Sermon Tone Analysis

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

In September of 2008, Reuters News reported that “more than two thirds of Americans would rather be stranded on a desert island with their pet than with their partner.”[1]

Now, I have no idea who they polled.

The statistic could be wildly inaccurate.

While I initially smirked in reading it, I confess I think it might be somewhat accurate and really sad.

While I am surprised at the degree of affection people have for their pets, I am more surprised and saddened by the apparent low level of affection people have for their partners or that people think animals could care for them and divert loneliness better than another person could.

I would like to offer husbands a more biblical and more rewarding view.

Your wives were originally designed by God to be the ideal companion, therefore, we ought to value our wives and pursue and cherish them.

A couple of weeks ago we considered the excellent wife as described in would like to take the next couple of messages and draw some implications from that passage.

We’ll eventually look at 5 implications drawn from , but the first and only implication we will draw today is that a wife is a good thing and therefore ought to be highly valued.

This is an implication in but more clearly stated in and 19.

The primary recipients this morning are husbands, secondarily married individuals, and finally I would like to make a few remarks in regard to singles.

A Wife is a Good Thing

He who finds a wife has been gifted something that is pleasant, desirable, morally good.

“He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord” ( ESV).

The New Living Translation reads, “The man who finds a wife finds a treasure.”

Similarly, in , we read “House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord.”

The verse in chapter 19 adds the descriptor prudent to wife.

Other ways to understand this word prudent might be to think of wise, insightful, considerate, or understanding.

Simply put, a good wife is a gift from the Lord.

That seems to be the same point that is making.

In fact, the LXX words it this way, and even adds in an additional sentence at the end.

One who has found a good woman has found grace and has received cheerfulness from God. 22a One who puts away a good woman puts away good things, and the one who holds on to an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.

( and 22a LXX)[2]

The implication of both of these passages is that a good wife is a good gift from the Lord.

Of course, we live in a broken world, and not every wife is a good wife.

In fact, in other Proverbs we read that “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife” ( ESV) and that “It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.

( ESV).

So then, clearly the implication in these two above Proverbs is that a good wife is a good and precious gift.

As we consider the idea of a wife being a good thing, we naturally go back to Genesis.

Recall the creation week.

At the end of day 5, everything but mankind has been created, and God refers to everything he has created so far and calls it “good” ().

Day 6 comes along, and God creates man.

After having created man, God says, “it is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” ( ESV).

Therefore, God created Eve.

It is only after the creation of both man and woman when God beholds all that he has created and refers to it as “very good” ().

A Wife is a Companion

God acknowledged that it is not good for a man (or any person) to be alone.

We were never meant to be alone.

Therefore, we were created as relational beings.

And to better understand or fully appreciate God’s supplying Adam with a companion, let’s consider what was already present within the garden – and yet God still considered Adam to be alone.

Animals were present.

Man was in the garden, surrounded by beautiful and majestic animals, and yet God said he was alone.

The animals could never replace the relational needs that only another person could fill.

Man was in the garden, surrounded by beautiful and majestic animals, and yet God said he was alone.

The animals could never replace the relational needs that only another person could fill.

For a moment in my study of this biblical principle, I almost overlooked this simple reality.

Animals were never intended to be the primary companions to people.

I now gingerly step into a brief discussion about the role of animals in our lives.

I say gingerly because I realize that many of you own pets, and not only do you own pets, likely many of you consider your pets to be part of your family.

And yet, the very fact that I realized that I had to gingerly walk into this area, impressed upon me the need to address this simple principle.

While animals are beautiful creations of God and can bring us great joy, they were never intended to be our primary companions and most certainly were never intended to replace human companionship.

Psychology Today printed an interesting article by Hal Herzog in July 2013.

In it, Dr. Herzog spoke of a talk at that year’s annual meeting for the International Society for Anthrozoology.

Anthrozoology is the study of the interaction between humans and animals.

Louise Hawkley, the speaker of this talk, made a fairly obvious initial claim.

“She made the case that socially isolated people die sooner than people who have friends. . . .

Indeed, people without friends have a 50% greater mortality rate than people with strong social networks.”[3]

That is hardly surprising.

It was the contrast that was surprising to Herzog.

In “contrast with having human friends, living with a pet doesn’t seem to have any effect on overall human mortality rates.”

This seems odd given the statistics that would indicate that 91% of pet owners consider their pet to be a family member, and as we just noted two out of every three pet owners would prefer to be with their pet on a deserted island instead of their spouse.

The reasons for this surprising conclusion were offered by means of a 2010 University of Chicago study, in which psychological well-being factors (such as self-esteem, loneliness, isolation, depression, and general satisfaction) were measured alongside of that individuals relationships: most important person, most important social group, God, and their pet.

Someone’s important person and social group dramatically affected their well-being – as we would expect they would, but the study went on to conclude that one’s “satisfaction with companion animals had no effect.”

Simply stated, our human relationships dramatically affect our feelings of loneliness, depression, isolation, etc, but the relationships with animals have next to no lasting effect in those areas.

Herzog concludes with the statement, “I am starting to think that there is a big difference between our human friends and our animal “friends”. . . .

I am not really sure what people get from their real human friends . . .

but not from their pets.”

I remain a little taken back by that last statement.

I think we could argue that humans offer a relationship much more than any animal could – starting with mutual communication, verbal interaction, true sympathy and empathy, and cognitive assistance.

Pastoral perspective.

Let me attempt to wrap this up and offer a pastor’s perspective at this point.

There is a simple biblical principle here.

God did not provide us with animals as our primary companions, instead he gave us people.

More specifically, he gave Adam a spouse.

It is within that relationship (and relationships with other people) that we are to find our companionship.

That is the principle.

Let me as well offer an implication and application.

I’ve often observed within the church (and the whole world) a tendency to replace human relationships with pets.

At times pets are easier to live with.

People take a lot of work.

People can hurt us and reject us, and the solution for some is to transfer the emotions and attention to an animal instead of the people around them.

This is the wrong solution.

Let’s take this even a step further.

The primary place for Adam to find companionship was in his spouse.

For those who are married, your primary companionship should be in your spouse.

That was God’s intent.

Therefore, my application for us is simple.

Married men, God gifted you with a good thing – a wife.

She is to be your primary place for companionship.

Pursue her and don’t allow any other relationship to take her place.

Therefore, we go back to the garden in Genesis and realize that while animals were present, animals that had not been drastically affected by the Fall, they were not the companions that God believed Adam needed.

God was present.

God was as well present with Adam in the garden, and he still considered Adam to be alone.

He knew that Adam needed someone like himself to have the type of fulfilling relationship that God intended for him.

God therefore created another person, and it was only then that he would no longer be alone.

So, while our relationship with God ought to be the most important relationship we have, even God looked at Adam, and even though God was present, concluded that it was not good that man was alone.

I find this fact intriguing.