To Theocracy, or Not To Theocracy

Last updated on: September 11, 2020 at 8:53 am by Libby Anne

To Theocracy, or Not To Theocracy 2020-09-11T08:53:44-04:00 Libby Anne

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.

So remember that post on Lori Alexander’s blog that I wrote about recently? About how husbands should go about requiring their wives to submit to them? After I wrote my response, I checked the comments on Lori Alexander’s post, and, wow. This exchange is revealing.

Laurie: In the U.S., patriarchy can only work if the family is willing to be subordinate because there are no laws giving fathers/husbands authority over wives/children (beyond guardianship of minors). In fact, the idea of a patriarchy is diametrically opposed to the American ideals of individuality, democracy and freedom for all because a true patriarchy gives freedom to adult male heads-of-household and no one else. What I’m thinking is that for a Christian patriarchy to succeed in the long term, it needs to be upheld by a theocracy (the rule of God) rather than the rule of the people (democracy).

Em: Christian patriarchy is only possible when the family decides to practice it. If we were to enforce it by law, we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran. God does not force us to follow him. We are given the free will to do so.

The disagreement centers on whether wives should be required by law to obey and submit to their husbands. Laurie argues that in the absence of a legal requirement that the husband obey the wife, Christian patriarchy will fail, because it is antithetical to ideas like democracy and freedom. (This is a stunning admission.)

Another commenter, Em, responds that Christian patriarchy is something families need to “decide” to practice, in absence of the law, because if we required wives to submit “we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran.” Am I the only one who feels like this statement may actually be rooted in racism? Her justification for not requiring women to obey their husbands is not that this is a bad idea or wouldn’t work, but rather that “we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran.” If laws requiring women to obey weren’t associated with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, would Em still oppose them?

Laurie stating “patriarchy is diametrically opposed to ideas like freedom and democracy” and Em responding with “well, sure, but we don’t want to be like Saudi Arabia or Iran” is just plain weird. Look at Em’s comment again—she doesn’t push back against Laurie’s assertion that patriarchy is incompatible with freedom and democracy, at least not directly. Instead, she simply says that if we “enforce” patriarchy “by law” we’ll be “no better than” Saudi Arabia or Iran.

How does Laurie respond? Well.

Laurie: I think it boils down to being the woman’s choice, rather than the family’s, as to whether or not the family functions as a patriarchy. A man cannot force his wife to submit (at least not legally). Therefore the family structure is whatever the wife wants it to be. Either she chooses to be submissive or she chooses rebellion – either way the laws of the land support her.

Egads.

The idea that it is the woman who has the power in any relationship feels like it comes straight out of a men’s rights activists’ forum. Wives are the victims of domestic violence and abuse at a far higher rate than men. Women frequently find themselves stuck in relationships that are difficult to leave. Men earn more than women, and when one partner stays home to care for children, it is usually the woman. But it’s actually women who are calling all the shots? Really?!

Notice what “calling all the shots” actually means: it means wives can choose whether to obey or disobey their husbands. Imagine framing men’s options that way: that they can choose either to obey their wives or disobey their wives. Clearly, patriarchalists see men as entities with more agency than that!

Patriarchalists’ fundamental problem is an inability to see women as fully and completely human. Both men and women have ideas, propose plans, and share excitement over things they’ve been thinking about. Both men and women are human beings, and that makes them, on a basic level, fundamentally the same. Yes, there are differences between humans, and there are things that, on average, differ between men and women. But on an underlying, fundamental level, we are the same.

Patriarchalists don’t see it this way, of course. They see men as fundamentally actionary and women as fundamentally reactionary. Women can’t function on their own. They either obey and are cared for men, or they obey and are cared for the state. (No, really: while these particular comments don’t address this, supporters of Christian patriarchy argue that women who are not under the care and authority of a man simply substitute his care and authority for that of another—the state, a boss, etc.)

Okay, we’re almost done. One last commenter responds, making things only worse, if you can believe it.

KAK: Even if the laws of the land didn’t support her (by that I mean, if legislation was in place to support patriarchy) God doesn’t judge us on our outward actions. He judges us by our hearts. So a woman forced to submit to her husband can still be rebellious in her heart, and so therefore still be wrong in God’s eyes. We can ONLY serve the Lord when we CHOOSE to do it, because the only thing that matters is our heart.

KAK writes that, even if the law required wives to obey their husbands, and even if wives complied with these laws and obeyed their husbands, they could still be sinning in their hearts. Now yes, this means that KAK is saying women should not be forced to obey their husbands—that they have to voluntarily choose to obey their husbands or it does not count. But the addition of thought crime here actually feels like it makes everything worse. Wives can’t just obey, and have that be enough. They can’t even obey with a smile, and have that be enough. They have to obey with a smile inside.

How is it 2020 and there are still Americans arguing over whether women should be required by force of law to obey their husbands?

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

Patriarchy

Channel - Politics Blue

Previous Post

September 9, 2020

No, No, I Didn't Mean HIT Her!

Next Post

September 11, 2020 The Vision: Mary Magdalene

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Old Testament prophet confronted King Ahab about worshiping Baal?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaiah Ezekiel Elijah Jeremiah