Patriarchy - Descriptive or Prescriptive

[Sherman]

The patriarchal family (father-rule, husband more authority and more responsibility) was the norm for all biblical cultures to my knowledge. Thus it can be said that patriarchy is "Descriptive" as in the way things were. But is patriarchy to be understood as "Prescriptive" as in the way things should be?

Also, the women's liberation movement birthed in America more families that practice more of an egalitarian family model, with the husband and wife considering themselves equals in authority and responsibility. Is this a better family structure, or should all families be patriarchal?

Why is one model better or worse than the other?

[Fraught]

Allow me to be the first to respond to your post as a former fellow Virginia Beach-ian. I bet the place is just gorgeous right now. Did you catch any of the music-fest. And the Neptune Fest is comin' up! ohhh nostalgia. September is a really great time to live in virginia beach

i agree with the patriarchal model because: altho a marriage following the Christ model (husband loving the wife in a sacrificial way/wife honoring and respecting her husband) will be pretty smooth, there is always going to come a time of disagreement. in any partnership of 2, there must be a tie-breaker if the parties can't do it themselves. the husband is biblically recognized as the tie-breaker. i believe this turns out to be a blessing in the long run when the parties understand and agree that this is what the contract involves before they sign it. i.e. the promise is made before God.

[Sherman]

Fraught,

Thanks for the reply and yes, it's beautiful in Virginia Beach right now. Your reasoning is pretty good, but in the Garden, before the fall, Adam and Eve were equal, and in Christ there is neither male nor female. It's really a pretty difficult question. And of course you're speaking from a man's perspective. Women might have a very different perspective, especially women that have been abused by men.

[OopsMartin]

i agree with the patriarchal model because: altho a marriage following the Christ model (husband loving the wife in a sacrificial way/wife honoring and respecting her husband) will be pretty smooth, there is always going to come a time of disagreement. in any partnership of 2, there must be a tie-breaker if the parties can't do it themselves. the husband is biblically recognized as the tie-breaker. i believe this turns out to be a blessing in the long run when the parties understand and agree that this is what the contract involves before they sign it. i.e. the promise is made before God.

As a man I find some problems with the patriarchal idea of "final decision maker". By always having the vote that counts, whenever we disagree, I get my way. Now I may believe I have good reasons for it, but so does the woman. Always being able to be the decision maker does not cause growth in the relationship IMO. When two committed couples have to consider the other and come to agreement, it stretches both parties in character, humility, and basically makes them work. I've found that praying together will often bring up a solution that neither of us have thought of. God is capable and always creative. In the end, the harmony that results from two who expose their true concerns and come to mutual agreement (even if that means deciding to let the other person decide) is more productive of real unity, than one person always having to give in, and one person always getting the final vote.

However, I acknowledge that some couples can only operate at that level.

But Scripture does not prescribe such a model. In my vote patriarchy is not a preferred model even though we have examples of it.

[Sherman]

OopsMartin,

Some good thoughts, what about Ephesians 5 passage, "wives submit to husbands and husbands love your wives". How does that square with an egalitarian model?

[Fraught]

Fraught,

Thanks for the reply and yes, it's beautiful in Virginia Beach right now. Your reasoning is pretty good, but in the Garden, before the fall, Adam and Eve were equal, and in Christ there is neither male nor female. It's really a pretty difficult question. And of course you're speaking from a man's perspective. Women might have a very different perspective, especially women that have been abused by men.

i must sound like a man when i write !! LOL; but guess what - i am a woman and one that has been married for 29 years !!!! you might want to rethink that i have indeed considered the question carefully more than once.

[Johni]

The man should be the spiritual leader of his household. Otherwise couples have strengths and weaknesses. Each should recognize that and be willing to use that to the good of the familiy. for instance, whichever is the best at dealing with bills and figuring the budget should do it---whether its the husband or the wife. I personally don't know or care to know much about the upkeep of the car but glad my husband takes care of our vehicles! Husband and wife should be a team.

[OopsMartin]

OopsMartin,

Some good thoughts, what about Ephesians 5 passage, "wives submit to husbands and husbands love your wives". How does that square with an egalitarian model?

If you read the whole chapter five you will see verse one admonishes all to love sacrificially. Then in vs. 21 Paul admonishes all to submit one to another.

1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.

Paul then does an interesting thing. Leaving out the verb in vs. 21 he slides the attitude of mutual submission right over the to woman as if to suggest that this attitude is to continue in the intimate relationship of marriage. And then a few verses later he brings the husband back to verse one and admonishes him to show the same sacrificial love toward his wife as if to also suggest that this type of self giving love is to continue even in intimate relationships. This idea of course, was shocking to the Greeks because they did not usually marry for love but to continue a gene pool.

I am of the opinion that the direction of his words was to strengthen that which was weak. Men did not generally "love" their wives sacrificially then. Women did not generally freely (they were compelled in various ways) yield to or give their support and respect (vs. 33) to their husbands.

In addition, as if that were not enough, Paul creates an interdependence. He admonishes the wife to view her husband as her head, and admonishes the husband to view his wife as his own body. Such a picture is cemented by verse 31 where he reminds them the purpose of marriage is to become one flesh, two become as one.

31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Thus by sacrificial love (doing for the benefit of the other rather than self), freely given submission (trust, respect, support, honor, yieldedness, etc.), considering each other as part of ones own being, we are more able to dwell and live as one new entity = us.

[Sherman]

Fraught,

Thanks for the reply and yes, it's beautiful in Virginia Beach right now. Your reasoning is pretty good, but in the Garden, before the fall, Adam and Eve were equal, and in Christ there is neither male nor female. It's really a pretty difficult question. And of course you're speaking from a man's perspective. Women might have a very different perspective, especially women that have been abused by men.

i must sound like a man when i write !! LOL; but guess what - i am a woman and one that has been married for 29 years !!!! you might want to rethink that i have indeed considered the question carefully more than once.

Oh, that's great! and too funny on me.

I appreciate your perspective and just assumed you were a man. You go girl!!!!

P.S. I missed the music festival and everything else this season. This summer I took two graduate classes (Pauline Theology & Systematic Theology) and taught an undergrad class (Evangelism 101) on top of working full time. So it's been a busy summer. But thanks for asking.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Sherman

[Sherman]

OopsMartin,

Good insightful reply, thanks. I've been thinking that it's significant that the foundation is mutual submission which promotes an egalitarian structure. But Paul also recognizes that the culture was patriarchal and thus would empower men to be oppressive and women to be rebellious. Whenever you take two equals and elevate one and suppress the other, the one elevated would have to be careful to not oppress the other. And the one suppressed would have to be careful to not be rebellious. So the Eph.5 passage understood this way promotes an egalitarian model, but also addresses weaknesses in the patriarchal model.

Thanks! This is very helpful.