(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)
My
Religious Me; Part VI
Introduction
My
whole life I have been taught and told that the husband, and not the wife, is
the head of the family. Apostle Paul was always presented as the primary “holy”
source for this statement, and sometimes the story of creation would be used to
supplement this “Godly” view. It might shock you, to digress but only for a
moment, that many staunch traditionalists also relied on these sources, and
never a Sobhuza nor a Ngwane or African ancestors, to drive the same point that
the husband is head of the family. Are there no African sources for this
“head of the family” theory?
The
problem
This
theory always presented a practical challenge for me, especially when I was
still a young boy, way before I knew anything about multi-party democracy or
Karl Marx. This was especially because in the rural areas in which I lived I
constantly observed that the wife in Family ABC was the one
who did almost everything for the household, compared to the husband; ensuring
that the cattle were milked and vaccinated, that cultivation took place, and
that the children were paid for at school, including other “male” tasks whilst
the biblical “head” of the family was still alive, present and healthy. The
husband literally appeared to be the follower, and not the think-tank of the
family. The woman, on the other hand, appeared to be the real symbol of unity,
who without her there was no family. This woman appeared to me as the real head
of the family.
I also
curiously observed that in Family LMN, whilst both the husband was
alive, the family was struggling economically. Yet as soon as he died the
family prospered; a nicer and bigger house was constructed, the children
suddenly had better school uniforms, they began to have pocket money, good breakfast,
etc. Why did these things not take place when the head of the family was still
alive but only took place when he was no longer there?
Believe
it or not, but in Family XYZ, the single mother was able to
take care of the needs of her children. All her children went to school, and
became successful. Yes, there were a couple of boys and girls. All this without
a “head” of the family! Biblically impossible!
Observing
these scenarios, I got confused, especially because I did not want to do the
most “unCatholic” thing of questioning the holy teachings of the bible. To me
the words of Apostle Paul seemed totally wrong, but I had to remember my
baptism, communion and confirmation sacraments and try as best as possible to
drive out of my head this doubting and questioning devil or else Pope John Paul
II would be sent from the Vatican to come and whip me hard on the buttocks on
behalf of the Lord Jesus!
Today,
fortunately, I have the chance to properly analyse this “mystery.” Paul’s words
regarding this subject are found in Ephesians 5. I will show
below that Paul’s words in that chapter are capable of being interpreted in at
least two different ways to reach two mutually exclusive conclusions.
Two
theories of interpretation
First,
let us reproduce the contentious statement where Paul issues instructions for
Christian households. After that we will immediately go into its respective
interpretations. The statement is found in verses 22– 24:
“Wives,
submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband
is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which
he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives
should submit to their husbands in everything.”
1.
The textual method of Interpretation
The
bulk of preachers and proponents of the theory of the male being the head of
the family staunchly rely on this method of interpretation. This view suggests
that, when we read the bible or any book, we must stick strictly to the words
written in the bible and never shift. The text is literally King and Queen, and
therefore we must never abandon the pure and clear words of the bible, so goes
the argument. These words were conveyed to Paul by God, and to change them or
depart from them would be a wrong against God himself, they add.
If we
follow this line of reasoning, it means that the statement must be read and
left as it is. It means that the husband is (not “was,” not “may be”) the head
of the family, whatever the circumstances and era, and thus the wife has no
choice but to submit to him as per the Word of God. It means that even in
matriarchal society, we must try as best as possible to arrive at the
conclusion that husbands are the heads of families. We see therefore that this
is a rigid method of interpretation.
It is
not clear, however, what happens when the couple has divorced, or when the
woman is a single mother and stays in her house in the suburbs, for instance.
Does she no longer have a head? Or perhaps she goes back to her father where
her father is “obviously” still the head of the family? The more we pose the
questions, the more this theory becomes unhelpful.
Let us
now consider the second method of interpretation.
2. The
contextual method of interpretation
When
we employ this method, we begin from the premise that a statement was made by
someone with a certain background which may have greatly influenced him, at a
certain era and under certain determinable material conditions to achieve a certain
determinable material purpose. Following this method, we also make note of the
fact that there are other words or statements surrounding the specific
contentious words or statement, or other words and statements in some other
parts of that specific book, in this case the bible, which will help us in the
interpretation of the specific statement. External sources of information are
also considered when this method is relied upon.
Note
carefully, therefore, that when we engage an issue using this method, we do not
jettison the words, that is, the text, contained in that particular statement.
Rather we go beyond them. We therefore read on the lines, then between the
lines and then beyond the lines.
Using
these method, we see, importantly, that these words were stated about two
thousand years ago, by a preacher who lived about two thousand years ago, to a
community which lived about two thousand years ago (we had to repeat “two
thousand years ago” three times in order to reinforce this point). Hence Paul,
two thousand years ago, says the husband “is” the head of the wife, and not
“will always be” or “has always been.” Thus, he states what already occurs at
that particular era and area. In a matriarchal epoch he surely would not have
said this for it would not be obtaining at that time. Hence, viewed using the
contextual method, Paul seems totally correct. Yes, at that time and area in
which he was preaching, husbands were heads of families, and not their wives.
Wives submitted to their husbands, not the other round and neither
reciprocally.
Continuing
to investigate the issue using the method, we must also ask ourselves what end
or purpose Paul was trying to achieve. We find, therefore, that Paul, amongst
other purposes, wanted to recruit families into the Christian faith. Let us try
to put it the proper Christian way; he wanted to convert or transform people
from sinning to a holy life in Christ! Paul had used his head to fully analyse
the social situation at that time and found that the heads of most, if not all,
families were husbands. Therefore, he needed the support of families in his
mission. He knew that once he won the husbands to his side (or let us again put
it the Christina way, once he won the husbands to the side of Christ) he would
simultaneously win the whole family, for the family always follows its head;
the husband. Smart Paul!
Further,
if we scrutinise other words and statements that surround the statement under
discussion, we find that they can help us emerge with a broader analysis and
thereby broaden our perspective. The most important in this regard are verses
25 – 30. For convenience and clarity sake, we reproduce these verses below:
“Husbands,
love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for
her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through
the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or
wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way,
husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife
loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed
and care for their body, just as Christ does the church — for we are
members of his body.”
This
statement is clear, at least to one who possesses that little thing called a
brain, but let us summarise our analysis of the statement, using the contextual
method.
Husbands
are called upon to love their wives, to keep them “radiant” and “without stain
or wrinkle or any other blemish… just as Christ loved the church.” We also are
aware of another verse, in the Gospels, where Jesus clarifies to his apostles
that for one to be greater than all others, he should be willing to be a
servant of the others! We see here that the burden to love appears to be much
heavier than the burden to submit oneself. Jesus went to the extent of washing
their feet to show them how further down one has to go in order to really show
love. If we use the contextual method, clearly, husbands must love their wives
to the point of being their servants and wash their feet with utmost love.
If
“husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies,” surely it means that
there is no room whatsoever for a man to ever abuse his wife. Neither is there
any room for him to sit comfortably and read his newspaper whilst his wife
attends to back-breaking house chores before she respectfully submits her body
for sacred bedroom chores later in the night. Not so? Nay more, it means he has
a duty to submit his body to the woman whenever the woman needs it!
We
have been deliberately interpreting words found from verse 22 onward. You
may ask yourself why we did we not begin with verse 21 instead. Verse 21
clarifies the issue such that by the time we reach the other verses, the issues
are clear. We had to take this long road to verse 21, however, because,
firstly, we had to show that there more than one ways that a statement can be
interpreted, and that, secondly, it is important to broaden one’s mind before
concluding on any issue rather than to stick to the “golden truth” without
question.
Verse
21 finishes this issue when Paul says, “Submit to one another out
of reverence for Christ.” Need I say more? No need. Let us repeat the first
four words in capital letters for the benefit of our snake-eating,
“holy-milk”-drinking, grass-eating friends: SUBMIT TO ONE ANOTHER.
I
pause…
