Submit to Being Submissive

This past week at Bible study, we got a bit off topic - as usual - and the discussion led to that "infamous" passage in St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians:

Wives should be submissive* to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is submissive to Christ, so wives should be submissive to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church,  because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33)

*This word is translated differently depending on what translation you use, sometimes as "subordinate" or "subject". While these words are all synonyms, I am using "submissive" in this case because it is easier to see the point!

These words have a tendency to make feminists cry out in protest, and the average woman in the pew uneasily shift in her seat. People who hear this passage read at weddings start to squirm, thinking, What is this woman signing herself up to do?! Many priests just avoid preaching about this passage altogether, and some that I've heard mention it in passing just to reassure women that Paul doesn't actually mean that you have to submit to your husband, and they leave it at that.

I used to be one of those squirming pew-sitters. Love my husband? Sure. Make sacrifices for him? I can do that. But be submissive? That seems a bit extreme.

It was when I became more interested in learning more about my Catholic faith, encountering Theology of the Body and the role of the Church, that I realized that when Paul writes that "wives should be submissive to their husbands," he actually means it. Scripturally, this is not a unique concept:

• Wives should be submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited. (Titus 2:5)
• Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands. (1 Peter 3:1)
• So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.(1 Peter 3:5)
• But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)
• Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Col 1:18)

However, Paul takes it to the next level and explains in Ephesians exactly what it means for a wife to be submissive to her husband.

The word "submissive" translates to "under the mission of", and so for a wife to be submissive to her husband means that she puts herself under the mission of her husband.

So what is this mission of the husband?

Paul explains that the mission of the husband is to love his wife, as Christ loves the Church. Loving her to the point of making a complete, total, and free gift of self for her good. Loving her by making whatever sacrifices are necessary so that she is made holier, to help her to get to Heaven. Loving her as he loves his own self, by nourishing her and cherishing her. Self-sacrificial love for his wife is the mission of the husband, and the wife is to be submissive to his love.

This kind of submissive? I can totally submit to that idea.

It is only when we take this passage of Scripture in context and "speak in reference to Christ and the church" that the idea of a wife being submissive to her husband doesn't sound so repulsive to the modern female. On the contrary, it sounds kind of perfect. Sign me up!

Since I learned Paul's meaning in this letter, I have had a few opportunities to share my excitement over this knowledge with others. This isn't a new interpretation, but one that seems to get passed over in Christian circles today. You could see the lights click on for others in the room when our priest explained this passage to our Bible study group. We even had a Protestant joining us this past week, and he remarked that he had never thought about the passage in that way, but found this interpretation enlightening and refreshing.

This is when it clicked for me - why I, and many others, never really encounter the true meaning of Paul's words. I was raised Catholic, but I hardly ever encountered the idea of the Church as the living Bride of Christ. While most Protestant denominations recognize "a church", they don't recognize the Church as Christ's beloved.

The Catholic Church: She's not just a building.

When we are not taught, forget, or completely lose the meaning of the role of the Church as Christ's wife, we are missing out. Protestant denominations are especially lacking, as it is difficult to fathom this passage in such a positive, loving light because they don't witness the Church as the mystical body of Christ. In order to not read this passage as a slight slap in the female face, you have to understand that Christ didn't just give a complete gift of himself to each of us as individuals, but instead to his Bride, the Church. This beloved Bride continues to live as the body of Christ today, continuing to openly receive Christ's total gift of love. The Church continues to submit herself to the mission of Christ, just as a wife should be submissive to her husband. In this light, this is the only way that Paul's words make sense. As members of the body of Christ, it should be our mission to submit our hearts to the mission of Christ, which is carried out each day in his Bride, the Catholic Church.

7 Quick Takes Friday (#17)

Conversion Diary

1. I think regular readers will get that I am a fan of Catholic Answers Live by now, but I listened to a great one on Mormonism this week. I learned so much I didn't know before, about spirit brothers and changing doctrine... oh goodness. I can understand how many Protestants believe that they're trying to be the true faith by (incorrectly) going back to the way the early church was in separating from the Catholic Church, but by having that you can change doctrine in your doctrine... how can you even claim to be the only true faith? I would like to be enlightened on this topic. (Right click on the Mormonism link and Save As... if you want to listen to it on your iPod or download to your iTunes).
2. For those of you who haven't seen these videos yet, be sure to check them out. Lila Rose alluded to these videos she had coming out when I heard her speak at FOCUS conference and she said they were BIG. Well, she was right. Let's see if the law officials actually do anything about it this time...
3. I just had one of those starts to my Friday morning. You know the one where I have to treat my 18 and 19 year old college students like first graders? Yea, that one. To me, it's pretty simple. You don't talk amongst yourselves when I'm going over a quiz or lecturing on material. If you're going to talk, don't talk loud enough that I can hear you. Well, not only did I have to say that I would break up this "talk fest" - which they thought was *hilarious*, by the way - if I had to, I then had to say when I turned back to the chalkboard and they started talking again that just because my back was turned didn't mean my ears stopped working. Any ideas on how to earn more respect from them without going all first grade teacher on them? I didn't have issues with this last semester at all.
4. I saw The King's Speech yesterday and it was really good. I highly recommend it. It's easy to see why it's been nominated for so many awards, and Colin Firth totally deserves to win, as does Geoffrey Rush in his supporting role. It also throw some great history into it as well. Check out the trailer:
 
*Note: For those of you worried about the R rating, it's because Colin Firth's character drops the F bomb multiple times in a row - it's one of his methods for getting words out - see, he doesn't stammer when he curses. Otherwise, it's a clean movie!
5. I have a lot of things that I need to get started on that aren't due for awhile but will quickly start to pile up... but I'm finding it difficult to get motivated. Any ideas?
6. Has anyone seen The Rite yet? I got a free pass and will probably go this weekend. I would post the trailer, but I feel like this post is already so YouTube heavy...
7. It's the weekend! On the to-do list this week: finish up an application, write a lab report, pick a topic for my presentation, clean like a madwoman, go through my old clothes and find stuff to give away, hang out with some friends, and sleep. Whew. 

My Christmas Pet Peeves

I love the Christmas season, but there are also a lot of things about it - well, more the way that people react to and celebrate the season - that irk me. No, I'm not just talking about the extra long lines at Target when all I want to get are some new pairs of black tights. I'm not even going to mention the annoying "Christmas" songs that are played on the radio (Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer? Really?! How on earth does that celebrate the Christmas cheer?! It makes no sense!). I won't even go into the fact that the whole feeling of Christmas seems to dissipate like magic on December 26th (Forget that whole 12 Days of Christmas to which my true love subscribes). No, I will restrain my thoughts (for today) to just two points:

1. People who write or say "Xmas" - Yea, sure, we all love shorthand these days. We are, after all, waaaay too busy to actually write an additional 5 letters, and cutting those out saves us a lot of time that we can use instead for clogging up the line at Target, decorating the whole house to beat the neighbors for brightest house on the street, taking those coveted winter naps, updating our blogs about what annoys us about people during the Christmas season, etc. But what we do by saying "Xmas" is take the Christ out of Christmas.* And that really rubs me the wrong way... for the right reasons. Christ is the reason for the season, or so they say, so can we stop trying to delete him from the celebration? I mean, after all, we wouldn't have Christmas if it weren't for, well, the birth of Christ. Otherwise, December 25th would be just like the 24th and the 26th, another ordinary day. So please, can we just say and write Christmas? It really only takes an additional 0.5679 milliseconds.**

*Upon further research, I discovered that "X", which is the Greek letter chi, is the first letter in "Christ" in Greek, and that is where "Xmas" originates (supposedly, but who trusts Wikipedia?! - more on that in a later footnote). However, we speak English, not Greek, and "X" to us Americans means to cross something out (or if you're a pirate, the place of your buried treasure). That, and most people who say Xmas have no knowledge of Greek and/or etymology (which I don't either!) and so cannot claim this as their reason for saying Xmas. Now, if you're a Greek scholar, etymologist, linguist, etc. then you may make a valid argument and it will no longer irk me if you say it. But no one else!


**OK, as a scientist, I should not quote numerical values that are not accurate and/or precise. (Let's hope none of my students are reading this.) But I don't have a stopwatch handy with enough precision to calculate how much longer it actually takes to say "Christmas" versus "Xmas". Furthermore, the time difference it takes to write these two words would also depend on the person, which just introduces way too much variability into the experiment for this chemist's personal comfort. So we'll just have to live with my educated guess.

2. People who get disturbed by "Xmas" but forget about the etymology of the second part of Christmas - In reference to my first pet peeve, I love when people recognize that Christ belongs in Christmas. But what about the rest of the word? I really have to wonder sometimes where they think "mas" originates. According to Google, "mas" generates the following top hits:

• Mas (farmhouse) - Greenwich Village French American Restaurant - Hmmm, well as much as I picture French country houses made of stone and restaurants in Greenwich Village when I think of Christmas, I'm just not feeling this etymology.
• The Muslim American Society - I don't think I need to provide any sort of explanation in order to rule this one out as an option.
• Malaysia Airlines - Nope, they probably can't even fly on Christmas due to weather conditions and fear of Santa not filing a proper flight plan.

Wikipedia even lists some meanings for the word "mas" - like an album by Spanish singer Alejandro Sanz or a fictional superhero from Teen Titans.The abbreviation MAS has meanings in computing, science, politics, and academics... the list just goes on. 

Yet, none of these seem even remotely acceptable. So what, just what, could be the origin of the rest of the word "Christmas"? I can hear you begging through the cyberwaves - please, oh please, tell us the answer already! Let's turn to trusty*** Wikipedia:

The word Christmas originated as a compound meaning "Christ's Mass". It is derived from the Middle English Christemasse and Old English Cristes mæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038. "Christes" is from Greek Christos and "mæsse" is from Latin missa (the holy mass).

Intriguing! What is this "holy mass" to which they are referring? Well, if we continue to trust Wikipedia's basic knowledge, we will discover that the holy Mass refers to the Eucharistic celebration and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church! Let the trumpet blasts, bells ringing, and other exciting sounds of wonder and awe ensue. We have finally figured it out! The origin of the second part of the word Christmas refers to the Mass! I, personally, feel much more enlightened now (no, I actually do).

But to my point, yes, keeping Christ in Christmas is important, but where can we encounter Christ in his perfect sacrifice - body, blood, soul, and divinity? Why, the Mass! Without his birth, there could be no sacrifice, and therefore could be no celebration of the Mass. And so, we come full circle. Christmas is the celebration of his birth in light of the redemption of mankind, and we are able to experience this, along with all the angels and saints in heaven, through the Mass. So I ask everyone out there - why wouldn't you want to recognize and celebrate all of Christmas - not just the "Christ" part but the "mas" part too?

I honestly don't know the answers to this, but I am curious. Until I come to understand the reasons that each person has behind not wanting to experience the Mass (or even better, until everyone is evangelized and becomes Catholic!!!!), it will continue to irritate me just a bit when people complain about taking Christ out of Christmas but ignore the act of taking Mass out of Christmas. However, I will bite my Christian tongue from making a snide or sarcastic retort and instead try to use these moments as learning experiences. It only takes one person at a time to change the world, bit by bit. Let us pray that our society can return to the true origins and meaning of Christmas, in its entirety.

***I usually turn to Wikipedia in my moments of forgotten knowledge (which, let's face it, don't really happen too often) and when I need to find basic information on a topic to get me started (I never cite it in a scientific paper... doesn't mean I didn't start my search there, though!). However, I was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, when I read part of the thread on Christmas. I quote:

...several similar mythological figures, known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas and Santa Claus among other names, are associated with bringing gifts to children during the Christmas season.

I'm sorry... did I miss the memo? When did Saint Nicholas become a "mythological figure"? The last I checked, St. Nicholas was a bishop in the 3rd and 4th centuries who was known for leaving secret gifts in little children's shoes. He also happens to have numerous miracles attributed to his intercession. I, for one, happen to know that he exists because every year on his feast day (December 6th), I get fun treats in my stocking. He even used to give me Beanie Babies! (who knows how long I'd been praying for one of those before I finally got one in my stocking. They were all the rage when I was in elementary school. Everyone had one... or a few hundred. Except me.) So, no, Wikipedia, St. Nicholas is NOT a mythical figure. Think of all the hopes and dreams that were just ruined for all the youth who read Wikipedia articles on Christmas! Next thing you know, you're going to claim that the tooth fairy doesn't really have wings but instead drives an unusual flying motorcar to get from house to house! Actually, that wouldn't surprise me now that I watch that video... Truly Scrumptious could totally be the tooth fairy. She even has the name for it! Tricking children into eating treats so she gets their teeth earlier... despicable.

Grilled Cheesus

The theme on last night's episode of Glee was faith, spirituality, and religion. It was called "Grilled Cheesus", and while I don't recommend praying to a grilled cheese sandwich to win a football game, it did bring up some interesting ideas... about what leads people, especially youth, to God, and more importantly, what continues to keep them away from God's love.

The main plot line in this episode was Kurt's dad suffering from a heart attack that also cut off oxygen from his brain, leaving him in a coma. While this suffering brought out a desire for faith in many of the characters, it seemed to push Kurt away from believing in God even more.

It brought up the idea of suffering, which is something that we've been discussing a lot at Bible study, in homilies, and just in conversations with others at the Newman Center. I can understand why having something so awful to someone you love so much would make you question if God exists, question why someone who is supposed to love you that much would do something that causes so much pain. I think what the episode started to touch upon though was the idea that suffering exists in our world because it unites us. It brought so many of the characters together, even though they were of different faiths, in prayer for Kurt's dad. It made them realize that while they might have struggles in their lives, they still have a wonderful life to live. However, I think it stopped short and missed the big picture - that we suffer so that we can not only come closer to God but so that we can share in Christ's suffering for all of us. When we suffer, we don't feel even a splinter of what Jesus went through in the Passion, but we know that there is at least one being out there in the world that has experienced and understands our pain.

It was ultimately Kurt opening his heart a tiny bit to believe in something he couldn't see or touch or feel, but something he knew existed - and that was his relationship with his dad. I am interested to see if they bring the issues they touched upon in this episode up again, or if it will just be another thought-provoking episode.

"Isn't it just possible that you are missing the point and that Jesus is an elephant?" and other fun quotations

I strongly encourage you to check out this blog post over at GW Catholic Forum (well, check them all out while you're over there!). It mentions a segment from The Colbert Report where Stephen Colbert defends the faith against an author who has written a book about religions of the world. I really enjoyed the video, and since I had nothing better to do... I went and found some more. So here are a few videos for your viewing pleasure.

Stephen Prothero, author of God is Not One from June 14, 2010.

I am intrigued by his statement about Judaism - that they don't have this "idea" of sin. If you break the Mosaic Law, then it's just a "whoops" as opposed to a sin? He talks about it as an "exile from God" and a desire to return to God, but isn't that what sin is, at least in the Christian sense? I would like to be further enlightened on this concept.

And Christianity is "losing marketshare"? What?!

Best line (in response to his comment above): "Jesus always wins in the end. I mean, Jesus loves to run up the odds, you saw what he did last time he was here, he let them think he had him on the ropes. But three days later, boom!, he comes back, they clean up at the table... and that will be the case, forever after!"

Colbert Report: Stephen Prothero
- Watch more Funny Videos at Vodpod.

Bart Ehrman, author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) from April 9, 2009.

This guy just irks me a bit. In addition to Colbert pointing him in the direction of John in response to the divinity of Christ, I would also like to point out the covenants that God made, specifically with David:

'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.' (2 Samuel 7:11-16)

That's me putting what we've been learning in Bible Study to good use!

But I really like Colbert's analogy of the four blind men and the elephant in a hole... it is just like when a cop is questioning witnesses to a crime - if all of their stories are exactly the same, doesn't that come across as suspicious, as if they rehearsed their responses together to make it appear as if they were telling the truth? Doesn't the fact that each witness has a slightly different perception of the events that happened, where each focused on what he found important versus what a different observer found significant, make the words not only more truthful and believable, but provide the complete story? Just a thought, Dr. Ehrman, just a thought...

Colbert Debates The Bible with Bart Ehrman
- Watch more Funny Videos at Vodpod.

Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect from February 11, 2008.

I would like to read this book. I feel like this exact experiment was in an episode of Veronica Mars. I think his probably came first, but I think I will probably still like the VM version better.

The end of this segment is great. "You send yourself to Hell, God does not send you there."

I think I would be slightly intrigued/scared to be in Colbert's Sunday School class!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Philip Zimbardo
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

While I am not endorsing all that Colbert says, I find his take on defending the faith very refreshing.