The Power of the Patriarch

No offense intended to whoever this model is, but we all know this guy on social media.

What is patriarchy? I lay here with a newborn sleeping on my chest; my wife is napping next to me, cuddled up to my arm, her heavy breathing the rhythmic proof that she is getting well-earned rest after bearing me yet another beautiful baby. And I offer a prayer of thanks to God and realize that this, this is patriarchy. A beautiful woman and a house full of kids trusting me with their lives, resting so peacefully under my care. It’s glorious. It’s terrifying. I’m so grateful that my God is full of grace, because if He doesn’t do this work in me and in my home, I am woefully insufficient for this task.

God designed the family to be a monarchy. Christ is the King of kings, the Head over all. But within the home, in a position of authority delegated by and submitted to Christ, the husband and father is the king. His office carries real authority which is to be exercised for the good of his people. The reign of a Godly patriarch is like dew on the grass (Pr. 19:12), and it protects and blesses his wife and children.

But this glorious picture is under attack all around us. The egalitarians and the feminists hate hate hate the idea of a man having authority in the home. They are launching an all-out frontal assault on the basic family structure that is clearly articulated in Scripture and has been upheld by the Christian church since her inception.

My aim in this post is to identify some key areas where defenders of Biblical patriarchy really need to stop handing the other side more ammunition.

I’m Not With Them

Firstly, let me lay out some foundational context:

1. I would classify myself as an advocate of patriarchy- father rule, manifested in the spheres of family, church, and state- not as a complementarian, and certainly not as an egalitarian.

2. As such, I have vested interest in working with my brothers who are seeking to recover and advance a Biblical vision for the patriarchal household.

3. I would hold it as self-evident that we must do this without overreacting to current cultural errors and creating an equally unBiblical alternative.

4. I am NOT contending that we should be presenting patriarchy in a way that will not offend our culture. If our gender-confused egali-feminist culture is not offended, then we are doing it wrong.

5. I AM contending that we should be presenting patriarchy (as with all aspects of Christianity) in such a way as to remove unnecessary- and especially justified– objections to our truth claims.

6. I am contending that right now we are doing a really, really bad job at this.
   

So. Let’s jump in.

Can ≠ Should

Is this a yes or no question? It may seem like it; the poll that accompanied it certainly treats it as such, and in our polarized and internet-driven times the impulse is to readily decamp- either to defend the patriarchy or to smash it. This is not a healthy impulse, however (Pr. 18:17, Deut. 16:19-20), and it’s extremely unhelpful if our desire is to actually, you know, get somewhere.

Biblically speaking, the husband has a very broad authority over the home which is strictly regulated by the higher authority of Jesus Christ. A question like the one presented in the above poll blurs two important and distinct categories- what a husband can do, and what he should do.

Yes, the husband holds an office which gives him the ability to be a jerk. But that is not what his office is for.

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. – 1 Pet. 3:7

So can a husband tell his wife to “shut up”? Yes. And if he does, should she submit and be quiet? Also yes. (And are there caveats and qualifications for this? Also yes; please see my last post for a detailed discussion of what a wife’s submission is supposed to entail.)

Also, should a husband tell his wife to “shut up”? Um- no.

I wouldn’t say “never;” I actually specifically remember one instance in my marriage where our dogs were outside in a cage being attacked by a swarm of bees, and my wife was freaking out. In that very high-stress moment, a literal life-or-death situation for our animals, I said something like “You need to stop talking and get me [items I needed to be able to go face the bee swarm].” I wasn’t yelling or being harsh- I was cutting to the chase in a situation where brevity was extremely important. There are many exercises of my authority as a husband that I regret- but that was not one of them. It was actually appropriate to the situation.

That being said, that is the only time that I have ever effectively told my wife to “shut up.” And even then I still didn’t tell her to “shut up.” Because- well, because that would be rude, and love is not rude. Anyhow, a situation like this is just about the only kind of situation where I can imagine such language from a husband being appropriate.

Now, let’s say a couple is going on the conflict merry-go-round over a particular disagreement. It’s not going anywhere except for down the drain, and the husband can see the train wreck coming. Tensions are rising, and they are headed for an evening of fumes and frustration. The conversation needs to be paused until they can pray through it and talk about it calmly and in love. He loves his wife, he sees the smoke at the top of the volcano, and he wants to prevent the eruption.

What should he do?

I’m gonna go with probably not say “shut up, woman.” And by “probably not” I mean why in the world would that even cross the mind of a Christian husband?!?

No, he should take a deep breath, say a quick prayer, grab his wife’s waist and spin her around the room in a mini-waltz. Then he should give her a quick kiss, a tight hug, and tip her back ever-so-slightly so that she entirely forgets what they were fighting about for a fraction of a second. Then he should say “my darling, this is a very important conversation. We need to figure this out. But we can’t right now. It’s headed downhill, and we need to abandon this quarrel before it breaks out (Pr. 17:14). We need to put a pause on this, take some time to pray about it, and we will revisit it in a couple of days.”

And a godly wife should trust her husband and let him lead her out of the fire swamp.

The Tongue of the Wise

The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly. – Pr. 15:2

It really matters how we say what we say. This is especially true in an online age where context is extremely hard to maintain. As such, Christians who tremble at the warnings that James gives to teachers should willingly accept a very high standard of communicative carefulness. Frankly, within the patriarchy community, we stink at this.

I would like to bring up a recent example, though there are many to be considered:

Note the account that is re-posting this- one of the most aggressive anti-patriarchal accounts on Twitter, and one which clearly has no interest in giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone guilty of the “Moscow Mood.” When I encountered this clip, shared by one of the many egalitarian accounts that were passing it around gleefully as evidence of the evils of The Patriarchy, I found myself agreeing with the critics.

On its face, there are a number of glaring problems with Joel’s statements in this clip.

1. It appears to suggest that the husband has the right to effectively bind his wife’s conscience

2. It appears to suggest that healthy patriarchal authority involves a husband policing his wife’s reading habits, and presumably micromanaging the rest of her life as well

3. It seems to present as an ideal an extremely insecure patriarch who has to chain his wife’s intellect to keep himself on top, and that, more generally, women should be kept more or less ignorant and illiterate

4. It presents a brusque and bossy form of communication as a normative expression of a husband’s authority over his wife
   

When I initially saw the clip I briefly commented that I agreed that Joel’s comments were problematic and that I would post further thoughts later. To my surprise, as mature interactions are rare on social media, Joel responded respectfully with a link for more context.

So, in an endeavor not to give an answer before hearing, I took him up on his invitation. It was an excellent talk, well worth listening to, and I agreed with practically all of it. In this talk, Joel makes clear that, actually, none of the above points are representative of his views, that what he said to his wife was completely loving and appropriate and good-natured, and that for those who know him, his meaning was obvious. And do I believe him?

You bet I do.

All the folks online who are worried about Joel’s wife should probably visit his church and meet her. I bet she’s a really happy lady. I know when the interwebs start worrying about my wife, it always gives my bride a good chuckle.

But here’s the rub. Nobody online knows him or his family. And a huge number of people who are going to interact with that clip of his sermon are going to be encountering him for the first time, with no context, and presented as a prooftext for the tyrannical totalitarianism of The Patriarchy.

I need to pause and make something clear here. I use this example because it is a hot topic and a perfect illustration, not because I have any desire to add to the dogpile on Joel. I appreciate his respectful interaction, enjoyed his fuller thoughts, and frankly would probably be attending his church if I lived in the area. My goal is to contribute constructively to the conversation, not to burn a brother down, and I welcome sharpening sent back my direction; again, this is one illustration of a repeated problem that is not unique to Joel but rather, from my view, something of a plague on the patriarchal community.

Oh, and Joel, if you’re reading this, I’m praying that you don’t succumb to the deceitful wiles of paedobaptism. I know all the cool kids are doing it but that doesn’t actually make it Biblical. Hold that line, brother!

But I digress.

Gag Order

Given the way that social media works, there is an extremely high risk of anything published online being taken dramatically out of context. If we were going to completely avoid this risk, that would require simply never saying anything consequential, or at least not online. That is certainly not my recommendation. If we are going to speak the truth about culturally relevant topics, things are going to be said that get ripped out of context, and then a number of armchair quarterbacks will show up shortly thereafter to explain how it could have been said much better.

And maybe they are right, and maybe we can learn from them, but armchair quarterbacks never score any touchdowns.

That being said, if the other team keeps intercepting our passes, maybe we should revisit our playbook.

If we are going to be putting content out online (podcasts, sermons, etc.), it would behoove us to discipline ourselves to a higher level of circumspectness. I understand the value of No Quarter November, and there is definitely a place for speaking the truth without caveat.

But I’m not talking about caveating away the Biblical glories. I’m talking about how we are presenting the practical aspects of patriarchy. And there is a difference.

Caveating away the glory is being unable to say “Sarah obeyed her husband, calling him lord” without immediately coughing out eighteen different asterisks while blushing five different shades of red. Caveating away the glory is being embarrassed about what God said and apologetic about what is good.

But glorying in the Biblical pattern is not the same thing as saying things like “if a wife wants to make the family vegan, a husband has the authority to say ‘no, we’re not doing that, and in fact, you’re making steak for dinner tonight,'” or perhaps the ever-popular ideal Christian patriarch who tells his wife to “go make me a sandwich.”

In our resistance to the complementarian caveats of a “servant leadership” that reduces a leader to being simply a servant, we had better be careful not to create an alternative that removes the servant-heartedness of Christ. Does the husband have the authority to say no to veganism for his family? Yes, he does. But how he does so matters. If we are to be faithful to the Text, we need to get both parts of this equation correct- the what and the how.

(I’m not even getting into the why, which also matters. If he is making every minute decision into an opportunity to exercise his husbandly authority, that is also a problem, but it is beyond the purview of our discussion here.)

If my wife wanted to make our family vegan (not that she would; she is too wonderful for such shenanigans), I could say “no, veganism is stupid, we’re not doing that, and I want you to stop reading those blogs.” Or, I could say “beloved, I don’t think that’s best for our family. I appreciate your desire to feed us in healthy ways, but we can’t do the vegan thing- and I really think you need to stop following the weird tree-lady on Instagram.” Just because I don’t bark an order doesn’t mean that I have abdicated my authority as a husband; to the contrary, if I am secure in my authority as a husband and if my heart safely trusts in my godly wife, I do not need to bark an order to feel like a patriarch.

Sure, there may be times where a straightforward command is necessary. But if that’s the regular pattern of communication within a marriage, it should make us ask- why? If I wouldn’t want my boss to talk to me like that, then why would I talk to my wife like that?

And if this is true as an obvious application of 1 Pet. 3:7, then why is brusque bossiness the consistent form of communication modeled by patriarchal influencers? I recognize that in the context of their own marriages there is probably a whole lot more to the story, but we don’t get to read the whole book. We are only seeing excerpts, and if “make me a sandwich” is the consistent tenor of the excerpts then it does lead to some reasonable questions about the book.

Why This All Matters

This matters for two reasons:

1. Our adversaries are not going to take the time to get the context. If we do not do a better job of blending the what and the how of a husband’s authority, we are going to continue to raise unnecessary roadblocks to a Biblical view of the home, and continue to give low-hanging fruit to our opponents. I understand that they are always going to find nits to pick. We budget for that. But that is different than shipping them boxes of ammo; that’s not the way to win a war. If we keep putting out online a steady stream of content that, when explained with an hour of context, is fine, but when viewed at first glance is not only problematic to feminist sensibilities, but it’s actually problematic to Christian sensibilities, we are not helping our cause, or the cause of the Gospel of Christ. We are not being faithful ambassadors who represent our King well. (2 Cor. 5:20)

2. Our adherents are not going to take the time to get the context. Even more importantly, this conversation matters because teachings will be misapplied. This is always the case, but in an internet age and on such an important, practical, and potentially destructive topic there is a high risk that we will end up complicit in real abuse of patriarchal authority. These things will have consequences that extend far beyond Twitter tussles. There are a lot of beard-wearing, cigar-smoking, Scotch-sipping young men out there who are learning to be a man from the internet and not from a loving, manly father. If the only two alternatives that they get from the church are the Christian versions of either Andrew Tate or Soyboy Sam, they are likely to pick one and run with it, and the result is not going to be good. I’m not accusing my brothers in this sphere of being Christian versions of Andrew Tate. I know that they have a much higher view of women. I’m saying that the way we say what we say, especially in the context-free realm of the internet, really really matters.
   

Roots and Fruits

At the end of the day, if the examples that we give on our podcasts and YouTube videos are consistently order-barking examples, I am left with three potential options:

1. The patriarchal community really is advocating that husbands need to be the kind of men who treat their wife like a parlor maid

2. The patriarchal community is overreacting to complementarian compromise by presenting a version of masculine leadership that sounds less kind and loving than it actually is in their practice

3. The patriarchal community is really bad at recognizing the limitations of online communication in areas where context is extremely important to a proper understanding of the message
   

I believe that the answer here is a combination of #2 and #3- not that there aren’t real excesses, but I don’t believe them to be nearly as common or as damaging as the social media face of patriarchy sometimes would suggest. I am trusting that this is the case because I have done the work to dig down and get the context and hear the heart of many of these patriarchal influencers, and I have consistently found them to be solidly Biblical (and happily married, as far as I can tell). I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But most people won’t.

If we want to win, we need to strategize accordingly.