BYOB: Peter
1 Peter 3:1-7
August 8, 2004
St. John United Methodist Church
David Beckett, D.Min.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

{3:1} Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct, {2} when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

It is vitally important that we spend some time understanding the context of this scripture. Remember that Peter is in Rome. The men in Roman households did not approve of their wives being seduced by bizarre foreign cults. Christianity was viewed as one of many cults spreading its tentacles across the Roman empire. This is the likely reason Peter is addressing this issue.

Let’s say a word about authority. Early Christians like Peter felt there was a logical connection between human authority and God’s authority. If we were to picture it there would be God at the top, then government, then husbands, then wives. Obeying the next level of authority helped Christians live under the authority of God. Wives were to be obedient not for the sake of the husband but for the sake of God. How Christians lived out their faith would be a witness to others, especially unbelieving husbands, to win them over to Christ.

It is clear that in this culture women were valued for their quiet, submissive role in the family. Social expectations were such that women were to be in the background. It reminds me of modern middle Eastern Islamic culture. Whenever I see a TV image of Muslims praying, or chanting, or protesting, there are never any women around. It’s all about the men.

Remember when Sarah laughed at God when she was told that she would have a child in her old age? She became a model for right conduct because obedience to Abraham was seen as obedience to God.

When Peter writes that husbands are to pay "honor" to their wives, he uses the same word used to tell Christians what is due the king in 2:17. The reference to women being the weaker sex is likely a physical reference and perhaps due to their vulnerability in that culture.

The notion that one’s prayers are related to faithful behavior was a popular early Christian belief.

I want to talk with you about the intersection of Christianity and the human culture in which we live. How is God’s desire for how we are to live affected by the values and customs of our human societies? I have a jar of smelly water here. If I pour some of this strong perfume into the water, will the perfume change the smell of the water? Or will the water dilute the scent of the perfume? As Christ-followers, are we being influenced by the world? Or are we influencing the world?

How do we accept the authority of scripture for our lives when much of its truth is filtered through a human culture that was not based on the equality of all people but dominated and ruled by males? Do we really believe that the truth of God was never diluted when men wrote these stories and letters that now make up our Bible? If you believe in the literal authority of scripture then how do you deal with Paul’s writing that women are to be silent in church, or to cover their heads? Peter wrote that women should not braid their hair. Is this a God-truth that is absolute and eternal no matter what the culture?

Theologian, H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic, "Christ and Culture," discusses these questions. The first answer is in a chapter titled, "Christ Against Culture." This view clearly draws a distinct line between Christ and culture and is probably the dominant Christian view even today. The line is drawn in such a way as to see human culture as alien land where we must live for awhile. And this world is not a hospitable place for Christians. That’s because our true home is the kingdom of God.

This view of Christ and culture helped spawn the monastic movement in the Egyptian desert. When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire in the 4^th century there was a sudden increase in membership and money from wealthy Romans who began to build beautiful church buildings. These new converts had no history of being persecuted, no experience of Christ against culture. So many "Christ against culture" Christians moved far away to the desert in order to retain their pure experience of God without cultural influences.

A story is told of a prophet who entered a city to convert its people. At first the people listened to his sermons, but they gradually drifted away till there was not a single soul to hear the prophet when he spoke. One day the prophet was in the town square shouting a sermon quite loudly. A traveler said to him, "Why are you shouting?" Said the prophet, "In the beginning I hoped to change these people. Now that they no longer listen I shout only to prevent them from changing me."

Those with a "Christ against culture" view see the world as working against what God wants to do in our lives. Surely, even in our time, one can make a strong case that cultural influences do have power to influence us to be jealous at what we don’t have, vengeful towards those who hurt us, and apathetic towards the needs of the poor.

Parents today often feel that one of their primary roles is to protect their children from the negative influences of culture. It used to be that culture reinforced the values taught at home. To be sure conformity was expected but the values and the security were there as well. Today parents often report feeling overwhelmed from battling the negative influences of culture. Kim and I are nearing the end of this parenting battle and I, for one, am tired of the cultural fight.

Another view according to Niebuhr is "Christ of culture." With this approach there is no tension between the church and the world. People with this view take from scripture and Christian doctrine what agrees with culture. Niebuhr writes, "They do not seek Christian sanction for the whole of prevailing culture, but only for what they regard as real in the actual." The "Christ of culture" position points out that Jesus was relevant to his time, that he affirmed the laws of his society, and that he showed a concern for the peace of his home.

With the "Christ against culture" view Christians did not participate in the cultural political process because they recognized only God’s authority. With the "Christ of culture" view, following Jesus meant participating in cultural life. Remember when the disciples told a man casting out demons using the name of Jesus? Jesus rebuked his disciples for their presumption. "Christ of culture" advocates simply try to look for the kingdom of God within their culture.

The third view is "Christ above culture." Niebuhr writes, "The fundamental issue does not lie between Christ and the world, important as that issue is, but between God and man." This view attempts to extract humanity from its culture to make it a purely spiritual issue. Christians can never be truly happy in this life. True happiness is a gift of grace by God through Jesus Christ and will be enjoyed in heaven above. This view is similar to the "Christ against culture" position, but with a different emphasis. The material world is seen as working against the ways of God, but the "Christ above culture" focus is more on the pure life of heaven to come, rather than the corrupting human life on earth. People with this view would emphasize the divinity, not the humanity of Jesus.

In the final chapter Niebhur talks about the "relativism of faith." That’s a term that makes most Christians cringe. There’s enough relativism in the world. We want security. We want absolute truth. This is what he writes, "In politics, economics, and every other sphere of culture, no less than in medicine, we do the best we can on the basis of what we know about the nature of things; but that best is always relative to fragmentary social and personal knowledge."

I would state it this way. Every thought we have about God and the world is a human thought, and therefore, somewhat of a distortion. When the truth of God is filtered through the human mind, what comes out is not absolute truth. Scripture is clear that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. There is a sense of mystery that God will always have as long as blood runs through our veins and air is sucked into our lungs. Paul wrote about this in 1 Corinthians, "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known."

Niebuhr believes that because cultures change and evolve over time, so does how the Christian faith is viewed. He writes, "The problem of Christ and culture can and must come to an end only in a realm beyond all study in the free decisions of individual believers and responsible communities. For to believe is to be united with both the one in whom we believe and with all those who believe in him."

This brings us back to Peter’s letter. Clearly Peter was addressing a situation in a culture that was unlike our culture. Do we truly believe that the braiding of women’s hair is one of God’s eternal truths? Should it have the same weight of authority as the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount? What about what he writes about inner beauty? Isn’t there something timeless and eternal about this teaching that resonates with your soul?

In the short story Revelation, Flannery O'Connor describes a woman who thinks that she has it all figured out: culture, society, life itself. Mrs. Turpin, a pig farmer living in the South during the 1950s, has developed a grid for rating and ranking humanity. At the bottom of her hierarchy are the blacks; slightly above them she places the white trash. On the top of the pyramid are people just like Mrs.Turpin. White people. Polite people. Christian people.

Mrs. Turpin's racism is surpassed only by her arrogance. At the height of her certainty, this proud woman comes face to face with a college student who looks beyond polite manners and cheerful disposition to point to the corruption that lies at Mrs. Turpin's core. With holy insight, this stranger calls Mrs. Turpin a wart hog and tells her to go back to hell.
Suddenly seeing herself as a pig in another's eyes, Mrs. Turpin plunges to the bottom of the pile. This startling revelation overturns her world. The first has become last, the last, the first, and her tidy hierarchy is flipped upside down. Like Mrs. Turpin, we are not given the luxury of thinking that we have got it all figured out for very long.

Remember when Peter had the Gentile issue all figured out? Then God spoke to him in a vision and Peter was forced to change. Isn’t this what the Christian life is all about…change…transformation. The good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that we are loved just as we are. This means God loves us with all of our distorted cultural values and customs. God loves us even if we believe women should not braid their hair. God loves us even if we support Bush or Kerry. God loves us even if our childhood was not very happy.

But we were not created to stay the way we are. We are here to grow, to change, to be transformed from the inside out! This is good news…great news. Thanks be to God!

The St. John Web Site needs your input! Click here to leave feedback

Copyright © 1998-2004 Jon S. Dawson.  Last modified: February 01, 2009

Site statistics.