Talk to me about Vision Forum

[Mama2MeadowRose]

I can't help but be curious as to what the concensus definition of patriarchy is. Having a definition (though general and slightly vague it may be) would be a great foundational point to work with here. As far as what we're seeing with VF, if the father in the family overrides God's purposes for the individual, then it is certainly what I'd describe as Chrystal's word 'UBER'-patriarchal, for sure! But does the godly father have the mandate to lead his family in the ways of the Lord, I think so. I probably won't be getting too involved in the thread because I'm not online much (my 4mo old and life in general is keeping me pretty busy!), but I'll try to check in here and there! Very intriguing discussion!

[Can'tTurnLeft]

nm

[thrillofhope]

If it is true that Michael Pearl is opposed to VF, I think it's funny that all those VF wives promote Created to be His Helpmeet so heavily.

[Striving4Grace]

Espousing the belief that the man is the leader and the wife is under his authority is being patriarchal. There are obviously varying degrees of it and Doug Phillips and those like him would be in the UBER category. JMHO

[Mama2MeadowRose]

Oh, then in that case... I guess we're a 'patriarchal' family. Time to opt out of this convo before ya'll try to 'convert' me! (I don't mind discussion or questions, just don't want heated arguments)

[ArmsOfLove]

Originally Posted by Mama2MeadowRose

I can't help but be curious as to what the concensus definition of patriarchy is. Having a definition (though general and slightly vague it may be) would be a great foundational point to work with here. As far as what we're seeing with VF, if the father in the family overrides God's purposes for the individual, then it is certainly what I'd describe as Chrystal's word 'UBER'-patriarchal, for sure! But does the godly father have the mandate to lead his family in the ways of the Lord, I think so. I probably won't be getting too involved in the thread because I'm not online much (my 4mo old and life in general is keeping me pretty busy!), but I'll try to check in here and there! Very intriguing discussion!

It sounds like we're talking to your dh again Is he posting on your account?

[Hermana Linda]

Originally Posted by Doodlebug's Mommy

If it is true that Michael Pearl is opposed to VF, I think it's funny that all those VF wives promote Created to be His Helpmeet so heavily.

It is ironic.

[bolt.]

There is a difference between, "My husband offered me servant leadership, and I accepted it, enjoy recieving that ministry from him, and intend to do it forever." (Which is husband-lead, but not patriarchal, because it does not state that there is inherent authority in the man due to his man-ness)

... and patriarchy which considers any non-male-lead family to be a violation of the natural order of things, because it sinfully denys the inherent (God-given) authority of a man over his family, due to his man-ness.

Simply because I lead my family, including my husband, in full submission and servanthood does not make me 'matriarchal' -- it simply means that I am currently undertaking a Christian leadership ministry in a relevant area of my life, with the full consent of those I have offered my leadership to.

[Striving4Grace]

Yes, M2MR you would be a patriarchal family, but there's still time to start doing it right.

[Mama2MeadowRose]

Originally Posted by ArmsOfLove

It sounds like we're talking to your dh again Is he posting on your account?

NO, he is not. I apologized for prior happenings, so please don't jump to conclusions that I'd do the same yet again. My husband and I do believe the same about this issue, but I am most certainly posting for myself here.

[ArmsOfLove]

Originally Posted by Mama2MeadowRose

NO, he is not. I apologized for prior happenings, so please don't jump to conclusions that I'd do the same yet again. My husband and I do believe the same about this issue, but I am most certainly posting for myself here.

I am not jumping to conclusions You and your dh have very different voices and it's pretty easy to tell you apart. It seemed he was either posting or telling you what to post. I felt it was important to ask

[Mama2MeadowRose]

He's not involved in this conversation. I'm still growing and exploring when it comes to marriage, family values, and parenting. But I guess you can say I'm pretty decided on the husband/father as leader matter. I don't want to cause division. I believe we're all here to build one another up in the most holy faith. I know we all desire to respect and love our husbands and raise our children the best we can according to His ways. So if we differ on the 'hows', then it's just how it is. Having diversity is great, having division is not. And I never want to be the cause of division. But when I see that the general views of the forum concerning family values are very different from my own, I can't help but give my own input on the matter. Hearing all your views cause me to look at my own and examine or re-examine them and that's great. Some may change, some will remain the same. And I hope the same goes for those who see what I'm saying and why. Anyways, it's late and everyone's asleep except me, haha! If I had any sense, I'd be getting precious sleep while I can. Gnight for now!

[purple_kangaroo]

Originally Posted by Mama2MeadowRose

I can't help but be curious as to what the concensus definition of patriarchy is. Having a definition (though general and slightly vague it may be) would be a great foundational point to work with here. As far as what we're seeing with VF, if the father in the family overrides God's purposes for the individual, then it is certainly what I'd describe as Chrystal's word 'UBER'-patriarchal, for sure! But does the godly father have the mandate to lead his family in the ways of the Lord, I think so. I probably won't be getting too involved in the thread because I'm not online much (my 4mo old and life in general is keeping me pretty busy!), but I'll try to check in here and there! Very intriguing discussion!

I was actually thinking of asking almost exactly the same thing--I wanted to ask it in the theology forum, but I'm not approved for that one so have been spending a few days mulling over where would be the best place to post a question about the different views on roles and headship.

I am very confused by this. What (if any) is the difference between some level of belief in the husband/father having headship/leadership/authority of some sort balanced by mutual submission and sacrificial servant leadership (which would probably be the closest description of my understanding of the Bible and my own marriage at the moment), a complementarian view, and what several posters have referred to as patriarchy?

All of these seem *very* different to me from the Uber-Patriarchy of The Patriarchy Movement such as the teachings espoused by VF, Lindvall, etc. and yet I'm getting a vibe that at least some posters here would put them all in the same boat as different shades of what they believe to be a heresy in any way, shape or form?

Originally Posted by bolt.

There is a difference between, "My husband offered me servant leadership, and I accepted it, enjoy recieving that ministry from him, and intend to do it forever." (Which is husband-lead, but not patriarchal, because it does not state that there is inherent authority in the man due to his man-ness)

... and patriarchy which considers any non-male-lead family to be a violation of the natural order of things, because it sinfully denys the inherent (God-given) authority of a man over his family, due to his man-ness.

Isn't there some range of shades in between? It seems to me that there are a lot of possibilities between/besides these of how people understand Scripture and work it out in their own lives.

Originally Posted by Striving4Grace

Yes, M2MR you would be a patriarchal family, but there's still time to start doing it right.

Wow, that seems harsh. I'm still wrestling with this issue myself and learning about it, but some of the comments in this thread and some others really make me hesitant to even explore and try to ask questions and learn about different ideas on this issue here in this community. I didn't see anything in the board's statement of beliefs that you have to believe in complete gender equivalency in order to fit in here. Can someone hold complementarian views and still practice GBD?

Some of us have never even been exposed to arguments from people who believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible but deny that there is any sort of headship or spiritual authority of the husband/father at all, ever, even if it is only in God's eyes and doesn't actually affect the way things work out or look in practice from the human perspective. I hope everyone can be gentle with our attempts and process of understanding where these alternative views are coming from and whether they make sense to us or not.

[Can Dance]

just for fun I picked up my copy of Discovering Biblical Equality again. I know there is suppose to be a distinction between soft patriarchy and hard patriarchy, but the actual supposed *Biblical* reasoning for both of them is basically the same. Though uber patriarchy takes it a step further and logically concludes that women should in fact not work outside the home or lead men in any kind of setting because its their ontological place in the world. the only difference being that soft patriarchy stops short of saying that as practically it would be extremely difficult to enforce In fact, the president of the SBC said "its hard enough to get them to submit in church and the home, let alone society at large"! but if you read the materials, it is in fact based on ontological subordination, NOT circumstantial (or however one would describe the fallacy of role only)

[Kiara.I]

Originally Posted by purple_kangaroo

Isn't there some range of shades in between? It seems to me that there are a lot of possibilities between/besides these of how people understand Scripture and work it out in their own lives.

I don't think so. Either male leadership is mandated, or it is not. There's not much middle ground there. Patriarchal or husband-is-the-head-of-the-house says that male leadership is mandated. As bolt points out, a family can be led by the man without believing that the man *must* lead, which is then because the dynamic of the family works well that way and everybody in the family is content with it (as implied by the "husband offered servant leadership and wife gladly accepted.")

I suppose you could say there is middle ground, where one spouse is convinced that male leadership is mandated and the other isn't. Or where both are convinced the same way but are not happy about it. Or something. But those aren't philosophical middle grounds, just middle grounds of application.