NOTE: I wrote this post about two years ago, but decided to
sit on it. The primary reason was that it was in large part a response to a
sermon my former pastor gave on sexuality, and I decided not to stir the pot
more at that time. Now that I was forced to leave not just that church, but
Evangelicalism as a whole for reasons of conscience, I decided to re-read,
revise, and post this one. This is some necessary foundation for future posts I
hope to write.
***
I remember a certain day sitting in court (the division that
handled divorce and custody matters), and this woman spoke on her own behalf.
(Hint: get a lawyer.) After she proceeded to dig her hole as deep as possible
given the time, the judge made his ruling. He started with words to this
effect:
“I had been leaning toward
granting your request, until you opened your mouth and convinced me to rule
against you.”
Several times in the last week, I have either read or heard
someone - a pastor and/or Evangelical blogger - making a case for their
particular view of sexuality, sexual morality, or marriage, based on Saint Paul’s metaphor of
Christ and the Church as bride and groom. If it had been just one time, I
probably would have left it alone, but it is clearly becoming the trendy
“method de jour” for arguing against gay marriage. For some reason, many
seem to believe that this is the ultimate “trump card,” so to speak, when I
believe it is anything but. In fact, the use of this metaphor is more likely to
confirm in many people’s minds that conservative Christianity is still clinging
with bleeding fingers to a misogynist view of women and marriage.
Let me explain.
First, a couple of disclosures:
1. I am not a trained theologian. I am, however, at least a
self-taught student of history, psychology, and sociology. I am also an
attorney who practices family and probate law, so I probably have about as much
or more experience with failed marriages and dysfunctional families as the
average pastor or theologian my age.
2. Because of my experience hearing the poisonous teachings
of the Christian Patriarchy movement during my teen years, I am WELL familiar
with the use and misuse of the “Christ and the Church” metaphor as it relates
to marriage. If anything, I probably have spiritual PTSD when it comes to this
metaphor. So, I am a bit passionate about this.
3. I am not intending to make an argument for or against gay
marriage. I am just pointing out that, as a wise lawyer once told me,
“Often the argument you cherish and hold in your bosom is
the one that loses you your case.”
***
The gist of the argument is this: since marriage is like
Christ and the Church, it is necessary that there be a male and a female in
marriage. And, since sex must only occur in marriage, only male/female sex
within marriage is permissible.
There are quite a number of troubling implications of this,
particularly to anyone (like me) who believes that males and females are in
essence equal in the most important ways. In fact, if you follow the metaphor,
you find very quickly that you are making an argument for an extreme inequality
between men and women - an inequality in some way equivalent to the gulf
between man and God. And I need not tell you which gender becomes “God” in that
scenario.
The problem isn’t with Saint
Paul’s metaphor, which was truly revolutionary at the
time, and is beautiful when confined to the original point. The problem is that
when the metaphor is expanded beyond its original point, it loses both its
truth and its beauty, becoming a weapon for abusers and an argument for a
return to the misogyny of the past.
Let me start with this, because I believe it is an important
point.
My marriage absolutely does NOT demonstrate the
relationship between Christ and the Church. And, unless you are an extreme patriarchist,
NEITHER DOES YOURS.
It’s actually pretty simple. My marriage does not
demonstrate the relationship between Christ and the Church because my wife and
I are equals. God and man are not equals, particularly in Evangelical theology.
(Actually, I can’t really think of too many cases in which the gods and mortals
were equivalent - that’s why they are gods, right? - although at least in the
Greco-Roman pantheon, they were equally flawed.)
And, whatever most modern westerners claim to believe about
submission within marriage, most of us are functionally
egalitarian when it comes to the day-to-day function of our marriages. We make
decisions together, we talk and love as equals, and we act as though each
partner has equal dignity and wisdom. Now, I have come to a fully egalitarian
philosophy during my marriage, but even before, I expected that my marriage
would functionally be between equals.
Most of you are the same, whether you do lip service to
“submission” or not. In fact, except for a few extreme outliers, nobody
believes that a man who disregards his wife’s point of view as irrelevant is a
good husband.
But that is certainly not how we view Christ and the Church.
Unless one is speaking about Christian Patriarchy. Because
they take the metaphor deadly seriously.
I am not making this up, but there are those who actually
try to put into practice “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word.” As in, men have to somehow cleanse their wives
from sin by water and scripture reading. As I said, I wish I were making
this up.
Let’s look at a few other implications, though, because I
believe they are important.
The heart of the metaphor as a prescription for or description
of marriage is that one party takes the place of God, while the other takes
the place of humanity. In other words, one is divine, while the other is
mortal.
No points for guessing which gender is the divine one.
2. As high as Christ is above mankind, so
men are high above women.
This is the problem, obviously. If it is vital to
marriage that one party represent God, while the other represents man, one will
by necessity be far superior in every imaginable way to the other.
3. If marriage must reflect Christ and the Church by
having a male and a female, why is this so? I mean, I am a male AND part of the
Bride of Christ. Does that mean I have to be a female in some sense? And since
obviously not in biological sex or reproductive capacity, in what way am
I supposed to be female? What is the essential difference between male
and female? How is the difference between male and female like
that between God and man if not in a hierarchical way?
In other words, if it is necessary that marriage (and sex)
demonstrate the relationship of God and man, then the requirement of male and
female (to the exclusion of same sex relationships) is so that someone can
be the inferior party. Someone has to be the female. By the way,
that is exactly the point made regarding male homosexuality during the
time the Bible was written. It was shameful for a man to be penetrated, because
he was lowering himself to the function of a woman within the sexual act. A man
lowered himself to the status of the congenitally inferior woman.
I could talk at length about this, but let me just run
through some basics of our relationship with Christ.
***
As a Christian, who believes that Christ is a co-equal
member of the Trinity - God in all senses, I believe that Christ is always
right in every situation. (Don’t confuse this with a belief that religious leaders
are right in all situations. Quite the opposite.) Thus, I believe that God is
indeed Truth, and that He will be right when I am wrong. As in always.
This would be a fully ludicrous approach to marriage,
however. If I flatter myself, when my wife and I disagree, we are equally
likely to be wrong or right. As a male, I am at minimum, no more likely to be
right than my wife. (In practice, she is right more often than I am - I married
a wise woman…)
Thus, when it comes to that issue, we are clearly not
modeling Christ and the Church. My “divinity” leaves a lot to be desired. And
the mere fact that I was born with a penis does NOT make me any more likely to
right than my wife, who was not.
Now, Patriarchists disagree with this. They believe and
teach that women are (by nature) more likely to be deceived than men, and thus,
their opinions and wisdom can and should be disregarded or at least devalued.
And this does in fact look more like Christ and the Church, doesn’t it?
God probably does not sit around soliciting my opinion about major decisions.
And why should He? The Christ/Church relationship is one of fundamental inequality.
As high as the heavens are above the earth, as Isaiah put it.
So, if my marriage were to actually demonstrate
Christ and the Church, my wife should NOT question anything I say. Or at least,
she should trust in my opinions and decisions as being far above anything she
could think or decide. (Although the bible is full of examples of humans
questioning and arguing with God, Evangelicals consider this to be mortal sin.)
Or how about this? A fundamental of Protestant (and thus
Evangelical doctrine) is that there is only one mediator between God and man:
namely Christ. He is the one who speaks to God (really Himself) on our behalf.
As I have heard it taught, He is the prophet, priest, and king. He brings God’s
words to us, brings our petitions to God, and rules the Church as its head.
(Not all that controversial, I would hope.)
Would it be a shock to hear that the Patriarchists, in their
zeal to demonstrate the Christ/Church relationship within marriage, have
declared that MEN are to be the “prophet, priest, and king” of their own
families?
It shouldn’t be.
But that is the natural result of taking the metaphor beyond
its intention.
So of course, if marriage demonstrates Christ and the
Church, then the MAN is the go-between for God and his wife and children. Of course
he brings the very words of God to them. Of course his decisions should
be treated as if they were from God Himself. Why?
Because he is the representation of freaking GOD in the
marriage relationship.
Of course he shouldn’t be questioned. Of course
he is always right. Of course disobeying his whims is the same as
disobeying God Himself.
Hence, the “washing with the water of the word” thing.
Because men are (essentially) GOD in the relationship, they are responsible for
cleansing the sin in the women.
And then, what about this? Most of us (per Hebrews and other
passages) expect that Christ lovingly disciplines us. How shall we demonstrate that
in our marriages?
Do I need to be disciplining my wife? Shouldn’t I do that to
demonstrate Christ and the Church? (I am being a bit facetious here, but there
really are those who believe men need to discipline their wives.) Thus
lies justification for abuse.
Bottom line: If I related to Christ the way my wife relates
to me in our marriage, it would be fairly blasphemous. If I insisted on
treating my wife the way that would be justified if I were God to her humanity,
it would be at best seriously sexist, and at worst, abusive.
And any time one uses the Christ/Church metaphor to
demonstrate WHY marriage has to be a certain way, one runs into this problem.
Somehow, someway, one ends up arguing for one party to the marriage to be the
inferior, human, party; to the other superior, divine party.
And when you argue that one party must fulfil the
male (dominant, superior, divine) role and one must fulfil the (subservient,
inferior, human) role, you have to end up somewhere seriously sexist, and
probably misogynist.
So, whatever arguments you might otherwise be making - or
think you are making - this is what many of those outside of the faith - and
many of us within the faith too - end up hearing:
Gay marriage is wrong because a central doctrine of the
faith is...wait for it… wait for it…
SEXISM.
Woo hoo. Isn’t that convincing? The currently trendy method
of argument somehow assumes that this is actually a compelling argument, when
it is is actually more of a confirmation of the idea that Christianity is
inseparable from misogyny. If we base our entire concept of sexuality and
gender on the idea of a hierarchy between men and women, we have lost the
argument at the outset.
Better to just say that God is opposed to gay sex for an
arbitrary and unexplainable reason than to tie the argument to the superiority
of men over women.
This is so terribly misguided, in my opinion.
There is nothing wrong with what Saint Paul is saying, but the fault lies in
the appropriation of his metaphor to prove ideas beyond the point he was
making.
Saint Paul, Aristotle, and the legend of Cupid and Psyche
Probably the main reason why I hate to discuss marriage with
Evangelicals is that they (generally) are appalling ignorant of history and
literature. Indeed, I would argue that the luminaries of homeschool and
Christian education are willfully ignorant of these things - or perhaps
actively hostile to a real study of history, because such as study would reveal
just how much American Evangelicalism owes to Aristotle and ancient pagan
philosophies in general.
In this specific case, it is impossible to discuss Saint Paul and his
teachings on marriage without a background knowledge of Aristotle’s Politics. This work was
hugely influential in New Testament times; described the laws governing
relationships between men, women, children, and slaves; and influenced popular
thought, both in the relationships of the State, but also in the foundational
relationships between individuals.
Aristotle notes three basic relationships that are the
“foundation” of the State: Master/slave, parent/child, and husband/wife. In each
case, the free, adult, male person rules over the subordinate person.
The child, slave...or wife. If one ever wondered why Saint Paul - and Saint Peter - always mention
these three relationships together, this is the answer. The three are
mentioned together because they are linked by Aristotle as the foundation of
the “polis.”
The foundation of society in 1st Century Rome is the superiority and rule of the free
over slave, old over young, and male over female.
Furthermore, this hierarchy wasn’t accidental. Aristotle
believed that humans were male by default, but became female in the womb
because something went wrong with the developmental process. In other words,
women are merely retarded men, subhuman in their physical and mental abilities.
(Likewise, slaves were defective as well, which justified their slavery - you
can see this exact same argument used in the United States both in defense of
slavery and pretty much any time race relations or poverty come up.)
Children, at least the males, were only temporarily subhuman. And a
slave might win his or her freedom. But women were forever and always subhuman.
Thus, any analysis of the teachings in, say, Ephesians, I
Corinthians, or I Peter, is ludicrously incomplete unless it includes
the historical background, including the legal status of women, children, and
slaves as the lawful property of freemen. If you are trying to convince anyone
outside of the Evangelical bubble of your position, you will look like a fool
if you ignore these historical and legal realities.
Saint Paul
was making a specific point
If you actually look at the context (historical and
grammatical) of what Saint Paul
was saying, his point becomes both clear and limited.
Women and men were already legally and culturally
related to each other in a way that the Christ/Church metaphor made sense.
Women at that time did indeed legally owe their husbands the same unquestioning
obedience as mortals owed God himself. They were, after all, the mere chattel
of their husbands. And universally believed to be mentally defective too.
Saint Paul
turned this on its head.
He made the bold, startling, and revolutionary
statement that husbands owed their wives the highest possible duty. They too
were bound to act with the same love and sacrifice as Christ himself!
Rather than treat women as chattel, godly men were to place
their own lives on the line. They were to love their women as they did their
own bodies.
This was a shockingly egalitarian statement at the time.
It is so very easy to forget that, and simply literally
apply the “women submit” thing to modern marriages without actually looking at
what Saint Paul
changed.
In every passage where Saint
Paul uses the metaphor, he is talking about how
husbands are supposed to sacrifice themselves for their wives and love her with
the highest love.
There is nothing shameful in this, even to the modern
egalitarian. If one might borrow from another passage, we are ALL to esteem the
other as better than ourselves.
The metaphor isn’t one of “this is how marriages are to
look,” but “this is how a genuinely Christian man is to act toward a woman.”
She isn’t chattel, or an inferior to be disregarded, but is to be treated as a
man’s own body: a freaking equal!
That is the main point of Saint Paul’s metaphor, not that
marriage must look this way or that way.
Let’s Not Forget Cupid and Psyche
C. S. Lewis wrote a brilliant and moving paraphrase of the
legend of Cupid and Psyche. You can read my review of Till We Have Faces here,
and I recommend that you also read the comments, because of the discussion
between me and another blogger about the implications.
In the original legend, Psyche, the mortal, must complete
several quests in order to become the bride of Cupid, a god. She is a mere
mortal, and must attain divinity in order to make an equal marriage with an
immortal. Cupid therefore “purifies” Psyche through these quests.
Surely Saint Paul
was familiar with this myth, which predates the New Testament, and he seems to
have borrowed it in his description of Christ and the Church. (As Lewis pointed
out elsewhere, a Myth may very well be true in some sense - poetical and
metaphorical.) It seems impossible that he would have been unaware of it (given
his education) and unlikely that he would have purloined the concept and the
language without some intent to utilize the myth for his own purposes.
And really, this is the other great bit about the
metaphor. Divinity stooped to become human, in order that humanity, somehow, in
a great “mystery” that we don’t understand, will become the “bride” of the
divine.
Psyche (the butterfly, the “soul”) becomes divine in order
to wed Cupid, the divine representation of love. In some way then, mortal
humanity (the “Church”) will become immortal - “divine” even - to wed the
ultimate being of love. This is a mystery indeed. And Saint Paul’s metaphor is thrilling in this sense.
Someday, we will become the partner of God Himself, one with our creator. And
somehow, we will transcend our human limitations to be a worthy partner. How
this occurs is, indeed, a “mystery” to be revealed in eternity.
But then, this transcendent mystery gets pilfered to
“prove” some point about gender hierarchy.
A revolutionary idea that men cannot treat women as
property, but must act with the love of God toward them; and a mystery of
oneness with our creator becomes twisted to “prove” that marriage must be a
particular way.
A particular way that by definition includes a
superior and an inferior party. One that paints men as god, and women as
lesser. By freaking definition.
My marriage cannot bear that burden.
And chances are, neither can yours.
Because men and women coming together to become partners on
the journey of life, following Christ as we we are called, and as we are
gifted, do not really demonstrate “Christ and the Church” that way. I do
indeed try to love Amanda as Christ loves the Church. But so does she!
Her love for me isn’t really different from my love for her, as we both
try to imitate Christ. Love and “godliness” aren’t really gendered. The Fruit
of the Spirit apply equally to each of us.
We are all mortals partnering to keep each other company on
the road to eternity, not godlike men cleansing our sinful women.
Metaphors are good as far as they go, but are dangerous
when stretched or misused.
This is why one gets into dangerous territory when one tries
to take a metaphor beyond the original intent to “prove” one’s view of gender
and sexuality.
I am reminded of a few other issues. Many of the metaphors
in Isaiah involve wine, which would have been useful and immediate to a culture based on grapes and wine,
but would be less, um, “useful” or understandable to the average teetotaling
Southern Baptist today. Likewise, many of Christ’s metaphors about sheep are
either lost upon modern city dwellers, or are grossly misrepresented by
preachers with little to no actual knowledge of sheep but great
knowledge of stock sermon illustrations that would seem stupid to any person
with actual knowledge of sheep. The metaphor is useful to a point, and to those
to whom it was directed. Were Christ or Saint
Paul here among us today, they probably would have
used different metaphors to illustrate spiritual truths. Metaphors that fit our
own culture and lives.
Even more to the point, Moses, Abraham, and Elijah were all
looked to as “prefigurations,” or perhaps “metaphors” of Christ himself. They
pointed the way.
However, the similarities become apparent only in
retrospect. They were not quite as obvious at the time. In fact, most took the
wrong lesson from Moses, Abraham, and Elijah. The popular Jewish conception of
the “Messiah” was so screwed up that they didn’t recognize Christ when he came.
Well, that and this important fact: Christ was a total surprise. His life and
ministry didn’t fit the older beliefs, the older metaphors. He changed
everything.
When you make the metaphor into the central truth, instead
of a way to understand that truth, you end up with nonsense like this that ends
up perpetuating the injustices of the past - exactly the opposite of Saint Paul’s intention.
Two equals, taking on the world together.
***
***
Just a few examples of what I described as the bizarre and
misogynistic views of Patriarchist/Complementarian theologians:
That’s John Piper’s website, BTW, so this is pretty
mainstream…
That link is from an interesting blogger. Some of us (myself
included) suspect he(she?) may be a ninja-level troll, repackaging Patriarchist
beliefs without all the nice doublespeak. Either way, each and every argument
here is familiar to me from my past.
***
A few links which are interesting:
Frank Schaeffer, who, like me, grew up in Fundamentalism,
and has rejected it, wrote an interesting little intellectual exercise on
this metaphor. After all, since I as a male am part of the
“bride of Christ,” does this make me part of a gay or bisexual marriage? Be
careful how far you stretch your metaphors...
I really need to credit the loathsome Doug Wilson for
helping me to see the poisonous root of Patriarchy. You want to see the
misogyny that results from misusing this metaphor? Here you go.
J. R. Daniel Kirk is a New Testament theologian who has
really helped me with the historical background. Here are three posts which
clarify the sexist basis on which the Ancient Near East and Greco-Roman views
of sexuality rested.
