Patriarchal PM Vs. Biblical PM

[lutherangirl]

I've read Tom Shipley's books and a few posts but am confused in the terminology. Is there a difference between a "patriarchal" plural marriage and a "biblical" plural marriage? I mean when I think of "patriarchal" I think of men with great honor, David or Solomon, in total control of every decisions in the marriage (s), so say like a "conservative" Christian. Then I see that the term "biblical" plural marriage as like common folk; where the man is the head of the family, but allows his wives to have input regarding the marriage. So, I would call this marriage "liberal" Christian. Thoughts? Am I totally off-base?

Michelle

 

[CecilW]

Good question, Michelle.

I think most of us here consider Patriarchy to be the Biblical form of marriage, regardless of how many wives re involved.

The debate seems to be as to the meaning of Patriarchy.

Some men think that ALL decision making and control should be gathered into their own two hot little hands. They're the BOSS.

Others think that it should be distributed as much as possible -- much as a king sets certain laws for the kingdom, but then everyone is free to do their own thing within the boundaries of those laws.

And of course, there's all shades in between.

Having said that, I guess that most forms of plural marriage are actually Patriarchal. But not necessarily Biblical. The Mormon and Muslim versions draw their inspiration and rules from other sources. As do China amd tribal Africa and New Guinea.

 

[lutherangirl]

Having said that, I guess that most forms of plural marriage are actually Patriarchal. But not necessarily Biblical. The Mormon and Muslim versions draw their inspiration and rules from other sources. As do China amd tribal Africa and New Guinea.

So what you're saying is Mormon and Muslim plural marriages would be considered "Patriarchal", but not "Biblical", because they don't believe in the Bible as the only source of truth--Mormon's believe in the Book of Mormon and Muslim's in the Koran?

 

[Wesley]

I'm not sure that there is as much of a difference as some would claim.

My dory would happily turn over all decisions to me. But I won't let her. There are times when I tell her that I'm delegating that decision to "my other brain." That confused her at first until I explained that we're "one flesh." If she doesn't make the decision in question then she's disobeying her husband. And she won't do that. It's a major issue for her.

The bottom line in my opinion is that God gave women brains for a reason. And that reason is that He intended for women to use them. So some decisions are supposed to be made by women.

The catch is that the woman has to make sure any decision she makes isn't one that her husband was reserving to himself or she'll answer to God on the issue of disobeying her husband when she stands before Him for final judgment.

 

[CecilW]

So what you're saying is Mormon and Muslim plural marriages would be considered "Patriarchal", but not "Biblical", because they don't believe in the Bible as the only source of truth--Mormon's believe in the Book of Mormon and Muslim's in the Koran?

Yup. Much like "All humans are mammals, but not all mammals are human."

Whereas monogamy lends itself to experiments such as female headship, or female-less families ...

Wesley has hit one of the main questions on the head. Within the discussion of Patriarchy, and specifically within a Biblical understanding thereof, just what role do women play? And how much authority and/or active, hands on control should men wield?

Does the old proverb apply, "That government rules best that rules least"? And does that best match Jesus' declaration, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light"?

 

[cnystrom]

Patriarchal marriage is the idea that men should be leaders in their own homes and families. Biblical marriage is a euphemism for Christian polygamy as the term polygamy has negative conotations in some quarters.

Whether patriarchal marriage and biblical marriage are the equivalent would depend a lot on your position on patriarchy and polygamy. If you are for both then they can seem much the same thing.

 

[Mark C]

In general, I would "weigh in" and say that I tend to agree with Cecil's definitions.

Speaking for myself, I use the term "Biblical" marriage to DEFINE what Patriarchy, properly lived in a loving, servant-headship fashion, SHOULD be. No difference, in other words.

But, in a practical sense, I often prefer the term "patriarchy" simply BECAUSE it is so "un-PC". To say "polygamy" inevitably leads to questions like "ARE you Mormon or Muslim?" -- and confuses the whole issue, since neither are in that sense "Biblical". While the term "polygany" is a bit better, and INCLUDES the fact that a man may have more than one helpmeet, it is generally assumed that such marriages MUST include more than one wife.

"Patriarchy" not only avoids all that confusion, but has the "side benefit" that it allows a bit of additional education. People who want to assume that all Bible-believing men who believe in "headship" must be "the BOSS" (to use Cecil's term) -- or misogynist wife-beaters, to quote the anti-Biblical stereotype -- tend to be a bit taken aback that anyone would actually dare to call themselves such a thing, much less consider it desirable!

The fact that "patriarchal" marriage is BOTH Biblical AND something to be emulated thus often comes as a shock. But so, of course, does what the Bible REALLY says about marriage itself anyway. Somehow I find that the use of the right terminology helps to smooth the path, after that initial hurdle is crossed.

Blessings,
Mark