christopher miller in R.C. Sproul

7 years ago

COMMUNICATION IN MARRIAGE, THE ROLE OF THE MAN AND WOMAN IN MARRIAGE. CHRISTOPHER WAYNE MILLER·SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 2018 COMMUNICATION IN MARRIAGE Undoubtedly the problem of communication in marriage started a long time ago. It would not surprise me to learn that the first man to say, "My wife doesn’t understand me," was Adam. It all may have started in the primordial garden when Adam asked Eve if she had eaten of the forbidden tree and Eve replied, "Tree? What tree?" The problem was compounded when God discovered their transgression and called Adam aside to interrogate him. For three hours Eve waited in solitude for the decision of her Creator. Anxiety increased by the minute until at last Adam emerged from the summit meeting that would decide human destiny. Breathlessly Eve rushed to her husband and gasped, "What did he say?" Adam shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh, nothing!" Things have been going downhill ever since. The subject of communication in marriage is a difficult one, perhaps impossible. Someone has said that to discover the secret of communication, one must undertake the Herculean task of sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, using the sword of Damocles to cut the Gordian knot that it may fit its Procrustean bed! (Whoever said that ought to be shot.) Communication is not always easy. It involves work, pain, sensitivity, patience, and great care. Communicating is often a burdensome task, but a task that must be accomplished for a marriage to be complete. When communication falters, the marriage is in trouble. When it fails altogether, the marriage is virtually doomed. Communication is, above all, a means of knowing. In marriage it means, simply the knowing of two people. The goal of communication is knowledge—not abstract, theoretical, impersonal knowledge but personal knowledge, the knowledge of intimacy. In biblical categories, the essence of marriage is expressed in the intimacy of knowing and loving. When the Old Testament writers describe the sex act, the usual term used is a form of the verb "to know." We read that Adam "knew" his wife and she conceived. Abraham knew his wife, etc. What is the writer trying to convey? The Bible is not trying to suggest that reproduction takes place by the ability to recognize or distinguish one person from another. When we read that Adam "knew" his wife, it means more than that they had been formally introduced. Nor is the biblical writer just being polite when he uses the term. It would be out of character for an Old Testament writer to avoid candor in favor of euphemism. No, when the Old Testament speaks of sexual union in terms of knowing, it is because knowing, in every sense of the word, is at the heart of marriage. To be known and still be loved is one of the supreme goals of marriage. Many of us think that if people really knew us they would not like us. Others think, that, if people knew us well enough to understand us, perhaps they would like us. Most of us probably feel a little of both. We would like to be really known—but there remains the nagging fear that if we are known, we won’t be loved. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve enjoyed their life in Eden, "naked and unashamed." After the Fall they became aware of their nakedness and hid themselves in shame. In their guilt they didn’t want God to see them, so they became fugitives from his gaze. Yet, in an act of astonishing grace, God provided clothes for his embarrassed creatures and covered their nakedness. But the desire for the original state of being naked and unashamed remained with Adam and Eve. They wanted their nakedness and their shame hidden, yet yearned for a safe place to be naked. They yearned for a place where they could take off their clothes and be known without fear. God provided that place in the institution of marriage. God gave them a place where they could have "intercourse," which, of course, is also a synonym for verbal communication. Communication involves a kind of nakedness. In some situations, nakedness can be very embarrassing. At other times, it can be supremely exhilarating. So it is with communication. When communication is carried on in a proper way in marriage, it yields unspeakable pleasure. When it fails, the result is two people going back into hiding. The Bible gives us a model of proper communication in marriage in the way God relates to his people. It is no accident that the primary image in the Bible of God’s relationship with his people is marriage. In the Old Testament, Israel is the bride of Yahweh; in the New Testament, the Church is the bride of Christ. When God reveals himself and communicates his love to his bride, the bride rejoices. When the bride spurns God’s revelation and seeks other gods, she perishes in her spiritual adultery. To be known by God is the highest goal of human existence. To know that God knows everything about me and yet loves me is indeed my ultimate consolation. What a comfort to know I cannot pull the wool over God’s eyes—there’s no point in ever trying. The human institution of marriage should mirror that consolation. The more we are able to reveal ourselves to our life partners and still be loved, the more we are able to understand what a relationship with God is all about. The greatest consolation I have in this world is the knowledge that my wife knows me better than any person on this planet, and—guess what?—she loves me. KNOWLEDGE AND INTIMACY In the 1960s our nation experienced what has become known as "the sexual revolution." The free speech movement at Berkeley triggered a mass student reaction against traditional values and customs regarding sex. Crusades for "free love," "sex without marriage," etc., steamrolled across the land. A common protest was that the older generation was full of hypocrites. To them sex was a hush-hush thing, not openly exposed to public scrutiny. The symbol of the older generation was the lock on the bedroom door. When the adolescent of the sixties discovered that babies don’t come from storks, he looked at the lock on the door and the drawn shades and cried, "Hypocrisy!" What our children call hypocrisy, we call intimacy. Hopefully, our children will learn to understand the difference. In modern usage the term "intimacy" suggests merely a sexual relationship. But the word goes deeper than that. In its broader meaning intimacy indicates a familiar relationship that moves beyond the external and the superficial and penetrates the innermost dimensions of our life. Marriage was designed to be a relationship of intimacy. Total intimacy embraces far more than the sexual aspect. In fact, there must be a kind of intimacy preceding sexual union if that union is going to be of lasting value. Intercourse with a prostitute is intercourse without intimacy. One can have sex without intimacy. But one cannot have communication in the biblical sense of "knowing" without intimacy. COMMUNICATION AND LISTENING One essential ingredient of communication is listening. It is not a one-way street. Not only must we learn to listen, but we must learn to listen carefully. An old illustration tells of three sermons that are preached each Sunday. First is the sermon the people hear; second is the sermon the preacher thinks he gives; and third is the actual sermon given. This discrepancy between what is said and what people hear was brought home to me recently in a lecture situation. After I finished my lecture, I opened the meeting for discussion. Someone immediately asked about a certain word in my lecture. I said I couldn’t remember using that word at all. Someone else chimed in and said, with certainty, that I had used another word. Immediately the class was divided on the issue. About half of the people said I used one word and the other half argued that I used the other. I meekly suggested that I hadn’t used either of the words in dispute. But after all this arguing I wasn’t too sure. Finally, to resolve the debate, I played back the recording of that portion of the lecture. To everyone’s consternation, I had used neither of the two words. We all had a lesson in listening. In marriage, real communication often demands listening "between the lines," beyond the words being spoken. For various reasons, we frequently use indirect discourse. Instead of saying what we mean and meaning what we say, we attempt to communicate via hints and innuendoes. Then we wonder why nobody understands us. Not too long ago my wife, Vesta, left the house to visit a friend. I said, "Why are you going to Kathy’s?" She replied that she was going to get a home permanent. I asked her for the hundredth time since we’d been married, "Why don’t you go to the hairdresser like everyone else?" She carefully explained that she didn’t need to go to a professional hairdresser because Kathy did a perfectly good job, and she did it free of charge. I couldn’t argue with that, so I dropped the matter. But I was upset. Vesta couldn’t figure out why. Finally, I broke down and told her the real reason I hinted at being displeased with the home permanent routine. I said, "1 can’t tell the difference between a professional permanent and a home permanent. That’s not the point. My pride is involved in this. I can afford to pay the hairdresser bill. You make me feel inadequate as a provider." As soon as I expressed my feelings directly, instead of by hints, I saw how foolish they were. But Vesta didn’t treat them as foolish. She asked, "Why didn’t you ever tell me that?" The point is, of course, I had been telling her that for years, but I was saying it so obliquely she couldn’t possibly hear it. Reading between the lines is one thing; reading your spouse’s mind is quite another. I am not seeking to establish an axiom that all wives must always go to professional hairdressers for their permanents or their husbands will feel insecure. Rather the point is twofold: First, we must be careful to avoid discourse that is so vague and indirect that no one could get the point; second, it may be helpful to ask yourself, "Why does my spouse often bring up this issue? What is really being said?" COMMUNICATION AND GIFT-GIVING Gift exchange is one great checkpoint for communication in marriage. Hints fly as we seek subtle ways of letting our partners know what we want for Christmas or birthdays. Vesta is the practical type. Christmas would come, and she would present me with a beautifully wrapped package that would bring back the exciting memories of boyhood. I would open the package and find three white shirts. I would say, "Oh boy! White shirts. Just what I need, Honey" (While I was thinking, "White shirts! I can buy them anytime. I don’t want white shirts. I want golf clubs.") Being careful to disguise my feelings, I would go on about how great the white shirts were. I was such a good actor that the next year I would get five white shirts. For years she gave me what I needed, not what I wanted. I tried hinting to Vesta by giving her extravagant gifts. Throwing caution to the wind, I would run out and buy her an expensive new coat, straining our bank account to the limit. I’d have the coat expertly gift-wrapped and present it to her with gusto. She would open the gift and exclaim, "Honey, it’s beautiful, but we can’t afford this. I need a vacuum sweeper." What happened in this situation is that both of us assumed the other person wanted the kind of gift we wanted. We were projecting our own desires on each other. When we finally discussed this matter honestly, I got my golf clubs and she got her sweeper. THE HIDE-AND-SEEK GAME Deception is a serious barrier to communication. Lying obviously destroys credibility and violates trust. But more subtle means of obscuring the truth may also prevent effective communication. When we begin to play hide-and-seek in marriage, the most important context God provides for openness, we are in trouble. The marital game of deception is established on the false premise that "what she [he] doesn’t know, won’t hurt her [him]." I came home from the golf course one afternoon. Vesta asked me if I had a good time. I recounted the events of the day with delight. Then she asked the provocative question, "How much money did you spend?" I gave her a proper accounting of green fees, caddy fees, a couple of new golf balls, and then added five dollars for a lesson from the pro. Vesta exclaimed, "We can’t afford five dollars for golf lessons!" I meekly surrendered to her feelings and changed the subject. In the weeks that followed, my golf game improved a bit, and I kept thinking, "Two or three more lessons and I will really have this game together." (Hope springs eternal in the golfer’s breast.) So I went to the pro and had three more lessons. Only this time I didn’t tell Vesta about it and carefully instructed the pro not to send any bills to my house. He smiled in agreement, saying he had to do that for a lot of the guys. Unfortunately, the pro forgot to relay the message to his secretary. Arriving home one day, Vesta met me at the door with a knowing look on her face and the bill in her hand. I was dumbfounded, and then all I could do was stand there and laugh. Sternly she said, "It’s not funny." I replied, "I know, that’s why I’m laughing!" (I didn’t know what else to do.) She asked, "Why did you deceive me?" I gave her the myth of "I figured what you didn’t know wouldn’t hurt you." She said, "Well, it does hurt me, and it hurts me even more that you felt you had to hide it from me." I told her that I didn’t particularly enjoy feeling that I had to hide it from her either. But she was violated by my subterfuge. This experience was painful for both of us because I chose deception over truth. COMMUNICATING LOVE Perhaps the question most frequently asked by a wife is, "Do you love me?" Standard replies are often less than helpful. Answers like "Of course" or "I married you, didn’t I?" or, even worse, "Wait until tonight, and I’ll show you" do very little to communicate love. Communicating a desire for sexual gratification is not the same as communicating love. Women are well aware that a man doesn’t have to be in love to be able to enjoy sex. One sage maintained that a woman needs to be told she is loved in 365 different ways every year. The truth of this hyperbole, however, is that women usually notice seemingly small expressions of affection. (And so do men.) Husbands must discover what makes their wives feel loved, and vice versa. In my house the issue of communicating love usually comes down to apparently insignificant or even irrational things. We have a perennial crisis over lipstick. It seems as if all of my insecurities about my wife’s affection for me are wrapped up in a small tube of lipstick. I know (without hyperbole) that I’ve asked my wife 10,000 times to put on lipstick. Whenever I see her without lipstick, I take it as a personal insult. When the insults become so frustrating that I can’t stand it any longer, I give vent to my exasperation by saying, "When are you going to start wearing lipstick?" The normal reply: "When you start picking up your clothes!" Then there is the washcloth issue. Some wives are neat; others are fussy; but mine is fastidious. It seems to me that she has a neurotic concern for neatness in detail. She thinks I have an uncontrollable passion for making messy what she has made neat. I say, "How can I tell you I love you?" She says, "By not rolling up the washcloth in a ball when you’re done with it, and throwing it in the sink." How unromantic! It would be so much more exciting to demonstrate my affection by slaying a few dragons or even making a birdie for her on the golf course. Who wants to show love by hanging up washcloths? Yet when I take the extra few seconds required to wring out the washcloth and hang it neatly on the towel rack, my wife has been told that she is loved—and told in a way that communicates. I’ve let her know that I care about her labor and that I don’t regard her task of housekeeping insignificant. LEARNING TO KNOW Learning isn’t always a difficult enterprise. There are patented shortcuts to all kinds of fields of inquiry. A general acquaintance with many areas can be gleaned via casual involvement, or by a kind of intellectual osmosis. However, if one wants to move beyond a level of general acquaintance to the level of genuine expertise, the shortcut methods will not avail. To be an expert in any field of knowledge requires intensive study. Marriage brings a unique opportunity and sober responsibility to be an expert in the knowledge of one’s spouse. This requires conscious and concentrated study. Unfortunately, many people approach this task of learning in a very cavalier spirit. They make no serious effort to study their partners. For a man to understand more about the law of thermodynamics than he understands about his wife is gross neglect of duty. Of course, I am not recommending that you reduce your partner to the level of a specimen analyzed under a microscope. Always seeking the hidden meaning behind every word or gesture would be absurd. But I’m not really worried about that extreme. That’s not the problem that is systematically disintegrating the American home. Our problem is not that people are working too hard to know their mates, but that too many people are barely trying at all. The television series "The Newlywed Game" and other shows that match husbands’ and wives’ answers seem funny, but really they are tragic. They reveal not the rare or unusual but the commonplace. They provide an ominous warning that couples simply do not know each other. People are not doing their homework. To make a conscious effort to gain insight into a human being is not simply a sober responsibility in marriage, but a very special privilege. Few areas of study can be so exciting and fruitful. If it is a labor of love, that love will only be intensified. The death of my father during my teenage years was an event of momentous trauma in my life. Though many of the memories of the events surrounding his death are now dimmed and obscured, and most of the content of the eulogy by our family minister is vague in my mind, one thing stands out sharply. The minister mentioned the distinctive character of my father’s footsteps. He said that if he saw my father walking at a distance, he immediately recognized him by his footfall. He said that, if he heard my father approaching his study, he knew who it was by the sound of his footsteps. In a word, he knew my father by his walk. The thing that surprised me about all this was that my father had no observably unusual gait. He had no limp or unusual heaviness of walking. I had never noticed anything strange about the way he walked. Yet after the service my mother expressed her amazement that the pastor shared her knowledge of this less-than-obvious characteristic of my father. The minister had more than 2,000 members in his congregation; he knew every one of those members by name. He made a diligent effort to know his people. If that minister had manifested nothing else of the nature of Christ, he at least had shown the extraordinary virtue of the Good Shepherd who knows his sheep. If a minister can learn to know 2,000 people, why is it so difficult for us to learn to know one person? When the Apostle Paul exhorts the women at Ephesus to submit to their husbands, he uses the term "own." Be subject to your own husbands. The word is idios, from which we get "idiosyncrasies" and "idiot." (I sometimes play a bit with the text by encouraging women to submit to their "idiot" husbands!) Actually, we know the difference between idiots and idiosyncrasies. The idiosyncrasies of our partners are worth knowing, for in them we can discover the uniqueness of the one who is our "own." There are countless easy and nonthreatening ways that a husband and wife can get to know each other. My wife and I invent little games to learn more about each other. While driving or sitting around the house, I’ll ask questions like, "If I could be anything in the world besides what I am, what would I be?" Simple questions like these often stimulate lengthy, in-depth discussions that are very illuminating. The task never ends. New insights reveal more of the complexities that make us who we are. My wife and I have been married for more than thirty years, and yet not long ago she made a surprising discovery. About five minutes before I was scheduled to lecture a rather sizable group, my wife handed me a letter from an old friend. To my shock, the letter contained a very angry tirade directed at me. The personal attack was very painful, but after reading the letter I gave no indication of its effect. I calmly handed the letter to Vesta and matter-of-factly commented, "He is very angry." I went at once to the podium and delivered the lecture. After the meeting I told her how relieved I was that the lecture was over. I had barely made it through. My stomach was churning and, as hard as I tried, I could not push the letter out of my mind. During the lecture I felt like a zombie—an aura of unreality surrounded me. It was as if I were merely a spectator rather than a speaker. Vesta was amazed. She said, "I had no idea anything was bothering you. I never detected the slightest hint that anything was wrong." Had I not revealed to my wife the real pain of the situation, we would have lived through a small part of our lives together completely out of touch with each other. How deeply aware are you of your partner’s clothes? It is nonsense to affirm that "clothes make the man," but it is equally foolish to assume that clothes have no effect on personality, attitudes, and moods. When a woman wears a new dress, she often not only looks nice but feels better as well. Military requirements of "spit and polish" are not designed for appearance only, but to help instill a snappy spirit of alertness and coordinated discipline. Uniforms not only function as symbols of a particular occupation, but help to create an atmosphere conducive to the functioning of those within that occupation. Witness the outfits and listen to the comments of the local golfers: "If I can’t play like a golfer, at least I can look like one." The feelings that are associated with clothes came home to me rudely when I went out for football in high school. Our school was a major football power. That year the team won the Western Pennsylvania Championship. Consequently, the competition was keen for every position. Those of us who were sophomores had little hope of starring on the varsity team, but we did have dreams of making the squad and consolidating our positions for future glory. The coach told me I had a pretty good lock on the starting job of junior varsity quarterback and a good chance to be backup to our star senior quarterback. I checked into summer camp with confidence and optimism. But then the moment of truth came. We lined up in the locker room to receive our practice equipment and uniforms. The seniors went first, followed by the juniors, and finally the sophomores. To further complicate matters, we lined up alphabetically. If only my name had started with A. By the time I got to the equipment manager, he was at the bottom of his stock. I was issued an oversized pair of lineman’s shoulder pads, a helmet two sizes larger than my head, and pants a full three sizes too large. I had to use my belt from my street clothes to keep my pants up. What a spectacle! When I was fully dressed, I looked like something from Notre Dame (the Hunchback!). I looked less like Johnny Unitas than Alice Blue Gown. How can a quarterback give an impression of smooth ball-handling in an outfit like that? I felt miserable—and played that way. Not only can ill-fitting clothes or uniforms make us feel and act miserable, but good clothes can make us feel good. If your wife doesn’t "feel like a woman," maybe a check of the wardrobe is in order. Of course, clothes alone will not save a marriage or cause one to disintegrate. But it is a very serious matter when a wife does not feel like a woman, and clothes can certainly contribute to that feeling. Many men have no idea what their wife’s dress size is. When a husband takes no interest in his wife’s clothes, the wife inevitably feels less than a woman. Shopping together can be an exciting enterprise as new vistas of beauty are explored. Take care not to talk your wife into wearing what might violate her canons of modesty and taste. But the point is this—clothing can be a vital point of marital communication. An aside to Christians: God calls us to modesty of dress. But there is a difference between being modest and being drab. The light of the world should be attractive and the salt of the world tasty. HOW WELL DO YOU COMMUNICATE? I’ve devised a very simple test to give couples a visible measure of their communication quotient. I ask the people to list ten things on a sheet of paper that they would like their partners to do for them, ten needs or desires that can be fulfilled by the spouse. It isn’t necessary that these be needs that are presently unfulfilled. The idea is to list things that are important to the mate. The other restriction is that the items be listed in concrete terms. No abstractions like "make me feel loved" are allowed. After this list is finished, I ask the people to use the other side of the paper for another list—of the things you think your mate would like you to do for him or her. When both lists are completed, I ask the couples to exchange papers and compare them. If all twenty items on each paper match, I recommend that the couple open a clinic and go into the marriage counseling business. (But I’ve never seen that, or anything near it, take place.) If none of the items match, there’s obviously a very serious communication problem that demands immediate attention and counseling. What most couples will learn from such a simple test is that there is room for improvement in communication. The test itself may be a catalyst for that to take place. THE PATH TEST Another test, the path test, is sometimes used as a party game. It can be threatening and misleading, so it must be used with caution. Each person is asked to imagine himself walking alone along a path. No further details are supplied except by the imagination. The person is told, "You see a key on the path. What does it look like? What would you do with it?" The people then write down their description and reaction to the key. Next the person is asked to describe a vase that he finds on the path and note his reactions to it. As the trip proceeds, the person then is told he meets a bear on the path. Again, a description of the bear and the person’s reactions are noted. Going on down the path, the person comes to some water. On paper, he describes the water and what he does with it. At this point, the trip may be terminated or other incidents of little importance tacked on. The key is supposedly the universal symbol of education. The person’s description of the key reflects his inner feelings about education. The scientifically or technically oriented person will tend to picture a very functional key such as a house key. The romantic will picture a very ornate, perhaps mysterious key. The pragmatist or materialist will tend toward a car key. Though the symbols are not absolutely accurate, they can be provocative aids to in-depth discussion about education. The vase is more dangerous for the interpreter. It is supposed to symbolize one’s life partner. On more than one occasion I have witnessed people expressing hostility toward their imaginary vase, saying they imagine smashing it to pieces. Some wax very romantic about the beauty and texture of the vase. (My wife saw a big, strong vase that was cracked!) The bear is supposed to symbolize obstacles and problems. Some people run, others hide; some walk circumspectly by the bear, while others stand absolutely still. Some people imagine roaring grizzlies standing on their hind legs, while others see cute little cubs that represent no threat whatsoever. (I saw a vicious black bear, which I engaged in hand-to-hand combat.) The symbol of water is the most provocative of all. The theory says water is the universal symbol of sex. Not only what kind of water people see, but what they do with it is significant. One couple who came to me for marriage counseling both indicated that they saw ugly, stagnant pools of water which they carefully avoided. Conversely, when I gave this test to a self-confessed nymphomaniac, she saw an ocean (in the middle of the woods!) with violent rolling waves. She said she dived into the water and it violently tossed her around and hurt her, but she still found it exhilarating. Many people, particularly females, visualize a beautiful mountain stream. They enjoy dipping their toes m the water but say the water is too cold to go swimming. Again, let me remind the reader that the path test can be a very enjoyable way of exploring inner feelings, but can also be both inaccurate and threatening. COMMUNICATION IN SEX As I indicated earlier, sexual communication is vital to a successful marriage relationship. Intercourse in the full sense of the word is involved here. The dynamics of sex are so crucial to communication in marriage that I will devote a separate chapter to the subject. In a nation that seems to be preoccupied with sex and in an age that boasts of free and open discussion of the subject, it is a total anomaly that widespread ignorance still exists. But it does, and the results are frequently devastating. For effective communication, couples must study this matter with each other as well. A close friend and fellow preacher told me this story. He had been away from his wife for six weeks on a speaking tour and he missed her keenly. When he got home, he didn’t even bother to unpack his suitcase. Leaving it by the front door, he eagerly embraced his wife and took her straight to the bedroom. After a half hour of passionate love, his wife said to him, "Honey?" He replied, "Yes, dear, what is it?" "Honey, did you remember to shut the garage door?" The incredulous husband said, "How long have you been thinking about the garage door?" She answered innocently, "Oh, about twenty-five minutes!" Needless to say, the passionate love was squelched. Conscious study of your marriage partner involves physiology as well as psychology. One of the frequent techniques employed by sex rehabilitation and counseling clinics is physiological exploration. For example, a couple may be instructed to be alone for forty-eight hours and spend this time in verbal conversation and physical exploration of each other’s body. The condition attached to the assignment is that there may not be any sexual intercourse. (Many persons with serious sexual communication problems are relieved to hear that actual intercourse is not a part of their preliminary therapy.) Most couples find that the most difficult aspect of the assignment is keeping the no-intercourse rule. When the preliminary details of communication are followed, it is difficult to resist their natural culmination. That, of course, is the point of the therapy. To know one’s spouse fully is to know him or her in body, mind, and soul. THE RAPE OF THE SOUL As you seek to know your partner fully, take care to avoid coercion. Though we must encourage each other toward mutual self-revelation, we must guard scrupulously against manipulation. Self-exposure is not always easy, and the insensitive prober can do violence to the soul. Recently I said to Vesta, "I want to know your soul, totally and completely." She reacted defensively, "Oh, no! I want some privacy. I want some part of me that is all mine." That provoked quite a discussion. I was somewhat bewildered. Thoughts like, "Why doesn’t she trust me?" and "What is she hiding, and why is she hiding it?" went racing through my head. As we talked it out, certain things became clear. She expressed her desire to be a genuine helpmate to me. She then explained her feeling about the crisis that role can produce—the loss of personal identity. She said she didn’t want to be merely "Mrs. Sproul"; she wanted an identity of her own. She wisely reminded me that the biblical union of two people into one flesh did not involve the annihilation of personal identity. The unity of marriage is not to be monistic but a unity in duality. I expressed the desire to know her soul in order to love it, but she had gotten the impression that I wanted that knowledge in order to possess her soul and exploit it. That’s the fear, and the danger is real. She will reveal her soul only when she is sure it is safe. If I want that knowledge, I must labor to establish that safety. Any other approach would be rape. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 1. How well do I know my partner? 2. Do I want to know and be known more intimately? 3. Am I a good listener? Do I feel that my partner is a good listener? 4. What kind of gifts do I give? What kind of gifts do I like to receive? 5. What kind of things do I hide from my spouse? 6. How do I show my love? How would my partner like me to show my love? 7. Am I a disciplined student of the knowledge of my spouse? 8. Do I like my partner’s clothes? 9. How did we do on the communication test? 10. What did the path test reveal to me? THE ROLE OF THE MAN AND WOMAN IN MARRIAGE lives we are involved in a multitude of tasks. We have roles to play and responsibilities to carry out. When we have no idea of what is expected of us in a given role or task, we have no way of measuring our performance. That may sound like a desirable state of freedom but in fact it can produce anxiety and frustration. Not long ago, educators in America experimented with grading college students on a pass-fail basis. It didn’t work. Students need to have a better idea of how well they are doing. Likewise in marriage we hear the pathetic statement, "I feel like a failure as a wife," or "I feel like a failure as a husband," because people have no idea of what is expected of them and how well they are performing up to those expectations. Thus it is important for a man and a woman to know what is expected of them in marriage. What is the role of the wife? What is the role of the husband? Everyone enters into marriage with some preconceived notion of roles. We all know childbearing belongs to the woman rather than the man. But where do other preconceived ideas come from? Most are acquired in the home. We may come up with them through conscious analysis or by intuition. By observing our parents we formulate our ideas of the role of the man and the role of the woman. When the home experiences of both marriage partners match, things can go pretty smoothly. However, when role expectations don’t correspond, tensions can develop. We won’t find two married people in America who agree on every single point of who is responsible for what. But it helps to explore these areas so that expectation can be as clear as possible. Sit down with your husband or wife—or the one with whom you’re contemplating marriage—and discuss the roles played by your parents. As a counselor said to one husband, "Try to imagine your mother married to her father or your father married to her mother." In a very real way, that’s exactly what you have in marriage, at least in terms of expected job descriptions. To see how this works out, let’s examine my own background. My father married his secretary. Before they were married, my mother had taken care of many of the details of my father’s work. That continued after they got married. Consequently, I frequently hear from Vesta, "You don’t want a wife, you want a secretary." When my father would go away on a business trip, my mother would cheerfully pack his suitcase for him, making sure he had everything he would need on his trip. Now Vesta’s father did not marry his secretary. When he went away on business, he packed his own bags. He preferred it that way. He knew exactly what he would need on his trip, and he wanted to make certain that everything he needed was securely packed. Guess what happened the first time I had to go away on a business trip after we were married. I asked Vesta to pack my suitcase. Her response? "Pack your own bag. You’re not helpless, are you? Am I your servant?" Wow! I walked away from that one thinking, "If she loved me like my mother loved my father, she would have been happy to pack my suitcase for me." Vesta walked away thinking, "If he loved me like my father loved my mother, he wouldn’t ask me to pack his suitcase." By exploring our parents’ roles, we were able to avoid a lot of further conflict in these areas. THE BIBLICAL JOB DESCRIPTION The New Testament does not provide a detailed list of specific responsibilities of the husband or wife. Nor do we find them noted on the back of the marriage license. The details will have to be worked out by the couple involved. To be sure, God not only ordains and institutes marriage, he regulates it by his commandments as well. But those commandments do not tell us who is to take out the garbage or who is to pack the suitcase. However, God is not altogether silent with respect to role and responsibility. The New Testament does provide some basic principles which are essential to marriage. The most direct commandments relating to role and responsibility we find in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. In chapter five, Paul sets down the responsibilities of the husband and wife. He says: . . . be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also 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, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband [Eph. 5:21-33]. Now before we plunge into an analysis of this highly controversial passage of Scripture, we must place it in its proper framework. Paul begins the chapter by saying: Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma [Eph. 5:1, 2]. Thus the immediate context of Paul’s writing is the developing of what it means to be imitators of God. Here we have a general reaffirmation of the responsibility of all people in creation. We are created in the image of God and that entails the responsibility to reflect and mirror (as an image) the very character of God. The rest of the chapter is devoted to a detailed description of what this means. Paul is not concerned in this chapter about providing a practical method of imitating his first-century culture; rather, he is giving concrete instructions on how a Christian can reflect the character of God to that culture. The most important aspect of reflecting the character of God is stated in the next breath, "Walk in love, just as Christ also loved you." What follows is an explanation of what it means to walk in love. The Apostle doesn’t simply say that we should walk in love and then leave it up to us to discover the content of love. Where would we go to find out what that means? To Elmer Gantry, who tells us, "Love is the morning and the evening star, the inspiration of philosophers…?" Or to Erich Segal, who tells us that "Love means never having to say you’re sorry"? (The New Testament suggests that we should say we’re sorry even when we don’t have to.) Do we go to Hugh Hefner or Joe Namath? Why not consult the God of love, who does not let love remain an abstraction or a studied ambiguity? In this chapter Paul spells out in detail what love is all about. It involves obedience and carries with it obligation. The supreme example of that love and the measuring rod of love is Christ. This chapter will appear absurd to us unless we understand these obligations against their wider context—imitating God by walking in love. Let’s look again, bit by bit, at the passage I quoted from Ephesians: And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ [v. 21]. This verse does not apply merely to the discussion of marriage that follows. Rather, it is an introduction to a whole series of instructions involving various spheres of authority. Paul deals with the authority structure of the marriage, the family (children and parents), and the household (slaves and masters). The point of the statement is simple. All of us are called to positions of authority and positions of subordination—submission to authority. People have authority over animals; parents have authority over children; civil magistrates have authority over civilians. No one is given ultimate or absolute authority in this world except Christ. He rules over all lesser authorities by virtue of his office as King of kings and Lord of lords. Thus in this passage we are taught that imitating God and walking in love involve being subject to authority. This subjection is to take place in the "fear of Christ." That is, all authority is under Christ. When we disobey lesser authorities, we are guilty of disobeying Christ. You cannot serve the King and honor his authority by rebelling against his appointed governors. To say you honor the kingdom of Christ while you disobey his authority structure is to be guilty not only of hypocrisy but of cosmic treason. Submitting in the fear of Christ as beloved children means not a servile fear such as a prisoner has for his captor but the filial fear that a son has for his father, fear that does not wish to offend one whom he loves. Behind all of these words echoes Christ’s clear statement: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). THE ROLE OF THE WOMAN IN MARRIAGE Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord [v. 22]. This is, undoubtedly,one of the most unpopular verses in the Bible. It has been the target of almost unlimited criticism in our day. For penning these words, the Apostle Paul has been called a "male chauvinist," a "misogynist," and an "antifeminist." The verse is not popular with many people who are militant for the cause of women’s liberation. I suspect that some who read this book will read no further than this point, throwing the book in the wastebasket as being "more male supremacy propaganda." If you are so inclined, I can only beg you to hear Paul out before you dismiss him. He is not setting forth a case for male supremacy, nor engaging in a diatribe against women. Suppression or exploitation of women is not his concern. He is writing about what it means to imitate God and to walk in love in marriage. When Paul calls the woman to be in subjection to her husband, he roots his argument in creation. He does not appeal to the status of women in the first-century world. He does not seek to perpetuate a concept of the inferiority of women found in the distorted cultures of ancient Greece or Rome. He is dealing with the role of woman as it is established in creation, maintained in the Old Covenant, and reaffirmed in the New Covenant. To see Paul merely echoing his culture at this point is to do violence to the text and gross insult to the Apostle. In creation, woman is not called to the subordination of a slave to a tyrant. It is the subordination of a queen to a king. In creation Adam and Eve are given dominion over the earth. Together as God’s deputy monarchs, they rule over the earth. We read in Genesis: And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" [Gen. 1:28]. Eve was created to be a queen, not a slave. Her role was that of helpmate to her husband. Throughout the narrative of creation, we hear the refrain of God’s benediction—God creates and then says, "That’s good!" But finally the malediction comes as God observes something that is not good. The very first negative judgment we find in Holy Writ is a judgment on loneliness. God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone." So God responded to the situation of loneliness by saying, "I will make him a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18). So God created woman and brought her to Adam. What did Adam say? Did he say, "A slave! just what I always wanted"? Did he say, "Thank you, God, for this object that I can exploit at my pleasure"? God forbid. Adam was elated with this new and vital creation, exclaiming: This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh: She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of man [Gen. 2:23]. What does it mean to be "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"? This is a graphic, concrete Hebrew way of expressing the notion of essential unity. Man and woman are one in essence. That is to say, Adam and Eve are equal in dignity, value, and glory. In essential unity there is absolutely no room for inferiority of person. The man and woman are equal in every respect except one—authority. Two different tasks are given to people of equal value and dignity. In the economy of marriage, only the job descriptions are different. Perhaps the ultimate analogy that we have for the notion of essential unity with economic subordination is the classic view of the Holy Trinity. When Christians confess their faith in the Trinity, they usually do it with the following formula: "The Trinity is one in essence but three in person." The three members of the Trinity are equal in glory, value, power, holiness, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. The Son is no less divine than the Father. All are fully God, being co-eternal and co-essential. The list could continue, but the idea is clear. With all this essential unity, however, in redemption there are levels of subordination. What is meant by the "economy" of redemption has nothing to do with finances or the gross heavenly product. Economy in this context has to do with how the plan of redemption is carried out. It deals with the division of labor of the Trinity. The Father sends the Son to redeem the world, the Son doesn’t send the Father. The Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son, yet is equal to the Father and Son. Thus we see that in principle the notion of subordination does not carry with it the notion of inferiority. It is significant for our study that Christ willingly submitted to the Father, without a word of protest. It is precisely that willingness that we are called to imitate in submitting ourselves to authority. When the New Testament calls wives to be in subjection to their own husbands, there is no hint of female inferiority. That notion is neither explicitly stated nor implied. When the idea is wrenched out of Scripture, it is done so by twisted minds. What is called for is a division of labor in the economy of marriage. The role of leadership is assigned to the man and not to the woman. In the women’s liberation movement we have seen a massive protest against male supremacy. Women are marching to recapture their dignity. How did they ever lose it in the first place? Because God created Adam before he created woman? Because Moses was a male chauvinist? Because Paul was a misogynist? Certainly not. The loss of female dignity came about when sinful male arrogance declared the myth that preeminence in authority meant superiority in dignity. Men arrived at the gratuitous conclusion that, since God put them in charge of the home, it must have been because he knew they were intrinsically better—wiser, more intelligent, and all the other nonsense men have claimed for themselves. Unfortunately, many women in protesting their loss of dignity and taking steps to correct the problem have bought the lie that the men started. They’ve fallen into the trap of thinking the only way of restoring their dignity is by removing men from their position of authority and claiming that prerogative for themselves. To usurp the authority of the husband is seen by many as the only possible solution to the problem. When this happens, the authentically noble and just aspirations of women’s lib degenerate to a peasant’s revolt that will leave women worse off than they now are. When a good principle or institution is abused, some will always seek to destroy the principle or institution altogether—"throwing out the baby with the bath water." Others of a less militant stripe say they are not interested in replacing male supremacy with female supremacy—exchanging one set of oppressors for another. They want equality, not revenge. It is from this more moderate wing that we get another myth—the myth of the 50-50 marriage. I call the idea of a 50-50 marriage a myth because it doesn’t correspond to reality. No one has a 50-50 marriage, and no one ever will. A 50-50 marriage does not exist, because it can’t exist. Try to imagine a marriage with an absolutely equal distribution of authority. What happens when the husband and wife disagree on a policy decision? Suppose, for example, your daughter or son wants to go to a dance. Now no external authority covers the issue. God neither commands nor prohibits your children from dancing. The civil authorities leave it up to you. Suppose the husband is convinced the child should not go to the dance and the wife is equally convinced that she should. Who decides the issue? Some might suggest at this point that issues like these can be dealt with in advance by agreeing that the father decides policy with respect to the son and the mother decides with respect to the daughter. Or you might agree that all social decisions are under the jurisdiction of the wife and economic decisions under the jurisdiction of the husband. That would be fine if there were an absolute line of demarcation between sociology and economics. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Or perhaps the problem could be solved by agreeing in advance to submit to binding arbitration in the case of a stalemate. Pity the poor third party. He would need the collective wisdom of nine justices of the Supreme Court. Then the problem of enforcing the decision remains, since either party could still declare a wildcat strike. What really happens when people agree to a 50-50 marriage is one of two things. Either the marriage is paralyzed by a "Mexican standoff" or it becomes a perpetual power struggle to gain 51 percent or a controlling share of the authority stock. In reality, a marriage of equal distribution of authority is a marriage without leadership. Fifty-fifty authority in the final analysis means no authority. Thus the 50-50 marriage, which seems so attractive at first glance, under scrutiny reveals itself to be a euphemism for marital anarchy. How is the submission of the wife to be carried out? According to Paul it is to be done "as to the Lord." This means several things. Let’s look first at the analogy Paul makes between marriage and the relationship of Christ to his Church. The wife is to submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ. In a real sense, the husband is called to be the lord of the home. He carries the authority of Christ. Submission "as to the Lord" also includes the idea that, in submitting to the authority of the husband, the wife is submitting at the same time to the authority of Christ. For a healthy marriage, it is vital that the husband be the head of the house. Most women are well aware of that. I have yet to find a woman who said she wanted to be married to a man she could dominate. As a general rule, women want leadership from their husbands, though they do not want tyranny. What Christian woman would find it difficult to be submissive if she were married to Christ? But that’s the problem—no husband is exactly like Christ. To submit to anyone less than Christ is difficult in a marriage. Yet it is Christ who commands women to be submissive to their sinful, fallible husbands. In this sense Christ is the silent partner of the marriage. It is hard for a wife to submit when she disagrees with her husband. But when she knows her submission is an act of obedience to Christ, and honors Christ, it is much less difficult. What happens if the man doesn’t want to assume the responsibility of leadership and refuses to act as head of the house, deferring all the decisions to his wife? What if the man wants his wife to be his mother rather than his wife? This can be a very difficult problem. In such situations women tend to step into the void and assume the authority, even when they have no desire to lead. This is not a good solution to the problem. The woman is free to use all of her skills and power of persuasion to help the man carry out his responsibility, but she must not assume the authority that is not hers. This problem was brought home to me recently in a slightly different situation. A teenage boy told me that he was a Christian but both his parents clearly repudiated the Christian faith. He said to me, "Doesn’t the Bible teach that the father is supposed to be the spiritual leader in the home and function as the ’priest’ of the household?" I agreed. Then he asked, "Since my father refuses to assume that responsibility, isn’t it my responsibility to assume the spiritual leadership of the home?" I said to the boy, "Absolutely not. God has called you to be a Christian son, not a Christian father." The fact that his father neglected his duty in no way entitled or demanded that his son assume that role. I told the son that the best way to bear witness to Christ in his family situation was to be a model Christian son, bending over backwards to be as obedient as he could possibly be to his parents. The same principle applies to women who are married to men who neglect their duty. Paul elaborates on the analogy of Christ and the Church by saying: For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body [v. 23]. In this verse the analogy of lordship is reinforced. The Church does not share authority 50-50 with Christ. Christ does not rule by referendum. The Church has no veto power or power of impeachment. The Church is not a democracy; it is a kingdom. And so is the home. Just as Christ reigns in sovereign authority over the Church, so the husband has sovereign authority over the wife. This does not mean, however, that the husband never listens to the wife’s requests or petitions. Again the analogy with Christ is important. Christ hears the groans of his people. He is pleased when they bring their requests to him and tell him their desires. The Church is not required to walk five paces behind her groom and exist as a nonentity. Neither is the wife. May the wife ever disobey her husband? The biblical answer to that is clear. There are times when the wife not only may disobey, but must disobey. The husband is not the only authority in the wife’s life. She is also responsible to the authority of God and the authority of the state. What if the authorities conflict? Obviously the higher authority must be obeyed. A simple rule of thumb in these matters is this: A wife must disobey her husband when her husband commands her to do something God forbids or forbids her from doing something God commands. (This same principle applies when obedience to the state conflicts with obedience to God.) For example, if a husband orders his wife to murder, steal, or commit adultery; it is the moral obligation of the wife to disobey him. Conversely, if the husband forbids his wife to attend church on Sunday morning, she should go anyway, since God commands her not to forsake the assembling together with the saints for worship. Yet it’s not always easy to apply this principle. What about going to the church social? Does God command you to do that? What if your husband’s decision makes you unhappy or oppressed? Does God command you to be happy? Does he command you to be free of oppression? Here is where the imitation of Christ touches the heart of the woman’s role. To imitate Christ in the task of submission may involve a real participation in the humiliation and the suffering of Christ. There are times when the wife may disobey, but she must be very careful to insure that disobedience is done in order to obey God. It is easy to develop a false spirituality, distorting the commandments of God in such a way as to provide a spiritual subterfuge that covers the real desire to disobey her husband. Beware of the multitude of sins people commit in the name of some form of liberation. THE ROLE OF THE MAN IN MARRIAGE If the woman seems to have a difficult task in submitting to her husband, how much more difficult is the responsibility given the man. Not only is the man commanded to love his wife (which in earthly terms may be quite easy), but he is commanded to love her as Christ loved the Church. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her [v. 25]. On the surface it seems the Apostle is giving some naive counsel. Picture a man telling a marriage counselor he doesn’t love his wife anymore. In fact, he says he can’t stand her. She has become ugly and sloppy and is always nagging, etc. Finally the marriage counselor turns to the man and says, "What you need to repair your marriage is to love your wife." Some advice! What is the man supposed to do? Push the button and—bingo! He’s in love again? Certainly not. The way the word "love" is normally used in our society, it is impossible to create it by an act of the will. I can’t decide to be in love. When we talk about love, we usually do so by speaking of it in the passive voice: "I fell in love," or "Zing went the strings of my heart." Love in the world’s view is something that happens to me, not something I can conjure by shutting my eyes, taking a deep breath, and making a decision. But in the New Testament, love is more of a verb than a noun. It has more to do with acting than with feeling. The call to love is not so much a call to a certain state of feeling as it is to a quality of action. When Paul says, "Love your wives," he is saying, "Be loving toward your wife—treat her as lovely." Do the things that are truly loving things. If the husband doesn’t feel romantic toward his wife, that does not mean he can’t be loving. To be sure, romance makes it a lot easier to be loving, but it is not a necessary prerequisite for fulfilling the biblical mandate. How are husbands to love their wives? How much love is required of the man? Paul says like Christ loves the Church. How much does Christ love his Church? Notice that Paul adds that Christ "gave himself up for her." The kind of love Christ has for the Church is self-sacrificial love. Consider the substance of Christ’s sacrifice for the Church. He gave everything he had, including his life, for his bride. He withheld nothing. How much patience does he have with his Church? How often must he endure loss of affection and rebellion? Is there any problem that a man could possibly have with his wife that Christ hasn’t had with the Church? Yet he continues to love her. What if the wife refuses to be submissive, must the husband still love his wife? Does Christ still love the Church? Again, if one partner refuses to obey his responsibilities and violates his role, that does not relieve the other person from responsibility. God does not say, "Wives be submissive to your husbands when they are loving," or "Husbands love your wives when they are submissive." Two wrongs still don’t add up to a right. Retaliation brings no honor to Christ. One of the most important dimensions of the analogy between Christ and the Church and a husband and his wife is the importance given to the wife. Christ never regards his bride with a casual interest or considers her of secondary importance. That’s no small thing. Consider the responsibilities that belong to Christ as King of the cosmos. He is not a do-nothing king with only titular importance. He is an extremely busy king. His is the responsibility for maintaining the entire universe. He must see to it that the sun rises every day, the stars remain in their courses, earthly kingdoms rise and fall, and a host of other things. But with this schedule, he still has time for his bride. If ever a husband had a right to neglect his wife, it is Christ. Yet the petitions from the Church are not relegated to the attention of minor angels in a heavenly bureaucracy. Christ intercedes for his people daily. He is never "away on business" and never "too busy" for his bride. He gives himself without reservation. What woman would mind submitting herself to that kind of love? It is all too easy for married men to view their wives with steadily diminishing importance once the wedding is over. Before that, the man expends an enormous amount of energy seeking to woo and win his wife. He enters the courting relationship with the zeal and the dedication of an Olympic-bound athlete. He gives his girl his undivided attention, making her the center of his devotion. When the marriage is achieved, our athlete turns his attention to other goals. He figures he has the romantic aspect of his life under control and now goes on to scale new heights. He devotes less and less time to his wife, treating her as less and less important. In the meantime the woman, being accustomed to the courting process, enters the marriage relationship expecting that to continue. As the marriage progresses, she finds herself devoting more attention to her husband than she did before the marriage, while he is devoting less attention to her. Now she is washing his clothes, cooking his meals, making his bed, cleaning his house—maybe even packing his suitcase. At the same time, he is becoming less affectionate (though perhaps more erotic), taking her out less, and generally paying less attention to her. This syndrome, when allowed to continue unchecked, frequently results in an affair. The affair, popularized by novels and romanticized by Hollywood and television, has become a national epidemic. At one time in my ministry I was counseling sixteen couples who were having marital problems with a third party involved. In every case I asked the unfaithful partner the same question, "What is it that attracted you to this person" In every single case the answer was essentially the same, "He made me feel like a woman," or "She made me feel like a man again." It’s easy to make a woman feel like a woman during courtship. It’s not so easy to do it in marriage. It simply cannot be done if the wife is regarded as being of secondary importance. When Paul speaks of the necessity of the husband giving himself to the wife as Christ gave himself to the church, he is touching the very heart of marriage. Certain kinds of men are particularly vulnerable to wife-neglect. Men involved in public service can easily delude themselves into thinking their work is more important than their wives. Clergymen and doctors must especially be wary of this as they are always on call. Though it can never be a substitute for daily concern and attention for the wife, the annual honeymoon can be a great boon to a growing marriage. After ten years without one and then finally experiencing the opportunity of being away together for a week, Vesta and I resolved never to go through another year without a honeymoon. We go away without the children, and we can then give our undivided attention to each other. I’ve asked many couples if they ever go away like this, and they often say no. "We can’t afford it," they usually say. Yet these people have two cars, a color TV, etc. I would love to have two cars, but I can’t afford that and a honeymoon too. Vesta and I find these honeymoons so meaningful that they represent a necessity and not a luxury in our budget. Paul elaborates further on the analogy of Christ and the Church by calling attention to the purpose of Christ’s sacrificial self-giving: …that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and blameless [vv. 26, 27]. Christ’s goal is to present his bride in "all her glory." Why does he want to do that? Christ has intrinsic glory—the glory of the only begotten Son of God. He certainly doesn’t need any more glory. The Church has no intrinsic glory. Any glory the Church has is derived. It gains its glory exclusively from Christ. Christ doesn’t need the Church yet his passionate concern is that his bride possess the fullness of glory. When the New Testament speaks of the Church’s glory, it is speaking of its dignity. By analogy, the husband is called to give himself to the purpose of establishing his wife in the fullness of dignity. When he uses his authority to destroy his wife’s dignity, he becomes the direct antithesis of Christ. He mirrors not Christ but the Antichrist. After marriage the biggest single influence on the development of the wife’s personality and character is the husband. When a man comes to me and complains that his wife has changed since they got married, I immediately respond, "Who do you suppose changed her?" In a sense, the wife a man has is the wife he has produced. If he has a monster, maybe he ought to examine his own nature. In the Ephesians passage, it is clear that the husband is called to be the priest of his home. The man is responsible for the spiritual well-being of his wife. Her sanctification is his responsibility There is probably no male task that has been more neglected in our society than this one. The Christian Church in America is becoming a feminine organization. Count the heads in your church on Sunday morning and see how many more women are present than men. My adult education classes are filled with women whose husbands are home in bed or at the golf course on Sunday morning. While the wives are growing spiritually, the husbands are going to seed. I get a lot of static from men whose wives are bugging them to get more involved in the church. A man should know more about the things of God than his wife and certainly more than his children. He should be the primary teacher and prime example for his wife. This is an awesome responsibility—a responsibility for which every husband will be held accountable. The priestly role of the husband is not optional, but mandatory. In seeking the sanctification of the Church, there is a sense in which Christ seeks to change his wife. So the husband is called to change his wife. But that change is not supposed to ruin her. The change is to be toward a higher conformity to the image of Christ. We should seek to present our wives to Christ as holy and blameless, being without spot or wrinkle! Paul goes on to say: So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body [vv. 28-30]. How much do you love your body? How much time do you spend trying to make it look nice and feel good? Oh, what we go through for the sake of our bodies! Right this minute, as I am penning these lines, I am about to go crazy for the sake of my body. I am trying to lose twenty pounds by means of Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution. I’m "purple" and the pounds are beginning to go. But for a carbohydrate addict this diet is not my idea of fun. I’d give my kingdom for a loaf of bread or a baked potato! What do you do when someone attacks your body? I know I become defensive when someone tries to harm me. I’m always a little amused and even more annoyed when someone attacks me verbally and as soon as I begin to reply the person says, "don’t get defensive!" It’s like Hitler mobilizing his panzer division for a blitzkrieg and telling the Polish chief of state not to get defensive. The Apostle’s point is clear. Husbands are called to love their wives as their own bodies. Does that not imply that the husband will do everything in his power to protect and defend his wife from any possible harm? He is to be her knight in shining armor, guarding her in body, mind, and soul. Finally, the husband is called to nourish and cherish his wife. Do you cherish your wife? That is, do you put a high value on her? Do you enjoy the advances of other women or do you regard them as a threat to your cherished marriage? I began my professional teaching career at age twenty-six. Being a college professor who deals with girls only a few years younger can be very hazardous. For many young women there is a certain charisma attached to the professor, especially if he is young. Some make it a point of sorority honor to try to seduce these men. I remember one young thing who behaved in a very seductive way, both in clothing and manner. After one examination, she came to my desk to turn in her paper and in a super-sultry voice said to me, "I have a very difficult time expressing myself with words, Mr. Sproul." I turned red and said, "Unfortunately, Miss—, words are all that count on this exam." Though I was flattered and my ego was titillated, I soon learned that indulging my ego to such flattery could be a serious threat to my marriage. If that sort of thing happens now, a little defense buzzer rings inside of me, and I feel insulted rather than flattered because my cherished marriage is at stake. I remember reading the results of a poll taken among married couples. The poll asked, if you had it to do over again, would you marry the person you’re married to now?" The answers were staggering. A vast majority answered, "No." How much do they cherish their partners? While driving one day, I asked myself the same question, adding one new dimension. I asked the question, "If I could be married to any woman in the world, to whom would I like to be married?" In an instant, without hesitation, the answer came—Vesta. What a thrill to know that in the privacy of my own soul I could say that. My wife submits to my authority, but she is no slave. She is feisty and spirited, every inch a woman. She is a helpmate, and I wouldn’t trade her for anyone. She knows she is cherished. What kind of role do you play in your marriage? Does your role imitate God? Do you walk in love? If you do, you have a happy marriage. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 1. What roles do you fulfill in the home? 2. What roles did your parents fulfill? 3. Does Christ have the authority to regulate your role? 4. Does subordination mean inferiority? 5. What is a helpmate? 6. Do you want a 50-50 marriage? 7. Do you want male "leadership" in the home? Is it there? 8. When can a wife disobey her husband? 9. What is the difference between biblical love and Hollywood love? 10. What does it mean for a husband to "give himself" to his wife? 11. Why do people have affairs? 12. What makes you feel like a man? a woman? 13. How often do you go away together? How can you manage it more often? 14. Who is the spiritual leader in your home? 15. What does it mean to "cherish" your spouse? Sproul, R. (. C. (1975). The intimate marriage : A practical guide to building a great marriage. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.