Patriarchy? Unnh, unnh.

A friend directed me to a mini-discussion of feminism on a PCA blog. Surprise, surprise: we learn once more that though feminism may be bad, patriarchy is worse.

PCA pastor Phil Ryken writes,

There are errors on both sides of a biblical view of godly male leadership in the home and in the church. Authoritarian, domineering men who stifle the gifts of women -- or worse, who use their stength or their position to legitimate verbal, physical, or other forms of abuse -- are a reproach to the church and stand in opposition to the ministry of Christ.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons I am in strong support of the Danbury Statement produced by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: it is zealous to protect men and women from ungodly patriarchy.

I say "patriarchy" because the connotations of the word make me reticent to use it as the first-choice term to describe the biblical view of male leadership.

Typically I use terms like "servant leadership" or "spiritual authority," but never "patriarchy." To me the term would always need careful qualification because for many people today it already suggests the kind of overreaching use of authority that the biblical position opposes.

Sadly, this amounts to a staunch defense of male headship within the PCA: five apologies, four qualifications, three reservations, two reproaches of those who venture further and one whimpered admission. (It's not the foes of male headship within the PCA who convince me that the PCA will be as feminist as the PCUSA in another generation, it's the professed friends.)

Rick Phillips, a PCA pastor I respect and whose hospitality I've enjoyed, responds to Ryken on the same blog:

...I (too) am actually a bit reserved about the application of the term "patriarchy" to masculine leadership today. The reason I brought it up in an earlier post is that the book in question declares biblical patriarchy to be a sin. This is clearly wrong. But patriarchy is not the term I would most prefer for godly male leadership today, mainly because it too easily down-loads social arrangements that do not possess an enduring biblical mandate. If we want to highlight the permanent and enduring aspects of God's social ordering, it helps if we do not mix them up with those aspects that are not permanent and enduring. To me, at least, patriarchy is so associated with, well, the patriarchs, that it may not be the best term for our present use. Nothing wrong with Abraham and his boys, of course. It's just that the kind of male leadership demanded by the New Testament does not seem to incorporate all the social privileges and obligations that Abraham held.

Neither man seems to grasp the fundamental model for male leadership in Scripture....

Ryken thinks male leadership is based on the "servant leadership" (a term as rooted in eastern mysticism as Biblical teaching) of Jesus Christ. Yes, we all must agree that Christ's role as Head of the Church is Scripture's model for husbands in marriage. But is the Headship of Christ over the Church the sum total of what we learn of manhood from the life of Christ? What about Christ's role as King of heaven and earth? What about Christ's warrior triumph over His enemies? Are "servant leadership" and "spiritual authority" ALL we learn of perfect manhood from the life of Christ?

And though Rick Phillips is less embarrassed of Biblical masculinity than Ryken (he writes at one point, "the best remedy for feminism is a good dose of masculinity"), he too seems unsure of the ultimate Scriptural referent for male leadership when he writes, "the kind of male leadership demanded by the New Testament does not seem to incorporate all the social privileges and obligations that Abraham held."

In fact, Rick is right. Biblical manhood's foundation isn't Abraham. Patriarchy (or "father rule") is rooted in the nature of God the Eternal Father. We may as well apologize for the social privileges and obligations of God the Father as apologize for permitting Abraham's position to influence our understanding of male headship.

In fact, the headship of Christ over His Church is not the model Scripture routinely holds up for manly leadership. Complementarians focus exclusively on Christ to avoid confronting culture. But the mandate for manhood begins in the character of God. Reduce manhood to the life of Christ and we have no template for understanding fatherhood.

New Testament Scripture, indeed the teaching of Christ Himself, points time and again to the Father as our paradigm. Jesus argues from the nature of human fatherhood to the Fatherhood of God when He urges prayer: "What father gives his son a scorpion when he asks for a loaf of bread?"). We're told in Hebrews that just as earthly fathers discipline children, so the Heavenly Father disciplines all He accepts as sons.

The poverty of the "complementarian" position (and the PCA is complementarian at best in its approach to sexuality) is that it denies the Father by affirming only the Son.

Even Karl Barth was more orthodox in his view of Biblical manhood than the typical PCA pastor today....

Comments

[Shaun]

David,

I couldn't resist commenting for this one simple reason: the anti-spam word I had to type in to comment was...drum roll please...

woman

Seriously, do you not agree that the term "patriarchy" needs clarification in our post-feminist times? It is a weighted word (for good and for ill).

I'm not so certain these men are rejecting patriarchy as much as they are entering into discussion with a broader crowd (ie. Susan Wise Bauer and John Stackhouse) and it is because they are in dialogue with feminists that they are defining their terms contra the feminist falsification of patriarchy.

[Pat]

Bill,

It seems that both complementarians and egalitarians are trying to make their case based on the relational pattern of the Trinity. This strikes me as odd because: (1) appeals to a mysterious doctrine for greater clarity may be a dead end street, (2) appeals to a threesome to shed light on a twosome may also be a dead end street.

Seems like whatever case is made, it ought to be made on exegetical and hermeneutical grounds.

Your thoughts?

[dan macdonald]

Guys,

I think you are a little too hard on some of us who object to the word patriarchy because in our contexts it is simply another word for bigot. It is why I shun the word fundamentalist when, in truth, I would technically be labeled a proponent of the Fundamentals in the debates of the early 20th century. Where I minister, there is only one interpretation of patriarchy - a wife-oppressing (and probably beating), child-hating bigot who probably is also racist. Being an avowed complementarian gets me in enough trouble around here, trust me. I am not going to back off on my belief in a complementarian, but I refuse to be labeled a bigot because of it. That's not incipient feminism, just wise understanding of the role of semantics in a rhetorically sensitized culture.

dan

[Rick Phillips]

David,

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed your criticism -- it's so refreshing to get it from the right! (It makes me feel so moderate!) I do want to reassure you, however, that I do not mean to undermine the Bible's mandate to male leadership, and neither do I think anyone else at Ref21 does either. One of the commenters above was right, my point was simply that patriarchy may not be the most effective word today for expressing what the Bible means by male leadership. I suppose that when I say that the word "patriarchy" is not so serviceable "because it downloads social privileges we do not enjoy today," what I really meant was that we don't have extended families living under the authority of the oldest man present. I believe that God gives a man authority over his own family, but that this does not extend down beyond that. In other words, when my sons marry, I do not have authority over their households, and when I place my daughters' hand in the arm of some young man, I lose the right to exercise headship over her. That's all I mean by saying that "patriarchy" down-loads some ideas that are not applicable to us today.

But, if you think that the word "patriarchy" must be maintained in order to uphold biblical male leadership, go ahead and make a case and I will certainly listen. If you scroll down a bit on Ref21 you will see that I am at this very moment taking heat for confronting gender egalitarianism, so please don't think we have folded on this one. We need not only faithfulness in upholding the Bible's teachings on such matters -- and this is such an important one today -- but also wisdom in how to do so. Thanks for your feedback, though, and feel free to hammer us if we are becoming squishy! We'll just try to take it like men! Hope you are well.

Rick Phillips

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Shaun:

I'm not so certain these men are rejecting patriarchy as much as they are entering into discussion with a broader crowd (ie. Susan Wise Bauer and John Stackhouse) and it is because they are in dialogue with feminists that they are defining their terms contra the feminist falsification of patriarchy. >>>>

Shaun, that may be. I really don't know. However, what I do know is that Stackhouse has quit avoiding the feminist label. He boldly and proudly declares himself to be feminist - and even wrote a book about it. He even goes so far as to say that feminism is what God is doing in our world today.

Now, that's pretty "out there" if you ask me. Bauer promotes his book, so I assume that she is also freely using the "feminist" moniker.

I applaud them for that decision, and call it honesty in advertising.

Now, how's about some honesty from the comp side?

Yes, the word "patriarchy" needs to be carefully defined, since it is Biblical patrairchy that Complementarians are promoting. However, I do think that it is good to do that - to use the word and to define it.

No one is fooled, after all. I know that the egalitarians are feminists, even when they deny it. I even know that some who call themselves comps, yet who promote the feminist arguments are lying to me. I also know that the comps are supporting a form of patriarchy, even if they avoid the word.

Why play these word games that seem so post-modern to me? Just say what you are, and then explain what you mean. ...or vice versa...

On that note, one very prominent internet feminist who has written a number of books looked me right in the eye of my computer screen and told me flat out that she was not a feminist!

What a joke!

So, for their honesty, I applaud Bauer and Stackhouse. I have less applause for most complementarians. After all, the egalitarians counter with the fact that they also believe that men and women complement one another, and some feminist can freely call themselves complementarian and continue to deceive people.

Anyway...

Donna L. Carlaw

[Ron Gleason]

This blog is getting paranormal. The code word for me was "snake" as in Rattlesnake 6. I think we should hammer Rick because of West Point (The Citadel of the North) and because he had to fight in a thoroughly crew-safe Abrams instead of a REAL tank like the M60A1!
Seriously, as thoroughly complementarian as I am and as many conversations as I've had out in Southern CA the words "patriarchal" or "patriarchy" have never come up in the conversation. We simply discuss headship and submission from a biblical perspective. If the word ever did come up in the conversation I would probably ask the person what they meant or understood by the term and then proceed to get back to headship and submission
This is really getting to be an emotional issue in the PCA given the relatively large number of discussions/debates that are raging about egalitarianism. Just for fun, I'd recommend Kate O'Beirne's "Women Who Make the World Worse" for all to read, especially those who are leaning in an egalitarian position. This is a very informative, enlightening, and--in many ways--provocative book.
Phil and Rick are dear brothers. From what I know of both of them, neither is quissy--well, maybe Rick a little. Just kidding.
Rattlesnake 6

[Ron Gleason]

Squishy. Sorry, my magic fingers were on the blink. Ha! This time the code word was "stiff!"
Rattlesnake 6

[Marshall St. John]

I really believe this discussion is not as much of an issue in the PCA as some think it is. It's important, of course. I'm just saying that there aren't many folks having the discussion. Just an observation from my vantage point.

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Ron:
Seriously, as thoroughly complementarian as I am and as many conversations as I've had out in Southern CA the words "patriarchal" or "patriarchy" have never come up in the conversation. We simply discuss headship and submission from a biblical perspective. If the word ever did come up in the conversation I would probably ask the person what they meant or understood by the term and then proceed to get back to headship and submission...>>>>

Ron, do you ever ask people what they mean by "head" and "submission"? After all, egalitarians also believe in male headship and wifely submission, and they believe that they do so from a Biblical perspective.

What is the main distinctive of the comp position, though? BTW, egals also believe that men and women complement one another. What's the big deal, then?

Don't mind me, out here in the Twilight Zone...

BTW, my anti-spam code word was "fear". =:-0 Oh, my!

[Stephen Baker]

Brothers and sisters,

How about simply translating the Latin into English and use the term "father rule"? It has none of the baggage of "patriarchy" but it speaks very clearly to the issue. It also is rooted in the Scriptural passage that says God is the Father from whom all fatherhood derives its name.

This gets stranger by the minute--my word was "attack."

[nate philippi]

the Karl Barth reference reminded of one of my dad's favorite "nursery" ryhmes:

Here I sit
all broken Hearted,
tried to Tillich
but only Barthed.

[Stephen Baker]

Nate, you are quite insane. And now I know why.

Love,
Stephen

Oh, and by the way, my code word this time was "female."

[Donna L. Carlaw]

"There are errors on both sides of a biblical view of godly male leadership in the home and in the church. Authoritarian, domineering men who stifle the gifts of women -- or worse, who use their stength or their position to legitimate verbal, physical, or other forms of abuse -- are a reproach to the church and stand in opposition to the ministry of Christ. "

Has anyone ever seen this happen in real life?

I have been in churches and missions - not the PCA - for all of my X number of years. I have found that male leadership has bent over backwards to encourage me and even to fund me whenever necessary.

Well, I'm married, so I should say "us" instead of "me", but I do have ministry with my dh and then other opportunities that do not involve him directly. He encourages me to use my gifts. He supports me fully, and always has.

So, again, where are these mythical women who are being held back by evil patriarchal males?

...and I do NOT mean husbands who _force_ their wives to let them hold the hymnal! Honestly! What a bunch of claptrap.

..."loss", this time...

Donna L. Carlaw

PS
BTW, if anyone visits Adrian Warnock's blog, you might be interested in his interview with Wendy from Mars Hill in Seattle. Very interesting.

[Ron Gleason]

Donna,
Ron, do you ever ask people what they mean by "head" and "submission"? After all, egalitarians also believe in male headship and wifely submission, and they believe that they do so from a Biblical perspective.

I suppose that I will simply have to disagree with your premise that egalitarians also believe in male headship. In essence, I find that egalitarians tend to qualify male headship out of existence. Perhaps your experience is different from mine, but I've been a pastor in Holland, Canada, & SoCal and I have yet to find an egalitarian that--when the rubber met the road--actually held to male headship. I would also disagree with you that egalitarians do so from a biblical perspective. I also had Dr. Dave Scholer when I was at Gordon-Conwell. Since I was a Byington Teaching Fellow he asked me once to read a paper that he had written on 1 Tim. 2. When I finished reading it I gave it back and said to him, "Dr. Scholer, if you're a Ph.D. from Harvard this probably makes sense, but you spent 25 pages explaining that this text doesn't say what it says." Again, I cite Wayne Grudem's latest book "Evangelical Feminism."
Besides, you all need to know that I am not an evangelical. I have long since jettisoned that term. I am a PCA pastor which means that I believe both formally and practically that the Bible is the fully inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. I subscribe to the Westminster Standards and the PCA Book of Church Order.

What is the main distinctive of the comp position, though? BTW, egals also believe that men and women complement one another. What's the big deal, then?
The "big deal" is the manner in which "comps" and "egals" (eagles?) work out how women are to function in the Church and in the home. I'm a sensitive "comp." My wife was having a lot of trouble washing my car every week. The grass got wet and she slipped around a lot, so I bought her some really good football cleats so she doesn't slip and slide nearly as much any more.
I'm also domestic. Last week Sally came down with a very debilitating bronchitis. It hit her really hard. By the end of the week I was exhausted from holding her up at the sink so that she could do the dishes.
The patriarchy thing is still used rather extensively in feminist circles. I cited the O'Bierne book earlier where in many secular settings the word and/or concept "patriarchy" or "patriarchal" is used in a very negative sense by feminists. My concern is that the main tenets of feminism have crept (or rushed headlong) into the church and many "egals" are more influenced by the world than by Scripture.

Have a blessed Lord's Day.
Rattlesnake 6

[Stephen Baker]

Hey Nate,

Apologies are in order. I thought you were my friend, Nate Filippelli. As it turns out, you are Nate Philippi. That's what I get for quick comments right before bed! I don't really think you are insane at all. Nate Filippelli on the other hand...

It was funny when I saw him at church this morning and realized my mistake. Laughs all around.

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Ron, I agree that egalitarians do not believe in male headship, really. They redefine words like headship and submission. In the egalitarian fantasy world, head means source and wives submit to husbands and husbands to wives.

So, of course they believe in those things.

It's just a pack of lies, of course, but many love it so.

Besides, which word is more loaded with negative connotations? Feminism or patriarchy?

Most people don't even know what the word patriarchy means, but most people don't like a feminist.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that you are a sensitive comp.

It's all just words. I'm a comp/pat/soft-pat/trad/neo-trad myself. I learned from the feminists that a woman has the right to define herself.

..."crime"...

[nate philippi]

stephen-
Not a problem. My psychiatrist says I have "no apparent psychological disorders" anyways.
nate

[Cathy in NOLA]

Just sticking my two cents in here. It has been asked where these extreme examples of abuse are in the church. They do exist. A good friend from church was a Mennonite sect. Her husband abused her and her daughters in the worst ways possible. A less extreme example is another church friend. Her husband was doing pot. He told her that if she told the pastor that she'd be acting unsubmissively to him. She called me to ask what to do as that seemed fishy to her. I had to explain that he didn't have the right to command her to do what the law had forbidden (and God's law had not commanded).

[Cathy in NOLA]

Oh, and she did tell the pastor, who jumped all over the husband for trying to abuse his authority like that. However, people who are worried about it are using the exception to prove the rule (if that's the right way to put it). They are more likely afraid of what life might be like w/ real accountability w/in a marriage (or a church).

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Cathy:
However, people who are worried about it are using the exception to prove the rule (if that's the right way to put it). They are more likely afraid of what life might be like w/ real accountability w/in a marriage (or a church).>>>>

Hi, Cathy,
Hey, thanks for your comments.

Did you hear the one about the wife who verbally abused her husband and their children and finally destroyed her marriage? In fact, her daughter now wants nothing to do with her mother.

Did you hear the one about the wife who had a child by another man and lied to her husband about it? The daughter was 10 years old before she told her husband who the real father was.

Did you hear the one about the wife who was studying karate and decked her husband when he came home?

Did you hear the one about the Christian wife who abandoned her husband after many years of marriage? She decided that she wanted to make a new life for herself with another man. No, there was no abuse involved. Just plain, old-fashioned lust.

What conclusions can we draw from the above examples, which are also all true. Does it mean that all Christian women tend to abuse their husbands and children and betray their marriage vows? It certainly does not.

Such examples do not establish truth. They are just that. Examples. They are examples of sinful behaviour that even Christians can engage in. They say nothing about how a wife is supposed to behave.

Feminists or those who are sympathetic to feminism only tell the stories where a man is the bad guy. They are not open to hearing stories about women acting bad.

These kinds of examples are meant to show that women must be independent. If women trust their men too much, or become too dependent on them, then they are setting themselves up for abuse. It is all one-sided.

Anyway...

God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw

[Bob Sands]

Just two quick observations about our fear of "father rule". Most people object to father rule because men (in general, of course) are too nasty for women to subject themselves to. This is an invalid argument on two counts 1) were men really better back when Paul was around or even when the edict was given in the garden that "he will rule over you"? Not a chance! Think of Abraham - practically giving his wife to the Egyptian ruler because he feared death more than he was jealous for his wife's purity! Scripture abounds with examples of men who mislead their families, does this invalidate the commands of God? Did He, the omniscient Creator of the universe, no know this? Does God not understand the wickedness of my heart? He knows this better than I know myself! And He knows that my heart is far more wicked than I, or my wife, could even comprehend. But in His infinite wisdom, He commands my wife to place herself under of donkey's backside of a man. And if I am any kind of a man, I will see to it that she does submit herself to me. Do I do this because I am a tyrant? No, I am jealous for my wife's obedience to God and purity in this life so she will be prepared for eternity. 2) God's commands are never predicated by if's. i.e. If you have enough extra money, then you must tithe. If you have the time, then you must worship Me. If your husband is a good, godly man, then you must submit to him. Our faith is ultimately in God, not our husbands or leaders!

The second observation is that father rule or patriarchy or whatever you want to call the biblical role of men in their families does extend beyond the immediate family in their homes. When my parents marriage is on the rocks, should I as the eldest son not interfere and tell my father that he needs to commit himself to providing for his wife and to care for the spiritual needs of my mother? Why not? When my brother looks at another mans wife and flirts, should I not rebuke him? I think patriarchy is a term that displays the biblical concept that our culture so much hates. Why invent new terms that they will like more - just because they don't understand that we are really talking about the same thing.

Let us be men. Let our words be concise and not duplicitous and when the enemy comes at us, let us cry out the name of Jesus as we advance with swords drawn - for we fight in the name of God the almighty!