Print Friendly

NO LONGER QUIVERING FAQ: DOES SOMEONE ALWAYS HAVE TO BE IN CHARGE? PART 1: HUMAN AUTHORITY IN THE BIBLE

by Kristen Rosser ~ aka KRwordgazer

God has ordained authority structures in every area of life.  In every enterprise someone has to be in charge– otherwise there will be anarchy and chaos. Even within the Godhead there is authority: God the Son submitted to the will of the Father. Doesn’t a solidly biblical worldview require a chain of command within the Christian family?  A family is not a democracy, after all.  In saying husbands should not be in charge of the home, aren’t you just attacking one aspect of God’s divine plan for authority?

It cannot be denied that human societies need some form of law, to protect people from being harmed by one another, among other things– and that laws need someone with the power to enforce them, or they are useless. But is this idea that “someone always has to be in charge,” that there is a chain of command in every area of human life, actually taught in the Bible?

First of all, let’s define our terms. What is “authority”? How is the concept of authority treated in the Bible? Here is a definition from an online dictionary:

“Authority: The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.”

The meaning is similar in the dictionary favored by many in the Quiverfull movement, Noah Webster’s 1828American Dictionary of the English Language:

“Authority: Legal power, or a right to command or to act; power, rule, sway.”

For purposes of this study, I’d like to draw a distinction between “authority,” or the power or right to command, and “leadership,” which is the actual act of leading or commanding, or the state of being the one leading or commanding.

The first mention of authority or rule in the Bible is found in Genesis 1:26-28. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth. . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them. . . “[H]ave dominion over . . . every living thing that moveth on the earth.”

Notice first of all that the word “man” here includes “male and female.” The meaning is “human beings,” not “male humans.” Notice also that there is no hint here of an authority relationship between the male and the female; both are to have “dominion” over the creatures, but nothing is said about either being in “dominion” over the other. Neither is there any indication of an authority structure within the ranks of other creatures. God does not say, “the animals that are bigger shall rule over the smaller animals, all the way down to the insects,” or anything like that (this may seem like an unimportant point, but I’ll get into why it’s important later in this series). In fact, other than the humans ruling together over the animals, there are no earthly authority structures in view in the first chapter of Genesis.

When do we see the first mention of humans ruling over one another? In Genesis 3:16, right after the Fall of Adam and Eve. God tells Eve then that the man will begin to rule over her, as part of the consequences of the wrong that has come into the world. Note that this was not part of God’s divine plan from the beginning; nor does God tell the man to rule the woman (contrast this with Genesis 1:28, where God does tell the man and the woman to rule the creation, giving them a legal power or right as the source of their authority).  In Genesis 3:16 God gives no command; He simply informs the woman that this consequence of the Fall is going to take place.

Some Christians teach that because Eve was not yet created when God gave the command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, that Adam had to convey God’s words to Eve, and that automatically put him in charge of her and made him an intermediary between her and God. But those are assumptions that are read into the text. The Bible never actually says anything like that. Instead, it says that God made Eve out of Adam’s own flesh, so that there was no way he could say, “this is a different/lesser sort of being than I am.” It says Eve was his “face-to-face strong aid,” which is a literal translation of “help meet for him” (Gen 2:20). The Bible is actually silent on whether God spoke directly to Eve about the forbidden tree (though it does show Him speaking directly to both man and woman in Genesis 1:27), or whether Adam told Eve about the tree. It does not tell us one way or the other. Eve knows about the tree in Gen. 3:2, but how she came to know is simply not told. It’s important, if we make assumptions about what a biblical text is telling us, that we know the difference between what we are assuming, and what the text actually does or doesn’t say.

What else does the Old Testament say about human authority structures? The next few chapters of Genesis after the Fall of humanity say nothing whatsoever about anyone being a ruler or leader over anyone else, by God’s plan or otherwise. Babel is set out as a story of human organization and structure, but no specific leaders are mentioned, and God deliberately scatters the people there. Abraham, of course, becomes a tribal leader with servants under his authority, but God seems curiously uninterested in that aspect of the matter, being more concerned with the covenant under which Isaac will be born.

God is shown as choosing individuals to further His purpose of preparing a people through which to bring the Messiah; but an interesting dynamic runs though this entire process: God almost always chooses a younger son over the firstborn. Primogeniture, the idea that the firstborn son had the legal right to inherit and to become head of the family, was a basic assumption of Ancient Near East societies, but God turns primogeniture on its head over and over again. He chooses Jacob over Esau, Joseph over 10 older brothers, David the youngest of eight, and so on.

We do see a couple of systems of governmental hierarchy set up in Genesis 41 and Exodus 18. In Genesis 41:31-35, Joseph suggests that the Pharoah set up an agent, with officers under him, to gather surplus food in preparation for a coming famine. In Exodus 18:13-27, after Moses had led the Hebrews out of Egypt, the people began coming to him to judge disputes between them. Moses was getting worn out, being the sole judge, so his father-in-law Jethro advised him to set up rulers over groups of 10, 50, 100 and 1000, to judge disputes between the people. In both these cases, there is no mention of God having directly instructed the setting up of these hierarchies. It is Joseph who requests the system of officers in Genesis 41:33. In Exodus 18:23 Jethro advises Moses to be sure God agrees, but the idea is shown to be Jethro’s.

In fact, God appears to make no direct law establishing any hierarchical authority structure in the Old Testament except for the priest/Levite orders, in which neither priests nor Levites are given any governmental authority. They are to run the tabernacle/temple and administer the sacrifices and holidays, and that is all. It would have been so easy to make the priestly class into the ruling class—but the Law simply does not go there.

Israel’s actual governmental systems reveal other interesting dynamics. First, although Deuteronomy 17:14 anticipates that Israel will decide to set a king over itself, God does not seem to actually desire them to do so. God does not give them a king, but rather raises up judges (often from the most unlikely sources!) until the people of Israel actually voice a desire for a king. And in 1 Samuel 8:7 God says that in desiring a king, Israel is actually rejecting God as their ruler. God tells Samuel to tell the people that the king will use his power to oppress them— and though the people say they want a king anyway, it seems to be a concession on God’s part to give them what they want. God also limits the power of the king by making him subject to the law and forbidding him priestly powers. 1 Samuel 13:10-14.

There is a consistent theme in the Old Testament of the sovereignty of God over human authority. Daniel 4:32 says, “The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whosoever he will.” However, the context here is God restraining a king’s self-glorification. God is depicted in many texts as having power over what authorities exist and who gets to be in authority. But often—and certainly here in Daniel 4 as in 1 Samuel 13— God seems more interested in restraining human authority than He is in creating it.

In fact, God’s plan seems to be more about raising up individual leaders than setting up structures of authority (please keep in mind the definitions set forth earlier). The leaders God does raise up act in accordance with God’s authority, rather than being given some inherent right or power of their own to command— with the exception of the kings, which God apparently would rather not have given Israel at all.

It is interesting, if the Bible teaches that God is so concerned with making sure there are authority structures in every area of life— if having someone “in charge” in every sphere of human relations is such a vital part of His divine plan— that God in the Old Testament seems so reluctant to establish authority structures in Israel, so careful to limit the ones He does establish, and so ready to overturn human assumptions about who should be in authority.

Let’s move on, then, to the New Testament.  In the New Testament we see again the idea of God’s sovereignty over earthly human authority. Romans 13:1 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.” This chapter continues on from Romans 12, in which Paul gives practical advice for Christian living. “Higher powers” refers specifically to earthly governing authorities. The word “ordained” is the Greek word “tasso,” which refers to placing in order or assigning a place to something. It does not mean that earthly authority figures are granted “divine right” to rule or that we must slavishly obey earthly powers, right or wrong (see Acts 3:19). Paul was repeating the Old Testament idea that God was the ultimate Source of all authority—but being a scholar of the Old Testament, he probably also kept in mind Hosea 8:4, where God denounces those who “have set up kings, but not by Me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.” Paul is not saying that God has exercised His sovereignty so controllingly that every earthly ruler, good or evil, is there by God’s divine plan. Paul is saying that God has assigned places to earthly authorities for the benefit of all: “for he is the minister of God to thee for good” (Rom. 13:4).

However, the New Testament is not so much concerned with earthly kingdoms as it is with the kingdom of God. Matthew 4:17 and Luke 4:43 make it clear that preaching about the coming of God’s kingdom was the focal point of Jesus’ entire message. How did Jesus envision authority working within the kingdom of God? Is the New Creation that came and is coming through His death and resurrection, different from the old creation in terms of authority structures?

Possibly the most definitive statement Jesus made about authority in the kingdom occurs in the context of James and John’s mother’s request that her sons sit one on His right hand and the other on His left, in the kingdom. Matthew 20:20-27. Salome was envisioning a kingdom just like the kingdoms of earth, with hierarchies of power and authority— and she wanted her sons at the top. Jesus’ answer was that it was not His to give places on His right hand or left, but “to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” Just before this incident, in verses 1-16, Jesus had told the parable of the workers in the vineyard— how those who had worked just one hour received the same wages as the ones who worked all day. “For the last shall be first, and the first last,” Jesus said, indicating how God levels the playing field among His children. Now, in response to the disciples’ anger over James and John’s mother’s question, He calls all the disciples to gather, and tells them this: “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister [“servant” in the original Greek], and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant [“slave” in the original].” Those who sit at Jesus’ right and left hand, according to Jesus, will not be at the top of a hierarchy, taking authority over others. They will be at the bottom, lifting up others.

Jesus expresses the same idea in different terms slightly earlier in Matthew— also in response to a question about hierarchy in the kingdom of God: “Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (Matthew 18:1-3.) This was the mentality the disciples knew: the world of authority structures and hierarchical positioning. “Who is greatest?” here is in the same vein as “Who shall sit on Your right and left hand?” a little later on. But here is how Jesus responded in Matthew 18:2-3: “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

This was upside-down to the way the disciples had always thought. If there was one kind of person who had no status, no place in the social structure, it was a little child. Even a slave could have authority over other slaves, but a little child had authority over no one. Unless you became like that, Jesus said, you could not even enter the kingdom! We tend to interpret this passage as if it were about some about special spirituality that the innocence of children gives them, to help them enter the kingdom. But that’s not what Jesus is talking about. The context of this passage is the disciples’ question: “Who is greatest in the kingdom?” which meant “Who has most authority? Who is at the top of the hierarchy?” And Jesus’ answer meant, “There is no hierarchy. The kingdom of God isn’t like that at all.”

From Matthew 18 all the way through Matthew 23, the theme of human authority in the kingdom builds upon itself. In Matthew 23, the theme culminates when Jesus focuses on the errors of the scribes and Pharisees, beginning with their use of Old Covenant religious authority. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do ye not after their works, for they say and do not.” (Matt. 23:2-3.) What Jesus meant by “in Moses’ seat” has been variously interpreted, but Moses’ main job was conveying the words of the Law to the people, and insofar as the Pharisees were doing the same, they would have been “sitting in Moses’ seat.” Jesus is not telling the people to follow every teaching of the Pharisees, however, just because of their authoritative position— for that would contradict His warning in Matthew 16:12, where He tells the disciples to beware of the Pharisees’ teaching—and also Matthew 15:6, where He faults the Pharisees for making “the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Jesus wanted people to follow God, not the Pharisees.

Jesus goes on in Matthew 23 to say that the Pharisees “love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the marketplace, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” (v. 7.) He criticizes the Pharisees for seeking power and authority, for desiring high positions and titles. His followers are not to be like that. “But be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matthew 23:8-11.)

The non-governmental authority structures of that day were centered around those three things: teachers, fathers and masters. Jesus said that His followers were not to desire titles or seek authority, because they were all “brethren” (the Greek word is gender inclusive) with God as their Father and Christ as their Teacher and Master. Authority in first-century Ancient Near East families was concentrated in the hands of the father, with the firstborn son having the place of prominence among the children. All the non-firstborn children were equal in status. Romans 8:29 calls Christ the “firstborn among many brethren.” Jesus and Paul both pictured the kingdom of God in terms of a spiritual family, in which the authority patterns and hierarchies of the world did not apply. We are not to take for ourselves, or give one another, hierarchical positions or titles of power, like the Pharisees loved to do. Instead we are to see one another as brothers and sisters under God alone.

So how did Jesus handle His status as Firstborn, Master and Teacher? John 13:3-4 says, “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel and girdeth himself. After that he poureth water in a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.” This was the action of a slave. People did not wash one another’s feet in polite society; when they came in from the dusty outdoors, they waited for slaves to perform this menial task. Peter was so shocked by Jesus’ actions that he refused at first to let Him perform the slave’s traditional service towards him, but Jesus said, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. . . I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” (v. 14-15.) Jesus was showing them a practical illustration of how “not so among you, for whoever is greatest shall be your servant” was to be lived out in God’s kingdom. It was not in exercising authority, but in laying it down. If the Firstborn does this, how much more should the equal-status younger brothers and sisters do the same?

Someone might bring up Hebrews 13:17 at this point: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account.” The words “watch for your souls” means that the Hebrews author is referring to spiritual leaders. Was the author of Hebrews commanding obedience to hierarchical church authorities?

Some interesting translation issues arise in this passage.  First, the word translated “obey” is not the word that generally means “obey” in the original Greek. The word that means “obey” is “hypakouo.” This word in Hebrews 13:17 is “peitho,” which actually means to trust, listen to or be persuaded by. “Have the rule over you” is also a problematic translation. It is the noun form of a verb which is usually translated “to consider.” As a noun, it conveys not so much a sense of rule or authority, as leadership by example. Hebrews 13:7 confirms this: using the same word, “hegaomei,” this verse counsels the readers to follow the faith of their leaders; it does not say to follow the leaders themselves. In Philippians 3:17 we see the same idea, as Paul encourages his readers to followhis example— and in 1 Cor. 3:4 he discourages them from following himself or Apollos, telling them that Paul and Apollos are nothing and that they should follow God.

In fact, the early church was characterized by a plurality of leaders rather than a hierarchy of authority. 1 Peter 5:1-3 says, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder [note that Peter does not give himself any title here higher than those he is addressing] . . . feed the flock of God which is among you. . . neither being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

Daughters of the Church by Tucker and Liefeld offers this analysis of the nature of leadership during the ministry of the original Apostles:

“Even where there was a ranking of importance of gifts (as Paul seems to do in 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 – according to their value in edifying the church), it has to be said that ‘in reality there hardly existed any hierarchicaldifferentiation between the various functions or, in other words, no function at the time of Paul’s letter writing was legally subordinated to any other.’ . . . . The New Testament speaks of a plurality of leadership, rather than of individual authority. Some elders lead well and some are good at teaching (1 Tim. 5:17), but there is no indication that elders in the New Testament exercised authority as individuals over others.”  Tucker and Liefeld, Daughters of the Church, Zondervan Publishing House (1987), p. 469, quoting in part Holmberg, Paul and Power, Fortress (1978), p. 119. Emphasis in original.

A possible rebuttal might arise from Titus 2:15, “These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” ButDaughters of the Church notes as follows:

“What authority there is resides in the Scripture that is being taught, not in the teacher. . . . The word [in Titus 2:15 translated “authority”] was not the familiar exousia [the usual word for authority] but epitage. This word was often used in ancient times to refer to a command from God (or in paganism, from a god) that is to be passed on. . . Timothy and Titus were apostolic delegates. The terminology, therefore, seems not to indicate that Titus was vested with ongoing ecclesiastical authority as an individual, but that he was to convey God’s commands in their full force.”Ibid, p. 468.

Jesus said in Matthew 28:18-19, “All power has been given to me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore. . . .” Jesus sends His followers out in His power and authority, rather than vesting them with hierarchical authority as individuals.

So again the question must be asked: If structures of authority are so necessary in God’s mind—if God has “ordained” that someone must be in charge in each area or sphere of life—why does Jesus teach that God’s kingdom, God’s spiritual family, is characterized by laying down authority and becoming equal-status siblings? Why does Jesus Himself, as Master and Lord and Firstborn in the kingdom, set us an example by doing a slave’s job? And why do Jesus, Peter and Paul emphasize groups of leaders leading by example, none of whom is in authority over the others, rather than structured systems of authorities wielding individual, hierarchical power? Is this whole idea that there “has to be someone in charge” in every area of human life, actually from God?

Part 2 will address the question of Jesus’ submission to the Father, and will also look into where the idea actually came from that there is a divine chain of command, with hierarchical authorities in each sphere of life.

Notes:

The online dictionary used is located at  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authority

See the NLQ FAQ “The Bible and the Nature of Woman” for more information about the meaning of”help meet”  and woman’s relationship to man. http://www.takeheartproject.org/faqs/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-the-nature-of-woman/

See Michael Kruse’s “Household of God” series for more information on first-century family structures and the status of the firstborn. http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/09/household-rev-1.html

Discuss this post on the NLQ forums! Comments are also open below.

[Note: This article is intended for those readers who have chosen to accept the Bible as authoritative for faith and practice. If you are not one of those readers, please be understanding of the intended audience and refrain from commenting on the assumptions on which it is based.]

Read all NLQ FAQs

Read all posts by Kristen Rosser / KR Wordgazer

NLQ Recommends ...

'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich

‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

Print Friendly

How to Figure Out What to Do With Your Life, In One Easy Step: Ask Your Husband 

The God Card ~ Thoughts on Patriarchal Teachings

by Journey

  Guidance for a wife is a very simple matter.  It seems to boil down to just asking your husband.  We have to remember that it is the man, the husband, that God designated to be the head, the authority in the home.  –Genevieve M. White, in Daughters of Sarah, p. 59

The woman who wants to be in control is a wife who is in rebellion towards God.  God does not look with favor on those who are rebellious towards Him…  The Bible says that “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…”   …Webster’s 1828 calls witchcraft, “intercourse with the devil.”  The controlling wife is receiving her guidance from the wrong source, and this deception will cost her dearly somewhere along the way.  …The desire to control is the basis of rebellion. – P. 34

The patriarchy camp sees men and women as very different creatures, and one of the distinguishing features of the two genders is that males are gifted to leadership and expected to take control, whereas females are designed to follow and are taught that to want control is to exhibit a rebellious heart (and since rebellion is regularly likened to witchcraft, i.e., intercourse with the devil).  Therefore, leadership traits are not considered part of one’s personality type, but are viewed as either positive or negative depending on the sexual organs one was born with.

As a QF wife and a strong fundamentalist Christian, I had a deep desire to bring honor to God with my life.  When I was taught that rebellion was as the sin of witchcraft, I determined not to be rebellious.  The problem was that I was not born a passive dependent creature.  Patriarchy, my deceived acceptance of patriarchy, and my spiritually abusive husband combined to fashion me into a passive and dependant creature.  Much like the blog post we were discussing on the NLQ forum, “Biblical Womanhood” turns Scripture (often in well-intentioned ways) into a spiritual abuse guidebook, a manual for how to slowly but steadily crush every last spark of life in your bones.

If you do have an abusive husband, acquiring the strength it takes to leave him (especially if you have a full quiver of children) is likely similar to considering climbing Mt. Everest without a backpack or supplies or a map, and with a broken ankle.  It’s a tremendous undertaking because you have systematically been conditioned by your trusted teachers to think that it is Satanic to think for yourself, to question whether you are glorifying God by allowing an abuser to control you and your children, or to desire to make decisions about your own life.  In this camp, there simply is no godly way to leave an abusive man, because there is no way, in that kind of setting, that you will be able to tell you are living with an abusive man in the first place.  How can you, when you have trained yourself not to question, not to consider, not to think about any of his faults, or to question his commands?

In recovering from my years in the patriarchy movement, I still struggle with a Pollyanna-ish view of people.  I often think that if they were well-intentioned, I should give the benefit of the doubt and try to overlook what they just did, if at all possible, even when it is obviously unhealthy and potentially destructive.  I have made some bad choices about friendships, overlooking things that were overtly un-healthy, because I had lost my ability to discern that destructive behavior is destructive behavior is destructive behavior, no matter how much I may love the person or “hope” for them that the unhealthy things will become better. 

I walked right on past fluttering lava-red flags, because I spent years doing that in my marriage and it never occurred to me to do otherwise.  I am getting better, but it still takes me more time than I feel it should to call a spade a spade, or to take full and complete stock of an unhealthy behavior or choice instead of glossing over it and acting as if it didn’t happen.  I believe this comes from the years spent in a marriage to a spiritually-abusive man who was steadily becoming more and more destructive, a marriage where I practiced to perfection the fine art of not questioning, always seeing the bright side, and assuming that if I was finding fault, it was because something was wrong with me.

No, I didn’t come into the marriage that way.  When the engagement ring was slipped onto my finger, I was a little spit-fire, quick to speak out if I felt bothered or concerned.  It was my love for God that was manipulated, in the end, and my own inability to discern truth from error.  I was systematically trained, by teachers and books and my husband’s “words from God,” to become a good passive follower, slowly starving out the parts of me that cried out in protest and anger, the parts of me that could have helped me to see that my husband was not a well man, that he needed help, and that help could only happen as I stopped glossing over things and started yelling, LOUDLY, that there was a very real and valid problem.

…There is a failure of women to understand that their God-given role is not one of leadership, but of willing submission and support.  The women should be encouraging the men to take their God-given place of leadership, and not taking the lead themselves.  This is not demeaning to the women, it is God’s perfect plan of government and harmony!  What God greatly values in the woman is not her leadership, but her meek and quiet spirit.  —Stephen Hulshizer, from ‘The Truth of Headship,’ p. 15

Ladies, if you have leadership skills, it is not part of your God-fashioned design (unless you use those leadership skills to preach the glories of patriarchy, with your husband’s approval, that is).  Your uterus?  Oh, my, yes, that’s part of God’s design.  But, your exuberant personality and your ability to lead?  Heavens, no!  That, my dear, is a result of the fall, and if you love God, you will take pains to rid yourself of any desire to plan or control.  (After all, it only makes your life as a wife miserable, anyhow).

In closing, an applicable quote (from a book highly lauded by Vision Forum and their affiliates) shares how this can flesh out in the real day-to-day matters of married life for the godly couple.  What many would call disturbing, this book instructs men and women to see as wise and good.  Many in the patriarchy camp say that they stand firmly against spousal abuse, but at the very same time, they promote abusive teachings like the following.  I posit that the well-intentioned “Biblical patriarchy” adherents can’t help but support abuse, because the abuse is intrinsic to the teaching…which means that either God is abusive, or the patriarchy camp has got God figured out all wrong.     

Now let’s get down to some practical application of all these principles.  One way in which a man can begin to act like a program director in his home is through a daily assignment and report system. …In the morning, before he leaves for work…the father takes a few minutes with the wife (and optionally the children) to go over the assignment for the day.  This would included especially the school schedule…also encompass household chores, family projects and other activities planned for the day.  The purpose is to have a common understanding between the husband and the wife.  He is announcing his plan for his household for the day; she is affirming the plan and her intention to carry it out.

When he returns in the evening, he takes a few minutes once again.  This time, he checks in with both his wife and children to get a report on how the plan was carried out in his absence.   His wife reports…  What is happening here is that he is holding both Mom and the children accountable for their work while he was gone.  He in turn is getting the information he needs to be accountable to his heavenly Boss concerning his little domain.  This simple system has the great benefit of keeping the focus on the father as the leader.  …This system is especially good for Mom, who is relieved of a great burden God never meant for her to bear.  She was created to help her husband and carry out his decisions.  She was not meant to make the big decisions and enforce them…  –Philip Lancaster, in Family Man, Family Leader, p. 177-178

Discuss this post on the NLQ forum!

The God Card by Journey:

• Thoughts On Patriarchal Teachings
• Subordinate but Equal
• Thoughts From The Excellent Wife
• Ask Your Husband

A Tale of a Passionate Housewife Desperate for God by Journey:

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

More from Journey:

• Dear Happy Full-Quiverer …
• It’s Complicated: Why It Wasn’t As Obvious As It Seems Like It Should Have Been

NLQ Recommends ...

'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich

‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

Print Friendly

Thoughts from The Excellent Wife

The God Card ~ Thoughts on Patriarchal Teachings

by Journey

Someone in the church told me that I should have known it was abusive when my husband was controlling my life (the details of which are in the parts of my story that I have shared thus far here). It’s like these people don’t realize that the very books they recommend Christian wives to read are the very books that taught me that my husband was not abusive but was, rather, a godly man.

For example, in the popular book, “The Excellent Wife,” by Martha Peace (1999), a woman learns that,

“Your husband is the one in charge. Being in charge does not mean he has to do everything. It does mean that he is responsible for managing his home. A part of that managing is delegating responsibility to others, including you.” (p. 52)

Martha Peace goes on to tell women that their role is to submit to their husbands authority and, “use your energies to glorify him” (p. 53).

How does a woman glorify her husband? The author explains that a husband is glorified when a wife obeys him, and goes on at length to describe the many ways a wife can obey his commands, seek to further his goals and defer to her husband’s will.

The Excellent Wife reads,

“You may be smarter, wiser, or more gifted than your husband, but you are still to respect the position God has given him. You are like the soldier who stands at attention, salutes, and says, ‘Yes, Sir!’ to his superior officer….

“Probably the most helpful thing you can do is ask your husband to hold you accountable for showing respect to him. If he agrees, he would, then, point out your disrespectful words, tone or countenance. …How willing you are to let your husband help you in this way will reflect your level of maturity and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.” (p. 109, 111)

I know that for me, there was no way I could help my husband feel respected. Nothing was ever enough. Disagreement, lack of adoration, opinions that differed—all of those things were considered by him to be disrespectful.

For so many years, because of counsel like the above passage, I felt like such a horrible wife. After all, a wife is supposed to see to it that her husband is respected, and no matter how hard I tried, it seemed that I couldn’t even do that one very basic thing right. It never occured to me, until years later, that perhaps the problem wasn’t with me…

Many complementarians fuss that some of us have taken wifely submission and made it into a salvation issue. Many of us have responded by saying, “Um…yeah?” The fact is, we were taught (and not by a few oddballs but by mainstream evangelical books like the one I am quoting from in this post) that wifely submission was indicative of our relationship with God.

The emphasis in the following excerpt is from the book’s author, not me:

“…Submission to her husband is the heart of God for the Christian wife. It is so important to God that He made submission to her husband a manifestation of “walking with the Lord,” “being in the will of God,” and “being filled with the Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 5:15-18).”

When you are a fundamentalist woman who loves God and wants to walk in His will, and you have a husband who does not ask you to “sin” per se (since things like giving you a list of how you have to clean the kitchen before you’re allowed to go to bed—- or how many children you will or won’t have, or what outside-the-home activities you may or may not participate in—– are things not technically in any list of “sins” in the Bible), what do you make of the above advice to wives?

You make of it exactly what the author teaches you to. Your role is to submit joyfully. If there is a problem anywhere, it’s with you. After all, aren’t YOU the one who feels privately humiliated by being treated like a child, who feels weighed down with the demands of perfection instead of joyfully accepting them as God’s will for your life? If the marriage has any problem at all, it is probably yours.

After all, that’s what your husband keeps telling you. The books join with his voice. In a very real sense, your husband becomes your god, a mediator between the woman and God.

“Viewing life through God’s sovereignty and goodness is seeing every tiny detail in life as arranged for you by God. there is no such thing as fate, luck, or chance. God has purpose in your every circumstance (including your husband’s decisions). God channels the king’s hearts, and He can certainly channel your husband’s heart. God is in control, whether you like it or not! (p. 179).

“Rebellion is a very serious sin. If you disobey your husband, you are indirectly shaking your fist at God. …When you rebel against your husband’s authority, you are grieviously sinning. It is a frightening thing.” (p. 181)

People wonder why abused wives in the patriarchal system don’t just “get out.” It’s simple. Because they only rarely are aware that they are being abused in the first place. With advice like the above, how would a woman be able to tell? How would those she goes to in her church, asking for help, be able to tell?

Discuss this post on the NLQ forums!

The God Card by Journey:

• Thoughts On Patriarchal Teachings
• Subordinate but Equal
• Thoughts From The Excellent Wife
• Ask Your Husband

A Tale of a Passionate Housewife Desperate for God by Journey:

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

More from Journey:

• Dear Happy Full-Quiverer …
• It’s Complicated: Why It Wasn’t As Obvious As It Seems Like It Should Have Been

NLQ Recommends ...

'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich

‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

Print Friendly

Subordinate But Equal (Piper and other Complementarians on ‘Biblical Womanhood’)

The God Card ~ Thoughts on Patriarchal Teachings

by Journey

 The patriarchy camp loves to say that, at the core, it believes men and women are equal.  A common phrase goes something like, “Men and women are equal, but simply have different roles to play.”  The statement often works like a charm.  After all, hey, they just said men and women are fundamentally equal, right?  

People playing different roles isn’t necessarily bad.  In fact, it’s usually positive.  Images of actors on state are conjured up in our minds, putting on a costume to play one role or another—or different occupations people choose, like becoming a teacher, a police officer and a postal worker. 

Playing a role is a temporary thing, such as a person’s career.  For a time in his life, Brad might be a police officer.  He puts on the police uniform and fulfills his role in society, until he reaches retirement.  A police officer isn’t “who Brad is” at his core.  It’s just the role he plays in society, during his active working years.  Roles are generally good things.  After all, what chaos our world would be in if people didn’t play their agreed-upon roles in society or in the orchestra or on the stage?

But the thing is, the patriarchy camp has adopted the word, “role,” and uses it frequently…only what they mean by “role” isn’t the same thing that the typical mind thinks of.  In so doing, they have been able to soften the blow, hiding the full impact of their message, and thus cause many people to adopt their message who wouldn’t have bought in otherwise…at least, not if there had been a “full disclosure” policy beforehand.  

What the camp means by “role” is actually a hierarchical position that one is in from birth all the way to death. 

There is no choice in the matter.  A woman does not get to “choose” whether or not she will play the submissive role.  That choice has been made for her, made by God when He chose her to be a woman—and she is informed that if she wants to belong to God, she will “choose” the submissive position, because not “choosing” it means she has consigned herself to Satan and the fires of an everlasting Hell.  For a woman who loves God and believes in the general evangelical/fundamentalist paradigm, this means that there is really no actual choice at all. 

Though being female indicates ones lower hierarchical position in a gender-based chain of command, the woman is frequently told that she is equal in the eyes of God.  Only, this turns out to be a form of Orwellian double-speak (see “1984” by G. Orwell) because respected teachers like John Piper teach that our sexuality literally permeates every aspect of who we are, all the way down to our core.  There is no such thing as a genderless personal essence, they say.  Piper preaches that maleness and femaleness are essential to our personhood, physically, psychologically and spiritually (see pg. 15, “What’s the Difference,” J. Piper).

Piper goes on to define “Biblical” manhood and womanhood (in all caps, by Piper):

“AT THE HEART OF MATURE MASCULINITY IS A SENSE OF BENEVOLENT RESPONSIBILITY TO LEAD, PROVIDE FOR AND PROTECT WOMEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A MAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS.”

“AT THE HEART OF MATURE FEMININITY IS A FREEING DISPOSITION TO AFFIRM, RECEIVE AND NURTURE STRENGTH AND LEADERSHIP FROM WORTHY MEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A WOMAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS.”  (pg. 18, “What’s the Difference,” J. Piper). 

For example, according to such teachings, my femininity is defined by how I respond to and respect the authority of the men in my life.   When I am not in a state of humble submission, I am not only disobeying God but I am also no longer fully feminine.  I am denying the essence of who God made me to be, when I failt to nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in my life.  The gender I was born with requires me to nurture and respond to the leadership that a male’s birth requires him to have.  (Actually, “require” is probably a poor word choice, because Piper is asserting that this desire to submit and this desire to lead are supposed to be innate, and that all who are godly and mature will naturally have these qualities).

To actually play out these “complementarian” (or so they have called themselves) definitions and teachings in real life can lead to some serious social gymnastics.  On page 42 of the previously quoted book, Piper works through those sticky situations where women might be in positions of authority over men, warning that women in high positions of authority might well “stretch appropriate expressions of femininity beyond the breaking point”—ie., women in positions of authority over men can sometimes happen, but it’s certainly not ideal and may even be dangerous for all genders involved), and then explains,

“For example, a housewife in her backyard may be asked by a man how to get on the freeway.  At that point, she is giving a kind of leadership.  She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits himself to her guidance.  But we all know there is a way for the housewife to direct the man that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised.” 

In other words, when you give of your superior knowledge to men, make sure you do so in a way that indicates they are designed to lead you and you are designed to follow them. 

Piper teaches women that as long as their authority over men is non-personal, it is probably/possibly okay.  It’s when a woman is personally in authority over another man that the line needs to be drawn.  Piper says (pg. 44),

“To the degree that a woman’s influence over man is personal and directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.” 

To be fair, Piper never comes right out and says that a woman should not ever be allowed to be the principal of a school, a judge in a courtroom or a police officer to citizens.  Yet it doesn’t take reading between the lines to know that if you, as a woman, are any one of those, you are controverting God’s created order.  You do the math. 

It makes no sense to teach that men and women are equal, but are to exist in a gender based hierarchy (from birth to death, for women)!  It makes no sense to teach that the physical differences of gender are what define who is to be in subjection and who is to be in charge!  It makes no sense to say that such gender differences are also indicative of actual psychological and spiritual differences (meaning, the leadership of men over women is something that is innately right and necessary, due to key differences in the make-up of men and women’s spiritual and psychological state). 

Yet somehow, this camp can teach such things and, at the very same time, vehemently argue that men and women are equal.  Equal?  How?  Make no mistake about it.  What this camp means by “equal” is certainly different than what most people mean by equal, just as what the camp means by “role” is also very different than what most people mean by role.

At it’s heart, even the more “softer” seeming complementarian side of the patriarchal spectrum, is not soft at all.  Consider the words of complementarian J. I. Packer (in “Understanding the Differences”),

“…The man-woman relationship is intrinsically nonreversible.  By this I mean that, other things being equal, a situation in which a female boss has a male secretary, or a marriage in which the woman (as we say) wears the trousers, will put more strain on the humanity of both parties than if it were the other way around.”    

Piper says that,

“The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior.”  

Piper goes on to say that it is not male egotism that would cause a man to not want a female umpire to make calls during a baseball game, or a female superior officer in the military who commanded men.  It’s not male egotism, says Piper, but “a natural and good penchant given by God (pg. 45).” 

Interestingly, people in this camp often tsk-tsk the sly use of terminology by people they consider to be in cults.  For example, they quickly decry Mormon missionaries for using the same terminology as Evangelicals, because it so easily confuses Evangelicals into thinking that the LDS church teaches much the same thing.  In reality, what Evangelicals mean by “Jesus Christ, Son of God” and the LDS church means by that same term are vastly different. 

Evangelical apologists and teachers tend to be certain that the LDS church uses the same terminology as Evangelicals do on purpose, in order to more easily garner former evangelicals into the LDS church, only later providing full disclosure as to the difference in the definitions, definitions that, if taught during the initial LDS missionary meetings, would have likely caused the potential converts to discontinue any future sessions. 

Whether a less-than-honest intent on the part of the LDS church is actually true is certainly debatable (this author actually has no opinion either way—it merely seemed like an appropriate example due to having heard it regularly employed as an example of the dishonestly of those outside of our circle, which was, of course, the honest one).  What is notdebatable, however, is how the patriarchy/complementarian camp does this very same thing. 

By using words like “equal” and “roles,” only defining them in terribly different ways, the gender-hierarchy camp is able to lull many congregations into believing that the camp stands for something very different that what its deeper teachings actually reveal. 

Thusly, many well-intentioned evangelicals believe in the concept of gender roles as appointed by God, though if they were aware of the deeper teachings and the actual meanings of some of the more benign sounding terms, would likely never stand for such a thing.  On the positive side, this does not affect many evangelicals in overtly destructive ways (which is not to say it’s not destructive—far from it—but more that it’s a quiet and more subtle danger.  …Though, perhaps the quiet destruction is the most dangerous of all).  For those women married to abusive or foolish men, however, or those women born with gifts of leadership, drive and administrative abilities, these teachings are terribly destructive to all levels of their personhood and their spirituality. 

Did Jesus come to set people free, or put them in neat little “role” categories and shut the prison doors?  According to the patrio/comp camp, freedom comes through adopting their gender-based hierarchy. 

“…True liberation comes with humble submission to God’s original design.”  (Elisabeth Elliot, forward to “What’s the Difference.”)

Methinks they’ve got a different definition for “liberation,” too.

Discuss this post on the NLQ forums!

The God Card by Journey:

• Thoughts On Patriarchal Teachings
• Subordinate but Equal
• Thoughts From The Excellent Wife
• Ask Your Husband

A Tale of a Passionate Housewife Desperate for God by Journey:

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

More from Journey:

• Dear Happy Full-Quiverer …
• It’s Complicated: Why It Wasn’t As Obvious As It Seems Like It Should Have Been

NLQ Recommends ...

'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich

‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

Print Friendly

A Good Man Will Make Sure Those Dishes Get Done (by Repenting For His Failure to Make Sure His Wife Does Them)  

by Journey

One of the most important things to do, in any arena of information, is to go directly to the source instead of relying on heresay. In posts to come, I intend to introduce direct statements from different leaders in the patriarchy movement, statements that will often include words I myself read, as I sought to obey God as a woman striving after His will, in a marriage that regularly left me confused, condemned and off-balance.

The God Card ~ Thoughts on Patriarchal Teachings

After reading and hearing stories like the ones featured on NLQ, one of the primary arguments that the “Biblical Manhood/Womanhood” camp makes is that,

A.) Our abusive husbands obviously took the teachings too far, or that,

B.) “We should have known better—we should have known to not submit to his controlling ways, should have known that godly submission would never require you to follow a list of cleaning rules, etc.”

They claim that the teachings of patriarchy aren’t to blame for what happened in our homes. No, no, not the teachings at all. It was all the fault of our own dysfunctions, the fault of a bad man, or all the fault of our own failure to properly appropriate the good and godly teachings.

So, say you are a woman married to a man who has to control you, and you are steeped in “Biblical Womanhood” teachings that tell you your calling from God is to submit to your husband’s leading.

HOW are you supposed to know what the line is between a leader and an abuser, when the teachings tell us it’s the man’s job to set our agenda, our schedule, our vision, our life calling, our location, our occupation, our parenting style, and more?

Maybe it’s unfair to blame Biblical patriarchy for making abusive men. I’ll give you that. After all, abusive men come in all shapes and sizes (as do abusive women), and can be found in every part of society, in all camps and classes and cultures.

That said, if an abusive man is lucky enough to discover the world of Biblical patriarchy, he’s going to be giddy with joy at how the teachings pat his abusive ways on the head and call them, “righteous.”

Biblical patriarchy teachings give these men a new club to use on their victims—The God Card—which adds to the abuse by adding a spirit-killing kind called, “spiritual abuse.” But it’s probably unfair to say that ALL of these men would have never been abusive outside of the Biblical patriarchy sphere. Maybe some would have never been abusive otherwise, but probably most would have been inclined to be abusive, no matter where they were.

So, in my opinion, the biggest area that “Biblical patriarchy” teachings fail is when it comes to the women married to these abusers (and the children, who then have to grow up watching this kind of marriage and thinking it’s normative).

This is also the area where I most want to bang my head against the wall. Because when you are married to the abusive man, the Biblical patriarchy books and speakers blame it on YOU, since sweetness and submission are supposedly the way a godly woman “cures” her husband’s bad behavior. “Don’t you know, if you are sweet and submissive, you’ll have him eating out of the palm of your hand?”

But then, when you finally LEAVE the abusive husband, they still blame it all on YOU, shocked that you put up with abusive behaviors for so long. “I mean, come on, doesn’t everybody know that when it crosses the line into abuse, you are supposed to get help right away? Why did you stay? What was wrong with you, that you couldn’t tell it was abusive?”

(That’s if they’re actually okay with you getting away from the abusive man. Most won’t be. Leaving your abusive husband in a conservative community usually means you will also have to leave your former community. They don’t do divorce well, and usually, to them, the person who files is the person in sin).

How in the world are these women supposed to know it was abuse, given the kind of marriage literature and teachings that are available in the patriarchy camp?

For that matter, how is anyone close to them, perhaps happily married themselves, but reading the same literature, supposed to know that their friend is being abused?

Patriarchy people are often quick to say that they do not support abusive husbands. But how will they know a man is abusive, when much of the camp’s teachings call abusive behavior godly?

I think it’s best to let the patriarchy camp speak for itself in these matters. So let’s read the teachings of a respected leader in the Biblical patriarchy movement, Douglas Wilson, and perhaps someone can explain to me how a woman married to an abusive control freak who uses God to get what he wants is supposed to deduce that she is married to an abusive control freak who uses God to get what he wants?

Discuss this post on the NLQ forum!

The God Card by Journey:

• Thoughts On Patriarchal Teachings
• Subordinate but Equal
• Thoughts From The Excellent Wife
• Ask Your Husband

A Tale of a Passionate Housewife Desperate for God by Journey:

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

More from Journey:

• Dear Happy Full-Quiverer …
• It’s Complicated: Why It Wasn’t As Obvious As It Seems Like It Should Have Been

NLQ Recommends ...

'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich

‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce