I think the roots of rigid partriarchalism in Southern Baptist life began with Bill Gothard and his "Basic Youth Conflicts."

Before he appeared, male headship did not receive much emphasis from the pulpit.  After he appeared, it became a frequent topic.

That's my experience.  I grew up in New Mexico.  It may have been different in other parts of the country.

by Mainstream Baptist on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:32:20 PM EST

It's not clear to me that patriarchy is necessarily a theocratic idea. Patriarchal systems do exist without theocracy -- many social institutions oppress women without necessarily doing so for the sake of religion; and it is conceivable that a theocracy could exist without patriarchy.

However, to address Moore's argument on the merits, Biblical writers existed within, and their attitudes were shaped by, particular societies in which institutional oppression (including racism, sexism, and classism) existed. For example, the Bible describes slavery, which existed in the time of Moses and in the time of Jesus. New Testament writers refer to slavery without necessarily condemning it as a social institution. However, that does not mean that those writers necessarily endorsed the institution of slavery. Likewise, New Testament writers describe patriarchal systems, and not always in the context of condemning gender discrimination. However, that does not mean that those writers necessarily endorsed the institutional oppression of women.

The Bible does not claim, as does Moore, that "Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families." Nor does it claim that slaves benefit from slavery -- another oppressive institution which it also describes without specifically condemning it.

The teachings of the Apostle Paul emphasized, however, that the individual Christian should not merely conform to the prevailing social conditions, but be transformed by the renewing of her or his mind.

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2)

The concept of "renewal" is found throughout the teachings of Paul, and it is linked to an individual's desire to break down barriers of oppression which separate humans from each other, and from a closer knowledge of God.

For "you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Colossians 3:9-11)

And, as Galations 3:28 makes clear, for the individual Christian who is transformed in the knowledge of Jesus, there is no justification for Christians to engage in ethnic discrimination, class distinction, or gender oppression toward one another, because "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

by jhutson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:06:43 PM EST

Jimmy Carter recently said on the Larry King show that ".  . .one of the first things that a male fundamentalist wants to do is to subjugate women to make them subservient . . ."

By taking away women's right to choose, they are attempting to assert their power over women.  The right-to-life meme is a smokescreen to shield what their real agenda is.  

Some folks, of course, are sincere about the right-to-life movement, but I can't help but think many others have an ulterior motive.

by LynChi on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:20:40 PM EST

has always been about male privilege which is to say that even in times of peace and prosperity when 'soft' patriarchy was the model (in this culture a model lost for a couple of generations now) the results were frequently not good for women or children individually (although probably good for species survival).
There really isn't much softness to patriarchy and male headship has always led to grotesque abuses of power in every culture and every time in which 'male headship' was codified and enforced.
The notion that women not be allowed control of their reproductive lives and the refusal to seriously address the consequences of overpopulation or even acknowledge that there is a problem are as insane as the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I also take exception to the notion of 'evangelical feminism'. Socially conservative women who advocate for 'male headship' are not, by definition, feminist. I understand that Concerned Women for America need some secular cloak but they're the modern day equivalent of the women who worked to deny other women the vote and worked to deny other women effective contraception. Calling themselves 'feminists' does not change this.
I appreciate this FP post directly introducing the elephant in the living room. According to PEW only about 1/4 of the American people wish to embrace and enforce 'traditional gender roles'. If the rest of us manage to point out that this is the primary goal of the religious right and that SCOTUS justices like Scalia and Roberts and Alito are part of that 25% we may be able to avoid the inevitable cultural meltdown which will occur when their bigotry is combined with great power.

by colleen on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 01:33:04 PM EST