As I sit in the dark hours of this morning, that's the question I want to pose: Is it "love" or is it "manipulation"?
Some years ago, a guy came to see me about his marriage. For forty-five minutes he told me all the things that were wrong with his wife. If half of what he said was true, he had every right to complain. He was a Christian, and he knew everything the Bible had to say about marriage. He was especially well-versed in the portions dealing with wives and submission, apparently. But the more he spoke, the more I became suspicious about the portions in Scripture about marriage that he didn't know.
When he finished, I asked him, "How can I help?"
"Tell me what I should do."
"What do you think God wants you to do?"
"I don't know. I've tried everything."
"What do you mean, you've tried everything?"
He went on to tell me all the things he had done to "help" (I'm being very generous using the word he used -- I don't think it means what he thought it means) his wife.
When he finished, I said, "I get the impression you want to 'fix' your wife."
"Yes," he said. "I do. But I don't know how."
And I could tell that this very astute, very faithful Christian man was operating on a couple of very false, even if very popular, assumptions.
Assumptions he wasn't aware of. Assumptions that contradicted so much of what we Christians actually believe. But those truths hadn't made a big difference in his marriage because of the lies he'd bought into from a culture that wants to be unfaithful in how it approaches marriage.
Assumption #1: Spouses have the obligation to "fix" one another.
That's what he believed was true. And since he believed it was true, he acted on it.
Which, truth be told, made things in his marriage worse, not better.
God doesn't call us to fix our spouses. God commands that we love them.
The interesting thing to me was this guy could quote the verses about a husband loving his wife. He just wasn't operating from it. "I've tried being sweet and patient, but nothing's changed!" Which brings me to the second assumption.
Assumption #2: Love is a tool, and when that tool doesn't work, find another one.
He tried loving her to get her to change. And when it didn't get the job done, he put down that tool and picked up another. But love isn't a means to an end. Manipulation is a means to an end. And when love is used as manipulation, it isn't love.
Let's be honest: There's this demonic bent that wants us to believe love can be defined as manipulation. "I'll do this for you, but then you better respond the way I want you to." Too many of us are like the Godfather with our marriages: He told his "beneficiaries" of his "generosity", "There will come a day when I will need a favor from you ..."
It sounds evil when a crime boss says it. But for some reason, we'll tolerate it in marriage and even call that "love".
Control and manipulation are the tools of toxicity. Their habits learned over a lifetime of abuse. And what makes them so doubly dangerous is when they're defined as "love" and "care".
It's rather insightful, I think, that Christians read 1 Corinthians 13 so often at weddings. It's a text about God's love for us -- and our conviction that Christian marriage should strive for that kind of love. The generous, no-strings attached love of God who invites us to freely make wise choices, with the controlling, manipulative actions of toxic people.
And it's why I think the traditional vows of marriage are so instructive:
Are we loving our spouses or trying to manipulate them? Are we bringing comfort to them? Are we honoring them in how we speak of them?
Because that's what marriage is about. It's why we ask candidates for marriage if that's what they will strive to do.
Love isn't manipulation. It's the gracious desire that this person grow to become the one God is calling them to be.
Marriage is a comfort. If they need more sleep, you want to help them sleep. If they're hungry and need to be fed, you want to help them get fed. If they're discouraged and need an encouragement, if they are threatened and need a protector, if they are overworked and need someone to help them relax, well, that's what you're signing up for: To be their comforter in exactly those moments. (Truth be told, this is one of the more overlooked aspects of marriage these days, but it's one I particularly treasure in my marriage to Kendra.)
Honor in marriage is especially difficult. Because it's not a word our culture uses in relation to love or marriage at all.
In his book The Four Loves, CS Lewis shows how wide-ranging the word "love" is. It is used to define many different notions and mind-sets.
The first form of love (according to Lewis) is Need-Love, which is today what we call infatuation. "I need you, therefore I love you. I want you to meet my needs. I crave you. I can't make it without you". It looks so romantic in the movies, but when you look at the base psychology behind it, it's actually a bit unnerving. Need-Love creates a high level of desperation and resentment. You can't build a marriage on it. The second form of love could be called, in Lewis' language, "Gift-Love", but it basically means wanting to serve, even to the point of suffering or sacrifice. It's a noble love, always putting the other's best (as God defines "best") first. I believe that's the foundation for honor in marriage.
But it's the "third love" that Lewis speaks of -- "appreciative love" -- that's at the heart of actually honoring our spouse. It's about celebrating, appreciating, adoring.
This is how Lewis ties all three together: "Need-Love says of a woman, 'I cannot live without her'; Gift-Love longs to give her happiness, comfort, protection -- if possible, wealth; Appreciative Love gazes and holds its breath and is silent, rejoices that such a wonder should exist".
We can't choose "Need-Love" -- and looking at what it actually is, who would want to? Infatuation just seems to happen. It's something we should probably want to get out of sooner rather than later so that we can move on to choose Gift-Love. Gift-Love is easier to attain than cherishing love in that it's all based on actions. We can choose to serve. We can choose to sacrifice. We can choose to put someone else's welfare above our own. We just have to act.
But appreciative love? It's solely an act of the will. It begins as an act of commitment (that's why we ask the question as a vow). But it continues in cherishing -- in treating the spouse as if that person were the only other person in the world to you. Kendra is my Eve. I try to look at her the way Adam looked at Eve in Genesis 1. She's the only woman in the world for me.
Which has meant that I've had to learn some habits over the years: Learning to showcase her -- changing the way I speak to her and about her to others. It's meant I've learned to revel in her uniqueness. And it's meant that I'm still learning to apply grace to moments of contempt.
Sometimes our marriages get mired in a stand-still, and in those moments, when selfishness reigns and you're not even sure you want to go on, you need to refocus on those vows. And relearn their lesson.
Because I can honestly attest that cherishing and honoring grow over the years. Under my fascination with God, nothing moves my heart like Kendra. I can't say I've mastered showing her this, but I keep trying -- because I've learned from God that loving means not giving up.
Some years ago, a guy came to see me about his marriage. For forty-five minutes he told me all the things that were wrong with his wife. If half of what he said was true, he had every right to complain. He was a Christian, and he knew everything the Bible had to say about marriage. He was especially well-versed in the portions dealing with wives and submission, apparently. But the more he spoke, the more I became suspicious about the portions in Scripture about marriage that he didn't know.
When he finished, I asked him, "How can I help?"
"Tell me what I should do."
"What do you think God wants you to do?"
"I don't know. I've tried everything."
"What do you mean, you've tried everything?"
He went on to tell me all the things he had done to "help" (I'm being very generous using the word he used -- I don't think it means what he thought it means) his wife.
When he finished, I said, "I get the impression you want to 'fix' your wife."
"Yes," he said. "I do. But I don't know how."
And I could tell that this very astute, very faithful Christian man was operating on a couple of very false, even if very popular, assumptions.
Assumptions he wasn't aware of. Assumptions that contradicted so much of what we Christians actually believe. But those truths hadn't made a big difference in his marriage because of the lies he'd bought into from a culture that wants to be unfaithful in how it approaches marriage.
Assumption #1: Spouses have the obligation to "fix" one another.
That's what he believed was true. And since he believed it was true, he acted on it.
Which, truth be told, made things in his marriage worse, not better.
God doesn't call us to fix our spouses. God commands that we love them.
The interesting thing to me was this guy could quote the verses about a husband loving his wife. He just wasn't operating from it. "I've tried being sweet and patient, but nothing's changed!" Which brings me to the second assumption.
Assumption #2: Love is a tool, and when that tool doesn't work, find another one.
He tried loving her to get her to change. And when it didn't get the job done, he put down that tool and picked up another. But love isn't a means to an end. Manipulation is a means to an end. And when love is used as manipulation, it isn't love.
Let's be honest: There's this demonic bent that wants us to believe love can be defined as manipulation. "I'll do this for you, but then you better respond the way I want you to." Too many of us are like the Godfather with our marriages: He told his "beneficiaries" of his "generosity", "There will come a day when I will need a favor from you ..."
It sounds evil when a crime boss says it. But for some reason, we'll tolerate it in marriage and even call that "love".
Control and manipulation are the tools of toxicity. Their habits learned over a lifetime of abuse. And what makes them so doubly dangerous is when they're defined as "love" and "care".
It's rather insightful, I think, that Christians read 1 Corinthians 13 so often at weddings. It's a text about God's love for us -- and our conviction that Christian marriage should strive for that kind of love. The generous, no-strings attached love of God who invites us to freely make wise choices, with the controlling, manipulative actions of toxic people.
And it's why I think the traditional vows of marriage are so instructive:
[Groom's name], do you take [Bride's name] to be your wedded wife, to live together in marriage? Do you promise to love her, comfort her, honor and keep her for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, and forsaking all others, be faithful only to her, for as long as you both shall live?
Are we loving our spouses or trying to manipulate them? Are we bringing comfort to them? Are we honoring them in how we speak of them?
Because that's what marriage is about. It's why we ask candidates for marriage if that's what they will strive to do.
Love isn't manipulation. It's the gracious desire that this person grow to become the one God is calling them to be.
Marriage is a comfort. If they need more sleep, you want to help them sleep. If they're hungry and need to be fed, you want to help them get fed. If they're discouraged and need an encouragement, if they are threatened and need a protector, if they are overworked and need someone to help them relax, well, that's what you're signing up for: To be their comforter in exactly those moments. (Truth be told, this is one of the more overlooked aspects of marriage these days, but it's one I particularly treasure in my marriage to Kendra.)
Honor in marriage is especially difficult. Because it's not a word our culture uses in relation to love or marriage at all.
In his book The Four Loves, CS Lewis shows how wide-ranging the word "love" is. It is used to define many different notions and mind-sets.
The first form of love (according to Lewis) is Need-Love, which is today what we call infatuation. "I need you, therefore I love you. I want you to meet my needs. I crave you. I can't make it without you". It looks so romantic in the movies, but when you look at the base psychology behind it, it's actually a bit unnerving. Need-Love creates a high level of desperation and resentment. You can't build a marriage on it. The second form of love could be called, in Lewis' language, "Gift-Love", but it basically means wanting to serve, even to the point of suffering or sacrifice. It's a noble love, always putting the other's best (as God defines "best") first. I believe that's the foundation for honor in marriage.
But it's the "third love" that Lewis speaks of -- "appreciative love" -- that's at the heart of actually honoring our spouse. It's about celebrating, appreciating, adoring.
This is how Lewis ties all three together: "Need-Love says of a woman, 'I cannot live without her'; Gift-Love longs to give her happiness, comfort, protection -- if possible, wealth; Appreciative Love gazes and holds its breath and is silent, rejoices that such a wonder should exist".
We can't choose "Need-Love" -- and looking at what it actually is, who would want to? Infatuation just seems to happen. It's something we should probably want to get out of sooner rather than later so that we can move on to choose Gift-Love. Gift-Love is easier to attain than cherishing love in that it's all based on actions. We can choose to serve. We can choose to sacrifice. We can choose to put someone else's welfare above our own. We just have to act.
But appreciative love? It's solely an act of the will. It begins as an act of commitment (that's why we ask the question as a vow). But it continues in cherishing -- in treating the spouse as if that person were the only other person in the world to you. Kendra is my Eve. I try to look at her the way Adam looked at Eve in Genesis 1. She's the only woman in the world for me.
Which has meant that I've had to learn some habits over the years: Learning to showcase her -- changing the way I speak to her and about her to others. It's meant I've learned to revel in her uniqueness. And it's meant that I'm still learning to apply grace to moments of contempt.
Sometimes our marriages get mired in a stand-still, and in those moments, when selfishness reigns and you're not even sure you want to go on, you need to refocus on those vows. And relearn their lesson.
Because I can honestly attest that cherishing and honoring grow over the years. Under my fascination with God, nothing moves my heart like Kendra. I can't say I've mastered showing her this, but I keep trying -- because I've learned from God that loving means not giving up.