Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
Fr. J. D. Ousley
August 24, 2003"Husbands and Wives"
In the Name of God: Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Amen.
Among the most controversial topics at the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church was the proposal that the church develop rituals to bless the relationships of homosexual couples.
Now today, I'm not going to try to cover this complex issue; I do plan to hold a discussion this autumn on sexual ethics.
I would note, though, that the blessings proposed by the Liturgical Commission of the Church were sometimes thought to be "gay marriage" ceremonies. In fact, though, the Commission called them, "blessings of same-sex unions."
And some people who have written to me about this topic have thought the unions should be the same as marriage; others -- including both traditionalists and progressives have disagreed. In other words, some Episcopalians are in favor of unions but not marriage rites; others oppose both rites; others say unions are the equivalent of marriage and should be permitted.
This controversy suggests, however, that if members of the Episcopal Church are ever going to arrive at a common view of gay relationships, they will first need to agree about heterosexual marriage! The church will have to be very sure what it is doing when it blesses the vows of a man and woman.
In fact, we should answer the basis question: what is the marriage ritual for? What is God trying to accomplish when he calls women and men out of their single state to a deep commitment to each other? Why does the Church bother to "celebrate" and "solemnize" marriage vows in the first place?
Here we must note that if the Church is divided about gay relationships, it has also often changed its mind about straight marriage! For a thousand years, marriage was regarded as compatible with being ordained. Then, in the Middle Ages married priests were forbidden. Then, they were allowed again in the Protestant churches.
More recently, a number of churches, including the Episcopal Church, have modified their view of the lifelong nature of marriage to allow divorced persons to get married again.
Some of these changes in the way Christians regard marriage have come from our society. So, in Western cultures, the modern ideal has become what is called "companionate marriage."
Companionate marriage is a union of equals; a person shouldn't marry for money, or for prestige, or because his or her parents have chosen the mate. The person marries to find a companion to share his or her life, "for better or for worse."
This ideal of marriage has come to be accepted in our culture -- even by those whose marriages fail, even by those who never marry. And because the ideal is widely accepted, the words of St. Paul we heard in today's First Lesson strike a jarring note. Most jarring are those notorious words, "wives, be subject to your husbands."
Here we see one of those places where the Bible's teaching on morality doesn't seem very helpful! Given that we believe men and women to be moral equals -- given, indeed, that Paul himself says in another place that "male and female" are "all one in Christ Jesus," what do we make of this difficult text?
Well, for one thing, marriage in the ancient world at the time Paul was writing was a mess! Everywhere, patriarchy prevailed: women were held in little regard in society or in the family.
In that context, Hebrew morality stood out as being relatively fair to women. Because Jews wanted to encourage stable, lifelong marriage, divorce was fairly difficult and husbands weren't allowed to mistreat their wives.
St. Paul taught that Christianity had an even higher view of marriage. Against the patriarchal view of his time, Paul felt men and women should be equally called to marriage.
Even this passage from the Letter to the Ephesians stresses that faith demands a high standard of mutual respect in marriage.
Everyone in ancient society assumed that men dominated women -- Paul couldn't change that assumption by himself. But he could suggest that power isn't the reason for marriage. Husbands and wives were bound together by love; they should treat each other with the respect love commands.
For Christians, God revealed himself most intimately as a loving God.
Love not power should characterize the way we Christians relate to each other.
In context, then, the really shocking thing about the Ephesians text isn't the expectation that the wife respect her husband but the idea that the husband should love his wife as much as he loves himself! In that day and age, such an appreciation of the wife was unusual, to say the least.
And, frankly, I'm not sure that Paul's concerns are out-of-date. In our own times, for example, there seem to be plenty of men who love themselves far more than they love their "trophy" wives!
Perhaps we shouldn't be so critical of St. Paul. Companionate marriage is an ideal that our society often fails to attain.
And the more we ponder the biblical passage, the more we can see its positive suggestions. Marriage for Paul, rather than being a system of social control-particularly of women, is "a great mystery." Husband and wife mysteriously become "one flesh."
How far this idea is from the possessiveness of ancient marriage-or of today's "trophy wives." Marriage is a call to mutual giving; husbands and wives offer themselves to each other.
And notice that Paul says this mutual offering is a model for the church. Husbands should love their wives just as, Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Mutual respect, offering of ourselves to each other -- this is a challenge for all of us, single or married or whatever -- a challenge for our relationships at home, at work, and in the community of the church.
Customs and rituals may change, but Paul's most basic claim remains a worthy goal of Christians in every age. "Be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ."
How many problems with relationships would disappear if people recognized the need to "be subject to one another." How many factional disputes in the church would diminish if we saw that others' opinions and views -- their hopes and pains, have a spiritual claim on us.
This doesn't mean we always have to give in to our brothers and sisters in Christ any more than wives always have to be "subject to" their husbands.
Rather, I think Paul is saying that because we're subject to one another, we're all wrapped up in the same complex web of relationships. We are all in life together. And Christ, the mysterious incarnation of the God of love, is with us, too-together with all of us, in the midst of life, helping us to have reverence for one another.
And now unto that same God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be ascribed as is most justly due all might, majesty, power, dominion and praise, now and forever, Amen.