Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Is Patriarchy Unsafe for Women?

Is Patriarchy Unsafe for Women?

Last updated on: July 10, 2017 at 9:30 am by Scot McKnight

Is Patriarchy Unsafe for Women? 2017-07-10T09:30:02-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

From CBE/Arise:

By Rachel Asproth

On June 29, 2017

When I critique oppressive systems and ideologies, I generally ask two simple questions:

Does the system or ideology give one group unearned power over other groups, and especially over others who already have less social power?

If the answer is “yes,” then I ask a question I already know the answer to:

Is the system safe for the less powerful?

Naturally, social hierarchies are safe for those at the top. They’re designed to preserve the existing social structure, which already prioritizes the needs and perspectives of the group with power. Social hierarchies don’t make less powerful people and groups safer. Rather, they exacerbate any vulnerabilities and pose danger and harm to marginalized people.

If a system relies on the powerful group behaving rightly and not abusing their power, then the system is already unjust and therefore, unsafe, for less powerful groups.

In the 19th century, many white slave owners in the US believed (or claimed to believe) they were caring for and protecting African slaves by imprisoning them. In short, they argued that a social hierarchy—with white people at the top—somehow made slaves safer and enabled their flourishing. Some modern theologians still argue that slavery in the American South was a benevolent system, that masters and the humans they kidnapped were just pleasantly co-dependent.

Let’s cast our minds farther back. White Europeans in the US attempted to destroy native peoples’ history, culture, and traditions, and forcibly assimilate them into European culture. They claimed they were “civilizing” native people for their own good. But the system wasn’t designed to benefit indigenous people or make them safer. It sought (and seeks) to marginalize native people, centralize European values and traditions, and erase native culture.

Historically, many groups in power have tried to reframe social inequality as benevolent, and even empowering.

Men who resisted women gaining the vote in the US sometimes cited concern that women were not intellectually capable of political engagement; they needed men to benevolently take charge. Non-US examples include the British colonization of India (and other countries and regions) and apartheid in South Africa—both reframed as benevolent and paternalistic.

Clearly, hierarchies are not designed for the safety or flourishing of the less powerful. That’s just one way we’ve defended them historically.

Racial hierarchies do not empower people of color, nor do they keep them safe. Class hierarchies do not empower people living in poverty, nor do they keep them safe. And gender hierarchies do not empower women, nor do they keep them safe. They make abuse of power possible and likely.

For all their promises and posturing, social hierarchies are never truly benevolent. Ultimately, they are incapable of ensuring the safety and health of the less powerful because they privilege and empower the already-more-powerful.

Complementarian theology privileges men as “heads” and leaders of women, who already have less social power. So, we have a “yes” to our first question. In this sense, this ideology mirrors the existing social organization of the world.

On to our second inquiry: is the system safe for women?

Historically, men have hoarded power and resources, and women have been less safe as a result. This suggests that male-rule has not made women safer. And broadly, history proves that social inequality does not lead to the safety and long-term flourishing of the less powerful.

So we must either conclude that there is something dramatically different about complementarian theology that makes it truly “benevolent,” or that it fits the historical pattern and makes women (the group with less social power) less safe.

Of course, many people believe that the Bible mandates complementarianism. My analysis of whether or not it makes women unsafe isn’t likely to sway them away from what they believe is God’s design. I don’t agree with their interpretation of Scripture, but I’m not interested in waging a war in exegesis just now.

I think complementarian theology fits the historical pattern of other social hierarchies. More importantly, I think it departs from the new social ethic outlined in the gospel.

Complementarian theology often rises or falls on the morality or right behavior of men. Of course, I’ve heard the argument that men who abuse power just don’t understand “servant leadership.” It’s supposed to bring about women’s good or flourishing too. I’ve even heard a leading proponent call the system “benevolent patriarchy.”

But do systems that give one group power over another group tend to promote the safety and flourishing of the less powerful group? Do they tend to be truly benevolent in practice? And do they tend to match the new social ethic imaged in the gospel?

History supplies pretty clear answers to these questions, in my opinion. Male-rule really hasn’t gone very well for women (or for men, for that matter). Women are less safe when men lead and make decisions alone. Women are less safe when men hoard power and resources. Women are less safe when they aren’t empowered to co-lead in the home, church, government, and world.

God wants women safe and empowered. God wants women to thrive—to brim with health and joy and holy power. God doesn’t ordain a system that makes women less safe. Rather, he is continuously tugging the heart of the church toward gospel justice and reconciliation.

Our Creator is already bending the arc of history toward liberation, patiently correcting us when we mistake old for new. We don’t need to reframe our worldly hierarchies as benevolent. We have the gospel—a beautiful, level-ground social ethic that doesn’t need to be reframed.

The gospel sets free, and empowers indiscriminately. We the church must do the same.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 5, 2017

My Jesus Creed Books: $3.99 Sale

Next Post

July 6, 2017 Remember the Sabbath, to Keep it Holy (RJS)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which letter is addressed "to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Galatians Jude James 2 John