Patriarchy is inevitable. God has built it into the fabric of the cosmos. It is part of the divinely created order. You could as soon smash it as you could smash gravity. So, patriarchy is the natural and inevitable state of the world. But just because something is
I've thoroughly enjoyed your content over this past year or so. Obviously you have a negative view of complementarianism. I'm curious if you have a piece describing your views on that. I always thought it was complementarianism vs. egalitarianism; however, it appears that biblical patriarchy is that third option? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
The authoritarian abuses I've seen from hyper-patriarchy have been from failure to recognize the boundaries of the roles within the family, much more than failure to recognize that your family members are also members of the church and state. Every member of the family has a role with respect to the family hierarchy, and responsibilities. But they are also a distinct individual with their own property rights, and thoughts. I've seen men who think that being one-flesh with their wife means becoming one person. That is never what it meant. It means to have sex and children (who are now the one new flesh resulting from the joining of its two parents fleshes). A wife is a distinct person from her husband.
I agreed with your entire article until hitting this speed bump at the very end. I'm not sure it's wrong. But the article doesn't provide scriptural support for it. It seems so central to your premise that you should support it.
"A key feature in hyper-patriarchy, or whatever you want to call it, is that the husband/father makes himself the sole mediator between the church/state and his wife/children. Essentially, this type of man sees his authority over his family as absolute and the state/church must go through him to gain access to family in every way."
Your summary of how the three realms of authority should work together reflects the vision that our founding fathers had for this nation as espoused in their writings. Like Matt, I would also be very interested in reading a more detailed exposition of your thoughts on complementarianism.
I've thoroughly enjoyed your content over this past year or so. Obviously you have a negative view of complementarianism. I'm curious if you have a piece describing your views on that. I always thought it was complementarianism vs. egalitarianism; however, it appears that biblical patriarchy is that third option? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
The authoritarian abuses I've seen from hyper-patriarchy have been from failure to recognize the boundaries of the roles within the family, much more than failure to recognize that your family members are also members of the church and state. Every member of the family has a role with respect to the family hierarchy, and responsibilities. But they are also a distinct individual with their own property rights, and thoughts. I've seen men who think that being one-flesh with their wife means becoming one person. That is never what it meant. It means to have sex and children (who are now the one new flesh resulting from the joining of its two parents fleshes). A wife is a distinct person from her husband.
I agreed with your entire article until hitting this speed bump at the very end. I'm not sure it's wrong. But the article doesn't provide scriptural support for it. It seems so central to your premise that you should support it.
"A key feature in hyper-patriarchy, or whatever you want to call it, is that the husband/father makes himself the sole mediator between the church/state and his wife/children. Essentially, this type of man sees his authority over his family as absolute and the state/church must go through him to gain access to family in every way."
A couple of examples would be quite helpful.
Your summary of how the three realms of authority should work together reflects the vision that our founding fathers had for this nation as espoused in their writings. Like Matt, I would also be very interested in reading a more detailed exposition of your thoughts on complementarianism.