Response to "He is the Patriarch of His Home."

       Lori begins this blog with a description of what she considers to be the ideal relationship between a husband and a wife. Specifically, she is sharing the way an unnamed woman describes her daughter-in-law: 

She told me her DIL truly lives a submissive life towards her husband. Where he wants to live, she wants to live. What he wants to eat, she wants to eat. He is the patriarch of his family. She trusts his decisions. She doesn’t always have to give her opinion and suggestions, then argue to get her way. He leads. She follows. He is head over her. She is submissive and obedient to him. This is how it’s supposed to be, women. She is not a contentious or quarreling woman. Her husband adores her. She is reaping what she is sowing.

Though it is never less shocking, this is not at all surprising coming from Lori. In the first few sentences she declares that women should not even have their own personalities, preferences, or opinions, regarding both major decisions (where to live) as well as more minor ones (what food they enjoy). She says the wife "doesn't always have to give her opinion or suggestions", but it is evident that she really means the wife should never offer these. She has only watered it down here so she can pretend those who oppose her views are actually suggesting that women ought to always get their way. She calls any woman who does not follow this formula "contentious" and "quarreling." 

       The problem, of course, is that not a single word of this is biblical. The Bible never says women must have no ideas or preferences of their own but simply follow those of their husbands. It contains many instances of patriarchal families but never condones this any more than it condones slavery or polygamy, of which there is certainly an abundance in the Bible as well. In fact, it never tells husbands to lead their families and wives to follow their husbands and obey them. It uses the word "obey" to instruct children and slaves, but deliberately uses a different word for wives. When Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, the word for "submit" is the same used when telling all believers to submit to each other, so clearly what Paul has in mind is not hierarchical but has to do with living sacrificially toward one another. To say only wives should submit to husbands is as absurd as saying only husbands are required to love their wives. 

       But, despite attempts by so many to point out these facts to Lori, she simply ignores them and doubles down on her preferred twisting of the Bible. If only she knew that the idea that women must serve men and men are the leaders of the family did not come from Paul, but rather from the Greek philosophers from several centuries earlier, such as Aristotle. Many of the things Paul wrote were meant specifically to refute the ideas of those philosophers! 

       Because there is no biblical support for Lori's claims, she must instead turn to a very particular dictionary as her reference. When those who argue against her use any source other than the Bible, she is quick to point this out and declare the Bible alone to be her standard. But when she can't find what she wants in the Bible, she has no problem looking among the words of men: 

“Patriarch” defined in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary explains it this way: “The father and ruler of a family; one who governs by paternal right.”

It is no surprise that a dictionary written at a time when both women and colored people were viewed as inferior and existing primarily to serve (white) men declares that there is such a thing as a paternal right. But I must here make the point that Lori makes only selectively: since the Bible itself never declares a "paternal" right to govern the family, I will not accept the words of this dictionary as authoritative. 

       In the next paragraph Lori criticizes an article defending complementarianism. This was interesting to me because I have always referred to Lori as complementarian, but perhaps I need to revise this assumption. Complementarians at least pay lip-service to the idea that men and women are equal in value, but declare that they nevertheless have different God-ordained roles and that men are in authority. Apparently, even this extreme view is not enough for Lori. She prefers the more extreme patriarchalist view. I'm not entirely sure of the details of the differences between this two, but perhaps it's something to explore in the future. 

What about in America’s past? Were women as a whole oppressed? Not from what I have read or seen. Even in Little House on the Prairie days when men were the leaders in everything, women were free to do many things as you can clearly read in the writings of Laura Ingalls. Women were far from being slaves. True oppression is what the actual slaves in America experienced. Not being able to vote isn’t oppression.

Have you ever had a friend who always had to top whatever you told them? If you say you've been ill recently, for example, they always respond with a story of a time when they were even more ill. this seems to be what Lori is doing here. Certainly women were not as oppressed as slaves, but this doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with how women were treated! Also, Lori seems to think she is the ultimate judge of what is and is not oppression; if she doesn't think it's oppression, it isn't. In this way she can dismiss all historical examples one might present. Given what we know of her views regarding the rights of women, it's no surprise she thinks they weren't oppressed in the past. 

       In reality, however, it's not difficult to research the ways in which women have been oppressed throughout history. Roughly 100 years ago, for example, women were not able to apply for loans in their own name, work in the legal profession or civil service, inherit property on the same terms as men, serve on a jury or, of course, vote. No, this is not the same as slavery, but that does not make it just. 

       Lori then quotes the article I mentioned earlier defending complementarianism, along with her own commentary: 

From the article: “Men have a responsibility to exercise headship in their homes and church family, and Christ revolutionized the definition of what that means. Authority is not the right to rule—-it’s the responsibility to serve.” Yes, Christ taught us that the greatest of all is the servant of all but He didn’t take the authority away from men to rule in their homes or in the churches. The Apostle Paul still clearly taught us that men are to the be heads of their wives and the elders are the leaders of the churches. Husbands and elders still have the right to rule as Christ rules His Church.

Isn't it interesting that Lori, who complains so often about people supposedly trying to find "exceptions" to what the Bible teaches, literally says the words "Yes, Christ taught us that the greatest of all is the servant of all BUT.." No, Lori, there is no "but." This teaching does not apply only to women. Men must also be the servant at all. This is what the Bible teaches, not a supposed male right to rule. 

I think this is why some have a problem with the term “servant leadership” that is so popular today. It assumes that the leaders are only to serve not to rule as Mary stated. That’s silly! It’s like saying parents are only to serve their children not to rule or that employers are only to serve their employees not to rule. You see, women, many women today have great trouble with any authority in their lives. They don’t want anyone to tell them what to do. 

If it wasn't clear before, it is now. Lori has a problem with the idea of "servant leadership", which, though not very well-defined as a concept, is still enough to offend her. She can't stand the thought of men having to serve others in any way. She believes men were placed on this earth only to be served. How shocked she would be if she actually read the New Testament! 

       She also thinks it's as "silly" to say men shouldn't rule their wives as it is to say parents shouldn't rule their children or employers shouldn't rule their employees. There are multiple problems with this. First, I would point out that parents don't exactly rule their children and do primarily serve them. They have authority over them, but this is not the same as ruling over them. Similarly, employers certainly do not rule over their employees. They have a mutual contract, and if the employee wants to keep the job he/she must do what the employer wants, but this is a bit different from an actual authority structure. And even if it were considered authority, it is very limited in scope; it is only in effect while the employee is on the job. 

       But, more importantly, there simply is no biblical mandate for husbands to rule their wives or wives to submit to such rulership, and as much as Lori would like us to associate these other examples with husbands and wives, there is no justification for doing so. Women are not employees or children of their husbands, though I've seen some of Lori's followers imply both (and worse!). 

       Also, Lori is wrong when she says women have a problem with authority in their lives. I know plenty of women who have great respect for authority. But they should not have any tolerance for illegitimate authority declared over them, nor for men who pretend to have the kind of authority only God does. To submit to such "authority" would be idolatry. You cannot set up a false authority and then accuse everyone who does not obey of being "rebellious." 

The commands for husbands on how they are to treat their wives are that they are to love their wives. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t to rule over them (make the decisions and lead the home in the way they decide). Yes, godly men should rule lovingly over their wives (but it doesn’t mean that godly wives get to decide what this looks like)...

Lori brushes past the command to husbands, trying her best to sweep it under the rug before anyone notices. She also fails to notice the obvious point that husbands and wives ought to love each other, and if this is the case, why would we not also conclude that husbands and wives ought to submit to each other (in the sense of loving and sacrificing for the other)? I don't know about you, but "ruling" over someone by demanding that things be done the way you decide doesn't sound very loving. And notice how, while declaring that a husband's "ruling" of his wife ought to be loving, she is quick to add that wives have no right to decide what this looks like. In other words, she wants absolutely no restrictions on men and seems slightly concerned that they may be inconvenienced by God's command for them to love their wives. She wants to make sure men can do whatever they want and simply label it "loving", and the wife must accept it. 

       Patriarchy was the social norm at the time the Bible was written, but simply is never commanded anywhere in the Bible. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't know how it's possible to be familiar with the Gospel, the way Jesus treated women, and the overall message of the Bible that declares both men and women to be made in God's image as equals and actually includes frequent examples of the problems caused by the exclusive rule of men, and still think that somehow patriarchy is God's design. Genesis 3:16 declares patriarchy to be a result of the curse of sin, and history has made this clear. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/he-is-the-patriarch-of-his-home/