Do the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament Demand Patriarchy?
The manosphere in bed with religious fundamentalism do
Anyone reading the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament often stumbles upon patriarchy. An assumption is that the God of these Holy Scriptures has established and demands patriarchy as the government of his three institutions: family, state, and church. This may be an acceptable interpretation of the texts, but the following may be better or at least worthy of consideration: The Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament present a God, who works through the cultures, structures and systems of the human race in any epoch.
A foundational example to consider would be God’s establishing of his covenant. (This is a central and governing component to both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.) Meredith Kline is one American covenant theologian, who persuasively showed how the covenant God established in the Hebrew Scriptures uses the form and structure of an older Hittite suzerainty treaty. Not just form and structure, but also content of the covenant can be found in other ancient legal documents predating the covenant found in the Hebrew Scriptures. The point = the God of the Hebrew Scriptures uses existing forms and content of culture and law, working through them in relationships, institutions and communities he establishes.
Ask the question: Was Abraham a patriarch? The answer is “Yes.” Ask, “Did God demand that he be one?” Perhaps. But it is also possible to say that God chose to work with a patriarch and through a patriarchy without demanding it as the only system of government in his three institutions. Indeed, Abraham’s patriarchal practices landed him in trouble more than once. And so, someone bully on patriarchy might say, “That’s due to his abuse of patriarchy.” If so, then such a person should carefully read and interpret the text, distinguishing between the myriad of patriarchal abuses and any shred remaining of a holy patriarchy.
What if the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament not only displays God working with and through human patriarchy and also correcting it but also displays a better system of government? This is a possible and acceptable reading of the texts. If patriarchy is problematic, why would God tolerate it let alone work through it? This same question might be asked of those God has consented to work with and through historically and presently: Why would God work with King David, the polygamist, adulterer and murderer? Why would God work through pagan emperors? Why would Jesus choose Judas? Why does God work through global leaders in the 21st century, who are godless tyrants, thugs and greedy, selfish individuals?
If God is willing, as Martin Luther quipped, “God uses crooked sticks to make straight lines,” referring to less than ideal human individuals, why would we not consider that God does the same with systems of government and societal structures? (Not everything in the Holy Scriptures is prescriptive.) What if God is more tolerant, merciful and gracious than we could ever imagine? What if God were willing to work with and through me or you?
The continental Reformed traditions have produced theologians and communities, who have formulated two doctrines that are mostly helpful: Common grace and sphere sovereignty. Common grace in a nutshell is as Jesus said, “God causes the sun to rise upon the righteous and the unrighteous…” God’s truth may be discovered and applied for all our good by an individual, who is not in any analysis a follower of God.
Sphere sovereignty is the presentation of God establishing three institutions: family, state and church. These three serve humanity and all creation. These are to work together without encroaching upon the other. Historically, communities have blurred the lines between all three. Few of us wish the state to intrude upon the church or family. Many of us do not wish the church to rule the state. Some think the family to be the only institution and thus become insular and destructive, not only to the institution of the family but to the other two as well. Those who elevate the family above the church and state tend to be insubmissive to the church and state, offended by any authority wielded by these two in any way that would mar the autonomy of the family. Sphere sovereignty presents the ideal of all three institutions working together for the good of all - interaction not intrusion…collaboration not oppression…submission not rebellion.
Consider this hypothetical: A husband/father believes that as patriarch of his family, he has sole authority over his wife and children. A minister of the church discovers that he is committing incest and confronts him. The father resists and tells the minister to stay out of his bedroom. The minister attempts over several years to find loving ways of ending the problem to no avail. As a delinquent, mandatory reporter, the minister finally reports the father to the state’s law enforcement and the father lands in court and then the pen. The father, even his wife and patriarchal friends blame the minister and the state for intruding into the sphere of the family, as Child Protective Services removes the children placing them in foster homes. You might say, “This is an example of the abuse of patriarchy,” but too many patriarchs, dead and alive disagree with you.
Consider this hypothetical: A public school teacher observes a young student’s behavior concluding that there is abuse in the home. As a mandatory reporter the teacher calls in Child Protective Services, who sends out a college graduate of two years, who swiftly removes the child from the home without sufficient investigation. After three years in court it is quite evident that no abuse occurred in the home, merely an accident in the back yard. During the court’s wheels slowly grinding, the church rashly sides with the state leaving the family bereft of any support and encouragement as it was falsely accused.
Both of these hypotheticals are actually several times over my personal experience and in many more cases, the personal experience of numerous colleagues of mine scattered throughout the USA. In all of these cases, whether or not the family’s rights were trampled or justice was served upon the family, patriarchy has been a component and has not helped the resolutions. I am not making an argument against patriarchy per se. I am attempting to encourage consideration of the question: Do the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament demand patriarchy? Common grace and sphere sovereignty are helpful. A regular and thorough study of the Holy Scriptures with proper training in interpretation and application is even more helpful.
If a husband/father is the patriarch of his family, then he would do well to submit to the institutions of the state and church, humbly and regularly inviting accountability for his beliefs and actions. If an elected official of the state has patriarchal tendencies, then he would do well to remember that he serves his constituency comprised of a diversity of voters, who may not be patriarchal. If a minister or a church is patriarchal then they would do well to assure the well-being of men, women and children under their care, preaching and working diligently to assure that the church is not a gentlemen’s club. (For every one sermon on wives submitting to their husbands, these ministers and churches should preach at least 10 sermons on everyone submitting to God and one another.)
We all fall prey to over-reacting against what we believe is wrong. At the moment, the manosphere and some church communities are strongly reacting against feminism, emasculation, woke theory and more. If one’s reactions to these is the main source of developing a patriarchal practice then it will be rife with problems. More patriarchs must stand strong, actively opposing the trafficking of women and children locally and globally. More patriarchs must model in their homes humility, conversation, self-sacrificial love, joy and peace. More patriarchs need to publicly denounce the Alexander brothers. In other words, anyone or group seeking to promote and establish patriarchy should do less towards women and children toeing the line and more towards patriarchs walking the straight and narrow. (I know a few who actually do this.)
Patriarchs, who read the Apostle Paul’s writings in the New Testament, are aware of his text, Ephesians 5:22-24 - “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” The preceding verse, Ephesians 5:21 is the topic sentence informing everyone: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” The following verses, Ephesians 5:25-33 inform husbands: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
That’s a mouthful! Here are a few points to consider: #1 = Everyone is called to submit to one another. #2 = Therefore, wives should submit to their husbands. #3 = Therefore, husbands should love their wives self-sacrificially. #4 = The meaning of submission for wives is respect.
These words are far from patriarchy.
Most men desire love and respect and if they must choose between the two, they would prefer respect…at least and best from their wives. The best way for a man to win such respect is to self-sacrificially love his wife. Such a self-sacrificial husband would ask his wife’s opinion, give her space to make decisions and perform meaning and productive work (like the Hebrew Scriptures, Proverbs 31 celebrates). A self-sacrificial husband would only make decisions that would serve the honor, well-being, dignity and flourishing of his wife. Ancient and 1st century patriarchy is not concerned with any of these points the Apostle Paul makes. Such patriarchy is about propagation, estate, control and authority. (I do know some 21st century patriarchs, who are following the Apostle Paul’s instruction. I know many more, who have lifted Ephesians 5:22-24 out of its context, and thus not following him at all.)
Where I have worked and lived my entire life, discussions about this topic are dominated by the question of married men, “Are you complementarian or egalitarian?” A complementarian is one, who believes that husbands and wives are equal partners with differing and distinct roles. An egalitarian believes that husbands and wives are equal and may execute any role. In most marriages I have observed, regardless of their choice of one of these two, there is functionally little to no difference in daily interaction and endeavor. One difference is that many complementarian men are trying desperately to hold on to patriarchy, while many egalitarians are desperately trying to erase patriarchy. The Apostle Paul’s text quoted above can be applied by either complementarian or egalitarian. (Read it again and see if you agree.)
To the question of this post, read the quote again and see if it demands patriarchy. Perhaps we can agree that it doesn’t promote matriarchy. Consider the texts revealing a God who graciously, patiently and perfectly works through complicated and less than ideal, even destructive human beings, culture and societal systems.