Patriarchalism etc
[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog Jan 11 2007]
In the face of a feminist culture, the Church struggles to respond in a biblical fashion. Of course, many virtually cave in to the surrounding ethos.
Others, however, resort to various levels of patriarchalism. Given the mess of our society, this can look quite attractive.
And I suppose that my own viewpoint would be considered patriarchalism of a sort, as well. It’s a tag I’ve been given by unbelieving folk, at any rate. I’m appalled by women who neglect their families for the sake of getting “fulfillment” through their careers, and by a great deal else that characterizes our culture. And on a more general level, I’m disturbed by women who talk like men, adopt manly mannerisms, and are offended if a man wishes to defer to them by opening a door.
Assumptions of Hyper-Patriarchalism
Still, there are some (to put it prejudicially) oddities out there on the “patriarchal” side of things – oddities frequently arising out of questionable assumptions or insufficient attention to biblical detail.
Along these lines are certain notions that women are always supposed to be under the familial headship of a man. (An article written a few years back by a single gal ran under the headline, “My Daddy Owns Me.”) Either a female belongs to her father, or she passes into the hands of her husband. Appeal is made to biblical examples where women are given in marriage by family arrangement, along with more general appeals to obedience of children to parents.
Biblical Culture vs Common Assumptions
Now, while I am very sympathetic to some form of the courtship model, and am a strong advocate of a return to biblical respect for authority, there are certain problems with the assumptions noted above.
First, the general call for obedience to parents is equally encumbent upon both male and female, and the overarching command is honour of one’s parents, which in the case of adults is not going to look like adolescent obedience. If an adult male is not under parental headship, it is not at all clear why an adult female must be.
Second, it is simply not the case that a woman was always under familial male headship – or was supposed to be. The obvious counterexample is that of widows. In certain circumstances (poverty was obviously a big reality for widows), a widow could return to her father’s household – but she didn’t have to. And as far as remarriage, Paul explicitly says she may marry whomever she will, only in the Lord (1 Cor 7.39). (As an aside, note that he doesn’t tell her to ask her pastor to be her surrogate father, whether for the sake of finding and evaluating a potential suitor or anything else.)
Third, the apparent parental control of marriage in Scripture is in fact more limited than is sometimes supposed. We aren’t told, for example, that Isaac had to marry Rebekah; and as for her part, she was asked whether she would go with the man sent to find Isaac a bride. In truth, she left when her family was dragging their heels. In any case, there are a variety of courtship models displayed in Scripture, and it is not quite convincing to appeal to the handful of so-called “arranged” marriages as the norm. (Funny how nobody in the patriarchal camp champions Ruth’s womanly pursuit of Boaz as normative. Any woman who makes the first move is obviously “unfeminine.”)
Moreover, girls in ancient Israel apparently married at an average age of 12-16 years old. Which means that they were never single adults at all. Hence it is no real surprise that they were under male headship until they become widows. The real question is whether the norms applied to adolescent females ought to be applied to grown women who happen to remain single. (Another question is whether old covenant norms on this matter ought to be applied across the board into the new covenant situation, given the new accent upon singleness in the Lord’s service; more on this below.)
Looking beyond such issues to matters of whether women should be active in the business of society (yes, that is sometimes questioned), it is to be observed that the godly wife of Proverbs 31 is not only industrious within her own four walls, but carries out a real estate transaction on her own, and deriving from that field she makes sufficient living to plant a vineyard (Prov 31.16). She markets her goods (31.24) and bestows help upon the poor (31.20). She is, in short, a very public figure, and makes many big decisions of her own accord.
Patriarchalism vs Single Service
Tying these two threads together, it is to be noted that the New Testament, in particular, places a high premium upon single servants of Christ (e.g. 1 Cor 7.32-35), both male and female. There is a sort of hyper-Protestantism that is almost embarrassed by this, and it is a reality that doesn’t fit all that well with the notions considered above. Phoebe, for instance, travels widely – all the way to Rome – as a “deacon” of the church at Cenchrea, near Corinth (Rom 16.1-2). Contrary to the apparent assumptions of some, an unmarried woman is not consigned to (caricature alert!) sitting inside Daddy’s house reading and doing needlepoint; it may well be that God has very special, and quite public, service marked out for her.
In an age of feminism, the Christian counter should not consist in running to the opposite extreme, but rather in seeking to understand the whole Scripture, and to be faithful to it in all its facets. The role of women in our times has become virtually interchangeable with men – or at least, that is what is attempted – but our response must not be reactionary. Over against most of the cultures which has surrounded the Church throughout history, our faith has been liberating for women, providing them avenues of service that would not have been thinkable outside the body of Christ. It is untrue that kneejerk patriarchalism returns us to more pristine Christian practice; rather, it is more a departure into the non-Christian realm altogether.
Of course, this is not the problem of most of the Western Church. On the whole, our biggest problem is individualism; and just as the antidote to feminism is not hyper-patriarchalism, neither is the antidote to hyper-patriarchalism anything like the disrespect of all authority – whether parental or otherwise – that so epitomizes our times, even in the Church. I want to make it clear that the frequent carelessness of Christian children regarding what their parents may think of their boyfriends, girlfriends, or fiances, is a blight upon them (and in many cases, a blight upon their parents, for failing to nurture respect, for failing to parent with any sort of gravitas), just as the wife “wearing the pants in the family” is a blight upon both husband and wife. But we should not cripple the God-given power of women simply because of the common usurpation of power He has not given.
Our standard, after all, is not 21st century individualistic culture, not feminism, not patriarchalism, but the Word of God Himself.