Safe at Home

Recently, Scott headed to Boston for a few days with one of the kids. I felt like a teenager whose parents had foolishly left her alone for the weekend. Whoo hoo! I turned off the AC, opened the windows, cranked up the music --my music, and got to doing some of the tasks on my list of things to do. I, The Chucker, threw out stuff without having to justify my actions to Scott, The Saver. I rearranged, repainted, and repurposed. I ate what I wanted, when I wanted, or I didn't. The television remote lay cold and forgotten on the mantel as I read for hours on the deck. The me that I am could be; but the me that I am cannot be apart from Scott.

The divorce rate in the U.S. is one of the highest. That being said, we're a country that focuses on rights. Someone once told me he had a right to be happy (not true), and if his wife couldn't make him happy, he had a right to find someone who did; she should just accept it and allow him to do that! Did you get that? This guy still wanted to remain married to the mother of his children while seeking out another woman (or, other women, it later turned out) to "make him happy!" I'm not going to pick all of that apart --there's just so much wrong there-- but, I will say, this individual felt he could be married and still remain who he was before: single in mindset, a womanizer, and deeply disturbed. So many marriages end because someone decides the person they have become within the confines of marriage is not who they want to be and, therefore, it must be the other person's fault, or they must slough off the heavy yoke of marriage to go a-searchin' for the me they want to be.

It's true, I cannot go back to the me I used to be before Scott and I were married. That person was single, in charge of raising her children and running her household by herself, solely responsible for navigating all of life's disappointments and blessings; that person didn't require anyone else's approval to repaint or host a party or even change what side of the bed she slept on. But that person didn't have the freedom to express herself daily to someone who understands her intimately, or share life with someone who wants to share as much of it with her as God will allow. And that person certainly couldn't do whatever she wanted; no one-- married or single-- has the right to do whatever they want. (Unless, of course, their wants are the type of wants that serve a greater purpose, that have eternal value, that place others before themselves, that are held to a higher standard. Unless they have been transformed into someone perfectly righteous, governed by a new nature.)

G.K. Chesterton once said, "The more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild." Good things require boundaries in order to thrive. Children do not feel secure unless they know someone has established rules for their benefit. Adults need employee handbooks to understand what their employer will and will not allow, rather than spending a career wondering if they are missing out on something or overstepping. And a marriage is the boundary in which two people can grow into the best versions of themselves with the support, wisdom, and if necessary, correction of the other.

The best part of Scott's absence was knowing it was temporary, that when the trip was over, our life together would take on its usual appearance, that we could share with one another the experiences we enjoyed while we were apart in body but certainly not in devotion.