Patriarchy - putting women in a straitjacket

[thejovialjavadrinker]

JT,

An example of a wife providing for her family: “She is like a merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night and giveth meat to her household and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field and buyeth it. With the fruit of her hands she planteth it.” The whole of Proverbs 31 shows a woman making decisions apart from her husband. Lydia is another example of a woman providing for her household.

A husband has limited authority, his headship is limited. A wife is to be subject to her husband in her role as wife. She has other duties beyond her duties as wife. Woman was created for Adam, but for more than just that.

If the rifle was military issue, I couldn’t do whatever I wanted with it, because it wasn’t mine. But, if I had a rifle that I bought with my own money, I could do whatever I wanted with it. Family life shouldn’t be equated with the military.

Woman’s value isn’t based upon the fact that she has “special and specific protector, provider and leader.” Her value is based upon the fact that she was created, sanctified and eventually glorified by God. Her job, as well as mans job, is to worship, serve and honor God. Her job is to work out her salvation with fear and trembling. Her job is to make disciples of all nations and take dominion. Her job is to strive to be perfect, as her father in heaven is perfect.

Family government doesn’t place women in a straitjacket any more that it places man in one. The problem I have is that you give man more power and greater authority as family head than is authorized in scripture. You want an autonomous and absolute headship (except for asking a wife to commit evil).

[Moses]

For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel 1Peter 3

Do modern Christian women submit to their husbands in the above way (i.e., submission, obeying, calling the husband lord ,and understanding that she is the weaker vessel)?
I wonder if Peter had a "straitjacket" that he made his wife wear. I wonder if many christian couples would be suprised if they went to Peter's house for dinner and his wife referred to him as lord.
What Peter highlights for women is a PROMOTION to a God ordained office that far exceeds that of feminist rebellion...just as it is a promotion for one to come out of sin and rebellion and submit to Christ as Lord. "Headship" and "lordship" are closely associated.

[JTownsend]

Jovial,
Thanks for the reply.
i would like to point out some... short comings... that I see in your answers to my questions.

First, from Proverbs 31 we don't see that the wife was making decisions independent from her husbands authority. We see that she made decisions but there is nothing there that states those decisions were independent from her husband or from the authority placed in her by her husband. Furthermore the passage doesn't command the wife to be the financial provider of the family. Yes she was profitable, but being profitable is different than being commanded to be the provider for your family.

I totally agree that a husbands authority is limited. Just like Ephesians 5:24 states "Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be subject to their husbands in everything." I guess you will have to define "everything" to me. And you'll also have to explain to me the part about where Christ isn't in authority over the church since that is what the husband is being compared to. This Bible passage is a major point for me. If you want to prove me wrong you'll have to work hard on this one. (and I didn't even bring up 1 Peter 3! I can't believe I forgot that one.)

As for the military rifle. I guess you missed the whole idea. I thought it was a great example - but that just goes to show ya that people miss the most obvious things. Yes, the rifle was issued. But our money or belongings aren't our own. They all belong to God and we are answerable to Him. I was using the military to explain authority. The military understands authority and operates on authority. The family is just another structure which is also subject to authority.

About women's value. How could I have been taken so wrong? Was I really that vague? The protector doesn't give her value - it shows she has value. You don't protect things that aren't valuable. I said specifically that God values woman and has provided her with a protector, her husband. Woman's role is defined by God - not man. Oh sure you did a nice job laying out the bare basics of Christianity. You said she had to strive to be perfect like God. Well then according to this interpretation there is no difference in the roles of men and women... But your problem is that the Bible does give specific differences between the sexes.

I have not given man any more authority than what the scriptures states. The husband has a derivative authority from God and must lead the family as God commands. That's about as far from autonomous and absolute as you can get. Your problem is that you limit the authority God places in the husband and don't give any scripture to support your claim.

Your summations show that you are jumping to conclusions and not basing your conclusions on what scripture says, but rather on what you think is written in between the lines.

May God grant us understanding on this topic.

[lizzyd]

Good points Jovial.

You want an autonomous and absolute headship (except for asking a wife to commit evil).

Thus my "lone ranger" comment. We so much focus on the husband's leadership, and no focus on the fact that the husband/wife are to be "one flesh." That makes me question one's motivations.

[James]

I sometimes think (and I'm sure many would agree) that we make many comments in forums like this and elsewhere where we think everyone is on the same page as we are. We tend to think that we are in agreement on the major points so there isn't any need to clarify those points before I make my statement. This isn't really a fault of the poster but really of our own ignorance of what Scripture says.

When my wife first read Jeremiah's comments she thought they were completely crazy. So I read them myself and proceeded to explain what I thought he was getting at.

No offense Jeremiah. We all come from different backgrounds and ideas on things so when we read comments that don't seem to fit in with that we can get angry. This is how I explained it to my wife:

We are to be of "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Which basically means that as husband and wife we are to acting as one unit with one mind. But here's the problem. In a perfect world without sin we would be of one mind in Christ. We are sinful creatures because of Adam and Eve's fall (1 Cor. 15:22). What happened in that fall? One of the curses pronounced upon women was that "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

When husband and wife are acting of one mind there would be no conflict, but what happens when there is conflict? Who makes the ultimate decision? The wife? Scripture says the husband. Wives are to submit to their husbands. If I want to go to a Mexican restaurant and my wife wants to go to a Chinese restaurant what should we do? Go to different restaurants? To make my point, these two choices are the only choices that lay in front of husband and wife. The husband must make the final decision (1 Cor. 11:3 and Eph. 5:22-30). Now that is settled let me move on to the final point.

To say that my wife can't make wifely decisions without my final say-so is Scriptural BUT that doesn't mean she is coming to me for every decision that needs to be made. We just painted our guest-room in preparation for our first child. She didn't need to ask my permission to paint it on Wednesday instead of Friday and to use a roller and to take the lid off of the can (though I did have to help) and then ask if it was ok to cook hamburgers for dinner. She already knows these things have my permission. I accept her role as my helpmeet and embrace it. My "rule" defines those roles within our marriage, not by direct law-making but by how I work to love my wife just as Christ loves His church.

I hope that helps put some clarity on what Jeremiah said. If that's not what you meant please correct me.

[JTownsend]

James,
It sounds to me like you are on target with what I understand scripture to teach. I think you have illustrated those principles well.

And no offense is taken on my part. I have been thinking about this topic for about 8 years. And that's a lot of thinking. I also understand that we all communicate differently so there will be some struggle.

And congratulations on the baby. My wife and I currently have 4 - and they are a blessing.

May God grant us all unity and understanding on this topic.

[JLVaughn]

James,
It sounds to me like you are on target with what I understand scripture to teach. I think you have illustrated those principles well.

And no offense is taken on my part. I have been thinking about this topic for about 8 years. And that's a lot of thinking. I also understand that we all communicate differently so there will be some struggle.

And congratulations on the baby. My wife and I currently have 4 - and they are a blessing.

May God grant us all unity and understanding on this topic.

8 years of thinking? That's nothing.

Try 30 years of thinking and living, raising 5 children, seeing the folly of both patriarchy and liberalism, and recognizing the wisdom of how parents have worked together to raise children for generations. And compared to those I learned from, I'm barely getting started.

[JTownsend]

JL,
Congratulations on the 5 children. I hope they are all following God. And I'm glad you have such a full base of Christian mentors to draw from.

But what do you think about what James has to say?

[JLVaughn]

But what do you think about what James has to say?

I had essentially the same assessment of your view. I've heard it from patriarchalists for over 30 years and it has proven faulty. It is extremely naive, as James' Dad's mentor and former boss Gary North demonstrated in his economic commentaries.

North's view minus the Calvinism is essentially my view. North's interpretation of the case law is fully indicated by a preterist understanding of the prophets. North missed a lot of great examples because he so strongly emphasizes his postmillennialism over his preterism. I learned a lot of these examples from North's former employees Chilton, Gentry, DeMar who tend to emphasize their preterism over their postmillennialism, and their partner in crime, James Jordan who emphasizes everything.

[thejovialjavadrinker]

Each of God’s institutions has a “head” who has ultimate authority within a given sphere. Those leaders uphold the laws by bringing sanctions against members of a covenant when one of them violates one of the laws that he has taken an oath to live by. Obedience brings blessings. Each sphere of government is limited.

They each have their own laws, their own sanctions, their own hierarchies, their own oaths, and their own blessings and cursing.

Government is concerned with governing, protecting the law-keepers by punishing the law-breakers.
The State can bring the sword against rebellious citizens.
The Church can excommunicate rebellious members.
The Family can discipline the children of the household.
God, in time and eternity, brings sanctions against those who don’t govern themselves.

Can the husband bring sanctions against his wife? What kind of sanctions? In what instances?

The Bible says “wives submit to your husbands”. It also says, “submit to one another”. The husband IS supposed to make the final judgement in matters that he has jurisdiction over. The wife IS to submit to his judgements, as long as he has the authority to pronounce those judgements.

What areas of a wife’s life aren’t governed by her husband? Are there any? Or is her personhood defined by her husband? Is her individuality tied to her husband?

What about unmarried woman, or widows? What of male headship in these instances?

[lizzyd]

We are to be of "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Which basically means that as husband and wife we are to acting as one unit with one mind. But here's the problem. In a perfect world without sin we would be of one mind in Christ.

Even in a fallen world it is possible to be of one mind the great majority of the time. You could say that the husband has final veto power, but if the couple is of one flesh then ideally he rarely uses it.

When husband and wife are acting of one mind there would be no conflict, but what happens when there is conflict? Who makes the ultimate decision? The wife? Scripture says the husband. Wives are to submit to their husbands. If I want to go to a Mexican restaurant and my wife wants to go to a Chinese restaurant what should we do? Go to different restaurants? To make my point, these two choices are the only choices that lay in front of husband and wife. The husband must make the final decision (1 Cor. 11:3 and Eph. 5:22-30).

False dilemma saying that either the wife or husband must make the decision. What about being of "one flesh" and reaching a compromise that is acceptable to both? One restaurant this time, the other next time. It's that easy. This is clearly a matter of preference and the husband should really have his eye on being of one flesh rather than "my way or the highway."

[James]

You could say that the husband has final veto power, but if the couple is of one flesh then ideally he rarely uses it.

That's my point. If you are of one flesh then the husband is being a proper leader of his household and the wife is properly submitting.

Being a leader doesn't have to mean barking orders and submitting doesn't mean having to go to the husband and ask for permission or waiting for him to bark some order.

False dilemma saying that either the wife or husband must make the decision. What about being of "one flesh" and reaching a compromise that is acceptable to both? One restaurant this time, the other next time. It's that easy. This is clearly a matter of preference and the husband should really have his eye on being of one flesh rather than "my way or the highway."

I created a false dilemma to express a point.

To make my point, these two choices are the only choices that lay in front of husband and wife.

Clearly life doesn't always present us with choice #1 and choice #2 only. We need to comprehend the basics before we can begin to understand the complicated.