribly unlovely, and hopeless. You are not. You might work together as a couple with professionals who can assist you, but this is his problem and his choice whether to confront it honestly.
Don't forget—this is not about you.
Marjorie
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Always Angry
Some people are always, always angry. Have you noticed? Have you wondered why? I have. I am not an expert in such things, but I've made some observations.
4 Some people are angry because they assume that they were born into this world for other people to make happy. That plan inevitably fails, but instead of creating their own happy selves, they take vengeance on those who did not do it for them.
4 Some people are angry because they can't find the OFF switch. They may have suffered injustices—who has not?—and have good cause to object to the unfair treatment they've received. But their basic sense of entitlement has fueled their fury to unreasonable proportions.
4 Some people are angry because it makes them feel strong. They get a "high" from rage-fueled adrenaline that is like a powerful drug in their system—and isn't illegal.
4 Some people are angry because others around them have failed to protect them from the consequences of their misbehavior. They expect to be made happy, remember?
4 Some people are angry because they have been exposed as mean, or fearful or just plain shallow. The truth is so painful that they act out a blustery denial, believing that no one will then see the person they really are.
4 Some people are angry because they have learned to use aggressive behavior as a tool to get what they want or to avoid getting what they don't want.
Anger is a complicated emotion. Some scholarly folk say it is a basic emotion, while others say it is the secondary response to hurt, frustration, or fear. It helps me to know that the people around me who seem angry all the time are most likely not angry at me!
What observations have you made?
Marjorie
Sunday, April 11, 2010
But He Never Hit Me
Again, because of its relevance to women, I am publishing an entry which appeared previously on "Finding the Faith Way, January 8, 2009.
I am deeply troubled by the uneasiness I perceive when some women are with the men to whom they are attached by law or by love. Some of them I know well, and they are not these same cautious individuals when they are “on their own.” Others I see only as I shop or work on the job or attend church, but their discomfort is obvious even in public. I have to wonder if he is beating her—not with his fists, but with words and actions and attitudes that bruise her inner person.
The preferred form of abuse used by "good" men, even Christian men, seems to be whatever doesn't show. So they are unlikely to knock out a woman’s teeth or give her a black eye since that would be too obvious. And they certainly don’t want her calling the police or going to the emergency room. But all the same, many women in churched homes are repeatedly subjected to other forms of abuse: verbal attacks, emotional wounds, financial tyrrany, demeaning sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," does not make it okay.
►Some women do not recognize these actions as abuse. “Abuse” means bruises and broken bones and blood—doesn’t it? “Abuse” is something that happens in other homes not influenced by God and the Church—isn’t it? Many women brought up in the first half of the twentieth century believed that they must be subject to their husbands (and deferential to all males, for that matter) for much the same reason that Europeans accepted the “Divine Right of Kings” hundreds of years ago: "The right to rule comes directly from God, and the ruler is accountable to Him alone.” If these women have had religious instruction that is extremely conservative, they may be especially susceptible to abuse, believing they must learn to accept this mistreatment as “God’s will” for them. It is not.
►Other women accept abuse because it corroborates what they deeply feel they are worth. They may have felt their inadequacy as little girls who did not have the same acceptance and opportunities as boys. Perhaps the women they saw as role models were quiet and servile in relation to the men around them. These girls may have experienced shame as they matured into desirable young women and someone they trusted took advantage of them. With their self-esteem already damaged, they are open to believing they must learn to accept mistreatment as what they “deserve.” They do not.
►Still other women accept abuse because they grew up trusting others to be as kind and helpful as they themselves are. They are caught off-guard by someone who sees their good nature as a point of weakness and now uses it selfishly or even cruelly. The usual marriage counseling is unlikely to “fix” the problem; probably both parties will need to seek professional help from someone experienced in dealing with abusers—and with those who tolerate it. “But he loves me, and he will change.” Probably he will not.
A pattern of hurtful words and actions, even in a Christian home, can constitute abuse. The abuser does not call it that since he may think, “I’m just putting her in her place,” or “I am ruling over my household,” or “She is supposed to submit to me.” And sadly, the victim may not call it abuse either, convinced that, “If I object, he’ll be angry,” or “I don’t really have anything to say because he is the head of the home,” or “I know wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands.” This is a distorted view of the Biblical injunction to submit to one another. Because the man usually is the stronger physically, probably is capable of more volume, and may have more experience in positions of authority, he imposes his own will on the wife he is commanded to love as Christ loves the Church. Her wishes and well-being are not considered or respected on the basis of the authority he supposes has been assigned to him. He chooses to believe a few selected portions of Scripture to the exclusion of all the rest of New Testament teaching.
One should not suppose that because the abuse does not directly injure the body that it causes no physical harm. Ask the woman who cannot concentrate, who is constantly on guard or is “jumpy” and easily startled. Ask the one who stares at the ceiling instead of sleeping, who has disturbing dreams when she does drift off. Ask the one who has chest pains or stomachaches at the end of every work day (when it’s time for her to go home or for him to come home). No physical harm? Her body may be saying, “I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms that something is wrong.”
In 490 BC, the Greek historian Herodotus described an Athenian solider who had not suffered personal battle injury but became permanently blind after witnessing the death of a fellow soldier. In our own history, we have spoken of "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" associated with war. Today we would call that post-traumatic stress disorder, a term coined in the mid-seventies and now recognized as a diagnosable condition, often needing treatment. A number of practitioners include not only single traumatic events as the precursor of PTSD but also prolonged, repeated, significant stressors. This is not to equate the “battle” at home with the mortal danger of warfare; I simply call attention to the fact that serious physical harm can also result from well-aimed verbal missiles.
Even though “He never hit me.”
Marjorie
I am deeply troubled by the uneasiness I perceive when some women are with the men to whom they are attached by law or by love. Some of them I know well, and they are not these same cautious individuals when they are “on their own.” Others I see only as I shop or work on the job or attend church, but their discomfort is obvious even in public. I have to wonder if he is beating her—not with his fists, but with words and actions and attitudes that bruise her inner person.
The preferred form of abuse used by "good" men, even Christian men, seems to be whatever doesn't show. So they are unlikely to knock out a woman’s teeth or give her a black eye since that would be too obvious. And they certainly don’t want her calling the police or going to the emergency room. But all the same, many women in churched homes are repeatedly subjected to other forms of abuse: verbal attacks, emotional wounds, financial tyrrany, demeaning sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," does not make it okay.
►Some women do not recognize these actions as abuse. “Abuse” means bruises and broken bones and blood—doesn’t it? “Abuse” is something that happens in other homes not influenced by God and the Church—isn’t it? Many women brought up in the first half of the twentieth century believed that they must be subject to their husbands (and deferential to all males, for that matter) for much the same reason that Europeans accepted the “Divine Right of Kings” hundreds of years ago: "The right to rule comes directly from God, and the ruler is accountable to Him alone.” If these women have had religious instruction that is extremely conservative, they may be especially susceptible to abuse, believing they must learn to accept this mistreatment as “God’s will” for them. It is not.
►Other women accept abuse because it corroborates what they deeply feel they are worth. They may have felt their inadequacy as little girls who did not have the same acceptance and opportunities as boys. Perhaps the women they saw as role models were quiet and servile in relation to the men around them. These girls may have experienced shame as they matured into desirable young women and someone they trusted took advantage of them. With their self-esteem already damaged, they are open to believing they must learn to accept mistreatment as what they “deserve.” They do not.
►Still other women accept abuse because they grew up trusting others to be as kind and helpful as they themselves are. They are caught off-guard by someone who sees their good nature as a point of weakness and now uses it selfishly or even cruelly. The usual marriage counseling is unlikely to “fix” the problem; probably both parties will need to seek professional help from someone experienced in dealing with abusers—and with those who tolerate it. “But he loves me, and he will change.” Probably he will not.
A pattern of hurtful words and actions, even in a Christian home, can constitute abuse. The abuser does not call it that since he may think, “I’m just putting her in her place,” or “I am ruling over my household,” or “She is supposed to submit to me.” And sadly, the victim may not call it abuse either, convinced that, “If I object, he’ll be angry,” or “I don’t really have anything to say because he is the head of the home,” or “I know wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands.” This is a distorted view of the Biblical injunction to submit to one another. Because the man usually is the stronger physically, probably is capable of more volume, and may have more experience in positions of authority, he imposes his own will on the wife he is commanded to love as Christ loves the Church. Her wishes and well-being are not considered or respected on the basis of the authority he supposes has been assigned to him. He chooses to believe a few selected portions of Scripture to the exclusion of all the rest of New Testament teaching.
One should not suppose that because the abuse does not directly injure the body that it causes no physical harm. Ask the woman who cannot concentrate, who is constantly on guard or is “jumpy” and easily startled. Ask the one who stares at the ceiling instead of sleeping, who has disturbing dreams when she does drift off. Ask the one who has chest pains or stomachaches at the end of every work day (when it’s time for her to go home or for him to come home). No physical harm? Her body may be saying, “I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms that something is wrong.”
In 490 BC, the Greek historian Herodotus described an Athenian solider who had not suffered personal battle injury but became permanently blind after witnessing the death of a fellow soldier. In our own history, we have spoken of "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" associated with war. Today we would call that post-traumatic stress disorder, a term coined in the mid-seventies and now recognized as a diagnosable condition, often needing treatment. A number of practitioners include not only single traumatic events as the precursor of PTSD but also prolonged, repeated, significant stressors. This is not to equate the “battle” at home with the mortal danger of warfare; I simply call attention to the fact that serious physical harm can also result from well-aimed verbal missiles.
Even though “He never hit me.”
Marjorie
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bruises
Acting again on my sense of responsibility to women in troubled situations, I am publishing today a post which first appeared on July 22, 2008, as an entry on my other blog, "Finding the Faith Way." Because of its relevance to women in particular, I have moved it to this location.
The other day when shopping, I was helped by a clerk who had a large, very discolored bruise around one eye. Now even though we care when others are hurting, polite folk just don’t say, “Oh, I’m so sorry. What happened?” So maybe she hit her head on the car door when she was buckling one of the children into the safety seat? Maybe she just had some kind of cosmetic surgery near her eye? Or maybe the baby kicked her when she was changing his diaper?
Probably not. Probably somebody hurt her.
I got to wondering why I have never, in all my lifetime of church attendance, seen a woman come to worship with a suspicious-looking black eye. One only has to read statistics to know that churched families aren’t immune to violence in the home. Perhaps it’s because there’s too much shame connected with abuse occurring in a “Christian” family. One or the other of the couple may have said, “I (or You) can’t go to church looking like this.”
More likely, though, the form of abuse these church-going men choose to inflict is something that doesn't show—no bruises, no black eyes, no knocked-out teeth, nothing that would send a woman to the emergency room. But many women in homes connected to the Church are abused repeatedly by verbal assaults, emotional withholding or emotional terrorism, financial vise-grips, or humiliating sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," is no excuse for the equally—or perhaps greater—damaging trauma of this invisible abuse.
The average onlooker might wonder, "Why does she take it? Why doesn't she just get out?" The reasons are many. "I have no money." "I'll stay for the children." "I'm afraid to live alone." "I promised till death do us part." But the underlying reason is often hidden more deeply than that: she does not realize what is happening.
We might question, "How could she not know?" One reason is this: Many women, particularly those who are now middle-aged or older, have been "brain-washed" by the patriarchal society that still exists in many branches of the Church. Abuse, these women believe, is something awful that can happen in homes—always other homes—where an alcoholic beats up his wife and children. Abuse is inflicted by wicked men; it might occur in worldly homes, but certainly not Christian ones. Abuse results in bruises, black eyes, knocked-out teeth, and trips to the ER, doesn’t it?
But this is not true. Abuse is also treatment that damages the other’s personhood: lies, vicious words and mean or dismissive attitudes. There are no visible bruises or cuts, only deep heart wounds caused by pounding blows of anger and scorn that crush the woman's hope for love and understanding, words that slash her fragile belief in herself as a worthwhile person. She takes it silently, shamefully, because it reinforces what she already believes about herself. She may have been taught—or caught on—in her parental home that little girls do not matter. In the effort to teach courtesy and respect, damage may have been done inadvertently by insisting that children be seen and not heard. She may have misunderstood her father's need to teach his sons "manly" sorts of things, and she felt there was favoritism, whether or not that really existed. She may have heard regularly, "Just wait until your father gets home," with the implication that her mother, being a woman, could not adequately handle difficulty. Family members or acquaintances who took indecent liberties with the child and made her keep their "little secret," teachers who always asked the boys to take charge of the playground activities, the rule that said only men got to have the interesting jobs—all these experiences reinforced the idea that girls don't count.
And when the quiet, compliant child grows up? She becomes a silently compliant woman. Try as she might, she cannot please her husband; this is no fault of hers—he simply chooses to be dissatisfied with whatever she does. He can cut her down to size with sharp criticism, bully her with unreasonable demands, and treat her opinions with scorn, but if she objects or tries to explain how hurt she is, he responds with, "Get over it!", "You're just too sensitive," or "Do you know what a godly wife would do?" His rule over her does not come from a true understanding of his place in the home, nor is it authorized by God. His "power" comes from his size, his sheer volume, or the impact of his repeated behavior. She still doesn't matter.
Why would a man, especially a Christian man, abuse the companion he has promised to cherish and protect? In all likelihood, he is addicted, perhaps not to drugs or alcohol, but just as dependent for a "high" as the substance abuser. He may be addicted to rage, convinced that he is a victim of his family or the legal system or the job market or even the Church. Because he is a victim and has been hurt, he has the desire and the "right" to hurt other people. Or he may be addicted to fear: someone, somewhere—maybe even his wife—will take advantage of him, abandon him, or reveal him as a fake so he will get to that dangerous person first, with a display of his authority. He may be addicted to the feeling of power he gets from his selfish control. Whatever the motivating factor, the continuing abuser will almost certainly not quit on his own. Yes, there are miracles; for example, God delivers some alcoholics instantly, and they never touch another drop. But many substance abusers have to get some help on a personal basis. And so, in almost every case, does the domestic abuser. "Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think." (Romans 12:2 NLT) Without this basic change, there is little hope for a change in the behavior at home.
Marjorie
The other day when shopping, I was helped by a clerk who had a large, very discolored bruise around one eye. Now even though we care when others are hurting, polite folk just don’t say, “Oh, I’m so sorry. What happened?” So maybe she hit her head on the car door when she was buckling one of the children into the safety seat? Maybe she just had some kind of cosmetic surgery near her eye? Or maybe the baby kicked her when she was changing his diaper?
Probably not. Probably somebody hurt her.
I got to wondering why I have never, in all my lifetime of church attendance, seen a woman come to worship with a suspicious-looking black eye. One only has to read statistics to know that churched families aren’t immune to violence in the home. Perhaps it’s because there’s too much shame connected with abuse occurring in a “Christian” family. One or the other of the couple may have said, “I (or You) can’t go to church looking like this.”
More likely, though, the form of abuse these church-going men choose to inflict is something that doesn't show—no bruises, no black eyes, no knocked-out teeth, nothing that would send a woman to the emergency room. But many women in homes connected to the Church are abused repeatedly by verbal assaults, emotional withholding or emotional terrorism, financial vise-grips, or humiliating sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," is no excuse for the equally—or perhaps greater—damaging trauma of this invisible abuse.
The average onlooker might wonder, "Why does she take it? Why doesn't she just get out?" The reasons are many. "I have no money." "I'll stay for the children." "I'm afraid to live alone." "I promised till death do us part." But the underlying reason is often hidden more deeply than that: she does not realize what is happening.
We might question, "How could she not know?" One reason is this: Many women, particularly those who are now middle-aged or older, have been "brain-washed" by the patriarchal society that still exists in many branches of the Church. Abuse, these women believe, is something awful that can happen in homes—always other homes—where an alcoholic beats up his wife and children. Abuse is inflicted by wicked men; it might occur in worldly homes, but certainly not Christian ones. Abuse results in bruises, black eyes, knocked-out teeth, and trips to the ER, doesn’t it?
But this is not true. Abuse is also treatment that damages the other’s personhood: lies, vicious words and mean or dismissive attitudes. There are no visible bruises or cuts, only deep heart wounds caused by pounding blows of anger and scorn that crush the woman's hope for love and understanding, words that slash her fragile belief in herself as a worthwhile person. She takes it silently, shamefully, because it reinforces what she already believes about herself. She may have been taught—or caught on—in her parental home that little girls do not matter. In the effort to teach courtesy and respect, damage may have been done inadvertently by insisting that children be seen and not heard. She may have misunderstood her father's need to teach his sons "manly" sorts of things, and she felt there was favoritism, whether or not that really existed. She may have heard regularly, "Just wait until your father gets home," with the implication that her mother, being a woman, could not adequately handle difficulty. Family members or acquaintances who took indecent liberties with the child and made her keep their "little secret," teachers who always asked the boys to take charge of the playground activities, the rule that said only men got to have the interesting jobs—all these experiences reinforced the idea that girls don't count.
And when the quiet, compliant child grows up? She becomes a silently compliant woman. Try as she might, she cannot please her husband; this is no fault of hers—he simply chooses to be dissatisfied with whatever she does. He can cut her down to size with sharp criticism, bully her with unreasonable demands, and treat her opinions with scorn, but if she objects or tries to explain how hurt she is, he responds with, "Get over it!", "You're just too sensitive," or "Do you know what a godly wife would do?" His rule over her does not come from a true understanding of his place in the home, nor is it authorized by God. His "power" comes from his size, his sheer volume, or the impact of his repeated behavior. She still doesn't matter.
Why would a man, especially a Christian man, abuse the companion he has promised to cherish and protect? In all likelihood, he is addicted, perhaps not to drugs or alcohol, but just as dependent for a "high" as the substance abuser. He may be addicted to rage, convinced that he is a victim of his family or the legal system or the job market or even the Church. Because he is a victim and has been hurt, he has the desire and the "right" to hurt other people. Or he may be addicted to fear: someone, somewhere—maybe even his wife—will take advantage of him, abandon him, or reveal him as a fake so he will get to that dangerous person first, with a display of his authority. He may be addicted to the feeling of power he gets from his selfish control. Whatever the motivating factor, the continuing abuser will almost certainly not quit on his own. Yes, there are miracles; for example, God delivers some alcoholics instantly, and they never touch another drop. But many substance abusers have to get some help on a personal basis. And so, in almost every case, does the domestic abuser. "Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think." (Romans 12:2 NLT) Without this basic change, there is little hope for a change in the behavior at home.
Marjorie
Monday, March 1, 2010
Serving or Subservience
Sometimes we hear Christian jargon batted about so much that we lose our grasp of what is meant by the terms. Because words like servant and servanthood have been used so much, I've chosen to use different ones.
If one has a spirit of helpfulness, it is easy to slip from freedom in serving into the bondage of subservience. Right away we can get a clue from the sub- prefix. It means "under," "beneath," "lower," "further down" or "less important." That meaning is useful, of course, when we talk about a subway or submarine, subzero temperatures, a subbasement, or a subhead. But sub- connected to service means, not retained and remunerated fairly for aid one has given, but service that is required because the server is under the other. He/she is beneath the one being served, lower and less important.
My purpose in pointing out this difference is that Christians sometimes confuse the two. (As I have done myself.) Too frequently, it can be seen in churches where officials use their position to assume a superior stance over others. They "deserve" their privileges and even if they do not require obeisance, they quite readily accept inappropriate deference. Sadly, it is found in home relationships too. The husband—backed by Scriptural teaching, he supposes, concerning the submission of his wife to his decisions and wishes—domineers or even abuses his family. The wife may not realize there is any other way to interpret those same Scriptures, and hates the position in which they have placed her. In these churches and homes, those who "under" are not able to give freely in serving, but are enmeshed in subservience. While risking oversimplification, I see the two sharply contrasted in these ways.
Serving allows one to understand and minister to others while retaining his/her own identity and objectivity.
Subservience requires one to give up autonomy, even one's own Spirit-led intentions.
Serving has genuineness about it; it is consistent with the rest of the giver's life.
Subservience means the giver may have to hide feelings of frustration and anger.
Serving is about honestly assessing need, not always yielding to what is wanted or demanded.
Subservience is allowing oneself to be manipulated by another, even when their agenda might not be particularly self-serving.
Serving means one chooses to be in a caring or giving situation.
Subservience requires one to co-operate or suffer negative consequences.
So what are people to do if they are caught in subservience rather than serving? Some situations can be altered so that the sub- part no longer exists to create an imbalance of power. That's why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees. Some relationships have to enter a negotiation phase, where both giver and receiver act honestly and graciously. Remember Jesus washing Peter's feet? And some have to be ended. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas perhaps illustrate this when they went their separate ways, although thankfully, only temporarily. None of these are easy, especially if the inequality is firmly established. But serving is a Christian privilege, fully based on the Scripture; subservience is not.
Marjorie
If one has a spirit of helpfulness, it is easy to slip from freedom in serving into the bondage of subservience. Right away we can get a clue from the sub- prefix. It means "under," "beneath," "lower," "further down" or "less important." That meaning is useful, of course, when we talk about a subway or submarine, subzero temperatures, a subbasement, or a subhead. But sub- connected to service means, not retained and remunerated fairly for aid one has given, but service that is required because the server is under the other. He/she is beneath the one being served, lower and less important.
My purpose in pointing out this difference is that Christians sometimes confuse the two. (As I have done myself.) Too frequently, it can be seen in churches where officials use their position to assume a superior stance over others. They "deserve" their privileges and even if they do not require obeisance, they quite readily accept inappropriate deference. Sadly, it is found in home relationships too. The husband—backed by Scriptural teaching, he supposes, concerning the submission of his wife to his decisions and wishes—domineers or even abuses his family. The wife may not realize there is any other way to interpret those same Scriptures, and hates the position in which they have placed her. In these churches and homes, those who "under" are not able to give freely in serving, but are enmeshed in subservience. While risking oversimplification, I see the two sharply contrasted in these ways.
Serving allows one to understand and minister to others while retaining his/her own identity and objectivity.
Subservience requires one to give up autonomy, even one's own Spirit-led intentions.
Serving has genuineness about it; it is consistent with the rest of the giver's life.
Subservience means the giver may have to hide feelings of frustration and anger.
Serving is about honestly assessing need, not always yielding to what is wanted or demanded.
Subservience is allowing oneself to be manipulated by another, even when their agenda might not be particularly self-serving.
Serving means one chooses to be in a caring or giving situation.
Subservience requires one to co-operate or suffer negative consequences.
So what are people to do if they are caught in subservience rather than serving? Some situations can be altered so that the sub- part no longer exists to create an imbalance of power. That's why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees. Some relationships have to enter a negotiation phase, where both giver and receiver act honestly and graciously. Remember Jesus washing Peter's feet? And some have to be ended. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas perhaps illustrate this when they went their separate ways, although thankfully, only temporarily. None of these are easy, especially if the inequality is firmly established. But serving is a Christian privilege, fully based on the Scripture; subservience is not.
Marjorie
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
"It's Not My Problem"
Those words can be callous and hurtful if stated with disregard for the feelings of other people who find themselves in unhappy circumstances. It probably should not be said at all, but only kept in mind by those of us who tend to take on the task of seeing that everyone around us is happy! That is not our problem! Not our job! Not our calling!
Women sometimes assume this care-taking mindset because of their place as wives, mothers, and workers in many of the helping professions. In these situations, we may have special responsibility for the well-being of those around us, but not for their happiness. That is up to them. Happiness is a choice, even a decision. No one can make another happy, and unfortunately some people are satisfied only if they have something to be unhappy about! We do not have to let such people intimidate us by their expectations—even if they are children or genuinely needy individuals or sincere folks who want us to further their religious project. We do not have the time, talents, money, or physical and emotional energy to make them all happy. It's not our problem!
This is not to say that we should not give thoughtful consideration to requests or demands that come our way. We have probably already learned that it is all right to say "no." What we don't much like is the fallout of our decision if the asker does not accept our answer gracefully. The child may get all pouty. The individual who wanted our resources may be upset. The project leader may be visibly disappointed in us. But that is not our problem!
Well, actually the child may become our problem if we're the parent. "If you need to pout about this, you will have to go to your room to do it." Otherwise, people's responses are their responsibility. Being happy is their problem, not ours.
Marjorie
Women sometimes assume this care-taking mindset because of their place as wives, mothers, and workers in many of the helping professions. In these situations, we may have special responsibility for the well-being of those around us, but not for their happiness. That is up to them. Happiness is a choice, even a decision. No one can make another happy, and unfortunately some people are satisfied only if they have something to be unhappy about! We do not have to let such people intimidate us by their expectations—even if they are children or genuinely needy individuals or sincere folks who want us to further their religious project. We do not have the time, talents, money, or physical and emotional energy to make them all happy. It's not our problem!
This is not to say that we should not give thoughtful consideration to requests or demands that come our way. We have probably already learned that it is all right to say "no." What we don't much like is the fallout of our decision if the asker does not accept our answer gracefully. The child may get all pouty. The individual who wanted our resources may be upset. The project leader may be visibly disappointed in us. But that is not our problem!
Well, actually the child may become our problem if we're the parent. "If you need to pout about this, you will have to go to your room to do it." Otherwise, people's responses are their responsibility. Being happy is their problem, not ours.
Marjorie
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Uninvited Guests
It may come as a surprise to the just-married when they find that they are not alone in their new home. Those who are contemplating marriage (or re-marriage) would do well to recognize that it's likely someone is going to be sharing their living space, at least for awhile. These uninvited personalities make their presence felt at the most inappropriate times—during otherwise pleasant dinner-table conversation, while sharing ordinary household tasks, even in the tenderest intimacies of the bedroom.
Nor is it only in marriage that we find these interlopers. They hound us at work, they follow us into the grocery store, they may even attend church when we do. There is no place where we are safe from the uncomfortable or downright disturbing presence of these uninvited guests.
Well, who are these rude folks? They are not, as one might suppose, his children or hers from an earlier relationship nor an aging or ill parent who must have care. Those situations are certainly not easy, but one can cope with them by making some house rules, putting locks on doors, or creating some trade-offs. These intruders are not private investigators sent to your workplace, spies secretly checking out your marketing habits, or evil entities of some sort trying to distract you from worship. As a matter of fact, they are not even real people. They are but shadows of real people—perhaps the authority figures of your childhood, or your partner in a former marriage, somebody you knew long ago and couldn't trust, or even the fantasy, larger-than-life figure of yourself as the perfect mate or the ideal employee.
These intruders are difficult to deal with, being, as they are, so sly and elusive. It is not necessary for them to batter their way in for they come through closed doors anyway, floating unbidden into the situations of ordinary life. They do not ask permission to enter the present; they just arrive and wait to be accepted.
And therein is the key. It is our recognition—over and over again, if it takes that—that makes them slink away. When your husband gets surly because you've repeated your request to take care of some chore, he very possibly is not responding to you, but to his mother or his fifth grade teacher, or to some other person you don't even know and who he himself doesn't realize has come back. When the boss seems gruff, you may react as though you were being scolded by a parent or coach or some former authority with whom you had a run-in. And keep in mind, he or she may be acting out of some past scenario as well. It gets complicated!
There are usually enough difficult people in the world around us that we hardly need to accept the uninvited ones from the past! The better we are able to recognize these shadowy persons for who they are, the better we can make appropriate responses to the real people in our lives.
Marjorie
Nor is it only in marriage that we find these interlopers. They hound us at work, they follow us into the grocery store, they may even attend church when we do. There is no place where we are safe from the uncomfortable or downright disturbing presence of these uninvited guests.
Well, who are these rude folks? They are not, as one might suppose, his children or hers from an earlier relationship nor an aging or ill parent who must have care. Those situations are certainly not easy, but one can cope with them by making some house rules, putting locks on doors, or creating some trade-offs. These intruders are not private investigators sent to your workplace, spies secretly checking out your marketing habits, or evil entities of some sort trying to distract you from worship. As a matter of fact, they are not even real people. They are but shadows of real people—perhaps the authority figures of your childhood, or your partner in a former marriage, somebody you knew long ago and couldn't trust, or even the fantasy, larger-than-life figure of yourself as the perfect mate or the ideal employee.
These intruders are difficult to deal with, being, as they are, so sly and elusive. It is not necessary for them to batter their way in for they come through closed doors anyway, floating unbidden into the situations of ordinary life. They do not ask permission to enter the present; they just arrive and wait to be accepted.
And therein is the key. It is our recognition—over and over again, if it takes that—that makes them slink away. When your husband gets surly because you've repeated your request to take care of some chore, he very possibly is not responding to you, but to his mother or his fifth grade teacher, or to some other person you don't even know and who he himself doesn't realize has come back. When the boss seems gruff, you may react as though you were being scolded by a parent or coach or some former authority with whom you had a run-in. And keep in mind, he or she may be acting out of some past scenario as well. It gets complicated!
There are usually enough difficult people in the world around us that we hardly need to accept the uninvited ones from the past! The better we are able to recognize these shadowy persons for who they are, the better we can make appropriate responses to the real people in our lives.
Marjorie
Friday, January 8, 2010
Walking Behind
Just as happens with other social expectations, the role that women (wives, in particular) are required to assume tends to swing from one side to the other. Since very early times, women have been considered a creative source of life; they do bear children, after all. Historically, however, they have also been considered intellectually inferior to men and a major source of temptation to evil. In fact, Roman law declared women were but children and always subject to men.
We would like to think that Jesus changed all of that since He obviously respected women, extending courtesy and personal dignity to them. While it is true that the Bible (and the writings of other major religions too, for that matter) teach equality, men do not always see that balance as part of their spiritual obligation. Unfortunately early Christian theology perpetuated the discriminatory views. St. Jerome, a 4th century Latin church father, declared woman, among other derogatory descriptions, "a perilous object." Some centuries later, Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, recognized woman's role as a helpmeet and necessary for conception, but said that "for other purposes, man would be better assisted by other men."
The attitude toward women in the East was at first more favorable, but evolving religious restrictions eventually required obedience of women toward men. They could not own property, and widows could not remarry. Women had to walk behind their husbands. This is still true in some cultures today, although I want to make it clear that this is not law now, nor is it demanded by religious beliefs. It is the custom carried over, not easily relinquished, from earlier times.
You would not expect to find this true in places where it has never been required, but here it is. Although far from the terrible abuse some wives suffer from their "devoutly Christian" husbands, one little measure of disrespect never fails to make me uncomfortable when I observe it, which is fairly often: Women walking several feet behind the men accompanying them.
Granted, perhaps he is taller and has a hard time fitting his pace to the smaller steps she takes. Even if her height is similar, though, that does not mean her legs are as long as his. (A torso of average length can be equipped with short limbs. I happen to know this!) But where is his common courtesy? Wife, friend, or co-worker—must she always be in an uncomfortable hurry to keep up?
Furthermore, I wonder if this may speak of how important the fellow assumes he is. Impatient to be about the "real business," he ignores some critical interpersonal business. Fifteen seconds in his time of arrival will make that much difference? If he comes in first, does that make him the main feature? Must she always have to appear to be slow or lagging behind?
Or in the case of the conservative church-going couple, does he outpace her to demonstrate to observers that he is the leader in his household? (This would be appropriate if they were confronting danger like lions or landmines, but is unnecessary in ordinary circumstances, I think.) Does it indicate that a domestic spat has occurred? Or that one is brewing? To be fair, I've seen angry women stalking off too, leaving a puzzled man in their wake.
Mostly, we may just be unaware of how much this one telling little action can tell. Think about it!
Marjorie
We would like to think that Jesus changed all of that since He obviously respected women, extending courtesy and personal dignity to them. While it is true that the Bible (and the writings of other major religions too, for that matter) teach equality, men do not always see that balance as part of their spiritual obligation. Unfortunately early Christian theology perpetuated the discriminatory views. St. Jerome, a 4th century Latin church father, declared woman, among other derogatory descriptions, "a perilous object." Some centuries later, Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, recognized woman's role as a helpmeet and necessary for conception, but said that "for other purposes, man would be better assisted by other men."
The attitude toward women in the East was at first more favorable, but evolving religious restrictions eventually required obedience of women toward men. They could not own property, and widows could not remarry. Women had to walk behind their husbands. This is still true in some cultures today, although I want to make it clear that this is not law now, nor is it demanded by religious beliefs. It is the custom carried over, not easily relinquished, from earlier times.
You would not expect to find this true in places where it has never been required, but here it is. Although far from the terrible abuse some wives suffer from their "devoutly Christian" husbands, one little measure of disrespect never fails to make me uncomfortable when I observe it, which is fairly often: Women walking several feet behind the men accompanying them.
Granted, perhaps he is taller and has a hard time fitting his pace to the smaller steps she takes. Even if her height is similar, though, that does not mean her legs are as long as his. (A torso of average length can be equipped with short limbs. I happen to know this!) But where is his common courtesy? Wife, friend, or co-worker—must she always be in an uncomfortable hurry to keep up?
Furthermore, I wonder if this may speak of how important the fellow assumes he is. Impatient to be about the "real business," he ignores some critical interpersonal business. Fifteen seconds in his time of arrival will make that much difference? If he comes in first, does that make him the main feature? Must she always have to appear to be slow or lagging behind?
Or in the case of the conservative church-going couple, does he outpace her to demonstrate to observers that he is the leader in his household? (This would be appropriate if they were confronting danger like lions or landmines, but is unnecessary in ordinary circumstances, I think.) Does it indicate that a domestic spat has occurred? Or that one is brewing? To be fair, I've seen angry women stalking off too, leaving a puzzled man in their wake.
Mostly, we may just be unaware of how much this one telling little action can tell. Think about it!
Marjorie
Monday, January 4, 2010
Acting As If
The Rev. Samuel M. Shoemaker gets credit for originating the "Act As If" practice that is popular in Alcoholics Anonymous and other Twelve Step programs. The principles of those steps grew out of the Oxford Group based at Calvary Episcopal Church in New York City where Shoemaker was Rector of the Church and spiritual leader of the Oxford Group. It is he who provided the early inspiration for the spiritual aspects of twelve-step programs, and began using the phrase, "act as if" about 1954. Some naysayers insist that "acting as if" is deceiving oneself, putting on a front for others, or even lying!
I think, however, it comes down to the matter of motive. If we are trying to convince ourselves that we are a superior being, yes, that is deception. If we intend to trick others into believing that we are something that we are not, yes, that is lying. However, affirming what we believe and hope for and beginning to act on it strengthens our belief and hope.
Acting as if does not mean writing checks as if I have money in the bank when I do not.
Acting as if does not mean feigning calm as if I cannot feel hurt or disappointment or anger. Acting as if does not mean working day and night as if I need no rest or self-care.
Acting as if is facing reality and responding appropriately.
Acting as if is intentional in cultivating healthy relationships.
Acting as if is assertive (neither passive nor aggressive) personal behavior.
Acting as if means beginning now to take the action or speak the words I would if I were already the person I want to become!
How would you act if you were not shy, or ashamed, or afraid? Act as if you are not.
How would a self-confident, interesting person act? How would a person act who respected others and herself/himself? Start acting that way.
How would a woman act who believed God valued her and had Divine purpose for her life? Act like her.
Acting as if is decisive. Acting as if involves action based on more than feeling. Acting as if purposes to align us with what is true.
Marjorie
I think, however, it comes down to the matter of motive. If we are trying to convince ourselves that we are a superior being, yes, that is deception. If we intend to trick others into believing that we are something that we are not, yes, that is lying. However, affirming what we believe and hope for and beginning to act on it strengthens our belief and hope.
Acting as if does not mean writing checks as if I have money in the bank when I do not.
Acting as if does not mean feigning calm as if I cannot feel hurt or disappointment or anger. Acting as if does not mean working day and night as if I need no rest or self-care.
Acting as if is facing reality and responding appropriately.
Acting as if is intentional in cultivating healthy relationships.
Acting as if is assertive (neither passive nor aggressive) personal behavior.
Acting as if means beginning now to take the action or speak the words I would if I were already the person I want to become!
How would you act if you were not shy, or ashamed, or afraid? Act as if you are not.
How would a self-confident, interesting person act? How would a person act who respected others and herself/himself? Start acting that way.
How would a woman act who believed God valued her and had Divine purpose for her life? Act like her.
Acting as if is decisive. Acting as if involves action based on more than feeling. Acting as if purposes to align us with what is true.
Marjorie
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Children Seen and Not Heard
In a department store one day, I heard a man bark to the corps of small children around him, "Children—" It was said with such authority that if there had been other children within twenty feet, they would have run to him obediently too. The youngsters were without question quiet and well-behaved. Why did I feel a vague sense of discomfort? It was something in the tone of his voice, and the palpable apprehension of his children.
I felt something else too. Where had I heard that commanding tone before? Oh yes, Captain von Trapp in the "Sound of Music" who ordered his children about in military fashion with little love and no grace at all. I didn't know the man in the store—nor did I want to.
Another father—this one I knew—snapped his fingers and beckoned sternly for his children to fall in at his side. He was proud of their disciplined obedience. And I would have been too. Of my dog.
A couple of generations ago, when my parents were children, they were sort of non-persons. "Children should be seen and not heard," was the prevailing attitude, coming probably out of the fifteenth century in England and applying specifically to young women! Many children of my generation, especially in conservative communities, experienced the same restriction in our homes. I wonder why? We were loved, I am sure, but somehow positive interaction, especially in public, was not the norm. Certainly, children must learn appropriate social behavior, but that is not acquired in a vacuum; real-life practice is the better way and it needs to begin early. Just because we see some children and young people who are badly behaved, we should not expect to limit communication and deny the privilege of choice to all!
Fortunately by the time I was rearing a family, many of us had learned there are approaches other than "Children should not be heard." My very young daughter and I were eating in a restaurant once, seated where we could see another family nearby. She said to me in surprise, "Look Mama, they're not talking!" This was strange to her, because while we ate, we always chatted about the things that had happened during the day, or the plans we were making. Sometimes school lunch rooms do have an "Eat silently" rule because there are just so many children, but when a family meal includes no conversation, she thought there must be something wrong! (And indeed, there may have been.) I now see the benefit in her own children who are at ease when carrying on conversation with an adult, but without being excessively noisy and intrusive or whiny and argumentative.
Will children who are allowed to express themselves misbehave sometimes? Of course. Will they embarrass us sometimes? Oh my, yes! But consider the alternative. I have to wonder about those children who are silenced all the while they are growing up. As adults, especially young women, will they know that they have worthwhile opinions? Will they trust their own judgment? Will they be able to express themselves clearly and courteously? Will they understand that manipulating and controlling other people is unfair? Will they respect one another? After all, children learn what they live. And then, later, they live what they have learned.
Marjorie
I felt something else too. Where had I heard that commanding tone before? Oh yes, Captain von Trapp in the "Sound of Music" who ordered his children about in military fashion with little love and no grace at all. I didn't know the man in the store—nor did I want to.
Another father—this one I knew—snapped his fingers and beckoned sternly for his children to fall in at his side. He was proud of their disciplined obedience. And I would have been too. Of my dog.
A couple of generations ago, when my parents were children, they were sort of non-persons. "Children should be seen and not heard," was the prevailing attitude, coming probably out of the fifteenth century in England and applying specifically to young women! Many children of my generation, especially in conservative communities, experienced the same restriction in our homes. I wonder why? We were loved, I am sure, but somehow positive interaction, especially in public, was not the norm. Certainly, children must learn appropriate social behavior, but that is not acquired in a vacuum; real-life practice is the better way and it needs to begin early. Just because we see some children and young people who are badly behaved, we should not expect to limit communication and deny the privilege of choice to all!
Fortunately by the time I was rearing a family, many of us had learned there are approaches other than "Children should not be heard." My very young daughter and I were eating in a restaurant once, seated where we could see another family nearby. She said to me in surprise, "Look Mama, they're not talking!" This was strange to her, because while we ate, we always chatted about the things that had happened during the day, or the plans we were making. Sometimes school lunch rooms do have an "Eat silently" rule because there are just so many children, but when a family meal includes no conversation, she thought there must be something wrong! (And indeed, there may have been.) I now see the benefit in her own children who are at ease when carrying on conversation with an adult, but without being excessively noisy and intrusive or whiny and argumentative.
Will children who are allowed to express themselves misbehave sometimes? Of course. Will they embarrass us sometimes? Oh my, yes! But consider the alternative. I have to wonder about those children who are silenced all the while they are growing up. As adults, especially young women, will they know that they have worthwhile opinions? Will they trust their own judgment? Will they be able to express themselves clearly and courteously? Will they understand that manipulating and controlling other people is unfair? Will they respect one another? After all, children learn what they live. And then, later, they live what they have learned.
Marjorie
Monday, November 23, 2009
A Helper
If it were not for the King James Bible, we probably wouldn't even have the word some people have chosen to use as the description of woman's place in the world. "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.' " (Genesis 2:18) And I wouldn't have just read a book called "Created to Be His Help Meet." The author, Debi Pearl, and her husband have founded a ministry on their interpretation of Scriptures having to do with family and home. I read a great many different types of books: for education, enlightenment, edification, and entertainment. It necessarily follows that I'll run across those with which I cannot agree. This book is just such a book.
First of all, "help meet" is not a term God used for the woman He planned to make, and it is something of a mistake to call her that. This is more than mere semantics. "Meet," usually a verb, takes the form here of a modifier to describe the kind of help: one that was suitable for him, comparable to him, an appropriate counterpart. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my reference books indicate that the word used implies similitude. She would be like him. Adam had just finished naming all the animals—quite a task!—and he surely must have noted that all the living creatures had company with others that were similar, if not completely alike, in nature and habits. He alone was without a companion. He apparently was ready for verbal communication, calling out the name of each kind of animal, but they did not answer. We can assume that none had the power of speech except the Satan-serpent who was superior to all the rest. Eve was made "for" Adam for the same reason Adam was formed by God for Himself—for relationship. Although made from Adam's side, she too was in God's image.
The author says women are not partners with their husbands but were created to serve and satisfy him, and "God's ultimate goal for you is to meet your man's needs." In her role as a Titus 2 woman (the older women teaching the younger to love their husbands, be keepers at home, etc.), she lays out for women everywhere her description of a help meet, accompanied by Scriptures which, if followed, will assure a "glorious marriage." Apparently, when some women read this book, a fire is lighted in their hearts and they say, "Oh yes, I see! This is my calling!" If that is how one understands Scripture and the whole of God's plan—not just Genesis—then that is what she should live out. Serving a man does perhaps suit the gifts and temperaments of some women—and the men married to them.
But I submit that when others read, a different kind of fire is lighted in them and they say, "This is not us." (Note: not just me, but us.) Both readers are right. If both follow the path God has laid out for them, they do not need to make a pronouncement that encompasses every woman everywhere in every era. As I see it, the whole submission/silence/obedience issue is laid out along a continuum. It extends all the way from the non-person who is subsumed by her husband and the woman who lets herself be abused because she has no rights in her own personhood to the couple who see themselves as equals more alike than different, as true partners and companions. It is not up to me to decide where somebody else should be on that line of many points, and certainly not to declare that The Plan of God for Marriage looks the same for everybody.
The Proverbs 31 woman, long held as the ideal, probably nowadays is not seeking wool and flax for spinning; she does not dress in fine linen and purple, nor make garments and sashes to sell. Not having any maidservants, it is not necessary for her to make provision for them. She is not likely to be into real estate, buying and selling fields and vineyards. Those who hold this Scripture up as the standard will explain that we are not to take this old description literally, but are to use the principles therein. My point exactly. The wife may be a teacher or a waitress or a bank president, with a husband who is proud of her achievements and influence. He is not necessarily active in city government either; in fact, he may be the at-home parent with a grateful, wage-earning wife. I know a number of women who have/had a ministry calling even before marriage, and the husband-to-be pledged a supporting role, financially and spiritually. This is not being weak or effeminate. He is protecting and providing for more than just the woman he is asking to marry him; he is charged with some of the responsibility for her effectiveness in ministry as well
The Apostle Paul admonished wives' obedience so that the Gospel would not be shamed, but that was then. Those who try to lay the template of masterful husband/obedient wife on today's society are more apt to bring discredit to the Gospel, I think, than the couple who genuinely care for each other's welfare and don't pay a whole lot of attention to who is being "served" at any given time. (I actually know people like that!) It is no small thing to be a help or "helper," whether it happens to be the husband or wife. The Holy Spirit is a Helper, yet nowhere is He pictured as a servant to us or beneath us in any way simply because He is our helper. It is just as mistaken to consider the helping woman an inferior being who was created solely to serve a husband—or by extension, men in general.
Marjorie
First of all, "help meet" is not a term God used for the woman He planned to make, and it is something of a mistake to call her that. This is more than mere semantics. "Meet," usually a verb, takes the form here of a modifier to describe the kind of help: one that was suitable for him, comparable to him, an appropriate counterpart. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my reference books indicate that the word used implies similitude. She would be like him. Adam had just finished naming all the animals—quite a task!—and he surely must have noted that all the living creatures had company with others that were similar, if not completely alike, in nature and habits. He alone was without a companion. He apparently was ready for verbal communication, calling out the name of each kind of animal, but they did not answer. We can assume that none had the power of speech except the Satan-serpent who was superior to all the rest. Eve was made "for" Adam for the same reason Adam was formed by God for Himself—for relationship. Although made from Adam's side, she too was in God's image.
The author says women are not partners with their husbands but were created to serve and satisfy him, and "God's ultimate goal for you is to meet your man's needs." In her role as a Titus 2 woman (the older women teaching the younger to love their husbands, be keepers at home, etc.), she lays out for women everywhere her description of a help meet, accompanied by Scriptures which, if followed, will assure a "glorious marriage." Apparently, when some women read this book, a fire is lighted in their hearts and they say, "Oh yes, I see! This is my calling!" If that is how one understands Scripture and the whole of God's plan—not just Genesis—then that is what she should live out. Serving a man does perhaps suit the gifts and temperaments of some women—and the men married to them.
But I submit that when others read, a different kind of fire is lighted in them and they say, "This is not us." (Note: not just me, but us.) Both readers are right. If both follow the path God has laid out for them, they do not need to make a pronouncement that encompasses every woman everywhere in every era. As I see it, the whole submission/silence/obedience issue is laid out along a continuum. It extends all the way from the non-person who is subsumed by her husband and the woman who lets herself be abused because she has no rights in her own personhood to the couple who see themselves as equals more alike than different, as true partners and companions. It is not up to me to decide where somebody else should be on that line of many points, and certainly not to declare that The Plan of God for Marriage looks the same for everybody.
The Proverbs 31 woman, long held as the ideal, probably nowadays is not seeking wool and flax for spinning; she does not dress in fine linen and purple, nor make garments and sashes to sell. Not having any maidservants, it is not necessary for her to make provision for them. She is not likely to be into real estate, buying and selling fields and vineyards. Those who hold this Scripture up as the standard will explain that we are not to take this old description literally, but are to use the principles therein. My point exactly. The wife may be a teacher or a waitress or a bank president, with a husband who is proud of her achievements and influence. He is not necessarily active in city government either; in fact, he may be the at-home parent with a grateful, wage-earning wife. I know a number of women who have/had a ministry calling even before marriage, and the husband-to-be pledged a supporting role, financially and spiritually. This is not being weak or effeminate. He is protecting and providing for more than just the woman he is asking to marry him; he is charged with some of the responsibility for her effectiveness in ministry as well
The Apostle Paul admonished wives' obedience so that the Gospel would not be shamed, but that was then. Those who try to lay the template of masterful husband/obedient wife on today's society are more apt to bring discredit to the Gospel, I think, than the couple who genuinely care for each other's welfare and don't pay a whole lot of attention to who is being "served" at any given time. (I actually know people like that!) It is no small thing to be a help or "helper," whether it happens to be the husband or wife. The Holy Spirit is a Helper, yet nowhere is He pictured as a servant to us or beneath us in any way simply because He is our helper. It is just as mistaken to consider the helping woman an inferior being who was created solely to serve a husband—or by extension, men in general.
Marjorie
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Red Flags
A few nights ago, I drove through a part of the city where street repair is underway, carefully threading my way around barriers, warning signs, and caution lights. At one particularly dark section, I saw a driver who had missed a turn; his pickup truck and large trailer were off the road, stalled in an excavated area. The driver seemed to be all right, but I imagined that some time and expense were going to be involved in getting him safely back on his way: a visit from the police, a tow truck, maybe a visit to the ER to be sure he really was okay, some vehicle repair, and perhaps a call from the construction company.
We've all done it—failed to heed some warning sign of danger ahead in our life journey. Maybe we didn't see the sign, or seeing it, we did not understand what it meant. Maybe we didn't want to understand; we didn't want to be suspicious or overly cautious. Maybe we were just naïve. Whatever the reason, failing to heed the warning sign landed us in the ditch, so to speak. And then we lament, "If I had just gone with my first impression . . . "
One of the advantages we gain as we mature is the ability to pick up on warning signs. We recognize suspicious activity. We get an idea of how to tell when someone is misrepresenting their product or themselves. We accept that "when something is too good to be true, it usually is." We learn what the warning signs look like.
Unfortunately, not all people and events come with visible or audible warning signs. We have to rely on another kind of perception. We admit, "I just have a feeling . . ." This intuitiveness is not in the province of women alone. Maybe we ordinarily pay more attention to it because we're expected to. Or maybe not. Probably everyone has it to a greater or lesser degree, unconsciously relying on patterns we have experienced or observed but which we may not be aware of having classified and stored in our brain catalog. Learn to trust this instinct. We can be mistaken, of course, but more often than not, we'll be grateful we followed it.
God is a part of this perception too. Scripture relates the experiences of people who acted contrary to a reasoned-out manner because of a God-given dream or vision (Abraham, Jesus' adoptive father Joseph, the wise men, Pilate's wife, and many others), a inner knowing (the Apostle Paul, the Philadelphian church), or a sense that not everything was as it seemed (Jesus, Paul). Learn to trust this "discernment."
Following these red flags is not fool-proof. People make mistakes, sometimes very serious ones as in racial profiling—or gender profiling, or age profiling, or religious profiling, and the like. But on the smaller scale of our own personal lives and our day-to-day encounters, we will probably do well to go with our "gut feeling." It just may be a Gott-feeling (German for God).
Marjorie
We've all done it—failed to heed some warning sign of danger ahead in our life journey. Maybe we didn't see the sign, or seeing it, we did not understand what it meant. Maybe we didn't want to understand; we didn't want to be suspicious or overly cautious. Maybe we were just naïve. Whatever the reason, failing to heed the warning sign landed us in the ditch, so to speak. And then we lament, "If I had just gone with my first impression . . . "
One of the advantages we gain as we mature is the ability to pick up on warning signs. We recognize suspicious activity. We get an idea of how to tell when someone is misrepresenting their product or themselves. We accept that "when something is too good to be true, it usually is." We learn what the warning signs look like.
Unfortunately, not all people and events come with visible or audible warning signs. We have to rely on another kind of perception. We admit, "I just have a feeling . . ." This intuitiveness is not in the province of women alone. Maybe we ordinarily pay more attention to it because we're expected to. Or maybe not. Probably everyone has it to a greater or lesser degree, unconsciously relying on patterns we have experienced or observed but which we may not be aware of having classified and stored in our brain catalog. Learn to trust this instinct. We can be mistaken, of course, but more often than not, we'll be grateful we followed it.
God is a part of this perception too. Scripture relates the experiences of people who acted contrary to a reasoned-out manner because of a God-given dream or vision (Abraham, Jesus' adoptive father Joseph, the wise men, Pilate's wife, and many others), a inner knowing (the Apostle Paul, the Philadelphian church), or a sense that not everything was as it seemed (Jesus, Paul). Learn to trust this "discernment."
Following these red flags is not fool-proof. People make mistakes, sometimes very serious ones as in racial profiling—or gender profiling, or age profiling, or religious profiling, and the like. But on the smaller scale of our own personal lives and our day-to-day encounters, we will probably do well to go with our "gut feeling." It just may be a Gott-feeling (German for God).
Marjorie
Saturday, October 31, 2009
After You Say "I Can't"
Every once in awhile, I remind the class of adults that I teach on Sunday morning, that our time together is like a cafeteria. They can help themselves to whatever is good for them and leave the rest, but not to spit on something they don't like, because someone else will want it! I feel that way today as I write this post. Some readers will find it not applicable or perhaps even objectionable, but it is part of my job to "serve" it!
There are plenty of books, videos, and studies on after you say "I do," that is, take marriage vows. Some of these are from a specifically Christian viewpoint; others are written by secular counselors and others who just want to see marriages work.
What to Do After You Say I Do by Yvette Gavin
What to Do After You Say "I Do" by Marcus and Lori Goldman
Before and After You Say "I Do" by Perimeter Church and Randy Pope
After You Say I Do by Wes Roberts
Before (and After) We Say "I Do" by Nomi Whalen
After You Say "I Do" by H. Norman Wright
No one, as far as I can tell, has written a book on "After You Say I Can't." Yet there are many women—committed Christian women too—who are caught in situations that are not merely unhappy but also jeopardous to their wellbeing. They may have to say "I can't"—not because they are tired or disappointed or angry but because they should not continue as they are. Last winter, our church had several weeks of special concentration on prayer for congregational needs. Well over two hundred specific but anonymous requests were "nailed" to a huge wooden cross in front of the altar. Just short of ten percent of these were for troubled or broken marriages or for someone in or recovering from an abusive relationship.
I am not sure this is only a recent phenomenon. All through the years of my early Christian formation, I attended prayer meetings where people gave "unspoken requests." I thought at the time that a woman just didn't want to let everyone know that she had a painful ovarian cyst or that her hair was falling out. Now I understand that she may have been saying, "My husband is drinking too much" or "He slaps me sometimes."
I cannot agree with the idea of a covenant (a marriage) that must be kept regardless of what the other party does. Even God made conditions when He established a covenant relationship with His ancient followers. "If you listen to these regulations [the law given through Moses] and faithfully obey them, the Lord your God will keep his covenant of unfailing love with you, as he promised with an oath to your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 7:12 NLT) God said "If . . ." and some of the people eliminated themselves from the covenant. God does not look lightly on those who bash His plans. "And if I announce that I will plant and build up a certain nation or kingdom, but then that nation turns to evil and refuses to obey me, I will not bless it as I said I would." (Jeremiah 18:10, 11 NLT)
The new covenant in Christ has the same implications of faithful commitment. "But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan—the old covenant—had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said, Heads up! The days are coming when I'll set up a new plan for dealing with Israel and Judah. I'll throw out the old plan I set up with their ancestors when I led them by the hand out of Egypt. They didn't keep their part of the bargain, so I looked away and let it go. This new plan I'm making with Israel isn't going to be written on paper, isn't going to be chiseled in stone; this time I'm writing out the plan in them, carving it on the lining of their hearts. I'll be their God, they'll be my people . . . They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven, with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean. By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." (Hebrews 8:6-13 MSG) And still, people every day are eliminating themselves from New Covenant blessings by simply choosing not to participate in it. Covenants have conditions.
What about the "sacred vows" we make? When weddings began, back in early Jewish history, they did not contain vows as we think of them today. The wedding contract was read or recited and that constituted the couple's promises to one another. Even before that, men just "took" wives; when they claimed young virgins, the fact was established. The vows with "love, cherish, and obey" (for the bride only!) date back to the 1500s, beginning with the Book of Common Prayer used by the Anglican Church. After nearly four hundred years, the Episcopal Church removed the word "obey" from the bride's part of the vows. "Obey" was often misunderstood anyway; it has no connection with one partner being subservient to the other. Coming from the Latin root word "audire," it means to listen and hear, and is related to our word "audience." The vows as we know them are simply tradition; there is no legal or Biblical requirement that they actually be exchanged in a wedding ceremony. We imply a mutual bond of trust—and wouldn't that include listening deeply?
So let's consider the ideal that many people hold: marriage is a covenant that cannot be broken. Certainly that is the ideal, but realistically we recognize that not everyone attains it. The divorce rate in the general population continues to hover around fifty percent; the rate in the Church is about the same. Many churches define narrowly the acceptable (and Scriptural, they say) reasons for divorce: sexual sin outside the marriage, and the desertion of a believing spouse by an unbelieving partner. Some would also include abandonment (literal or in spirit) by a partner living in such a state of unrepentant sin as cause him/her to be viewed as an unbeliever in the eyes of the Lord and the Church.
But "God hates divorce!" is the argument from the Scripture itself. Indeed He does, but we have usually failed to read the rest of the passage. "So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.'I hate divorce,' says the LORD God of Israel, 'and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,' says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith." (Malachi 2:15, 16 NIV)
Divorce is, of course, not the only option. "Genny's Story," which I shared earlier, addresses the issue. You can read that [here]. Don't say "I can't" too soon if your partner has indeed broken faith. You may very well want to know at some later point, if/when self-doubt arises, that you did everything you could. Feelings change, but what you have done does not. You'll be able to assure yourself, regardless of how you feel at that later time, that you did the best you could in this crisis of decision. Don't say "I can't" too soon, but when it must be said, say it.
Marjorie
Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved. Scripture marked MSG is taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group. Scripture quotation marked NIV is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
There are plenty of books, videos, and studies on after you say "I do," that is, take marriage vows. Some of these are from a specifically Christian viewpoint; others are written by secular counselors and others who just want to see marriages work.
What to Do After You Say I Do by Yvette Gavin
What to Do After You Say "I Do" by Marcus and Lori Goldman
Before and After You Say "I Do" by Perimeter Church and Randy Pope
After You Say I Do by Wes Roberts
Before (and After) We Say "I Do" by Nomi Whalen
After You Say "I Do" by H. Norman Wright
No one, as far as I can tell, has written a book on "After You Say I Can't." Yet there are many women—committed Christian women too—who are caught in situations that are not merely unhappy but also jeopardous to their wellbeing. They may have to say "I can't"—not because they are tired or disappointed or angry but because they should not continue as they are. Last winter, our church had several weeks of special concentration on prayer for congregational needs. Well over two hundred specific but anonymous requests were "nailed" to a huge wooden cross in front of the altar. Just short of ten percent of these were for troubled or broken marriages or for someone in or recovering from an abusive relationship.
I am not sure this is only a recent phenomenon. All through the years of my early Christian formation, I attended prayer meetings where people gave "unspoken requests." I thought at the time that a woman just didn't want to let everyone know that she had a painful ovarian cyst or that her hair was falling out. Now I understand that she may have been saying, "My husband is drinking too much" or "He slaps me sometimes."
I cannot agree with the idea of a covenant (a marriage) that must be kept regardless of what the other party does. Even God made conditions when He established a covenant relationship with His ancient followers. "If you listen to these regulations [the law given through Moses] and faithfully obey them, the Lord your God will keep his covenant of unfailing love with you, as he promised with an oath to your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 7:12 NLT) God said "If . . ." and some of the people eliminated themselves from the covenant. God does not look lightly on those who bash His plans. "And if I announce that I will plant and build up a certain nation or kingdom, but then that nation turns to evil and refuses to obey me, I will not bless it as I said I would." (Jeremiah 18:10, 11 NLT)
The new covenant in Christ has the same implications of faithful commitment. "But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan—the old covenant—had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said, Heads up! The days are coming when I'll set up a new plan for dealing with Israel and Judah. I'll throw out the old plan I set up with their ancestors when I led them by the hand out of Egypt. They didn't keep their part of the bargain, so I looked away and let it go. This new plan I'm making with Israel isn't going to be written on paper, isn't going to be chiseled in stone; this time I'm writing out the plan in them, carving it on the lining of their hearts. I'll be their God, they'll be my people . . . They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven, with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean. By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." (Hebrews 8:6-13 MSG) And still, people every day are eliminating themselves from New Covenant blessings by simply choosing not to participate in it. Covenants have conditions.
What about the "sacred vows" we make? When weddings began, back in early Jewish history, they did not contain vows as we think of them today. The wedding contract was read or recited and that constituted the couple's promises to one another. Even before that, men just "took" wives; when they claimed young virgins, the fact was established. The vows with "love, cherish, and obey" (for the bride only!) date back to the 1500s, beginning with the Book of Common Prayer used by the Anglican Church. After nearly four hundred years, the Episcopal Church removed the word "obey" from the bride's part of the vows. "Obey" was often misunderstood anyway; it has no connection with one partner being subservient to the other. Coming from the Latin root word "audire," it means to listen and hear, and is related to our word "audience." The vows as we know them are simply tradition; there is no legal or Biblical requirement that they actually be exchanged in a wedding ceremony. We imply a mutual bond of trust—and wouldn't that include listening deeply?
So let's consider the ideal that many people hold: marriage is a covenant that cannot be broken. Certainly that is the ideal, but realistically we recognize that not everyone attains it. The divorce rate in the general population continues to hover around fifty percent; the rate in the Church is about the same. Many churches define narrowly the acceptable (and Scriptural, they say) reasons for divorce: sexual sin outside the marriage, and the desertion of a believing spouse by an unbelieving partner. Some would also include abandonment (literal or in spirit) by a partner living in such a state of unrepentant sin as cause him/her to be viewed as an unbeliever in the eyes of the Lord and the Church.
But "God hates divorce!" is the argument from the Scripture itself. Indeed He does, but we have usually failed to read the rest of the passage. "So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.'I hate divorce,' says the LORD God of Israel, 'and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,' says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith." (Malachi 2:15, 16 NIV)
Divorce is, of course, not the only option. "Genny's Story," which I shared earlier, addresses the issue. You can read that [here]. Don't say "I can't" too soon if your partner has indeed broken faith. You may very well want to know at some later point, if/when self-doubt arises, that you did everything you could. Feelings change, but what you have done does not. You'll be able to assure yourself, regardless of how you feel at that later time, that you did the best you could in this crisis of decision. Don't say "I can't" too soon, but when it must be said, say it.
Marjorie
Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved. Scripture marked MSG is taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group. Scripture quotation marked NIV is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Making People Happy
For a lot of years, I assumed I had the responsibility for making the people around me happy. Now I still think I'm obliged to seek their good, but I no longer believe that other folks' happiness rests on my shoulders.
Happiness is a very personal thing, and it comes from within more than from the outside. Some people are just always going to be unhappy, and nothing that you or I do is going to change that. They are expecting their circumstances and the people around them to furnish them with the good feelings they like to have. There are, of course, many external things that are pleasant and enjoyable, but those who are truly happy have discovered a better and more lasting source. Abraham Lincoln said, "Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be," and long before Lincoln's time, Aristotle (384-322 BC) declared "Happiness depends upon ourselves."
It is easy for women, especially those who are naturally inclined toward compassion and nurturing, to fall into a "care-taking" role for everybody. There will always be needy people around them who seem to have a special instinct for homing in on someone who will think for them, decide for them, and fill their emotional needs. The line of action for these dependent friends is making us feel that no one else can do for them what we can, that we are their greatest source of kindness, that we are the only person they know who's acting like a Christian, that they have no one else on whom they can count.
We may respond easily to this approach, because we do want to be kind, loving, and generous. We do want to be thoroughly Christian in our attitudes and actions. It makes us feel good if this needy one singles us out as this kind of champion. However, our motives have then become clouded with self-interest, and we cannot see as clearly as we might. Do you suppose there is some reason they have no other friends? In all likelihood, they have worn them out. If we allow it and unknowingly encourage it, they will do the very same to us.
How can we refuse when a friend, relative or even our own adult child asks pathetically, "But why won't you do this for me? . . . stay here with me? . . . drive me there? . . . let me borrow? . . . "We can say "You know, I just can't give you any more help with that than I have already given you. Why don't you call a . . . lawyer, counselor, banker, service-provider?" Even with youngsters who whine, "But why not?" we are not accountable for providing endless entertainment, infinite amounts of money, and privileges that are continually unaccompanied by any personal responsibility on their part. We may say, "I believe it wouldn't be good for you if I did that for you. Maybe you can try . . . "
Although we may think we will just go ahead and make the personal sacrifices regardless, what is likely to happen is that we will become weary of being used. We will begin to resent the demands and then feeling guilty about that, we mercilessly punish ourselves for our lack of charity. We may be angry at the person for the problem they have become to us, or we may be angry at ourselves for allowing them to continue. What we should have handled in firm but loving action has been turned in on ourselves. Read "Acting In" (here)
Re-think your relationships if everyone has chosen you, and your friends are not ones you have chosen—or would choose, if you had it to do over. Although we want to encourage rich and rewarding relationships, no one's happiness depends on you.
Marjorie
Happiness is a very personal thing, and it comes from within more than from the outside. Some people are just always going to be unhappy, and nothing that you or I do is going to change that. They are expecting their circumstances and the people around them to furnish them with the good feelings they like to have. There are, of course, many external things that are pleasant and enjoyable, but those who are truly happy have discovered a better and more lasting source. Abraham Lincoln said, "Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be," and long before Lincoln's time, Aristotle (384-322 BC) declared "Happiness depends upon ourselves."
It is easy for women, especially those who are naturally inclined toward compassion and nurturing, to fall into a "care-taking" role for everybody. There will always be needy people around them who seem to have a special instinct for homing in on someone who will think for them, decide for them, and fill their emotional needs. The line of action for these dependent friends is making us feel that no one else can do for them what we can, that we are their greatest source of kindness, that we are the only person they know who's acting like a Christian, that they have no one else on whom they can count.
We may respond easily to this approach, because we do want to be kind, loving, and generous. We do want to be thoroughly Christian in our attitudes and actions. It makes us feel good if this needy one singles us out as this kind of champion. However, our motives have then become clouded with self-interest, and we cannot see as clearly as we might. Do you suppose there is some reason they have no other friends? In all likelihood, they have worn them out. If we allow it and unknowingly encourage it, they will do the very same to us.
How can we refuse when a friend, relative or even our own adult child asks pathetically, "But why won't you do this for me? . . . stay here with me? . . . drive me there? . . . let me borrow? . . . "We can say "You know, I just can't give you any more help with that than I have already given you. Why don't you call a . . . lawyer, counselor, banker, service-provider?" Even with youngsters who whine, "But why not?" we are not accountable for providing endless entertainment, infinite amounts of money, and privileges that are continually unaccompanied by any personal responsibility on their part. We may say, "I believe it wouldn't be good for you if I did that for you. Maybe you can try . . . "
Although we may think we will just go ahead and make the personal sacrifices regardless, what is likely to happen is that we will become weary of being used. We will begin to resent the demands and then feeling guilty about that, we mercilessly punish ourselves for our lack of charity. We may be angry at the person for the problem they have become to us, or we may be angry at ourselves for allowing them to continue. What we should have handled in firm but loving action has been turned in on ourselves. Read "Acting In" (here)
Re-think your relationships if everyone has chosen you, and your friends are not ones you have chosen—or would choose, if you had it to do over. Although we want to encourage rich and rewarding relationships, no one's happiness depends on you.
Marjorie
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Honest Relationships
Along the line of the previous entry, "Boundaries," I am sharing today some of the thoughts first posted on October 6, 2008, on my Finding the Faith Way site with the title, "Things Mama Taught Me: Tell the Truth."
I grew up valuing honesty, telling the truth, because that was the example lived before me in my home and in the community where we lived. There is one person, however, with whom I have found it especially difficult to face the truth.
Me.
Sometimes I haven’t recognized the truth, even though it was right there. Through many years of my adult life, and without realizing it, I surrounded myself with people who used me. Organizations that deceived and cheated, that took serious advantage of me financially (in the name of God). Strong leaders who used the subtle power of approval to build a personal following, who controlled my time and my job and my money and my friendships, who ordered my life with should’s and must’s while they covered their own private wrongdoing (in the name of God). “Friends,” a lot of them, who were only takers because I was so ready to give, who laid unfair claims on me by their unending neediness (in the name of God). Because I was absolutely sincere in my intentions, no one shook me and said “Wake up, girl!” But the time came when the pressure became too great and could no longer be contained neatly. A family member intervened. “This is abuse,” she said, and my façade began to crack.
Over a number of months after that, I began to realize that not only was the present situation abusive, but also that I had permitted, again and again, unreasonable and unhealthy demands to be made on my life. I discovered that Christian women—mothers, wives, friends, employees, members of a faith community—can and must establish boundaries to protect themselves from destructive relationships.
It may be hard for some people to reconcile the teachings of Jesus about love and forgiveness and self-sacrifice with the necessity to preserve one’s health and sanity. I know how difficult that can be; I found it so difficult that I missed making the connection for most of my adult life. Our Lord never intended for loving God and loving others to exclude self-care. He told His followers that the two greatest commandments were to love God with all one’s heart and mind and strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. It is very hard, maybe impossible, to love and care for others appropriately unless we have a proper respect for ourselves.
Jesus Himself did not minister non-stop to needy people. One time He told all His disciples to come with Him to a quiet place to take a break; they hadn’t even had time for lunch. People were constantly coming and going—people with genuine needs, people who apparently thought Jesus and the disciples should be meeting those needs. (Seeing Jesus’ crew leaving in a boat, the people hurried on foot from the surrounding villages, and beat them to their remote resting spot—but that’s another story.) And once, the Scripture tells us, Jesus was tired from a long walk and sat wearily by a well while His disciples went to a nearby city to buy groceries. So Jesus was not at all insensitive to His own needs or those of His followers. May I put it bluntly? Jesus did not teach His followers to be stupid.
The Apostle Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching. He says, “Husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church.” (Ephesians 5:28, 29) Here Paul makes the simple assumption that people (women as well as men) need to care for themselves in even the most intimate and impelling of human relationships. It is just expected. Permitting ourselves to be manipulated by others into caring for them, not along with but instead of caring for ourselves, is not Jesus’ way.
So I am learning to tell myself the truth—the hardest person with whom I must face the truth—and it is a journey not yet complete. Although the quote is from Shakespeare rather than Scripture, it is nonetheless accurate: “This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”
Marjorie
Scripture quotation is taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.
The quote is by one of Shakespeare's characters in Hamlet.
I grew up valuing honesty, telling the truth, because that was the example lived before me in my home and in the community where we lived. There is one person, however, with whom I have found it especially difficult to face the truth.
Me.
Sometimes I haven’t recognized the truth, even though it was right there. Through many years of my adult life, and without realizing it, I surrounded myself with people who used me. Organizations that deceived and cheated, that took serious advantage of me financially (in the name of God). Strong leaders who used the subtle power of approval to build a personal following, who controlled my time and my job and my money and my friendships, who ordered my life with should’s and must’s while they covered their own private wrongdoing (in the name of God). “Friends,” a lot of them, who were only takers because I was so ready to give, who laid unfair claims on me by their unending neediness (in the name of God). Because I was absolutely sincere in my intentions, no one shook me and said “Wake up, girl!” But the time came when the pressure became too great and could no longer be contained neatly. A family member intervened. “This is abuse,” she said, and my façade began to crack.
Over a number of months after that, I began to realize that not only was the present situation abusive, but also that I had permitted, again and again, unreasonable and unhealthy demands to be made on my life. I discovered that Christian women—mothers, wives, friends, employees, members of a faith community—can and must establish boundaries to protect themselves from destructive relationships.
It may be hard for some people to reconcile the teachings of Jesus about love and forgiveness and self-sacrifice with the necessity to preserve one’s health and sanity. I know how difficult that can be; I found it so difficult that I missed making the connection for most of my adult life. Our Lord never intended for loving God and loving others to exclude self-care. He told His followers that the two greatest commandments were to love God with all one’s heart and mind and strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. It is very hard, maybe impossible, to love and care for others appropriately unless we have a proper respect for ourselves.
Jesus Himself did not minister non-stop to needy people. One time He told all His disciples to come with Him to a quiet place to take a break; they hadn’t even had time for lunch. People were constantly coming and going—people with genuine needs, people who apparently thought Jesus and the disciples should be meeting those needs. (Seeing Jesus’ crew leaving in a boat, the people hurried on foot from the surrounding villages, and beat them to their remote resting spot—but that’s another story.) And once, the Scripture tells us, Jesus was tired from a long walk and sat wearily by a well while His disciples went to a nearby city to buy groceries. So Jesus was not at all insensitive to His own needs or those of His followers. May I put it bluntly? Jesus did not teach His followers to be stupid.
The Apostle Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching. He says, “Husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church.” (Ephesians 5:28, 29) Here Paul makes the simple assumption that people (women as well as men) need to care for themselves in even the most intimate and impelling of human relationships. It is just expected. Permitting ourselves to be manipulated by others into caring for them, not along with but instead of caring for ourselves, is not Jesus’ way.
So I am learning to tell myself the truth—the hardest person with whom I must face the truth—and it is a journey not yet complete. Although the quote is from Shakespeare rather than Scripture, it is nonetheless accurate: “This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”
Marjorie
Scripture quotation is taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.
The quote is by one of Shakespeare's characters in Hamlet.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Boundaries
Something I wish I had known 50 years ago:
· That relationships need boundaries.
· That boundaries are necessary for good relationships.
· That unless there are boundaries, relationships will suffer.
· That for relationships to be happy, there must be clear boundaries.
· etc. etc. etc!
Is it clear yet, that I favor relationship boundaries?
Although there is a proliferation of books, videos, and TV programs that might have offered guidance for my messiest relationships, some of those really can't be taken seriously, and so I tended to discount them all. What I really needed was someone to give me Scriptural principles for establishing boundaries in my relationships.
I needed to know that I was genuinely loved. God's purpose in human relationships was to provide for some of our core needs such as security, acceptance and significance. He formed a beautiful creation which included one human, but "then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.' " (Genesis 2:18) If a friendship is deep and intimate, both persons should share in that. If it is only casual, both should honor the limits. Sometimes our ideas clash about what love would look like in a particular situation; a disconnect can easily lead to doing or saying the wrong thing. "Spell it out" as necessary.
I needed to know that I could insist on honesty. "So stop telling lies. Let us tell our neighbors the truth, for we are all parts of the same body. " (Ephesians 4:25) "Does anyone want to live a life that is long and prosperous? Then keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies!" (Psalm 34:12, 13) Many relationships are based on pretense—face it, most romantic friendships start out like that! However, a deep and long-lasting comradeship must be an honest one. Hidden agendas do not make for a healthy relationship.
I needed to know that threats to my physical safety or sense of security were unacceptable. "Better to be patient than powerful; better to have self-control than to conquer a city." (Proverbs 16:32) "I didn't mean what I said," cannot completely remove the sting of those words. The angry person is the only one who thinks he/she didn't mean what they said. "You'll just have to accept me as I am," is not good enough for me (or God).
I needed to know, Can I count on you? "A friend is always loyal, and a brother [sister, too!] is born to help in time of need." (Proverbs 17:17) "Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance." (I Corinthians 13:7) Does this mean I expect my friends to agree with me, right or wrong? Certainly not—as Senator Carl Schurz said in the Senate on February 29, 1872, "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." A loyal friend will stick with me until we arrive at what is good and right.
God uses human relationships to teach us about our relationship with Him. We are part of the family of God; He is our Father, Jesus our Elder Brother, and there are many other brothers and sisters in Christian fellowship. Christ and His Church are portrayed as a marriage relationship. We are servants of Christ, but also His friends. In all of these, we can know with certainty that we are unfailingly loved; that we can depend on knowing how we stand with God; that He seeks our good and not some manipulative, hidden plan; and that we can, without fear, count on Him.
The "boundaries" in our relationship with God are very simple. "The Lord has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you: to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8) Boundaries in human relationships are not all that different.
Marjorie
Scripture quotations are taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.
Source of the Schurz quote: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html
Friday, September 25, 2009
Are Women People?
A hundred years ago a woman's suffrage advocate authored a column in the New York Tribune, entitled "Are Women People?" In 1915, some of the writings of Alice Duer Miller were published in a book by that title. The following is from her introduction:
FATHER, what is a Legislature?A representative body elected by the people of the state.
Are women people?No, my son, criminals, lunatics and women are not people.
Do legislators legislate for nothing?Oh, no; they are paid a salary.
By whom?By the people.
Are women people?Of course, my son, just as much as men are.
We would find that dichotomy humorous, except it is too true. Women were excluded from the electoral process, but conveniently included when it came to paying lawmaking and lawkeeping costs. Subtle reverberations of this attitude remain into the present.
It's been several decades ago, but when I applied for my first teaching position, the three board members who interviewed me asked, "Are you married? Are you planning to get married? We don't want a teacher getting pregnant." And it hasn't been all that long ago that car salesmen said to female prospective buyers, "When will you husband be able to come in with you?" Just recently, I overhead a delivery man make a disparaging remark about no women being present (or so he thought) to give the guys a hard time. Sometimes this slighting attitude is present even in the Church. One fellow made it clear that the men were meeting to pray about important issues like war and politics. The women, he scornfully assumed, met in "tea party" style to pray about the Sunday School and Aunt Susie's rheumatism.
So, it has ever been that men take care of serious business, while women are supposed to be less interested and certainly less capable. I grew up thinking that the only meaningful life for a grown woman was one of service (read: mother, teacher, nurse). Never mind that my real passion was ideas and words: reading them, and writing them. Society as a whole, and the Church in particular, believed that men and women were quite different inherently—God having made it so—and therefore must confine themselves to their prescribed roles. Those who study human behavior have changed many of their earlier-held views, but sadly, much of the Church has lagged behind.
Inequality, even arrogant domineering, shows up in many homes of the faithful. One writer, a man, says that ever since Eve, women have wanted to control their husbands. Is he implying that this would be wrong, but that it is okay for men to control their wives? Maybe so. With all due respect for his education and experience, I think that ever since that incident in the Garden, people have wanted to control other people. Unfortunately, some Christian men feel that the Scripture gives them license to do so.
Women, along with everyone else and perhaps not in any greater degree than others, want safety and security. I have to admit that not all women need or choose the same means of being secure. Some women want someone telling them exactly what to do. I think about one of the sweet songs from the movie, "The Sound of Music." Liesl sings to her admirer, the telegram-delivery fellow, "I am sixteen, going on seventeen . . . I need someone older and wiser, telling me what to do. You are seventeen, going on eighteen. I'll depend on you." Women of sixteen, twenty-six, even forty-six or ninety-six may feel that way, and that is their choice. But for someone to tell all women they must feel that way is ridiculous! Some women may prefer the security they find in knowing that that they cannot fully depend on anyone or anything but themselves and their relationship with God. They feel safe in their knowledge that there is no real security outside God Himself.
Of course women are people! In spite of traditional difficulties and prejudices, more and more women are recognizing that we matter to God and that we matter in His plan for life in this world.
Including election of the legislature or to the legislature, and paying taxes.
Marjorie
Source of Miller's piece: http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_awp000_introduction.htm
(is a part of The New York Times Company)
FATHER, what is a Legislature?A representative body elected by the people of the state.
Are women people?No, my son, criminals, lunatics and women are not people.
Do legislators legislate for nothing?Oh, no; they are paid a salary.
By whom?By the people.
Are women people?Of course, my son, just as much as men are.
We would find that dichotomy humorous, except it is too true. Women were excluded from the electoral process, but conveniently included when it came to paying lawmaking and lawkeeping costs. Subtle reverberations of this attitude remain into the present.
It's been several decades ago, but when I applied for my first teaching position, the three board members who interviewed me asked, "Are you married? Are you planning to get married? We don't want a teacher getting pregnant." And it hasn't been all that long ago that car salesmen said to female prospective buyers, "When will you husband be able to come in with you?" Just recently, I overhead a delivery man make a disparaging remark about no women being present (or so he thought) to give the guys a hard time. Sometimes this slighting attitude is present even in the Church. One fellow made it clear that the men were meeting to pray about important issues like war and politics. The women, he scornfully assumed, met in "tea party" style to pray about the Sunday School and Aunt Susie's rheumatism.
So, it has ever been that men take care of serious business, while women are supposed to be less interested and certainly less capable. I grew up thinking that the only meaningful life for a grown woman was one of service (read: mother, teacher, nurse). Never mind that my real passion was ideas and words: reading them, and writing them. Society as a whole, and the Church in particular, believed that men and women were quite different inherently—God having made it so—and therefore must confine themselves to their prescribed roles. Those who study human behavior have changed many of their earlier-held views, but sadly, much of the Church has lagged behind.
Inequality, even arrogant domineering, shows up in many homes of the faithful. One writer, a man, says that ever since Eve, women have wanted to control their husbands. Is he implying that this would be wrong, but that it is okay for men to control their wives? Maybe so. With all due respect for his education and experience, I think that ever since that incident in the Garden, people have wanted to control other people. Unfortunately, some Christian men feel that the Scripture gives them license to do so.
Women, along with everyone else and perhaps not in any greater degree than others, want safety and security. I have to admit that not all women need or choose the same means of being secure. Some women want someone telling them exactly what to do. I think about one of the sweet songs from the movie, "The Sound of Music." Liesl sings to her admirer, the telegram-delivery fellow, "I am sixteen, going on seventeen . . . I need someone older and wiser, telling me what to do. You are seventeen, going on eighteen. I'll depend on you." Women of sixteen, twenty-six, even forty-six or ninety-six may feel that way, and that is their choice. But for someone to tell all women they must feel that way is ridiculous! Some women may prefer the security they find in knowing that that they cannot fully depend on anyone or anything but themselves and their relationship with God. They feel safe in their knowledge that there is no real security outside God Himself.
Of course women are people! In spite of traditional difficulties and prejudices, more and more women are recognizing that we matter to God and that we matter in His plan for life in this world.
Including election of the legislature or to the legislature, and paying taxes.
Marjorie
Source of Miller's piece: http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_awp000_introduction.htm
(
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Another Bad Word: Submission
This post was first published on my "Finding the Faith Way" blog on September 1, 2008, and is no longer located there.
Yesterday I stated that to people who misunderstand it, “authority” is a bad nine-letter word. Here is a ten-letter word, also with terrible meaning for many people: submission.
Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” Perhaps you didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.
The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we often use is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, "Women, be like Jesus."
We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) Some women bristle at the idea of being called weaker, but face it: females lack, usually, the size, the strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger: His prayers will be ineffectual.
Submission was not meant to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure. It was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’" (I Peter 3:8-12)
That sounds like a happy home to me.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Yesterday I stated that to people who misunderstand it, “authority” is a bad nine-letter word. Here is a ten-letter word, also with terrible meaning for many people: submission.
Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” Perhaps you didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.
The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we often use is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, "Women, be like Jesus."
We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) Some women bristle at the idea of being called weaker, but face it: females lack, usually, the size, the strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger: His prayers will be ineffectual.
Submission was not meant to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure. It was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’" (I Peter 3:8-12)
That sounds like a happy home to me.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Having Authority
This post was first published on my blog, "Finding the Faith Way," on August 16, 2008. It is repeated here as an entry that may hold special interest for women readers.
Authority, the dictionary tells me, means several things: for one, the power to enforce obedience. In practical affairs, we often think of it as the right to tell others what to do. Wouldn’t you think that if anyone has that right, it would be those who know the law best? One would suppose that interpreters of the law would have, above all others, the understanding of what is expected of those under them. In Jesus’ day, that would be the scribes and/or the Pharisees. And yet, when Jesus taught, people were amazed, not only at what He said, but how He said it: with real authority. Twice the Gospel writers tell us what happened. “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matthew 7:28, 29 NIV) This was Jesus’ teaching called “the sermon on the mount.” In the synagogue at Capernaum, “The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.” (Mark 1:22 NIV)
Those who listened were used to authority, even religious authority. But Jesus spoke with real authority, some versions emphasize, not like the other teachers. What made everyone so amazed at Jesus’ teaching? What’s the difference between real authority and not-real? Jesus did not enforce obedience; he invited obedience by His love and wisdom and hope.
Authority is a bad word to many people, a bad nine-letter word. They have no particular problem with submitting to governmental authority; they pay taxes, they obey traffic laws, they don’t participate in illegal activities. They deal successfully with authority in school or the workplace too. But when confronted with the idea of authority in the home or in the Church, they become confused, afraid, or stubborn. Why is this?
Authority in the places where the heart is drawn in—the home and the Church—where one’s most intimate self is exposed, can be a frightening concept. This is because many misunderstand what authority in these circumstances means. And who is it that most misunderstands? The authority figures themselves. It is perfectly clear to the person—most often a woman or a child in the home but anyone in the Church—who has been wounded by experiences of misuse or abuse what “authority” means. It means to be wary of those who can hurt them again. If the person(s) in authority cannot be trusted to act in one’s best interests, then it makes absolute sense to be watchful, perhaps even fearful of them.
There are indeed some willful women or naughty children and selfish, cranky church members. But far too often, those who say, “My wife won’t submit,” or “My kids better obey or else,” or “That church member is not conforming,” are requiring those who follow them to give up something of their personhood. They are asking that they themselves be lifted up as makers, interpreters, and enforcers of the law—and there is no one more dangerous to others in these situations than the person who presumes to know what is “good” or “right” for everyone and has the power to make them do it.
Jesus drew people, not with fear or threats, but with the force of love. Tax collectors and prostitutes knew He wouldn’t beat them into observing the law. Cowards and big-talkers alike knew there was grace for them. Children knew they would be welcome and gravitated to Him. The sick and the mentally ill and even a dying thief somehow knew they could ask loving favor from this Man. And this brings us to another definition of authority: the power to influence thought and behavior.
Authority, to a lot of people, is a bad nine-letter word. It can be reduced, though, to a couple of four-letter words: l-o-v-e or f-e-a-r. Only the first carries authority that is real. And that is Jesus’ style.
Authority, the dictionary tells me, means several things: for one, the power to enforce obedience. In practical affairs, we often think of it as the right to tell others what to do. Wouldn’t you think that if anyone has that right, it would be those who know the law best? One would suppose that interpreters of the law would have, above all others, the understanding of what is expected of those under them. In Jesus’ day, that would be the scribes and/or the Pharisees. And yet, when Jesus taught, people were amazed, not only at what He said, but how He said it: with real authority. Twice the Gospel writers tell us what happened. “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matthew 7:28, 29 NIV) This was Jesus’ teaching called “the sermon on the mount.” In the synagogue at Capernaum, “The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.” (Mark 1:22 NIV)
Those who listened were used to authority, even religious authority. But Jesus spoke with real authority, some versions emphasize, not like the other teachers. What made everyone so amazed at Jesus’ teaching? What’s the difference between real authority and not-real? Jesus did not enforce obedience; he invited obedience by His love and wisdom and hope.
Authority is a bad word to many people, a bad nine-letter word. They have no particular problem with submitting to governmental authority; they pay taxes, they obey traffic laws, they don’t participate in illegal activities. They deal successfully with authority in school or the workplace too. But when confronted with the idea of authority in the home or in the Church, they become confused, afraid, or stubborn. Why is this?
Authority in the places where the heart is drawn in—the home and the Church—where one’s most intimate self is exposed, can be a frightening concept. This is because many misunderstand what authority in these circumstances means. And who is it that most misunderstands? The authority figures themselves. It is perfectly clear to the person—most often a woman or a child in the home but anyone in the Church—who has been wounded by experiences of misuse or abuse what “authority” means. It means to be wary of those who can hurt them again. If the person(s) in authority cannot be trusted to act in one’s best interests, then it makes absolute sense to be watchful, perhaps even fearful of them.
There are indeed some willful women or naughty children and selfish, cranky church members. But far too often, those who say, “My wife won’t submit,” or “My kids better obey or else,” or “That church member is not conforming,” are requiring those who follow them to give up something of their personhood. They are asking that they themselves be lifted up as makers, interpreters, and enforcers of the law—and there is no one more dangerous to others in these situations than the person who presumes to know what is “good” or “right” for everyone and has the power to make them do it.
Jesus drew people, not with fear or threats, but with the force of love. Tax collectors and prostitutes knew He wouldn’t beat them into observing the law. Cowards and big-talkers alike knew there was grace for them. Children knew they would be welcome and gravitated to Him. The sick and the mentally ill and even a dying thief somehow knew they could ask loving favor from this Man. And this brings us to another definition of authority: the power to influence thought and behavior.
Authority, to a lot of people, is a bad nine-letter word. It can be reduced, though, to a couple of four-letter words: l-o-v-e or f-e-a-r. Only the first carries authority that is real. And that is Jesus’ style.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
A note: Do you know who made the statement about “the most dangerous person”? If so, help me give credit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)