How to love your wife (like Christ loves the church)

[Pacman]

Polygyny is an unbiblical term, but we all use it.

It doesn't really matter how others use words and terms, as long as I know what those words mean to me. Dr. Seuss made a living off of that.

Again, I am encouraged to love as Christ loved the church...he gave; he sacrificed. He provided a Comforter. In due time he will judge. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The word polygyny isn’t in the Bible that’s true. But the exact definition and general understanding of what it means is clearly a biblical principle. So yes it is biblical.

The term servant leader is not only not found in scripture but the general (modern Christianity) understanding of what it means is completely unbiblical.

That’s the difference.

 

[Mojo]

The word polygyny isn’t in the Bible that’s true. But the exact definition and general understanding of what it means is clearly a biblical principle. So yes it is biblical.

The term servant leader is not only not found in scripture but the general (modern Christianity) understanding of what it means is completely unbiblical.

That’s the difference.

I'll let you quibble over terms, words, definitions...all of that. Whatever floats your boat.

The problem with so many "leaders" is that they never learned how to serve. I choose to abase myself from time to time before I revel in being exalted. Seems there is some scripture by a wise man along those lines.

I will love my wife by serving AND leading. You do as you please.

 

[rockfox]

It doesn't really matter how others use words and terms, as long as I know what those words mean to me. Dr. Seuss made a living off of that.

Again, I am encouraged to love as Christ loved the church...he gave; he sacrificed. He provided a Comforter. In due time he will judge. The two are not mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive the way people use them. Word's mean things. When people talk of servant leadership they're virtually always teaching something that results in the man being in subjection to the wife.

Servant, or sacrificial, leadership is too often defined by people who want to be served. As opposed to being led.

Got a better term? Or should I just stick to leader?

 

[Mojo]

They are mutually exclusive the way people use them. Word's mean things. When people talk of servant leadership they're virtually always teaching something that results in the man being in subjection to the wife.

I am not "people". I am mojo. I won't speak for "people".

When I speak for me, I like to reference the epistle to the Phillipians to understand how I am to love my wife like Christ loved the Church.

4Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Maybe Jesus had something in mind when he talked about being abased before being exalted.

 

[rockfox]

Back to the topic at hand...

How ought a man love his wife as Christ loved the church?

How ought a man love his wife as he loves his own body?

It is important to realize that love is an action, not a feeling. This is especially true for agape love. When the scriptures command men to love their wives, it is a call to action.

Now when we think about love we often think about eros. This is lust or romantic love. This is largely, though maybe not entirely, a feeling. This is what our society thinks of when they talk about marriage. Instead of basing relationships on commitments or authority we base them on eros. And this is one of the biggest causes of divorce today. Once that lust inevitably fades, so does the foundation for the marriage. Hence people pointing to as the reason for divorce: boredom, growing apart, irreconcilable differences, seeking outside romance after the honeymoon phase is over and the like.

And this is how we get statements like the "I love you but I'm not in love with you" too often given by women on the way out the door. You're family, but you don't turn her on anymore so see ya.

Viewing love as a feeling also leads to several other problems:

First, it set's the woman up as judge, arbiter and master in the relationship. She can say, "I don't feel loved" and so direct the man's actions. Not only does this invert the authority in the marriage, it injects a large amount of chaos as the man's actions become governed by the changing whims of her emotions. A very common example of this is the Love Languages book and how every woman seems to have service as her love language. Every time I've seen that book taught in Christian contexts it's only effect was to make men more comfortable with being in submission to their wives.

The second problem is just as grave: love doesn't always feel good. Love sometimes means you have to do things or make decisions that she will hate, that don't feel good, that are difficult, unpleasant, or objectionable. Sometimes the easy feel good path leads only to destruction, and that is not loving. An example of this would be dealing with a wife's out of control spending or out of control eating. Love of money and gluttony are sins. Dealing with these will not be easy or pleasant and there is great risk of pushback and hurt feelings. But there is nothing loving about the results of obesity or consumerism.

A third problem is viewing love as a feeling gives excuse to avoid action. "I don't feel love for you, therefore I needn't do x.". Love is an action. Sure feeling is part of that. But not feeling it isn't excuse to avoid the action. If you don't have the feeling, the action is a good first step. Start with the action, feeling will follow. [the same goes for submission, but that's another topic]

A fourth problem is inaction. You can't use your feelings for your wife as excuse for inaction. You can't say your love your wife while you simultaneously fail to provide, protect, lead and teach. There is more to marriage than sex. How many men really act as the spiritual leader of their home? Do you teach your wife and children the scriptures? Do you set a good example of holiness, righteousness and service to Christ? Or have you abandoned those responsibilities, leaving it to the insufficient or negative influences of the schools, the culture, or the church? Do you live a life distracted by the cares of the world rather than on mission for God? People don't care what you say, only what you do. It is by our actions that we most strongly teach our family.

There is a parallel to this last one in James:

But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

And that's no coincidence, for as Christ said:

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

and

He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.

Love is an action.

 

[rockfox]

I am not "people". I am mojo. I won't speak for "people".

When I speak for me, I like to reference the epistle to the Phillipians to understand how I am to love my wife like Christ loved the Church.

4Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Maybe Jesus had something in mind when he talked about being abased before being exalted.

So what does that look like for you? How is this not like the servant-leadership of everyone else that results in the man being in subjection to the woman?

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Love is an action.

I agree. I do, however, think it is also a feeling. Like you said, the one can happen without the other but will also lead to the other.

At the start of a relationship, in the honeymoon phase, it can be easy: our loving actions come more easily and voluntarily because we feel that romance/eros/love towards the other person. But when it comes to the REAL, eternal love, the day to day love, the knowing and being known and oneness (which, to be done right, neccesitates Godly principles of male headship and female helper-ship), often, you're right, we aren't feeling those things. Sometimes not at all, sometimes a bit but just buried deep down...sometimes all we have to work off of is the MEMORY of those feelings, and we can look back and say "I was so in love with you when we got married, and you have only improved as a [wife/husband], why do I not feel that same emotion?". And I do believe that is an important question to pursue. It IS important that we feel loved. But you're obviously right, that NEVER trumps actually BEING loved. Feelings, after all, can be deceptive. As both women AND men, we humans can be led astray by emotions and tricked by them. As a guy, I can be tricked by my own feeling of weakness or insecurity and feel like my wife laughing at a joke told my a male friend is somehow worthy of jealousy, when really it's just me. My wife can feel unloved because I choose to love and care for another woman, because she is tricked into thinking that she should be the only loved person. Etc. That is where 'love is an action' comes into focus. Becuase we must love even when the other is unlovable. Love is a part of who we are: our identity towards each other (as men we love our wives, feeling called to protect and lead them and thus marrying them...that is a state change, a 'wearing' the hat of 'husband', which means we love them), and our identity towards Christ (we are called to be in Him and He is love; we were made to love and to image Him best we must love). Our allegiance of course comes to God first, and so even when our wife is not worthy of the status of being our wife, we still must love her and be her husband because that is who we must be to please God.

So yes, love is an action. However, to go years or long times in a relationship without feeling love should also be cause for concern. It does not need to look like the passionate eros of our honeymoon, but there is definitely a cause and gap between feeling loved versus feeling unloved. We are all prone to being tricked by emotions or by swinging circumstances; women especially so. But if my wife goes for years without feeling loved, it is time for me, as a responsible husband and care-taker of her heart, to sit down and determine why. Is there some different way I could say things, some more 'pursuit' that needs to be happening? Or is it really just her emotions cooling? Wisdom is called for, and discerment, but certainly God will hold me to account if I do not cherish the hearts of the daughters He has placed in my care.

 

[steve]

Got a better term? Or should I just stick to leader?

I am seriously good with leader.

People misunderstand that thing where Yeshua washed the feet.
It wasn’t his normal vibe, he did it that one time to shame the rest of them because no one was willing to lower themselves and do it.

I serve my family all of the time, but I don’t confuse it with my leadership. They are two separate things, despite the teachings that leadership is illegitimate without service.
And if your leadership does not defacto serve (ie: have the best for your family in mind), then you are simply ruling as a dictator rules, unto yourself.

 

[steve]

I feel that there are some good points to the Love Language book.
They don’t get roses on their birthdays but my wives know that I will work my stinking butt off to provide for them. Provision being my main love language.
For one wife that wasn’t good enough, she required love in her love language instead of mine. Leaving me until I got the picture hasn’t worked well for her.

 

[rockfox]

It's a both and sort of thing. But the action is more important and will lead to feeling as you point out. Even more, the action of love will produce the feeling of being loved (realization?), even when that action is unpleasant and the feelings experienced are all negative. But it also depends on the woman's perspective. She may go years without 'feeling loved' if she doesn't have a Godly perspective on love and views it only as eros or as him making her happy and doing what she wants him to. "If you don't buy me this/ do this you don't really love me."

Which is where the importance of being a spiritual leader comes in.

You can see an example of the problem of eros based marriage from the predictable decline from the honeymoon phase in the 7 year itch...

The seven-year itch can be analyzed quantitatively. Divorce rates show a trend in couples that, on average, divorce around seven years. Statistics show that there is a low risk of separation during the first months of marriage. After the "honeymoon" months, divorce rates start to increase. Most married couples experience a gradual decline in the quality of their marriage; in recent years around the fourth year of marriage. Around the seventh year, tensions rise to a point that couples either divorce or adapt to their partner.

In samples taken from the National Center for Health Statistics, there proves to be an average median duration of marriage across time. In 1922 the median duration of marriage that ended in divorce was 6.6. In 1974 the median duration was 7.5. In 1990 the median duration was 7.2. While these can fluctuate from year to year, the averages stay relatively close to the seven year mark.

Now a lack of eros in marriage should be a concern. But it shouldn't be the deal breaker that our society makes it out to be. And people aren't divorcing because husbands go years without loving her, but because eros faded.

I know of one couple who divorced that fit this and illustrates a catch 22. I bring this up not as anecdote, but because it so closely fit the common patturn it was practically just a string of common occurrences in failing marriages. So much so I saw they were going to divorce a year out even though it was a loving marriage.

They pop out a couple kids and now he has to get a house or he's not providing and not loving. So they get a house but they're expensive and now money is tight. Suddenly he's not loving if he doesn't provide better. He looses his job in the down economy but works his butt off and gets another job and works as hard as he needs to make ends meet and stops spending time/money on the hobbies that used to bring him joy. But now he's not loving because he doesn't spend enough time with the kids. And low and behold she starts going out to bars with her girl friend (despite tight money). And then she kicks him out, not coincidently about the same time the kids both hit full time school age and she needn't care for them all the time and not coincidently around that same 4-7 year time frame eros declines. And now he can't spend any time with the kids because she got full custody and he has to work to pay for 2 houses (her's through child support and his).

This husband, he sacrificially loved his family from beginning to end. But it wasn't enough. She didn't feel the eros anymore. And there was no tough love, no willingness on her part to endure hardship, no ability to see his loving self sacrificial actions. It was all so predictable I wasn't shocked at all when it happened. But I was saddened to the core the last time I visited. Her mom and dad were there doing the things for her the husband used to do around the house and the children desperately glommed on to me. This was out of character for them, the previously well adjusted children were now desperate for the masculine love and security they no longer had with dad out of the picture.

Did the eros fade right on schedule? Yes. Did economic hard times add stress and make it more difficult to kindle eros? Certainly. Did the Christian church make things worse by painting love in marriage as pandering to her every emotional want, expecting men to provide upper middle class lives in order to be considered loving and not hold her accountable for questionable behavior? Absolutely.

That said, it certainly behooves men to rekindle eros in their marriage in this day and age. How to do that, I can comment on if that is what you were asking. But maybe that's better as a new thread? But if commentors on the intertubes are correct, eros love isn't even used in the NT and it's OT Septuagint use is almost all negative. That is certanly worth pondering. But it is a good practicality to keep alive.

 

[rockfox]

And I f your leadership does not defacto serve (ie: have the best for your family in mind), then you are simply ruling as a dictator rules, unto yourself.

Yes. Are you ruling for yourself or for the greater good of your family? Leadership requires sacrifice, but sacrifice to what will determine how it is perceived.

I feel that there are some good points to the Love Language book.
They don’t get roses on their birthdays but my wives know that I will work my stinking butt off to provide for them. Provision being my main love language.
For one wife that wasn’t good enough, she required love in her love language instead of mine. Leaving me until I got the picture hasn’t worked well for her.

I've never read it, simply because the fruit's were all bad that I saw. However if I understand the general concept I can see the value. The problem is, most people lack the wisdom to use it appropriately. Hence it usually becomes a tool for evil rather than good. Especially since it usually results in them doubling down on the things which aren't, and can't, work to solve the problems.

 

[steve]

The problem is, most people lack the wisdom to use it appropriately. Hence it usually becomes a tool for evil rather than good. Especially since it usually results in them doubling down on the things which aren't, and can't, work to solve the problems.

Bingo
It usually justifies their feelings.

 

[FollowingHim]

I've never read it

I've never read it either, but that's only because it's a simple concept to understand, I've never seen the need to read a whole book on it. The concept itself is very useful, and particularly relevant to polygamy. Everybody is different. That book helps you to see "oh, when my wife does that she's saying she loves me, but I never really notice that thing because it's not how I think". And vice-versa. Very useful in understanding and relating to children also, since they're all different. And no doubt valuable in understanding the differences between multiple wives also. It's a useful tool.

Like all tools it can be used incorrectly, or usefully.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

I've never read it either, but that's only because it's a simple concept to understand, I've never seen the need to read a whole book on it. The concept itself is very useful, and particularly relevant to polygamy. Everybody is different. That book helps you to see "oh, when my wife does that she's saying she loves me, but I never really notice that thing because it's not how I think". And vice-versa. Very useful in understanding and relating to children also, since they're all different. And no doubt valuable in understanding the differences between multiple wives also. It's a useful tool.

Like all tools it can be used incorrectly, or usefully.

And I think that is how Christ can love each of us differently and expect different things of us: He knows our love languages better than we.

I definitely think we should seek to speak each others' love languages, but I agree that does not mean we bow to them over Biblical love.

But there is a vast difference between expecting someone to perfectly speak my love language and them failing to do so at all.... because true Godly love would have both people seeking to speak the otgers' love language WHILE teaching their own: mutual understanding and growth together

 

[Mojo]

So what does that look like for you? How is this not like the servant-leadership of everyone else that results in the man being in subjection to the woman?

I am trusting that this question is a sincere desire to help you understand my side, not a rhetorical ploy, so here goes.

*Warning! Turn away if you are sensitive to talk of physical intimacy!

How about the marriage bed? My number one goal is to make sure my beloved has achieved as much satisfaction as she can bear and cries uncle. I purposefully delay my gratification until she feels she has achieved hers to her satisfaction. I'm not talking faked stuff either. You can't fake physical reactions. I'll leave it at that. Is that possible all the time? No. Life and kids prevent that as a nightly goal, but it happens more than not. And to be honest, my own satisfaction is almost a forgotten thing sometimes when I see she has been SERVED well. Sure, its an ego thing, but it truly is a love via servant thing. It all comes back to me and more outside the bedroom, though.

And as far as subjection to the woman, well, that's what separates the men from the boys. If you can only serve and be a subject, then you haven't arrived. Serve well, and the followership gets so much easier.

There are other examples, but I'm not too concerned with proving my point further.

 

[rockfox]

I've never read it either, but that's only because it's a simple concept to understand, I've never seen the need to read a whole book on it. The concept itself is very useful, and particularly relevant to polygamy. Everybody is different. That book helps you to see "oh, when my wife does that she's saying she loves me, but I never really notice that thing because it's not how I think". And vice-versa. Very useful in understanding and relating to children also, since they're all different. And no doubt valuable in understanding the differences between multiple wives also. It's a useful tool.

Like all tools it can be used incorrectly, or usefully.

Agreed. And I'll point out for those interested but without the time to read a book, the book website has a lot of information on the concept, at least the last time I checked (it's been a while).

 

[rockfox]

Thanks mojo.

How about the marriage bed? My number one goal is to make sure my beloved has achieved as much satisfaction as she can bear and cries uncle. I purposefully delay my gratification until she feels she has achieved hers to her satisfaction. I'm not talking faked stuff either. You can't fake physical reactions. I'll leave it at that. Is that possible all the time? No. Life and kids prevent that as a nightly goal, but it happens more than not. And to be honest, my own satisfaction is almost a forgotten thing sometimes when I see she has been SERVED well. Sure, its an ego thing, but it truly is a love via servant thing. It all comes back to me and more outside the bedroom, though.

So is that simply an example of the way you serve, or would you think it wrong if you didn't make sure she got gratification first?

And as far as subjection to the woman, well, that's what separates the men from the boys. If you can only serve and be a subject, then you haven't arrived. Serve well, and the followership gets so much easier.

Maybe so. But I'm a little more sympathetic to the boys; especially since the church is really good at working from birth to make sure boys don't become men. And just as a practical reality, not every man has enough of an alpha personality to be able to counteract acts of servitude.

 

[FollowingHim]

People misunderstand that thing where Yeshua washed the feet.
It wasn’t his normal vibe, he did it that one time to shame the rest of them because no one was willing to lower themselves and do it.

Think about how that incident went down:
Yeshua: "I'm going to wash your feet"
Peter: "No, don't wash my feet"
Yeshua: "I'm going to wash your feet"
Peter: "Not just my feet, wash my hands and face too"
Yeshua: "I'm going to wash your feet"
Peter: "Yes master"

That's a great illustration of servant leadership. He was acting as a servant, but choosing to do so as a leader. It was he who decided exactly what he was going to do, and he did exactly that, regardless of anyone's objections. Having a wife and seven children and washing all of their feet at Passover last year, I am well aware of the range of reactions that different people can have to that - nevertheless they all got their feet washed whether they wanted to or not!

So is that simply an example of the way you serve, or would you think it wrong if you didn't make sure she got gratification first?

With the marriage bed, the same applies. You decide what to do, as a leader. It's not "wrong" to put her first or put yourself first. But choosing as leader to put her first at least some of the time is an expression of love, and can be immensely enjoyable for all involved...

 

[Cap]

Think about how that incident went down:
Yeshua: "I'm going to wash your feet"
Peter: "No, don't wash my feet"
Yeshua: "I'm going to wash your feet"
Peter: "Not just my feet, wash my hands and face too"
Yeshua: "I'm going to wash your feet"
Peter: "Yes master"

.

Excellent!

 

[steve]

Why did their feet need washing?
They didn’t eat sitting in chairs, they reclined. Everyone’s head is near someone else’s feet, feet that had walked through the emissions of various animals.