Eph 4:21-33

A couple of weeks ago, the Baptist Blogger posted a video of a sermon preached in 2000 by fundamentalist SBC leader and president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Paige Patterson. In the sermon, Patterson related a story about a woman who sought his counsel concerning how to deal with her abusive husband. He advised her simply to pray, presumably in keeping with the fundamentalist dogma concerning “submission” to their husbands as the proper stance of Christian wives.  When she returned later with two black eyes to ask Patterson whether he was happy, according to Patterson’s sermon, he responded “’Yes . . . I’m very happy,’ because,” Patterson said, “her husband had heard her prayers and come to church for the first time the next day.”

Since the appearance of the blog post, controversy has swirled around Patterson in SBC life.  An open letter published May 6, 2018 signed by more than 2,500 Southern Baptist women objects to this sermon illustration and a number of other remarks Patterson has made about women over the years. This open letter, while refreshing, is rather surprising. Traditionally, Southern Baptists, along with other conservative and fundamentalist Christians, have espoused and glorified the doctrine that, in God’s ordained structure of gender relations, wives should “submit” (Eph 5:22) to their husbands “in all things” (Eph 5:24), indeed, that women generally ought not to have “authority” over men (1 Tim 2:12). The biblical and logical foundations of this “doctrine of female inferiority” (my term, not theirs) include: the observation that God created Eve after and from Adam (ignoring the Bible’s statement that God created humankind, male and female, in God’s image); the biblical statement that God created Eve to be Adam’s “helper” (Heb. k^enigdo; Gen 2:18) understood as “assistant” and not, as the Hebrew phrase arguably intends “(full-fledged) partner”; and the argument that Eve introduced sin into the world (overlooking, of course, the biblical assertion that Adam was “with her,” i.e. was fully “involved,” throughout the interaction with the serpent in the Garden; Gen 3:6).

The scope of a single blog entry does not permit me to offer a full treatment of the many exegetical and theological flaws in the “inferiority doctrine.” Instead, I will examine the interpretation of the key passage in Ephesians from two perspectives: the importance of literary context and, especially, the significance of common sense.

Proponents of the doctrine typically cite Eph 5:22-24 without consideration of either its wider context or immediate contexts in Ephesians. Throughout, the letter emphasizes the theme of “unity” which is not uniformity but mutuality (in Christ, Jews and Gentiles constitute one body, just as there is only one Spirit, one Lord, etc. – Eph 2:14-22; 3:6-12; Eph 4:4-6; 13, 25; this unity in Christ requires patient, sacrificial love one for one another – Eph 4:1-3, 16, 31-32; 5:1-2).  Ephesians 5:21-33, the immediate context of the call for wives to “submit” to their husbands, then, constitutes a very specific example of the book’s broader call for the loving consideration, one for the other, that characterizes life as members of the one body of Christ. Ephesians 5:21 first calls for every member of the body of Christ to “submit” to one another, mutually and non-hierarchically. Ephesians 5:23, 25-33 then describes the husband’s role, not as tyrant over, but as tender nurturer of, his wife. While elements of gender hierarchy persist in this metaphor, its comparison of husband and Christ implies the greater obligation on the husband, not just to submit but to sacrifice himself for his wife’s benefit. If husband and wife are truly “one flesh,” the husband’s true desires for his wife’s well-being are tantamount to his desires for his own benefit – and vice versa. Such a mutuality, an interfusion of submission/self-sacrifice for the common good, cannot result in black eyes for either party. This intimate mutuality, Ephesians maintains (5:21, 32), describes the proper inner life of the church, the body of Christ.

The sticking point in this interpretation of Ephesians 5:22-24, of course, involves the phrase “in all things” (v 24). Here one needs to call upon common sense as an aid. The text deals with Christian behavior, in philosophical terms, with Christian ethics. Ethical systems fall into three, perhaps four, major categories. Teleological ethics defines proper behavior in terms of the outcome: I should act in such a way that my actions will likely produce the greatest benefit.  Intentional ethics, which could be regarded a subset of teleological ethics, defines proper behavior in terms of the actors intentions:  an action is optimum ethically if the actor intends thereby to produce the greatest benefit. Ontological ethics defines proper behavior in terms of nature:  I should act in ways that express my true self; I should do what I am designed to do.  Ephesians, and the inferiority doctrine, both advocate a deontological (rules-oriented) ethic that defines proper behavior in terms of adherence to rules: women should “submit” to their husbands – always and in every case.

All of these ethical systems suffer from flaws.  Teleological ethics can degenerate into ends justify the means arguments, and ontological ethics must grapple, from a Christian perspective, with the fact that human nature is fallen, corrupted by sin. Deontological approaches confront the problem that human behaviors and interactions are so complex that no rule or set of rules can anticipate the myriad of permutations it should govern. A few examples will illustrate the shortcomings of strict adherence to rules – always and in every circumstance. In fact, such adherence can produce an ethical conflict in which adhering one rule requires violating another.

Children should obey their parents, generally; a child instructed to harm another person, physically or psychologically, or to commit a crime, should disobey.  One should drive on the right side of the road, generally; the left side is perfectly permissible when avoiding an obstacle or the danger of collision. The Torah asserts, “Thou shalt not kill,” but also makes provisions for the safety of an individual who killed unintentionally. One should tell the truth, generally; if, however, telling the truth will cause otherwise unnecessary harm, it is better to remain silent or even to whitewash the truth. Do not work on the Sabbath, generally; yet, Jesus, himself, argued for and practiced the principle that doing good, including sustaining one’s self and helping others, exercises a higher claim than even the literal wording of the Torah. If a woman’s husband expresses or demonstrates the intention to harm her or their children, her duties to love herself, certainly to protect her children, and even to protect her husband from committing a crime, far outweigh the duty to “submit” to him.

In fact, if, as I suspect, Ephesians has in mind a family system in which both husband and wife practice the intimate, redemptive mutuality it describes, it may also imply that the duty dissipates in marriages in which one party cannot reasonably expect such mutuality from the other.  I wonder if Patterson would tell the story of the woman who prayed with such pride if, instead of beating her, her husband had killed her. It seems to me that Patterson was complicit in the violence in any case.

I am happy to see Southern Baptist women awaken to the Gospel’s assurance of the equal worth of women and hope that they soon recognize all its implications.