Patriarchy - contrasting the societal and biblical ideas

[gengwall]

I'm getting there beechy.

But isn't that what you've been arguing in favor of this whole time? That man's role is the leader/head of the family, and that woman's role is as "copilot"? And that man bears the primary responsibility for the family's welfare?

I'm really confounded now.

...and also

Are you saying men have had a harder time throughout history than women? I beg to differ.

I am not saying that males have had it harder. In fact, I don't know how one would even begin to quantify such a thing. What I am saying is that one of the great social ills of humanity, patriarchy as practiced by fallen human beings, has it's roots in the curse expressed by God in the garden. If you don't believe it, just look at how one parameter of the curse, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you", has been twisted into a command by error filled humans. The problem with Genesis 3:16 and 17 as applied by humans in error is that they assume it is God's design. Nothing could be further from the truth. God's design is exactly opposite. The curse is God's prediction of how we will live in our sinful flesh. How true has that become! God calls us to turn toward Him for direction on how to live our lives. When we do that, we defeat the curse because we return to the Godly design.

Part of that design is that the male is accountable. Do you really want that job? Of course, God could have gone to Adam and Eve each in order and asked the questions. But I really don't think He did because such an accountability paradigm still leads to chaos. In the end, the buck has to stop with one person. God chose it to be the male. I am not about to question His wisdom and perfection.

It has nothing to do with task "x" in the marriage or decision "y". Husband and wife are equal when it comes to the day to day operation of the family. Each contributes in the areas that they are gifted. That is how it was in the garden before sin entered the picture. It is only after the fall, in the curse that befell us, that this idea of gender roles entered the picture. Again, this is not God's design but the consequences of Adam's sin in not interceding and being accountable. Eve does not get off scot free, of course. But it is clear in the narrative that the fundimental, curse resulting sin was Adam's.

ok.... well, I don't believe that God demands something that unjust. God is supposed to be just, after all. I think that the Adam and Eve story was written that way because the culture then was patriarchal.

God is unconcerned with cultural paradigms when He writes the truth. It is not unjust in God's design and that is fine with me. Incidentally, if the Adam and Eve story were written to coincide with the culture of the time, it would have reflected a true authoritarian and gender divided relationship. The garden story, pre-fall, is one of equality. As I mentioned above, don't make the common mistake of interpreting the curse as being a command. It shows us how we will be because of sin, not how God wants us to be.

 

[Argent]

What exactly about this post did I misconstrue?

The feminism-godlessness part. At no place in the referenced post did I say such a thing.

 

[MooCar93]

The feminism-godlessness part. At no place in the referenced post did I say such a thing.

Not explicitly. But it was very strongly implied.

 

[Argent]

Not explicitly. But it was very strongly implied.

No, It wasn't implied. You intentionally tied the adjective I used to describe this section of the CF to the position feminists take on patriarchy. They were two different subjects which you combined in order to misconstue my assertions.

 

[MooCar93]

No, It wasn't implied. You intentionally tied the adjective I used to describe this section of the CF to the position feminists take on patriarchy. They were two different subjects which you combined in order to misconstue my assertions.

Yes, it was. I'm not sure whether you're trying to backpedal here or whether you really find it this difficult to empathize with a woman's point of view.

 

[gengwall]

Hi gengwall (J). My questions are as follows:

First of all, your definition of patriarchy (where did you get that definition from anyhow?) states that a patriarchic family is one in which “authority” is vested in males. Authority is defined by the dictionary as power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior; or persons in command. Even substituting the word “authority” for “headship” as you do later in post, “headship” is defined as the post of a head, and head is defined as a leader, or one in charge of a division or department (let me know if you think I’ve chosen the wrong definition of the alternatives in the dictionary).

I got the patriarchy definition from the dictionary as well (I think it was American Heritage - I looked it up on dictionary.com). Our reliance on man made definitions is one of the fundimental problems in the debate. What I would like to do is go to the bible to see how it's definitions of these terms differ significantly from societies.

In sum, the definition of patriarchy posited at the beginning of your post puts the man in a position of leadership or command of the family. If the man is leading or commanding, it means the woman is following … not leading the family alongside him, or being a co-commander, but following.

Yes - and that is the worldly design. I do not mean to suggest that that is God's design.

I know you also said that both spouses should be submissive to God (God is the ultimate leader and commander), but that does not change the line of command implicit in the concept of patriarchy which involves male “authority”: God is the commander in chief, Man is the general, and Woman is some sort of lieutenant colonel or something.

Not in my house, and I truly believe I am following the Godly design. God is the commander in chief, to be sure. But we humans are all his warriors without rank or authority over each other.

Indeed, Merriam Webster (run by man hating feminists?) defines patriarchy as “social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power”

Addressed above I hope.

If you do not think a model Biblical family places the man in a position of command, authority, or power over a woman, then maybe you should (as you suggest) abandon the phrase “patriarchy” as inaccurate, rather than trying to apologize for it … (although I actually think that your vision of a Biblical family may be patriarchic after all &#8230

I believe I did try to distance myself from it in my comments - "In my view, the biblical view of marriage is completely the opposite of this unbiblical and sin filled model that we have come to define as patriarchy. That is why I would not use the word to define the biblical model, simply because of people’s preconceived notions of what it means."

Now to your discussion of the qualities of “headship” as you define them. I have questions about the concepts of intercession and accountability. You say that Adam’s original sin was that he did not intercede on Eve’s behalf, nor did he take responsibility for Eve’s actions.

What were Eve’s responsibilities in the Garden of Eden scenario? Should she have consulted with Adam before eating the apple, or is it Adam’s responsibility to unilaterally intervene? Since Adam didn’t intervene, was Eve less culpable for what she did? God asked each of them what happened and punished both of them for doing wrong.

They shared responsibility for maintenance of the garden as well as subduing the earth. In other words, their roles as human beings interacting with their world within the family structure were equal. Regarding eating the apple, Adam should have put himself between her and the serpent. In other words, he should have "taken the hit". At the very least, he should not have simply stood by and watched the whole thing happen like he did. He should have at least engaged the serpent with Eve so that together, they could have defeated the temptation.

Incidentally, please recognize that this is exactly what Jesus did in his role as bridegroom. He "took the hit" for his bride. He intervened on our behalf and literally took our sin onto himself, as if he had committed it. Does that mean we still do not have consequences for our sin? Of course not. But Jesus, as the second Adam, fulfills the duty that Adam failed to fulfill in the garden.

Now, back to Adam and Eve. God did ask them both what happened but that isn't the principle of the narrative. God specifically sought out Adam to answer for the entire event and God's actual punishment (not the curse), i.e. banishment from the garden, was directed at Adam even though it in essence affected the whole family.

As part of that punishment, Eve became subject to the rule of her husband.

As I have noted in other posts, this was not a punishment, it was a curse. It was God's revelation of what will happen now that sin has entered the world, not what God wanted to happen or designed marriage to be like.

What if the scenario were reversed in the sense that the serpent talked to Adam, and he ate the apple first and gave it to Eve for her to eat. Do you think that Eve would not have had any responsibility to intercede on Adam’s behalf? Would she have been absolved of culpability because her husband gave her the apple and she had to follow his leadership and take a bite?

This is getting long … so I’ll stop here for now.

I'm not going to speculate on other scenarios. The story we have is enough to keep my head swimming. But these are great questions and it is good for us to explore these issues.

 

[gengwall]

Yes, it was. I'm not sure whether you're trying to backpedal here or whether you really find it this difficult to empathize with a woman's point of view.

I agree with Argent, and noted as much in my reply to the original complaint. There is no connection between the two concepts. This part of CF is indeed "rather Godless" and feminists do indeed demonize those who promote the biblical model of marriage. The only reason to connect the two is that they occur in the same paragraph , a mistake I'm sure Argent will never make again.

 

[MooCar93]

I agree with Argent, and noted as much in my reply to the original complaint. There is no connection between the two concepts. This part of CF is indeed "rather Godless" and feminists do indeed demonize those who promote the biblical model of marriage. The only reason to connect the two is that they occur in the same paragraph , a mistake I'm sure Argent will never make again

I'm sorry you can't understand how it's very possible and reasonable for someone (particularly a woman) to see a link between feminism and godlessness in what Argent said. But honestly, this whole debate is just making me really depressed and discouraged, so I think it might be time to bow out.

 

[Argent]

I agree with Argent, and noted as much in my reply to the original complaint. There is no connection between the two concepts. This part of CF is indeed "rather Godless" and feminists do indeed demonize those who promote the biblical model of marriage. The only reason to connect the two is that they occur in the same paragraph , a mistake I'm sure Argent will never make again.

I stand grammatically corrected. Thank you.

 

[gengwall]

I'm sorry you can't understand how it's very possible and reasonable for someone (particularly a woman) to see a link between feminism and godlessness in what Argent said. But honestly, this whole debate is just making me really depressed and discouraged, so I think it might be time to bow out.

Well let's just drop that then since it is pretty irrelevant anyway. Why are you dsicouraged? I think the general tone here has been very civil and the discussion enlightening and dynamic. Please don't go.

 

[MooCar93]

Well let's just drop that then since it is pretty irrelevant anyway. Why are you dsicouraged? I think the general tone here has been very civil and the discussion enlightening and dynamic. Please don't go.

Yeah, the discussion between you and I has been civil and dynamic and all of that. The other one I was carrying on was just frustrating and really going nowhere. I agree - I'd like to drop it.

 

[SallyNow]

Don't go off half...well...I can't finish the expression in the context of feminism I guess. Anyway, he didn't say that at all. He said this section of CF is rather Godless. Judging by the volume of athiest icons that is a true statement. He also said that feminists (I presume not all but the more liberal, radical, "sameness" band), tend to demonize anything related to the bible and to biblical marriage, lumping it universally under their definition of patriarchy instead of evaluating it base on it's own merits. That is also true, at least based on the endless string of entries saying as much on feminist blogs.

There are extreme feminists who are anti-religion, anti-Bible, etc. However, they are to feminism as Fred Phelps is to Christianity: on the fringe, not very respected, and almost giggled about in many philosophy, sociology, psychology, and even women's studies classrooms across North America.

That's all I can post now... I've got to run, but I do have more to say on this, don't worry

 

[gengwall]

There are extreme feminists who are anti-religion, anti-Bible, etc. However, they are to feminism as Fred Phelps is to Christianity: on the fringe, not very respected, and almost giggled about in many philosophy, sociology, psychology, and even women's studies classrooms across North America.

That's all I can post now... I've got to run, but I do have more to say on this, don't worry

Say if you must although I don't disagree. I am curious to hear what a more moderate feminist view on patriarchy is though.

 

[MooCar93]

Say if you must although I don't disagree. I am curious to hear what a more moderate feminist view on patriarchy is though.

Uh oh... I hope you don't think I'm an extremist feminazi... I promise I'm not

 

[gengwall]

Uh oh... I hope you don't think I'm an extremist feminazi... I promise I'm not

Not at all. LOL. Believe me, I've talked with extreem radical feminists before. You all are a pleasant walk in the park in comparison.

 

[gengwall]

It may be worth noting what the radical feminist view is IMO, just as a comparison and contrast. The radical feminist view holds two tenants as being absolute truth:

1. Patriarchy always involves male rule and dominance.
2. Any form of biblical family structure, whether practiced or preached, is inherently patriarchal as described above.

They will not generally even enter into a discussion such as we are having because they presume the purpose is for men to exercise this supposed rule and dominance over women. They will not discuss the true biblical model because they are convinced it contains this rule and dominance. Fundimentally, they believe that what has been practiced through the centuries is the biblical model and they therefore will not even listen to any biblical evidence to the contrary. They truly believe that any man that attempts to apply a biblical model to marriage is inherently a wife abuser and rapist, his guilt assured simply because he has invoked the bible as his guide. Moreover, they believe any woman who lives under a biblical model only does so because she has either been beat into submission or is a complete idiot and traitor to her gender.

Of course, it does not help that there are churches that do promote the more worldly, more male rule model. But they err in believing that any mention of "biblical marriage" by anyone means whatever their experienced or imagined worst case scenario is.

 

[MooCar93]

Patriarchy always involves male rule and dominance

But, um, doesn't it? I mean, doesn't the very word itself come from the Latin "pater," (father, i.e., a male) and "archus" (ok, I"m not sure what the Latin form of that is!), which would mean "rule"? To me that suggests that men are, at least in some fashion, in control of things.

Any form of biblical family structure, whether practiced or preached, is inherently patriarchal as described above.

Uhh, isn't it, just a little? I mean, the husband/father is the head of the family, right? Isn't that what patriarchy is all about?

And yes, radical feminists make many assumptions about Christians, but many Christians do the same as far as feminists are concerned.

Anyway, all I can say at this point is I'm very glad my current bf has no desire for me to submit to him. He likes the strong-willed women.

 

[gengwall]

But, um, doesn't it? I mean, doesn't the very word itself come from the Latin "pater," (father, i.e., a male) and "archus" (ok, I"m not sure what the Latin form of that is!), which would mean "rule"? To me that suggests that men are, at least in some fashion, in control of things.

They take "rule" and "dominion" to a far greater extent than the generic definition means and most men, at least now adays, practice. Think of the most offensive situation of male dominance you can and that is what they consider the norm.

Uhh, isn't it, just a little? I mean, the husband/father is the head of the family, right? Isn't that what patriarchy is all about?

And yes, radical feminists make many assumptions about Christians, but many Christians do the same as far as feminists are concerned.

You are quite correct. I would be remiss if I didn't note the problem on the other side. Radical conservative Christians have about as distorted a view of what "feminism" is as radical feminists have about Christian "patriarchy".

Anyway, all I can say at this point is I'm very glad my current bf has no desire for me to submit to him. He likes the strong-willed women.

If I were to ask you who the bible's original feminist was, who would you say? Would it surprise you to hear that I think it is the Proverbs 31 woman. Most people would be stunned because their knowledge of the Proverbs 31 woman is limited to a selective parsing of the chapter. But consider:

She has her own business
She runs the household (not because it is her role, but because she is the more gifted)
She provide and protects her family (making sure they are clothed and fed)
She is considered a wise leader in the community (including amongst the "elders")
She has discretion over both household maintenance and finances (including being able to spend her money as she pleases)
Her husband highly respects and depends on her input

Read that chapter and you will not find anything near the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" woman that radical feminists think is the biblical wife. God has extolled the virtues of this woman through the knowledge departed to Solomon. This is God's idea of a Godly wife. Where is the authoritarian, domineering, ruling husband in all of this? Nowhere to be found. Why? Because that design is not God's design. God, it may surprise some to hear, was the first person to say (outside of certain physical realities) that "a woman can do anything a man can do". The authority in the Proverbs 31 woman's life is God, no one else.

 

[MooCar93]

If I were to ask you who the bible's original feminist was, who would you say? Would it surprise you to hear that I think it is the Proverbs 31 woman. Most people would be stunned because their knowledge of the Proverbs 31 woman is limited to a selective parsing of the chapter. But consider:

She has her own business
She runs the household (not because it is her role, but because she is the more gifted)
She protects her family (making sure they are clothed and fed)
She is considered a wise leader in the community (including amongst the "elders")
She has discretion over both household maintenance and finances (including being able to spend her money as she pleases)
Her husband highly respects and depends on her input

Read that chapter and you will not find anything near the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" woman that radical feminists think is the biblical wife. God has extolled the virtues of this woman through the knowledge departed to Solomon. This is God's idea of a Godly wife. Where is the authoritarian, domineering, ruling husband in all of this? Nowhere to be found. Why? Because that design is not God's design. God, it may surprise some to hear, was the first person to say (outside of certain physical realities) that "a woman can do anything a man can do". The authority in the Proverbs 31 woman's life is God, no one else

Oh yeah, I'm well aware of the Proverbs 31 wife (although I might disagree about God being the only authority in her life - it also comments on how she does her husband good all the days of her life, or something along those lines - I get the idea she is, indeed, ultimately accountable to her husband, to some extent).

My only issue with the headship is just in terms of why a family needs one head so badly. I have no desire to dominate another person, but at the same time, I'd like to limit the number of people with authority over me (obviously I have to live with having a boss, government officials, etc. over me). A leader is needed in places like the military and corporations, where groups of people must move in a particular direction. I don't view human relationships as an enterprise or a business deal, though. Of course, I'm also still a little unclear on why churches need pastors - it seems to me that if church is about fellowship with other believers, why is having a single chief point of human authority necessary (note that I'm separating the functions of teaching and leadership - teaching is a must, for sure) - why can't we all just get together and worship God?

Anyway, I apologize if I'm preaching to the choir here - you've already established that your idea of patriarchy and headship is extremely moderate and reformed compared to that of many Christians - I just wanted to try to explain where I was coming from. I'll try to post more in a bit... should probably go ask my boss to give me some work right now, though

 

[Bombila]

Gengwall, can you address the reason the husband is the one designated to take spiritual headship, to pray for the family, to generally intercede with God, as Adam did not? The implication, and it is another Biblical pronouncement that has hindered women for a couple thousand years, is that women are less able to relate to God, or talk with him, or that God prefers to speak to men. Women have in the past been considered soulless, have been (and still are being) denied positions as priests or preachers or elders, in part because of this.

I'd like to note, also, that I am in agreement with moocar93's relatively gentle defense of feminism, and that it should be understood that any suggestion that 'all feminists are radical feminists' can be hurtful to discussion. Really, even bringing up radical feminism in this circumstance tends to put a rein on the tongue of any woman who wishes to debate these delicate issues politely, for fear she will be not taken seriously, written off as a 'radical fem'.

I would like to add that older women such as myself remember that it was women, feminists, who were scorned, jailed, and even beaten for their views, and considered radical extremists at the time, who were leaders in changing women's lives for the better. It feels to us like betraying them if we deny the place of the modern continuum of radical feminists. We may, and do, vehemently disagree with them on various issues, but they also keep us honest.