BUT SERIOUSLY: Men, Women & Love

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Now the reactions to this passage usually revolve around revulsion, incredulity, disgust, fear, and if you're a man, happiness - with convenient misinterpretation. But like many scriptures it is widely misunderstood. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but my intutition tells me that the Bible is not just a book of rules or commands, but an insightful text that points out facts about human and Divine nature and how both those things 'work'.

In my opinion, this passage is telling us about the most basic but profound needs of men and women in the love relationship. The person with the most power (and responsibility) over you on earth is the one with whom you are in love. They have the potential to hurt and/or inspire you more deeply than any other person.

Now each Biblical role is seriously challenging, submission for women and total self-sacrifice for men. But something tells me that a woman would have little trouble entrusting herself (and that is what I believe submission to be) to a man she felt completely loved by and who would die for her. Likewise, I can't imagine any reasonable man would hesitate to lay down his life for a woman he felt genuinely respected him and demonstrated loyalty and devotion.

It is my belief that the last sentence of the excerpt is the core statrement: men above all else desire respect, and women above all else desire love and affection. Both are experessions of love, but each incarnation is an articulation in accordance with the way the respective genders consume love.

Women look for a man they can respect, who knows how and when to 'put his foot down' with anyone - including her, but is also considerate and gentle though firm and strong in character. A man loves a strong and outspoken woman who wants to uplift rather than compete against him - who will 'be on his side' and truly believe in him.

We are in the realm of the ideal right now - so clearly this passage is proposing the goal and aspiration. Men may balk at the idea that such a woman exists and women laugh at the possibility of such a prince. But as much as we sometimes fall - sometimes we are this ideal. The idea would be to become this ideal more of the time than not - and that will take not just time but intent, effort, practice and yes - Divine intervention. The built in failsafe is that each role is meant to compensate for the reality of human frailty.

If you give thought to some of the central conflicts of the man/woman relationship they revolve around issues of love and respect - usually surfacing through communication. It would take a profound sense of security and self-confidence to fulfil either of these roles. A sense of security and strength that would not find its genesis in the relationship itself but, I believe, from the Divine and from within the individual. A relationship that demonstrates fluency in the stated direction is one where each individual is bringing that peace, security, confidence, strength and Divine connection to the table. And one can only get what one pursues.

Issues of authority and leadership also arise and make this passage ever more controversial. But ask yourself if fighting for 'control' ever made you happy. Then ask yourself is having complete control ever made your partner happy. For both men and women the issue is not control - it's surrender.

The roles outlined by the scripture, in my opinion, relate to the natural needs of the parties rather than enforcing some unnatural order. One can assume the roles imply silence and non-participation for the woman and complete control and lordship for the man - but that would be a mistake. However, if that's what one wants it may be what one gets. Either way, for any relationship to work there must be an agreed order of some kind with which both parties are happy. No order, no plan, no agreement will lead to more conflict - disorder always does. Leadership doesn't imply superiority but responsibility and servanthood and any sensible leader will recognize the strengths (and weaknesses) of those in his care. Indeed the kind of leadership that scripture advocates subordinates the needs of the leader for the needs of those in his care.

The problem is the 'you first' mindset. If no one wants to fulfil their role until they are sure the other does so first - then there will be an impasse; constant conflict. So, if one person fails the other withdraws their offer of respect or love, as the case may be. Or one partner spends more time pointing out the other's responsibility rather than fulfilling her own. If one does not consider their partner worthy of self-sacrifice or respect then one should consider the future, value or at least purpose of the relationship (perhaps it is purely for entertainment or self-satisfaction).

Now, when we bring weighty issues like abuse, infidelity/adultery, apathy and such into the discussion, things get more complicated. Not every relationship works out and it can't be fun to be in a one-sided affair. But if our actions and attitudes are completely dependent on another, then who is really in control? Perhaps if we pursued the kind of very profound Divine confidence, that no mortal can give to us, our relationships would benefit profoundly.

It is my belief that virtues like respect and love are not things you do - but things you are. And wherever you go and whomever you go with, there you are.

Exorcising Your Rights? Demons of Homosexuality

The Original Exorcist

Many may have already seen the frightening and  pitiful YouTube 'exorcism' of a 16 year old boy. This 'spiritual' approach of the Manifestation of Glory Ministries in Connecticut is not strange amongst Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. Perhaps a look at the thinking within the denominations in question can shed light on this dehumanising ritual.

Jesus encountered a few demons during his sojourn on Earth and the Bible does attribute illnesses and afflictions to demons (Matthew 9:31-33 & Matthew 12: 21-23) though it also distinguishes demon possession as an affliction separate from physical illness (Matthew 4:23-25). Some movements have extended this demonic association to many things even beyond illness, to sinful acts and attitudes (like arrogance or hatred), stubbed toes, acid reflux and now, homosexuality.

The thinking behind this is that everything in the physical world is affected by the spiritual world. Because one, according to Ephesians 6, is in a spiritual battle 'against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms' then it must follow that demons are everywhere lying in wait to make you gay, arrogant, greedy or Republican.

The Devil Made Me Do...Everything

This view takes personal responsibility for one's own thoughts, actions and attitudes completely out of the picture, and advocates the 'devil made me do it' philosophy. Nothing is done out of will, intent or choice but we are under the control of some demon or other when we, for example, exceed the speed limit. This view also assumes that everything can be handled with a quick roll-on-the-ground exorcism (or some other spiritual rite) complete with projectile vomit. Everything including homosexuality or bad grades perhaps. This of course means one doesn't have to study to pass exams - just exorcise the 'demon of dunce'. This thinking also flies in the face of James (1 v 14&15) assertion that '...each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.' The obvious suggestion here is that we are responsible for our own actions - whatever they might be.

This obsession with the demonic is an easy way out of providing love, counselling, a listening ear, daily self-discipline or qualified care to those who need it. It's a quick fix that requires no thought, long suffering or effort on the part of the exorcist or the 'possessed'. It requires no depth of character or love. Anyone can roll on the ground without much practice, and shouting 'begone' into a microphone is easier than teaching someone the value of self-control and setting an example thereof. It wouldn't  be unreasonable to conclude that the desired results of this approach would last as long as the rite itself. But while people should be free to live according to what sexual orientation they find they have, there are those who wish to walk a path contrary to inner inclinations which, in this argument, happen to be homosexual desire. And make no mistake, there are those who have willingly made the move. Indeed, if Kinsey's  Scale is correct, then such a move will be easier for some than others.

The key element in this issue might be honesty. Even if a homosexual wishes not to live according to said desires, he will and should accept the reality of the desires as a part of who he is - so should his church family. Some folks have apparently converted their faith and sexual orientation with no looking back. But if a person is on the extreme right of the Kinsey Scale then this may not be possible. Though they may make a conscious choice based on their convictions, they might just have to accept that the desires are a permanent fixture (and to be sure there is a distinct difference between orientation and lifestyle - one need not act on desire whatever the orientation). Sexual issues can come with lots of baggage (even without sex involved we all have our carry-on luggage)  often being complicated by abuse, dysfunctional relationships, neglect, gender confusion, physical sexual ambiguity and so on. The view that every gay person is born thus oversimplifies the issue as much as thinking no one is born thus. It is one thing to undergo a religious conversion and quite another to resolve what might be deep psychological and emotional issues. Here, the suggestion may be that folks who are homosexual may not be so for identical reasons, and to formulate a rote response to a complex issue is a fast track to an assembly line of damaged goods.

The Right to Do or Not to Do

However, many are condemning this YouTube 'exorcism' because they think homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place - but haven't considered that the freedom for which we strive includes the freedom to deny our impulses as well - to choose another path. The Proposition 8 controversy in California, while seen as a dark day for democracy, is actually a victory for democracy as much as legalising gay marriage has been a victory in other states. In both cases the voice of the people was heard. The majority spoke and the majority won. That is democracy. The important and often overlooked element is attitude. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. But the homosexual debate is taking a turn to extremes on either side. Disapprove of homosexuality and you are an inhuman, irrational Jesus freak - advocate for it and you are the devil's spawn. Even though the application and brand of 'help' offered to this young man may have been totally useless and indeed harmful, his desire to seek  help was and still is his own personal choice.

There is no doubt that the discussed approach to spiritual development in general, and homosexuality in particular, is profoundly destructive. It wasn't demons that were attacked at this church in Connecticut - but a young man's dignity and right to a confidential listening ear and learned answer. The kind, perhaps, that Jesus would have offered. What actions will be taken against the church, if any, remain to be seen, and while we all have a right to our opinion, I am willing to assert that this church was exorcising the wrong right.

Women, Woe, Men & God

It was when I became a Christian back in '92 that I heard about this 'women must be submissive to men' business. It threw me into an uncomfortably confusing world that perhaps, 17 years later and some 7 years into marriage, has only just begun to make sense - only just...I think.

Now Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2 that ' 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' Calm down. I didn't write this - call Paul up and shout at him (there's context - but that's another note).

Then there are the passages on wives respecting husbands and husbands being the 'head of the house' etc. Now I heard these scriptures - but the confusing thing was what I saw. I have yet to meet an actual 'submissive' woman (I hear they exist but I don't believe it) - and back in my single days the wives always seemed to be in charge and to have the last word - the husband, as head of house, deemed his wife correct! I silently vowed to myself that I would not be such a husband. However, what made me even more disturbed and annoyed was that I always found the least submissive of women to be the most attractive - so I married one.

Now my wife was not in on my 'silent vow' so she hasn't paid any attention to it whatsoever - and since it completely slipped my mind to tell her my plan - well, I'm just going with the flow. But I was decidedly befuddled as a young man and young Christian as to what this submission was all about. Should I expect the women to wash my car on demand? Should they fawn at my feet and say that I am right even when I am obviously wrong? If I was about to walk into the street and into the path of an oncoming Tata bus; should they remain 'in quietness and full submission'? After all, as a man I clearly must know exactly what I am doing...right?

Well, since then I've come to a few conclusions - none of these conclusions apply to my wife, unless of course they are happy ones, and any resemblance to her is purely coincidental. At any rate I am being forced to write all this by some dude with a high-powered weapon that is dictating everything to me.

Ahem:

1. It WAS Eve's fault. Yes it was and I make no apologies. It has come to my attention that women think they are smarter than men at all times. It has also come to my attention that women are in fact smarter than men at all times. Eve should have known better - Adam was a complete idiot. This was confirmed when watching a UK TV show about pre-teen children sent to live on their own for two weeks. In innocence, a couple of them liked each other and started 'dating' (they are no more than 10 y/o). The undue attention caused the girl to do the most sensible thing and conspire with the boy to pretend they had broken up publicly and proceed to date 'secretly'. It was all her idea. A boy would never have even begun to think this - we are not smart enough. Later we discovered that she already had a boyfriend. Sigh. IT WAS EVE'S FAULT.

2. Men will do anything to get a woman to shut up...including make her happy. Yes, it's true. But women know it's true. Nagging is an age-old technique to getting what she wants, and in lieu of the man doing the right thing ad libitum, she must talk incessantly until he does it. After the 4th year, 3rd if she is proficient, a man will do almost anything to get her to stop talking for as long as possible. If the woman is made happy as a result of his efforts to get her to stop talking - this is only a pleasant side effect. Now we know why Adam ate the fruit. See point 1.

3. The most confusing and dangerous moment in the Universe is when a woman asks her man 'What do YOU think/want?'. Most men know that the woman does not want to know what he thinks/wants...or does she? His experience will tell him that she only wants to know if he knows what she thinks/wants. The seconds in which he deliberates what it is she REALLY wants to know are the most painful in a man's life. He must determine whether he will be talked at for not knowing what she thinks (by saying 'I don't know') or for not caring what she thinks by insensitively expressing an opinion different from hers aka his own opinion. How very dare him... I mean us. By far, the safest answer (since you asked) is 'whatever you want/think'. However, this will work for only a limited time.

4. Women are experts at deceiving...themselves. The illustration in point 1 would have already helped. Men are liars - but they absolutely suck at it. Women, on the other hand have perfected the art. But what makes a woman a good liar is that she genuinely believes what she is saying, as a lie, to be the truth (hence all women reading this have no idea what I'm talking about). This is also what makes women right most of the time - they have the ability to change the parameters of correctness to suit their conclusions. Amazing. I'm beginning to seriously doubt if there was snake in the tree and that it said anything at all to Eve. Indeed, if there was a snake in the tree it was minding its own business. But if you were to ask Eve if there was a snake and it told her to eat the fruit she would say 'yes' and pass a lie detector test to boot. That said, the fruit has been eaten and we are now in a grand cosmic mess. Adam still continues to be an idiot and somewhere in creation there is a very offended snake.

5. All wars are caused by women. Shakespeare (via Macbeth) and the the Iliad (Helen of Troy/Trojan War) prove this point, if at least theoretically. You don't have to believe me but I guarantee it's true. Wars are generally fought by men for money and power - money and power are for getting things done - women want things done. Consequentially, the Iraq war was a result of Bush doing his best to get his wife to stop talking. See point 2.

6. God is having a good laugh...and then a good cry.

Even in nature, the female of the species is the more aggressive and usually does most of the nesting, feeding, raring, hunting etc. Take lions, the females do the hunting and raring of the cubs. The males however, rule the pride based on their decidedly more stylish hairdo and larger size. But the females get the job done.

Why all the submission for women then? Well, men need it - their self-esteem and masculinity depend on it. And since there is no woman known to man who will be submissive on purpose, well we have to at least present the illusion of it. As the saying goes 'the man is the head, but the woman is the neck that nods/shakes the head'.

Anyway, the dude with the high-powered weapon wants me to get him something to eat. Till next time.

C. Arthur Young