Religious Reflection - 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time (Cycle B - 2nd Reading)
Today's second reading is the somewhat controversial Ephesians 5: 21-32. I remember my Mom told me once that she didn't like Paul too much due to this reading. :}
The source of the controversy is probably verses 22-24. Out of context, it's easy to see how this is a controversial idea. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything? Hello! This is 2009, not 1709. However, given the entire reading, there's nothing that's really controversial. In the previous verse, Paul says, "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." This isn't directed toward either sex.
There are two things on which I'd like to reflect from this reading. First, what does it mean to be subordinate? Is it fair to say that in contemporary society, subordination is not viewed as a good thing? Who doesn't want freedom and liberty? Who wants to subject themselves to the demands and desires of other people?
Yet, I do not feel that God directs these words toward contemporary society specifically. God is outside of time, they say. Indeed, these words have existed for nearly two millenia. While societal standards are mutable, God's word has remained. Our changing society might reject the notion of subordination... but perhaps God is envisioning something else. In the not-too-distant past, society resisted equal rights for women... but eventually, things changed. Perhaps in another few centuries, society will change again with its view of subordination.
In fact, even now, subordination is not viewed as a bad thing in the correct context. Imagine if there was no subordination at all. Children would run amok, having no desire to respect their parents. Employees would have no reason to show up on time at work (if at all) if there was no reason to respect authority. Anarchy would rule. Suddenly, having a little subordination doesn't seem so bad!
This leads to my second point. Later in the reading, Paul tells men, "Husbands, love your wives." From the viewpoint of those criticizing this reading, I imagine that this line is probably forgotten completely. If it is remembered at all, it is probably cited as being an unbalanced command when compared to the subordination that the wives must go through. In other words, "Oh, men only have to love. Women have to be subordinate!"
Again, the entire context must be considered. What does it mean for a man to love his wife? The entire concept of love is something I firmly believe is very much lost to most people. Love is trivialized by the entertainment industry where scripted relationships magically work out in the space of a two hour movie. Movies and sitcoms can surely give love a romantic air that appeals to people who watch such programs... However, I also feel it trivializes what it means to love.
To give an accurate reflection on love would literally take days. For the context of this writing, however, try envisioning love this way... In loving someone, you are very seriously concerned about the person's well being. To love means to seek healing for wounds created by the past, to be supportive in the present, and to establish stability and security for the future. Love does not mean there are no disagreements... Rather, love is the realization that there is something more important than disagreements.
Men, do you love your wife or girlfriend? Are you so concerned for her that you are analyzing what has shaped her in the past so that you can anticipate her needs in the present and plan for the goodness of her future? Do you want what is best for her in all circumstances... mind, body, and soul? That does not mean she gets her way all of the time, but it certainly does not mean you get yours all of the time, either! In fact, it might mean that you must undertake the ultimate act of subordination... That is, that she recognize God as first in all things, not you. Personally, I cannot speak from the female perspective... but as a male, if I felt a woman loved me in such a way, I would have no fear at all of subordinating myself to her.
"But wait," someone might say. "What if someone in a couple takes advantage of the situation? If a women is subordinate and the husband is a jerk, what then? If a man is loving and the wife is a jerk, what then?" Again, the context is key... Not necessarily the context of this particular reading or chapter... but the entire context of Christian life... That is, goodness is crucial in all matters. For those who are interested in accepting Paul's writings, hopefully their lives are centered in Christ. Hopefully such people not only seek to bring God's goodness to a marriage, but they also consider it crucial in even picking a spouse. Even before a relationship is formed, goodness should be there. If such is the case, Paul's words should bring nothing but reassurance to any couple. If such is not the case, at best I can see someone reading this and seeing only the "controversy" perspective. At worst, it will serve as a bitter reminder as to what marriage should be.
Hopefully this writing serves to dispell some of the remaining controversy surrounding this reading. In closing, I would like to point out that Jesus subordinated Himself to the cruelty of humanity for our sakes. God, truly worthy of being superior, mysteriously humbled Himself to those unworthy. In this act of subordination, the greatest good was done for us... and God remains, not diminished, but glorified.
~Gold Dragon
The source of the controversy is probably verses 22-24. Out of context, it's easy to see how this is a controversial idea. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything? Hello! This is 2009, not 1709. However, given the entire reading, there's nothing that's really controversial. In the previous verse, Paul says, "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." This isn't directed toward either sex.
There are two things on which I'd like to reflect from this reading. First, what does it mean to be subordinate? Is it fair to say that in contemporary society, subordination is not viewed as a good thing? Who doesn't want freedom and liberty? Who wants to subject themselves to the demands and desires of other people?
Yet, I do not feel that God directs these words toward contemporary society specifically. God is outside of time, they say. Indeed, these words have existed for nearly two millenia. While societal standards are mutable, God's word has remained. Our changing society might reject the notion of subordination... but perhaps God is envisioning something else. In the not-too-distant past, society resisted equal rights for women... but eventually, things changed. Perhaps in another few centuries, society will change again with its view of subordination.
In fact, even now, subordination is not viewed as a bad thing in the correct context. Imagine if there was no subordination at all. Children would run amok, having no desire to respect their parents. Employees would have no reason to show up on time at work (if at all) if there was no reason to respect authority. Anarchy would rule. Suddenly, having a little subordination doesn't seem so bad!
This leads to my second point. Later in the reading, Paul tells men, "Husbands, love your wives." From the viewpoint of those criticizing this reading, I imagine that this line is probably forgotten completely. If it is remembered at all, it is probably cited as being an unbalanced command when compared to the subordination that the wives must go through. In other words, "Oh, men only have to love. Women have to be subordinate!"
Again, the entire context must be considered. What does it mean for a man to love his wife? The entire concept of love is something I firmly believe is very much lost to most people. Love is trivialized by the entertainment industry where scripted relationships magically work out in the space of a two hour movie. Movies and sitcoms can surely give love a romantic air that appeals to people who watch such programs... However, I also feel it trivializes what it means to love.
To give an accurate reflection on love would literally take days. For the context of this writing, however, try envisioning love this way... In loving someone, you are very seriously concerned about the person's well being. To love means to seek healing for wounds created by the past, to be supportive in the present, and to establish stability and security for the future. Love does not mean there are no disagreements... Rather, love is the realization that there is something more important than disagreements.
Men, do you love your wife or girlfriend? Are you so concerned for her that you are analyzing what has shaped her in the past so that you can anticipate her needs in the present and plan for the goodness of her future? Do you want what is best for her in all circumstances... mind, body, and soul? That does not mean she gets her way all of the time, but it certainly does not mean you get yours all of the time, either! In fact, it might mean that you must undertake the ultimate act of subordination... That is, that she recognize God as first in all things, not you. Personally, I cannot speak from the female perspective... but as a male, if I felt a woman loved me in such a way, I would have no fear at all of subordinating myself to her.
"But wait," someone might say. "What if someone in a couple takes advantage of the situation? If a women is subordinate and the husband is a jerk, what then? If a man is loving and the wife is a jerk, what then?" Again, the context is key... Not necessarily the context of this particular reading or chapter... but the entire context of Christian life... That is, goodness is crucial in all matters. For those who are interested in accepting Paul's writings, hopefully their lives are centered in Christ. Hopefully such people not only seek to bring God's goodness to a marriage, but they also consider it crucial in even picking a spouse. Even before a relationship is formed, goodness should be there. If such is the case, Paul's words should bring nothing but reassurance to any couple. If such is not the case, at best I can see someone reading this and seeing only the "controversy" perspective. At worst, it will serve as a bitter reminder as to what marriage should be.
Hopefully this writing serves to dispell some of the remaining controversy surrounding this reading. In closing, I would like to point out that Jesus subordinated Himself to the cruelty of humanity for our sakes. God, truly worthy of being superior, mysteriously humbled Himself to those unworthy. In this act of subordination, the greatest good was done for us... and God remains, not diminished, but glorified.
~Gold Dragon