Beautiful, for a dark skinned girl… - By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

How many of you have heard the phrases, ‘Nkhwishinga’, ‘Mnyamane’ or ‘Untima’? I have, many times growing up and I still hear them today. All these gross and offensive words are used to describe a dark-skinned person. And the words used to describe a light-skinned person are nothing less than endearments, ‘ntombemhlophe’, ‘ntombenhle’ or ‘umlungu’. We live in a country and world that perceives dark skin as evil, as something that people should not be proud of. And anything light-skinned is respectable, beautiful, and what everyone should aspire to be. That is how this yellow-bone controversy was born. Women, young and old seek societal validation by bleaching their skin to reach the appropriate pretty that is perceived by the media and society. Many fall under this pressure.

It is sickening to have to watch someone being shamed for the colour of their skin, and society expecting dark skinned women to be apologetic about the amount of melanin their skin is able to produce. Global sales for skin-lightening cream remain steady. Photo-shopped images in which the model’s skin has been lightened are commonplace, and the portrayal of this kind of beauty is the reason why most people run helter skater looking for ‘ikekesi’.

MORE: Gender Roles Must Fall! – By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

Not only are companies that make skin-lightening products making money, the market has extended to technology as well. There are applications that can be downloaded that edit photos to give you lighter skin. On Facebook the ‘filter’ feature is used constantly when uploading pictures, and the prettier the picture, meaning the more ‘filtered’ it is, the more ‘likes’ that picture will receive. But growing up as a child who knew little more than the fact that we were all Black and shared that basic commonality, and knowing even now that we will always share that commonality, I was and still am deeply confused and pained by the lack of acceptance and the bullying that darker skinned people, especially women, experience. Women do not need this. They are already facing many different challenges, being killed and violated, being discriminated against in the workplace and being left to care for children while the father is out gallivanting with other women. Worrying about their skin and spending way too much money on products that will make them ‘prettier’ is an unnecessary burden to their already unbearable struggles.

When a few years ago came this woman, Alek Wek, proud and confident in embracing her flawless skin in her absolute beauty. Even though she was still objectified sexually, she showed everyone that being dark skinned is not what defines an individual. A person’s beauty cannot be summed up by the colour of her skin. In fact, no matter how ‘yellow-bone’ one may be, it does not change the fact that they are still Black, it does not make you White, it only makes you ‘light skinned’, and being light skinned does not make you superior.

A conversation about phrases like ‘You are really beautiful for a Black girl’, or ‘For a fat chick, you are prettier than some skinny girls’, needs to start soon. The truth is, we all equally matter. And the beauty of it is that we are all Black, all resilient, and we are committed to learning and unlearning all of these complex stereotypes. In order to be able to move forward and heal, we need to start addressing the ways that some of us get privilege at each other’s expense. And this yellow-bone trend must stop. 

[MORE: The Most Comfortable Stiletto; Get Rid of Beauty Pageants – By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

Who created Mvelinchanti?

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

PART A – When Mvelinchanti features nowhere in the people’s lives

Some Swazis present the Swazi “religion” as belief in, and worship of, Mvelinchanti who is the Almighty God, the same Christian God who “created the heavens, the earth and everything else.” The same seems to obtain in some other African countries, especially in Southern Africa. They claim that Africans strictly worship Mvelinchanti, but only that labaphansi (ancestors) intercede for them. That is, they send their prayers to God (Mvelinchanti) through the ancestors (labaphansi), just like Christians have Jesus Christ and the Saints.

When we trace what actually takes place in the people’s regular activities, however, we find no mention of Mvelinchanti in any part of the Swazi people’s way of life. By “way of life” we presuppose a group of people who have not yet received or accepted Christianity; traditionalists. Even king Mswati in his speeches sometimes says he thanks “God and the ancestors” for whatever event he is grateful for.

Ancestors protect us

Using our own experiences, and through the vast SiSwati literature that we have had the liberty of reading, we trace how Swazis have been living. Every time we always find that when a family member is undertaking a long journey, the family elders request that labaphansi go with her or him and protect that individual member from dangers along the way. They never say, “May Mvelinchanti protect you.” No! They specifically mention labaphansi. Neither do they request that labaphansi should request Mvelinchanti to protect you.

Ancestors welcome us when we die

When a family member dies, the ancestors are alerted of the death. Throughout the funeral and mourning process, they are updated about what is happening and what step will take place next. Mvelinchanti is never mentioned. When the body leaves the home, the elders speak to labaphansi, alert them that one of their own is leaving the home for good and then ask them to welcome her or him with warm arms. Where, when, how, and by whom, was this Mvelinchanti created then? Surely she or he should be mentioned somewhere if she or he is known by Swazis. Not so?

All events are reported to the ancestors

When Swazis have events coming up, such as a wedding ceremony, they never forget to alert the ancestors and request that the event be a success. Sometimes they simply slaughter a beast for the ancestors to remember and celebrate them. But somehow, Mvelinchanti never gets any mention. Neither does she or he even get a small party. Not even a small goat is slaughtered for Mvelinchanti.

When ancestors are angry

Sometimes it happens that natural disasters happen and people’s houses get blown off, amongst other things. Sometimes a whole family or community gets attacked by a killer disease. We see again here that the people interpret this as a sign of anger from the ancestors for some wrong that has been committed by them, or by some amongst them which has been allowed to continue. When these things happen, Swazis again slaughter a beast in order to appease and calm down the anger of the ancestors (labaphansi). Yet they never appease the “real creator” of everything, Mvelinchanti! Does it not make you ask why?

PART B: Investigating the real creator of Mvelinchanti

In Part A we found that Mvelinchanti is not known to the people of Swaziland. We must now investigate the roots of Mvelinchanti.

Emergence of the word

The first point is to investigate when the word “Mvelinchanti” actually started appearing. Was it there, for instance, before colonialism? Was it there before the arrival of Christian missionaries? If our investigation finds that the word “Mvelinchanti” was non-existent before these events, it will add to evidence that the “Mvelinchanti” title was either coined by the Christian missionaries in trying to convince Swazis to accept Christianity as an equal to the Swazi “religion” or was designed by Swazis to “upgrade” their “religion” to that of the Christians so that it can be acceptable to the new powerful white masters (colonisers). This “upgrading” may show that when the colonialists overpowered the Swazis and thereafter imposed their “superior” religion, Swazis had no choice but to either unreservedly accept the colonialists’ religion or upgrade their own by polluting it with the new more powerful religion or both.

This is only a beginning of our investigation. We will continue, as the days go, to search for Mvelinchanti’s roots. If we cannot find her or him, then we must find the one who created her or him.

NB: In this article, we use “Swazis” because that is the society in which the primary author of the article has lived most of his life in Swaziland and thus has actual knowledge of the place. It may as well refer to other societies where “Mvelinchanti” or a similar being “exists.”

An important advice to all lovers: Don't miss this important talk

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

So you fall in love, perhaps get married. But then in any relationship you must be able to freely talk to each other. I’m not referring to talking when there are problems between the two of you. I’m about everyday talk. Let’s see how you will fare as I help you build your relationship.

Soapies

Let’s say that you will talk about Generations, Isidingo, Skeem Saam, Isibaya, Bold & The Beautiful, Scandal, etc. Oops! Your partner does not like soapies. Then, no talks about soapies for the two of you. Let’s quickly move on.

Sports

Since soapies don’t provide a meeting place for the two of you, I suggest you talk about sports. Then you’ll have some interesting thoughts about the weekend games, who’ll be the next world player of the year, and who’ll win the South African premiership this season. Hey, you can even talk about whether Collins Mbesuma will be the top goal scorer this year. Interesting discussions, I can already foresee.

Ooh no! Now I remember that your partner wants nothing to do with sports. Soccer is even worse! Your partner, if I recall, just loves soapies. If you can love soapies too, you can be the best of lovers, joined at the hip. Your partner simply thinks that Christiano Ronaldo was once a contestant in America’s Next Top Model and always wonders why the Swaziland national team coach never plays Didier Drogba when he is so good. So, I guess sports are a definite no for the both of you. So let’s move on.

[ALSO READ: Gender Roles Must Fall! – By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

News and politics

Yep! Now I’ve figured it out. You both have brains, right? Good! Speak about the news and politics. Speak about the ongoing USA elections processes. Donald Trump is getting on everybody’s nerves, except the white supremacists. That’s a good start. Go on and talk about the influence of the Gupta family in South African politics. How about the recent African Union summit? I’m sure it will work. It’s still fresh in your minds. Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe, is a very interesting leader. Don’t you think?

Well, I see your face frowning and then I remember that by the way your partner gets easily bored by news and politics, whether community, regional, national or world.

Your partner, by the way, doesn’t care whether the Syrian war is still continuing or not, and literally doesn’t even know where Syria is. Yes, you can talk a lot about the atomic bomb that was dropped by the USA on Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese people, but your partner doesn’t even know that there was ever a war of such magnitude! Sorry, I didn’t mean to be this blunt.  

Showbiz and entertainment

Now, here is an area where the both of you can meet. You’ve both gone through teenage years, and thus have a wealth of knowledge in these issues. You’ve sang along R Kelly’s songs from track 1 to the last in every album, marvelled at the magnificent voice of Whitney Houston.

But let’s face it, the only reason you are talking about the Oscar Awards is because you feel that black people are marginalised in these awards, although you don’t even know half the black actors and actresses that have actually been overlooked (Eish you and I are in the same boat on this one). But then your partner is a direct opposite of you in this regard; cares little about some ‘non-existent’ Hollywood racism, but knows almost all the top actors and actresses.

Speaking of opposites…

Opposites attract

Opposites attract, right? This should be it. The fact that you are opposites on all the above-mentioned fields is the reason for your spark. Isn’t it? Well, but even if you are opposites, which ought to attract the two of you to each other, you’ll still have to talk, just talk, nothing more. What will you talk about? Or you will allow your “opposites” get you to interact? When you are sitting on your couch, as you watch Karabo on Generations saying she wants to marry two husbands or when you watch Suffocate’s little brother on Rhythm City having some secret good times with his big brother’s wife, what will you be saying to each other? Oh you’ll be reading the newspaper? I see.

Alright, if everything else fails, you’ll speak about Eritrea then! Eish, but this might not work out very well.

Today’s session is over. Let’s investigate other areas of interaction tomorrow because today we couldn’t find any meeting point except…

Gender Roles Must Fall! – By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

A couple of weeks ago my colleagues had a discussion about lobola, and discussions like that automatically lead to a discussion about gender roles. The general assumption is that a man pays lobola for a woman and in return she spends the rest of her life catering to his needs. Well, that’s basically what it boils down to. She finds herself having to cook for him, wash his clothes, clean after him, iron his clothes and give him children while he rules the world. But that is just what happens in the privacy of our homes. The unfortunate thing is that these inequalities that are at home are reflected at higher national levels. These general practices that put women at the back, ‘in the kitchen’, are the very practices that leave women behind. Because of these traditional practices, we still rarely see women in senior positions. 

For Swaziland as a developing country, it is important that the economy capture the contribution of all its female citizens. By ignoring women in development, we will cut out half the country’s contribution. The general feeling is that women gravitate towards child rearing and things around the home, while men gravitate toward construction projects. This kind of thinking leads to the idea that women should remain at home and raise children because that’s what they are especially suited for, while men must enter the work force and earn money because that is what they are especially suited for. But that mentality is so 1800s! The most amazing thing is that some of the supporters of this mentality, as was one of my colleagues, are women who are actually at work. The fact that she is at work while saying this should be an indication that times have changed, and so should our thinking.

The other thing that people do not understand is that in this time and age, a lot of people actually no longer fit in the boxes that were created for them before they were even born. People just no longer fit in these supposedly ‘natural’ gender roles. I know a lot of women who feel more comfortable solving mathematical problems than they do holding a baby. There are many families where the man prefers cooking while the woman tends to the yard. Most, if not all, of the cooking shows I have watched such as Master Chef and The Cake Boss have proven this fact in that most of these top chefs are men. There are other families where you find that the woman is the one who goes to work, while the man stays at home, in most cases with no source of income of his own. 

The reality is that people are incredibly diverse, for every ‘natural’ woman there is a woman who finds the idea of having children foreign and frightening. For every man who loves fixing things there is a man who prefers taking his car to a shop or calling a plumber. I know too many people, both men and women, who do not fit into these ‘natural’ gender roles that it begins to make the idea of natural gender roles seem absurd and restrictive. The reality is that such mentality pushes people into specific boxes, whether they want to be there or not. The other reality is that it creates hypocrites out of us. To hear a woman who wakes up every morning and bands over backwards taking care of her family, speak so strongly in favour of gender roles or hearing an unemployed man tell a woman ‘she belongs in the kitchen’ is very problematic and hypocritical. And that, frankly, is why I have a problem with these gender roles and boxes that society is panel beating women into.

The Most Comfortable Stiletto; Get Rid of Beauty Pageants – By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

Just before the end of last year (2015), the world witnessed the harshest embarrassment when Steve Harvey named the woman from Colombia Miss Universe, when the actual winner was from Philippines. Well, that’s what everyone thought was embarrassing. For me, the most awkward thing was that beauty pageants still exist. The contests are an old-fashioned reminder of exactly what we don’t want for women, and they should have no place in our future.

Many people argue that beauty pageants are empowering and I agree because they offer opportunities and scholarships. But what does that really mean? Does that mean that only beautiful people deserve opportunities and scholarships? What kind of empowerment picks and chooses a certain type of people? When positions of power in society are male dominated, winning a beauty pageant really makes no difference to the power relations in one’s country. Beauty contests de-humanize women by focusing on their physical appearance, which has everything to do with genetics and nothing that the contestant herself can control.

Beauty pageants send messages to young girls who may think that being beautiful is an accomplishment, that being chosen to participate is somehow a special honour to be a part of a contest that parades women as commodities. Perpetuating sexism by sexualisation of young girls and by judging women based on their looks is never going to be just harmless fun. I wish I could say that each contestant in any beauty contest is intelligent, cares about international issues, and wants to make a lasting difference in the world – but I cannot. Not because I doubt it is true, but because the judges decide to focus more on how hot these women are, and how well they can walk on stilettos. Only after cutting them down to the most ‘deserving’ five do they start asking the important questions. I suppose it is crucial to make sure a woman looks incredible in a bikini before asking her any questions about war or global warming. Maybe next time Barack Obama or Julius Malema want to comment on politics, we need to make sure that their beach bods measure up, too.

Some may say that these pageants are about celebrating the female body. Since when is universal female beauty, an image of a small-waisted, long straight haired, fair skinned, thin long legged, pouty-lipped young woman? Considering that only a few women fit this description, why do we celebrate this image? If the argument is that beauty pageants are for confident women, what exactly are these women confident about? Their good looks which are a result of genetics which appeal to local definition of beauty? Tweezing, waxing, dieting, foundation, mascara, eyeliner, eye-shadow, uncomfortable shoes, skimpy clothes, smiling endlessly – going through all these just to look good enough to be crowned the best?

Celebrating female beauty is problematic when they are based on sexist, racist, homophobic and able bodied notions of female beauty which excludes the vast majority of women. In December 2014, we were supposed to celebrate Bonang Matheba as the first Black South African woman to appear on the cover of Glamour Magazine. A magazine that was launched in South Africa in 2004. Is it possible that for over a decade, Glamour could not find a Black woman worth celebrating? And even then, Queen B appeared on that cover because she fits the societal (White) standards of beauty – lean, straight hair (weave) and tall. If we want to empower women, let us start by getting rid of beauty pageants and celebrating all types of women. Not just the ones that fit the box society creates for women.

Nudity? Freedom of expression? Culture? Expressing one's body? Must you judge? You be the judge!

Traditionalists, freedom of expression activists, moralists, revolutionaries, feminists, gender activists, male chauvinists, religious people and many others have fiercely debated about women’s clothing (and bodies) and never reached any compromise. 

What is nudity? What are the accepted standards of decency? How should women dress? What should they show and what should they hide? Who should decide?

In these few pictures I pose and explore these questions. Please assist me in reaching an acceptable compromise. Or should there even be a compromise? You be the judge? Wait a second, do you even have the right to judge? 

#16Days365: Join Hands in Activism For No Violence Against Women and Children - Tshepiso Medupe's hands

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

ALSO READ: Ten steps towards being the Perfect Revolutionary

#16Days365: Join Hands in Activism For No Violence Against Women and Children - Mr Pius Rinto's hands

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

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

ALSO SEE: Why the world needs more divorces

Emagama Etinyanga Temnyaka Kanye Nemilandvo Yawo

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

Kodvwa usakhumbula yini kutsi inyanga “Kholwane” litsini ligama layo leSilumbi? Lweti lona? Uke watibuta yini kutsi asuselwa kuphi emagama etinyanga temnyaka? Makutsiwa “Bhimbidvwane” kususelwa kuphi? Inkhwekhweti uyayati yona nje?

Ngike ngatibuta ngingedvwa lemibuto lena ngabese sengitsatsa tinyatselo ngiyatfungatsa kutsi lamagama etinyanga temnyaka asuselwa kuphi. Bakhona ke lababese bayavela bayangisita ngetimphendvulo, nabo bebahle babuka tincwadzi letitsite bentela kusita sona sive.

Sitawusuka enyangeni yekucala yemnyaka site siyewufika enyangeni yekugcina solo setama kuchazelana. Ngekutsi sitawube setama kufundzisana, kutawufuna sifake nalamagama eSilumbi kute sikhone kutsi sonkhe silandzele kahle ngaleyo naleyo nyanga.

Njengoba sitawube sifundzisana nje, nami ngitawucela kutsi mangabe bakhona labanelwati lolujulile kunalolu, noma ke lolwehlukile, baluvete. Siyafundzisana.

[Nayi lenye indzabalemcoka - Umntfwana Longakhali Ufela eSwatini]

1.    BHIMBIDVWANE – JANUARY

NgeSiSwati sivuno lesisha sidliwa yinkhosi kucala kungakadli wonkhe umuntfu, kutsiwa iyaluma. Inkhosi iluma eNcwaleni-ke, bese emva kwaloko wonkhe umuntfu sewukhululekile naye kudla. Ngalenyanga inkhosi isuke seyilumile, ngako sekuvunwa sivuno sekucala, kudla kukunyenti bantfu badle bashaye sentfwala. Kutsiwa-ke ngeSiSwati bayabhimbidzela. Lenyanga kwase kutsiwa ke nguBhimbidvwane.

2.    INDLOVANA – FEBRUARY

Ngalenyanga kutsiwa tindlovu tisuke titele, tinebantfwana. Kusukela lapho lokutsi kutsiwe yiNdlovana nome iNdlovu lencane.

3.    INDLOVU LENKHULU – MARCH

Lenyanga yetsiwa ngobe ilandzela iNdlovana, kwatsiwa yona-ke yiNdlovu lenkhulu, nome yiNdlovu nje.

4.    MABASA – APRIL

Ngalenyanga sekucala kuba makhata, bantfu sebabasa imililo batekotsa. Ngiko kutsiwa nguMabasa.

5.    INKHWEKHWETI – MAY

Yinyanga yekwekhweta le. Cishe ngalesikhatsi kuvuna kusuke sekuphela, bomake sebekhweta etilulwini netinyangweni, sebakha tibhidvo bafusa, bafaka nemmbila etingungwini. Kusuke sekulungiselwa busika. Kwatsiwa-ke yinkhwekhweti inyanga yekwekhweta.

6.    INHLABA – JUNE

Ngalenyanga inhlaba isuke itselile. Tonkhe tiganga letinenhlaba ngalenyanga tibovu titse tju, tigcwele tinyosi kanye netincwincwi.

7.    KHOLWANE – JULY

Kholwane ngulelinye ligama laPhezukomkhono. Yinyanga yekucala lapho evakala khona Phezukomkhono. Ayati-ke emaSwati kutsi nakuvakala lenyoni sesikhatsi sekulima. Labanye kodvwa batsi cha Kholwane akusuye Phezukomkhono, kepha ngulenye inyoni letalela ngalesikhatsi semnyaka.

8.    INGCI – AUGUST

Yinyanga yesingci le. Singci nguloku losekubitwa ngaJakalase nome imphungushe lamuhla. Kepha libito lako leSiSwati singci nome sithihi. Ngalenyanga singci sisuke sitele.

9.    INYONI – SEPTEMBER

Ngalenyanga tinyoni letinyenti tisuke titalele emacandza, ngiko kutsiwa yiNyoni.

10. IMPHALA – OCTOBER

Lenyamatane lokutsiwa yimphala isuke itele ngalenyanga.

11. LWETI – NOVEMBER

Lweti silwanyane lesikhalisa inyekevu, sivakala kakhulu ngalenyanga. Lenyanga lena kubuye kutsiwe yiNkhosi Lencane ngobe kusuke sekugidvwa iNcwala lencane ngalenyanga.

12. INGONGONI – DECEMBER

Ingongoni luhlobo lwenyamatane lenkhulu, lecishe ilingane nenkhomo. Lomsila wayo nguwo lowenta emashoba etangoma. Ngalenyanga isuke itele iNgongoni.

[Lenye Indzaba lemcoka - Who is the real head in the family? The wife or husband? Apostle Paul responds

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

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