Note: This post originally was penned at my other blog, www.gmtf.blogspot.com. >
All words and terms contain preconceived notions, some more loaded than others. The terms "patriarchy" and "hierarchy" consistently draw a sort of "knee-jerk" reaction from egalatarians and some complementarians alike, assuming that authority necessarily leads to male abuse. Equal authority and mutual submission, some contend, is the best defense against the slippery slope of abusive power. Undoubtedly, complementarians must be the first to denounce abusive male leadership as the sin that it is, but, at the end of the day, we must be constrained to define our terms as the Bible would rather than by our modern culture.
So, we must ask ourselves, "Is patriarchy inherently sinful?" More pointedly, "Is hierarchy unbiblical and simply a term that has been hijacked by power hungry males?" Distinguished Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke, in his colossal work
An Old Testament Theology, disagrees. Male authority is grounded in the nature of the Godhead. He explains:
Hierarchy in government is not the result of the Fall. It exists eternally in the Godhead itself, wherein the Son is always voluntarily subservient to the Father's will and the Spirit to both. In the mystery of the Godhead, in which the three persons are one and equal, the Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit obeys both. Paradoxically Jesus says both "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Jesus veils his own glory to follow the path of humble obedience (Phil. 2:6-11). The idea that hierarchy is an evil than can be transcended is a failed Marxist notion, not biblical teaching. (243)
Authority is not the result of the Fall, it has existed eternally in the Godhead, with the Son submitting to the Father before the beginning of time (Acts 2:24). Hierarchy cannot therefore be inherently wicked, at least not in all senses. But is it permissible in human relations? The answer is "yes." Not only is it permissible, but it is necessary for mature godliness to form, for, as Waltke hints at in his last sentence, hierarchy is the biblical teaching because human interactions are a reflection of the relations of the Godhead. The Apostle Paul writes, "
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3, ESV)
Despite male authority being biblical, what then are we to do with terms like "patriarchy" and "hierarchy?" Should we refuse these labels and adopt phrases like "mutual submission?" To this, we must also answer "no." If we do reject the descriptions of "patriarchy" and "hierarchy," we will lose the gender debate, for we implicit concede that male authority is unbiblical and always slides down the slippery slope of spousal abuse. Instead, complementarians should seek to sanctify these terms, trumpeting the tension that authority is biblical but need not be demeaning and abusive. And is must be trumpeted, for it is rooted in the Godhead itself.
Russell Moore, in his insightful article
After Patriarchy, What? Why the Egalatarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate, gives the following helpful thoughts:
Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can. And it also will address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Soft Patriarchs is, in one sense, a reaffirmation of what gender traditionalists have known all along—male headship is not about male privilege. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families. But it should also remind us that the question for us is not whether we will have patriarchy, but what kind.
