Tuesday, May 20, 2008

In an Absence of Comic Relief

I remember watching this movie as a child, but I don't recall the name. I think it was one of those made-for-tv movies. In it was a somewhat classic image of the power-wielding, abusive husband. He was also religious. Christian. I think maybe a pastor. The story's focus was on this abusive family situation. A major component was this husband's spouting of Scripture verses and biblical themes. His beatings were peppered with calls to obedience and commands of submission. As expected (justly), this pastor husband was painted as beastly and even delusional. There was no humanizing of this monster. Not a moment of comic relief.

Without surprise, the tormented wife was not religious. And in some respects, if my recall of childhood movie watching serves me faithful, religion was positioned as responsible for the abuse. Clearly this man was misrepresenting the long cherished words of Scripture. He was perverting the words toward his own gain. Yet the movie welled up in me the feeling that the Bible's possession of pervertable commands demanded its partial responsibility. Verses with such dark clouds over them deserve some of the blame. Regardless of context, the verses still said what they said.

I have thought on this movie and similar stories throughout the years since. As a student of the Bible, what it has to say about the relationships between women and men have given me more than my fair share of trouble. And for some of these passages, I still wrestle with how exactly it all works out.

But for one of these passages, indeed the one that speaks the most to the marriage relationship, it would do us all some good to set our assumptions aside and actually look at what the text says. In his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul takes a significant portion of space to explain what it looks like as the Spirit of God fills believers with "submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ" (5:21, ESV). He shows readers what this looks like in three types of relationships (commonly known as a "house code"), and the first of these is marital. So we're all on the same page, I have the entire text here:
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their 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 Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33)

Now I could go on for quite a while in several different directions on the beauty and nuances of the apostle's words here. But what I simply want to demonstrate at this point is how our assumptions mislead us to misapply what is actually being said.

Certain key words and phrases often catch our eye. "Wives, submit." "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church." "Wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Let me here begin by pointing out that all of these commands are directed toward the wife-half of the teaching. In other words, the teaching is split in half, with the first directed toward what wives are supposed to do and second toward what husbands are supposed to do. All (as in every single occurrence) of the times Paul talks about wives submitting are in the wife-half of the teaching.

Now, it's true that the women are given a difficult task here, especially if we are careful to not inappropriately water down the words Paul uses. However, I keep in mind that according to 5:21, we are all to submit to one another in the community of faith. I also kind of feel that if God is calling wives to some particular focus in a relationship, that may be more between him and them, as opposed to my responsibility to monitor their following.

I think as husbands (for myself and any others) the need is much more pressing that we make sure we are fulfilling our half of Paul's teaching. But this is where I have seen far too many (maybe even all) expositions on this passage get terribly side-tracked. When we talk about the husband's "role" in marriage, we look at what the wife-half says about husbands rather than what the husband-half says about husbands.

Did you catch that? It seems most rational to me that if we want to see what husbands are supposed to do, we should concentrate on what it says husbands should do. The problem is that traditionally we look more at what the wives' calling says about husbands.

I am issuing a call that we look to what 5:25-33 says husbands should do. It is almost as if men need not even look to verses 22-24, since it is between God and the women anyway.

So what does it say men are to do? How are men to live our their biblical role as husbands? Lord over their wives? Ensure their "headship?" Call wives to submission? Demand obedience? No. No. No. No on every count. Men are never told to demand anything of their wives. They are never told to make sure they do anything. The husband-role is NOT to make sure their wives fulfill theirs. And they are certainly not called to be any sort of lord or master or boss or ruler.

"But they are called to be as Christ over the church," the objection cries out! See, this is where our self-made, culture-forming assumptions haze over the truth of Paul's words. It is true, the husband's role as "head" of his wife is explained as Christ's role as head of the church. However (this is where you lean forward and listen closely), Paul does not say, "Husbands, lead your wives, as Christ leads the church and reigns sovereignly over her on his throne." No this is not throneship imagery. As truly as Christ does reign in that way, it is not the imagery Paul uses to explain the husband's role.

Instead (you're still leaning forward) Paul uses imagery of complete self-sacrifice. Of the highest and truest form of self-denial. He writes, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," i.e. on the cross. That's it. The rest of the verses explain this kind of sacrifice and how a man's self-denial serves as a picture of Jesus' love for humanity. The marriage relationship is designed to be a picture of the Gospel. Nothing about ruling or lording. No imagery of domination. No one saying, "I'm the king of this castle," or "It's my way or the highway." It would do us all good to repeat: Men are NEVER told to make sure their wives do anything!

When Jesus was on his way to the cross, he did not assert his authority. He did not straighten his pose and pronounce his headship. When they attacked him (verbally and physically) he did not retaliate. He stood silent. Silent. When they stole his dignity, he said nothing of roles and responsibilities. When they marched him to his own death, he went. He let them kill him. And this death spoke of his love more than any other act in all of history. This is Gospel.

And this is the imagery the apostle uses to describe how men are to relate to their wives. This is the husband's role. We have much to learn. Much indeed. What would it look like if husbands did not retaliate when attacked? What if they did not feel the need to reassert their headship when he felt their dignity torn away? What if, when husbands felt attacked (verbally or even physically) they simply stood silent? What would that look like? What if husbands, in an attempt to form biblically sound marriages, sacrificed their authority, power, respect, and even their decision-making "rights"? This is to say nothing of truly selfish desires, preferences, and comforts. What if all of these treasured and masculine attributes were laid on the alter of love? I'm not sure I've ever seen such a marriage, but I think it may communicate the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the most powerful way. I think it may bring a message that speaks the Gospel.

So this is my calling. As husbands this is what we are called to embrace. It surely involves much more watching over ourselves than watching over our wives. And maybe, just maybe, wives would find it easier to fulfill whatever marital obligations Paul brings them, if they know and trust and feel that we are fulfilling ours. So I issue an invitation to all men, but especially those who profess a love for Jesus, to follow him in the most fundamental and critical way. To love our wives till it hurts. To love them like Jesus loves us. I issue a call to put our assumptions away and live as Paul has called us. To forget the throne. And to pick up a cross.