Video Transcript: Q & A with Henry Reyenga

Henry - I'm excited about talking about this passage because this has created so much  controversy. And I remember growing up, my dad had his spin my mom read it this way. And  as a pastor, over 35 years, it seemed like people would divide along this. And what I liked  about hearing what you're talking about and looking at the code of the household codes, and  and see how here's a very practical application of the household codes, and then to see the  hermeneutic issues and everything. What I'm fascinated about is something you said it starts  out submit to another as to the Lord. So first of all, it levels the playing field So we're going to  talk about household codes. But the first statement takes us and takes the readers who heard this, you know, all of a sudden they're noticing aren't they?  

Carolyn - Yeah, and then and then it attacks the social reality that they know, and humanizes  it in a marvelous way, right?  

Henry - So in other words, you know, the Social Code as husband, you are potestus, you are  head of everything, but I'm going to shade it differently. It's no your servants of everything.  You're the responsible one, you take the bullet first, metaphorically, okay. So  

Carolyn - I mean to learn your wife as Christ loves, loves the church, okay, come on.  

Henry - Then, then it goes into the social structures, you know, the children relationships,  Social Code, household code, and then it goes into the slave thing. Slavery, enslaved people,  discussion, but then it ends back to where it almost begins. Know that you have God  

Carolyn - you have a master in heaven,  

Henry - who sees everything and does not show partiality. Okay, so now, it's like when you  think about this, all or nothing, it is all or nothing because God is our Lord and Savior. In every decision we make is I reflect Carolyn on my life as a husband. And I look back and early on,  you know, I don't know where we heard it, if it was the sermon, that there's like the headship  card to play. We discussed it, but I remember early in marriage, and I said, I'd never want to  play, I want to serve you in such a way that I will not ever need to play the headship card.  Like if there's a decision that we have, we have to find a way to get consensus, and pray more about it hold off the decision, they will only be like, Absolutely, we have to make a decision.  So if I must take that responsibility, I must. But in the end, I want to have a collaborative  marriage, where I love you and I have you on board and you're, I'm on board with you submit  to one another out of Christ. And you know, that headship principle today is so interpreted in  various ways.  

Carolyn - For sure. There is I said, very problematic, very dangerous, because people tend to  get just like maybe one statement, they're not looking at the whole context of it.  

Henry - What would you say? Is that in terms of the household codes? Are they pretty much  underneath so much of what we read with practical application is made, whether it's family,  whether it's local church situations, are the household codes, pretty formative. And as Paul's  

discussing things, I mean, he does just this one thing, but there are certain things that are  behind these things that maybe we lose, if we just read it. You know see the words today in  the translation it's lost in translation.  

Carolyn - In some ways, it is yeah, I think that Paul is, is very concerned to to bring the  principles of the gospel that he preaches into everyday life into practice and, and he  recognizes as does everybody else, that those are those three relationships, you know, that  that it was in the household? Interesting, it doesn't say anything about freedmen and  freedwomen because, as I've explained previously, there's also a relationship that continues  there with them, but that But Aristotle didn't know that. And so, and I think Aristotle really is 

the he's the shadow behind all of that because everybody read him and everybody tries to  interpret and adapt and that's suppose  

Henry - what you're really saying get this what Carolyn's saying in this case so in our  generation there was Spock, Dr. Spock who wrote on child raising and back in the 1980s and  that, I mean, everybody I knew read how to do child raising. So you're saying like child  raising, according to Aristotle is in everyone's knowledge and it's the husband is this, this is  this, this is this. And then everybody knows that and here comes submit to one of one another out of reverence for Christ.  

Carolyn - Another thing is, and we've talked about this earlier, the number of women who  actually were running households, that's not envisioned in this at all you what you have to  realize here is this is not this is prescriptive, not descriptive. And it's somebody's idea that  

goes all the way back to us Aristotle about how the well run household happens is done, how  it's run. There are anomalies all over the place. I mean, there are households that are not  organized this way, there are households that are run by women. And, you know, and then  what happens with with all of this ideology, we don't know. In other words, there's much more fluidity in in real life than is reflected in the text.  

Henry - So Paul goes to the more fluidity thing about the principle that guides us the Lord is  our Lord, in all of our relationships we're not to show partiality, because we have so and I  think of so many that are in ministry, training you're a single mom, and you're called to  ministry. And so this idealistic sort of scenario is not even in your scenario or you're a single  father or you are someone who doesn't fit any look that we would traditionally see in terms of  roles and so forth. And yet the principle really comes down to is Christ is our Lord.  

Carolyn - Absolutely, for everybody,  

Henry - for everybody. Well, thank you very, very encouraging, and we look forward to seeing  what's coming next.