Daily Devotional

When we encounter behavior that confuses or challenges us, we have a choice about which lens we use to interpret it. As Biblical counselor Joanna Presley points out, we can interpret through bad, through broken, or through beloved.


When we interpret through “bad,” we see sinful materialism, greed, rebellion, or moral failure. This was the Israelites’ first interpretation of the altar. It was also the husband’s interpretation of his wife’s shopping: sinful discontentment and materialism.


When we interpret through “broken,” we see psychological disorder or something wrong that needs fixing. While this lens is more compassionate than “bad,” it still assumes something is wrong with the person that needs correction.


But when we interpret through “beloved,” we see legitimate differences, needs, or ways of processing the world. We see a neurological difference. We see a valid need for sensory regulation. We see a witness altar built out of love for God and concern for future generations.


This doesn’t mean there’s never sin in the equation. We’re all sinners. We all need Jesus. But this framework helps us avoid the trap of assuming that every confusing behavior is sin or moral failure.


Look at how Paul describes love in 1 Corinthians 13. Love “believes all things” and “hopes all things.” This doesn’t mean love is naive or gullible. It means love gives others the benefit of the doubt. Love assumes the best until proven otherwise. Love interprets through “beloved” first.


When your spouse does something that hurts you, love doesn’t immediately jump to “They’re being selfish” (bad) or “They have issues” (broken). Love first asks, “What legitimate need or different way of thinking might explain this behavior?” (beloved).


Consider the sermon example again. The husband could have interpreted his wife’s shopping through:


Bad: “She’s greedy and materialistic. She’s never satisfied.”


Broken: “She has a shopping addiction. Something’s psychologically wrong with her.”


Beloved: “Her brain processes things differently than mine. This behavior serves a purpose I don’t yet understand.”


The third interpretation turned out to be accurate. And it was the only interpretation that led to understanding rather than resentment.


Here’s the key: interpreting through “beloved” doesn’t mean ignoring actual sin. If investigation reveals genuine rebellion or moral failure, that must be addressed with truth and grace. But we start with the assumption of love. We investigate with the hope of understanding. We believe the best until the facts prove otherwise.


This is how God treats us. When we sin, He doesn’t immediately destroy us. When we misunderstand Him, He patiently corrects us. When we question His goodness, He continues to demonstrate His faithfulness. He interprets us through the lens of Christ’s righteousness, seeing us as beloved children rather than condemning us as enemies.


Can we extend that same grace to our spouses? Can we interpret their actions through “beloved” rather than rushing to “bad” or “broken”?