The other evening, without really looking, picked up my toothbrush and started brushing my teeth. I walked briefly back into our bedroom to ask Sarah something. It was at that point, she spotted what I’d missed.
You’re using my toothbrush.”
Now, you may have different opinions on whether it’s okay or gross to share toothbrushes. In our case, there’s an additional factor which is that Sarah is allergic to some of the things I may have eaten. So, we have good reason to keep our brushes separate. If that had not been so, would she have had the right to complain? Hadn’t she promised “all that I have is yours” when we got married?
I thought of that question again when reading and discussing an article by my friend Steve Kneale. He recently wrote about the controversy over whether former SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon knew about her husband’s embezzlement of party funds. Steve notes that, if as many married couples do, they had separate accounts, then perhaps she did not know. He then goes on to argue that whether or not a couple run with a joint account or individual accounts and whether or not one person takes responsibility for financial management, both should have visibility of and access to all accounts.
I pretty much agree with Steve on this. I also agree with him that if you take a different approach to your household finances, then providing you aren’t secretly hiving off funds from the family business to buy motorhomes or whatever, then this isn’t a matter of Biblical obedience. However, one bit of the discussion interested me. I observed in the comments that we have one shared account from which all of our family expenditure comes out of and our income goes into. However, we have both kept an individual account which we put a small amount of money into each month. Primarily we use that money to treat each other, buy presents etc and sometimes to treat ourselves.
I think I would differ from Steve a little here, because his preference would be to have no such accounts like that. As it happens, I’m not convinced that it amounts to hiving off sums of money for personal use. It’s more a way of budgeting our expenditure and also enables us to surprise each other. We are also old fashioned about knowing the cost of presents. I guess (and I think some couples would do this in the past), we could just draw out twenty pound each week and keep it as cash in our wallets. It wouldn’t really be much different. We’re not possessive. Both of us have dipped into our personal accounts to pay for family things from time to time when needed. We are not secretive. We would not conceal what was in our bank accounts. Indeed, to be honest, we could easily work out what each other had spent if we wanted to. It’s just that we don’t really bother about that.
As I said, I don’t think this is a big difference between Steve and me. However, it got me thinking further. I think there are implications not just for family life but also for church and for wider society and it’s not just about money.
Here’s the first thing. Determining how to steward our money is an application of our marriage vow “all that I have is yours.” The vows themselves though are also an application, they aren’t direct from Scripture but rather an attempt to apply the description of a couple as “one flesh”. This means that we probably don’t need to worry about drawing up an exhaustive list of dos and don’ts in minute detail. Instead we should be looking to see if a marriage carries the feel of one-flesh. Are the couple united in mind, heart and will?
This means that I don’t think we need to worry too much about whether or not a couple are holding all of their finances in common, have detailed visibility and detailed access. When Sarah and I married and when we made that commitment, we weren’t saying that we had to share toothbrushes and deodorant. Nor were we saying that we would only from now on share the same interests and past times. We read different books. There are TV programmes she watches that I have no interest in and vice-versa. I will go off to watch the football sometimes and we both have friends we would see on our own as well as friends together. It’s important to say this because I’ve heard young couples place huge legalistic burdens on themselves in terms of expected life ahead.
On a side point, whilst we are one flesh, this doesn’t, theologically or legally remove the distinction, the “two-ness”. Remember the Liberal Democrat politician who thought that “all I have is yours” extended to his driving licence endorsements. Some things are explicitly not transferable.
Instead, what we mean is that the whole of our lives is for the benefit and well-being of the other. “All I have is yours” does not mean that Sarah and I share a toothbrush and deodorant. It does mean that I wear deodorant for her benefit not merely my own because no-one likes a smelly Dave. And there will be other ways in which even our personal enjoyment of things can be said to be the wellbeing of the whole family. We are one in our individual enjoyment of things because we learn to appreciate and to meet the wants and desires of our spouses.
Similarly in church, there is a sense in which I recognise that all I have is from God, my money, talents, time. Whilst at different points, churches have held everything in common, that is not necessary. However, we should recognises that these things are entrusted to us so that we can glorify God and bless his church. So, I’m not concerned about how you structure your bank accounts. Rather I’m concerned that we think about how we bless and love others with what we are given whether that’s our family, church or wider society.
Faithroots 