“Uhm… No pastor”: A not-so-brief response to a sermon
So it was another day on Twitter, the birds were chirping, the fingers were typing, and somebody somewhere was pushing misogyny with their chest. And this was the tweet in response to this particular someone…
My amazement at the sheer level or misogyny did not subside and so that birthed a few more tweets in a thread.
But it wasn’t until the next day that one of my followers directed my attention to a blogpost about a certain celebrity pastor’s sermon. I want to add that this pastor is Nigerian but when it comes to making celebrities of pastors, who else does it like we do? That’s right, no one else.
The blog post was based off an excerpt of the sermon from the church’s website and was titled using (and not even paraphrasing) words from the actual sermon and it read: “Making woman was not God’s original plan.” Now I admit that this was me after reading it:
But I read on, for reasons I’m not too sure of; maybe I just like being angry and so I intentionally go for things that will piss me off or maybe it’s because I know how very male-centric a lot of Abrahamic religions are and so it could just have been misguided titling that ultimately was made right in the sermon. I prayed that the latter would be true. Spoiler alert: it was NOT.
And now I present to you my response piece to a sermon filled with an immense amount of pure malarkey for the most part. I will italicize the sermon paragraph and write my response(with the occasional picture) below it. And I want to play a game for those who have not read the sermon prior to this and say; read and guess who.
Now, ladies and gentlemen,
Husband does not mean the male partner in a marriage, husband means master.
*clears throat* Now that’s what I call a strong opener. But what would you say if I told you he was only half-wrong? The word husband has old-Norse origins. It is the combination of two words ‘hus’ meaning house, and ‘bondi’ meaning occupier or tiller of the soil. Now, Old Norse was spoken by the Vikings (they were around for about the 8th-11th century — so a LONG time ago), and they were quite heavy with the “male-hunter, farmer and female-home maker, gatherer” vibe so it’s easy to see why this combination morphed into “master of the house” because at the time, well, that was the norm. And at the time, a lot of the things that were the norm included preventing women from; holding titles, running for office, being a judge, being a witness (so she literally couldn’t be judge and jury even if she tried), owning property, speaking in assemblies, etc. Now, dear pastor, as much as it thrills me to know that you actually took the time to find out what the word husband is supposed to mean, I want to let you know that words are birthed and carry sentiments and quite fortunately, we do not share the same sentiments with the Vikings, we have moved on, maybe you should.
And because this is a Christian sermon, I would just like to point out that the husband IS, in fact, the male partner as we all remember Jesus mentioning that “two will become one.” This suggests a union of two FULL human beings who merge. Are you picking up what I’m putting down?
The reason for most problems in Christian marriages is the fact that women refuse God’s definition of marriage and form theirs. They believe they are equal partners.
Again with the “men and women are not equal partners in a marriage”
Please refer to Matthew 19:4–6 for the actual verses where Jesus makes it exceedingly clear that they are… And sir, the reason for most problems in Christian marriages is this here; where a man marries a woman and believes that because she is a woman, whatever goals, gifts, aspirations, needs, wants, etc. that she has have to come in second because as you have said (and he has listened) and I am sure you’ll say again soon “He is above her and she must submit.”
If most women had their fathers bold enough to talk to them, they will be very successful in their marriage and they will be very happy people. Most women have never been taught by their parents, their fathers particularly and that’s their biggest problem because they don’t know who a man is, they think he is another woman.
I read the last half of that last sentence and I just had to ask,
“They don’t know who a man is…” Who is a man? And staying in the context, who is a man that she is married to? He is a fellow human being (I add this because it is starting to feel like there’s some God-complex up in this space) that she loves and is supposed to love her entirely. A person who upholds her and whom she upholds as well. A person who has her best interests at heart. A person who, when he sees her excelling at what she wants, screams “YASSSS” in whatever way he knows how because he is her biggest fan. And this is where the general misogynistic view of men who do not feel the need to call women less or have this false macho-stance are called women or female in a bid to say that they are lesser men. What do you mean by “they think he is another woman”?
In marriage, you have the man who is the head of that union and because he’s the head of that union, its important to understand him. You think he’s the one that needs to understand his wife and that is where you are wrong. He will eventually but you have to know the type of man you are married to and his needs.
You know what? I’m not even going to try and dissect that first sentence. It has it problems but I could sorta live with it, if you added that it is also important to understand the woman. But you don’t (and you won’t) and so this is the reply I give to your “the man is the head.”
Now onto the rest of that atrocious statement. You literally just said that a husband, a man about to enter a life-long relationship with ups, downs and various roundabouts, does not need to understand his wife? I’m guessing the next statement was meant to cushion the effect of this thing you just said. But what exactly is “he will eventually”? He absolutely has to understand her when she is understanding him. Marriage is founded on the precept of love and love is a game that should be played equally or as equally as humanly possible, dear pastor.
Now this is a sidebar: if separated from the rest of that paragraph, I will want this statement to stand (with a few changes) as the only thing I agree with “You have to know the type of person you are married to and their needs.” And this holds true for many a marriage. Please try to ignore the pressure to get married and get to know exactly who you are about to make your partner for life. Find someone who understands you and whom you understand, this has to be like the base of any relationship. Please don’t play yourself…
When you say you are marrying a man, you are coming under his authority. The Bible says, the man is the head of the woman (1 Corinthians 11:3) so when you marry him you come under his authority, you are not authority sharers even though you are both heirs to the kingdom of God.
I love how it is so convenient to leave out certain verses when they really do put things in context. Now this verse you quote actually does say that. And I will let you hold on to that, but the following verses (1 Corinthians 11:4–5) say some things about “how to be” that you conveniently leave out because I guess it just messes with your mojo when you are preaching. Verse 4 says “ A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying.” And I know I have seen you preach with a cap on your head from your pulpit a few times. Verse 5 continues “ But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head.” But it is also true that you do not apply strict ‘head covering’ rules in your church as evident in the beautiful uncovered hairs of your female worshipers and then-wife who would even join you on the pulpit.
To be honest, this part is just to burst your balls. I am a Christian, a Catholic, and I know how certain things were written for certain times, and while I respect the scripture, I also do not appreciate your use of this verse in pushing this “A man must lord over his wife” agenda that, although you do not yet see how, is hurting a lot of marriages across this our already broken country.
And before I forget the whole “authority sharers” thing, are you suggesting that while the woman is a lesser being here on earth, she still, somehow, qualifies to be a — what’s the word I’m looking for, I’ve heard it a lot from pastors — co-heir with the man in heaven? Now I assume that is what you mean and that you are not suggesting that even in heaven, women will still have to be kept aside and trod upon because if you are, as a proud Catholic who is very aware of how powerful Mary is in heaven, I will have to fight you. So if men and women alike end up being “co-heirs” (I made that bold because I know you must have said that word at some point and the presence of the word “co” must really make your skin itch after saying all these things about men and women not being equal.), why do you feel it’s so important that they be put down in this world here?
When you decide not to subject yourself to that authority, you are a rebel and God is not going to accept what you are doing because you are not functioning correctly. Why did God make the woman?
You answer that last question in the next paragraph, let’s see it…
Making woman was not God’s original plan because after God created Adam and before He made Eve, He said in Genesis 1:31 “Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good”. God made woman because of man so woman was not His original idea. This is reality.
It wouldn’t normally make sense to try and argue scripture with a person whose job it is to read, dissect and preach it, but…
In the verses preceding Genesis 1:31, in particular Genesis 1:27 (which is basically the only arrow in my quiver — a strong one though), it says “So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them MALE and FEMALE.” and it was only after this that God looked upon it all and said “t’was good.”
You have stated here that God said that after he created Adam and before he created Eve and going by the arrangement of that first chapter of the Bible,
And coming from a pastor in the Pentecostal movement, which is known for always complaining about people not reading their bibles, it would seem that you have, very conveniently for you, turned certain scriptures to fit your rhetoric.
But no one is above mistakes pastor, not even you, so I know where this mistake came from. You tried to merge the ordeal in chapter 2 of Genesis, where the creation of man and woman is broken down, with this verse in chapter 1 where things are clearly being summarised quickly.
Also, about women not being God’s original idea, I put it to you that the God I have come to know and love is one that is omniscient, knowing all things, and I am pretty sure He knew He would still make the woman. So, don’t sell God short, He always knows.
And THIS is reality.
Genesis 2:18a “And the Lord God said “for it is not good for a man to be alone..” The Bible didn’t say “lonely” but “alone”. There is a big difference. Man wasn’t lonely but alone. Genesis 2:18b “…I will make him an help mate”. He didn’t say a partner or a supervisor or a special advisor or someone to tell him what to do.
Now this boils down to translation really. On the topic of helpmate, I have heard one too many preachers hammer on the help part of that word and stick with it. It is a word that was made up and used in the 17th century and even now, it‘s definition says “helpful companion”.
And I do stand by what God said, it is in fact not good for man to be alone, which is why we all exist; human interaction, the need for social living. Now you attempt to make this a thing about “man was fine on his own, God just thought ‘hey, why not just toss him a person to make his burden less’” and I put it to you that this is not the case. God lived in heaven with his angels and was aware of the dangers of being alone (or lonely, cos I think it really could have meant that and was translated differently), and so he said, “it is not good”, the same way it is also not good for you to now stand before people and tell women that “hey, you weren’t even supposed to exist, so you better do as I say.”
And as for you saying God didn’t make the woman to be a partner or supervisor, or someone to tell him what to do, God also did not make the man to be supervisor or someone to tell her what to do. So, by simple math and canceling out, the only logical thing left is “partner.”
I will make him someone to help him. God gave man a responsibility so woman was made to help man achieve that responsibility. If this is understood in every home then you won’t have problems.
My humble opinion…
I tell people that you don’t need a marriage seminar, you need the Word Seminar. Let me tell you, no husband wants another mother, he has had one all his life. He doesn’t want an older sister, he probably had one.
Your secret is in obedience, your secret is in listening to your husband, your secret is in doing the things that please him. When you don’t do the things that please him, you take the role of a mother or of an older sister.
Now, because you have not used any scripture to back up any of the claims in this paragraph and somehow expect your word to stand as law, I present to you a few words from the song “Oruka” by the legendary Nigerian musician Sunny Nneji. It goes:
You are her father and her brother
And her lover and her cover
And her teacher and her everything
She is your mother and your sister
And your lover and your cover
And your teacher and your everything
And this is what I choose to believe a marriage is, and this is why this song is still on my future wedding playlist. Sunny Nneji gets it.
A man loves the one he serves (God) and the one that serves him (a good wife). He fights the one that wants to be at the same level with him (a rebellious wife).
He fights? Now, whether or not you want to believe it, a man somewhere has listened to these words and has gone home to a wife who is fulfilling her destiny and begins to feel threatened whenever she so much as asks him to help her get a cup or anything of the sort. And following your advice/statement/suggestion, he will begin to fight, in several ways; with or without his hands. All because you told him that his wife can never be on the same level with him and the sad part is, he believes you.
To be happy in your family and home is the easiest thing in the world, just take your role. Take your place. That place that God gave you is a beautiful place. Its a place of peace. Its a place of love. It’s a place of excellence.
Well, of course, it is all these things as long as she shuts her mouth and serves her husband as her master. Right?
Everyone rebels against the voice that is trying to make a fool out of him. When you want to correct your husband, don’t lord it over him,present it as a wise suggestion. Humble yourself and be smart.
That first sentence I agree with totally. No one likes to be made a fool of. But all I see in this sermon is the pushing down and ultimately fool-making of women everywhere and for no other reason but for the fact that they are female. Your advice in the second sentence (and third, in fact) should be directed to both sides of the aisle. You don’t lord a correction over someone, no matter who you are, that’s just asshole behaviour to be honest. And every man, woman and child needs to humble themselves and be smart. Consider these changes for the next time you want to preach about happier homes, trust me, you’ll hear testimonies in a couple of days.
A wise woman will always be an influence to her husband, the foolish one will always annoy the husband, make him mad, make him angry and when you make him angry, you will be the victim. Learn to listen to your husband, practice it, tell yourself that you are going to do it because that is where your beauty is.
When I read “You will be the victim,” it was in two contexts. A victim of harm, i.e. when she makes him angry she will get hit or something of the sort (and while this is not a disclaimer I just want to put it out there that I am writing this assuming that provocation is from “not serving him like the master that he is or trying to be on the same level with him”) and the other context is that she will get sent out and will then be without a Mrs. attached to her name and in the Nigerian context, that is supposed to be like, the height of shame.
Her beauty lies in serving God, in doing good, in helping people, in loving her family, in loving everyone as Christ has loved her, in whatever else she chooses it to be, to be honest with you. And any husband that suggests otherwise is not worth listening to and not deserving of her beauty or love.
Once you stop listening, your beauty evaporates. You wonder why you are dressing and he can’t see it, he doesn’t remember your last hair style. Beauty is in obedience. That’s where the Glory is.
Ah… I love how this excerpt ends with this gem of misogyny here. A woman’s ‘beauty’ is what the world has proclaimed to be her Achilles heel, the one place you can strike/stroke and affect her. And so here you do it so masterfully. You tell her that her beauty cannot be seen by her husband because she does not serve him. Personally, I think him not remembering her last hair style is just a poor reflection of him and his memory. But nonetheless a marriage is a companionship. You do not risk one person not listening if you know that your marriage is based on love and is a partnership. When one person wants to be the ‘lord’, then you start to see rebellion, it is that simple. Allies don’t rebel against each other, subjects rebel against kings.
And so I put another change in wordings to you; Beauty is in obedience, of God and his law of love — to love everyone as we love ourselves. It is in this love that we find peace, that the world finds peace. In this love, that’s where the glory is.
Alleluia.
-E.M.
