below is my husband's reaction. mine will come next in a second post. please PLEASE share your thoughts with us on these interesting topics. let's get some community conversation going!
**guest blogger**
we went to a marriage conference at church this past weekend. bad pun alert: it was called rock your marriage, because you're both amplifying and succeeding at it, as well as founding it on jesus (the rock). we have been talking about the conference since it ended saturday afternoon. and that's good, in a sense, because my marriage is my most important relationship. the attention we give to it is not wasted energy. we have taken the opportunity to reflect again on what is most important to us in our marriage, and on what works and what doesn't work in our relationship. and it has been gainful. unfortunately, however, we were mostly disappointed by the program, which is why we have been talking about it so much. the positive reflection has been mostly in contrast to the program, for i will offer three major critiques.
the biggest issue i had with the program was how male-centric it was. it's definitely understandable, given that the presenting couple was a pastor and former football player and his former athlete wife, who had three boys. the husband did almost all of the talking. he addressed men's issues first. he also did most of the talking on women's issues. the most significant talking that the wife did was about how women can henpeck their men into pale versions of the glorious men of God they could be. this does not model my marriage (even as i acknowledge that sarah and i are more ambitious in our marriage than most people we know). there is no scriptural justification to structure a marriage in this male-centered way. yes, men are called to be the head of the family in ephesians 5:23, but men are also called in ephesians 5:28 to love their wives as they love themselves, making men and women necessarily equal in a marriage. (this is not to mention the language in genesis 2:24 and ephesians 5:31 where two become one.)
i was also disappointed in the heavy focus given to the narrative theme that marriage is the cornerstone of spiritual warfare, specifically that marriage between a man and a woman is God's primary weapon in the war for our souls, and that its most powerful effect is the legacy of procreation. i understand why someone believes that. it's a fairly intuitive story. i don't disagree on the power of marriage, but my narrative is entirely different. i think the lesson of adam and eve is that we cannot reach our most godly potential without trust and fidelity to God and to each other within a marriage. incidentally this is a much more inclusive vision of marriage that doesn't reflexively exclude gay couples. i also can't ignore both that my own membership in god's family is at its core adoptive, and that the bible devotes enough words to infertility and sterility that i think procreation isn't as central to marriage as it was portrayed. it was also personally frustrating knowing how many people in my life have struggled with infertility and sterility. some of them were in the audience. i do not believe their marriage deviates from its godly purpose as would be it necessarily would if procreation is so central to the identity of marriage.
thirdly, and almost predictably, they changed course from the schedule to talk about spiritual warfare and porn instead of sex. why abandon sex for these tepid and overworked themes? why talk about what takes away from sex without first discussing what it means to a marriage and why it's SO FUCKING AMAZING? we spend so much time talking about the perversions that are not a part of god's intentions for sex, but we never talk about what god's intentions for sex are. we need to know! my experience in the church, especially among people raised in the church, informs the idea that we need to talk about actual sex, how it works, what it means and can mean, frankly, directly, and honestly.
bonus critique: i liked the discussion on the difference in how men and women communicate and receive value, that women seek affection and men seek respect. this is not new to us, but it is a very useful tool for analyzing a marriage relationship as well as for self-reflection. disappointingly the discussion tacked toward how men can use affection to manipulate their wives into have more sex with them while women can show respect to manipulate their husbands into doing more stuff around the house and with the children. the idea that in marriage we revel in each other and genuinely desire to delight our spouse as an end rather than a means was quite a bit more muted.
where sarah and i struggle with this is in its meaning for biblical marriage with respect to gender. we work hard to make our marriage exceptionally democratic. it is far more important for us to work together than to cleave to traditional gender roles. we both have professional careers, and we both cook, do dishes and laundry, and take care of the kids. sometimes we gravitate towards traditional gender roles, but i'd like to believe it's more about who we are than that we're defaulting to normative behavior. as much as ephesians 5:22 intuitively supports patriarchy, i think the context of 5:22-33 is much more nuanced and supportive of our democratic vision for marriage. when i think of the leadership of jesus i think of john 13:3-8, where jesus washed the feet of his disciples. when they protested he explained that if he doesn't wash their feet they have no share with him. the story continues in 13:16-17 where jesus further explains that a servant is not greater than his master, and that YOU ARE BLESSED IF YOU BECOME THE SERVANT. if i am the head of my family like jesus is the head of the church then equality is a bare minimum. i need to become the servant, and the kind of submission i expect from sarah is not to my authority, but to the commitment we made to each other and to God, just as i expect of myself.
i would have loved it if someone had sat on the stage and said that.
Very well put, sir.
ReplyDelete