Here Goes

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,

showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel,

since they are heirs with you of the grace of life,

so that your prayers may not be hindered."

I Peter 3:7

I almost skipped this verse and moved right along to verse 8.

I don't mind speaking as a wife to other wives. I can relate with the struggles and challenges. I've been there, I am there, or I will be there. I count it a privelege to take the things God has taught me through His word, other women (who have played the same role for me), and life experience and pass that which is worthwhile on in the hopes that it might help someone else in a similar situation.

But now, Peter's talking to the dudes. And it gets kind of complicated. I've got the theological part of my head telling me that it's not proper for me (being female) to teach men. I've got the pragmatic part of my head telling me that there probably aren't any men who read my blog anyway besideds my husband, so why bother. I've got the theoreticist part of my head saying that I could discuss the ideas in their conceptual/literary realms and just avoid the "preaching" part. I've also got the "do a sister a favor and set him straight" part of my head telling me to assist my brothers in Christ in their marriages. But quick to reply to that part is the part that is HIGHLY reticent to become a resource or feeding ground for discontented wives. Lastly, I've got the lazy and kinda hungry part of my head that tells me this is future Kim's problem and to go have a piece of cherry pie. See? Who do I listen to?

And it's all interesting timing because when I started studying these verses it was just a few days before the guys of our church took off on a camping trip to talk about what it means to be a man of God...how it impacts things like marriage (among other things). I've been helping Jeff do some research and get his materials together. I've also been leading a Bible study among good friends, all of whom are wives. Through these events I've become terribly burdened for men. All that to say I'm still not entirely sure where this post will go, but I'm hoping it's some place profitable or at least not detrimental.

So, here goes. As I see it, Peter is making the following points.

"...live with your wives in an understanding way..."

We tend read a word like "understanding" in this way as being a character trait...like, "Oh my kid's teacher was so understanding when I explained why he didn't get his homework done." It's what I sometimes call lip-biting and head-nodding reponse. Your girlfriend is feeling nauseus with the pregnancy and her toddler kept her awake all night. We grimace sympathetically to show that we are understanding. But that's not really what this word means. This phrase could also be translated "live together according to knowledge"...so it's not so much understanding sympathy as it is understanding knowledge. Like, you hope your doctor has a vast 'understanding' of your condition.

Mark Driscoll uses this text to claim that men are to be perpetual students of their wives. And the knowledge that they gain they are put to use each day as they live with their wives. So, using Driscoll's theory, a husband studies his wife and discovers that she is prone to become overwhelmed and anxious when they have lots of people over for dinner. So when Thanksgiving is coming and they invite the 28 relatives over, he should live with this understanding by offering extra help and support...(or perhaps by suggesting they not invite all 28 to begin with). The husband's understanding (knowledge) impacted how he interacted with his wife as they lived together.

I really like Driscoll's take on this, but I feel it may be somewhat limiting to make this body of knowledge exclusively about the wife. I think a man is to employ understanding of many things in his daily living with his wife. Understanding primarily about God and how he wants us to function as believers and then in our marriage and family would be of even greater use to the marriage than the husband simply knowing his wife's personality. Either way, there is a connection that Peter makes here between theory and practice. Husbands are to learn, yes, but not only learn, they are to affect their learning into every day life.

"showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel..."

The showing honor part is simply enough understood, (though perhaps not simply enough applied) to mean that a husband is to actively assign value to his wife. I find the study of economics simultaneously intriguing and revolting. (I know, I'm odd.) I remember in junior high having what seemed at the time a very mature and theoretical conversation of value and how certain things come to have value. The teacher asked us which we would rather have, a 5 karat diamond or a loaf of bread. Not surprisingly we all chose the diamond because it had greater value. It was worth thousands of dollars. Bread was worth about 98 cents. He agreed, that in the current state of life, yes, the diamond was far more valuable. "But what if circumstances changed?" he asked. We raised a collective eyebrow, wondering what sort of circumstance could possibly be considered which would change the value of the diamond. He said to imagine we were stranded on a desert island with no food in sight, having not eaten in 4 days. THEN, what would our choice be, bread or diamond?

It was the first time I'd stopped to consider the somewhat randomness of value. Few things are intrinsically valuable...and those that are tend to be less valued in a prosperous nation (like bread). In some ways, most stuff is only valuable because we say it is. This is us, assigning value. Choosing to make something prized. Most people have some posession that to the rest of the world is junk. A crayon decorated card drawn by a three year old...a movie stub from a first date. Those things are valuable to the owner not because they are worth money, but simply because someone says "This is precious to me." That's what Peter's telling his guy friends to do with their wives. Assign them value. Not because she's the prettiest or the funniest or the best cook or the best mom...that would be value based on behaviors or traits. Traits that can change over time. This value is to be based in identity. You prize her because of who she is and not what she does. Intrinsic value.

So, how does one treat things of value? Up in my closet is a wooden box that is not very pretty at all, nothing ornate or decorative. It's too new to be an antique and too old to be contemporary...the sort of stuff found at yard sales all the time. But it sat on my parents dresser for years and somehow was passed along to me. This box contains some of my treasures. A pink Starburst, an old pocket knife, a pig made of sculpey, lots of other strange trinkets...an odd assortment for sure. But they are things I want to keep because they have value. So I put them in that box for safekeeping because I don't want something to get accidentally thrown away or ruined. I don't want them lying around haphazardly where they may get damaged or lost. I take care of these things that I have assigned value to. Peter's asking his friends to do the same with their wives. Well, the taking care of and assigning value part, not the shoving into a small wooden box in your closet part.

As for the weaker vessel part...again, theories abound. Some wax poetic and think that it may be a way of speaking of something delicate and precious...like fine china. Like, if you're going to move you pack the crystal goblets differently than you pack the thermos. Others think he's just pointing out that as a rule, women tend to be physically weaker than men...and reminding men not to use their size and or strength to dominate their wives. Either idea seems to work. The emphasis of the imperative is not the weaker vessel part but the showing honor part.

"since..."

Here Peter gives a reason for the learning and honoring...because wives are heirs with their husbands of the grace of life. There is no room for spiritual chauvinism here. Peter is reminding these men that their wives are not simply their wives...they are God's daughters.

Because of their role in society, women have had some tough roads throughout history. While some erroneously attribute that to Christianity, I believe without question that nobody ever learned to demean, marginalize,mistreat or mistrust women from Jesus. In a day when most men of his race would have. Instead we see Jesus engaging women, teaching women, healing women. Still, historically women have been an easy target. Physically weaker, often unable to financially support herself or her children without a man, women often found themselves at the mercy of men...often considered inferior to men, even property of men. Peter nips this idea in the bud. In those days women would not have been considered co-anything...here Peter calls them co-heirs to the grace of life.

In our post-womens-lib era perhaps this reminder seems less needed. Maybe that's why most messages on this passage focus solely on the learning and honoring part. But I do think that waking up each morning and seeing your wife as a daughter of the Almighty would help a husband ascribe greater value. We could say the same in reverse (wives to husbands), the same of our children, friends and co-workes.

"so that your prayers may not be hindered."

For me this is the most shocking part of the passage. The idea being communicated is that God is so determined to see husbands honoring their wives, that He will at times choose to withhold answers to prayer in the life of a man who is not doing so.

Ho-ly...mo-ly.

I spent a lot of time in someone else's car riding to church as a kid. It was there that I was introduced to Steve and Annie Chapman. If you have no idea who they are, look them up. (Jen, Jamie, Jonna, I know you're probably like "who hasn't heard of Steve and Annie?!" but trust me, we were just THAT lucky.) My 14 year old self loved Steve and Annie. They sang country-esque melodies about loving God and family. One song has the refrain that hauntingly (if not twang-ingly) says to a husband "You left a hurt in the heart of your woman, now God is not listening to you."

If we're ever prone to minimize the importance of marriage to God...this verse should correct that.

One commentator I read thought that the "prayers" in the verse meant the collective prayers of the marriage. But everyone else was quite sure that since Peter is talking exclusively to the husbands here, the prayers in question are those of the husband. I don't know exactly how this works, I don't know if it works the same way in reverse (a wife's prayers being hindered by poor treatment of a husband), but we have no scripture to suggest that it would. Perhaps this is just another way God, understanding the somewhat vulnerable position of a wife, takes care of His girls. Sort of like the old jokes about a young man showing up to pick up his date to find the girl's father cleaning a shotgun.

Now, if I were a husband, at this point I would be taking a look at my prayer life, and asking if there's anything there to cause me to take a look at my marriage. I'd be struck at the weight of these words. But that's just me.

Instead, as a wife, I am humbled and touched that the omnipotent God of the universe would care enough about the heart of a wife to say to her husband, "If you want the fulness of my blessing, the unfettered power at my disposal, the intimacy of knowing that I listen when you speak...take care of the daughter I gave to you."