Biblical Patriarcy vs ham handed leadership.

[rusty_armor]

In cruising around looking for likeminded souls in poly circles, I keep running across the term "Patriarchal Polygyny", and suddenly realized I don't know precisely what the term means. It brings up images of fierce nomadic tribes where the tribal chieftain is responsible for the family's welfare, and indeed, if he sets out for the wrong waterhole at the wrong time, or crosses paths with a stronger and more violent tribe, the family perishes.

Usually that Chieftain rules with absolute authority over his tribe, and even the Arab and Israeli governments are loath to interfere with that chieftains authority. Some of the Bedouin tribes have no respect for modern Arab states boundaries, and move between the various Middle Eastern deserts at will. In that culture, wives and concubines are the norm, and until very recently, even ownership of male and female slaves.

That model has me a little ill at ease. Perhaps some of you can enlighten me when you use the term Patriarchal Polygyny, for I can't imagine anyone, much less a wife or older child, would live under that sort of tyrany.

 

[Tlaloc]

Well said, that is why I try to tread litely with the term patriarchal. It means different things in different contexts.

 

[Mark C]

I get the feeling that you have been the victim of the same sort of PC-newspeak that has demonized such terms as "patriot" and, before that, "gay", Rusty.

To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty (and Lewis Carroll), when I use the word "patriarchy" or "patriarchal" - it refers specifically to marriage as ordained in the Bible by our Creator - "nothing more, nothing less". The word, of necessity, incorporates the concept of polygyny, since God's provision for marriage inherently does as well.

And, to that extent "patriarchal polygyny" is arguably redundant - although one can have a Biblical understanding of marriage without necessarily being a practicing polygynist, of course.


(Lastly, I prefer polygyny to the less-specific term polygamy because it IS more Biblically precise, and also because it tends to avoid some of the same PC-baggage that has become attached to that latter term. Somehow it generally manages to open the door to a higher level of discussion than words used on Oprah or Jerry Springer...)

I have never known a God-fearing patriarch in the true sense to bear even a remote resemblance to any type of tyrant - tribal or otherwise. Somehow I doubt most such would even begin to understand what Numbers 30 is about.


Blessings,

Mark

 

[Mark C]

...I try to tread litely with the term patriarchal. It means different things in different contexts.

Hmm. If by that you mean that it tends to invoke a virulent reaction from the goddess-worshipping pagan set, Jair, perhaps so. But we were given the authority to cast out demons, and "tread on serpents and scorpions" for a reason, I suspect. All the more reason to speak His Truth "boldly", as we ought to speak...

Blessings,

Mark

 

[rusty_armor]

I get the feeling that you have been the victim of the same sort of PC-newspeak that has demonized such terms as "patriot" and, before that, "gay", Rusty.

I don't know that I am so much the victim of PC-newspeak so much as I am of polygynous network idioms, Mark. I suspect that 95% of the English speaking world would give you a blank stare if you used the phrase Biblical Patriarchy or Patriarchal Polygyny around them. Most of my peers are not botanists or social scientists, so the term polygyny is merely a stilted term for polygamy to them.

And the same was true for me. When I first began my search, I didn't run across the term until I went to Christian polygamy sites. I had some very first hand experience walking with Messiah and living with more than one wife, and I feel we have godly home in spite of a lack of mentoring on the problems unique our living arrangement. So yeah, I am not a polygamist, but a polygynist.

But to continue. After one discussion on a Christian plural marriage site, one person proudly differentiated himself from the rest of us uncultured Philistines by saying he was Patriarchal Polygynist. I had to assume by that retort that he meant ran his family lived like Abraham, David or some such Biblical patriarch.

So my question is more along the lines of what does it actually mean to live a Patriarchal lifestyle as opposed to those of us who suddenly found ourselves in a unique living arrangement being as I do not rule by fiat or final word in my family. In fact, I hardly rule at all in matters other than the security of my family. My role is merely one of protector and priest. I don't decide when it is time to move on to the next water hole, so to speak, nor do I negotiate apart from the wives.

Does that conflict with or fail to measure up to the standards of a Biblical Patriarch?

~R

 

[Mark C]

I suspect that 95% of the English speaking world would give you a blank stare if you used the phrase Biblical Patriarchy or Patriarchal Polygyny around them. Most of my peers are not botanists or social scientists, so the term polygyny is merely a stilted term for polygamy to them.

Excellent point, Rusty, and actually a large part of the reason why I (often, and especially when the distinction is very important to the discussion) use those terms. And it ties into Jair's comment concerning those who DO react viscerally to words like "patriarch".

Those who give you a blank stare generally at least have no specific preconceptions concerning the WORDS themselves, and thus are - to that extent, anyway - teachable. I find that is helpful with many types of people (I run into lots of engineers ) to start with explanations with words, rather than trying to explain how I am not a Mormon, or a womanizer, or - worse still - a pervert or child bride abuser. It also tends to avoid the descent into sarcasm associated with noting that I am not a Serial Monogamist, and so on.

(FWIW, the Wiccans and others who hate patriachy because they hate anything that sounds "Biblical" aren't likely to be swayed by exegesis anyway.)

Anyway, the rest of your post helps to clarify another distinction; I interpreted your initial question more along the lines of definitions and 'how we respond to others' about certain words than how we are to live in such a way.

As for myself, I tend to think that the issue comes down to "walking in His teaching and instruction" (Torah), and leading as our Savior demonstrated - from the perspective of a servant, but one Who also "taught with authority". Certainly I tend to emphasize the Numbers 30 aspect of taking ultimate responsibility for vows and contracts of our house in that regard.

Blessings,
Mark

 

[Tlaloc]

Mark,

By tread litely what I mean is that I won't use the term patriarchal unless I can define it for the person I'm talking too. Their pre-concived definition of patriarchy is usually ham handed leadership. Their preconception is perverted of course, but if they didn't have perverted pre-conceptions I would't have to explain polygyny to them in the first place. Polygyny is a great term because its has just the opposite properties of patriarchal. People don't know what it means so I automatically get to define the term for the conversation. Plus polygyny is what we are for, and all the bible is for, so quite right that its the term for us.

But if we're dealing with a goddess worshiper himself then terms don't mater, there is nothing to be gained from the conversation so one may as well go all out or just leave. Such precautions are pointless for the people who are in themselves poisonous, I'm only talking about taking care with terms when trying to provide an antidote to those poisoned.

Rusty,

Actual mode and method of leadership is a good discussion. I suppose any mode or method is fine as long as it is functional and it is known where the authority lies and everyone is happy with it. Mind that fiat is very important in any organization, family included. There will be times when decisions need to be made quickly and they are controversial in an evenly divided way, or there is no time to communicate to reach consensus. There is a time, place, purpose, and need for executive authority.

That said in 8 years of being together there is perhaps 3 times such action has needed to be taken. I doubt there would ever be need for much greater frequency than that in any relationship unless they had really difficult or unusual circumstances. Security matters are a great example, there is definite need for an outright no on any activity that poses a reasonable danger. Like once she had a very sick relative she wanted to go see, but it would have meant several hours driving through a snow storm. I calmed her down and she agreed it was a bad idea, but if she had stayed worked up and determined to go that would have been occasion for an executive no. I would say the fact that men have an easier time being dispassionate about decisions (in a wide generality, far from always) in a pinch is a reason for this authority. If it's not true in most cases it is in my family.

But when it comes to non pinch, non critical, or anything less than emergency decisions I would say it is outright unwise to ever use executive actions. If the man is king of the house the wife or wives are the highest councilers, they are the people you can absolutely trust to have the best interests of the family and of you in mind, and a good king always takes good council. I don't think giving the wives as much input, as much vote, and as much responsibility as possible is at all out of line, in fact I think it is the only way for things to run smoothly. I guess to me chairman is a better title than king for my position in the family.

Perhaps that's more about my family's leadership structure than the Biblical patriarch style. I think it is patriarchal in the proper sense but if someone disagrees or has a better explanation or method then I'd be glad to hear it. Any good leadership attempts to use peoples skills and abilities to their fullest, I don't think there is any good in overly domineering styles, and I don't think anyone here advocates such a style.


On a side note we where watching the episode of Big Love yesterday where the family was divided over Weber Gaming. My wife got upset at how they handled it. The setup was Bill and Nikki for it, Barb against, and Marj undecided. It would have wound up either 3 to 1 (which it did) or 2 to 2, but she was mad and said they never should have voted on it because even if it was 2 to 2 his authority should have kicked in as the tie breaker. I hadn't even thought of it, but I was very happy with her attitude to say the least. That was a very big pleasant surprise that she took the situation so personally. Then she went on a rant about Barbs attitude in that episode. I was happy