© 1993 Merlyn Cox
© 1993 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
Sermon based on Ephesians 5: 22-23: “Wives, be subject to your husband as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of he church.”
Of all the texts of Scriptures that strike controversy, I suppose none are more so than those verses we heard from the fifth chapter of Ephesians. You might recall that this is the same lesson that was read last week. In looking it over and considering the topic for preaching I was delighted to pass it up in favor of the Gospel lesson which seemed so appropriate in regard to recent events. Then one of you came up afterwards and said, “That was OK, but I’d like to hear you speak on that text from Ephesians some time.”
Well, normally the next scheduled round for that text would be three years from last Sunday, so I could pencil it in for then. But then I also couldn’t see any reason for not going back and picking up on it. While I believe in the value of using a lectionary, I also consider it more as a guide and reasonable discipline than a law from which one never varies.
So, with some reluctance, I decided to explore this text with you-some reluctance, because, quite frankly, being single I’m somewhat reticent to speak about marital relationships with the same authority as some other matters. (Although I’m not sure that married people can necessarily speak with much authority either.) On the other hand, Paul was single, and he wasn’t reluctant-apparently favoring inspiration over experience. I figure I can at least comment on Paul’s observations.
I don’t think Paul is above criticism, even if his words are now a part of Scripture, and I’ll explore this. But I also think that there may be some unexpected insights if we give him a fair hearing. So before you either applaud or walk out upon hearing this text, I hope you’ll consider it with me.
The crux of the controversy comes down to this verse: “Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord; for the man is the head of the woman, just as Christ is also is the head of the church. Christ is, indeed, the Savior of the body; but just as the church is subject to Christ, so must women be to their husbands in everything.”
Are you still there? How are we to talk about this?
It will be helpful, I think, to remember the kind of world Paul lived in. For Jews in the first century, being a woman meant being a second class citizen in about every respect. It was indeed a male dominated society. Girls were given very little education unless it was in the home. They were not accepted in the synagogue school as boys were, let alone given the chance to go to the advanced schools of the rabbis in Jerusalem.
In a society dominated by religious custom and regulation, women were clearly on the periphery. They were excluded from the main courts of the synagogue as well as those of the temple. They were required to stay in the balconies or outside the main courts. They were not even allowed to take part in the discussions of the elders regarding religious questions and the interpretation of the law. “Better,” said the rabbinic teachings, “that the words of the law be burned than delivered to women.”
Paul was simply following this tradition when he suggests it is unseemly for women to be involved in public meetings. It is a shocking thing, he said, that woman should address the congregation. If there is something they want to know, let them ask their husbands at home.
But even this hardly suggests the low esteem in which women were generally held:
No self-respecting man would ever speak to a woman in public; he wouldn’t even greet his own wife in public.
Women were not allowed to sit with men in public banquets.
The witness of a woman was not considered valid in a court of law.
Many people were still not sure if women had souls.
The pharisee in his daily prayers would often give thanks to God that he was not born a woman, a leper, or a gentile.
All this was not peculiar to the Jewish people, of course, it was rooted in thousands of years of the evolution of the human race. Since men were nearly always physically stronger and more aggressive, they dominated the relationship, at least in public.
For ages women were considered the property of the man to do with as he pleased, including the right to kill her at will if he became angry. Did you know that in some South American countries today it is still considered acceptable, with the courts simply looking the other way?
In many agricultural societies woman were little more than beasts of burden doing most of the labor, and that is also still true today in many places. The role of women in the gross national product in many third world countries exceeds that of the men by far. We may have “come a long way baby,” but there’s still a long way to go.
When I was in Egypt, my guide pointed out that the emancipation of women took place there in 1923, when wearing a veil was outlawed. She pointed to the fact with pride. However, in the most rural areas, as well as many parts of Cairo, you still see women completely covered in black, even on the hottest summer days, the residue of their Arab customs. And has it really been that long since women were finally given the vote in this country?
The least we can say is that the Jewish attitude toward women in Jesus’ day was not that different from other countries, and probably superior to most.
Paul, being a pharisee of pharisees, was thoroughly conditioned to such ideas. If you’re offended by the text from Ephesians, read again I Corinthians 11: “If a woman is not to wear a veil she might as well have her hair cut off… A man has no need to cover his head, because man is the image of God and the mirror of his glory, whereas woman reflects the glory of man.”
Further: “…man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the sake of man. Therefore it is a woman’s duty to have a sign of authority on her head, our of regard for the angels."
Are you still with me?
I’m sharing this so that on the one hand we might realize the kind of world in which Paul was raised, and therefore also consider just how radical Jesus’ attitude was toward women.
With Jesus came the true emancipation proclamation of women. It has been said, and I think fairly, that the most radical thing Jesus taught and demonstrated was his attitude toward woman.
Most of his teachings about love, and even Fatherhood of God, were not without parallel in the Jewish tradition; these were simply raised and focused to new heights and given the sanction of divine authority. But with regard to woman the change was radical and dramatic.
Jesus offended the sensibilities of every male and the traditions of the elders by unself-consciously speaking with women in public — the most dramatic example being, of course, when he spoke with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well.
As a teacher he accepted the company of woman in his presence and he honored their questions, and he honored their faith by granting requests for healing. There is a significant part of the story of Mary and Martha we often miss. Mary’s inquisitive nature about religious matters was rewarded while Martha’s traditional role in the home was given second place.
You may also recall that the Gospels indicate that the first resurrection appearances were to women, apparently reason enough for the male disciples to remain skeptical.
Early on women were allowed into the core of teachers and evangelists and leaders of the church, Paul’s attitudes notwithstanding. The early church became a crucible and testing place for woman’s liberation.
Do we need to point out the prominent role of women throughout the history of the church since, right up to today, even though the structures are still male dominated?
And we still continue to wrestle over whether or not women can minister on a level equal to men?
Are you still with me?
Was Paul, then, simply expressing his own prejudice and that of his day when he admonished woman to be subject to their husbands in everything? I think so, at least in part.
Elsewhere, on similar matters, Paul says that when he is speaking about such things he is not speaking on behalf of Christ, but has simply been given permission, as it were, to speak on his own. In other words, he’s not trying to claim divine authority for his views on all such matter.
A couple of more things can be said. Going back to the passage from Ephesians, the statement that women should be subject to the man is prefaced by this statement: “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,” and more, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for it… In the same way men are bound to love their wives as they love their own bodies. Each of you must love his wife as his very self.” (Ephesians 5)
I recall some time back a friend talking with me about her relationship with her husband, and she said “I simply demand that he love me unconditionally. I demand it, and he gives it.” And their relationship is, I believe, an exceptional one.
Here, I think, is a key. It may be mainly the momentum of evolution and tradition that suggests that man be the head of a household (I suspect it is). But if this so, it may therefore, for that reason alone, be something couples need to consider for the sake of harmony. If both are aware of this and understand it, then let them arrange their own lives with freedom and grace and equality.
Paul’s concern was how to bring peace and harmony in the church, how all Christians should strive to live in harmony. The whole letter of Ephesians is about how people ought to live at peace with one another, beginning with the family unit of man and wife.
So where does this leave us? Are men and women equal or not? And what does this mean? It seems to me that equality as persons does not mean equality in every endeavor and role in life.
Let me give an example. Afew years ago when the woman’s liberation movement was coming to the forefront, I heard a speaker say that a woman could do anything as well as a man could-regardless. To that I took issue. First of all, it simply isn’t true. It may be that in most endeavors some women can match or even exceed the performance of most men, but on the average a woman will not be as able to do some things as well as men.
There are studies that indicate, for example, that the shoulder and elbow of the female is shaped somewhat differently that a man’s and is not as well adapted for throwing. That doesn’t mean that a female pitcher can’t strike out a whole side of male hitters, it just means that on the average they will not throw the ball as hard. On the average they are not as tall and fast and can’t dunk a basketball as easily as men.
(Does that mean that woman’s sports is less valuable than men’s?)
Her point was not only untrue, it was irrelevant. It does not get at the issue of meaningful equality. Men on the whole do not have the instincts for family and nurture that women have. Does that mean that men are incapable of nurturing and affection and the appreciation of family values?
Different roles do not necessarily mean inequality. Isn’t it more to the point that both men and women should be free to pursue roles that they are comfortable with, in the home and outside the home, without the prejudice of society saying, “No, you can’t.”
It seems to me the thing that really counts is equality as persons, and that means equality before God. And in light of the Gospel, I believe one thing is absolutely certain, and that is that men and women are equal before God, and therefore equal in all matters relating to the the kingdom of God-period.
Hasten the day when this is simply assumed and we can affirm and celebrate our differences without degrading the other (something both sides are good at), and can allow each to pursue their own lives to the maximum, and in maximum harmony with each other.
It is the same Paul who, more inspired I think, said that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ. You can’t get a more radical statement of equality than this.
If this has not been fully realized in society and in the church, then it simply reflects, on the one hand, our backwardness as a civilization, and on the other, our shame as a church in failing to live up to Christ’s teachings.
Should the man still be the head of the household? In light of this knowledge, you decide — with grace and freedom and the assurance of equality.
Let us pray: Eternal God, Mother and Father of us all, may we come to know ourselves and all others as your dear children. May we rejoice to know them and celebrate their gifts and their place in your family — as you have shown us, in Christ our Lord. Amen.