by Ok so, I read this article over at “adventures in mercy“, about (the virgin) Mary and patriarchy. It is asked whether or not God’s not going to Mary’s headship (her father at this time) and neither to her betrothed husband, and instead going straight to her to bestow His seed within her womb, means that God broke some rules of patriarchy. Or worse yet, that He never wrote those rules to begin with…
Let’s take a closer look. I have a few issues with the whole article to begin with. First of all Molleth, is taking out of context the original article. The original article is supporting the amazing act of God to send an angel to speak directly to Mary regarding carrying the Savior. It does not bring into any question whether this is “right” or not according to patriarchal “norms”. In fact in the beginning paragraph the original author testifies that she will continue to support women being submitted to their headship, and appreciating the unique role God has bestowed upon us as the weaker vessel, and the whole point of the article is to DEBUNK the prideful ideal that women are not to be submitted, and that patriarchy is a cultural thing, not a GOD thing.
Well, Molleth seems to want to go the opposite direction here, seeking anything that might support the (wrong) theory that women do not need a headship and neither do they need to submit to it. God’s Word is clear. We have been through it before, but lest anyone has forgotten, go read Eph 5:22 through the end of the chapter. There can be no question. And that is only ONE part of scripture that supports patriarchy.
The next “beef” I have with Molleth is that she defines patriarchy as not allowing women to hear from God, or to accept His authority without first consulting her husband. I see no place in scripture that says I am not free to speak with God individually. Or to hear directly from Him myself. Neither do I see any place that suggests that I never have an opinion, or share it with my husband. And furthermore, I do not see any place that suggests that a woman is incapable of making any decisions without consulting her headship.
Ok… That’s a lot. Let’s go back to the patriarchy “rules” shall we? Lets start with girlhood, a child is to be submitted to her parents, as is right in the Lord. (Eph 6:1). Does this mean that they can’t hear from God? Au Contraire, “suffer the little children to come unto me” said Jesus (somewhere! lol). Well seems like they heard from Him then. Likewise, women and men are equal in the Lord, so are slave and free, etc… Each can hear from the Lord without their authority’s permission, and can choose to obey His Word without their permission too…And why is this possible? Because… and here is the rule that isn’t broken… GOD’S AUTHORITY IS GREATER THAN THAT OF MAN. A woman is first submitted to Christ; in fact that is WHY she is submitted to her husband (or father). Because her first allegiance is to Christ, He has expressly communicated His desire for the roles and authority structure of family on earth. So because she loves Him she obeys His commands.
Regarding making decisions without consulting my headship… In Proverbs 31 we do not see the woman asking her husband if the wares she has for sale ought to be sold. Neither do we see her ask him about the land she buys and sells nor the vineyard she plants. It is obvious that “his heart trusts in her” and therefore she is given the freedom to make many decisions regarding money and such. Now, am I saying every husband will allow such freedom? NO. Is it wrong for them to not give you such freedom? NO, not if they are restraining you with wisdom. I mean perhaps you are not trustworthy, and you are not buying and working that land to serve his vision and support the family’s needs. Perhaps you are so untrustworthy as to piddle the money away. Then it would be a wise husband who used his authority to limit your decision making. But a wise and prudent wife, a frugal and helping wife, can be trusted by her husband to have such freedoms.
Furthermore it is not the woman’s responsibility to judge whether her husband has made a wise choice in restraining her decision making. We are not to judge our husband’s motives in these matters. And since he has not asked us to sin against Christ we have no grounds to demand more, or to rebel in anyway. We are to be submitted to his leading, in all things.
Well that about sums up my beef with Molleth’s confused way of thinking. I hope it is clear for all to see, that patriarchy is a thing of God, not of man. He set it up that way, and He broke no rules addressing Mary directly (through His angel), and He broke no rules, neither caused her to break any rules, by asking her first to submit to His seed within her. And it was just plain nice of Him to tell Joseph too. He didn’t have to, but He spared her reputation with the man she loved. Truly an awesome God.
Peace in the Process,
Mom of 6
I’ve been reading all the comments over at Molly’s site, and your comments, and I think that one thing that I would like to stress is the uniqueness of what was happening there in Mary’s life.
A lot of talk back and forth in the comments is in regards to whether or not Mary is an exception to the rule because God spoke directly to her instead of going through her “head” (either her husband to be– Joseph– or her father).
What we’re failing to take into account, I believe, is that this is a very significant event in another aspect: This is the first child born or a woman that did not invlove a human male! Up until this point, this was the only way a child was born (and still today it requires both person’s DNA in order to form a child).
One could easily make a logical bridge between the husband being the head of the home and the fact that he has a part in the child conceiving process and God visiting Mary because in this case He would be the one that would give her the child Jesus. In this case, did He really need to go to the father or the husband?
I wanted to reply to this yesterday but didn’t have a chance.
You do a good job explaining/defending Biblical patriarchy, thanks for taking this on. I think Molly’s musings on the subject really reflect the fact that she’s been hurt in some way or other by a skewed view of patriarchy.
She’s been addressing a lot of inner turmoil through her questions, and has been up front about wanting people who are easily mislead to avoid her site. Still, many return out of curiosity and an impelling need to explore the whole issue with her. She has such a huge following…thus the danger.
I am becoming cautious when I read there, because she has such a way with words that twice now I’ve responded out of something in my spirit that resonated with what she said, and I think I was misreading her intentions. She’s a deep thinker, that one!
Anyway, what you’ve written, regardless of Molly’s post on Mary, is all truth. I’ve been thinking as per all this discussion, that it’d be easy to see why the Catholics revere Mary so much…to the point of their misplaced worship of her.
Molly certainly does have a way with words, and it’s exciting to follow someone that’s accessible and doesn’t claim to have all the answers. That being said, I think you’re right Mary: We need to be careful that don’t fall into the trap of letting someone else’s wonderings cause us to doubt what the Bible says is true. It’s great to build up the faith by using things to force us to the Scriptures, but we shouldn’t trust anything we read on the web, etc., just because it sounds good– we need to be like the Bereans and test everything against the Scripture.