Last month, my husband and I celebrated three years of marriage, and thus far I can honestly say that I fall in love with him more every day. Marriage has been a beautiful adventure for the two of us, and the longer we are together, the longer I understand God's purpose in joining us.
One of the reasons I love my husband so dearly is his character. He has taught me much about strength, love, and sacrifice, laying himself down for me on an almost daily basis. In my eyes, he is exactly what a Christian man should be, a sentiment that conjures great respect in my own heart.
However, my esteem has a strange and unfortunate underbelly. I find in myself a tendency to compare the behavior of other men against the goodness of my husband. To me, my husband is the gold standard, so there is a temptation to judge other husbands against the perceived greatness of my own.
This bias is one of the unfortunate flipsides of being in a happy marriage. A good marriage and a good spouse not only provide insight into God's design for matrimony, but these blessings can also color our judgment. They can instill us with prejudice as we read scriptural teachings about marriage and draw conclusions from those teachings.
To understand the danger of this bias, consider a recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard, NYU, and the University of Utah. The study, titled "Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution," examined how married men with stay-at-home wives view women in the workplace. The study of 718 married men yielded the following fascinating results. The researchers write,
We found that employed husbands in traditional marriages, compared to those in modern marriages, tend to (a) view the presence of women in the workplace unfavorably, (b) perceive that organizations with higher numbers of female employees are operating less smoothly, (c ) find organizations with female leaders as relatively unattractive, and (d) deny, more frequently, qualified female employees opportunities for promotion.
The use of terms like "traditional marriage" and "modern marriage" betrays an inherent bias. Nevertheless, the findings are fascinating. An article in The Atlantic helpfully summarized the study's significance this way:
The studies showed that personal views and the domestic architecture of male leaders' private lives helped shape women's professional opportunities. This held true in both surveys and lab experiments, including one that tested whether candidates with identical backgrounds, but different names—Drew versus Diane—should receive a spot in a sought-after, company-sponsored MBA program. According to the research, men in traditional marriages gave Diane "significantly poor evaluations" compared to Drew. It seems that husbands with wives working at home imprinted that ideal onto women in the office.
One of the study's authors, Sreedhari Desai, attributed the findings to what she called "benevolent sexism." As she explained it, it's not that men deliberately intend to hold women back. In fact, their treatment of women may stem from a desire to take care of women and protect them. Their intentions are by no means malicious. But regardless, their home life shapes the way they view other women in a variety of settings.
The findings of this study are not surprising to me. As I mentioned, I sometimes compare other men against my own husband. Additionally, I have encountered men whose own wives serve as their standard of excellence for Christian women. For this reason, I would love to see further studies that explore the perspectives of men who are married to working women compared with men whose wives stay at home. To take the research further, scholars might also consider how women view men who work versus men who stay at home, or make less money, all in relation to their own family situations.
When a particular family dynamic works well for our lives, we easily make universal assessments about what all families should do. (Cue the mommy wars.) Where this tendency can become especially dangerous, however, is when it influences one's interpretation of Scripture. Here we move beyond the culture wars to a kind of legalism that is not only suffocating but spiritually burdensome.
Over the years I have read books and heard sermons about biblical womanhood that, as far as I could tell, reflected more about the wife of the pastor than the truth of God's Word. I have no doubt that these women are godly wives and mothers from whom I can learn much about Christian faithfulness, but caution is also in order. In matters such as working versus staying at home, comparative income levels, parenting methods, and other dynamics that are subject to life circumstance and personality difference, teachers must be careful about imposing standards upon women that God himself does not impose. The result will be unnecessary shame upon women who already exist in a culture plagued by female guilt.
The standard cuts both ways, of course. In the same way that I don't want to be compared with another man's wife, I should avoid doing the same to other men. Fortunately, the scriptural model of marriage—Christ and the church—is less a formula than it is a paradigm with some room for flexibility. Since we serve an infinite God who laid himself down for a diverse church, we can expect there to be a number of expressions of the Christ-church relationship, all of which reflect the one true type.
While the above study might be discouraging to some, perhaps it will also help us to name the diversity among us. Rather than use my own healthy marriage as ammunition against other marriages, I can instead look to the marriages around me for additional insights into Scripture and my relationship with God. I hope the couples in my life will look to my marriage and do the same.
A lot of Lost fans noticed in last week’s episode, “The Substitute,” that Jack’s name in the cave was assigned the number 23. (Warning: Don’t read if you didn’t see that episode.) The connection to Psalm 23 seems almost too easy for a guy with the surname Shephard.
Ever since I saw that, I’ve wondered, “Do each of the names in that cave relate to their respective number’s psalm?”
Well, this is no exact science–and it’s totally stretching. I mean, the producers didn’t sit down 6 years ago and assign psalms to various characters. I know. But still, this is a fun little exercise, right? And so, I tried to see what I could discover. And while it may just be meaningless fun, I also stumbled on some very intriguing things–including a possible clue about who may replace Jacob.
While Jack is the only candidate with his name (or a form of it) showing up in his or her psalm, playing with the meaning of names proved to be interesting. For instance, Hurley Reyes was given the number 8. Reyes means “like a king.” Psalm 8 says God’s name is majestic. It continues: “What is man that you are mindful of him…You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands.”
The surname Locke means “woods; fortified place; pond.” Locke’s assigned number is 4 and Psalm 4 is all about finding a fortified place: “Answer me when I call to you, O my righteous God. Give me relief from my distress. … I will lie down and sleep in peace, for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.” It is certainly true that John Locke always searched for a place of relief–and found it on the island. More poignantly, it seems that the Man in Black also found a fortified place within the identity of Locke.
Also, with Locke I want to point out that Psalm 4 echoes this character’s long search of direction and cries for answers. And it could point to his continued faith in the island as a false God: “How long will you love delusions and seek false gods?”
The meaning of Sayid’s name does not seem to correspond with his psalm, number 16. But it is still fascinating. That Psalm discusses eternal life, something Sayid has been all about this season. Psalm 16 reads: “you will not abandon me to the grave.” In fact, Sayid’s Season 6 worries that his eternal home will not be very pleasant due to his sinfulness sounds a lot like Psalm 16:2: “Apart from you I have no good thing.” (Also, it should be noted that the boy’s name Jarrah means “God gives sweetness; honey.” And honey is a key part of Numbers 16. Coincidence? Yah, probably.)
The last two names I looked at didn’t pan out but one provided the most thought-provoking insight of my little exercise. Let’s start with Sun and Jin Kwon. Their surname means “authority.” The corresponding psalm, Psalm 42, isn’t about authority. If we divide the two numbers, Psalm 2 is about God’s authority but Psalm 4 doesn’t seem to connect to anything. Any thoughts? Maybe this married couples’ first names are significant here. Jin means “gold” and sun means “goodness.” Still, I got nothing.
Now, we get to the finding I am most giddy about: James “Sawyer” Ford. No, I don’t really see any connection between him or his name to Psalm 15. I mean, the only thing that comes close is the line “Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary?” because, well, Sawyer didn’t want to dwell in the sanctuary and split.
However, what was most interesting about this exercise was learning the meaning of the boys’ name James. I knew it was a variant of the name Jacob, but I didn’t know that it means “he who supplants.” Oooh, as in he could supplant Jacob? Did you know that?
What you think? I need your help. Did I miss anything? Can you make any scriptural connections I missed? Any name meanings I didn’t look into?
Does any of this tell us anything?
Todd Hertz, a CT movie critic, is also a regular contributor for ThinkChristian.net where he’ll also be writing occasionally about Lost this season.
