I’ve heard foundations cannot be changed. (I feel like this is said when people describe how America was started as a Christian nation and therefore it could never not be a Christian nation.) But sometimes houses are moved from their foundations and placed in other areas. You can also lift a house and pour a new foundation—it’s just very costly.
So before you need to relocate the whole structure, I think it’s a good policy to not assume that you have a totality of the gospel already inside of you. Sometimes I prefer to seek affirmation for things I already believe, but when I approach the Bible with curiosity rather than angrily seeking confirmation—I usually enjoy it more. (Although, looking for something you know can be healing when it refutes lies. And a little confirmation bias does give a jolt of dopamine.)
I’m not an architect or an engineer, but my simple understanding is that if there is a crack in your foundation, it doesn’t mean you should heap more weight on top. When you do that, and the earthquake comes, you’re more likely to lose your faith completely.
Be willing to walk around the house and kick the bricks, checking for cracks in your foundation. Because we repeat so many things that are not actually biblical.
Not a Lender Nor a Borrower Be
One thing I was told with such authority was, “the Bible says to never lend or borrow.” I keep digital notes when something comes up during my Bible reading. That way, I can see them wherever I go, and add to them whenever I have space to process. The words I jot down could be anything from beautiful, resonating, irritating, confusing… but I especially like to add things that contradict either my paradigm or something else I’ve read in the Bible. This is how I kick the bricks of my foundation.
The first time I read, “You will lend to many nations, but borrow from none” in Deuteronomy 28:12, I thought to myself, “this contradicts not a lender nor a borrow or be.” So I did a quick search: “What does the Bible have to say about lending?” (I love digital Bibles.)
It says to not be tight-fisted to the poor. And when (not if) you lend, do not charge interest. I should lend.
I can’t find it telling me not to borrow, either. It says “the borrower is a slave to the lender” in Proverbs. Therefore, I want to have prudence when I decide to borrow because I am giving over my freedom until the debt is paid.
Proverbs is a collection of truths perceived by a wise person, but I don’t ever want to take one verse from it and turn it into a non-negotiable mantra. Otherwise I would get whiplash when I read chapter 26 verses four and then five.
As it turns out, the scripture “not a lender nor a borrower be” is from Hamlet. You can watch the Skipper sing it on Gilligan’s Island here.
My girlfriend calls that “the pizza bible.” You just say things you want or believe with authority and call it scripture. The bible says to bring me a pizza.
But you can also eat from the pizza bible it by taking things out of context.
Happy Good Friday
The Jesus who resonates most with me right now is the one who flips tables at the beginning of Holy Week. Sometimes I need to pull back and ask if I’m really called to flip everything I see over on its side. But to me, the God who comes down and passionately removes the gatekeepers restricting access to him is a God who sees and understands.
Black and white thinking from English translations only (or even worse, fixating on a single version) and taking it out of context means you could take a verse like 1 Timothy 1:10 and…
if you read ESV, you would come to the conclusion that it’s only immoral for men to practice homosexuality.
if you read the KJV, you would understand that only menstealers are immoral—it is fine to kidnap women.
We lose so much in English translations because we have humankind or mankind written as “men.” It lands in our mind as “not women” because it isn’t built into English to see humans/genders in the word “man.”
When I read the New Testament in Spanish, it reads differently. Yesterday, I got to sit with someone who reads/studies it in Greek. And his take was fascinatingly different from my ESV.
Personal Application
So, kicking your bricks… After you check if it’s actually in the Bible… see if it aligns with the context of the message, then in context with the heart of God. If it doesn’t work with your understanding of the heart of God… write it down rather than throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
The next step is to ask, what does this mean for me in 21st century America versus the time and people it was written for?
Because you could write Paul’s advice to Timothy, “take a little wine for your stomach” on a 3X5 card and tape it to your bathroom mirror. And the morning you have a nervous belly because you need to drive a bus full of teenagers up a mountain road, you decide to take the inerrant scripture literally, regardless of the context of who it was written for, assume it is all directly for you, pour a mug of wine, and get behind the wheel.
There needs to be room for the Holy Spirit to tell you if it applies.
The friend I visited with yesterday mentioned that it is a little narcissistic to take every jot and tittle written for the New Testament church as directly applying to me, in America, today.
I have to take this to heart. Because there was such an emphasis on “where does the Bible say that” in my youth, I remember looking down on women who wore braids. I mean, it literally says don’t braid your hair in the ESV. And I have always wanted to correctly handle the Word of God. It just turns out there is more nuance than looking up a verse.
So much pain happens when you listen to what other people tell you God has said—instead of picking up the Bible and finding out for yourself. Then judging it according to the whole heart of God using the heart, mind and soul he gave you.
I’m realizing that questioning the husband-leader-dynamic is part of the larger debate about women in the church. (I’m usually late to the circus.) And although I wish I had gone to a seminary-type college when I was young, so I already knew what was going on, I was raised to distrust women who speak in church. So I wouldn’t have considered it.
In my early doctrine formation, I understood definite roles in the church for men and limitations for women. It shaped my fear that any woman who exercised knowledge in religious matters or in scripture would probably end up becoming the woman who rides the beast, or at least, help bring her to power.
Beliefs surrounding a woman’s role in creation leads to understanding her role in the home and her role in the church body. I recommend reading 3 Female Ghosts in your Church by Jen Wilken to see why it matters how you view women in the church. Each role informs the others.
I don’t know enough about trajectory theory (and I try to avoid using terms to define my beliefs) but I do believe that God met the culture of the Old Testament in their corruption, and instituted laws which sent them toward a direction that was a better way than the one man had come up with. And then, the New Testament brought even more radical change to show that the goal of God’s kingdom was to eliminate social, economic, and biological differences.
In my deepest wound and false belief, I understood that woman was made as a trinket for God’s beloved creation, man. All of God’s interest wasn’t enough for man… Adam needed a pretty helper, too. So, it was only natural for woman to decrease herself and spend her life mitigating his emotions and whims. After all, she was created for helping and making babies. “Ladies, we can’t have kids. Focus on that. Do the one thing we can’t do!” You can reject something as a lie—but not realize how you still live it out. I thought I’d worked through that poison when I wrote Sworn to the Desert, but deep roots take as many years to weed as they do to grow. And the theme I used in that book is a self-girdling tree, a tree choked by its own roots.
In my last blog, I talked about why I don’t think men are called to be spiritual leaders in the sense that they are between their wife and God in any capacity. And calling them leaders, or giving them a role they can’t fill, is damaging. Defined roles hurt both men and women. In the book The Great Sex Rescue, the authors found that believing in clear gender roles in the home correlated with a wife’s diminished sexual pleasure/increased pain. “Women who do not believe traditional gender roles are moral imperatives feel more heard and seen in their marriages. In fact, women who act out the typical breadwinner-homemaker dynamic also feel more seen if they see it as a choice and not a God-given role.”
Fortunately, I always knew my role in the home was my choice. And, I learned that mutual submission is also my choice. But if you think your husband, your church, or your God are demanding you take a knee, then there is definitely going to be some diminishing. And not the “he must increase and I must decrease” diminishing. Check out that book, The Great Sex Rescue.
It might be true that some women want a husband to carry all the burdens and take all the blame. But I believe most women truly desire a partner. I know if I believed someone was in charge of the spirituality of my home—I wouldn’t live at peace with him unless everything was spiritually perfect. All the time. Bitterness would grow over any discontent if I had someone responsible whom I could blame.
Don’t follow him
I’m actually in a unique position to write this because I’m very much in love with my husband of 31 years. I trust him, and in no way is he unworthy of me following him. I couldn’t be who I am as a cook, a writer, or a human without having had his encouragement and space to grow.
But… I’ll never forget waking in the middle of the night and complaining to God that I was frustrated because I felt compelled to follow him at the loss of agency. When I seek counsel and comfort because I’m Awake at Night, and prayer doesn’t work, I often open my bible. I was reading the One-Year-Bible, and curiously, the very next passage was Joshua 7. After Achan’s sin, they brought out the whole family. And stoned them all. And after they stoned them all, they burned them all with fire.
Needless to say, I was not comforted that night knowing God allowed/endorsed Achan’s wife and kids to be eliminated because of his actions. Even though Ezekiel 18:20 says that children will no longer pay for the sins of their parents, I realized there were more examples in the Bible of a man making a bad choice and his is family being destroyed. Haman’s ten sons in Esther, and the men who tried to kill Daniel in a lion’s den through King Darius. They were thrown in with their wives and children.
I used the example in my previous post of Moses’ wife doing his job when he wouldn’t and therefore saving his life. But also consider Abigail, in 1 Samuel 25. She was married to Nabal, and since she knew he was a worthless man (verse 25), she went behind his back and gave provisions to David. She saved all the men of her household because of it. (verse 34)
Kings make tactical alliances, and sometimes wives are alliances. It always strikes me as interesting that David scooped Abigail up. Maybe after the Lord struck Nabal dead, she ran away with David because in a patriarchal society—even a fool for a husband, or becoming one of many wives, was better than no husband. (I have a girlfriend who wondered recently if Abigail lived in caves with David!) Maybe, in her intelligence (verse 3), Abigail had learned how to stay alive by strategically following power… and David was rising.
I know there are warnings to pastors to watch out for women who would lust after them merely because they have authority—and everybody likes followers, and to be pursued—even pastors. So, I wonder if we didn’t have a Shepherd/King down model as in most western churches; would this be such a problem?
We are told not to call anyone father, in a way of showing human spiritual authority one over another. So, as is typical of us rebellious humans, we claim inerrancy to the letter of the law, skip the heart, and rename the guy in charge pastor, instead of father.
Regardless of Abigails’s motives, it just shows me that even though David always returned to “running after God‘s heart,” he liked to collect women. More than just a king making alliances—because he gathered women who were loved by other men (Bathsheba aside) as in the example of when he wanted Michal back because Saul had given her to David first. I’m always struck with pain that Michal’s new husband went along the way, weeping after her, as she was returned to David.
But when you follow a human, you give your power over to them. Don’t follow anyone but God.
If this feels like a side rant, it is. I’ve heard men in the church say they idolize David or want to emulate him. They think as long as they return to running after God’s heart, they can meanwhile destroy all the people in their path and lead like a worldly king.
Sorry: thinking about what it means to be a man who leads meant I was either going to sing “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do,” or Sponge Bob’s “Now that we are men.”
Partnership
Just because man shouldn’t lead, it doesn’t mean woman should. One of the reasons the Israelites were told not to marry outside of Israel was because the wives of other nations would lead the men to follow other gods.
“During the days of Moses, however, Yahweh was increasingly clear about the marriage of his people, the Israelites, to foreigners. Mosaic law forbade marriage to particular groups of people, as it resulted in wives leading husbands into idol worship (Deut. 7:14). Vindicating the Vixens: Revisiting Sexualized, Vilified, and Marginalized Women of the Bible, p. 61
Taken out of context, no wonder men of the church are over-afraid that women can only lead them to Babylon and to other gods. Never to God Most High. But I believe 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man” is merely talking about this same oppressive, dominating, displacement of power that no believer should hold over another. It was happening in Timothy’s context and needed to be addressed specifically.
Here’s where it changes for us ladies: in the New Testament. Furthering the move from how men ruled the world as each saw fit in his own eyes, toward the direction of bringing God’s kingdom to earth, the disciples gave a woman authority over herself. When Ananias and Sapphira sold land and lied about the total, the apostles didn’t automatically kill the wife because of the husband. She was questioned separately. She was punished for her own sin, not his.
Realizing this, is huge to me. The new century church did not treat the woman as an accoutrement to her husband and throw her in the lion’s den automatically.
Interdependent
A woman came from a side of man, but men come from women. I like the idea of men being told to rise up in the church as, “Dude, pull your weight.” Just because she’s almost capable of doing everything doesn’t mean she should.
Women were segregated into the outer court of the temple, the court for women and Gentiles. Men had greater access if they were circumcised. And priests had even greater access than that. But now that the veil has been torn, 1 Peter 2:9 says we are a kingdom of priests. Men and women, we are priests.
Consider the freewill the church has in relation to “Christ the Head.” Typically, people who believe God demands subjugation (through the threat of eternal torment) end up leaving the church, or hardening and announcing online that everyone is going to hell.
If your men are “leading” you just fine and you’re content with where you’re going, great. Just keep an eye on the road. If not, lead yourself. Both Tamar and Ruth acted when the men in their lives remained passive and they’re named in the line of Christ. And whether he leads on the intimidating side or the passive side, realize that following bad leadership is not being a helpmate.
Following is not helping.
And I think woman is to be a helpmate only so long as her man pursues God, but then a hindrance to him.
My grandma had a plaque on her wall when I was a kid. It said:
Do not walk in front of me, I might not follow. Do not walk behind me, I might not lead. Just walk beside me and hold my hand.
I tried to find attribution but I think I remember the plaque said Author Unknown.
I remember the first time I understood this poem. I thought it was a little radical and wondered if my parents knew it was there. (At a very young age, I understood my dad was in charge of everything that mattered.) Sometimes it felt uncomfortable to read it, not quite scandalous, but it was probably my first memory of cognitive dissonance.
So of course I memorized it.
Even though I settled the dissonance by viewing the poem as a picture of friendship, I hope my tendency to lean into something discordant never changes. I don’t want to just hope there aren’t any monsters, or to surround myself with people who agree that there are no monsters—but to find a weapon and clear the house, to investigate what I’m dealing with, even if it’s scary.
Whether or not you’re someone’s helpmate, realize that following a someone other than God is not helping.
There was a time early in my marriage when my husband wanted to go into partnership with someone to buy a karate school. We’d just returned from Eastern Europe, where he’d taught martial arts, and we weren’t settled into jobs yet. It was a dream come true for him. We didn’t need money to invest, just our time and name. It provided financially, and would keep us in the small community where our family lived.
My husband was excitedly telling a man from our church about the opportunity. The man glanced over at me. Then said kindly, “What does your bride have to say?” I didn’t want to be yoked to a non-believer. I think he could tell by my face—so he wanted my husband to say it. My husband mumbled something to the effect of “She’s not on board.”
Our friend kept his smile, but something hardened. The gist of his reply was, “God gave you this woman for her insight. Why wouldn’t you listen to her?” And then he explained how every time he hadn’t listened to his wife—things went awry in his life and career.
It was a big deal for my young husband to relinquish that dream. He’d already given up teaching in Europe because I was pregnant. But, I don’t think it was more than a year before the one who purchased the karate school without us cheated on his wife with a student.
The husband is the head of his wife
Scholars spend years on the word and only fully settle the meaning for themselves and the ones who have predetermined to agree to the interpretation. I could look up a lexicon and memorize a Greek word—but I can’t read, much less study and translate Greek, so I won’t touch it.
The verse example of unequally yoked oxen describes the struggle of a believer and a nonbeliever tied together, but it’s also a good image of marriage. A team pulling a load needs to work in unison.
I often hear the military illustration that there needs to be a clear leader in the home. “We need to know who is the head or it will be chaos on the battlefield.” Hopefully, your sanctuary doesn’t mimic war, but, when there’s conflict, I agree the wife can show trust in God by submitting her will to her husband. It can be beautiful for all parties involved—provided there is no abuse. In destructive relationships, all guidelines need caveats, clarification, and exceptions. Enabling someone to sin is to be a contributor to their sin. Even if the sin is against you, it is the work of the enemy to keep someone trapped in sin.
(ESV) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Eph 5:22-24
Let’s first acknowledge that the church submits to Christ with free will, and when it is from Christ, it is supposed to be an easy yoke. If she is really struggling to lay down her will, it might not be her fault.
When I see Traditional American church culture built around this verse of women submitting, it makes me think of when Vashti didn’t obey the king of Persia in the book of Ester. All the officials were worried their wives might not submit either, so they encouraged the king to get a new wife and sweetened the deal with a beauty contest that stole all the available girls and castrated all the available boys. Humans always try to teach culture as biblical. Then, when it comes to choosing to obey God, we prefer to adhere to current cultural traditions, including church-culture.
So what does the submitting look like? I’ll tell you what it doesn’t look like.
Selfish husbands would rather spend for their own pleasure than buy diapers. Being the “head” isn’t making decisions alone, controlling the money, telling her to be quiet, or suppressing her opinions and desires while he exalts his own. Letting him do these things is not godly submission.
Neither does it mean he initiates all things. What one man can excel in every area? Some men are good at bringing play and fun into the house, some are good at providing, some are good at studying scripture, some initiate exercise. This is one of my irritations of romance novels. Women fantasize about a god-like man who replaces God as her husband, and does all things perfectly. He is handsome, rich, and surprisingly, still interested in her hot mess.
Should a husband lead in an area he is not qualified? Why did God say it is not good for men to be alone? A marriage should counterbalance strengths and weaknesses. Geese fly in a V formation, taking turns facing the brunt of the wind.
I’ve been told in church to submit first, and then he will lead. I’ve also been told that when he doesn’t lead well, let him fail and keep practicing… and tell him he’s doing a good job. (I think that’s only come from pastors who later cheated on their wives. Which is an interesting correlation.) You cannot make someone else follow God. Your submission (especially to his rebellion to God) won’t make him a better leader.
It isn’t godly submission to stand by while he runs your very joint life off a cliff, destroying you along with him. “Keep trying honey, we’ll both be out of jail soon.”
(ESV) In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. Eph 5:28-30
So—women, don’t exalt your will in this joint endeavor of marriage, but I would say if a husband doesn’t relinquish his will to her in equal measure, then he isn’t loving her as Christ loved the church and gave his life for her.
And when we come to that impasse, who should give up their will first? Probably the more godly one. Although, maybe it should be the husband if he doesn’t want his prayer life hindered. Hey, giving up his will first is almost like an example of leading.
Just kidding. Verses (like that) can be destructive weapons out of the whole-Bible context. When you see something confusing, look for the over-correction or clarification, which typically follows a few paragraphs down. And if you’re going to talk about authority in a marriage, include 1 Corinthians 7:14, which says that husbands and wives both have authority over each other.
There’s a difference between submitting your will for peace and stumbling after a blind leader when you have access to a true shepherd.
There were several reasons I didn’t finish and don’t recommend the book, A Woman After God’s Heart, but there’s one example in it I want to highlight. She gets a call from her husband who says he wants to take a job in another country, so he’s uprooting their life. Her immediate reply is “I’ll start packing.” She applauded herself for submitting so quickly and trusting her husband so implicitly. Anyone who loves the idea of change and adventure would probably do the same.
The problem I have with this example is that withholding her opinion and counsel from her husband puts an inordinate amount of responsibility on his shoulders. Remember, it isn’t good for man to be alone. When God is gracious enough to give a man a wife, why wouldn’t that man utilize her wisdom, sensitivity, insight, and counsel? Why would a woman withhold all that from a man she cares about? Because he’s the head? Does that mean he should lead without resources? What about a calculator? Can he have access to that? Or is he just so very in charge?
It makes me think of a loveless marriage in a Regency novel where the woman complains if she wants a new wardrobe or to throw a party, but does not know about the finances. It just becomes a battle of wills for each spouse to get what they want. Don’t call him the leader just so you can blame stuff on him. No one-flesh union. No partnership in financial, logistical, and spiritual burdens.
And here comes the crux of my ire. A spiritual leader? Does that mean he is part of your relationship with God? Are you allowed to have a relationship with God without a husband’s permission? Is he alone responsible for telling the family what God is saying? Should a woman read the Bible without his lead?
Or does this only apply to women with husbands who profess faith? I wonder if our concept of spiritual leadership is just a tradition from when women couldn’t study theology, or couldn’t read at all, and they needed someone literate to help them?
I would say seeking a guide is a problem in the modern church. When people do not search scripture on their own and look to a pastor, or anyone else, to teach them spiritual truth. The hierarchy of church is for structure and organization. It’s logistical—not your access to God. Throw those tables over. Learn how to feed yourself. Each one of us should seek to grow and bring that growth back to the community.
Unless he is using verses as weapons against her or the kids—every believing woman wants her husband to know scripture and to speak it over their life. So yes, let him wash and nourish away. But she needs to be searching on her own to hear God’s voice. She needs to bring scripture to the family table as much as him. It isn’t unfathomable that the reason men were told to “wash their wives in the word” is because they were the ones who needed to be told, and women often naturally seek spiritual things.
Adam was told not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and even though we don’t see in scripture God directly telling Eve, I like to think maybe God reiterated trusting him when he walked with them in the cool of the evening, and it just isn’t recorded. Eve’s deception was when she trusted the crafty twisting of God’s words. I think men of the church are conditioned and trained to not trust Eve’s daughters, because “Eve was deceived,” but also, because as part of the curse, she probably wants his job and he needs to protect it.
I don’t interpret Genesis 3:16 that women want a Manchild to be responsible for, or to boss around, as a result of the curse. I think “her desire for her husband” is more than interplay and who’s in charge. Eve could have walked with God in the garden, but now she will always have unfulfilled relational longing that she’ll try to satisfy in a husband. So much, that it could be used against her to keep her in a dysfunctional relationship. I see “He will rule over you” as a prophecy from God (this is what men will do), not a command. Life is going to get harder: there will be pain in childbirth, men will dominate, and weeds will grow in the ground. This isn’t the way it was supposed to be.
It’s true that Adam was made before Eve. But Adam is the one who brought sin into the world. Relying on Adam for leadership when it involves disobeying God… still gets you kicked out of the garden.
When Moses was not following God’s instructions, his wife rose up and did his job. Who knows why Moses was ignoring the Lord? Maybe it was apathy, revulsion, laziness or disobedience. But it says the Lord sought to kill Moses because of it. Zipporah circumcised her son. She saved Moses’ life. If a woman knows God’s will differs from her husband’s, she should not submit to the mortal.
I appreciate when churches are careful to emphasize that the husband is a servant-leader because Christ demonstrated servant leadership in the structure of the church. As I said in Uncovered, Christ showed kingdom leadership to the point of Peter’s embarrassment. Christian leadership should not look like the rest of the world, defined by the leader being in charge and everyone politely or fearfully deferring to him.
I know sometimes it’s just semantics to want one word over another. Head, source, leadership, submission. But for marriage: an equally yoked, one-flesh union of mutual submission, why even use the word “leader” if the husband should be (embarrassingly) serving according to the New Testament disruptions of cultural norms? Why would we try to bring back the Roman, Greek or Jewish culture of Jesus’ day when Paul took care to upset it and say there is no more male or female, slave or free in the kingdom?
I know too many women without a believing man in her home. Is she out of luck? What about when the husband is in sin? And then, if suddenly her man comes to church, does he regain control of telling her what church to go to, and when to go? I know mature Christians in decades of marriage where his spirituality leads beautifully. I know people in decades of marriage where this same thinking is detrimental to her and the kids’ relationship with God.
We don’t see this in any other place of structural organization in the church. You don’t allow elders and deacons to rise in the church unless they are mature in their faith. You give an appropriate amount of headship to someone who is tested. You have boundaries until people have stacked opportunity with trust and responsibility. And the more that you can trust them, the more privilege you give them. Don’t lay hands on them too quickly. A new convert shouldn’t be in charge of anything. And some failings and weaknesses should preclude authority in those areas. Why should that look different in the home?
Romans 12:6-8 talks about spiritual gifts. Leadership is one of those gifts, and those who lead are to do it diligently. Your gender does not prevent or mandate your gifting in leadership . Christian men are not leaders just because they are men.
The other day, I asked my husband what he thought leadership looked like in a marriage. He said, to him, it meant “he leads himself.” That is something I would follow. That is tested leadership. Following someone who seeks to follow God. There is a reason I’ve been married to him for three decades. If I was going to let anyone be my spiritual leader, it would be him.
But gosh, the veil has been torn. I have direct access to God.
Now I can sit back and wait for comments asking if my husband read this, and gave me permission to post it.
A few years ago, one of my prayer partners received the word “abide” from God, and so we spent a fair amount of time talking about it.
But first, we had different definitions of what it meant, so we had to come up with a common language to communicate. I remember that one of the thoughts I had about its meaning was “to wait.” Someone else said “to rest.”
We were surprised when we looked it up because one definition is “to tolerate.” Think, “I can’t abide that.”
It’s come up again recently. My pastor shared that an image of abiding was like jumping into the ocean where you are completely consumed. You become part of the ocean, no self remains outside of it.
The Vine
Christ said if you abide me and I and you, then you will bear much fruit. Most translations say “remain.”
Even though there is a measurable end result of bearing fruit, I do not care for definitions of abide that require you to do good works. Worksresult from abiding, and there’s a difference.
I’ve heard it said in yoga class that Savasana or corpse pose can be the most difficult. This is that final part of the practice where you lay prostate, and try not to fall asleep. The reason it’s hard is that you have to make yourself do nothing. You actively rest.
Even though I don’t think you should define it by doing something, you won’t accidentally abide.
I define abiding as this same intentional rest, or actively obediently remaining. The active part is that you are making yourself stay. Stay still, stay present, stay with God. The obedient part is that you rest or remain and let him inside of you.
The image I see for abiding is always a grafted tree or vine. And that’s not by accident, it’s the description Christ uses in his command in John 15. But Paul also uses it in an illustration of how we’re brought into the family of God in Romans 11.
Grafting is fascinating. And most of the stone fruit trees I’ve planted were one variety grafted onto a different variety’s root system. I’ve never actually grafted something myself. But I’ve seen what’s called a fruit cocktail tree, where multiple kinds of fruit branches are grafted in.
You cut a branch at a particular angle from one tree, then cut a branch that same angle on another tree. Then you bind the branch of the first to the second. The graft must remain there until the wound seals and the juices from the tree flow into the branch.
As I mentioned in my post Praying Naked, sex can be more invasive for women. And so, I think women intrinsically comprehend the mystery. She takes something into her body which creates life and grows, but does not originate completely in her. There is a fear of losing herself as she allows it to radically change her. What was a woman now becomes a mother. Men can only observe this process.
You take something inside of you. Life begins. It fundamentally changes you. And then it produces fruit.
If you remain
Just as you won’t accidentally abide, I don’t believe you could accidentally lose your salvation. You can’t misplace it or have it stolen from you.
Even though I was raised there is no way to “lose” your salvation, both Christ and Paul gave intense warnings about not abiding or remaining. This is where I think the English definition “to tolerate” does not work. I don’t think God will just tolerate a diseased or non-producing branch. Paul warns that if the natural branches were broken off and removed because of unbelief, we should not be arrogant. Christ says the braches will be burned John 15 and Paul says we should not assume we will be spared Romans 11.
Actively, obediently remaining while nourishing sap flows through you.
God prunes healthy branches so they produce more fruit, and sometimes he prunes non-producing branches to stimulate growth. And sometimes he grafts new ones in.
We see tension everywhere in scripture. Like the “already—but not yet” concept of salvation. We see it in that tenuous path between law and grace, where we are completely commanded to follow the Lord in fearful-awe, and completely forgiven when we do not, trusting his loving long-suffering and gentleness.
Abstinence can be easier than moderation because it’s difficult to balance. Some of the most unattractive things about faith groups are when they do not walk in this tension and set up camp on either end. All fearful law or cheap grace. But again, and again, we rest in knowing that two things can be true.
As you love yourself
The admonition I received was that inside the greatest two Commandments, a third component is inferred. That you are loving yourself.
Somehow, we translate this into “love your neighbor more than yourself.”
It seems to be coming full circle for me, with the book I read last fall on boundaries. Setting aside the false doctrine of unworthiness, allowing destruction to wreak havoc in your life because, after all, “Christ laid down his life as a sacrifice.” So all Christians should be devalued as a reflection of him.
Somehow, we know that’s not right, and here’s where we dabble in riding the pendulum. Trying to counteract shame with self-exaltation. Deep insecurity often fronts with bravado.
Intentionally laying down your life as a gift is far different from allowing others to control you and orchestrate destruction in your soul.
But, it’s quite a journey from: you don’t have a right to boundaries… to: boundaries are godly… then: not only do you have a right to them, but it’s poor stewardship if you do not protect your relationship with God.
You actually have a responsibility, believer, to create a divide that keeps chaos out of your soul.
Back to self
I was also encouraged that the middle tension between pride and self debasement is actually self-confidence.
Confident in God’s love for you. Confident in who he says you are, and that you are made in his image.
So on this day we celebrate love, I want to encourage you to confidently love yourself.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
I decided to rewrite this verse to myself, so I could see how I was doing. Whether or not you received a love letter today, I think it would be beautiful to rewrite this verse (or paraphrase it out loud) to yourself as well.
Here is what I found: I’m impatient when I want a quick fix. I’m not kind in my self-talk. Internal pride and external boasting destroy me inside and out. My body is a temple, and I am free to honor it. Self-seeking is choosing the moment over the lasting. Being angry with myself and then listing my wrongs is mimicking the accuser, and not my Lord. Instead of taking pleasure in things that are not from God—rejoice in seeking and finding truth. Protect and guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life. Trust that you’re made in the image of God, and his arm is not too short to save you. Hope and persevere, which is to anticipate in joy, even while you endure without seeing the promise.
To compare: I’m impatient when I want a quick fix. (Love is patient.) I’m not kind in my self-talk. (Love is kind.) Internal pride and external boasting destroy me inside and out. (Love does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.) My body is a temple, and I am free to honor it. (Love does not dishonor.) Self-seeking is choosing the moment over the lasting. (Love is not self-seeking.) Being angry with myself and then listing my wrongs is mimicking the accuser, and not my Lord. (Love is not easily angered and keeps no record of wrongs.)
You get the picture.
If your first self-check doesn’t reveal any areas of confident success, that’s part of the process. Next, rewrite to yourself as a promise.
