The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy

[Anonymous]

"The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy"


From time to time, God in His providence, allows not only for the testing of his saints, but for divisions, schisms and heresies to arise, that from such, His Church will grow in maturity and purity of faith, doctrine and practice. It is in the context of such “testing times” that God’s people are often reminded to “open the lost book of the law,” and return to the ancient paths — the eternal, unchanging truths found within the pages of Holy Scripture.

Central to the crisis of this era is the systematic attack on the timeless truths of biblical patriarchy. This attack includes the movement to subvert the biblical model of the family, and redefine the very meaning of fatherhood and motherhood, masculinity, femininity, and the parent and child relationship. We emphasize the importance of biblical patriarchy, not because it is greater than other doctrines, but because it is being actively attacked by unbelievers and professing Christians alike. Egalitarian feminism is a false ideology that has bred false doctrine in the church and seduced many believers. In conscious opposition to feminism, egalitarianism, and the humanistic philosophies of the present time, the church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.

There have been public statements recently against “legalistic patriarchy” and “hegemonic patriarchy” which have convinced us of the need for this kind of summary statement. We are anxious that what we actually teach be understood.

By way of background, we want to emphasize that we affirm the historic creeds and confessions of the Christian church (e.g., Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, London and Westminster Confession, etc.) and understand them to present a balanced view of our faith. The Christian faith centers on Jesus Christ and is grounded on the written word of God. These are the truly vital concerns of life.

Biblical patriarchy is just one theme in the Bible’s grand sweep of revelation, but it is a scriptural doctrine, and faithfulness to Christ requires that it be believed, taught, and lived. The following are a list of affirmations which describe the perspective of Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries, Phil Lancaster of Patriarch magazine and R.C. Sproul, Jr., of the Highlands Study Center. This document, drafted by Phil Lancaster, with the advice and counsel of others, is offered in an attempt to clarify what we mean by “biblical patriarchy.” We view this as an accurate working document, and invite feedback from anyone as we attempt to improve this statement over time.

In what follows, the number of words devoted to a tenet does not necessarily indicate the relative importance of that topic, but may rather indicate our sense of how much explanation is necessary given how unfamiliar or disputable the topic may be. Here, then, are the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy.

God as Masculine

1. God reveals Himself as masculine, not feminine. God is the eternal Father and the eternal Son, the Holy Spirit is also addressed as “He,” and Jesus Christ is a male. (Matt. 1:25; 28:19; Jn. 5:19; 16:13)
The Image of God and Gender Roles

2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption. The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man. (Gen. 1:27-28; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; Eph. 5:28; 1 Pet. 3:7)

3. God ordained distinct gender roles for man and woman as part of the created order. Adam’s headship over Eve was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world. (Gen. 2:18ff.; 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; 1 Tim. 2:12-13)

4. Although sin has distorted their relationship, God’s order of authority for husbands and wives has not changed, and redemption enables them to make substantial progress in achieving God’s ideal for their relationship. (Gen. 3:16; Eph. 5:22ff.)

The Authority of Fathers

5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God. (Gen. 18:19; Eph. 6:4)

6. A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God. (Ps. 103:13; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 11:29-30; Col. 3:21; 1 Pet. 3:7)

7. The authority of fathers is limited by the law of God and the lawful authority of church and state. Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of church and state and must be subject to both. (Rom. 13:1ff.; Eph. 5:21; 6:4; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.)

Family, Church, and State

8. Family, church, and state are parallel institutions, each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere. As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom, the church is the central and defining institution of history. As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 25:11; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.; Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Tim. 3:15)

9. Every Christian father and family ought to be a submitted and committed part of a local church, subject to the authority and discipline of the church through its elders. (Heb. 10:24-25; 13:17)

10. The church is defined by its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word; by the presence of the Holy Spirit; by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread, and fellowship; and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline. (Gal. 1:8; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:1ff.; Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:20ff.; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 5)

11. Male leadership in the home carries over into the church: only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church. A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres as an application of and support for God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church.(1 Tim. 3:5)

Men & Women: Spheres of Dominion

12. While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home, their dominion begins within the home, and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household. (Mal. 4:6; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 3:5)

13. Since the woman was created as a helper to her husband, as the bearer of children, and as a “keeper at home,” the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home, although her domestic calling, as a representative of and helper to her husband, may well involve activity in the marketplace and larger community. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Prov. 31:10-31; Tit. 2:4-5)

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)

Procreation

15. God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” still applies to married couples, and He “seeks godly offspring.” He is sovereign over the opening and closing of the womb. Children are a gift of God and it is a blessing to have many of them, if He so ordains. Christian parents are bound to look to Scripture as their authoritative guide concerning issues of procreation. They should welcome with thanksgiving the children God gives them. The failure of believers to reject the anti-life mindset of the age has resulted in the murder of possibly millions of unborn babies through the use of abortifacient birth control. (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; 29:31; 30:22; Ex. 20:13: 21:22-25; Ps. 127:3; 128:3-4; Is. 8:18; Mal. 2:15)

Education & training of children

16. Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6-9; Rom. 13:3-5; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:15)

17. Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6ff.; Ps. 78:3-8; Prov. 1:8; Eph. 6:4; )

18. Educational methodology is not neutral. The Christian should build his educational methodology from the word of God and reject methodologies derived from humanism, evolutionism, and other unbiblical systems of thought. Biblical education is discipleship, a process designed to reach the heart. The aim is a transformed person who exhibits godly character and a trained mind, both of which arise from faith. The parents are crucial and ordinarily irreplaceable in this heart-level, relational process. (Deut. 6:5-7; Lk. 6:40; 1 Thess. 2:7-12; 2 Tim. 1:5; 2 Pet. 1:5-8)

19. Since the educational mandate belongs to parents and they are commanded personally to walk beside and train their children, they ought not to transfer responsibility for the educational process to others. However, they have the liberty to delegate components of that process. While they should exercise great caution and reserve in doing this, and the more so the less mature the child, it is prudent to take advantage of the diversity of gifts within the body of Christ and enjoy the help and support that comes with being part of a larger community with a common purpose. (1 Cor. 12:14ff.; Gal. 4:1,2; 6:2; Eph. 4:16)

20. The age-integrated communities of family and church are the God-ordained institutions for training and socialization and as such provide the preferred pattern for social life and educational endeavors. The modern preference for grouping children exclusively with their age mates for educational and social purposes is contrary to scriptural wisdom and example. (Deut. 29:10-11; 2 Chron. 20:13; Prov. 22:15 with 13:20; Joel 2:16; 1 Cor. 15:33)

21. The Bible presents a long-term, multi-generational vision of the progress of God’s kingdom in the world. Christian parents need to adopt this perspective and be motivated by the generational promises of Scripture, and church shepherds need to promote this outlook within their flocks. By the grace of God, as fathers faithfully turn their hearts toward their sons and daughters and the youths respond in kind, the next generation will build upon the faith and improve upon the faithfulness of their parents. (Ps. 78:1-8; Is. 59:21; Mal. 4:6; Lk. 1:17; Gal. 6:9)

A father and his older children

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection. Even after leaving their father’s house, children should honor their parents by seeking their counsel and blessing throughout their lives. (Gen. 28:1-2; Num. 30:3ff.; Deut. 22:21; Gal. 4:1,2; Eph. 6:2-3)

23. Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse. While a father may find a wife for his son, sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.” A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process. Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers, an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although the final approval of a husband belongs to her. Upon a Marriage taking place, a new household with new jurisdiction is established, separate from that of the father. (Gen. 24:1ff.; 25:20; 28:2; Ex. 2:21; Josh. 15:17; Jdg. 12:9; 1 Sam. 18:27; Jer. 29:6; 1 Cor. 7:38; Gen. 24:58)

The sufficiency & application of Scripture

24. Scripture is the believer’s sufficient guide for all of faith and practice, and Christians must believe and obey whatever it teaches and commands. The Bible provides the Christian — through precept, pattern and principle — all that is necessary to make wise decisions concerning the many ethically complex issues of life. (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3)

25. Fathers need to exercise discernment in the choices they make for their families and not simply drift with the cultural tide. Egalitarian feminism is an enemy of God and of biblical truth, but the need for care goes beyond this threat. The values of modern society are often at odds with those that accompany a biblical worldview. For example, fathers need self-consciously to resist the values of individualism at the expense of community, efficiency at the expense of relationships, and material well-being at the expense of spiritual progress. The world and the worldly church will cheer many choices that are detrimental to family sanctification. (Rom. 12:2; 1 Jn. 2:15)

26. While God’s truth is unchanging, the specific application of that truth may vary depending on facts and circumstances unique to each believer. Also, those who are further along in sanctification will see some issues more clearly than those who are less mature. For these reasons great charity must be maintained between believers who have differences of application, and liberty of application must be respected. However, an appeal to the doctrine of Christian liberty must never be used in an effort simply to avoid submitting to what Scripture plainly teaches. Believers should also bear in mind that things which are lawful may not be expedient if the goal is personal and family holiness. The biblical rule in judging behavior is charity toward others, strictness toward oneself. (Gal. 5:2-3 with Acts 16:3; Phil. 3:15; Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 1:10; 6:12; 9:27; 10:23; Gal. 5:13)

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

What a marvelous document put together by some very fine bible scholars of the word.

I find it interesting too that they also see God as defining himself in male terms (God the Father as well as God the Son) as an important first principle. The subsequent 25 other items following are indeed wise, theologically solid, and ever so helpful in pointing us to the right direction in what patriarchy means.

I am going to use this guide often and as I prepare the chapter on one of the books being prepared for publishing in regard to the Marks of a Biblical Family. I hope to have that teaching article completed in the next two or so months and this piece of literature here you have posted is a rich blessing in every way.

Thanks so much for posting this!

 

[Scarecrow]

"We are anxious that what we actually teach be understood."

I would suggest changing anxious to eager. Jesus told us to be anxious for nothing. The word has a negative undertone of a lack of faith or worry. Other than that it looks spot on to me...

 

[blugrniz4u]

Men & Women: Spheres of Dominion

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.).

According to the above, women who work as police officers, architects, chemists, lawyers, professors, etc., have no place working in a man's world; women should stay home so as not be a freakish disgrace when doing the same job as a man.

:shock: :?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Blurgrn,

Would not the word ordinary be a key to that confessional guide? As it looks to me they did even go on to say this:

although her domestic calling, as a representative of and helper to her husband, may well involve activity in the marketplace and larger community. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Prov. 31:10-31; Tit. 2:4-5)

In the Bible we certainly do see women in public roles (though never as a priest or apostle or elder). They of course did serve as deaconesses/servants (Rom. 16:1). Deborah is always one of the most often cited leaders used to show women can and did lead. No doubt she was a leader and a good one at that. That in and of itself poses no threat or issue to a patriarchal and complementarian view of Scripture.

Dr. Judith K. Tenelshof in her great book: "Women and Men in Ministry" has well said of this that "Deborah is one of the most colorful characters in the entire Bible." She had three basic roles. "First she was a prophetess. She delivered the word of the Lord to Barak (Judges 4:6), predicted the role of a woman in victory over Sisera (vs. 9), and composed the victory song that eventually became a part of the inspired book of Judges. Second, she was judging Israel at that time. . . . Third, Deborah was a wife and perhaps a mother . . . ."

Of others she noted women such as Miriam, Huldah, and the Proverbs 31 woman.

Dr. Tenelshof correctly noted that episodes of women doing such great things like Deborah is exceptions to the norm. Even furthermore she noted that at times a woman can and does bring a key to the situation that a man cannot because of her unique ability to complement in ways that a man cannot. Likewise, at times a man can do things a woman cannot. In a specific word she noted this: "It was legitimate for each of them to work together with a man and to accomplish ministry together. In fact, they illustrate something of the ideal synergism between men and women working together that ought to be present in the church."

At times we do see these ladies out in the public in leadership roles. But of course these are not the norms. I think this is what that confessional guide was saying when it used the specific phrase: "not the ordinary and fitting role . . ."

When we use math itself we can see the norms were men leading in these positions. As Dr. Tenelshof has also noted, there are psychological differences engrained into the genders that make them each different with various strengths. As she then said after much medical evidence supporting these differences, some roles and functions are more suited to one's innate natural design that God made in each gender by his order of creation. As she said: "The import of this data to theology is staggering. It not only confirms that men and women are different, but that these differences are by design and were intended by God at creation. . . . We need to reaffirm gender difference rather than working against God's blueprint. Complementarity does this by seeking to magnify and nurture these God-given differences."

And certainly when we do the math in the Bible we see that there is a difference in functions and roles with men and woman all throughout the Bible. And even when we see the exceptions like Deborah, we see that she wanted a man to be leading instead of it being her. As Dr. Tenelshof said: "In fact Deborah did not attempt to usurp the role of a man. She told Barak that the Lord had chosen him to lead the people in the battle (Judges 4:6). When Barak refused to go if Deborah didn't go with him, she then delivered a prophecy that the glory of the victory would go to a woman. Even so, Deborah accompanied Barak as he led the way . . . . In sum, Deborah was willing to submit to the military leadership of a man, while at the same time she assumed leadership functions that were sanctioned by God for a woman in her [particular] social situation."

Ordinary is not always. But it is a guide and it appears to be the intent behind the words being used in that confession because they specifically chose that term instead of saying always or is required or is the biblical mandate or any other host of specific terms that could have conveyed that thought. The terms themselves I think suggests that they were highlighting just that, norms whereby by God's providence we see more men in leadership roles than women in the public sector and in these instances in both public and in spiritual areas we see each gender bringing to the table unique roles that are so because of their created gender order.

 

[Anonymous]

According to the above, women who work as police officers, architects, chemists, lawyers, professors, etc., have no place working in a man's world; women should stay home so as not be a freakish disgrace when doing the same job as a man.

:shock: :?

I think Dr. Allen was correct when he said that Deborah, in her exalted state, never tried to usurp authority from any man. I think that's the crux of the matter.

I don't think it's necessarily wrong for a married woman to have a job....but, IMHO, her job/career shouldn't take priority over the needs of her family. Many women are single parents (my mom was one) who have no choice but to seek employment outside the home. This can't be helped and I don't believe the Bible teaches against it. As for married women, whether they work outside the home is a matter to be decided by each individual family. There may be a need for the wife/wives to work or there may be a bigger need for at least one wife to stay home with the children. In any case, the needs of the children (and the family unit, in general) should always come first.

In my own case, I'm planning to return to school and be trained for a new career. It's something I've always wanted to do and it will allow me to be self-employed and work from home if I want to. This way I can set my own hours and if a family issue comes up, I can rearrange my schedule to accommodate my family....and at the same time, I will be contributing financially to the family.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[blugrniz4u]

Men & Women: Spheres of Dominion

14. ... that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals ...

:shock: :?

This is the only part of the document that I am having a hard time with how it is worded.

So any woman working outside the home should be ashamed, as it is not ordinary and fitting to do so as a man's functional equal?????

:shock:

 

[Anonymous]

So any woman working outside the home should be ashamed

I am genuinely sorry, but I don't understand this conclusion from the previous quote. Please enlighten me. Thank you, in advance.

 

[blugrniz4u]

Hi Pastor Whitten,

Perhaps I am not phrasing my question correctly.

Tenet 14 just leaped off my screen and slapped me in the face.

...it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals...

When I read this sentence, my mind translates this as "a woman who works outside the home should be ashamed (not the ordinary) and disgraced (not fitting) to work alongside men as if they were equal in intelligence.

Tenet 14 continues

The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created.

So tough nuggies to the single woman, because the good christians are looking their nose down at her cuz she's working instead of trying to find a husband.

Pastor Whitten, please help me understand. You have a wonderful way of explaining and teaching

Suzanne the confused :?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Blurgrn,

I too am not sure why those terms would jump out on the page and make you feel that was the intent behind those words. I would join in as well with a protest if the intent was to say a woman always in all instances working outside of the home was to be ashamed as that is not the case and should not be the case. Clearly the instances about Deborah show otherwise and too we see the Proverbs 31 lady earned income and had dealings in the public with her land purchases. I would think knowing these Bible scholars and their other works that they too are familiar with those examples in Scripture so I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that their words taken in the literal and ordinary sense would not mean ashamed or incapable or disgraced.

The way I understand that phrase too about "functional equality" is that we are talking about roles and that men and women are not the same in their design. Some fields seem to be more fitting or more in line with the divine design of a male as some too are more in line with the divine design of the female.

For example, certainly a man would be a better hand to hand combat warrior in the military. Think of the Navy Seals for a moment. How many women do you know who have been Seals? Men are physiologically built differently than a woman. Too think of in the arena of Professional Football. How many pro football women do you know of?

Of course on the other hand, how many male nurses do you see? Sure there are some but the norm (what we consider to be ordinary) is that the majority of nurses are female. That goes back to the woman being a nurturer by her divine design. Midwives are also almost always women. Again that would be so likely because of the nurturing role. When we look at Child-Care or Daycare staff most of those or ordinarily those are women. Again we are speaking about norms here just like we are when we examine the Bible and leadership roles.

I think the term fitting was the term of choice to point to the issue known as divine design or creation order.

 

[Anonymous]

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.).

I had to think for awhile, (scary, I know) but what I think you are seeing is different from what the author was intending. Words are often very confusing. I find it really helps if I can look into the eyes of a person speaking, it helps in communication.
Here's my take on what the author was saying and it is also my position. "Not the ordinary and fitting role of women" is stating that this is not God's designed role for women. I do not believe he is saying that they are wrong or inferior for doing so. In a perfect world, women would not HAVE TO to do these things. Women can and do almost anything that the average man can do and often with excellence (on an individual basis).
Where I think the rub comes is that many of both genders have assumed that many women want to take over the world. There may be a small, dedicated core group of people that want that, but it is not the representation of most believers. God's design for both genders is our best bet for satisfaction and fulfillment, however, we do not live in that perfect world and many women are called upon to perform heroically in fields of endeavor that may or may not be their first choice. There may be that group that is trying to do away with God's design, but that is not us, they are not here. There is nothing shameful about a woman competing in the work place with men, each should be rewarded or compensated according to their performance.

I want to take a moment here to say, I love women! I really do and I am not flirting in saying it. . In my opinion, God did His greatest creative work when He created Eve. God also put into the heart of man, an affinity toward women and in women an affinity toward men. Sin in our world has confused and polluted God's design. We as believers should model a redeemed view of God's creation. Women are wonderful and are NOT the enemy of men. We have our problems as Christian men and women when we deviate from God's design.
I would like to write more on this but I am late leaving for church, so, perhaps more later. Hope this helps clear up some of the misunderstandings on this thread.

 

[blugrniz4u]

Thank you Dr. Allen. Words do not confuse me, as I am fluent in four languages

The thrust of my earlier post was that the authors could have chosen different words than those used for that tenet had they so desired.

As it is written, this woman finds tenet 14 to be offensive.

Except for tenet 14 as it is worded, I agree with the rest of the tenets completely.

Again, solely my opinion.

 

[blugrniz4u]

Pastor Whitten,

Had this document been written in my grandmother's day, I would not have blinked an eye at it. Back then the norm was for the majority of women to be homemakers.

The world has turned and the women of America have had to turn with it.

Just think the phrasing of tenet 14 could have been different so as not to be so offensive.

Suzanne

 

[CindyW]

Well Suzanne, how would you word it? We would be delighted to hear how you would convey the same concepts. Oddly enough i understood it to mean pretty much what Keith and John wrote and was unoffended despite my 8th grade education. Thanks Fairlight for a very interesting post.

Cindy

 

[Scarecrow]

I think I understand what blugrniz4u is trying to say. It is not that the message is incorrect, rather that the message may be more effective in today's society if worded differently.

"14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)"

My feeble attempt:

14. While a married woman may have a greater opportunity to stay at home to fulfill a domestic calling, an unmarried woman is more likely to work alongside men in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). Exceptional circumstances that prevent a woman from fulfilling a domestic calling, whatever they may be, do not redefine the God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. It is most fitting, whenever possible, for the woman to fulfill her domestic calling.(Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)

Everybody happy now?

 

[steve]

call me old-fashioned, but to me it comes down to the concept of "protection" which includes safety and provision.
males should be encouraged and expected to provide them at both the societal and personal level.
females should have the right to expect to not be forced into the role of protector and provider.
if a man has to work in a factory or drive a truck in order to provide for his family, so be it. his wife should not have to. she has an equally, if not more important, role to play in the family and society.

i think that we have, largely, lost sight of the effect on society that women could have when we make them our partners in the responsibilities that YHWH gave the men in Gen. 3:17-19. forcing them to equally carry the yoke that was designed for us in the curse is not my idea of equality.

it is not about what women are allowed to do, it is about what they should be required (or not required) to do.
a woman should not be forced to choose a profession in which to provide for herself and her family, but, as the Prov. 31 woman did, should care for her family and her community as the Lord leads her heart to do.

in our case my wife started writing for a small local commercial paper. it did not pay much and, silly me, i felt that she was wasting her time and talent. imagine my surprise when they sold it to her! she now has a voice in the community that was unimagined, plus an equally unexpected potential for future income. it never would have occured if she had been forced into a "job".

 

[CecilW]

I'm coming late to this one, having not read it up until now. Story time ...

When I began studying PM seriously in early '98, the one aspect taught that made me the most uncomfortable was, and remains, patriarchy. Why? My life experience included too many examples of unwise and excessive male domination euphemistically and inaccurately termed "leadership". My reservations and concerns were not particularly eased by some of those I met within this movement, and they continue to this day, though I have also met, respect, and enjoy the friendship of some fine examples.

Nonetheless, I've been unable to avoid the reality that it IS scriptural, and this document does state the Biblical tenets so very well (with some reservations as to the idea that the church and authority therein are quite as authoritative as the authors seemingly do). Nonetheless, I believe that it was stated so carefully that there is room for us to agree with it as written while differing a bit in our personal interpretation and practice.

I, too, thank you, Fairlight, for posting it.

Oddly enough, however, I too am least comfortable with the wording of tenet #14, though for reasons somewhat different than blugrniz4u.

The idea that men and women are equal in value, but different in form and function, as designed by God, is neither new nor particularly upsetting to me. Vive la difference!

But in my early days of study, I was only good with 2 out of 3, and applauded the various Hollywood offerings showing women triumphing over men (and children over adults) at every turn. Then, oddly enough, my then wife (Yup, the one who then divorced me when I truly accepted the differences and became open to PM) presented me with a book which I can't recommend highly enough, "Four Pillars of a Man's Heart", by Stu Weber.

The stated pillars, as propounded, are those of King, Warrior, Mentor, and Friend. As I remember, he got his ideas from a secular study which called the last "Lover". As I read, and re-read (several times) and pondered, I concluded that (for myself, anyone else is free to disagree), the last two should be Priest and Lover (male variety, which differs in nature from female).

About this time, I re-read Proverbs 31 wearing, I guess, a new shade of glasses. It seemed as though the passage was not so much prescribing that an ideal woman must be involved in this horrendous list of activities, while her DH sat comfortably at the city gate drinking YooHoos and chatting companionably with his friends (*shudder*), but that these were all valid avenues of endeavor open to her as part and parcel, and extension, of her domestic role, while her husband, not the topic of the dissertation, acted and worked from the pillars of his own nature.

I also noticed something else. It seemed as though most every area of endeavor in the society of the day was included in her list, with 3 notable exceptions. Wanna guess? King (law-giver / ruler), Warrior, and Priest.

Lover? Hopefully it would be obvious that she would be a "Lover, female, 1 each", as opposed to a "Lover, male, 1 each". While it is true that modern society does seem to get confused on this issue, the Bible, thankfully, is clear. *sigh of relief*

So, where does that leave me vis-a-vis Tenet 14? Still a bit ambivalent. I like Scarecrow's attempt. But am still uncomfortable with a supposition that married women should be restricted to the home. I don't really think, however, that is the authors' intent, as tenet 13 clearly says that while the home is her primary area of dominion, (authority and responsibility,) that her endeavors, her execution of that dominion, may well extend out into the marketplace.

My concern is more with the specific spheres of public endeavor included, those of King, Warrior, and Priest. Yet even here, the issue is not so much the idea of them "working along-side" of men. Nothing wrong with women clerks at the courthouse, or ministering in various functions at church, nor even being in the military in many roles.

Yet there are specific functions, within each of those spheres that, I believe, should be left to men. Thus the authors' careful wording "... as their functional equals ...".

So I am guardedly ok with that, though not with their list of public spheres of dominion. Nothing wrong with industry and commerce. Those are clearly included in Prov 31. I believe the list should simply read, "(civil government, military, and church)". Again, NOT that there aren't plenty of roles for women in even them, but that there are areas of dominion, (authority and responsibility,) in each where God made men and women functionally different.

*gulp* Sir BumbleBerry says I put on my Pontifical hat this time and got waaaay too wordy, and with BIG words at that! He's shooting jelly beans at said hat as we speak, with a pea shooter, and most of them seem to be lodging in my ear temporarily. Most annoying. Guess I'll shut up and attempt to extract my pedal extremity from my oral cavity. Cheers!

 

[CecilW]

Hear, hear, Steve!

John & Keith, too.

But I do share blugrniz4u's discomfort... *sigh* Too easy to misunderstand in common loose conversational usage of terms and phrases. Could be better.

And the more I look at Scarecrow's version, the more I like it. Fairlight, any chance of submitting it to the authors?

 

[sola scriptura]

Steve and Cecil,

I appreciate from the bottom of my heart both of your very thoughtful comments. They were expressed beautifully.

To all the women reading this thread who have fears of bad Patriarchy:

Even if every patriarch you ever read about, heard about or knew was evil and had twisted the Bible to suit his wicked desires, it still doesn't make patriarchy any less wrong or any less Biblical. It's up to those of us who know that patriarchy is God's perfect design for families to show how following the Biblical design for families can ultimately be the best blessing for all the family members involved.

True patriarchy requires a man to be wholly self-sacrificial, just like Christ. There isn't any room for bullying or selfish desires. True patriarchy requires a woman to be wholly submissive, just like Chris't bride. There isn't any room for pride or vainglory. We know that this is God's perfect design because His Word tells us that it is.

"The world has turned and the women of America have had to turn with it." No, no, no! How blessed we are that we DON'T have to follow along the world's miserable path! There is a better way, clearly laid out in God's Word, all we have to do is follow it!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

The reason that the authors place a heavy emphasis too on church authority leaders is because history has indeed shown that patriarchs left alone to rule alone will often lead to anarchy or ungodly and damaging rule if no other checks are in place. It is the ole saying of: "absolute power absolutely corrupts." The historical way in God's design to keep male rulers from going astray is for those patriarches to be under accountability by more mature men, older men in the Lord, who oversee them (in the Bible they were called elders).

The fear that many women have over being under a patriarchal rule system is the fear of what to do if there is no one to go to to plead a case to when things are going very bad and self attempts to correct have failed. It is true a woman should entrust herself to God. But God uses a means unto the end as well. God saves people by his grace but he uses people and the gospel message as the means.

Likewise, in a truly and thoroughly consistent patriarchal system there has to be a system in place where if a woman or man has trouble in their relationship and they confront one another in that sin that if one does not see it another person is called in to bring aid to the home and relationship and if still one does not listen then others are brought in to help.

Patriarchy is a system of rule within the body of Christ, not every man to himself as he so pleases (anarchic rule). If that system is in place then it can help to calm the fears of women, especially those that have seen men at their worst. Men need to be tough enough and men enough to be able to swallow their pride and be willing to have other men they look to in their life as their leaders and mentors. It is a form of protection for their women and that is indeed one role of the man, to protect his family.