I rarely go through the self-checkout aisles at Walmart. I think it's because it never goes right for me. I have to make sure I don't have anything lightweight in my cart, because the scale doesn't like lightweight items. I have to make sure that I don't have anything that's missing a code tag or anything that needs store approval - like spray paint, booze, or rated R movies. Like I'm going to huff paint... I need all the brain cells I have left. That reminds me of the time my old Schwan man asked me if I knew that pregnancy caused a loss of brain cells. I said that I didn't know that. He said, "Well, you just seemed smarter before you were pregnant." Ah... he had seemed smarter before he said that. Maybe he didn't realize he worked on commission. It was a good thing for him I don't hold a grudge very well... and that I like ice cream. Ah, who am I kidding? He knew he could pretty much say anything he wanted to say.
Back to Walmart - having been certain that none of the few items in my cart would be too lightweight, too controversial, or too intoxicating, I approached the self-checkout lane with relative confidence - anticipating a smooth transaction. One of the items I was purchasing (in our household of many girls) was a bra. To my surprise, when I scanned the tag through the soothing feminine Walmart lady voice came over the speaker, "Approval Needed". Um... this could be interesting. I froze momentarily - wondering what my next move should be. What kind of approval was needed for purchasing underwear? Austin happened to be with me, and, as embarrassed as he is about everything else in the known universe, it seems underwear is not one of those things. I started to laugh with just the sheer speculation of what this obvious computer error could mean for womankind. What would we have to prove in order to purchase bras? Fortunately for me, the error corrected itself.
I've been hearing/reading a lot about the virtues of gender neutrality lately. For instance, Sweden is in the process of removing gender language altogether from their dictionaries. They began with children's books in creating a neuter term for children which is neither male or female. In the U.S., there is talk currently of eliminating gender references in school altogether. In this neuter environment, children would be specified as neither male nor female. They could use whichever restroom they like. They could play on whichever sports team they like. In fact, sports wouldn't be divided up by sexes at all. Sexes, after all, are confining and completely unnecessary. Prevailing wisdom dictates that the world would be a better place were the genders nonexistent. Now if we could just make our bodies hermaphroditic from birth, the world would be perfect? Aside from the myriad of logical and logistical problems with these types of plans, my mind can't comprehend what kind of societal benefit would come from such a system. A few of the articles I've read have asked the question, "Who would propose such a system?" Has the existence of gender distinctions hurt individuals so badly that they seek to erase genders from all of society? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for boys and girls doing things that have been traditionally viewed to be for one or the other, but wishing our sex organs away will not somehow create a Utopian society.
My husband is hot. Not boy band hot... not metrosexual hot... not white collar hot... The best kind of hot, in my truly humble opinion, is blue... collar... hot - working man hot. I'm not saying this because anyone else should think he's hot. I'm saying it because I DO. I'll talk about this more later.
I said before, in a briefly published blog, referring to a "thing" I had for the Marlboro man type - minus the cigarettes of course. The guy leaning against his horse with a few days of scruffy beard, a far off look in his eyes, and a bit of tan on his skin... testosterone is not an undesirable hormone in a man.
Sometimes I think we've domesticated men too much. Having now been mom to a baby boy, a teenage boy, and having been married - I think that women, in attempts at "equality" (which I'm not sure why we'd ever desire), have rearranged masculinity. We have pigeonholed many men into one of several types or combinations of types: 1) Jerks - These men are openly angry and antagonistic toward women. 2) Womanizers - These men pretend to love women but treat them unlovingly by hopping from one to another. Being insecure he fears that, if he stayed too long with one woman, she would realize that he was not enough for her. 3) Domesticated - These men seem to like routine and don't mind being bossed around a bit. They're not afraid to push a shopping cart or buy feminine products when asked. 4) Man-children love video games, paint ball, porn, and any other activities that disengage them from reality. These guys are "checked-out". 5) Macho Men - These men have to try any number of things in order to prove their masculinity. These are often things they perceive as cool or rebellious to show they're owned by no one.
So, let's see, in seeking equality, we've made them hateful and angry, unfaithful, wimpy, childish, and/or disengaged. Those are the biggest complaints I hear from single women about the men in the dating pool or from married women about their husbands. It reminds me of a SNL skit I watched a few years ago. It was of a couple being interviewed about their "wonderful" marriage. She went on and on about how domesticated and sensitive her amazing man was - how he was in touch with his feelings and how they could talk for hours about nothing. Basically, he was a woman in a man's body. As she talked, he began to also talk about his feelings - weeping with joy or sadness over the discussion topics and sharing his deepest thoughts and inner angst with the interviewer and his wife. As he did, she got more and more nauseated with him - ironically telling him to "man up" and to stop being a wimp - finally telling him she was sick of him and complaining to the interviewer with contempt about the fact she was pretty much married to another woman. Everything she'd wanted her man to be - more emotionally "in touch", more sensitive, more like her, the more she hated him for it.
I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who tell their men how to dress, how to act, how their money should be spent, and how they'll be required to parent the couples' children. They dictate which chores need to be done when and how they should be done. They even dictate how their men should show them love. "Well, so-and-so's husband does such-and-such for her. Why don't you ever do that?" The implication being: If you loved me, you'd do this differently or better. I speak of these things, because I've done a lot of them. In my first marriage I carried most of the responsibilities for household things, car maintenance, yard work, and finances. He claimed the inability or lack of desire to do those things, and I did them grudgingly. I remember asking him once when he was being unfaithful, "Why?" He said, "I don't know. Maybe I want someone to believe me when I say, 'I love you.'" I wondered why he would say that, and then I thought back to the dozens of conversations we'd had about how he could love me "better" by my standard or about what I needed from him. I remember never feeling that he really loved me or that, if he did, he'd do something more than he was doing - maybe I couldn't even put my finger on what that'd be. Resentment grew on both of our parts. We were both looking for something more.
So what's a guy to do? He's supposed to be masculine but kind. He needs to be sensitive but rarely cry. He needs to be able to kill spiders, take the garbage out, mow the lawn, change diapers, fix things that break, be available and fun with the kids, and would it kill him to do a few dishes now and then? Basically, they need to be at our beck and call.
Well, second time around and I've realized that very few things in marriage are worth a fight. As a wise woman once said, "If it won't matter 5 years from now, it's not worth a fight today." I said before that my husband is hot. He has a unique ability to not care an ounce what people think about him. He says what he wants. He does what he wants. I remember when we were first married that we drove through a car lot to look at a newer vehicle. Annoyingly but not unexpectedly, a salesman scurried over to our vehicle with his clipboard and started to chat up my husband. "So," he said, patting the side of our older van, "this thing's seen better days, huh?" Mark looked at him. "Are you folks thinking about a new ride?" Mark looked at him. "Is there anything I can show you?" Mark looked at him. I remembered thinking how rude it was of Mark to ignore him. Mark eventually, after what seemed to me like an hour of awkward silence said, "Nope. We're not looking to buy. We're just looking around your lot, and if we think we've found something we like, I'll let you know." With that, he drove away, and I'm pretty sure that the salesman was as relieved as I to be done with that exchange. I remember asking Mark, "The phrase 'awkward silence' isn't even on your radar screen, is it?" I think that, over the years we've been married, he's learned to say what he means without coming across as gruffly, but I admire the daylights out of the fact that he has no fear of others and doesn't waste one moment thinking about what they might be thinking about him. He doesn't shy from confrontation. He speaks up when it matters and is wise enough to stay silent when he knows he should. He doesn't force his will on anyone, but he has a way of getting what he wants without force or manipulation. I can also trust that almost every time, whether or not I see it at first, what he wants for our family is what's best for us all. He's great with our kids. He's kind to the elderly and tender with the young and weak, and he teaches our boys to be the same way. For all those things and so much more (not to mention his broad shoulders and hulking height) I think he's hot.
One of my favorite movies is The Quiet Man with John Wayne. Wayne plays a retired American boxer who travels to Ireland to settle down and enjoy his retirement. He meets and falls in love with a stubborn red-head (Maureen O'Hara), and the rest of the story is about the fireworks of their courtship and marriage. He loves her, but he won't be domesticated. He is so secure in the man he is that he can love her and maintain his masculinity and, in the process, she can do nothing but admire him.
The concept of love has become so twisted. Mark and I used to listen to a fair amount of country music, but in recent years we've agreed that the tired story lines of "babe, you look so hot in those tight jeans/t-shirt - get up on my truck (or bar, or stage, or whatever's handy) and shake your booty for me", blah, blah, blah... are not just tired but glorify the basest instincts we have. What do these story lines represent? Love - with longevity and passion that fills an empty soul? Hardly. Lust - short-lived and empty, at best. A few days ago, Mark handed me a magazine and pointed to an article he wanted me to read. It was an excerpt from New York Times columnist Meg Jay called, The Slippery Slope of Cohabitation. The article said, "Most young couples now live together as a safe first step before marriage, but research shows that cohabitation is anything but safe: It makes couples less likely to be satisfied with their marriages, and more likely to divorce later. In my psychology practice, I have seen many couples move from dating to sleeping over to cohabitation along a 'gradual slope' unmarked by 'rings or ceremonies or sometimes even a conversation'. Without saying so, women usually think of living together 'as a step toward marriage,' whereas men tend to view it as a way of auditioning their partners while postponing commitment. As years slide by, the two people find that despite the trial nature of their relationship, they have become bound together by shared leases, wireless contracts, furniture, pets, and friends. Those who work up the courage to split find that the 'setup and switching costs' are nearly as wrenching as divorce. Others drift into marriage, while secretly wondering 'whether they have consciously chosen their mates.' To increase your chance of a satisfying, lasting relationship, it's best to start with 'I do,' rather than 'Maybe we will, and maybe we won't.'" This is the link for the NYTimes article in its entirety: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all
I have a friend who has been in and out of cohabitational relationships ever since I've known her, and she laments her situation to me always saying she wants something more. She refers to the fact that Mark and I are happily married and hopes to fall into the same kind of arrangement. She's often asked how I found him or how we've made it work. I've said as plainly as I can that we just got married. We didn't mess around. When we went on our honeymoon, I didn't know if he even knew how to follow a map... much less anything else about what kind of husband he'd be to me - in any way. I had hopes and prayers, but I had no way of knowing for sure. She says she couldn't do it. She'd have to "test a guy out awhile". I understand the thought process, but, I feel sad about it too. She resents that, although it's obvious there are men out there who would value a woman enough to marry/commit for life to her without any guarantees of her perfect performance or lovability, she has not found such a man to do that for her. Somewhere deep inside of women, we must admit that we resent a lack of commitment and fear being left alone with nothing to show for the love we'd given. This fear leaves us controlling and manipulating the people around us hoping for a positive outcome.
The majority of the time God wanted to redeem His people in the Bible, he sent a baby boy to them. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus. Not to negate the importance of women like Deborah, Esther, and Mary, but primary roles of leadership and saving were given to men. Every culture and nation has stories of damsels in distress - held by an enemy - waiting to be rescued by - a loyal pet? another damsel? a moderately passionate lump of video-game playing expertise? No. A white knight. A man so brave, handsome, passionate, rugged, and strong of character that her knees have no choice but to buckle. This story is not just ingrained in us by a society consumed with romanticism. It's written on the hearts of humanity, because that is the story of mankind from the beginning of time. God (the white knight) breathed his own breath of life into humanity (damsel). He loved her deeply. Then she was taken captive by sin and death. He loved her so much He had to rescue her. He wanted her back. There was only one way to prove the depth of His love for her. He had to die for her. He sent Himself to earth (Jesus) to love her, speak truth and tenderness to her, and then to offer His life in payment for her ransom. She is redeemed. She was purchased at a great personal price to her Love. Only after making this sacrifice and proving His love did He invite us into intimate union with Him. (Isa. 54:5, 62:3-5, Hos. 2:19-20). Jesus Himself reminded us that He was the "bridegroom" and His church was His bride (Mark 2:18-20). I'm so glad God didn't "interview" me for worthiness before He sent Jesus to die for me. I'd never have passed the test.
A few nights ago, I pulled in the driveway with some groceries in the back of the van. As I pulled toward the garage entrance, my headlights shone on a bat that was flying around the garage. I hate bats. I texted Mark who was in the house (napping after having put the kids down to bed), "Bat in garage. Help!" Moments later, Austin and Mark came out. Austin reached for a campfire roasting stick, and, although quietly said to myself, "Ew! Not that!" As if he'd heard me, he picked up a golf driver, and I thought again, "Ew! Not that either!" He used it to shoo the critter out of the garage and Mark waved me into my parking spot. They went to the back of the van, unloaded groceries, and helped put them away as we talked about our days. I felt protected. I am blessed to know that, if I call for help, two big guys and a littler one will be there in the blink of an eye to answer that call without hesitation. I am thankful for that. I reinforce their strength by believing in it and not being threatened by it. Their strength is precious to me, and the more I believe in it, the more I love it, the more I trust it... the more they give it. If I were afraid of their strength... if I wanted my strength to be more prominent than theirs... if I denied their strength, I would never be the benefit or recipient of it. As it is, I am both, and I couldn't feel more precious.
God is the same with us. He longs to give us His strength... to stand and fight for us, but we often want to fight our own battles, or to force our own will, or trust our own strength. We miss out on seeing what He can do. Like the beauty of a woman, the strength of a man can be twisted and/or misused. At their core though, these two things (strength and beauty) are defining attributes of God and, when used in that context, are powerful, passionate, and life-giving. I once quoted this verse in another blog ( http://illinoisslags.blogspot.com/2010/04/safety-in-helmet.html), but I think it does an excellent job of explaining the nature of God. Isaiah 59:17 says of God Himself, "He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak." Strength unbridled and pure is nothing to fear. Rather, embrace it and the One who owns it.
Back to Walmart - having been certain that none of the few items in my cart would be too lightweight, too controversial, or too intoxicating, I approached the self-checkout lane with relative confidence - anticipating a smooth transaction. One of the items I was purchasing (in our household of many girls) was a bra. To my surprise, when I scanned the tag through the soothing feminine Walmart lady voice came over the speaker, "Approval Needed". Um... this could be interesting. I froze momentarily - wondering what my next move should be. What kind of approval was needed for purchasing underwear? Austin happened to be with me, and, as embarrassed as he is about everything else in the known universe, it seems underwear is not one of those things. I started to laugh with just the sheer speculation of what this obvious computer error could mean for womankind. What would we have to prove in order to purchase bras? Fortunately for me, the error corrected itself.
I've been hearing/reading a lot about the virtues of gender neutrality lately. For instance, Sweden is in the process of removing gender language altogether from their dictionaries. They began with children's books in creating a neuter term for children which is neither male or female. In the U.S., there is talk currently of eliminating gender references in school altogether. In this neuter environment, children would be specified as neither male nor female. They could use whichever restroom they like. They could play on whichever sports team they like. In fact, sports wouldn't be divided up by sexes at all. Sexes, after all, are confining and completely unnecessary. Prevailing wisdom dictates that the world would be a better place were the genders nonexistent. Now if we could just make our bodies hermaphroditic from birth, the world would be perfect? Aside from the myriad of logical and logistical problems with these types of plans, my mind can't comprehend what kind of societal benefit would come from such a system. A few of the articles I've read have asked the question, "Who would propose such a system?" Has the existence of gender distinctions hurt individuals so badly that they seek to erase genders from all of society? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for boys and girls doing things that have been traditionally viewed to be for one or the other, but wishing our sex organs away will not somehow create a Utopian society.
My husband is hot. Not boy band hot... not metrosexual hot... not white collar hot... The best kind of hot, in my truly humble opinion, is blue... collar... hot - working man hot. I'm not saying this because anyone else should think he's hot. I'm saying it because I DO. I'll talk about this more later.
Sometimes I think we've domesticated men too much. Having now been mom to a baby boy, a teenage boy, and having been married - I think that women, in attempts at "equality" (which I'm not sure why we'd ever desire), have rearranged masculinity. We have pigeonholed many men into one of several types or combinations of types: 1) Jerks - These men are openly angry and antagonistic toward women. 2) Womanizers - These men pretend to love women but treat them unlovingly by hopping from one to another. Being insecure he fears that, if he stayed too long with one woman, she would realize that he was not enough for her. 3) Domesticated - These men seem to like routine and don't mind being bossed around a bit. They're not afraid to push a shopping cart or buy feminine products when asked. 4) Man-children love video games, paint ball, porn, and any other activities that disengage them from reality. These guys are "checked-out". 5) Macho Men - These men have to try any number of things in order to prove their masculinity. These are often things they perceive as cool or rebellious to show they're owned by no one.
So, let's see, in seeking equality, we've made them hateful and angry, unfaithful, wimpy, childish, and/or disengaged. Those are the biggest complaints I hear from single women about the men in the dating pool or from married women about their husbands. It reminds me of a SNL skit I watched a few years ago. It was of a couple being interviewed about their "wonderful" marriage. She went on and on about how domesticated and sensitive her amazing man was - how he was in touch with his feelings and how they could talk for hours about nothing. Basically, he was a woman in a man's body. As she talked, he began to also talk about his feelings - weeping with joy or sadness over the discussion topics and sharing his deepest thoughts and inner angst with the interviewer and his wife. As he did, she got more and more nauseated with him - ironically telling him to "man up" and to stop being a wimp - finally telling him she was sick of him and complaining to the interviewer with contempt about the fact she was pretty much married to another woman. Everything she'd wanted her man to be - more emotionally "in touch", more sensitive, more like her, the more she hated him for it.
I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who tell their men how to dress, how to act, how their money should be spent, and how they'll be required to parent the couples' children. They dictate which chores need to be done when and how they should be done. They even dictate how their men should show them love. "Well, so-and-so's husband does such-and-such for her. Why don't you ever do that?" The implication being: If you loved me, you'd do this differently or better. I speak of these things, because I've done a lot of them. In my first marriage I carried most of the responsibilities for household things, car maintenance, yard work, and finances. He claimed the inability or lack of desire to do those things, and I did them grudgingly. I remember asking him once when he was being unfaithful, "Why?" He said, "I don't know. Maybe I want someone to believe me when I say, 'I love you.'" I wondered why he would say that, and then I thought back to the dozens of conversations we'd had about how he could love me "better" by my standard or about what I needed from him. I remember never feeling that he really loved me or that, if he did, he'd do something more than he was doing - maybe I couldn't even put my finger on what that'd be. Resentment grew on both of our parts. We were both looking for something more.
So what's a guy to do? He's supposed to be masculine but kind. He needs to be sensitive but rarely cry. He needs to be able to kill spiders, take the garbage out, mow the lawn, change diapers, fix things that break, be available and fun with the kids, and would it kill him to do a few dishes now and then? Basically, they need to be at our beck and call.
Well, second time around and I've realized that very few things in marriage are worth a fight. As a wise woman once said, "If it won't matter 5 years from now, it's not worth a fight today." I said before that my husband is hot. He has a unique ability to not care an ounce what people think about him. He says what he wants. He does what he wants. I remember when we were first married that we drove through a car lot to look at a newer vehicle. Annoyingly but not unexpectedly, a salesman scurried over to our vehicle with his clipboard and started to chat up my husband. "So," he said, patting the side of our older van, "this thing's seen better days, huh?" Mark looked at him. "Are you folks thinking about a new ride?" Mark looked at him. "Is there anything I can show you?" Mark looked at him. I remembered thinking how rude it was of Mark to ignore him. Mark eventually, after what seemed to me like an hour of awkward silence said, "Nope. We're not looking to buy. We're just looking around your lot, and if we think we've found something we like, I'll let you know." With that, he drove away, and I'm pretty sure that the salesman was as relieved as I to be done with that exchange. I remember asking Mark, "The phrase 'awkward silence' isn't even on your radar screen, is it?" I think that, over the years we've been married, he's learned to say what he means without coming across as gruffly, but I admire the daylights out of the fact that he has no fear of others and doesn't waste one moment thinking about what they might be thinking about him. He doesn't shy from confrontation. He speaks up when it matters and is wise enough to stay silent when he knows he should. He doesn't force his will on anyone, but he has a way of getting what he wants without force or manipulation. I can also trust that almost every time, whether or not I see it at first, what he wants for our family is what's best for us all. He's great with our kids. He's kind to the elderly and tender with the young and weak, and he teaches our boys to be the same way. For all those things and so much more (not to mention his broad shoulders and hulking height) I think he's hot.
One of my favorite movies is The Quiet Man with John Wayne. Wayne plays a retired American boxer who travels to Ireland to settle down and enjoy his retirement. He meets and falls in love with a stubborn red-head (Maureen O'Hara), and the rest of the story is about the fireworks of their courtship and marriage. He loves her, but he won't be domesticated. He is so secure in the man he is that he can love her and maintain his masculinity and, in the process, she can do nothing but admire him. The concept of love has become so twisted. Mark and I used to listen to a fair amount of country music, but in recent years we've agreed that the tired story lines of "babe, you look so hot in those tight jeans/t-shirt - get up on my truck (or bar, or stage, or whatever's handy) and shake your booty for me", blah, blah, blah... are not just tired but glorify the basest instincts we have. What do these story lines represent? Love - with longevity and passion that fills an empty soul? Hardly. Lust - short-lived and empty, at best. A few days ago, Mark handed me a magazine and pointed to an article he wanted me to read. It was an excerpt from New York Times columnist Meg Jay called, The Slippery Slope of Cohabitation. The article said, "Most young couples now live together as a safe first step before marriage, but research shows that cohabitation is anything but safe: It makes couples less likely to be satisfied with their marriages, and more likely to divorce later. In my psychology practice, I have seen many couples move from dating to sleeping over to cohabitation along a 'gradual slope' unmarked by 'rings or ceremonies or sometimes even a conversation'. Without saying so, women usually think of living together 'as a step toward marriage,' whereas men tend to view it as a way of auditioning their partners while postponing commitment. As years slide by, the two people find that despite the trial nature of their relationship, they have become bound together by shared leases, wireless contracts, furniture, pets, and friends. Those who work up the courage to split find that the 'setup and switching costs' are nearly as wrenching as divorce. Others drift into marriage, while secretly wondering 'whether they have consciously chosen their mates.' To increase your chance of a satisfying, lasting relationship, it's best to start with 'I do,' rather than 'Maybe we will, and maybe we won't.'" This is the link for the NYTimes article in its entirety: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all
I have a friend who has been in and out of cohabitational relationships ever since I've known her, and she laments her situation to me always saying she wants something more. She refers to the fact that Mark and I are happily married and hopes to fall into the same kind of arrangement. She's often asked how I found him or how we've made it work. I've said as plainly as I can that we just got married. We didn't mess around. When we went on our honeymoon, I didn't know if he even knew how to follow a map... much less anything else about what kind of husband he'd be to me - in any way. I had hopes and prayers, but I had no way of knowing for sure. She says she couldn't do it. She'd have to "test a guy out awhile". I understand the thought process, but, I feel sad about it too. She resents that, although it's obvious there are men out there who would value a woman enough to marry/commit for life to her without any guarantees of her perfect performance or lovability, she has not found such a man to do that for her. Somewhere deep inside of women, we must admit that we resent a lack of commitment and fear being left alone with nothing to show for the love we'd given. This fear leaves us controlling and manipulating the people around us hoping for a positive outcome.
The majority of the time God wanted to redeem His people in the Bible, he sent a baby boy to them. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus. Not to negate the importance of women like Deborah, Esther, and Mary, but primary roles of leadership and saving were given to men. Every culture and nation has stories of damsels in distress - held by an enemy - waiting to be rescued by - a loyal pet? another damsel? a moderately passionate lump of video-game playing expertise? No. A white knight. A man so brave, handsome, passionate, rugged, and strong of character that her knees have no choice but to buckle. This story is not just ingrained in us by a society consumed with romanticism. It's written on the hearts of humanity, because that is the story of mankind from the beginning of time. God (the white knight) breathed his own breath of life into humanity (damsel). He loved her deeply. Then she was taken captive by sin and death. He loved her so much He had to rescue her. He wanted her back. There was only one way to prove the depth of His love for her. He had to die for her. He sent Himself to earth (Jesus) to love her, speak truth and tenderness to her, and then to offer His life in payment for her ransom. She is redeemed. She was purchased at a great personal price to her Love. Only after making this sacrifice and proving His love did He invite us into intimate union with Him. (Isa. 54:5, 62:3-5, Hos. 2:19-20). Jesus Himself reminded us that He was the "bridegroom" and His church was His bride (Mark 2:18-20). I'm so glad God didn't "interview" me for worthiness before He sent Jesus to die for me. I'd never have passed the test.
A few nights ago, I pulled in the driveway with some groceries in the back of the van. As I pulled toward the garage entrance, my headlights shone on a bat that was flying around the garage. I hate bats. I texted Mark who was in the house (napping after having put the kids down to bed), "Bat in garage. Help!" Moments later, Austin and Mark came out. Austin reached for a campfire roasting stick, and, although quietly said to myself, "Ew! Not that!" As if he'd heard me, he picked up a golf driver, and I thought again, "Ew! Not that either!" He used it to shoo the critter out of the garage and Mark waved me into my parking spot. They went to the back of the van, unloaded groceries, and helped put them away as we talked about our days. I felt protected. I am blessed to know that, if I call for help, two big guys and a littler one will be there in the blink of an eye to answer that call without hesitation. I am thankful for that. I reinforce their strength by believing in it and not being threatened by it. Their strength is precious to me, and the more I believe in it, the more I love it, the more I trust it... the more they give it. If I were afraid of their strength... if I wanted my strength to be more prominent than theirs... if I denied their strength, I would never be the benefit or recipient of it. As it is, I am both, and I couldn't feel more precious.
God is the same with us. He longs to give us His strength... to stand and fight for us, but we often want to fight our own battles, or to force our own will, or trust our own strength. We miss out on seeing what He can do. Like the beauty of a woman, the strength of a man can be twisted and/or misused. At their core though, these two things (strength and beauty) are defining attributes of God and, when used in that context, are powerful, passionate, and life-giving. I once quoted this verse in another blog ( http://illinoisslags.blogspot.com/2010/04/safety-in-helmet.html), but I think it does an excellent job of explaining the nature of God. Isaiah 59:17 says of God Himself, "He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak." Strength unbridled and pure is nothing to fear. Rather, embrace it and the One who owns it.
