Smoodock's Blog

The fact is, the modern Christian doctrine about an orderly household, whether patriarchal or complementarian, is really based upon the Greco/Roman culture and not the word of God. In Roman society the male was the ruler of the household. Consequently, Paul really gets a bad rap from modern women, especially, because they believe the New Covenant text actually says what the loudest modern speakers/teachers say it does (at least those heard in American Christian culture). However, we need to ask, if our understanding of Paul’s writings, as that is applied to women, is correct. That’s the real question. If modern Christianity’s understanding of Paul is incorrect, then its doctrine about male leadership and the woman’s obligation to submit to male authority is not only wrong, it is an evil doctrine that is committed both to the destruction of male/female relationships, and to the destruction of the Gospel message that Jesus has set us all at liberty (cp. Galatians 3:28; 5:1).

An important voice in the Greco/Roman culture was that of Aristotle. Although it is not well known today, he considered a woman’s body to be deformed and was an incomplete male.[1] Consequently, he taught that males were more fit to rule the household:

Of household management we have seen that there are three parts–one is the rule of a master over slaves… another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father… rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. (In) the relation of the male to the female… the inequality is permanent. (Politics, Book 1, XII)

…the slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature… Clearly …moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. And this holds of all other virtues… (T)hose who say generally that virtue consists in a good disposition of the soul, or in doing rightly, or the like, only deceive themselves… All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet says of women: “Silence is a woman’s glory, but this is not equally the glory of man.” (Politics, Book 1, XIII)[2]

Let’s be honest. If Aristotle is correct, why would we need Paul, or for that matter, Jesus, to teach us how male/female relationships should function in the home, the church or anywhere else in the public arena? After all, what is so different from how Aristotle understands male/female hierarchy and what modern Christianity teaches? What need have we of either Jesus or Paul, if Aristotle is correct? Therefore, we must ask: what has the coming of Jesus changed, as far as husband/wife relationships is concerned?

One has to wonder why mankind, who had rebelled from God from the beginning, remained so universally faithful to him in this matter of male/female hierarchy alone. Is it because this doctrine excelled so greatly in truth, or, more likely so, is it because it, itself, is rebellion, and appeals to the flesh of men so greatly that they have always kept it culturally effective in both private and public relationships (cp Romans 1:18-32).

As for our understanding of God’s word, namely: “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:22), whether we believe Paul wrote literally or metaphorically in Ephesians 5:22-31, he qualified his teaching about husband/wife relationships by saying they should be mutually submissive (Ephesians 5:21). In other words, males are supposed to be submissive to females and vice versa. If this is true, where is there room for male superiority?[3] Nevertheless, Paul seems to be speaking metaphorically (Ephesians 5:32), because he says his teaching about husbands and wives concerned Christ and the church, but even though he is speaking this way, literal husbands are to love their literal wives, and literal wives are to respect their literal husbands (Ephesians 5:33). Therefore, no matter how one interprets Ephesians 5:21-33, it is totally opposed to Aristotle’s opinion of women and of his understanding of male authority, which means it is also true that modern Christianity’s doctrines about patriarchy and complementarianism are opposed to what Paul says in Ephesians about male/female relationships.

_______________________________________________

[1] See Aristotle’s Views On Women.

[2] Aristotle, Politics. The argument is presented slightly differently in Beth Allison Barr’s The Making of Biblical Womanhood; pages 45-49; “Because Paul’s Purpose Wasn’t to Emphasize Wifely Submission.”

[3] Consider also that Paul tells husbands (literal?) to love their wives as they do their own bodies (Ephesians 5:28). In other words, males are to love the bodies of females like they do their own bodies. No sane person would hurt his own body, but, rather, submits to its needs, so the husband needs to learn to submit to care for the body (feelings, desires, needs) of his wife (Ephesians 5:29).