Does the Bible Enable Patriarchy?
The Controversial Doctrines of Paul — Part 2
The inspiration for this series actually comes from my article, The Apostle Who Divided the Church, in my previous series, Knowing Your Apostles, where I presented Paul as the most controversial apostle. My approach, based on the apostle Peter’s description of Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15–16), is to not only clarify some of these doctrines, but also to expose what I believe are revisionist interpretations of them.
Series Question
Is Paul’s teaching on the roles of men and women in marriage outdated and out of touch with modern realities?
The questions surrounding the roles of women vis-à-vis men are, for the most part, questions about the home—about what happens between husbands and wives. Although the home is a microcosm of society, these questions are rarely debated outside the home because they are already settled by whatever authority structure is in place.
It is within the home, therefore, that these debates become a battleground. Instead of being a refuge, a safe haven for husbands, wives, and their children, the home has often become the place where these skirmishes are fought. This is not surprising because it is part of a demonic agenda to destroy the home and, ultimately, society.
Jesus said:
“The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy…”
— John 10:10
Let that sink in. Jesus is saying that the sole purpose of the devil—his only mission—is to steal, kill, and destroy. He wants to steal the joy and peace in the home, kill the love that husbands and wives should have for each other and their children, and ultimately destroy the children.
The target of dysfunction in the home is often not the parents but the children and we see it in their moral degradation. Why? Because parents who should be coordinating and collaborating in the training of their children are instead busy fighting each other and, sometimes, emotionally manipulating those children to take their side.
In this article and the next, I will focus on the two fronts of this battleground.
Patriarchy: The Ideological Battleground
I believe that any discussion of the debates surrounding gender roles is incomplete without a brief examination of the word “patriarchy” as it is now used, because it is the ideological pole around which much of the argument rests. It is the belief that societal structures were created by men and for men to subjugate women. This meaning emerged with its adoption and reinterpretation by feminist ideology.
It is generally believed that the systemic indictment of patriarchy crystallized during the second-wave feminist movement, with much of its intellectual grounding found in the works of Kate Millett and, subsequently, Shulamith Firestone. I don’t intend to outline the ideas they advocated here. Instead, I want to examine their backstories.
Kate and Shulamith both grew up in traditional homes with a father and mother, yet their upbringing and experiences at home would play a role in their eventual rejection of patriarchy.
According to accounts by Kate herself and her two sisters, she had an alcoholic and violent father who later became absent and resented the fact that all his children were girls. Following her parents’ divorce, her mother struggled to find employment in the male-dominated society of the time and eventually sold insurance, earning only about $1,000 per year.
Neither of her two sisters followed in her footsteps, one of whom would eventually come to publicly oppose her views.
Shulamith’s life story followed a similar arc. She grew up in an Orthodox home with a very controlling father who directed much of his anger toward her, sometimes resulting in open physical confrontation. Her mother modeled the traditional submissiveness expected of a wife—the very thing Shulamith rejected. Her two sisters, like their mother, also did not embrace her worldview; one eventually became a rabbi and worked within the very tradition she opposed.
Shulamith, like Kate and Valerie Solanas, who wrote the SCUM Manifesto, were all diagnosed with schizophrenia. SCUM stands for the "Society for Cutting Up Men". While it cannot be empirically established that there is a causal relationship between schizophrenia and the development of these ideas, the family dysfunction was a defining factor in their stories.
This review is not meant to denigrate these women but to argue that their rejection of patriarchy was largely a reactionary ideology, and to highlight, especially for Christian women who have embraced these ideas, their origin story.
I believe that the grievances of Kate and Shulamith, which shaped their worldviews, were in many ways legitimate. But the demonization of men was not the solution. The idea that patriarchy is inherently evil and exists to control and subjugate women is simply not true, nor is it borne out in the vast majority of cases.
Now that we have reviewed the origin story of patriarchy, let’s explore some of its flashpoints.
Flashpoint One: Household Duties and Chores
One of the flashpoints concerns household duties and chores. One of the things women have traditionally been expected to do is cook and clean. Some women have rejected this as a legacy of patriarchy and claimed that it is incompatible with modern society. But is it?
There are practical explanations for why this has traditionally been the case, and it is not necessarily because of a patriarchal system. In fact, the practice long predates the modern era, as we see in Scripture.
When Abraham received the three visitors, it was Sarah whom he called upon to prepare a meal for them — Genesis 18:6. We can also infer from the account of how Jacob stole Esau’s birthright that Rebekah did most of the cooking, because she was the one who prepared the meal that Isaac had asked Esau to prepare for him — Genesis 27:14. There are more examples in both the Old and New Testaments.
The tradition of women usually doing the cooking and cleaning grew for several practical reasons. First, husbands were traditionally the primary providers for the family. They went out to work while wives took care of the home front—cooking and cleaning. Second, wives were traditionally the primary caregivers for children and therefore naturally did much of the cooking. Third, wives were often thought of as the hostesses of the home and were responsible for making guests feel welcome and providing them with food.
However, we now live in a different society, where there needs to be a new accommodation in which husbands do not simply leave every chore to their wives. I believe the division of labor should be based on the principle of equitability, where who does what and when depends on capability, capacity, and availability. This was the principle Paul was expounding when he discussed taking collections for the poor in Jerusalem. He said:
“For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality.”
— 2 Corinthians 8:13–14
If the husband is the sole provider and the wife is a stay-at-home wife, it is not unreasonable to expect that the wife would do most of the cooking and cleaning. I have heard a pastor and some Christian women say that, based on the fact that God told Adam to tend the garden (Genesis 2:15), it is the man’s duty to cook and clean. But this is based on an incorrect understanding of Scripture and taking one biblical category and applying it to a category to which it does not belong.
If one person works longer hours than the other, it is not unreasonable that the person who gets home first would do the cooking. If both work the same hours, then they should share the cooking duties if that arrangement works for them. Or perhaps the wife does the cooking if that is what she is good at, while the husband does the cleaning. Christian men who would not step up in these ways do nothing but reinforce the negative stereotype of patriarchy and discredit the Word of God.
Abraham and Sarah: Our Role Models
I will leave the second flashpoint, related to authority in the home, for my next post. However, I will end this post with the story of Abraham and Sarah, whom the Bible holds up as models for what the relationship between a husband and wife should look like.
This will be controversial for some women, but godly women, and those who aspire to live godly lives, will accept it.
“For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.”
— 1 Peter 3:5–6
The idea that wives should submit to, obey, or even call their husbands “lord” is one of the things that generates the strongest angry responses from women who reject it. Sadly, even some Christian women have come to view the concept of submission in a negative light.
To fully grasp what submission means, however, we need to examine the relationship between Abraham and Sarah. Notice that the Bible does not hold up Isaac and Rebekah, or Jacob and his two wives, Leah and Rachel, as models. Rather, they are examples of the dysfunction that Christian marriages need to avoid.
It was in Genesis 18:12 that Sarah called Abraham “lord” when she laughed and doubted God’s promise that she would have a son — Genesis 18:12
If you hear the word “submission” and think that Sarah was afraid of Abraham, that she was controlled by him, or that he subjugated her, think again. The picture we see is entirely different.
It was Sarah who told Abraham to marry and have sexual relations with Hagar, her maidservant. Abraham did as she asked (Genesis 16:2–4).
When Sarah became displeased with Hagar because of her insolence, Abraham allowed her to deal with Hagar as she pleased. So, when Sarah dealt harshly with Hagar, Hagar fled (Genesis 16:6).
Later, when Isaac was weaned and Ishmael was mocking, Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away. It was a very difficult decision for Abraham, but God told him to listen to Sarah, and he did (Genesis 21:8–14).
What we see, then, is that Sarah was the one who actually made many of the big decisions, much as in many marriages. The reality is that it is often the nature of men to want to please their wives, and they do the things their wives want.
Where this gets mixed up is when women or wives think they do not have to consult their husbands. Sarah made many of the big decisions, but she did so in consultation with Abraham. That is the way it should be.
Without suggesting that Adam was without fault, I believe this was the mistake Eve made that contributed to the Fall: she listened to the serpent without consulting with, or deferring to, Adam. Remember that it was to Adam that God gave the instruction not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16–17). Eve received the instruction from Adam and should have followed what Adam had told her.
Christian wives need to understand that they cannot simply make unilateral decisions without consulting their husbands, just as they would not want their husbands making unilateral decisions without consulting them. This, in essence, is what it means to be submissive to one’s husband.
In this post, I have laid the groundwork for examining Paul’s teachings on gender roles. In my next post, I will explore Paul’s teachings and analyze why they generate so much controversy and angst among some women and wives.
Your Turn
What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.