The good and the bad of "Patriarchy"

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
A brother asked me what I thought about Patriarchy. I was hoping the PB could help.

I answered I both loved and hated it. There are good and bad examples. My own view is that I don't really like any of the current labels. Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism all seemed to come into use within the last 30 years. That is troubling.

I have answered others that I like whatever was practiced on Little House on the Prairie by Ma and Pa Ingalls. I would call myself a Traditionalist.

What are your thoughts?
 
I tell them that for every patriarch there is a matriarch.

I would say that "traditionalist" is "patriarchal". Your wife has taken your name, and your sons will carry your name forward. You are the head of a family, and with our Lord's blessing, your family will grow from generation to generation.
 
Pergamum said:
A brother asked me what I thought about Patriarchy. I was hoping the PB could help.

I answered I both loved and hated it. There are good and bad examples. My own view is that I don't really like any of the current labels. Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism all seemed to come into use within the last 30 years. That is troubling.

I have answered others that I like whatever was practiced on Little House on the Prairie by Ma and Pa Ingalls. I would call myself a Traditionalist.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yes it is troubling.

I thank God I'm a woman. I do NOT envy the fearsome responsibility men have as "heads of household" Coram Deo! What a fearsome responsibility! And then those men called into leadership positions and office bearers! What fearsome responsibility there too.

Our "Men of God" need all the help and support we women can give them!

We all belong to God and it is He who determined which gender does what within the context of the family and the Church.

Every Christian has the same Holy Spirit indwelling them, and the same Christ who lives (for it is no longer we who live). We are all being conformed to the same Image of His Son. Spiritually we are the same. We are all called to be warriors and defenders of the faith.

But we have different jobs assigned to us, and God established the gender as indicator of His job assignments.

My time in the Military back in the 1970's taught me a lot about the need for authority, hierarchy of responsibility, and that some are meant to be "in Charge" while others are meant to follow and serve and help.

The Church has always seemed like a "Military Organization" to me. Christ is the head and the Great Shepherd, but He has called many to be His "Under-shepherds" (over-seerers) in the Church. And then the husbands are commanded to be heads of their households responsible for all of the welfare of his family including the spiritual welfare, and he is also commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the Church (and gave Himself for it)!

Wow! What a high order!
 
B.L. said:
What is your brother's definition of patriarchy?
Click to expand...
Right. The definition of the term is highly user-dependent.

We here might all be patriarchalists, or they might be a small minority, depending on the context.

And young, single men who might be reading this: when girls tell you "Down with the patriarchy!" they really mean "Hug me, please!"

Really! ;)
 
Andrew35 said:
Right. The definition of the term is highly user-dependent.

We here might all be patriarchalists, or they might be a small minority, depending on the context.

And young, single men who might be reading this: when girls tell you "Down with the patriarchy!" they really mean "Hug me, please!"

Really! ;)
Click to expand...
So I should hug them?
 
gjensen said:
I tell them that for every patriarch there is a matriarch.

I would say that "traditionalist" is "patriarchal". Your wife has taken your name, and your sons will carry your name forward. You are the head of a family, and with our Lord's blessing, your family will grow from generation to generation.
Click to expand...
So you would not advocate that a woman keep her last name in marriage?
 
You should read "Masculine Christianity" by Zachary Garris. He convincingly asserts that patriarchy is biblical and critiques both complementarians and egalitarians. Here is how he would word a statement on biblical manhood and womanhood:

1.) All men and women share human nature made in God's image, and Christian men and women are joint heirs with Christ.
2.) Yet men and women have distinct sexual natures that determine their roles, purposes, and duties in life.
3.) God designed men to provide, protect and lead, and He designed women to bear children, care for the home, and serve as helpers for their husbands.
4.) There is hierarchy in rank between the sexes, whereby God has designed men to rule in the home, church and society.
5.) Though men and women have differing natures, roles and rank, they are both equally valuable before God and man.
 
It's one of those define your terms things. I utterly reject the whole "Christic manhood" schtick. I am openly hostile to them. Feminists would consider me a patriarch; theobros would think I am a compromiser.

It really depends on what the dudebro in question really means by it. If he means women are forbidden to work outside the home (contrary to the practice of Lydia, whose wealth enabled her to support the apostles), then I am not a patriarchalist.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
It's one of those define your terms things. I utterly reject the whole "Christic manhood" schtick. I am openly hostile to them. Feminists would consider me a patriarch; theobros would think I am a compromiser.

It really depends on what the dudebro in question really means by it. If he means women are forbidden to work outside the home (contrary to the practice of Lydia, whose wealth enabled her to support the apostles), then I am not a patriarchalist.
Click to expand...
I am the man the dude brother. How do you define the term and how would you say it goes off balanced and is wrong? Because there are those groups out there
 
BayouHuguenot said:
It's one of those define your terms things. I utterly reject the whole "Christic manhood" schtick. I am openly hostile to them. Feminists would consider me a patriarch; theobros would think I am a compromiser.

It really depends on what the dudebro in question really means by it. If he means women are forbidden to work outside the home (contrary to the practice of Lydia, whose wealth enabled her to support the apostles), then I am not a patriarchalist.
Click to expand...
And why are you hostile to the Christic manhood stick? What are it's issues and why is it wrong?
 
No one said:
And why are you hostile to the Christic manhood stick? What are it's issues and why is it wrong?
Click to expand...
I won't answer for Jacob, but I have something to toss out there along those lines:

Who was more of a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger or C.S. Lewis?

Who was the better fighter?
 
No one said:
And why are you hostile to the Christic manhood stick? What are it's issues and why is it wrong?
Click to expand...

They define masculinity in a rigidly narrow way. Don't get me wrong. I am all for strength. I can do insane acrobatic feats with my shoulders and back. They would have a problem with the Patriarch (!) Jacob who stayed inside all day and cooked.
 
I'm with Jacob. Some, not all, Christian manhood advocates are close to being red pills and incels.

I think many patriarchalists (which I include many 'thick complementarians' in) have lost a sense of natural law. Texts that relate to marriage or the Church are extrapolated to every venture. It took me awhile to understand why many of those people thought the allegedly thin complementarians or even egalitarians were denying that there were any differences between men and women. They are basically Clarkian Scripturalists and Biblicists without knowing it.
 
VictorBravo said:
I won't answer for Jacob, but I have something to toss out there along those lines:

Who was more of a man, Arnold Schwarzenegger or C.S. Lewis?

Who was the better fighter?
Click to expand...

I think that this point is very important. While I am all for encouraging physical fitness we have to realise that not all men are cut out to be highly muscular. They may, however, make up for it in terms of moral and intellectual testosterone.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter said:
I think that this point is very important. While I am all for encouraging physical fitness we have to realise that not all men are cut out to highly muscular. They may, however, make up for it in terms of moral and intellectual testosterone.
Click to expand...
Lol. What does intellectual estrogen look like? :)
 
No one said:
Would you have any book recommendations on manhood and the family?
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with any contemporary books.

But read about David. Yes, he fell into great sin, but consider the many things that made him "a man after God's own heart."

He was a musician and song-writer to the glory of God. He was not afraid to wear his heart on his sleeve. He personally was offended when God's honor was insulted. He loved his friend in a way that we (the world) laugh at.

And he was a warrior with great skill. He endured hardship, fought for his people, danced at appropriate times.

Most of all, he was repentant when called out.

Not all of us can be so multidimensional, but at least we can understand that there is no particular behavioral formula.

BayouHuguenot said:
They would have a problem with the Patriarch (!) Jacob who stayed inside all day and cooked.
Click to expand...
I was also going to mention "mama's boy" Jacob. He ended up being a talented rancher who could move large stones, too.
 
And then there is Barack. He wouldn't go to battle unless a woman led him, but Hebrews calls him a hero of the faith.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Just like in the moon landing, the secret is in the shadow. It's actually not that hard.
Click to expand...

Well. Hmph. I can curve my entire cervical spine, making it look exactly like someone with scoliosis. Just you try to top that!

In all seriousness, this topic reminds me of my friend (I brought this up a couple months back) who is into Bronze Age Pervert and this extreme macho gym-obsessed version of masculinity, focused on certain dietary habits and methods of exercise, and a certain "look", that together represent the epitome of "true manliness". It's a tragically unbiblical notion of manhood.

I wouldn't quite consider this friend's views "patriarchal" though, and after pausing to re-read this I'm realizing that I don't want to derail the thread. So, moving on...
 
Irenaeus said:
Well. Hmph. I can curve my entire cervical spine, making it look exactly like someone with scoliosis. Just you try to top that!

In all seriousness, this topic reminds me of my friend (I brought this up a couple months back) who is into Bronze Age Pervert and this extreme macho gym-obsessed version of masculinity, focused on certain dietary habits and methods of exercise, and a certain "look", that together represent the epitome of "true manliness". It's a tragically unbiblical notion of manhood.

I wouldn't quite consider this friend's views "patriarchal" though, and after pausing to re-read this I'm realizing that I don't want to derail the thread. So, moving on...
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with that twitter account. Those are more "red pilled" guys. I see the basic difference between the Bronze Age types and patriarchies is that the latter, for all my criticism of them, actually want a family. The former are more "love em and leave em."
 
VictorBravo said:
I'm not familiar with any contemporary books.

But read about David. Yes, he fell into great sin, but consider the many things that made him "a man after God's own heart."

He was a musician and song-writer to the glory of God. He was not afraid to wear his heart on his sleeve. He personally was offended when God's honor was insulted. He loved his friend in a way that we (the world) laugh at.

And he was a warrior with great skill. He endured hardship, fought for his people, danced at appropriate times.

Most of all, he was repentant when called out.

Not all of us can be so multidimensional, but at least we can understand that there is no particular behavioral formula.


I was also going to mention "mama's boy" Jacob. He ended up being a talented rancher who could move large stones,
Click to expand...

Irenaeus said:
Well. Hmph. I can curve my entire cervical spine, making it look exactly like someone with scoliosis. Just you try to top that!

In all seriousness, this topic reminds me of my friend (I brought this up a couple months back) who is into Bronze Age Pervert and this extreme macho gym-obsessed version of masculinity, focused on certain dietary habits and methods of exercise, and a certain "look", that together represent the epitome of "true manliness". It's a tragically unbiblical notion of manhood.

I wouldn't quite consider this friend's views "patriarchal" though, and after pausing to re-read this I'm realizing that I don't want to derail the thread. So, moving on...
Click to expand...
I diet and exercise but I don't think it makes me more manly than the guy who has a donut for breakfast and rarely excersises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Guido's Brother
  • Locked
Sons of Patriarchy
13 14 15
Replies
443
Views
35K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
shackleton
  • Locked
Simon Kistemaker, good, bad?
Replies
1
Views
2K
shackleton
shackleton
Semper Fidelis
  • Locked
From Such Turn Away - Good advice about Sons of Patriarchy
Replies
5
Views
730
LightBringer
LightBringer
Richard King
  • Locked
TED features noted Speakers -Good and Bad
Replies
0
Views
1K
Richard King
Richard King
shackleton
  • Locked
Anyone familiar with the ARBCA? Good or bad?
Replies
7
Views
5K
MrMerlin777
MrMerlin777
Back
Top