Tag: marriage

Posted on

Women’s Work

By Amy Spiegel

For years, when our children were small, Jim and I would share a hurried kiss and a “Have a good day” as he left for campus and I began a day at home with the kids. We used to joke that as we went our separate ways, each of us would look at the other with wistful pity and mutter under our breath “Sucker!”

Sure, there were days when, with a heart full of envy, I imagined him gathered around the water cooler (this was truly imagining because they didn’t have a water cooler) with his colleagues, discussing current events, quoting Plato and basking in the luxury of adult time. I am less sure that there were days where he sighed with regret as he pulled out of the driveway, watching the kids and I head out for a walk to the library or a playdate with friends. But for the most part, we were quite comfortable in our roles. He was the main breadwinner, supporting our family financially, not to mention influencing the minds of countless students and readers through his lectures, books, and articles. I was a stay-at-home mom, supporting our family through the various little tasks of home life, planning meals and doing laundry, not to mention educating our kids through elementary and middle school. We were, and still are, a great team, sharing the responsibilities and burdens, as well as the joys and rewards, of raising a family and pursuing a life of purpose and accomplishment.

I have no doubt that Jim, were he left on his own, would not have accomplished as much professionally without my support. Were he to have been a single dad, most of his time and energy would have gone into raising his kids, with little surplus for research and writing. I consider his accomplishments, all the publications, awards, etc., to be shared accomplishments in which I played a vital, though not equal, role. Obviously, he could have been a non-dad and had many more hours for his intellectual pursuits, but without the depth of experience, not to mention the love and encouragement, a family brings which I think has shaped him into a greater man than he would be otherwise.

Similarly, had I been a single mom I’m not sure the kids and I would have made it out of their formative years alive. Putting aside the obvious financial support Jim provided, allowing me the privilege of focusing on raising our family, his emotional and spiritual support was instrumental in my development as a wife, mother, and more generally as a human being. He is quick to credit me with influencing our kids to a greater degree than he has and that is perhaps somewhat true given the sheer quantity of time I was able to spend with them. But that time was made possible through the hours he spent lecturing, grading, doing research, and so on, not to mention the profound impact he has had on me as the spiritual head of our family. Our roles have shifted over the years, with the kids off to school, though I am still more focused on the daily routines of our family while he is focused on providing for our family through a myriad of ways.

This division of labor has worked, with varying degrees of success, for thousands of years. Men and women working together to nurture the next generation. Of course there have been abuses and imbalances of power, but the modern tendency to sneer at “women’s work” in the home as oppressive or demeaning is yet another symptom of the overall mass misogyny of our times. Nowhere is this more apparent in the current petition calling for the dismissal of Kansas City Chief’s player Harrison Butker over comments he made as the commencement speaker for Benedictine College which you may read in full here.

Those supporting this effort have called his comments “sexist, homophobic, anti-trans, anti-abortion and racist.” Well, they at least they got the anti-abortion part right. I won’t go into all their claims but would like to address their accusation that Butker’s remarks were sexist. Many

National Catholic Register

have pointed to the hypocrisy of those leading the charge for Butker’s firing given the numerous instances of domestic abuse and unlawful and violent behavior on the part of countless NFL players which has garnered little attention from the press or fans. What’s most interesting to me about the outcry on the part of some regarding Butker’s comments, however, is hypocrisy in another form.

They believe that a man celebrating the sacrifices and achievements of his wife is sexist. They believe that a woman’s value is to be found in her paycheck and not in her eternal investments in the lives of those entrusted to her care. In other words, they believe that women should be judged by the historically male dominated standards of career and, for lack of a better word, “worldly” accomplishments. Do they think that Butker holds his wife hostage at home? Do they think so little of women’s intellect that we are incapable of deciding for ourselves how we will divide our time and energy? Do they see so little value in the great joys of motherhood and homemaking? This seems the epitome of sexism!

In a world where men have decided that they can simply declare themselves women, invade our private spaces, steal our opportunities in sports and demand our acceptance of them as our equal, can we not at least acknowledge that being a modern woman can take many forms? Can we not celebrate those who work inside the home alongside those who choose to do so outside the home? In a world which demands acceptance of all manner of lifestyle choices, can we not allow for the rights of the traditional alongside the pantheon of “alternatives”?

The petition demanding his firing calls for unity rather than divisiveness. I couldn’t agree more; as our founding fathers put it, “Out of the many, one.” One body with many parts, all working together to function as a whole. This to me is the unity of purpose Harrison Butker wished to celebrate by praising his wife and all she has done from the sidelines to support and enable him and their family. In my eyes, she is playing the better game and winning. There are of course other roles that women can play, roles which hold great value and purpose. But I say Isabelle Butker is the star quarterback for her team. Perhaps you disagree but as for me, I’m a big fan!

Posted on

On Hatmaker on Marriage

By Amy Spiegel

Being critical of popular writer and speaker Jen Hatmaker feels a bit like kicking puppies. If you are unfamiliar with Hatmaker, she is a blogging, self-depreciating, too-much-info sharing pastor’s wife and author of Seven and Interrupted. She manages to be funny and heartfelt all the while sharing her clear desire to see the Gospel impact the world around her. She also has a great collection of oversized earrings that I confess to greatly envy.

Since setting off on my journey to become a published writer, Jen Hatmaker has served as a model for what I would like to achieve; walking that razor-thin line of approachable yet substantive. She is authentic and real but without making excuses or compromising her convictions. Do you sense the giant “but” approaching? Here it comes…

BUT, having enjoyed and been inspired by her writing so much, I was that much more disappointed when I read Hatmaker’s recent blog post regarding World Vision and it’s since reversed decision to allow for the hiring of married gay employees.

www.fellowshipwomenonline.com
www.fellowshipwomenonline.com

It isn’t Hatmaker’s position on gay marriage that disappoints me since her position is unclear. (She has clarified her position in her latest post if you care to know.) What I find so disturbing is her dangerous mischaracterization of the nature of biblical truth and our ability to discern that truth, all in the name of peacemaking.

Hatmaker says “…the Christian community is not going to reach consensus on gay marriage.” I actually disagree with this view since the church has historically been in agreement on this issue for thousands of years. But putting that aside, supposing that we will never agree, in her opinion, mean that we should throw in the towel and just agree to disagree?

What if the early church fathers had taken this approach regarding the biblical canon or heresies that plagued the early church? Should they have simply thrown up their hands and agreed to disagree? Despite her claims that there was a significant lack of agreement among the early church regarding major aspects of the faith, we have hard won creeds and doctrines that have been passed down to us that say differently.

Speaking of the early church fathers, this brings me to my second beef with Hatmaker’s assertions that “we” will never agree. When it comes to the church—and I mean the church beyond 21st century evangelical protestant America—and its view of same-sex marriage, there is actually a larger consensus than she is willing to admit. When one takes into account the whole of the church, through history and across continents, the overwhelming majority comes down on the side of traditional marriage. I find it ironic that too often those who claim to speak for the open-minded crowd neglect the opinions and perspectives of literally billions of believers.

Hatmaker asserts that “Thousands of churches and millions of Christ-followers faithfully read the Scriptures and with thoughtful and academic work come to different conclusions on homosexuality (and countless others). Godly, respectable leaders have exegeted the Bible and there is absolutely not unanimity on its interpretation. There never has been.” This is simply not true. It isn’t true of homosexuality and it isn’t true of any of the major tenets of the Christian faith. If it were, we wouldn’t be a single religion but rather a collection of sects.

Has there been disagreement among certain traditions regarding issues such as baptism, predestination, and more culturally relevant issues such as slavery and the role of women? Absolutely. But there is also a rich history of common ground that as Christians we all enjoy and should fight, yes fight, to defend.

I absolutely agree with Jen Hatmaker that the world needs to see the Church work through these issues with love and respect. I just don’t want to see us sacrifice what is true in the name of let’s-all-just-get-alongitus. For then, if we allow the truth to slip away while we are too busy making nice with one another, what will we have to offer a lost and dying world? What Good News will there be left to tell?

We must wrestle with the truth and with one another not in order to prove we’re right or win points for our side. We must preserve it in order to give it to those who so desperately need it. The truth is there to be discovered and in the end it will set us all free.

Posted on

True Marital Bliss

By Amy Spiegel

This week Jim and I have the amazing good fortune to be in the Bahamas on a somewhat paid-for vacation. He is teaching two classes to Taylor students while I am catching up on my HGTV watching and getting ahead of schedule on my book reading challenge for the year. Can you guess which one of us is getting paid?

In some of my mindless web surfing free time, I discovered a post entitled “I’m Dating Someone Even Though I’m Married” that annoyed me greatly, but not in the way you might think. The post was written by Jarrid Wilson, a pastor and author, who is not an adulterer, because the woman he is dating is, in fact, his wife. Wilson encourages his readers “to date your spouse, pursue them wholeheartedly, and understand that dating shouldn’t end just because you said, ‘I do.’”

“Why would anyone find a man challenging married couples to pursue one another annoying?” you might ask. Well, here’s why: I don’t think married life is not primarily about being happy; nor do I think being married is about finding your soul mate, best friend or the love of your life.

Now before y’all start feeling sorry for Jim because he is obviously married to a heartless cynic, let me explain. Jim is my favorite person. I never knew a person could be so morally outstanding yet interesting and fun until I met him. Somehow, despite my miserable failings, poor basketball skills and occasional emotional outbursts, I convinced this man to marry me and haven’t regretted it for a moment.

But happiness shouldn’t be the main focus of our marriage. That sort of self-focused, hedonistic approach to married life is one of the reasons why divorce is wreaking havoc in the church. I know it can certainly wreak havoc in mine.

When we were first married, I wanted to have the perfect marriage, and my pursuit of the perfect relationship nearly killed both of us. When we argued, I had to analyze it to death in order to discover the deeper source of discord. I thought if I just dug deep enough I could fix it and then everything would be perfect. What I came to realize, though, was that in marriage, as in life, there is no perfect.

The root of the problem in my marriage, and every other marriage out there, is sin—my sin and his. Not just small instances of sin here and there but the sin that has soaked into every cell and that must be fought at every turn. It might sound like a depressing thought, but for me it was liberating. It transformed my understanding of the purpose of marriage.

Marriage isn’t about making each other happy, though that is often a bi-product of the self-sacrifice and selfless love it demands. Marriage is about making each other good. It isn’t about pursuing one another. It is about pursuing righteousness. And it can get ugly.

But should that surprise us? When Christ pursued our righteousness, it wasn’t with a romantic gesture, with flowers and a box of chocolates. It was with an instrument of torture, with a bloody cross, and a crown of thorns. Married life should be marked with blood, sweat and tears. We should expect to be wounded and scarred as we battle for a greater good.

Of course that isn’t the end of the story. Christ’s pursuit didn’t end in sorrow but in the ultimate joy, salvation for all who will accept it. And our pursuit can reflect that joy. Adjusting our understanding of marriage isn’t about lowering our standards, but rather about raising them to new heights.

When we stop trying to make each other, and ourselves, happy and start trying to make each other, and ourselves, good, that is when we begin to understand the true purpose of marriage. The question isn’t do I pursue Jim wholeheartedly in order to make him feel loved. The question is do I pursue Christ in order to love Jim with a love only Christ can give. And the answer is, of course, “I do.”

Posted on

Augustine, the Roman Empire, and an American Cultural Deity

By Jim Spiegel

This summer I have been reading through Augustine’s City of God (unabridged version—nearly 900 pages).  It has been fascinating to see how deftly he moves from history to theology to philosophy to cultural analysis.  And his insights and wisdom in each of these topical spheres is impressive (though, of course, he shows his fallibility on many issues along the way as well).

In the first few hundred pages of the book Augustine discusses various aspects of the collapse of the Roman Empire.  And several times he mentions how Christians were blamed for this, specifically because of their critique and rejection of making sacrifices to the gods.  Many people thought this failure to appease the gods angered them and that the problems throughout the empire were a consequence of the gods’ vengeance or spiteful refusal to provide assistance.  So now the Roman Empire was crumbling, and it was all the Christians’ fault.  We are tempted to smile at such a silly and misguided accusation, but of course it was no laughing matter, as many Christians were seriously persecuted as a result of this accusation.

The situation in 21st century American culture bears some similarities to that in Augustine’s time.  All around us we see signs of cultural decay and social breakdown.  And our political system, too, is vulnerable to eventual collapse.  It is also interesting to note that Christians today, as in Augustine’s day, are often blamed for our social troubles, such as because of our pro-life advocacy and promotion of monogamy and traditional marriage (of course, not all Christians take these views, but most do).  It is also interesting to note how our stance on these issues constitutes a certain refusal to sacrifice to one of the most prominent deities of American culture, namely the god of sexual autonomy.  Americans make daily sacrifices to this deity in the form of promiscuity and the termination of unborn lives.  And Christians who oppose these sacrifices are often vilified and blamed for opposing social goods, even undermining the American way of life.

This is just one of the ways in which Augustine’s 1500-year-old analysis of ancient Rome is still relevant today.  While I hope our country doesn’t go the way of Rome any time soon (though, like all nations, it will eventually), the lessons we can glean from their history may be a source of cultural insight and practical wisdom.

Posted on

A Bumpy But Enjoyable Ride

By Amy Spiegel

Sometimes providence presents you with such an obvious image of some deeper reality, you have to sit up and take notice. This past weekend was one such occasion for Jim and me. We were spending a delightful day at the lake with friends, watching the kids swim and tube. Our friends asked if we, the hubby and I, wanted a turn tubing. I jumped at the chance and committed us both. Recently the kids have reached a level of independence that has allowed me to resume my place in the participants’ category, after years on the sidelines with the other breastfeeding, baby-growing, nap-supervising onlookers. Maybe this explains my disproportionate enthusiasm for clinging to a glorified life raft while being dragged around behind a fast-moving boat. I was giddy with freedom. It quickly became apparent that my husband and I, while being compatible in more ways than I can count, have very different approaches when it comes to tubing. I was all for throwing caution to the wind, jumping the wake and wildly swinging ourselves from one side to the other. He was for digging in, sticking to the middle and just hanging on. Despite our difference in technique, we had a great time but I think each of us was a bit frustrated with the other, feeling as though our partner in life was working against rather than with us. Jim says I am overanalyzing, but isn’t that what he has me around for? So here are some marital truisms I picked up along our bump ride. Maybe you can relate to or learn from our experience.

Number One: Neither one of you is going to be entirely comfortable. Know this from the get go and make the best of it. In marriage, as in tubing, you are two people occupying one space. Someone’s elbow will occasionally be in the other’s face. That’s just the way the tube bounces. Don’t look at the other person and assume that they have more freedoms or privileges than you. Don’t accuse them of unjustly taking advantage of you. This usually results in them pointing out all the ways you unjustly take advantage of them. Unless you are being pushed off the raft altogether, give your spouse the benefit of the doubt, hold on and try to keep from knocking the other person’s teeth out.

Number Two: Decide upon a generally agreed upon philosophy or approach before you are in motion. Once the momentum of marriage is going, there is little time for adjustment. Of course, you can shift places and do things on the fly but this generally involves a great deal more effort once you are underway than it does before things get rolling. While Jim and I did not do this on the lake, we did do this early on in our relationship. These guiding principles have evolved through the years but we still refer back to them to make sure we are living up to our commitment to one another.

Number Three: Someone will get tired and fall off the raft. Don’t panic. Just hold on and the boat will come around to pick them up again. In our relationship, and in tubing, this is generally me. I don’t jump ship in the sense of running away or breaking my commitment. I just get tired and emotional, go off the deep end (the nautical metaphors are endless!) and need time to come back to the surface. Jim has learned over the years to just let me go, stay calm and everything will be okay. No need for both of us plunge head first into Crazytown. His serenity highlights my irrationality and brings me back around sooner than if he went in after me.

Number Four: Remember who is really in charge. The fact that I can lean hard and move us toward the wake or that Jim can drag his feet deep into the surf and keep us toward the middle makes it feel like we are co-captains but in reality it is the person driving the boat who is in control. He can whip us around or keep things nice and easy but in the end we are at His mercy and not each other’s. I know I can trust Jim and I hope he feels the same way about me, but in the end I know that I don’t have to cling to him for my ultimate safety. It makes things a lot less scary in marriage and in life. With this thought in mind, in good times or in bad, in the smooth waters or in the rough, I can sit back and enjoy the ride.

Posted on

Journey to the Center of the Knot

By Amy Spiegel

As the mother of four, ideas of dating, commitment and marriage are often on my mind and the topic of discussion between Jim and me. True, our kids are a little young (okay, really young, since most of them still require some assistance in the bathroom).  Nevertheless, my motto, sadly, seems to be “It’s never too early to worry about future events that are just as unlikely as likely to occur.”

Perhaps my worries stem from witnessing friends and family with older kids struggling with an aversion to dating when the subject relates to their teenage children. Of course, our oldest boys are developmentally at the stage where they are still quite certain that girls have cooties and would rather die than do anything other than pull their hair and run the other way. And our five-year-old daughter is at that glorious stage where she is torn between marrying her daddy and one of our college student friends. But I feel I can see just around the bend of the road ahead and anticipate the day when girls will suddenly be cured of their cooties and daddy won’t seem quite so appealing. So in the spirit of an ounce of prevention, I must confess to having fostered, especially in my boys, the idea that dating is for the birds and marriage is something to be put off like going to the dentist—you have to do it sometime, but there’s no need to be in a hurry about it.

tying the knotAn article in the latest issue of Christianity Today has me rethinking my assumptions, however. The article by Mark Regnerus, entitled “The Case for Early Marriage,” challenges conventional wisdom with regard to marrying at an early age. I am not sure what I think of the article’s argument but it has me wondering if there are some contradictions between my strong views on the importance of family and my discouragement of dating. When I think of any of my kids dating seriously in high school or early college, I am filled with trepidation. I have often told them that every commitment you make narrows your possibilities, so you have to think very carefully before committing to a relationship. Once you are in, you have certain obligations to that person that shouldn’t be neglected, a none-of-the-guys-go-steady-‘cause-it-wouldn’t-be-right-to-leave-your-best-girl-home-on-a-Saturday-night sort of approach. I want them to experience “life” before settling down, but what am I teaching them about the meaning of that life if I am saying “life” means freedom, lack of commitment and pleasure while family, responsibility and obligation are the anti-climax.

Jim and I recently had an enlightening discussion over dinner with a student friend—the one Maggie is determined to marry—and talked about the generational differences and how they contribute to widely differing approaches to vocation. Our young friend talked a lot about finding meaning in the journey rather than it all being about the destination. While I resonated with much of what he expressed, I couldn’t help but ask myself, if it is all about the journey, how does that reflect on my current location? As a stay-at-home mom, my journey is far from picturesque. Without a meaningful destination, most of the mundane things I spend my time accomplishing are without purpose. I should be really depressed, but I’m not. Far from it, I take pride in the fact that my hard work is a service to those I love most. I may not be “free” to see the world but my responsibilities bring a deeper meaning to my life that I wouldn’t trade for all the frequent flyer miles in North America. Of course, getting married isn’t the only type of commitment you can make. (One only has to join a church, commit to a deep friendship or volunteer for ministry to discover that.)

Now this doesn’t mean I am ready to start double dating with any of my kids this weekend, but it has informed my perspective on what I used to see as the impending doom of watching my kids discover love of the romantic variety. And hopefully, some day—many, many years from now—they will find true freedom in tying the knot.

Posted on

The APA Controversy Over Religion and Sexuality

By Jim Spiegel

Some members of the American Philosophical Association (APA) are circulating a petition that aims to censure orthodox Christian colleges and universities.  The authors of the petition are requesting that the APA not allow these institutions to advertise open positions in their publication Jobs for Philosophers. The crux of the issue?  The non-permissive stance of these schools regarding homosexual behavior.  You can read the petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/cmh3866/petition.html

The implications of this petition are severe, not only for Christian colleges but for orthodox Jewish and Muslim schools as well.  The petition amounts to a frontal attack on the religious liberty of private educational institutions. In response, some Christian philosophers have drawn up a counter-petition, which you can read here:  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/apa/.  I have already signed this petition and encourage you to consider doing so as well.

Mark Murphy of Georgetown University has drafted a very insightful response to this controversy, which you can see here:  http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/murphym/APAStatement-Murphy.htm. Murphy makes several illuminating observations, many regarding the history of the APA nondiscrimination provisions and other points pertaining to the faulty logic of the petition to change the APA’s advertising policy.  Here I will summarize and embellish some of Murphy’s points:

First, the accused Christian colleges do not single out homosexual activity as unacceptable.  Rather, such colleges prohibit all extramarital sexual practice, which also includes adultery, premarital sex, polygamy, pedophilic sex, and bestiality.  The expectation at these Christian colleges is that their employees and students will refrain from all sexual activity that is outside the bounds of Christian marriage.  While some homosexuals might consider the expectation to refrain from extramarital sexual activity to be a burden, it is not a special burden placed on them, since heterosexuals are also expected to refrain from extramarital sex.

Second, note that this is a behavioral prohibition which is consistent with nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (per the language of the APA nondiscrimination policy).  To be sexually oriented in a certain way, whether heterosexually or homosexually, is to be physically attracted to members of a particular gender.  But to act or not to act on these desires is a matter of choice, just as it is a matter of choice as to whether to have sex at all.  To insist that persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are not free to choose whether or with whom to have sex, assumes a form of hard determinism—a view which, to say the least, is highly contentious.  (See my January 26 post about this.)

Third, the moral norm of confining sex to marriage between one man and one woman is inherent to the religious commitment of these Christian colleges.  Moreover, this is the long-standing belief and practice of all major theisms—Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—and many other religions besides.  So to sanction schools for observing this ideal would be blatant religious discrimination—against, in fact, the religious beliefs of the majority people in the world.