IS MALE GENDER AUTHORITY BIBLICAL?

Patriarchalism, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, big words all ending in "ism," but do they have anything else in common? Not much! Unless you count the fact that each group has Christians, both male and female, who hold to one of them as the popular title of their particular point of view about what the bible teaches concerning the roles of men and women in family life, church life, and even society at large. 


The end result of a couple of them is a kind of male gender authority that is said to be God's plan for the ages. If these three words are unfamiliar to you at present, trust me, they will not be for long. They define what may be one of the major issues facing Christians today in the theological realm.


What follows is a bit of what I trust will be a fair and non-condemning description of each of these differing views of male and female roles with emphasis specifically on how male authority is seen in scripture. Ultimately, I'll give my view and why I hold it. 

I going to simplify this post by using abbreviations instead of the three rather long words each time they're mentioned. So from here on it will be the battle of the Pats, the Comps, and the Egals with winner take all. 

First the Pats. [Patriarchal] They hold to what they believe to be a God-assigned role of authority for the male head of the family without question. In fact, they see the father/husband to be something of the Prophet/Priest/King of the family structure with much of the responsibility, power and prominence that go with each of those roles to be inherent within being__the man. 

The Pats believe that the male head of the family unit is the final word on any issue where a decision must be made. There may be some disagreement within the family members, but he has final word. They usually see this role of the male to be not only for the family, but for the church and society at large as well.

The Comps [Complementarian] would hold to the same view of the male role without it necessarily being for society as a whole. But it is certainly true for the home and church in the Comps mind. They also would generally be less likely to have a rigid control in place, being more open to the gifts and personality of the wife. In fact, it would be more of a complementary aspect of the marriage that they would wish to emphasize. But that would have to be without any loss of the final decision responsibility and power of the man as husband and father. Thus, the coined name, Complementarian.  

Because of the similarities of the first two however, I will address them as one, yet will in fairness, as earlier promised, try to point out a few minor differences along the way. 

The third group, Egals, [Egalitarian] will be examined by itself in the next post.

It would only be fair to say that both the Pats and Comps would agree that, while the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her, God has simply divinely appointed the man as the one to have final decision making responsibilities as has been described. The Comps would more likely hear the wife's advice and input, but if there is disagreement, both Pats and Comps would see the man is to have God-appointed decision-making responsibility in that moment. The wife's role, in both systems, is to graciously submit and obey any final male decision that is made.

All of this is determined to be true because of the Ephesians 5:22-25 passage that establishes the man as the "head" over the wife [meaning boss] as Christ is "head" over the Church. Add to that passage the 1 Timothy 2:12 verse that establishes [as they see it] the eternal principle that the woman can never have authority over the man in any situation, and you have male authority established. [Remember the distinction of society at large being exempt for most Comps.]


There are other 'Logical' arguments used by Pats and Comps that they believe give some further biblical basis for this view, but those arguments don't count very much in the final analysis from my perspective. For example, they say since all the original 12 Apostles were men it follows logically that women should not be leaders.  My problem is if you continue that argument for a moment you will be faced with the logical fact that all of those men were Jewish and all had, as much as we can know, been circumcised. I think you get the picture. The fine line of where logic ends doesn't make for the best of arguments. But I digress.

If a woman is single, both Pats and Comps see this headship found in the woman's father or some male who is older and is responsible for her welfare. When she marries, that is then transferred to her husband. All this is seen as the God-ordained authority structure firmly established in the home and family.

You will not be surprised that this has profound ramifications in the local church. Pats and comps say that the 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 passage indicates that the submission of the woman already found in the home in Ephesians 5, is found to be true in the church as well. 

So much so that, in the Pats case, a woman is not allowed to read scripture, lead in prayer, or teach, except children and other women, and in some churches, women are not allowed to be present for business discussions and if they are present, no questions would be permitted at all. 


The Comps would be less rigid for sure, but would not permit a woman to have a leadership position in church over men or to teach men. Neither would allow for a woman to hold the office of deacon or pastor/elder. Additionally, the role of the man in the family is given to the pastor or elders of the church as well.

Pats and Comp proponents, while quick to point out that the scriptures show all this to be correct and true, would just as quickly acknowledge that women are of equal value in the eyes of God with men. But God has simply appointed different roles for them within the family and church. 


To be truly biblical they believe the same must be held to in our day in truly Christian families and churches. After all, the scriptures never change. Culture may, but not the bible.

In fact, Comps and Pats find it amazing that anyone who says that they study the scriptures could ever come to a position that disagrees with their male/female point of view. 


Clearly, they believe that those who do hold to a different opinion___and I'm referring to the Egals now___whose view of scripture and male authority we've not yet addressed, but when we do it will be found to be fundamentally different than the Pats and Comps___ are theological liberals who have embraced today's culture and live by political correctness rather than endorse what is clearly God's biblical roles for men and women. 


Are the Pats and the Comps correct in their opinion about Egals? Do Egals follow culture with a total disregard for scripture? 

We shall see next time.

Paul B.