In Defense of Fits and Starts

The Temple

"'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,'

Says the Lord of hosts.

'Who are you, O great mountain?

Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain!

And he shall bring forth the capstone

With shouts of Grace, grace to it... The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple; his hands shall also finish it... For who has despised the day of small things?'"

  ~  Zechariah 4:6,7, 9, 10 ~

The preceding verses quote God's challenge to the Jewish people who were returning to their homeland after 70 years of captivity. Their house of worship, the great temple in Jerusalem, had been destroyed by the Babylonians and, now under Persian rule, the Jews were being granted the opportunity to rebuild this most sacred of all buildings. The man charged with the responsibility was the governor of Judah, Zerubbabel.

Verse 10 is particularly striking because, in the midst of issuing a Herculean challenge, God refers to "small things."

The house of the Lord wouldn't be rebuilt in a day. It took seven years for King Solomon to build the first temple; realistically, then, the rebuilding process would likely take as long or longer. All things of magnificence and magnitude require much time, planning, expense and effort. 

And all massive tasks are accomplished one small step at a time.

Fits and Starts Explained

Another way of saying this is, big jobs often come together in fits and starts. One step forward, two steps back, as the saying goes. Construction crews have to pause projects when inclement weather interferes with man-made schedules. Illness sends the busiest of individuals to their beds, sometimes for prolonged periods, until God mends their ailing bodies. Disasters like September 11 and Hurricane Harvey sweep away dreams in a matter of hours, and exhausted relief workers and devastated homeowners have no choice but to deal with one catastrophic piece at a time.

Mueller’s Fits and Starts

George Mueller, the German-born pastor who preached and ministered in England during the height of the Industrial Revolution, is an excellent example of fits and starts. As a young Christian, he aspired to be a missionary. As every door in this arena closed to him, he sought instead to preach. Unsure of himself, he at first memorized others' sermons and merely recited them to his long-suffering congregation! 

His efforts to live a holy life too often yielded just the opposite, and he became discouraged. All this time, however, God was shaping this imperfect vessel, teaching him the value of a life devoted to prayer and Scripture. During a period of illness when Mueller was "laid up," so to speak, he took time to study the Bible with a fellow believer. This period of respite and contemplation proved most profitable, for it shaped his beliefs and laid the groundwork for the rest of his ministry.

This extraordinary man's life of service hinged on the word of God and prayer, prayer, and more prayer. Mueller went on to launch the Scriptural Knowledge Institution, which led him to establish the schools and orphanages for which he is best known. Because he took time to seek the Lord's will on his knees, he was ready when God placed in his heart the idea of creating safe, loving homes for countless orphans who otherwise would likely have been abused in workhouses. 

Conclusions

Two of history’s most remarkable mega-projects – the Temple in Jerusalem and George Mueller’s orphanages – emerged from humble beginnings. Displaced people returned to their homeland after decades in captivity, and proceeded to lay one stone on top of another until the Lord’s house was restored. An immigrant preacher threw open his door to thousands of disadvantaged children, teaching them to revere the God he served. Spurning setbacks, these trailblazers relied on heavenly wisdom to accomplish stunning feats.

Amazing how fits and starts can turn into faits accomplis.

Work Consulted

Pierson, A.T. George Müller of Bristol: His Life of Prayer and Faith. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

The Trouble with Rhoda

I’m trying to figure out why I’m bummed out by a sitcom.

True confessions time. I admitted to my Bible study group yesterday that the “drugs” I use to escape reality, or sometimes just relax (“recreational drugs”?) are food, sleep and entertainment.

In the wake of being so boldly transparent with my Christian sisters, I yielded to one of my three temptations last night, after having an otherwise productive and meaningful day. Specifically, I binge watched Rhoda, the old sitcom from the 70’s in which Mary Richards’ sidekick tries to make it on her own. And she does in many important ways – building a career and forging strong family bonds (despite a bumpy relationship with her stereotypically Jewish mother!) – but in the realm of marriage, our ugly-duckling-turned-successful-swan gets it way wrong.

After an eye-blinkingly brief marriage, Rhoda’s handsome, rugged husband complains, “I’m not as happy as I wanna be,” and persuades his tearful wife it’s in the best interest of their marriage for him to take a hiatus to figure things out.

This would lead his troubled wife to believe he's maybe planning a short vacation in a motel to sort out his priorities. Heaven knows, after one failed marriage resulting in shared custody of a son he seems to often shunt to the side, one would hope he’d tread carefully before dissolving a second union. Instead, he finds himself a dumpy apartment and proceeds to stick poor, estranged Rhoda with the rent for the more comfortable apartment they had shared. Unable to keep up with her bills, she’s forced to move to smaller digs after her Sir Galahad husband counsels her not to get too attached to things.

The saddest part is, Rhoda apologizes and begs her way through their whole separation, even as the man she loves takes advantage of her vulnerability. Consider the following slice of dialogue in the scene where Joe comes on to her when she graciously delivers the dry cleaning tickets for his shirts, which didn’t need cleaning but “were getting her depressed, hanging around here without [him] in them.”

Rhoda: I know what you’re thinking.

Joe: Good. I wasn’t trying to keep it a secret.

Rhoda: And it’s exactly what I’m thinking. It’s exactly what the entire free world is thinking! And I am wrong. They’re wrong. The world, you, me, all of us. And that’s not a good idea, Joe.

Joe (persuasively): I’m not so sure.

Rhoda: Oh, come on, who’re you kidding? All we would be doing is blocking out the real issues, Joe… The problem’ll still be there in the morning. Y’know, it’s no solution, Joseph, really it isn’t…. What I’m saying is, the problem is still there. All you’re really doing is taking the pain away for a couple of minutes.

Joe (moving in seductively): Well, what’s so bad about that?

Rhoda: … What’s bad is that, when the pain comes back, it’s worse.*

Alas, Rhoda’s common sense and resolve lose out to her hormones. Perhaps somewhere in her desperate mind – like so many women – she gambles that, if she gives him what he wants, he'll love her. Whatever the reason, she throws caution to the wind. Arriving home the next morning, she’s met by her sister, Brenda, who excitedly exclaims, “You spent the night at Joe’s! Oh!” Then realization sets in, and she adds sadly, “But you came home alone. Oh!”

Why does this depress me so? Because it’s true! Behind the pithy dialogue and attractive actors, we have the whole saga of post-60’s America. Casual sex, no strings, broken hearts and broken homes.

The saddest thing is, naive Rhoda is reaping the results of failing to heed the obvious warning signs that have been there all along. Her beloved Joe is only following through on the framework he’s been laying since day one of their relationship. He doesn't ask for her hand in marriage; he only asks her to move in. She has to cajole him into stepping up to the altar. Perhaps her biggest mistake, though, is allowing the officiant to wed them with the words, “Do you promise to stay together, grow together, and to trust each other, as long as you both shall love?”

Whatever happened to “as long as you both shall live?” That one little letter makes all the difference in the world between one-night stands – which is all Rhoda gets out of the above exchange with her own husband, who (spoiler alert) ends up divorcing her anyway – and the intention of persevering through thick and thin. I know it’s a long shot, and I’m well aware of divorce statistics (heck, I’m one of them), but Joe and Rhoda’s vows are more or less a prenuptial agreement wrapped up in pretty prose. The minute the love starts to falter (and trust me, folks, it will – not necessarily permanently, but life’s vicissitudes being what they are, the skyrockets are surely gonna ebb and flow) – the minute that happens, both spouses have just vowed to vamoose!

I see another major problem in this whole story line. My friend, Anne, who listened to me rant when I woke up bugged about it this morning, observed that Joe hides behind a veil, so to speak. He doesn't define their relationship at the outset by establishing plans for a life together, and he's just as unclear when he takes off for the great unknown. Poor Rhoda is left trying unsuccessfully to permeate his veil of vagueness, which is really nothing more than gross irresponsibility.

Why? Because Rhoda hitched her sails to a guy with weak character. And character counts.

Despite the fact that hordes of women have adapted their behavior to fit modern morality (or lack thereof), I submit that we were much wiser when we expected more. When we stopped requiring commitment as a prerequisite for intimacy, we handed over the reins of our hearts along with the keys to our apartments.

Yes, we are fully capable of supporting ourselves, buying our own meals at a restaurant, and making our way home if the need arises. That’s not the point.

Chivalry doesn’t have to be dead just because society has declared it outdated. If the dating process is designed to be a prelude to marriage – an interview phase, as it were – why should we be surprised when the men who enjoyed unearned dividends in advance of the altar turn into husbands who tire of those dividends shortly after the honeymoon?

Ladies, we can let our men have their cake and eat it, too – loveless sex and commitment-less relationships – but Rhoda would tell us to expect to come home alone and pick up our own tab – and not just for dinner.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” ~ Ephesians 5:25-33

*All dialogue taken from Rhoda. “Together Again for the First Time.” Season 3, Episode 2. Directed by Tony Mordente. Written by Coleman Mitchell and Geoffrey Neigher. CBS, September 27, 1976. Stage directions added by me.

For more like this, check out: Reflections by Thea: The Trouble with Rhoda: The Other Side

Reflections by Thea: Someday My Prince Will Come ... and He Just May Be a Princess