>
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.
2 comments:
It is true that the idea that hierarchy is an evil that can be transcended is not a biblical teaching, as Watke says. But hierarchy in the Trinity and in marriage is not biblical either. To state that there is a hierarchy represented in the Godhead is opposing the doctrine of the Trinity—the Christian God—that is accepted by the Church. It opposes the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed and many other major statements on the doctrine of the Trinity (including the 675 council at Toledo and the sixth ecumenical council meeting in Constantinople). Most notably, the Nicene Creed provides the majority of our understanding of the Trinity. Formulated to refute the Arian subordinationism of the Son to the Father, the creed asserts the equality of the Son and the Father: “We believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all time, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence (homoousion to patri) as the Father, through Whom all things came into being…” The Son and the Father are of the same essence (homoousios), and neither the Son nor the Father is subordinate to the other.
The Athanasian Creed, which has long been considered the standard of Trinirarian orthodoxy, highlights the equality within the Trinity: “…And in this Trinity none is before, or after another: none is greater, or less than another. …But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.” To use the Trinity to condemn women to positions of unending subordination robs God the Son of his coequal glory, majesty, and lordship.
This relationship is a paradox, yes, but it is not a contradiction.
You write that “male authority is grounded in the Godhead,” yet there is no hierarchy in the Godhead. And comparing men and women to Persons within the Godhead is an analogy that quickly breaks down and becomes untrue. One cannot compare the relationship of the Father to the Son to the relationship of man and wife. Two people are not of the same essence (homoousios) as the Persons in the Godhead are. Furthermore, there exists a physical relationship between man and wife that cannot be found in the Godhead. And most of all, there is no male to female gender difference within the Godhead; there is no male authority.
As you mention, Paul states in his letter to the Corinthians, "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). This is not a call for authority or subordination. The Greek word used in this verse to say “head” is “kephale,” and it does not mean authority. It is more accurately used as “source,” such as the head of a river. The source of every man is Christ, the source of a wife is her husband (as Eve was created from Adam) and the source of Christ is God (who begat the Son). “Kephale” is not used to denote authority, and conversely, the New Testament contains scores of references to leaders and people of authority in all walks of life including religious leaders, community leaders, military leaders, governmental leaders, patriarchal leaders, and church leaders. Never are any of them designated as “head” or “head over.” This term is not found to mean authority or leadership in any other Greek literature either. Though one could try to write this off as a coincidence (a case that is very difficult to make), the obvious explanation is that “head” did not mean “leader” in the language of the New Testament, and it is misrepresenting Paul’s statement and misrepresenting Scripture to use it in that manner.
One must be careful not to cite a verse if it is not relevant or if it does not support the statement. Citing a verse and implying that it means something that it does not, is misrepresenting Scripture. You cite Acts 2:24 saying that authority has existed eternally in the Godhead with the Son before the beginning of time. Acts 2:24 says: “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (ESV).” It says nothing of “the Son submitting to the Father before the beginning of time.” If you meant to use it to identify the eternal existence of both the Father and Son in the Godhead, you could say this, but you would make a better case by citing John 1:1 or another verse that mentions this concept.
Yet you do not cite a verse for the first part of that same sentence, “Authority is not a result of the Fall,” which reading Genesis 3:16 makes clear that male authority is listed as a result of the Fall: “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (ESV).’" This verse states that as a result of the fall there is adverse environment, pain in childbirth and male domination. Dominion of one over another is not the intent; it is a relational dysfunction that resulted from disobeying God.
To sanctify the terms “patriarchy” and “hierarchy” for the purpose you have suggested is to sanctify an opinion that slanders the ontology of women, but even more severely, your implications slander the ontology of Jesus Christ the Lord.
Post a Comment