Originally published in the “Big Sandy Mountaineer”, October 22, 2014.
In the bottom drawer of my toolbox, there is a 4 foot long piece of steel pipe. It is exactly the right size to fit over the handle of my socket wrench. Though it is not a proper tool, I have used it more times than I can explain. It has been used to add leverage to my wrench and break a stubborn bolt free. I have used it to pry down the control arm of a Honda while installing a ball joint. I once used it to lift an engine off its lower mount. I even used it to pry a tire off of a car after the rim had rusted in place. Though it’s not a tool, my “cheater bar”, as they are usually called, is by far one of the most versatile and useful items in my toolbox. In a similar way, one of the most useful marital tools I have discovered isn’t exactly a tool or a technique. It is a strategy. The strategy is simple, though counterintuitive: Don’t win.
I have noticed that many married couples, myself included, take the opposite strategy. When an argument begins, they set out to win. This is a pretty natural response to conflict. We try to win. When we argue, we employ strategies that help us prove our point, gain the moral high ground, undercut our spouse’s position, and often times we try to hurt each other. Both participants cease, for a time, to look at each other as partners, instead seeing each other as opponents. The problem that arises with one spouse winning a fight is that the other one loses. Though, more often, rather than producing a winner or loser, fights end in a draw. This leaves both sides wounded and entrenched. The resulting hurt and damage to the relationship may not be major, but it is present. Marriages don’t end after a single fight, instead dying deaths of a thousand cuts. The “win the fight” strategy is a losing proposition in the long term, resulting only in two individuals who are convinced that they are right in the relationship issues, and both of them alone.
The strategy that solves this problem is simply working toward not winning. Couples who learn to see each other’s point of view and compromise. This requires a constant and intentional remembering that you love each other and are on the same side. Every problem, issue, or disagreement that arises is either a battle to be fought together or an opportunity to grow stronger in the relationship through communication and mutual submission. This works best when both partners agree on the strategy, but can be effective with only one partner approaching the marriage with this strategy.
Less than a week before my wedding day, I lost my job. It was a terrible fit for me and in retrospect, it was a good thing. However, at the time it was a crushing blow. Going to work and providing for my family was pretty much the most important thing in the world. I had no idea how or when this happened, but I am quite certain that my pride and identity were magically tied to my ability to bring home a pay check, put a roof over my wife’s head, and food on the table. The experience shaped my attitude toward employment to this day. I don’t think my experience is particularly unique to me. Men derive much of their identity and sense of worth from their work. It lies at the core of the masculine identity, which is part of God’s design for men. We see this truth in the book of Genesis. The first thing Adam did after he was created was go to work. God put him in the garden and set him to work. It wasn’t miserable work and it wasn’t all that Adam did. He didn’t live to work. Adam tended to the garden, but he also named the animals. In addition, God recognized that Adam shouldn’t be alone, so he created a wife for him. In short, from the beginning man’s work was pretty important to him. In fact, I’d argue that Adam was designed to set his hand to tasks. If Adam was made in God’s image and God engaged in both creation and work, then it follows that work and creation would be important to Adam. One of the things I love about the creation account is that it gives us hints about the nature of men and women. The intended design is seen clearly without the haze of sin obscuring and distorting the foundational truths. In this case, the foundational truth is obvious: Men were made to work, but that’s not all they were made to do. 
In general, emotions are a difficult topic for men. This difficulty spans a broad spectrum, from emotionless stoicism on one end, to the uncontrolled passions of aggression, anger, lust, and ambition that have earned the male gender a reputation for acting as the bull in the china shop of their relationships. One of the hallmarks of a mature man is his ability to manage his emotions. This is not full repression of feeling and passionless existence. The stoic philosophers succeeded in producing incomplete men by attempting to avoid one of the fundamental strengths of man. God designed passion into men, that we might reflect his character. You cannot read the scriptures and miss God’s love, joy, sorrow, rage, and jealousy. In short, we were made in the image of a passionate God. Jesus was often angry. He loved folks passionately. He wept at the death of Lazarus, and he mourned over Jerusalem’s ongoing rebellion. It is important to understand that God’s passions are restrained by His will and holiness. Further, it is important to understand that these are qualities of God, they are not God himself.
The topic of manhood is complicated and will take more than one post to properly explore. In the short term, it’s important to establish a basic concept of manhood from which to work. I’d suggest that the place to start is with the source of manhood identity that is built into our world: Boys learn to be men by watching their fathers. This is because parents stand in God’s place in the lives of their children for the first several years of their lives. They provide life, food, shelter, moral guidance, correction, etc. Children’s conception of God is often shaped by their perception of their dads. Genesis tells us that when God created man, He created them in His own image. Fathers (and all men for that matter) are supposed to be copies of God in many respects. We are to share His heart, passions, loves, understanding of family, and work. When dads fail to model this lifestyle and teach their boys to do the same, they create problems. Fortunately, God provides us a more clarified example of manhood in the person of Jesus, who is God made flesh. A boy without a good fatherly model to follow can see ideal manhood in Jesus. When we choose to follow Jesus, our job is to learn to be like him through a lifetime of training, which is discipleship. This is why Christ’s self-sacrificing love and attitude of humble service is the example for husbands. He demonstrates the ideal manner of intimate relationship through his relationship with the church.
It’s easy to picture Jesus as a pollyanna-type figure or as the feathered haired guy in a bathrobe that we all encountered on flannel graphs in Sunday School as kids. Fortunately, the tame version of the Son of God is far from accurate. C.S. Lewis captured Jesus’ identity best when he wrote: “He’s not safe! But, he’s good.” Jesus’ integrity, passion, penchant for action, grace, wisdom, willingness to speak openly (even offensively if necessary), self-sacrificing service, and lifetime focus on making the world better are just a few of the qualities that make Jesus is the ideal standard of manhood. He is the ideal mold from which men were meant to be cast. It is from Him that we learn how God desires us to be. Once we know, our job is to enter training to become like him.
This is my second blog post on the Proverbs 31 woman and I haven’t started to really dig into the passage. I usually try to write shorter essays because most folks won’t read thousands of words just to get an answer. Easy answers are nice, but they are often incomplete. There’s always a temptation for pastors to shortcut and assign meaning to scripture rather than digging for the author’s intent. Understanding what the author meant to tell the reader means looking at it from their cultural perspective/historic perspective.
Patching Cracks 
