OK, so I'll come right out and say it. I think the husband is the head of the family. Ideally, the husband and wife ought to agree in all matters of importance, but since we are human, this does not always happen. There is an equivalence of dignity in family roles, but only one can have the final say, when there is disagreement, and the good of the family is at stake. It is the husband who has the God-given responsibility to be that final authority, and he must approach this duty with fear and trembling. St. Paul says it:
Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of him, body, of his flesh and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: And let the wife fear her husband. (Eph 5:21-33)And let us set aside that easy argument, because there are many who find these words hard, where we quickly conclude that Paul was just expressing his own opinion. There is too much substance here to say that St. Paul was just making some casual remarks. On the contrary, let us make the much more reasonable presumption that St. Paul has something to teach us in our day, and we need to be open to learning it. For the good of our souls. For the good of the family. For the good of the Church. For the good of the world.
Some may say that the Holy Father would not agree with this interpretation. And I would respond that you may be right. On the other hand, we could also infer that the Holy Father does agree with St. Paul, but chooses not to make an issue out of this, because there are more important battles to be waged. And, of course, for fear of being misinterpreted. I won't get into a detailed analysis of all the Pope has said on the topic, suffice to say that his public statements tend toward the ideal, where husband and wife agree in all important matters.
The opening passage is, "Being subject one to another." Many take this verse as an open and shut case, that husband and wife are to be obedient to each other. In the realm of service, there may be a case to be made, but in terms of authority, it does not make much sense to say each is subject to the other. In fact, it cannot possibly mean that, unless St. Paul immediately contradicts himself in the next verse, "Let women be subject to their husbands." It makes more sense to interpret the first verse as simply saying that there are some who ought to be subject to others, while the next verse gives a specific example of that general advice.
The next passage even explains why this is to be observed, "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church... Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things." The Church has a head, who is Christ. The family, which is a domestic church - a church in miniature - must also have a head. Again Christ is of service to His Church, but the Church is dependent on Him and obedient to Him. By St. Paul's analogy, the same goes for the husband as head of his family.
But so that no one might rest in the thought that the relationship between husband and wife is one of subservience, we read immediately what is expected of the husband, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it." The husband is to love his wife with a sacrificial love, that holds nothing back, and even gave up His own life for her sanctification.
I am particularly in awe of this next passage. "That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies." To me, it raises the bar of responsibility even higher. What is a husband to do? By his words and good example, he helps his bride in the process of her sanctification. So that, on the day of judgment, he can say, as Christ says of His Church, here is my beloved, for whom I have sacrificed all. See how beautiful she is, having grown in the knowledge and love of her Lord, of which I am but a pale representation.
Lest anyone think these ideas are my own, I defer to the publication entitled, Three to Get Married, by Archbishop Fulton Sheen. I thank him for his excellent advice, and I owe a great deal of the health of my marriage and family life to his explanation of the traditional understanding of these sacred relationships.
Peace, Paul.
It was inevitable, of course, for me to comment on this. I think you're off base on your comment, "It is the husband who has the God-given responsibility to be that final authority ..." Nowhere in this passage does Paul say this. Jesus has something to say about people who lord it over the others like pagans do. But much of the rest of your post is good.
"Nowhere in this passage does Paul say this."
Todd, the only way you can read this Scripture passage as you did, is if you believe Jesus has no authority over His Church.
"Jesus has something to say about people who lord it over the others like pagans do."
If you think what I said falls under Jesus' admonition, then you didn't read my words too closely either.
What if the husband is abusive (emotionally or physically), alcoholic, emotionally immature (refusing to take responsibility for paying bills, home repair, disciplining the children, etc.)? How is a wife to deal with this kind of situation? Paul is right, of course, but I've always been a bit troubled with regard to this kind of issue. Are wives to 'submit" to this kind of behaviour? Any thoughts on this?
Patricia, every wife suffers, to some degree, due to the failings of her husband. I would never presume to judge at what point that suffering exceeds the woman's capacity to bear it. That is a personal decision, and may even be an heroic decision.
The marital covenant is a lifelong promise to help sanctify one another. As such, a married couple is called to bear one another's burdens in a manner which is unique among human relationships. Our Lord took on and became sin - He who had no sin - for our redemption. Can you imagine what it is like to bear the sins of the world? Yet, our Lord asks us to take up our cross and follow him.
So, in a unique way, spouses are called to bear one another's sins, in imitation of their Lord. If the husband is negligent in his duty, it certainly falls to the wife to pick up the slack. Although, it's clear there would be a good deal of friction involved. The husband would likely express resentment that his wife is trying, in his eyes, to usurp responsibilities that are proper to him. There are no easy answers for such situations, other than that diligent prayer and the direction of a good priest would certainly help.
Peace, Paul.
I think it is you who have placed a Harry Truman "the buck stops here" interpretation on this passage. You and I (and other 21st century men) naturally lens this passage through the modern notion of administrative authority. Not how the ancients saw it. Plenty of people have healthy and holy marriages without a modern interpretation of authority. However, that notion of being subject to one another doesn't get the notice it should. A servant is subject to a master. A citizen to her or his ruler. The passage is senseless without the fullest understanding of the first sentence.
And on Patricia's query, the husband has already abrogated his authority by refusing to be subject to his wife. Except for martyrs, all bets are off in those cases.
"The passage is senseless without the fullest understanding of the first sentence... that notion of being subject to one another doesn't get the notice it should."
St. Paul is clearly asymmetric in his exhortations toward husbands and wives. If you are trying to homogenize the effect of his comments, you have thus far been unsuccessful in presenting a convincing case.
"And on Patricia's query, the husband has already abrogated his authority by refusing to be subject to his wife."
I'm waiting for your explanation on the overall concept to make sense of this statement. I agree he has abrogated his authority, but I see the reason as being because he has refused to accept his responsibilities. I think you are twisting the meaning of the expression "to be subject to".
Todd, if you choose to reply, please include an explanation of what it means for Christ to be head of His Church. My interpretation hinges on that. If you have a different understanding than I, this may be where we diverge.
Peace, Paul.
As developed in Pauline theology, Christ's headship involves kenosis, the self-emptying of the incarnation and the Passion. (Phil 2:6-11) Christ did not hold on to authority in the sense that a human leader would. Christ subjected himself to suffering and death, so that a greater good might be realized. That is the proper attitude for a husband, something that would have been a radical thought in the first century. Likewise that attitude is not out of place as a wife strives to imitate Christ in her marital relationship. Paul does emphasize "Be subordinate to one another ..." before getting into the bulk of the teaching. It is not an accident that is placed first.
Also, my friend, this is a metaphor, not an exact correlation, and so the image of Christ and Church would not logically cover every contingency in a complex human relationship. But Paul's context of being subordinate to one another is apt, and there yet remains to be discovered a "buck-stops-here" or "veto power" that you suggest exists. I reiterate my contention that is a revisionist approach to the passage.
Instead of assymetry, I think the Biblical tradition would emphasize complementariness. The husband or wife brings to the relationship what the other lacks. Two becoming one is not a materialistic hoarding, but a process by which a human being becomes complete. It is in imitating Christ's kenosis that husbands and wives uncover new levels of holiness and intimacy, not by clinging to the metaphor.
If I may offer a commentary, we may be engaged in a not-so-creative anachronism, and a mistake, to the extent that we interpret the word "head" in this context to mean "brains".
In both the greco-roman and the semitic world view of Paul's time, the seat of the intellect was considered to be in the heart. Aristotle and later biologists (or natural philosophers) of the period were of the opinion that the cerebrum/cerebellum had the purpose of cooling the blood.
In the semitic world view, the head (Hebrew: Rosh) was considered to be of importance as it was the first part of an animal's body to enter into a place. As example of this, the Hebrew name for the first day of the new year is "Rosh ha-Shanah", or "head of the year".
In the greco-roman world view, the head was of principle importance as being the center of all five of the senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch).
If one makes use of these presuppositions (the semitic view of the head as the one who initiates and the greco-roman view of the head as the part which is attentive), I believe one may have a better understanding of the headship of Christ, and the headship of the husband, as the one who initiates, and the one who is attentive, rather than the final authority.
Todd, thanks for your explanation. I agree with much of what you say, and don't believe it is at all contradictory with my original argument.
"Christ did not hold on to authority in the sense that a human leader would."
In his earthly life, that would be correct, when He is not yet seated at the Right Hand of the Father. However, after His Resurrection, He Himself declares, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matt 28:18) It is primarily in this context, I believe, that St. Paul says Christ is head of His Church. He has a headship of authority, as well as a headship of service.
"...this is a metaphor..."
Actually, it's a simile, but your point still applies. 8-)
"buck-stops-here" or "veto power"
If this is your idea of authority, then you are right in saying your sense of proper use of authority has been tainted by the "modern notion of administrative authority". These are your words, not mine. I reject these sentiments outright. I would never threaten my wife with such egocentric ultimatums.
I do think the modern world is in a crisis of authority. You have rightly written at length about bishops who have lost credibility and authority. But that does not mean there is no such thing as proper exercise of authority. Take for example, the Pope. Is he not the Vicar of Christ on earth, and its visible head? Does he not have the duty to be the ultimate authority, where the good of the Church is at stake? Has he not exercised these responsibilities in a spirit of service and sacrifice throughout his pontificate? The role of a husband in the domestic church should be seen in a similar vein.
In heaven, when God is all in all, there will no longer be a need for hierarchical authority. But in this world, God charges people with the duty to act in His Name, at many different levels, for a right-ordered society. I get the sense, based on your writings, that you rather advocate a leveled ordering of society, where the concept of authority does not exist.
Further, you seem to be reducing my reflection to wanting to be "in charge" whereas, if you read carefully, you will see I have gone out of my way to make clear that is not my vision of authority at all.
"Two becoming one is not a materialistic hoarding, but a process by which a human being becomes complete."
I think you misunderstood my use of the word "asymmetric". I meant it in the sense of "not identical", not "lop-sided".
Peace, Bernard.
Very sensible post. Thank you.
"I believe one may have a better understanding of the headship of Christ, and the headship of the husband, as the one who initiates, and the one who is attentive, rather than the final authority."
Bernard, thank you for your comments. I don't see a problem in expanding our understanding of headship to include "one who initiates" and "one who is attentive". But I don't see why that nullifies a head's role as ultimate authority.
Jesus declares of Himself, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matt 28:18) What power is he talking about, if not the power of a King who rules with Justice and Truth? Will Jesus not judge each soul in their particular judgment and the general judgment at the end of time?
I don't believe any serious Christian can deny these things about Our Lord, so why is it that the concept of headship cannot include authority, among the other things you mention?
Further, we read of Adam's wife , "...thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee." (Genesis 3:16) This was a consequence of The Fall, and is reinforced by St. Paul, "Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things." What does "being subject to" mean if not "under one's authority"?
It is true that under the New Covenant, ruled by grace, we have a much clearer picture of what it means to rule as a ministry of service for the common good. However, do we live in the kind of world that no longer requires the exercise of ultimate authority? Are we in Paradise already?
Peace, Paul.
"I don't see a problem in expanding our understanding of headship to include "one who initiates" and "one who is attentive". But I don't see why that nullifies a head's role as ultimate authority."
For Bernard's interpretation to "nullify ... ultimate authority," one has to actually find such authority in the passage. I would claim you haven't. The passage in the RNAB begins with an admonition for spouses to be subordinate to each other. How does that jive with your interpretation of "ultimate" authority?
"How does that jive with your interpretation of 'ultimate' authority?"
Todd, if you read my original post, you would have seen that I don't believe verse 21 is properly understood as applying to both spouses toward each other. I think you are reading that into the text. I believe the only way the rest of the passage makes sense is if verse 21 is understood as saying people ought to allow themselves to be subject to others in authority, for the right ordering of society. Prior to verse 21, there is no mention of spouses, so it is quite a stretch to conclude St. Paul was appyling this command to both spouses toward each other. In fact, the remainder of the passage makes clear he was referring, with respect to familial relationships, in particular to wives.
In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Nelson, 1953, p.1124) we read: "Family Life: man and wife - Down to this point in the moral part of his epistle St. Paul has been giving general injunctions on how we must live the Christian life. Now he gives special consideration to the family, and first of all to husband and wife. 'As the Lord' provides the key to the thoughts here expressed. Baptism confers equality on all individuals from the point of view of religion, but in society (of which the family is at once the smallest and most important unit) there is a natural hierarchy [emphasis added]. The husband is the head; the wife is subject to him. By Baptism this order is not broken; it is ennobled. St. Paul compares it with the love of the Church for Christ, the head. There should, then, be no room for either despotism or craven fear. Pius XI ('Casti connubii', 31 Dec 1930): 'If the husband is the head, the wife is the heart'. In using his authority the husband must take as his model Christ's love for the Church. 'Thou hast seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Wouldst thou have thy wife obedient to thee, as the Church is to Christ? Take then thyself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for thee to give thy life or her . . . refuse it not' (Chrysostom). Christ's love for the Church was perfect: he delivered himself up for it."
If you compare this commentary carefully to my original post, you will find a remarkable consistency between the two. This commentary is the predecessor to both the Jerome and New Jerome Biblical Commentaries. It reveals the plan for the family laid out by St. Paul. It brings into clear relief the hierarchical structure formed by the husband who is head, and the wife who is subject to him. This is opposed to those who advocate a leveling of authority in the family, bluring the distinction of roles. Even Nelson makes clear that, if one is the head of a structure, and another is subject to the head, that the structure is clearly hierarchical. I believe that, by neutralizing the meaning of headship as authority of the husband, you similarly vacate the headship as authority of Christ with respect to His Bride, the Church. As a result, even Christ is no longer deserving of our obedience of faith in response to the graces He showers upon us. I will leave it to the readers to decide which interpretation rings true and which is tainted by revisionism.
Peace, Paul.
"Todd, if you read my original post, you would have seen that I don't believe verse 21 is properly understood as applying to both spouses toward each other."
Okay. We disagree then. The line seems clear to me: Christians (including Christians married to one another) are to be subordinate to other believers. Imitating Christ.
"I believe the only way the rest of the passage makes sense is if verse 21 is understood as saying people ought to allow themselves to be subject to others in authority, for the right ordering of society."
I think it has nothing to do with secular society. It has everything to do with the Church. Bishops and pastors are resonsible for their flocks. Teachers for students. Parents for children. Spouses for one another. All these are equal, unequal, or complementary relationships. All require kenosis to function spiritually.
" ... so it is quite a stretch to conclude St. Paul was appyling this command to both spouses toward each other."
Not unless it was a preface for what was to follow.
"In fact, the remainder of the passage makes clear he was referring, with respect to familial relationships, in particular to wives."
No. Husbands to wives, wives to husbands.
Nice words from Nelson, but not immune from a good fisking.
"It reveals the plan for the family laid out by St. Paul."
Ah! I suppose I'm moving against a first century apostle by suggesting otherwise. Paul was a product of his times, and even so, he does not cede secular authority to husbands. He certainly does not have the modernist approach to authority you bring to the discussion.
"This is opposed to those who advocate a leveling of authority in the family ..."
Or those who advocate an accurate reading of Ephesians.
"Even Nelson makes clear that, if one is the head of a structure, and another is subject to the head, that the structure is clearly hierarchical."
Mr Brandt argued differently. Nowhere in Ephesians does Paul allude to an explicit hierarchy in a family.
"I believe that, by neutralizing the meaning of headship as authority of the husband, you similarly vacate the headship as authority of Christ with respect to His Bride, the Church."
Um, no. Christ's relationship to the Church is a metaphor in this context: a metaphor for proper family relationships. It does not logically follow for all aspects of marriage. Nor do all aspects of Christ's relationship with the Church apply to marriage.
"As a result, even Christ is no longer deserving of our obedience of faith in response to the graces He showers upon us."
An emotional stretch, my friend. You're doing fine on the intellectual side of this argument without trying to cast aspersions on my other notions of authority.
"Okay. We disagree then."
Todd, I realize there are differing viewpoints. That's why I posted the original piece - to stake out what I believe and why. As you concede, the understanding of the overall passage seems to hinge on how one interprets verse 21.
"Christ's relationship to the Church is a metaphor in this context: a metaphor for proper family relationships. It does not logically follow for all aspects of marriage. Nor do all aspects of Christ's relationship with the Church apply to marriage."
I agree. But one aspect of the metaphor that does apply in both cases is the notion of headship. The text is explicit about that.
"You're doing fine on the intellectual side of this argument without trying to cast aspersions on my other notions of authority."
I believe Christ as head is deserving of our obedience of faith due to his position of ultimate authority in His Church. No emotion required. I can say that without casting aspersions. If you disagree, there's little I can say about it.
Todd, the way I read it, the aim of the passage is to remind wives they still need to submit to their husbands, and to teach husbands the proper Christian understanding of the use of their authority.
Remember that St. Paul also uses similar language in another epistle, "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord." (Col 3:18-20) This sets out the proper hierarchy of the family. If the relationship between husbands and wives were as you say, why is St. Paul so explicit, a second time, to remind only wives to be subject to their husbands?
I could go on, finding all Scriptural references that talk about being subject to someone in a position of authority, but I don't think that would make a difference. You seem to have made up your mind that the expression "to be subject to" means something other than what it plainly implies through numerous Scriptural examples: that is, a hierarchical relationship.
Peace, Paul.
You are correct that I have a natural distrust of hierarchical relationships. I have seen them abused far too much to accept them as a given in every human relationship.
You wrote, "I believe Christ as head is deserving of our obedience of faith due to his position of ultimate authority in His Church. No emotion required. I can say that without casting aspersions. If you disagree, there's little I can say about it."
It's not a matter of my agreement or disagreement; it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. Just because I disagree with you on Ephesians 5 gives you no cause or grounds to presume I lack a proper respect for God's authority.
"This sets out the proper hierarchy of the family. If the relationship between husbands and wives were as you say, why is St. Paul so explicit, a second time, to remind only wives to be subject to their husbands?"
I don't believe I've said what my view on the proper hierarchical relationship between a husband and a wife is. For the record, I believe it to be complementary, mutual, and one of surrender. A hierarchy implies a somewhat more substantial pecking order than two people. Two people, married or not, will go a lot farther with an attitude of mutual subordination than with a search for who's the boss.
The proper Christian attitude is to be subject to everyone. That would be a radical approach, perhaps too radical to be accomplished perfectly in this life. Making choices about to whom we subject ourselves to would be a hierarchical approach, if not a cafeteria one.
The most important lesson in this passage is not the imitation of a CEO, but the imitation of Christ. I think it unseemly for a man to presume an authority in his family roughly congruent to that of Christ to the Church. Again, I see it as metaphor, not blueprint. I think conservatives who approach Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 often have too much of modern society in the backs of their heads when they trumpet their interpretations of these passages. Christ did not remind others of his authority. His authority was obvious because of the sacrifices he made for others. It was even more obvious after his death and resurrection. Male mortals just don't come close to this ideal. And I don't think they help their wives or children come closer to it by not modelling it more clearly. "I'm the boss" doesn't conjure images of God; it is more reminiscent of a children's playground.
"Just because I disagree with you on Ephesians 5 gives you no cause or grounds to presume I lack a proper respect for God's authority."
When you agreed with Bernard, that being "head" excludes being an "authority", I assumed you were applying that exclusion to both the head of the family, as well as the head of the Church. If that's not the case, then I misunderstood.
"I think conservatives who approach Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 often have too much of modern society in the backs of their heads when they trumpet their interpretations of these passages."
I agree. That's why the passage has such a strong emphasis for the husband on love, sacrifice and imitation of Christ - not domination.
"Male mortals just don't come close to this ideal."
That does not absolve us from trying to achieve it. I've been married long enough to know that there are lots of fitful starts and restarts at learning to be Christ-like, on both sides. It's a lifelong process that culminates only in earthly death.
I don't think the fact that we see many poor examples of husbands ought to denigrate our image of what an ideal husband should be. Yes, ideally, husband and wife ought to be totally in sync with each other, and totally attuned to the Lord; but humanly speaking, this never happens, due to our fallen nature.
So, in practice, I see the authority of the husband as more of a "tie-breaker vote", so to speak, in matters of grave importance for the family, when agreement cannot be reached; rather than a situation where the husband has the only say that matters.
Dear Paul and Todd (and also, dear readers):
I would like to apologise for an error that I made at the end of my last entry. I had said:
". . .I believe one may have a better understanding of the headship of Christ, and the headship of the husband, as the one who initiates, and the one who is attentive, rather than the final authority."
I had meant to say in this context "rather than simply being the final authority." I did not mean to exclude the possibility of Christ being the final authority, or by extension, of the husband in the Apostle Paul's view.
I have noted a tendency among many self-professed Christians (and quite possibly, all of us) to tend to ignore or not to deal with certain "hard" sayings of the Lord or of His apostles. In Protestant circles, this goes so far as the speaker or writer in effect to say "and here's where I disagree with the Bible." In the words of the late Douglas Adams, in his wonderful Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy: "This is less than helpful."
I think that Paul is quite rightly concerned with what he thinks may be Todd's tendency either to disagree with the Bible, or portions of it, (or as bad, to say, "Surely God has not said this [which as we know, is the oldest trick in the Book]).
Nonetheless, on the other hand, I believe that Todd is correct in his concern with the abuse of authority, as we have seen it so often done by priests and bishops of late, sometimes in the most flagrant and scandalous of ways. The temptation exists to say that authority has been abused so often that it should not be appealed to, or exercised. I think, however, for the reasons I state below, that it is a temptation which should be resisted.
At this point, it might be good to examine what is meant by the word "authority", at least in Scripture. The clearest statement was made by the Centurion to our Lord, when he explained that it was not necessary for Him to come into the Centurion's house to heal his servant:
For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Under the circumstances, it appears that the Centurion understands that authority is a transitive relationship. He has authority, but he is also under it. He may be able to order servants, but he realizes also that he is answerable to those in higher command.
Perhaps what is most irritating about some of the priests and bishops whom one sees abusing authority is that they attempt to order those who are supposedly in a subservient position (laity or deacons or priests, etc.), but they appear to be disobedient to the basis for their authority: the holy scriptures or the magisterium or even their own superiors. This lack of a transitive relationship in fact undermines their own authority, and the authority of the Church as well.
I believe that Paul in the disputed passage is defining the authority of the husband over the wife, but is also defining the basis for that authority, and its limits, in the seminal statement that the husband is the head of the wife, and that husbands should love their wives, as Christ loves the church. I believe that in the greco-roman and semitic world views (as I had mentioned earlier), this headship includes both leadership (initiation) and attentiveness. It certainly involves love.
I would further say that a husband who orders his wife about without initiative, without attentiveness, and without love, as effectively undermines his authority as the bishop who makes liturgical or theological orders in ignorance of or in disobedience to the bases of his authority.
Finally, it heartens me greatly to see a western theological discussion which includes St. John Chrysostom and the concept of kenosis. I would like to point out, however, that in Eastern Christian Spirituality, while kenosis is necessary, it is by no means sufficient. It is the first step that is taken towards theosis, that is, towards union with God. The Eastern Fathers and the writers of the Philokalia appear to believe that for such theosis to take place, there must first be kenosis, or the emptying of one's self of the passions, the hatreds and fears, and vain thoughts. Then comes agiosis or the sanctification which comes from repentance and the acceptance of God's grace through the mysteries or sacraments. Finally comes henosis, or oneness, the union with God which, if we are fortunate, comes after death in Heaven, or much more rarely, and among the great saints, while still alive in the body.
My point, though, is that self emptying without being filled with God's grace puts one in the same position described in Christ's parable of the house from which demons have been evicted, which is found to be clean, but empty. In Christ's words, "The last state of that house is in fact worse than the first."
Peace, all.
Mr Brandt, as usual, provides enough thoughtful material to provoke a comment at least five times the length of his original. However ...
I do not think the application of a modern Western model of authority completely and always satisfies the apostle's or God's prescription for an ideal marriage. There are too many passages that would stand against it in the NT and perhaps the Old. There are also too many diverse personalities coupling in marriage to say that this and only this model works for Christians, or is the only path to holiness.
Even after eight-plus years of marriage, I would not profess to have the system working perfectly. But two people fairly well-known to each other and operating in prayer and subordinance to each other have no need for a "tie-breaker," as it has been put. When my wife and I cannot come to an agreement, we submit to God and trust the decision need not be made at this time. And move on.
Many of my evangelical relatives operate with a literal interpretation of this passage. This seems to work for them, and I have seen some of my relatives not at their best. I feel no particular need to evangelize these people into a "proper" approach to Ephesians 5. It is satisfactory enough for me to know and experience marriage as a mystery. I cannot claim to know the full mind of the apostle or the best path for every married couple. I have enough trouble focusing on Ephesians 5:21 -- there's more than enough of a lifetime's worth of struggle there. For me, anyway.
Todd, in the process of poking around for more information on this topic of discussion, I came across the following quote from the Holy Father, from the encyclical, Mulieris Dignitatem (24). It appears to substantiate a number of points you have made. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the entire document, but it appears that the Holy Father agrees with your assessment of the concept of "mutual subjection". I intend to research this topic further, to see if it can still be reconciled with my understanding of the text. If I am wrong, and it appears so far to be the case, I concede the error.
"The text is addressed to the spouses as real women and men. It reminds them of the 'ethos' of spousal love which goes back to the divine institution of marriage from the 'beginning'. Corresponding to the truth of this institution is the exhortation: 'Husbands, love your wives', love them because of that special and unique bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become 'one flesh' (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31). In this love there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he desires that she be 'in splendour, without spot or wrinkle' (Eph 5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole 'style' of Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the elements of this style in regard to their wives; analogously, all men should do the same in regard to women in every situation. In this way both men and women bring about 'the sincere gift of self'.
"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: 'Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife' (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profondly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a 'mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ' (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the 'head' of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give 'himself up for her' (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the 'subjection' is not one-sided but mutual.
"In relation to the 'old' this is evidently something 'new': it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is 'old': what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.
"The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The 'innovation' of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual 'subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ', and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: 'In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman', but also wrote: 'There is no more slave or freeman'. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?
"But the challenge presented by the 'ethos' of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the 'subjection' of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a 'mutual subjection' of both 'out of reverence for Christ'. The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride."
Todd, I have given this topic some further study. The result of that reflection is given here. After having done so, I think I understand your point a bit better, and believe that the tent of truth is big enough to accommodate all of our comments without contradiction.