Why there CANNOT be any True Patriarchy without Polygyny!

[JudicaMeDeus]

Dearly beloved Brethren (and Sisters) in Christ! If you look on Google for "Christian polygyny", you will find HUNDREDS of websites, all of them PATRIARCHALIST, earnestly contending that not only was Polygyny allowed in the OT, but NOTHING in the New Testament can be justly construed to FORBID polygyny. This only serves to emphasize a major contention of mine: No society which refuses to accept the lawfulness of polygyny can be a truly patriarchal society. See: Patriarchy = Civilization for the proof. (Note: the author of that website contends that Patriarchy and Civilization are INDISTINGUISHABLE concepts, but we KNOW from the Webster's dictionary that they are easily distinguishable concepts.)

Patriarchy = Civilization:

In a society in which men are forced to be monogamous there can be no true patriarchy.

See also: HEM Articles: 62. Patriarchy without Polygamy: A Contradiction in Terms.

Patriarchy Without Polygamy: A Contradiction in Terms.

The biblical doctrine of polygamy and patriarchy are one and the same. You cannot separate them.

This proves that the BEST and SUREST and SIMPLEST possible way to promote the equality of the sexes is to promote monogamy.

The question now is, what is Patriarchy and what is Complementarianism and how do they differ from each other?

Are there any differences between Patriarchy and Complementarianism? As it turns out, YES.

Here is one crucial difference:

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf:

Scott Bartchy defined Patriarchy this way: “Patriarchy is not just the rule of men over women, but as the rule of a few men over every one else, male and female. Patriarchy involves not only the subordination of women and children, but also the subordination of most men.”

(S. Scott Bartchy, professor of Christian origins and New Testament History at UCLA)

I have some even MORE crucial differences:

Patriarchy: The Third Option in the Comp/Egal Debate:

I created this brief sketch might be in order to make the distinctions. I also think we need to differentiate between egalitarians and feminists, as there has been confusion there as well. Although, in the context of a biblically grounded church, I find that position untenable leaving three viable options.

Patriarchialism: Hierachical/authoritarian; male headship dictates female participation; female submission enforced; strong emphasis on role differentiation and female restrictions; male domination

Complementarianism: Hierachical/non-authoritarian; male headship encourages female participation within hierarchy of creative order; female submission organic; roles less differentiated more complementary; male cooperation

Egalitarianism: Non-hierarchical/non-authoritarian; mutual authority and submission; roles complementary; male-female cooperation

Feminism: Non-hierarchical/authoritarian; no authority or submission; enforcement of female roles; female dominated; female cooperation

Note that both patriarchy and complementarianism are both hierarchical and affirm male headship. This will result in restrictions for female participation with respect to church leadership in varying forms and depending on church polity. The difference is that patriarchy imposes restrictions and a masculine oriented structure whereas complementarianism results in respect for creative order and equal value. While I am not an egalitarian, I think it is dishonest to portray them as feminists since the emphasis is on shared authority and submission not the absence of it.

Go and read it for yourselves with caution. The true Biblical position is that all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are reserved for adult males only. (But this in my mind, raises some questions about whether or not it is lawful for women to serve as mixed choir directors in the Church - never mind about so-called LEADERS of the congregational song as opposed to a quartette choir which leads congregational singing not by haranguing or addressing the assembly but by singing the parts the congregation is to sing usually in 4-part harmony.) And not just because the Church is an arithmetical aggregate of families rather than individuals (with families being the irreducible and elementary unit of the church): but because the Church is the only other divine institution UNIQUELY patterned after the human family.

Those who confuse the two, for example, those who argue for the traditional rigorist [or what many "liberals" (or rather, leftists and cultural marxists) and antinomians call the "legalist"] form of patriarchy yet argue that they are only upholding complementarianism are committing what is called the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy.

[Staff edit].

But to continue, here is another important difference.

John Calvin remarked that before the fall, the subjection of Eve to Adam was a liberal and gentle subjection. But after the fall, it was a servile subjection. One of the important differences between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism is that Patriarchy tends to emphasize the SERVILE subjection of the female sex to the male sex and not just merely a liberal and gentle subjection. Patriarchy is EXACTLY what Complementarianism had been TRANSFORMED into only BECAUSE of the Fall and only BECAUSE of the debt of penal servitude the woman incurred for her part in the Fall. It is not just (but on the contrary, uncharitable and unmerciful) to exact payment TWICE for the SAME crime. Such "patriarchy" (which I have differentiated from Complementarianism) was NEVER God's ORIGINAL pre-Fall plan for the sexes.

Please read polygyny | Biblical Gender Roles, Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical Part 1, The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women, for more testimony from the Patriarchalists THEMSELVES! It illustrates the ACTUAL tendency of True Patriarchy.

 

[dreadnought]

Dearly beloved Brethren (and Sisters) in Christ! If you look on Google for "Christian polygyny", you will find HUNDREDS of websites, all of them PATRIARCHALIST, earnestly contending that not only was Polygyny allowed in the OT, but NOTHING in the New Testament can be justly construed to FORBID polygyny. This only serves to emphasize a major contention of mine: No society which refuses to accept the lawfulness of polygyny can be a truly patriarchal society. See: Patriarchy = Civilization for the proof. (Note: the author of that website contends that Patriarchy and Civilization are INDISTINGUISHABLE concepts, but we KNOW from the Webster's dictionary that they are easily distinguishable concepts.)

Patriarchy = Civilization:



See also: HEM Articles: 62. Patriarchy without Polygamy: A Contradiction in Terms.



This proves that the BEST and SUREST and SIMPLEST possible way to promote the equality of the sexes is to promote monogamy.

The question now is, what is Patriarchy and what is Complementarianism and how do they differ from each other?

Are there any differences between Patriarchy and Complementarianism? As it turns out, YES.

Here is one crucial difference:

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf:



I have some even MORE crucial differences:

Patriarchy: The Third Option in the Comp/Egal Debate:



Go and read it for yourselves with caution. The true Biblical position is that all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are reserved for adult males only. (But this in my mind, raises some questions about whether or not it is lawful for women to serve as mixed choir directors in the Church - never mind about so-called LEADERS of the congregational song as opposed to a quartette choir which leads congregational singing not by haranguing or addressing the assembly but by singing the parts the congregation is to sing usually in 4-part harmony.) And not just because the Church is an arithmetical aggregate of families rather than individuals (with families being the irreducible and elementary unit of the church): but because the Church is the only other divine institution UNIQUELY patterned after the human family.

Those who confuse the two, for example, those who argue for the traditional rigorist [or what many "liberals" (or rather, leftists and cultural marxists) and antinomians call the "legalist"] form of patriarchy yet argue that they are only upholding complementarianism are committing what is called the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy.

Bearded Stoic: Progress:



See: philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf for more information.

But to continue, here is another important difference.

John Calvin remarked that before the fall, the subjection of Eve to Adam was a liberal and gentle subjection. But after the fall, it was a servile subjection. One of the important differences between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism is that Patriarchy tends to emphasize the SERVILE subjection of the female sex to the male sex and not just merely a liberal and gentle subjection. Patriarchy is EXACTLY what Complementarianism had been TRANSFORMED into only BECAUSE of the Fall and only BECAUSE of the debt of penal servitude the woman incurred for her part in the Fall. It is not just (but on the contrary, uncharitable and unmerciful) to exact payment TWICE for the SAME crime. Such "patriarchy" (which I have differentiated from Complementarianism) was NEVER God's ORIGINAL pre-Fall plan for the sexes.

Please read polygyny | Biblical Gender Roles, Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical Part 1, The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women, for more testimony from the Patriarchalists THEMSELVES! It illustrates the ACTUAL tendency of True Patriarchy.

Nonsense.

 

[Glaucus]

Someone's been watching too much Handmaid's Tale.

 

[JackRT]

Patriarchy might be the most pernicious evil that humanity has ever inflicted on itself.

 

[JudicaMeDeus]

Nonsense.

dreadnought, you have just committed the fallacy of "Cavalier Dismissal". This fallacy occurs whenever a person dismisses a piece of evidence of out hand because it runs contrary to a foundational belief that one holds. D.A. Carson defines the fallacy this:

14. Cavalier dismissal: The fallacy in this instance lies in thinking that an opponent's argument has actually been handled when in fact it has merely been written off. It may happen that an opposing opinion does not conform to a writer's own ideas or ideals, however such a difference is not a licence to dismiss the opposing opinion. Instead, such a conflict should be stated and investigated to find its source.

The evidence I presented to you from the previous patriarchalist MALE CHAUVINIST sites themselves testify of the ACTUAL tendency of a truly patriarchal society. No society can permanently remain truly patriarchal (especially in the LEGALIST manner in which these Christian patriarchalists INSIST on practicing it) unless it accepts the lawfulness of polygyny.

See also: HEM Articles: 62. Patriarchy without Polygamy: A Contradiction in Terms, The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women for the evidence you have so cavalierly dismissed. The burden of proof is on the monogamist to SHOW the reason WHY the arguments presented by the polygynists are wrong and fallacious!!

 

[Kaon]

Dearly beloved Brethren (and Sisters) in Christ! If you look on Google for "Christian polygyny", you will find HUNDREDS of websites, all of them PATRIARCHALIST, earnestly contending that not only was Polygyny allowed in the OT, but NOTHING in the New Testament can be justly construed to FORBID polygyny. This only serves to emphasize a major contention of mine: No society which refuses to accept the lawfulness of polygyny can be a truly patriarchal society. See: Patriarchy = Civilization for the proof. (Note: the author of that website contends that Patriarchy and Civilization are INDISTINGUISHABLE concepts, but we KNOW from the Webster's dictionary that they are easily distinguishable concepts.)

Patriarchy = Civilization:



See also: HEM Articles: 62. Patriarchy without Polygamy: A Contradiction in Terms.



This proves that the BEST and SUREST and SIMPLEST possible way to promote the equality of the sexes is to promote monogamy.

The question now is, what is Patriarchy and what is Complementarianism and how do they differ from each other?

Are there any differences between Patriarchy and Complementarianism? As it turns out, YES.

Here is one crucial difference:

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf:



I have some even MORE crucial differences:

Patriarchy: The Third Option in the Comp/Egal Debate:



Go and read it for yourselves with caution. The true Biblical position is that all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are reserved for adult males only. (But this in my mind, raises some questions about whether or not it is lawful for women to serve as mixed choir directors in the Church - never mind about so-called LEADERS of the congregational song as opposed to a quartette choir which leads congregational singing not by haranguing or addressing the assembly but by singing the parts the congregation is to sing usually in 4-part harmony.) And not just because the Church is an arithmetical aggregate of families rather than individuals (with families being the irreducible and elementary unit of the church): but because the Church is the only other divine institution UNIQUELY patterned after the human family.

Those who confuse the two, for example, those who argue for the traditional rigorist [or what many "liberals" (or rather, leftists and cultural marxists) and antinomians call the "legalist"] form of patriarchy yet argue that they are only upholding complementarianism are committing what is called the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy.

Bearded Stoic: Progress:



See: philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf for more information.

But to continue, here is another important difference.

John Calvin remarked that before the fall, the subjection of Eve to Adam was a liberal and gentle subjection. But after the fall, it was a servile subjection. One of the important differences between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism is that Patriarchy tends to emphasize the SERVILE subjection of the female sex to the male sex and not just merely a liberal and gentle subjection. Patriarchy is EXACTLY what Complementarianism had been TRANSFORMED into only BECAUSE of the Fall and only BECAUSE of the debt of penal servitude the woman incurred for her part in the Fall. It is not just (but on the contrary, uncharitable and unmerciful) to exact payment TWICE for the SAME crime. Such "patriarchy" (which I have differentiated from Complementarianism) was NEVER God's ORIGINAL pre-Fall plan for the sexes.

Please read polygyny | Biblical Gender Roles, Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical Part 1, The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women, for more testimony from the Patriarchalists THEMSELVES! It illustrates the ACTUAL tendency of True Patriarchy.

I don't think we should begin to castrate men, but there is certainly a male hegemony within most all cultures on this planet. It affects everything from geopolitics to feminine care items.

I also agree that viewing a mate as a compliment is what the Most High God has always intended - the design was always two sides of the same coin. My philosophy is that men were spiritual magistrates, while women were the arbiters of all thing life. There are different gender roles, but they all should work to compliment Creation. Women are the reason men live with honor, dignity and fever; men are the reason women can be the full image of what it means to live, and connect the creation with the Creator. That is a complimentary relationship: the image of spirit and the image of life combining to produce a living spirit.

The world does not see genders as complimentary. They are equal, but they aren't the same.

 

[dqhall]

Dearly beloved Brethren (and Sisters) in Christ! If you look on Google for "Christian polygyny", you will find HUNDREDS of websites, all of them PATRIARCHALIST, earnestly contending that not only was Polygyny allowed in the OT, but NOTHING in the New Testament can be justly construed to FORBID polygyny. This only serves to emphasize a major contention of mine: No society which refuses to accept the lawfulness of polygyny can be a truly patriarchal society. See: Patriarchy = Civilization for the proof. (Note: the author of that website contends that Patriarchy and Civilization are INDISTINGUISHABLE concepts, but we KNOW from the Webster's dictionary that they are easily distinguishable concepts.)

Patriarchy = Civilization:



See also: HEM Articles: 62. Patriarchy without Polygamy: A Contradiction in Terms.



This proves that the BEST and SUREST and SIMPLEST possible way to promote the equality of the sexes is to promote monogamy.

The question now is, what is Patriarchy and what is Complementarianism and how do they differ from each other?

Are there any differences between Patriarchy and Complementarianism? As it turns out, YES.

Here is one crucial difference:

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf:



I have some even MORE crucial differences:

Patriarchy: The Third Option in the Comp/Egal Debate:



Go and read it for yourselves with caution. The true Biblical position is that all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are reserved for adult males only. (But this in my mind, raises some questions about whether or not it is lawful for women to serve as mixed choir directors in the Church - never mind about so-called LEADERS of the congregational song as opposed to a quartette choir which leads congregational singing not by haranguing or addressing the assembly but by singing the parts the congregation is to sing usually in 4-part harmony.) And not just because the Church is an arithmetical aggregate of families rather than individuals (with families being the irreducible and elementary unit of the church): but because the Church is the only other divine institution UNIQUELY patterned after the human family.

Those who confuse the two, for example, those who argue for the traditional rigorist [or what many "liberals" (or rather, leftists and cultural marxists) and antinomians call the "legalist"] form of patriarchy yet argue that they are only upholding complementarianism are committing what is called the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy.

Bearded Stoic: Progress:



See: philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf for more information.

But to continue, here is another important difference.

John Calvin remarked that before the fall, the subjection of Eve to Adam was a liberal and gentle subjection. But after the fall, it was a servile subjection. One of the important differences between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism is that Patriarchy tends to emphasize the SERVILE subjection of the female sex to the male sex and not just merely a liberal and gentle subjection. Patriarchy is EXACTLY what Complementarianism had been TRANSFORMED into only BECAUSE of the Fall and only BECAUSE of the debt of penal servitude the woman incurred for her part in the Fall. It is not just (but on the contrary, uncharitable and unmerciful) to exact payment TWICE for the SAME crime. Such "patriarchy" (which I have differentiated from Complementarianism) was NEVER God's ORIGINAL pre-Fall plan for the sexes.

Please read polygyny | Biblical Gender Roles, Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical Part 1, The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women, for more testimony from the Patriarchalists THEMSELVES! It illustrates the ACTUAL tendency of True Patriarchy.

Polygamy is forbidden by Israeli law.
Polygamy is forbidden by US law.
If a man is married and has an affair with a woman he is not married to, it is called adultery. Jesus taught adultery is wrong.

Paul was not married. In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul was describing his sufferings; such as having to work for a living and not having a wife:

1 Corinthians 9:5 "Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

The apostles were able to take along one wife, not two or more. The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs had multiple wives. The Jews of Jesus' day were allowed to divorce their wives and remarry. They were not supposed to have two wives at once. Wicked Herod had to divorce his wife before marrying his brother's wife. The right to divorce is from the laws described as being from Moses. Jesus explained that divorce was due to cruelty. (Matthew 19:8).

 

[Knee V]

When having a certain label is our goal unto itself, then we often tend to become inconsistent and irrational in order to maintain that label. For example, many want to wear the badge of being considered "truly conservative", and will hold whatever political views are en vogue in order to keep that label. Same with those who want to be seen as "truly progressive", or many other such labels.

If being considered "patriarchal" is our goal, then we will fall victim to believing whatever is en vogue among patriarchalists. I don't care if I or my civilization has the honor of being seen as patriarchal. Polygyny, and other forms of polygamy, are contrary to the historic Christian faith. I don't care what King David did. I don't care what Abraham did. I don't care what various Christian-era European kings did. It is contrary to the teachings of Christ, and it has no place in a civilization that alleges to be rooted in Christian teaching.

 

[JackRT]

There is no Biblical condemnation of polygamy and it persisted into the early Christian era (mid second century). From that point forward it was condemned not as a matter of Biblical teaching but as a matter of Church teaching.

 

[Albion]

Patriarchy might be the most pernicious evil that humanity has ever inflicted on itself.

And it sure as anything is not compatible with Conservative Christianity. People should read the SOP before posting (not matter which forum it happens to be).

 

[MariaJLM]

Both polygamy and polygyny are problematic, from a legal standpoint and a moral one. There's reasons why Christianity defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

 

[BriarRose_]

Men are not forced to be monogamous, no one forced them to marry.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Patriarchy is good and is the natural order of creation. Like everything good it can be abused, perverted, twisted, and misused.

God is the divine Patriarch of the universe, and all family and governmental structures which adhere to the created order, or the order of grace, originate from fatherhood.