Do Wives Need to Submit to Husbands? pt 3

(pt 1 here, pt 2 here)

So- why all this talk about slavery? It’s nice to know, it’s kind of an academic question, but the one we're really interested in is the question about husbands and wives...

Can you think of any reason at all why Paul might want to say something without really saying it? Why he might want to choose his words carefully? And maybe say something between the lines?

I’ll answer that by asking: What does Jesus do?

He changes things.

But He does it in His own way- He transforms structures from the inside out- slowly, surely, like (as He described His kingdom) yeast permeating a whole lump of dough.

What He doesn’t do, at least not yet, is tear down our societal structures completely and start over. His revolution is a slow one that depends on changing the hearts of people, not simply imposing His will. Someday the Kingdom will come fully, but for now- he tells us that in Christ there is neither slave nor free- that He came to free the oppressed and we should be like Him.

And it only took us 1860 some odd years to work out what that meant in regards to slaves.

So- the one who came to set the slaves free says to slaves- don’t demand freedom. But do what?

"Work willingly at whatever you do, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people."

Live in such a way that your master can never complain about your service and yet becomes completely aware that you have a higher allegiance- a different Master...That you serve Jesus first and foremost, that regardless of what your earthly master may think to be the case- you really are free.

And to wives who may have run their own businesses, like Lydia who was well-known for selling purple cloth, or a woman Paul mentions later in this letter who had the unfortunate name of “Nympha” but who had a church meeting in her house… to these women who in many ways were leaders in business and the church but were still considered by the society around them to be property, chattel, He says- don’t demand your rights, but live in such a way that everyone knows- it’s Jesus you really belong to. If you have a non-Christian husband who believes you are nothing more than his property, live in such a way that he can’t complain about anything, but he clearly knows- you belong to another.

This is subversive thinking at its best. This is nonviolent resistance to this broken world and its broken ways at its best.

See, we read this from a society where slaves are already freed and women are no longer property and we think: how awful, how regressive. And we completely miss the radical, freeing nature of what he is saying. And how absolutely seditious and dangerous it would have sounded to the society around them.

So. The big question- do wives have to submit to their husbands?

pt 4 tomorrow-

(This series is adapted from a sermon I preached during our time in Colossians. I'm heavily indebted to Walsh and Keesmaat and their book Colossians Remixed)

Comments

[Rachel]

Bob, where are you getting all these pictures of 1950s women? You are totally cracking me up!

[Jay]

Hi Bob. I've been checking in on your blog from time to time. I appreciate your thoughts and I think I see where your are going with this. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a gay seminary student in NY who justified homosexual relationships along that same 'trajectory' of thought. At the time I was shocked. That was over 20 years ago.

What I appreciate about 'trajectory' hermeneutics is that it is winning over a lot of my so called "emergent / emerging" friends to finally 'come out of the closet' and affirm homosexuality. Yeah!!!!

What's silly is that this line of thinking is sooooo old. All of us who studied at the east coast "liberal" seminaries (call it what you may) have been talking about this for years and years. This is ancient stuff. However, I dig the new name you folks gave it - "trajectory hermeneutics." That's cool :)

I'm sure you got some of our graduates there on the west coast. It's old stuff, Bob. You guys are just catching up. The reason that (I think) Brian M isn't just coming out and affirming homosexuality is that he knows it's too "radical" for his audience ;)

You'll come out too, Bob. I was just where you are now. It began with women. Next you'll talk about homosexuality. And then - oh, and then you will get to the "dangerous" stuff ;)

You're dipping your toes in the water. Go deeper, brother. Keep up the good work. You'll get there. Everyone eventually does. (chuckle) Oh, yeah, I too believe the Bible is the "inspired word of God," in case you were wondering ;)

[Dustin]

uh, ok.

[Bob Hyatt]

"Jay"-
uh.. Bull shitake.

In regards to the sexual question- I don't buy the slippery slope fear. Webb SPECIFICALLY rejects seeing the same kind of arc in that area, at least in terms of loosening things. In fact- if anything- the Bible becomes MORE restrictive in the area of sexual mores along the timeline. I'd say the ultimate kingdom ethic there is pretty clear.

We move from having many wives to "husband of one wife"; from sexual morality being defined by your actions to Jesus taking it even to the level of your thoughts... More, both the NT and OT specifically label same sex erotic behavior as out of bounds.

Nice try, but understanding the Gospel and the true picture of sex precludes the understanding you are getting at... If anything, it becomes more and more clear and more and more restrictive- not less.

But thanks for stopping by...

[eugene]

bob,
not much to add here but just thought i'd share these engagement pics from a couple at our church. they're hilarious especially in light of their views about roles:
http://www.joelandsarah.org/Photo%20gallery/50s/50s_gallery.html

[Jay]

Bull shitake? That's a good one, Bob. Maybe I should "wink" back at you. Relax man. I didn't mean to offend you.

I don't buy the slippery slope fear either. C'mon, Bob. I know Webb SPECIFICALLY rejects seeing the same kind of arc in this area. I've read Webb. You don't have to tell me. I agree that the Bible becomes MORE restrictive in the area of sexual mores. Duh! Here's the challenge for you Bob: the ultimate kingdom ethic consists of monogamous 'natural' relationships - whether heterosexual or homosexual. I'm on your side more than you think, Bob. You are still too culturally biased ("regressive" to use your terms) in your definition of "kingdom ethic." Free your mind!!!!

[Bob Hyatt]

"Jay"-
I'm glad you've read Webb! Now read the Bible. Paul makes pretty clear what's natural and what's not- and what you seem to have in mind (at least for the sake of making your point) doesn't cut it...