God, we come together on this day because we need you, we need one another, we need to hear your word: Grant that if we hear it here, we may be so possessed by it, that we become servants of it, out in your world. AMEN

I wish that I could preach on the readings for today.  I love each of those readings and have preached on them before.  But I cannot preach on the Woman who annointed Jesus with precious ointment and more precious tears. I cannot preach on Paul's freedom in Christ. I cannot preach about King David and the God of Israel. I cannot preach about any of these texts because there is a more pressing matter.

As you may already know, the Southern Baptists  passed a 250 word resolution on marriage at their convention last Tuesday, the core of which asserted that, on the basis of a phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians 5:22, it was now an official teaching of the Southern Baptists that "wives ought to submit graciously to their husbands". I must preach on that action today because when I was ordained I signed a declaration stating that I do believe that the Old and New Testament do contain all things necessary for salvation.  I believed it then and I believe it now.  But I don't read the bible the same way the Southern Baptists do, and neither does the Episcopal Church.

So now that you know I'm passionate on the subject at hand, I am going to show you how the passage from Ephesians has been misread, misunderstood, and misapplied by the Southern Baptists. I am going to use nothing other than Paul's letter to the Ephesians, just as they did, but I come to a very different conclusion. I have given you each a photocopy of chapters 5&6 so you can watch me work and you can take it home with you. We can not ignore nor dismiss this resolution, because to do so is to surrender Scripture to those who misread it. On the positive side, we can see in our tradition and pastoral ministry an expression of the gospel of hope and joy.

What the Southern Baptists did was to use a bible verse as what's called a "proof text" to support their declaration. This is a bad thing to do.  It's bad because when you take the text out of the context, you're quoting the bible, but you are not speaking the gospel.

The fifth and sixth chapters of Ephesians  have been notoriously misread, misunderstood, and misapplied because of "proof-texting". The notion that one can use bible verses in this fashion arises from an approach to Scripture that says Scripture is the words of God which we are to take as meaning what they say and saying what they mean. A verse is lifted out an used as a scriptural warrant, or source of authority, without concern for the original placement, intention, or meaning of the passage.  This is applying Bible texts in a "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" literal-minded way, without nuance or context.
 
 "Proof-texting"  is different from scriptural affirmations or references. I do not mean to suggest that one should never quote Scripture or paraphrase it. Paul himself quotes the creation story from Genesis 2:24 and Exodus 20:12 as we'll see. But you can't use the text outside a related context or the true meaning is lost. Two examples familiar to us are the "Comfortable Words" on page 332 in the BCP and  Collect 59 on page 832, which is a paraphrase of Isaiah 26:3 and 30:15.
 
Now let's look at the proof text: Eph. 5:22. It's there in black and white for all to read,  "Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord". What more is there to say?  Well, first of all, let's be sure that we want to read the Bible this way, in detached verses.. If we do, then what shall we make of other texts? For example, Deuteronomy 22:5, "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord." I hope for your sakes, ladies, that none of you is wearing trousers!  For my part, I know my Scots forbears are writhing in their tombs!  Even my vestments are questionable. Verse 11 applies to those who wear blended fabric, "You shall not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together".

But if we look to see what Deuteronomy 22:5 and 11 mean by what they say, exploring the context of the text, we discover that this prohibition on clothing has to do with keeping pure and undefiled as an Israelite in a culture surrounded by hostile people.  Clothes are the means to an end, not the end itself.  Now, the context of Eph. 5:22 is  suggested by the previous verse, 5:21, "Be subject to one another out or reverence for Christ".  If that is the context, then our text about marital relations is intended by Paul an illustration of his primary point, it is not a directive in and of itself.

But why is Paul interested in offering this illustration?  The next  ten verses show us that he is working hard to find a way to talk about two things: human relations within the Ephesian community as they await the return of Christ at any time; and linking marriage to the creation story in Genesis and to the teaching of Jesus that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves.  Who is one's nearest, dearest, neighbor—one's spouse! Not quite the image of being master of a household, nor a defense of a fading cultural role in the U.S. which the proof-text application of 5:22 implies, is it? Is Paul's argument clean and obvious? No; that's why he spends so many words about husbands not being domineering.

Look at 6:5, "Slaves be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, in fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ". I cannot tell you the number of the obscene misuses of this text, but never doubt that as a proof-text, it was a cornerstone of the slave holders' and the Church's defense of slavery for centuries here and abroad! Does anyone seriously think Paul is defending of slavery here? Can I make it any plainer? When you take the text out of the context, you quote the Bible but you're not speaking the gospel!

Paul's wider concern gets expressed at the beginning of Chapter 5. "… be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God".  Then, in 5:15, "Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil." Now close with 6:12, "for we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness…" Paul is proposing how the Ephesian Christians can live as a community of believers looking for the imminent return of Christ in the cosmic struggle of the last days.
In this situation, earthly social circumstances and human institutions are to be endured and even redeemed within the Christian community as things which are passing away.

I have made a case for saying that the proof-texting approach to Scripture severely compromises the gospel message, and I have argued that even with using only the text of Ephesians, the Southern Baptist Convention resolution is a profound distortion of Paul's intention.  Is there a view of marriage that the Episcopal Church upholds?  Absolutely.

Turn to page 423 in the prayerbook, please.  This is the opening exhortation to the marriage service.  Notice half way down the page, where it reads, "It (Marriage) was intended by God for their mutual joy…"and so on.  This statement, and the choices of readings and the prayers combine to offer  a view of marriage that is based in our Christian roots, but is new and fresh for our time.  There are three elements to the Episcopal Church's view of marriage, as some of you have heard me speak about before.

First, Christian marriage—that is, Holy Matrimony—is a vocation. It is a way of life God calls some people into as a way to deepen their relationship with God, to fulfill their own aspirations, and to participate in God's work in another person's life and in the world.

Second, marriage is a companionate relationship of equals. The vows and obligations are identical. Children are neither expected nor required as the goal of marriage.  There is no assumption about who will be the primary child care giver, who will work outside the home, who will make the larger income, etc.

Third, marriage is an evangelical calling.  Read the lessons appointed and the prayers provided. A major focus is on proclaiming the gospel in our lives, by word and deed, so that other people will look upon married Christians and want to ask, who is Jesus?

This is no defensive, rigid role-playing Christianity, nor is it some shallow, shapeless, do- what-you-like "Church of what's happening now".  Nearly two thousand years after Paul, we are no longer a new and marginal community of faith expecting the return of Jesus in glory at any time because the end of the present age is at hand. We are people of " the old, old story of Jesus and His love", which we still offer with the same ardor and hope as in former times. For we know that all things are being brought to their perfection by Him through Whom all things were made.
Until then, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we read Scripture as it was written for the time in which it was written in order to read the signs of the present time and to bear witness to Jesus Christ in our own day.  To do this faithfully and well, we must never surrender the gospel to those who simply quote the Bible, for then we lose our roots while they produce no true fruit, and the world suffers without a witness to Christ. In every generation, Christ must be proclaimed afresh, with false teaching overcome and true witness given. We each have opportunities to make a witness on wrong readings of Scripture from time to time. The Southern Baptist Convention resolution is just such an occasion. Christ has asked His friends to share the truth.  With God's help, and with Scripture and the prayerbook, we can tell the truth on this subject. (I would be happy to have conversation with anyone about this subject and to refer people to other resources as well). God bless our witness, one and all.  AMEN
 

(Announcement time story)
When I read the story about the Southern Baptist convention resolution in Wednesday's New York Times, I noticed that the text of the resolution was immediately followed by an ad that began with a declaration in huge, eye-catching letters that dragged your eyes to it. The ad reads, "THIS IS FUNGUS" and goes on to offer some medical remedy in smaller print. I don't know the lay-out editor of the NYT, and I don't know whether that person made a decision to put the ad in that place or if it was the work of the Holy Spirit.
 

• Louie Crew's Anglican pages.
• Louie Crew's home page.
• Send mail to: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.