Thoughts on Patriarchy
February 5, 2007
I have received some complaints that my interaction with Phil Ryken (see below, 1/29/07) on patriarchy represents a capitulation on the issue of biblically-mandated male leadership. My comment on use of the term "patriarchy" was made more or less in passing, so it may be helpful for me to expand a little.
My basic point was that the word "patriarchy" down-loads some ideas that go beyond the biblical warrant for male leadership. What I meant by that is that Old Testament patriarchy (Abraham, etc.) involved the leadership of the senior man over an extended family, including grandchildren, daughters-in-law, etc. As I understand things, male leadership properly extends to one's own family. When I place one of my daughter's hand into the arm of some young man in the wedding ceremony, my headship over her ends -- it is transferred to her husband. Likewise, when my sons marry, I do not believe I will have biblical warrant for exercising authority over their families. I do not know if anyone is advocating such things today, but my point is that the term "patriarchy" invokes (for me at least) some of these social arrangements.
My basic point was that the word "patriarchy" down-loads some ideas that go beyond the biblical warrant for male leadership. What I meant by that is that Old Testament patriarchy (Abraham, etc.) involved the leadership of the senior man over an extended family, including grandchildren, daughters-in-law, etc. As I understand things, male leadership properly extends to one's own family. When I place one of my daughter's hand into the arm of some young man in the wedding ceremony, my headship over her ends -- it is transferred to her husband. Likewise, when my sons marry, I do not believe I will have biblical warrant for exercising authority over their families. I do not know if anyone is advocating such things today, but my point is that the term "patriarchy" invokes (for me at least) some of these social arrangements.
