Sermon Tone Analysis

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savoir.

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.

He who loves his wife loves himself.

For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”[1]

The world has been transfixed by the travail of Tiger Woods.

The scandal began with what appeared to have been a minor traffic accident.

There had been reports in a broadsheet, mostly ignored by the mainstream media, that the most famous golfer of this generation was having an affair with an attractive young woman.

Then, there were reports that the crash of his luxury SUV happened after a fight with his wife in the early morning hours.

The reports multiplied and his multiple sexual partners began appearing with astounding regularity.

Rumours concerning his wife’s response began to multiply daily.

Finally, there were the reports that he had entered a sex rehab clinic in Mississippi while rumours swirled about multiple sexual dalliances by the golfer.

Throughout his career, Tiger Woods had been presented as a model of moral strength, decency and fidelity; suddenly, the carefully crafted image was unravelling.

When he pleaded that his problems were a private matter, the public would have none of it.

He had cultivated himself as a public personage, and he would now have to face the trials arising from his indiscretion in the hot glare of media spotlights.

On his daily blog, Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, draws several vital lessons from the saga of Tiger Woods.

First, Doctor Mohler observes that */Acts done in private can and will have public consequences/*.

Second, he states that */The public still believes that adultery is a big deal/*.

Finally, he notes that */A fall from public favour can happen in an instan/*t.[2]

Most individuals will hear such a list and conclude that these facts are obvious.

Though they are obvious, they are nevertheless ignored by many individuals—even individuals who are professed followers of the Risen Son of God.

At the epicentre of our secular cultural media is a writer named Jenny Block, who argued on Newsweek’s website it was not surprising to learn of Tiger’s multiple affairs because his “entire life is based on winning; on having, doing, and being more ... why on earth would anyone think ‘settling down’ was even in his vocabulary?”

Block declared without reservation that she had cheated on her husband with another woman, and she was the norm, not the exception.

Now she and her husband were in one of those fabulously open marriages with no judgmental God and no real vows or commitments.

“Monogamy just isn’t always realistic.

There’s nothing wrong with admitting that.

It simply doesn’t work for some.

And just as people choose different religions, eating habits, and places to call home, I believe we should be able to choose different ways to live out our relationships.”[3]

This kind of “evangelism” doesn’t cause the cultural elite to explode at the national dinner table.

However, it causes me to ask how does any culture build strong families and strong children if such a chaotic and abnormal view dominates?

How can any culture survive long if the family is destroyed and if fidelity between husband and wife is not fostered?

Brit Hume was vilified because he urged Tiger Woods to look to the Christian Faith in the midst of his troubles.

If this were less of a morally upside-down world, it would be Jenny Block who would be sitting in Brit Hume’s corner, taking heat because she was promoting what is patently wrong.

Tragically, we live in a world that rejects the divine intent because it is confused about morality.

Modern societies operate on the basis of emotion rather than reason; and this is evident even in the issues surround marriage in this day.

What is worse, the churches—the very entities that should be moral arbiters, and certainly should act as the conscience of society—are silenced because of their compromise.

Contemporary Canadian society desperately needs to return to a solid moral foundation, but that will not happen until the churches of our nation reclaim the moral certainty that comes from knowledge of the will of God, especially for the family.

*Marriage is Defined by Complementarity* — Few passages of the Word provide more insight into God’s expectation for the marriage relationship than the text before us.

Modern society has reduced marriage to a mechanism for the gratification of immediate desires.

However, God clearly presents the case that marriage is to be a covenant in which husband and wife—man and woman—focus on making the other party of the covenant better, stronger, more complete.

From the beginning, this was the divine intent as is evident from reading the account of the first marriage.

In Genesis, we read of God’s provision of a helper for the man He had created.

The account is recorded in *Genesis 2:18-25*.

“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.

And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.

But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Then the man said,

‘This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.’

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

Unpacking what Moses wrote, we see that God made a theological pronouncement on the man’s singleness—it was not good.

Man was not created to be alone; he was created both to enjoy and to give companionship.

It is not that singleness is sinful; it is that man was created to share his life.

This is obvious as we read the remainder of the account, for God caused the man to realise his deficit by having him witness the lack of complementarity with the animals.

This is apparent as we read the assessment, “For Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.”

Perhaps a little insight into the Hebrew would be beneficial.

When the text says there was no helper “fit” for Adam, the word used speaks of complementarity.

The woman was provided to complement the man—she made his life complete.

By the same token, man complements woman.

Together, they strengthen one another.

The Wise Man recognised this when he wrote:

“Two people are better than one,

because they can reap more benefit from their labour.

For if they fall, one will help his companion up,

but pity the person who falls down and has no one to help him up.

Furthermore, if two lie down together, they can keep each other warm,

but how can one person keep warm by himself?

Although an assailant may overpower one person,

two can withstand him.

Moreover, a three-stranded cord is not quickly broken.”

[*Ecclesiastes 4:9-12*][4]

Together, two have the strength of three—the union is not additive, but rather multiplicable.

Together, a couple is far more capable of withstanding adversity and of resisting evil.

We long for companionship because God created us as social beings who long for someone with whom to share life.

It is not solely that we want someone to fill the emptiness in our life, but if we truly understand God’s design, we want to give ourselves to another—we want to share our lives.

When God presented the woman He had made to the man, the man immediately recognised that she was the complement to him.

That is the reason for his exclamation at the presentation of the woman; and that is also the basis for the theological pronouncement that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Indeed, the lives of a husband and wife will merge and blend until they are fully complementary, strengthening one another and building one another, together fulfilling the design of the Creator.

Jesus gave His blessing to this truth when He responded to the duplicitous query of the Pharisees.

They had questioned whether Jesus adopted the lax view of Rabbi Hillel or the stricter view of Rabbi Shammai.

Jesus cut the Gordian knot by pointing the Pharisees to what the Living God had caused to be written.

Quoting the divine commentary, Jesus reminded them, “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

Then, He pointed to the final statement of that portion of the Word, adding His own commentary that stands to this day.

“So they are no longer two but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together let not man separate” [*Matthew 19:5, 6*].

I must point out that the word “helper” does not fully communicate what Moses wrote.

The Hebrew term connotes far more than the concept of helping.

It is a tragic fact that our English term “helper,” can easily carry the connotation of a subordinate role.