Hug your wife with two hands. It takes two or two elements. Read Ecclesiastes 4.

Edited and abbreviated so that it is a fun discussion of life and why men have two hands; not one. Two hands are to hold and hug a wife. One hand is to scratch your head and ask why she left you for not hugging more often. You use one hand too often. In addition to this, men should not have to semi-eunuch themselves so that their wives can trust them. It is also for some guarantee that the civil society will work in your life like the reliability of a civil subway system but you do pay for both in your taxes. A s such, the wife's need for the semi-eunuch husband stems from the new phenomena involves wives who watch anything they want, especially of a "yyy" nature, becoming paranoid about adultery when in the relational nexus of a marital relationship. But, watching anything with a  "yyy" nature is, in fact, psychological adultery. With the bible inside every childhood, you will probably be like the paranoid old man in the 60's who had the Sunday Lawrence Welk and Church Choir member wife but who watched horrible things in the garage by himself on the 8 mm cameras and people observed him through the little crevices between the door and the door frame to understand why he felt so distant afterwards and became some what paranoid about who the wife was with or where she was as if he was projecting his guilt or fear about something on to her including the fear of being left. It is just not befitting to the long term dynamic of the marital relationship. But, humans build airplanes and they also analyze the disaster the dynamics of an airline disaster that kills mothers, fathers, married couples from Cancun and whole entire church communities so they can analyze the dynamics of what is destroying the family and human reproduction that is occasioned by the normalizing of destructive media consumption.
The wielding or the bible wielding is quite the thing these days when people are worshiping. Neither wielding nor bible wielding is an offence. But, you ask how either could be an offence. We determine this by looking at intention since wielding alone could not be a criminal matter. The act of wielding or bible wielding would be called the act or first element of the offence. If there is wrongful intention( the thought element or mens rea), it would be a criminal act. You need two elements to ensure that the circumstance can be analyzed appropriately.    Can you say the act of wielding carried the requisite criminal intention?  In sport, a kick to the leg is not criminal and nor is recovery of stolen property found in someone's bed room such as a box full of cash with personal items if it does not belong to the owner of the house. You took the box to prevent the furtherance of what you believed was an offence. You could have been mistaken but in either case, you would be liable for possession of stolen property for picking up the box. However, you could argue that you had the right intention to prevent an offence. Returning it to the owner listed on the box address is the right answer and you should do it right away before the box is found in your unlawful possession. The kick to the leg in sport is the potential criminal act or actus reus. The witness may say it was deliberate and intentional. In sport, recklessness remains the requisite mens rea. However, as a sport participant, you consent to a certain degree of reasonably vigorous contact with others that is appropriate for that particular sport. If someone pushes you down and punches you in the face in a tennis match, that discloses sufficient mens rea or willful mind. The actus reus or criminal act in the punching during a tennis match is evident.   If the contact rises above the reasonable expectation of the sport and recklessly so, it is also sufficient mens rea or willful mind. There is also sufficient actus reus(the criminal act); needless to say. It is not reasonably expected that anyone should be punched during a  tennis match by the opposing player or a fan.  As such, bible wielding alone could be discussed as a singular element offence. But even if so, it would have to be understood that it was bible wielding for something other than worshiping and that it was criminal in nature. We would have to be able to answer why the bible wielding is criminal in nature. You cannot answer the "why" without an analysis of what motivated the bible wielding .  This is why you need two elements so that you can understand what happened, how and why anyone wants to think someone's bible wielding  for bad food at a restaurant is a criminal matter. The bible wielding would be criminal if it could be said it was either reckless or intentional but in either case, it caused the owner to apprehend unlawful force being used against him to constitute a simple assault. It would not be criminal if your bible wielding was caused by a prayer attack brought on by the bad food. Shouting and deliberate cursing for bad food carries the actus reus and the mens rea( that is either willful or reckless) concerning disturbing the peace or uttering threats. It may also be sufficient for a simple assault since an assault is defined in some societies as the unlawful touching of another or as causing someone to fear or apprehend unlawful force being used against them." Unlawfully kick tennis player" or "kick tennis player" leaves little for discussion. "Unlawfully possess, read or wield bible" or "possess, read or wield bible" requires further discussion. How is it an offence to read or possess a book? Possessing or reading a bible is not an offence and people should not be treated as if it is but it could be an unlawful offence to read the bible loudly as one crying in an urban wilderness on a subway platform. This is essentially disturbing the peace but it would not be an issue to preach respectfully and hand out bible tracts or just hand out bibles. John Wesley used to do this quite a lot. He was not liable for any criminal offence.  There are strict liability offences that do not require mens rea such as public nudity. But, most offences will require two elements. It could never help if the mental element or mens rea was removed from the analysis and discussions of most scenarios or situations as contemplated under the law.       
So, bring the ex wife's sister back and kill on her for being a pianist and let go of all the people who don't know how you raped her in the 80's, stole her mail, her education, burned her gums with drano in her denture glass and how you abused her. You should know that you are loved old man.