I have heard the term “hyper-patriarchy” get thrown around recently even among some people in our circles. Yet, I can’t seem to find any good definition of it. Often it is used to attack positions that are simply patriarchal. Things that past generations in the faith held to and practiced are considered hyper-patriarchal. I wonder if it is something like “hyper-calvinism” where often its just aimed at calvinists who are being hyper. Is there a standard definition of hyper-patriarchy?
1 Like
Perhaps subordination that does not treat women as the weaker vessel.
2 Likes
A reactive form of patriarchy that over compensates for the excesses and defects of yesteryear’s evangelicalism rather than drawing first and foremost from scripture for its understanding of men and women in Christ.
Not standard, but how’s that?
2 Likes
Isn’t “hyper-patriarchy” just a smear of patriarchy? Is it not simply a smear of “God the Father Almighty?”
I wonder if those who use this term would ever agree with God’s Word declaring man “the image and glory of God” and woman “the glory of man” (1Corinthians 11:7)?
I think not.
Sometimes, men who have faith in Jesus go too far. No question. They refuse to allow their wives to attend women’s Bible studies. They speak for their wives when they, with their wife, answer questions and affirm membership vows in the Household of Faith. They commune their children themselves, denying Scripture’s delegation of the Sacraments to the Church and Her officers…
But these things are easily dealt with by Biblical elders correcting the sheep, and are most assuredly not what men who speak of “hyper-patriarchy” object to.
“Hyper-patriarchy” is similar to “Bibliolatry” and “authoritarianism” in that the thing being objected to is not the abuse of Scripture’s authority or authority delegated by God to specific men, but authority itself.
All such smears are really attacks upon the authority of God Himself. In fatherhood. In His Word. In His representatives. Love,
2 Likes
With much respect and much affection dear brother, there is real fire to this smoke.
Warhorn’s republication of Man and Woman in Christ is tremendously useful to deal with this genuine and rising threat to the church. Highly recommend.
Also, The Really Helpful Marriage Book and any podcast Tim does with Mary Lee. So incredibly helpful.
5 Likes
An over-caffeinated patriarch.
5 Likes
I agree with you Pastor Tim. I think what the other brothers are mentioning are merely sinful behaviors.
2 Likes
Insofar as men are attributing their sinful actions to patriarchy, they are hyper-patriarchal.
The man who cuts his wife off from all contact with others is sinning. The one who justifies it by appeals to his biblical authority is hyper-patriarchal.
Hyper-Calvinism exists, too. For real. If you don’t believe me, read “The Man Who Moved A Mountain.”
Yes, the norm is that these are slurs lobbed at godly doctrines and godly men, but we ought not refuse to call out those who are explicitly claiming the name of “patriarchy” or “Calvinism” to justify sin. And calling it out means saying, “That’s not biblical patriarchy. That’s something else.” If you don’t want to call it hyper-patriarchy, I’m sympathetic, but it needs a meaningful name. And I can’t come up with anything else off the top of my head.
9 Likes
How about tyranny/tyrannical/tyrant?
4 Likes
The problem is proponents are claiming their practices are just biblical patriarchy or classical male headship.
4 Likes
Pastor Spurgeon,
I recall one time at a NGA lunch I spoke to you about the helpfulness of speaking, at times, of “patriarchies” rather than “patriarchy”. God has instituted the creation order and it is irrevocably patriarchal. There is no abolishing or altering it because it’s baked into creation and permanently comes down to us from God the Father and His Son. Anyone who tries to argue that “patriarchy” is a human invention, who takes a constructivist approach to sexuality, argues against God and Scripture.
In our conversation I mentioned “patriarchies” to speak about different applications of the creation order by men for their societies at different places and times. It’s helpful to speak in these terms, because what men do with God’s order is not synonymous with God’s patriarchy. An example of this is Islam. Islam is undeniably patriarchal. In many ways, especially compared with the modern West, Muslim societies sign man as the image of God in a clear and authoritative way. But none of us would ever say that this “patriarchy” is a valid and righteous application of God’s creation order - particularly in the ways this evil religion invalidates woman as an image bearer of God.
We can call that hyper-patriarchy if we like. Or tyranny. I tend to call it Islamic patriarchy, to make it clear that there is Islam and there is patriarchy, and that Islam applies patriarchy in a very specific way. But I don’t want to take away from calling it patriarchy because it is an application of God’s order (even if it’s been perverted and warped).
When it comes to American “hyper-patriarchy” types, I just label those who show no love toward their wives and children by their sins: men who are cosplaying, little men, men who are easily threatened by women, men who rather smoke cigars and drink whisky than change the diapers of their children. Are they patriarchal? Sure, but their patriarchy is small. It’s the patriarchy of a man who esteems himself a wise and mighty king when he’s actually a wooden block.
4 Likes
Father-rule ought to be marked by submission to other fathers in God’s father-saturated world. The hyper-patriarchs / tyrants I’ve known recognize no fatherhood but their own. So, maybe we ought to call it hypo-patriarchy.
9 Likes
I have heard about that book but haven’t read it yet. What’s hyper calvinism in it?
Michael Foster in his book does something similar. He speaks of the evil patriarchy and the good patriarchy.
But regarding hyper-patriarchy, everyone is still batting around a term without a definition. For you it was men who rather smoke cigars and drink whiskey than change diapers. But that isn’t a very solid definition. It just seems to be more of an irresponsible man. It’s not really a system of thought.
I still maintain that the term is just unhelpful and undefined.
Here’s a definition that might work
Hyper-Patriarchy is the unbecoming, excessive or self-seeking use of conferred authority, otherwise granted to a man to rule well.
1 Like
The Apostle Paul called some men “super-apostles” (huperlian apostolon, almost literally “hyper-apostles” or “exceedingly beyond apostles”). They were false teachers who preached another gospel, and the Corinthians bore with it beautifully (Paul’s sarcasm). So, the hyper-apostles were men who appeared to have it all together (Paul mentions being unskilled in speech in this section of 2 Corinthians as a contrast to these dudes), appeared orthodox, convinced others to buy what they were selling, but, ultimately, went beyond what was written.
That’s how I use the moniker hyper-patriarch. Men who found a good thing and then overapplied it so that it goes beyond what is written. They have a patriarchy hammer and everything is a nail. So, they pre-read any book that their wives might want to read. They forbid women teaching other women the contents of Scripture. They insist their daughters stay in their home when it is clear the mom and older daughters are competing for the man of the house’s attention/affection. Their authority in the home is higher than the authority of officers in the church (so they don’t allow the church to discipline their children, wives, or themselves). They go beyond what is written.
2 Corinthians 11:1-6
1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. 5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles (note: “super-apostles”). 6 But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.
4 Likes
What if we called them super-patriarchs.
Though some of the things you mention aren’t necessarily sinful or wrong. Reviewing the things our wives read and listen to or at least being responsible for it, is I think a good principle (Numbers 30) I also don’t know if it should be the norm for daughters to leave their father’s home before marriage. It certainly wasn’t the norm for most of Christian history. Even the Apostle Paul assumes the right of fathers to give or not give their daughters in marriage (1 Corinthians 7:36-38).
If I was going to use the term, I would use if to describe those who have no room for other authorities. That wouldn’t allow their wives or children to receive instruction from the church. Who insist on family integrated everything all time.
He describes the “Hardshell Baptists” aka the Primitive Baptists, which was the main religious influence in Appalachia. Their theology was what was bad. My memory of an example: After one man killed his best friend over a small conflict, the pastor was preaching and said, “If God hadn’t meant for it to happen, it wouldn’t have happened.” (That quote is close, but I don’t claim a perfect memory.) I’m really not sure whether the term “hypercalvinism” is ever used in the book, but the system of theology is certainly exposed.
I think this is just “being a bad father”, or “sin.” The idea is that you are a father no matter what, whether you are good or bad, whether abdicating or engaging, etc. is helpful. If this is all we’re talking about, then Joseph is right: there is no need for the term hyperpatriarchy, and it is actually harmful for us to use it.
But there is something more to the men I’ve read who are teaching some good patriarchy mixed in with a lot of terrible patriarchy, and justifying all of it from the Bible. Hyper-patriarchy teaches that submission means a woman must engage in sexual immorality if her husband commands it. It teaches wife-spanking, polygamy, porn-use, and more.
I’m not simply talking about men who are sinful and abdicate or don’t submit to others, though that is a classic symptom of hyperpatriarchy. I’m talking about a system of teaching, that calls itself “biblical” but is not. It must be named for what it is. Unbiblical, but masquerading as biblical. If patriarchy is even a good term to use today, and that certainly isn’t a given in my mind, we can at least acknowledge that biblical patriarchy is far different from the type of patriarchy some men are teaching.
I don’t mean to muddy the waters, but Christian nationalism is similar. There are those who are teaching a theology of hate and calling it Christian nationalism. It is attractive to many. To acknowledge that it is a type of nationalism and that it goes too far and is not Christian is necessary if we want to stop fighting about whether Christian nationalism is ok. If you are unwilling to have any enemies to the right, unwilling to deny their own claimed labels (biblical patriarchy, Christian nationalism) and give them another label, then you implicitly own their position as your own, no matter how much you object that you think this behavior or that behavior is sinful. If you cannot see a different system of teaching and name it, then you cannot oppose it with any effect. This is my concern.
This is the post I’m met with by one man in a church in our presbytery this morning:
Apparently Mexicans are protesting about Americans in Mexico and they are handing these out. There are far less Americans there than Mexicans here. Send them all back.
This is Christian Nationalism unless Christian nationalists are willing to call it something else. Similarly, those teaching submission to require adultery are biblical patriarchalists unless we are willing to call them something else.
3 Likes
I’m gonna push back, because I think your description neglects all other areas of patriarchy father rule. And I don’t think my definition simply describes what is sinful but more of a nuanced and subjective use. To the feminist all Patriarchy is hyper- and to the Complementarian, patriarchy outside the home is hyper-.
Generally I think hyper-patriarchy is a judgement of a man as to the degree or excess in which he rules over whatever is given to him, city, church, garden.
Joseph! Are you hearing yourself???
I really don’t care how precise the definitions are provided in response to your question…can we please have enough integrity to admit that all of us have seen enough of the things mentioned here to know there’s a problem in this area in our circles? Don’t be so precious about it that you can’t give a charitable acknowledgment that there is really something wrong.
Men in our circles are using the biblical teaching on male headship to do everything from minimise the Bible’s teaching on what women have to offer the family of faith to running roughshod over their wives. I really don’t give a hang what those on the outside are saying…I’m on the inside and I’m seeing this.
And it’s especially bad in churches that are tempted to Christian Nationalism…let the reader understand.
1 Like