It is often argued by those considering mission in the early
church that the religion of the paterfamilias defined the family religion. Pearson
notes that the chief gods of a home were spirits including the Genius (cf.
guardian angel), the Lar Domesticus, and the Penates. The fire hearth was the
center of the family cult. Images were made and placed around the hearth. Family
prayers and offerings were made here especially by the father, the pater.
At mealtimes, the gods were thanked, and portions thrown in the fire for these
and other gods. The whole of domestic life revolved around this domestic cult under
the leadership of the paterfamilias, the father of the household.[1]
This tightknit family religion was broken down to some degree by the time of
Christ especially within the context of voluntary associations (Collegia).
Yet, some scholars like Pearson see the baptism of whole families in Acts (e.g.,
Acts 16:14–15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16) as indications of the paterfamilias or
materfamilias defining the family religion, hence, whole families converted and
were baptized without a full understanding the faith.[2]
Yet, in 1 Cor 7:12–16, Paul posits a situation where there
is a Christian man married to an unbelieving woman. This suggests that the social
power of the male to impose religious belief on his wife was not followed.
Furthermore, the Christian believer is instructed to remain in the marriage to
the unbeliever of she is willing to remain in the relationship.
This suggests that the authority of the husband in Paul’s
eyes did not include forcing the wife to convert to Christ and be baptized. She
must come of her own volition. This supports the idea that conversion was to be
voluntary and not coerced. This shows that while religious conversion could be
collective, Paul’s vision is for individual decision to convert. This is a
marked change from the social context where religion was tied to family and civic
structures. We see the idea of individual conversion as central to Paul’s
vision. We also this also in Philemon where Onesimus is a slave of Philemon,
but until his conversion as a runaway with Paul, was not converted.
It also means that if Paul did consider the husband the head
of the wife in an authority sense, it did not extend to enforcing religious
adherence. Rather, the wife and we can presume slaves (see above), were to make
their own decision to convert not to convert on the basis of the father’s
adoption of the Christian faith.
As the passage unfolds, the unbelieving wife is in some
sense made holy through the believing husband as are the children. Hence, while
there is no compulsion to convert, Paul sees some benefit from being in the
home with a Christian parent (the same applies to believing wives). This is
likely due to the influence of the Holy Spirit present in the life of the
believer. This creates missional possibilities and, in some sense, brings the
family of the believer under the protection of God.
While some read 1 Cor 7:16 pessimistically, I read it
optimistically. Paul wishes the believing spouse to remain with their
unbelieving marriage partner in the hope that they will be saved through their
witness and the work of the Holy Spirit.
We also need to take into mind the household codes of Eph 5–6
and Col 3. In Eph 6:4, the paterfamilias is instructed to bring up the children
in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. So, while the child is not to be
coerced into the Christian faith, the child is instructed in it until one
presumes the age of being able to make his or her own decision.
All in all, the sociological assumption that many who
converted in the early church did so through their fathers (and less so their
mothers) may be true. But here we see that Paul did not want coerced faith
through parents or husband to wives and vice versa. He imagined believers
sometimes in marital relationships with unbelievers and remaining so even if
the spouse does not convert. His hope is that through the believer, the
unbelieving spouse will come willingly to Christ. It seems the same applied to
slaves. Hence, we should be wary of assuming that in all situations, where
there was a husband who believed, it is axiomatic that the rest were
Christians. If they followed Paul’s advice, then this would not be the case.
Their conversion was to be voluntary and not coerced.
[1] Brook
W. R. Pearson, “Domestic Religion and Practices,” in DNTB 299.
[2]
Pearson, “Domestic Religions,” 301.
Comments