It's a little odd, then, that no one seems to be up in arms to Paul's command for husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)I wonder if we're paying attention, because to me that appears to be a much more difficult command. "Husbands, love your wives." "Oh, that's easy." Maybe ... until you look at the standard that love has to meet. It's not to the level of loving pizza or to the level of loving your dog or to the level of loving your mother. It's "as Christ loved the church." Okay, how much is that? He "gave Himself up for her." Gave self up. Gave self up to sanctify and cleanse her. This kind of love is nothing about me and all about her. In the Philippian description,
Though He was in the form of God, [Christ] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:6-8)That is "gave Himself up." Even to death on the cross. For her.
Now, husbands (this is aimed solely at you husbands), what do you think? Do you measure up to the standard set by Christ in loving your wives? Or, let me put it this way. I'm thinking of man caves and sports, guy weekends and "me time," four-wheelin' and other testosterone fun -- all that stereotypical "man" stuff. If Christ loved you in the way that you love your wife, how safe, secure, and loved would you feel? How would your wife answer that?
8 comments:
Well, Stan...while this is exactly how I've dealt with the passages dealing with Christians and their spouses, none of it precludes things like "man caves", "bowling night" or other forms of enjoyments. It just doesn't. Service to others, including submitting to one's spouse, is not a manifestation of slavery.
On the other hand, I would not argue how rare it is that husbands are just as ignorant of their obligation as Paul explains it as are wives who bristle at the thought of living their lives in submission to their husbands. I was well aware of this passage prior to tying the knot, though I wouldn't suggest I'm a great example of such a husband. I never lose sight of it, and while my marriage is a good one, I feel may have bit off more than I can chew when I reflect on this passage. It's a tall order indeed and thus the vow is not to be taken lightly.
"Manifestation of slavery."
I wonder if that would be how Christ described His giving up of Himself to the church ... to death on the cross.
Probably not, given it's not at all a reference to Him, but to your implication a "good" husband in Biblical terms denies a husband ever thinking of himself at all. It's absurd.
Ah, the sounds of the standard human mindset. (And a strawman, as well.)
The standard idea is "I need what I need and want what I want and my personal pleasure is important." The mind we're supposed to have is "emptied" (Php 2:5-8). The idea is "God will supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). Not that we never think of ourselves. For instance, in order to seek to please Him in all things (2 Cor 5:9), I will need to eat and sleep. I would do so, then, not for my personal pleasure, but to better serve Him. (That's a "for instance.") Like in the airplane when they tell you to put your oxygen mask on first before putting on your child's mask because if you don't, you won't be able to put on your child's mask. Paul says to look out not only for your own interests, but for the interests of others (Php 2:4). So, no, it is not that we never think of ourselves. It is that self becomes a lower priority.
I guess I'd argue that your list (man caves and the like) might not be as cut and dried as you seem to indicate. For example, I can definitely see value in an occasional "men's weekend" as a way to help re focus someone on their spouse. I can certainly see that father/son time could benefit both the wife/mother as well as the future wife of one's son. Obviously, it's more about the content of such events than the events themselves IMO. But I can definitely see how (in our current culture) those things can definitely be a barrier to one's role as a husband.
Yes, Craig, which was my primary point. The "It's all about me" approach is standard ... and wrong. But "man caves" and "weekends away" are not, by definition, wrong. Using them for the furtherance of God's work, even if it is a necessary (and temporary) effort at rejuvenation, would mean that they are not "It's all about me" things and not mere "personal pleasure" issues.
Stan, that's what I thought, but I wanted to confirm.
Post a Comment