H is for HUSBAND

I knew what it meant long before it happened. At least I thought I did. I knew the verse well too. At least I thought I did. Didn't it say, 'Wives obey your husbands'? It didn't? Oh I get it now. It said, 'Be submissive to your husbands'. There is a difference you know, between obey and being submissive. It's subtle but it's there, nevertheless. My dictionary, and I hope it's reliable, tells me that to be submissive means to be unresistingly or humbly obedient. So that's obedience without any questions then. But more about that later.

My only real experience of husbands was the view I perceived from the various family relatives that crossed my path and one or two other individuals whom I knew. Some were rulers of their own domain, others shared their kingdom and a few seemed to exist in a parallel world to that of their wives. Husbands appeared to have responsibility for the big decisions, for the monitoring of the family finances and for the discipline of children, but usually only after all other avenues had been explored. Husbands had their comfy chair, their revered place at the dinner table and usually took charge of the steering wheel. Wives discussed their problems with their husbands but the reverse rarely happened, because husbands were the strong ones. Wives took the main responsibility of rearing their husbands' offspring since husbands didn't have time and husbands decided which car to buy, which holiday to book and how much to put on the collection plate on a Sunday morning. After all, men have always been stronger anyway. Just look at tennis, athletics, soccer, golf and the UK has had only one woman Prime Minister, so husbands should be in control.Perception is a wonderful thing and our senses do often create images that appear to be the norm. But to perceive without discernment is a mistake.

The first shock I discovered was that being a groom is miles away from being a boyfriend. But the bigger shock was still to come for being a husband is equally as far removed from being a groom and even further from my perception of what role I should fulfill, once we had tied the knot. And I think that's where so many come unstuck. For suddenly, they discover that love, friendship, sharing and caring plays a much bigger part in a married relationship than they expected. And even after the sons came along, I realised that being a father and a husband are two entirely different roles but both need to be nurtured for the family unit to survive. There is really littler room for self promotion in either but giving of one's self is central to both and in giving, we receive much more back than we can imagine. But it takes two to make it work and might I suggest that three makes it a certain success, when that third person is God. The writer of Ecclesiastes, in explaining that two are better than one offers the same sentiment when he says 'A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.' How stronger is our marriage when we are intertwined with God.

Which brings me neatly back to the start again. Now where did I leave off? Oh yes, this talk about a wife being unresistingly or humbly obedient to her husband. I think I need to read that verse again. In the rest of the verse, Peter is encouraging wives to act in this way so that if their husbands are not believers, they will see 'the purity and reverence of your lives.' Now that's a whole new ball game. Equally he accepts that women may be physically weaker but he does tell us husbands to 'be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect.' My trusty dictionary tells me that considerate means to 'show kindly awareness for another's feelings' so I guess we have a bit of hard thinking to do. There are many other references from Paul for both partners but all tend to tell me the same thing. The starting point is always love. Have you started to weave the cord?