Who is the real head in the family? The wife or husband? Apostle Paul responds

(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?

[ALSO READ: Why the world needs more divorces]

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…

ALSO READ: Why men still rule over women: The power of sexual intercourse