I am glad that you appreciated my thread. I think it is true that the Church is patriarchal, even if I think it is very important to distinguish between Christian patriarchy and the concept of patriarchy as it is defined within feminism.
Jesus, a man, is the head of the Church, and even if women have always been important in the Church, men are in leading positions. In the Bible we have the patriarchs from Adam to Noah to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and then we have the sons of Jacob who are known as the twelve patriarchs. We have the Apostles. The Bible also says that the man should be the head of the family.
These are just examples, but I think there is a very strong case for it the Church should be patriarchal, and in my opinion that is not a bad thing. Women are not less important, in my opinion, just because they are not in leading positions. Women and men have the same basic human needs, and it is my opinion that the needs of women are taken care of in the Church, just as much as the needs of men are taken care of.
Patriarchy as it is defined within feminism, however, is a bad thing. As a concept it is used by feminists as a scapegoat and the source of many ills, and sometimes even as the main reason why our whole civilization is bad. I am not expecting you to subscribe to this view.
I am only saying that patriarchy can mean completely different things, and I want to get the point across that patriarchy as it is defined by feminists is something completely different from the patriarchy that we find in the Church.
Of course, there are many churches in the world, and I do not doubt that in some of them, men do more or less systematically take advantage of their positions. I do not think that men in leading positions in the Church have any right to take from the Church only to lead their lives in luxury. I think that traditional churches have - more often than not - prevented this from happening, and I think that the leaders of the Church have a calling to serve. I even believe that a life of serving is a prerequisite for anyone who aspires to a leading position in the Church: "Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)
My question to you is: Why do you think that patriarchy is a problem in the Church?
Thanks for the response. I really like and agree with your quote from Mark 9. As far as different types of patriarchy, I personally disagree, I think patriarchy is a general term and that patriarchy is, well, patriarchy
So I think its a problem in the church just as much as it would be a problem anywhere. I'll expound throughout my post
The thing about the Bible is that it was written in very ancient and extremely patriarchal cultures. You mentioned many of the Old Testament patriarchs, who were certainly used by God, but its clear when you read their stories they were some pretty messed up, broken human beings. Many of them had multiple wives, extremely dysfunctional households (Jacob, anyone?) and most would agree that the Bible is simply recording their lifestyles, NOT endorsing them in any way. In Jesus' time, women were still being treated like filth, and its really interesting and wonderful to read about the way in which Jesus interacted with women--he treated them just like he treated everyone, which was so radical for his time. Many have speculated that Mary of Magdelene and other women in Jesus' social circle were perhaps a part of Jesus' group of disciples. They were certainly very close to Jesus, at any rate.
Paul, not Jesus, is the main one who is quoted on the topic of gender roles, and yet I still continue to only see evidence that he was simply writing in the context of his particular culture. In the verse where he suggests that wives obey their husbands, he also mentions that slaves should obey their masters--obvious evidence of antiquity. And about women being silent in the church--its interesting that somewhere along the way church services had begun being modeled after the roman senate--in which women weren't allowed to speak. There are other places in the Bible and in history that suggest women were very influential in the early church.
In short, the Bible was written in and to a very patriarchal culture, which probably really influenced the way in which women and their roles are portrayed. While I'm not suggesting we ignore what the Bible has to say on this stuff, I really think that as a historical book we probably need to study it more closely in its historical context. I think God works with different cultures in different ways, and I also believe that traditional gender roles, especially that of men being in leadership over women, are results of the fall.
That said, I can't see any reason why women can't be in leadership positions in the church. I hear all the time that "men have a natural desire to lead," but so do many women, and they are good at it. I think the church has historically really smothered women, ignored their God-given abilities and ideas they have to offer, and have told them that their place is in the home serving their husbands. Interesting that Paul, the main person these ideas come from, was extremely enthusiastic about singleness, even for women. What, then, do you do with a single woman who has a natural ability for leadership? Historically, there really isn't a place for her in the church. The logic doesn't really make sense. If the church viewed men and women as being on equal levels, then it wouldn't really matter.
Also, as far as marriages go, there's no reason why men and women can't be in an equal partnership on that level, too. I personally find Paul's analogy of men being the head of the relationship because Christ is the head of the church to be not very logical (and again, speaking to his culture). It's obvious that God is head of the church, because God obviously the authority figure here--heck, he created the church. But how exactly is one head of a relationship between two people? How does that work out practically? Does the man make all decisions? Does he order his wife around (hence her having to "obey" like the slave and the child mentioned in the same passage)? Does he make sure she prays and reads her Bible? The ideas of the man being the "head of a relationship" and "spiritual leader" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Rather, a marriage relationship that works as a partnership where no one is in a more powerful position than the other makes a lot more sense. A loving relationship between two people certainly involves making decisions, making sacrifices, and sometimes submitting to each other--together.
This is a novel, my apologies. I don't expect people to agree, and if not, I'd like to hear why. Let me know if I need to expound on anything.
