The Biblical Patriarchy Movement

[mammal_mama]

http://nolongerquivering.com/

I wanted to share the link to this awesome site, which I actually learned about from someone on the Unschooling God Journey email list I'm a part of.

I've been learning so much there, about how the religious subordination of women, really transcends across the boundaries of different religions and cultures.

I'm hoping that others here might get interested and get engaged in a discussion here about it.

[mammal_mama]

Oh, and I think the best places to learn about the Patriarchy Movement online would probably be Vision Forum Ministries and Above Rubies ...

But I don't think I'm free to share those links here, since I think both sites have some homophobic writings, so linking would be in violation of the user agreement.

[cappuccinosmom]

Having read from VF and AR, I'm pretty sure they would say that abuse, intimidation and oppression of women is *not* Biblical patriarchy.

I have never read any teachings that state a man is obligated to *force* his wife to submit. It is usually women teaching women about gracious submission (Above Rubies is woman-to-woman completely, as far as I know), and men teaching men about Godly leadership. They would say that gentleness, kindness, and consideration (which would include taking into account a wife's thoughts, feelings and needs) are qualities of Godly men.

Religious oppression of women is a reality. But looking over history I'd say that it's not because of particular teachings that women are abused, but because men (and women, actually) are adept at finding something that isn't bad and twisting it into something useful for their selfish and abhorrent practices. That was even done with Darwinism, and forcible "eugenics" used to be considered "progressive" among secular humanists. kwim?

I tend to shy away from close-knit groups because of my family's experience with a cult. But it always bugs me that certain terms (like Quiverfull and patriarchy) are used to blanket a very diverse group of people in a very negative way. I am quiverfull and submit to my husband, but I am not a "quivering" woman.

It is really sad when any psycho gets his talons into a woman and misuses her and abuses her. It's sad when cults wreak havoc on people's spiritual lifes. IME though, people tend to take their bad experience and look at everything through that lense. That is what happened with many of my peers from the cult, who were badly, badly hurt, some abused, and because the cult claimed to be Christian, they assume that their hurtful experiences apply to the whole of Christianity. Their feeling is "The cult was Christian, it sucked, therefore, Christianity sucks".

[AngelBee]

Thinking...

[mammal_mama]

cappuccinosmom, I hear what you are saying about Darwinism and that awful eugenics movement. And I realize that religious people aren't the only ones who can go off on an evil tangent. But I think one big difference is, today the vast majority of people who believe evolution (I am one), totally reject crap like the eugenics movement.

Science writings aren't seen as Holy Scripture, so you can respect a scientist from long ago, learn from what they said that was right, and just throw out whatever racist/sexist/classist/whatever mumbo-jumbo got thrown in there just because that particular scientist was also human and was a product of his/her time and culture.

Whereas, with the subordination of women (or complementarianism, biblical patriarchy, or whatever you want to call it), to throw it out is to question the inerrancy of the Christian Holy Scriptures.

I see your point that not all men who practice this are abusers. But for a woman who is trying to follow the wifely-submission doctrine who IS married to an abuser, it can be very confusing trying to figure out when the controlling behavior crosses over from "headship" to abuse.

I.e., not all abusers hit, or do anything physically-abusive. And not all controlling husbands use force to get their wives to do what they want. Over at the No Longer Quivering site, a woman named Journey has started a series called "The God Card ~ Thoughts on Patriarchal Teachings."

The first article is titled, "A Good Man Will Make Sure Those Dishes Get Done (by Repenting For His Failure to Make Sure His Wife Does Them)." And in here she really addresses what you say about people taking a teaching that's really good and twisting it into something bad.

In her article she links to an article by Douglas Wilson, a respected leader in the Biblical Patriarchy Movement (titled "Not Where She Should Be"). And I certainly don't read Wilson as advocating physical force. No, he gives the example that if you want your wife to do better with the housework, you start simple and tell her, for instance, that you want her to do the dishes right away after dinner, before she does anything else.

If she fails to do this, then you sit her down and remind her that she needs to do it now. If she refuses, then you call in the church elders and have them back you up. And if she complies, then you up the ante and give her a new task that she needs to start doing ... give her a chance to assimilate that and then add another, and so on.

Nowhere does he advocate beating or using any kind of physical force on your wife.

Yes what he is advocating is still very patronizing and is abuse, IMO. And for journey, whose husband was really into giving her nitpickingly-long lists of chores that she had to do each and every day, such as a whole lot of cleaning she had to do in the kitchen every night before she could go to bed, these kinds of teachings made it hard for her to draw the line, and realize that her marriage was indeed abusive.

Since he wasn't hitting her.

[cappuccinosmom]

Wow, that dishwashing thing. Probably good that I've stayed away from VF.

So, my dh isn't at all hesitant about asking me to do something, and we both have very clear convictions about gender roles, etc. If he asked me to do the dishes at a certain time, I would.

And yet, he would feel like a complete fool doing what Phillips suggest there. He would feel like a fool for even *mentioning* when or how the dishes are done, because the house is *my* realm. When I'm preggers and prone to leaving the dishes for when I'm actually ambulatory, he just quietly goes into the kitchen and does them himself, if the mess bothers him. Within my "role", I have a few broad expectations--reasonable maintanance of the home, excellent care of the children, efforts towards frugality, things like that. But nitpicky list, no.

I just can't call that Biblical Patriarchy in the first place. I have no problem with the teaching of Biblical patriarchy, but pestering a wife over the dishes has nothing to do with what the Bible says about how a husband relates to his wife. I do think that one of the failures of patriarchal teachers is that they often ignore what God commands men to do. A man who is demonstrating the fruits of the spirit and loving his wife sacrificially isn't a nit-picker and isn't on her back about stupid little things like that. A man who's focused on what God commands him to do isn't going to have the time to be looking over at his wife making sure she's doing her part. I guess that tells me what I think of Doug Phillips.

[purplepaperclip]

I've read the nolongerquivering blog before. VERY interesting stuff and sheds some light on some VERY disturbing and scary things that most people aren't even aware about.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

So, my dh isn't at all hesitant about asking me to do something...

My husband asks me to do stuff, too. And I ask him to do stuff. I certainly don't believe that husbands should be passive, any more than I think wives should be.

And, I actually see passiveness and aggressiveness as being on the same spectrum -- and healthy assertive communication as a whole different thing entirely.

I certainly don't think that 2 people who are trying to make a life together, should be close-lipped and pretend that "everything's fine" if stuff is bugging them, or if they feel that their partner isn't caring about their needs.

But to me, healthy assertiveness is saying, Hey, our current way of handling such-and-such just isn't working for me. I feel like we need to work out a better way. And then talking and brainstorming, and figuring out how to make it better, in a way that works for everyone in the family.

But, from my understanding of the Patriarchy movement through reading at Vision Forum, I'm guessing that my approach would be seen as "feminization of the family" -- which they, by the way, see as A Bad Thing, because they see God as masculine. Period.

[Thao]

A long time ago, I used to lurk on the boards of patriarchy website. I did find it disturbing what I read, although I have no doubt that the men (and women) who posted there all had the best intentions. Eventually they shut the site down to any outsiders (I think because they practiced spanking and were afraid of charges of abuse), and since I didn't want to join under false pretenses I stopped lurking.

I agree that the concept of male headship is not inherently bad, it works great for some families and not so great for others. Where I feel uncomfortable about it, however, is that it does set up an inherently unequal power structure. Like the old concept of kingship, when people believed that kings were ordained by God. There was nothing wrong with the concept per se, and it worked great as long as a good king ruled; but when a bad king gained the throne, people suffered. In the same way, when men do not live up to their responsibility to love their wife as Christ loved the church, it is usually not the man who suffers. Sure, the man's church should get on his case and tell him to do the right thing... but often that is not what happens.

Given that we live in a fallen world with imperfect people, I don't feel comfortable with it being taught as part of the Christian faith (i.e. this is the capital-R Right way to be married). Too many women end up in heartrending situations of having to choose between their faith community and their own mental or physical safety, simply because their husband is abusing the power given him.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Thao

Like the old concept of kingship, when people believed that kings were ordained by God. There was nothing wrong with the concept per se, and it worked great as long as a good king ruled; but when a bad king gained the throne, people suffered.

And Vyckie Garrison, founder of the No Longer Quivering site, feels that this teaching puts a heavy burden on men who just don't have the psychological makeup to be a leader.

She feels it actually drives some men to become abusive control-freaks -- men who might have been a lot easier to live with if they'd been able to relax and be themselves in an egalitarian marriage, with shared power and shared responsibility.

I'm with you, in seeing this issue as something to be worked out from couple to couple. I see it similarly to the way that I now see the fertility issue. Each husband and wife should talk things out, and pray, and reach a decision that's satisfactory to both of them.

And agree to keep coming back and reevaluating as needed.

I think it's dangerous when religious leaders hand down some model that all husbands and wives have to conform to if they want to be doing marriage "God's way."

[genifer]

subbing.

[~Boudicca~]

This is fascinating.

[TzippityDoulah]

I'll have ot make it over theresometime.

I found it interesting 0 you were talking about how one can use science but throw out all the stuff they find wrong and move fwd with it (paraphrasing here).a nd I agree wholeheartedly. why is this different than religion? this is done with in the religious context all through time.

I'm not sure what the "homophobic" thing is all about... ?? what makes them scare dof gay people? (I never did understand the use of that term. it's almost like a slanderous word in reverse...) so I just can't really say much on that one.

but yeah... submission. if one follows the NT teaching you will see that it isn't that woman are to obey men. it's the couples are ot submit to one another. anyone who tries to stretch that into something else (like adult spanking) is brewing up their own doctrines. Having male and female roles (generally seen s rather flexible in the context) is not the same as a man being the authoroity over his wife like he is his children. but as the male being a sort of protector over his wife.

males and females ARE different. and that different should be celebrated! it's a beautiful design. it should never be used to keep another person down. what was a gift then becomes a burden to both sexes when it's misused.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by HennyPenny

I found it interesting 0 you were talking about how one can use science but throw out all the stuff they find wrong and move fwd with it (paraphrasing here).a nd I agree wholeheartedly. why is this different than religion? this is done with in the religious context all through time.

Yes, I do this with religion all the time. However, within religions, it's sometimes seen as sacriledge if individuals throw stuff away before the denomination is ready to.

I'm not sure what the "homophobic" thing is all about... ?? what makes them scare dof gay people? (I never did understand the use of that term. it's almost like a slanderous word in reverse...) so I just can't really say much on that one.

At Above Rubies, I came across an article where lack of breastfeeding is cited as the cause of homosexuality -- as if they see homosexuality as a bad thing, or as something caused by environmnent rather than part of a person's core identity.

Maybe I should have used the term "anti-gay" instead of "homophobic."

but yeah... submission. if one follows the NT teaching you will see that it isn't that woman are to obey men. it's the couples are ot submit to one another. anyone who tries to stretch that into something else (like adult spanking) is brewing up their own doctrines. Having male and female roles (generally seen s rather flexible in the context) is not the same as a man being the authoroity over his wife like he is his children. but as the male being a sort of protector over his wife.

Well, it's true that there's the emphasis on submitting to one another -- but, also, if you literally accept THE WHOLE of the New Testament as God's Word to us today, then you can't really disregard the part that emphasizes wifely-submission, or the one talking about the head of every woman being man.

males and females ARE different. and that different should be celebrated! it's a beautiful design. it should never be used to keep another person down. what was a gift then becomes a burden to both sexes when it's misused.

Very true -- and, actually, every individual is very different from every other individual. To me, the key is to relate to each person as an individual, rather than assuming that we know what they are like because of their gender.

[wordwarrior]

Correction, Cappucinosmom

Sorry, I know I'm like 4 months behind this thread, but something in me couldn't let this pass (it's part of how I think internet slander breeds). Someone mentioned "Doug Wilson's" article about dishes, and you jumped straight to "well, now I know how I feel about Doug PHILLIPS"...wrong guy, just wanted to point that out.

BTW, I read both Wilson and Phillips and they both highly respect their wives and their wives are both confident and intelligent women who would absolutely laugh at any assertion that they are oppressed. Just my 2 cents.

[cappuccinosmom]

THanks for the correction, wordwarrior. Sorry about that.

You know, I have no doubt that individual men within the very strict parts of the movement love and respect their wives. In fact, I'm sure of it. But I do think that at least a "branch" of this movement (which I am in fact part of, if we get into actual beliefs ) goes very, very heavy on certain aspects to the neglect of others, and leaves people vulnerable to abuse.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by wordwarrior

BTW, I read both Wilson and Phillips and they both highly respect their wives and their wives are both confident and intelligent women who would absolutely laugh at any assertion that they are oppressed. Just my 2 cents.

I don't think I ever said anything negative about these men's marriages or personal lives. My concern is that these men are promoting inequality for everyone.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

You know, I have no doubt that individual men within the very strict parts of the movement love and respect their wives. In fact, I'm sure of it. But I do think that at least a "branch" of this movement (which I am in fact part of, if we get into actual beliefs ) goes very, very heavy on certain aspects to the neglect of others, and leaves people vulnerable to abuse.

cappuccinosmom, thank you so much for being up-front about what you see.

[kcstar]

Subbing.

I am not Quiverful, I'm not even Christian.

But my parents are/were conservative Catholics. And as the oldest child (let alone oldest girl) of a large family... a girl/woman with a goal for a CAREER, not just a family... it was holding on to my dreams that got me through until I could get out.

[Millie Ivy]

subbing as well, this is interesting stuff. I'm not quiverful, nor christian, but I grew up in a conservative christian family, and varying degrees of christian churches. LOTS of my friends and their families held this way of marriage as the ideal.