Index to the Posts Contrasting "The Jewish Way In Love and Marriage" with the Pagan Patriocentric Talmud

Summary of the blog posts that contrast the patriocentric teachtings of Vision Forum with Orthodox Rabbi Maurice Lamm's book,
"The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage."

Introduction

Comparing Patriocentricity with "The Jewish Way In Love and Marriage" (Examining the writings of Rabbi Maurice Lamm about Orthodox Judaism’s teachings as contrasted against the teachings of patriocentricity)

Tweet

The Patriocentric Mishnah, The Bride-Price and The Cost of Slander (more on another "Jewish Way")

I received an email asking about the Family Integrated Church's (FIC) practice of the “Bride- Price” as found in Deuteronomy, Chapter 22. I am told that Doug Phillips prefers a gold coin as the “Bride's Price,” paid by the groom to the father of the bride as a tradition in FIC weddings. Now, anyone can create any tradition that they would like, but they should not call all these things “Biblical” when they are reflective of cultural standards only (that of the Mishnah in this case).

Tweet

Christ As Our Sanctification: The Meaning of Ephesians 5:22 - 32 ("The Jewish Way")

Concluding the comparison to and contrast of patriocentricity with the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage


In previous posts in the blog series, I've provided quotes from Rabbi Lamm's book demonstrating many beliefs and practices in traditional, orthodox Judaism that actually contrast if not denounce many of the submission doctrines taught by Bill Gothard, the Shepherding/Discipleship movement (Christian Growth Ministries, New Wine Magazine, Sovereign Grace Ministries, etc.) and the so-called “Biblical patriarchy movement.”

From Lamm's writing, we established the following:

Tweet

Marriage Is Sanctified From Concubinage Through the Law, Not the Bride and Groom ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

In this post, I would like to lay the groundwork for the understanding of Ephesians chapter 5 and what Paul's language meant, based upon the significant similarities between “sanctify” and “marriage” within the Hebrew language. In the post that follows this one, I will explain why I believe Paul teaches and uses the language that he does to explain how Christ takes His Church Bride and sanctifies her to present her holy to God the Father. Paul, as an expert in the Jewish law and all things Jewish, once the Jewish legalist who demanded Steven's death to further the purification of Judaism, held nearly unrivaled academic expertise in the Jewish Law in his day. He was a “Pharisee's Pharisee.”

Tweet

A Man Does Not Answer For The Sins Of His Wife: She Is Her Own Moral Agent and Her Own Possession ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

One of the most disturbing things that I’ve heard in recent years is this whole idea that men somehow atone for their sins of their wives or will somehow answer for his wife’s shortcomings before God. I believed that this odd belief was just confined within the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement and patriocentricity, but when I lectured at a Southern Baptist Seminary a few months ago, I had several young men approach me to explain why I believed that they would not stand before God to give an account for their wives’ actions when they themselves one day stand before God to give an account of their lives. I never dreamed that anyone outside of this aberrant, spiritually abusive belief system would embrace such an idea. One can even easily find an example of this at Homeschooling Today Magazine concerning the editor and his wife. The editor declares that his responsibilities include “sanctifying his wife.”

Tweet

The Role and Value of "Ishah" in Marriage ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Within the patriocentric movement, women who are unable to bear children or families that, for whatever reason, have not been able to comply with the moral imperatives of the ideology are often relegated to shame and are treated with disdain by followers. Because the movement focuses so heavily on the importance of large families and the concept of “militant fecundity,” the value of woman as “ishah” becomes diminished. Read what Maurice Lamm wrote concerning barrenness in marriage.

Tweet

The Creation of Eve ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Groups such as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood offer teachings that include the concept that women bear the status of the “indirect image of God.” Women are defined derivatives of man, and some of the “hard complimentarians” and the patriocentrists use this speculation and theory to support many of their other gender-related views and practices. Women are seen as lesser creatures than men, both morally and by their essential essence. An extension of this concept maintains that women need a male head in order to fully bear the Word and Glory of God, and some Christians infer that women must have a man intercede for them before God and for them to live a holy life in a proper way.

Tweet

Consequences of a Husband Compelling His Wife Into Intimacy Against Her Desire ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

From Pgs 138 -141:

When conjugal relations are the result of compulsion, sexual intimacy is robbed of its essential holiness. It makes the blending of bodies and personalities inhumane. True, the tradition does counsel the spouse to yield if at all possible, but if that does not occur, the Halakhah has no tolerance. It is nothing less than “domestic rape.” The Talmud says, “He who coerces his wife will produce unworthy children.” The Rabbis go so far as to say that in such ugly exploitation of his wife, a man is considered morally, though not legally, to have cohabited with a harlot and to have produced a child who is akin to a mamzer. [mamzer: conception resulting from fornication]

Tweet

Sensitive Appreciation of the Sexual Union ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Many patriocentric groups such as those that follow Bill Gothard's teachings, the Shepherding/Discipleship movement and the so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement advise wives that they must submit to all of their husband's sexual demands and timings as their wifely duties within marriage. Expanding upon the previous blog post that discusses the orthodox Jewish understanding that it is actually the woman who holds this right within marriage, note what Lamm states about the active and willing participation of both parties within intimate relations within marriage.

Wives within the patriarchy movement are encouraged and counseled to "endure" their husband's sexual desires, even if they are repulsed or caused physical discomfort as an act of service and worship unto God. According to Lamm, this is not the case in orthodox Judaism and was never the case, as "onah" (sexual intimacy when procreation is not an issue or goal) must always be an intimate encounter wherein both parties participate very willingly and with full willingness and interest.

Tweet

Sex As A Married Wife's Right and A Husband's Duty ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

When I opened this series of posts considering the writings of Rabbi Lamm, I mentioned how an elder's wife borrowed the book and never returned it. I believe that she did so because the information Lamm communicated about a woman's sexual rights within marriage strongly contradicted the male hegemony that is promoted by the submission teachings of men like Bill Gothard which were relied upon quite heavily in our church.

Two of the women with whom I shared Lamm's book had husbands with obsessive and pathological appetites for sex to such a degree that the women expressed great shame and embarrassment, to put it mildly. One husband's obsessions were so great, his means of “physiologically medicating” unpleasant emotional states, that the couple eventually sought counseling for sex addition for the husband and healing for the wife who felt much like a prostitute.

Tweet

A Woman's Independence and Marital Rights ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

I've mentioned my prior experience with the now familiar expression of “Submit to me, Woman” in previous blog posts. This phrase and example, more than any other in my judgment, reflects the servile tendencies that the patriocentric teachings promote with marriage. I've overheard husbands say this thing to wives when I've been on the phone with friends, and my friends have also lamented about how this served as the ultimate “trump” in arguments with their husbands.

Tweet

A Woman's Right to Work!!! ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

In many camps that embrace the teachings of patriocentricity, women are not permitted to work outside of the home. This has been communicated both formally and informally, and patriocentrics cite many different reasons why women are to remain within and function only within the “sphere of the home,” a concept promoted to be the only “Biblical” way of proper conduct for any and all Christian women. In an effort to promote the very honorable vocation and profession of motherhood, encouraging women to remain at home to care and educate their children, this teaching has been extended to all women under all circumstances to such an extent that if a woman does not comply with these standards, she is said to blaspheme the Word of God.

Tweet

Woman Retains Her Individuality While Profoundly Blending Her Personality With Her Husband's ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Eric Wallace cites the writings of a late 19th Century Confederate Presbyterian pastor in his own book “Uniting Church and Home.” Benjamin Morgan Palmer, whose book on the family was originally published in 1876, pastored the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, giving insight into some of the beliefs of those within neo-confederate movements today.

Tweet

A Woman's Full Autonomy In The Betrothal Process ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

A woman of consenting age may refuse a potential mate, and Jewish tradition requires mutual consent, particularly the willing consent of the bride. This additional information offered by Rabbi Lamm further supports the legal rights of the bride and of the wife. Acquisition of a wife differs from all other types of “acquisition,” requiring the full, willing consent of the bride herself. The Biblical example of the betrothal of Isaac and Rebekah records how Rebekah's family discussed the matter but did not demand that she marry. She had full autonomy to either freely accept or reject the offer of marriage, a right that orthodox Judaism supports and defends for all women of consenting age. Witnesses that stand with the bride on her wedding day serve to attest that the woman's rights have not been violated in the process of betrothal, not to “transfer ownership” from father to groom.

Tweet

Acquisition Of A Wife Is Not Ownership ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

In this passage, Lamm points out that no person owns another person but that the use of the language concerning marriage involves the change in status from an unmarried woman who was available to all men to status as a married woman, eshet ish through redemption of marriage by setting it apart through the law given to Moses.

The only aspect of the word “acquire” that translates in this sense involves the sanctity of marriage and not sanctification of the woman herself (as this is denied both in both the spirit and letter of Jewish law). Jewish law provides the woman these rights regardless of her marital status, and the Jewish tradition supports that she is not property and retains personal autonomy.

Tweet

How the Letter and the Spirit of Jewish Law Deny that Women are Property ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Parenting bestows a profound responsibility and a very sacred trust upon those who marry and are blessed with fruitfulness through children. As previously mentioned, patriocentrics or those within the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement argue for a type of ownership of their unmarried daughters. Parents and father's in particular as the head of the household bear legal the legal power and responsibility for their daughters until they come of age and can make their own, independent decisions.

According to Lamm, Orthodox Judaism never views daughters as “owned” or as a type of property of their fathers. An under-aged daughter only requires her father's legal consent if she wishes to marry before she reaches an age that renders her legal autonomy. Consenting to marriage involves no “transfer of ownership” or legal right or autonomy from father to husband when a woman of legal and consenting age chooses to marry.

Expanding upon the previous post, consider this additional evidence that Lamm offers to solidify the concept that marriage only changes a woman's status from “available to all men” as a potential mate to “sanctified” or set apart for marriage to a specific man. There is absolutely no transfer of any ownership or personal spiritual sanctification for woman resulting from marriage, only a change in her status of availability to all men as a potential mate.

Tweet

A Daughter is "Ownerless" Until Married and Not the Property of Her Father ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Under the patriocentric paradigm, daughters train for service to their mates by serving as a type of “helpmeet” for their fathers until they are given to a husband in marriage. The proponents of this view offer Numbers chapter 30 as a proof text to demonstrate a type of “male headship” for all women during all times of life, despite the fact that the passage discusses fiduciary responsibilities of men as guarantors for their wives or for underage daughters (as specified in verses 4 and 17).

A modern analogy that involves a pledge of this type might be a married woman or under-aged girl who uses a credit card, vowing to make payment. The guarantor in the person of a father or husband would be responsible for making payment on purchases made with the card, should the woman not have independent funds with which to pay the debt personally. This passage mentions no assignment of personal moral responsibility of the father or husband for the woman. Numbers Chapter 30 also mentions nothing about a directive for a grown, unmarried woman to remain under mandatory “male headship,” care or ownership, though many patriocentrics use this chapter to support the their claims that a woman without male supervision lives “outside of Kingdom architecture.”

The concept of this interpretation of male headship within the patriocentric circles suggests a type of salvific ownership of women by men wherein care (ownership?) of women transfers from father to husband when a woman is given in marriage. This concept bears significant similarities to Saudi Arabia's “compulsory male guardianship of women and other 'grossly discriminatory' policies” and “denial of fundamental rights.”

On page 7 of the April 25, 2008 edition of “The Guardian Weekly,” every Saudi woman must have a male guardian that is usually a husband or father, though the duty can be assigned to another male such as a brother or son. Even when the law does not mandate the male guardian's approval for decision-making for the woman, “some officials still ask for it 'because current practice assumes women have no power to make their own decisions' over matters such as medical procedures or discharge from hospital.” In addition, women are “marginalized to the point of total exclusion” through discrimination against them in voting, employment and education.

In contrast, Lamm teaches that prior to marriage, a woman of age is her own, free moral agent. An orthodox Jewish marriage is not a transfer of property in the person of a daughter-turned-wife but is rather an indirect declaration of how God used the law to sanctify the institution of marriage (never the woman as the patriocentrists maintain). Jewish law never makes any overtures or suggestions that marriage becomes a vehicle for the personal, spiritual sanctification for either husband or wife, and this is certainly not a role assigned to a husband for his wife in marriage through either the letter or the spirit of Jewish law.

If a daughter was a type of property and ownership was transferred from father to new husband through marriage, why is a daughter considered to be in a “state of abandonment” and “ownerlessness” prior to her marriage while under the care of her father? If this concept came from Judaism, would the woman not bear the official status of one who was previously owned in regard to her relationship to other men so as to call for the use of language describing the transfer of property from father to spouse? Even Jewish law did not view women in as property or as one who was “owned.”

The marital distinction simply declares her change in status from available to all men to unavailable to men other than her husband. Lamm explains that the woman’s status under Jewish law only relates to her status of availability to potential mates, a status that was never held by her father. Prior to marriage, the law never declares that an unmarried woman requires a “male head,” and even the Hebrew language that describes her status (hefker) makes this distinction.

From Pg 150 - 151 

Judaism must protect the family from the tempestuousness of sex, the alternating patterns of love, the sudden ups and downs of very close relationships. Just as the buyer of property intends to protect it, develop it, make it productive, and cherish it, this must also be the plan of those who undertake marriage... As the formal acquisition transferred the property from someone else’s proprietorship or from hefker (a state of abandonment and ownerlessness) to his personal care and protection, so the establishment of formal kinyan in marriage rescued family life from hefker. In this way, the formalizing of the marriage bond made it possible for the family to become the foundation of all society and the pattern for all government as well as the governance of the “family of nations.” 

Before Sinai, married life was a loose, voluntary arrangement, a sort of ye’duah be’tzibbur (common law) situation. If two people wished to live together, they did. If a woman desired another man, she could not be accused of adultery. If she wanted to move out, she did. Just as in our “living together” situations of today, there were no binding ties. Under such conditions, the legal protections of the family, such as the husband’s obligation of support, honor, and fidelity, are at best fond hopes... 

The informal arrangement was the old institution of concubinage (pileggesh), which Maimonides affirms was the relationship of a man and his exclusive girlfriend, without benefit of a formal marriage and marriage contract. By formalizing marriage, Judaism saved marriage. By stamping it “legal acquisition.” it made firm that which was vague and inchoate. It held the family fast – so fast that the family eventually held together the whole exiled and hopelessly dispersed Jewish community.

In the next post:

More on the specific and limited rights of a father concerning under-aged daughters only (and not over daughters of consenting age) under Jewish law.

Copyrighted material quoted hereunder fair use for educational purposes from

“The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

by Maurice Lamm. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1980.

Tweet

Acquisition of a Wife ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

I’ve poured over this book many times and at many times over the course of the last twenty years or so, and I can find nothing in this book wherein a marriage offer must first be negotiated with the father of a woman of consenting age.

In the case of an under-aged daughter, Jewish law requires that the permission of a father must be obtained first, but this only applies to women who are not yet adult and who cannot say “I desire him.”

From page 165:

A Minor Female (Ke’tanah)

Historically, an under-aged girl found herself in difficult circumstances. She was frequently in danger of abduction by an enemy people if she was unmarried, and if her family was poor, she was considered a drain on family expenses. Girls therefore were brought into marriage at a very early age. (Even today Yemenite Jews emigrating to the modern state of Israel bring daughters married at age ten.) 

For these and other reasons, the law permitted this marriage with the permission of her father, although the Talumd considered it a mitzvah not to marry her until she is prepared to say le’ploni ani rotzah, “him I want.” Maharam Rotenburg, in famous Reponsum, advises the Jewish community to follow the rule of the Talmud, as he himself has done with his minor daughter. In 1950 the Israeli rabbinate passed a law that made it illegal to marry a girl until the age of sixteen.

Kiddushin is the legal process of establishing the marriage bond, and in the chapter in Lamm’s book that describes this, the father of the woman of consenting age is not mentioned. The woman herself does all the negotiation. Even in the marriage ceremony itself, both the bride and groom are to be accompanied by one or more people to meet under the chuppah, but this is to ceremonially demonstrate that the marriage has been approached in the proper way. This means that neither party was coerced into marriage and that the accompanying witnesses attest that both parties consent of the union. There is no requirement that the person accompanying the daughter must be a father or a “male head” within the Jewish law. If anything, this practice designates that the woman’s rights have not been violated in the preparation for the union. If the practice and the “requirement” that a father must give the daughter to a mate and transfer ownership, then this idea does not come from Judaism or from the Torah, according to Lamm.

If the woman has violated Jewish law in the selection of a mate, then that is a different matter and the family would have recourse for complaint. But because the principle of “leaving and cleaving” is held so highly in Jewish tradition, the choice of and refusal of a mate belongs to the woman. If there is no Jewish law dictating that a suitor must be acquired by the father as it taught in patriocentricity, this is cultural and not drawn from Biblical law, according to Lamm. Jewish tradition does stress considerations such as family approval, the joining of families and other very practical considerations, but there is no legal demand placed upon the daughter that restricts her choice of a spouse if she has not violated Jewish law. If there are other requirements placed on her, they are cultural and not something that stems from Jewish law.

Concerning the arrangement and initiation of the marriage covenant, during betrothal, the woman does all of her own negotiating directly with her intended future mate without mention of the consent of or the presence of her father or other male family representative.

From Page 146:

Kiddushin (a rabbinic term) is accomplshed by kichah (a biblical term), the “taking” of a woman by a man, in one of three ways (in ages past): 

1. Money (kessef). The man gives the woman money, even a low denomination coin, or the equivalent of money – today a ring is customary – before two witnesses and says, “You are hereby betrothed unto me with this ring in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel.” The bride, by her acceptance, indicates her willingness to be married to the groom. 

2. Contract (she’tar). The man gives the woman a deed, before two witnesses, which contains the names of the couple and the groom’s marriage formula. This deed is not the nature of evidence of the marriage, but is for the purpose of effecting the bond of marriage. It is not to be confused with the ketubah, which is given as protection of the woman after the kiddushin. 

3. Intercourse (bi’ah). After the man has addressed the marriage formula to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting betrothal through intercourse. The Sages considered this to be gross, virtually an act of prostitution, and in the third century Rav decreed flogging for those who chose this manner of betrothal. Nonetheless, if the marriage was performed in this way it was legally valid. 

Only kessef is performed today; both intercourse and contract as forms of betrothal are obsolete.

Maurice Lamm is an experienced orthodox rabbi and a man who, at the time of this book publishing in 1980, had been married for 25 years and had three children, some of whom were adult at that point in time. As a rabbi with years of experience, he has offered counsel to many regarding these matters and has had years of training in preparation, making him an expert on the subject of the orthodox Jewish tradition.

Though he speaks of the importance of family and tradition and holiness in his book, there is NOTHING about a father acquiring a wife for his daughter in this book that details Jewish tradition in love and marriage.

The selection of a husband and process of accepting the proposal, granted that the woman is of consenting age, rests entirely with the woman under Jewish law. Culture might be different, but this expert in the religious law of orthodox Jewish tradition says nothing about the patriocentric proof texts that I believe, ultimately, support male hegemony. The letter and the spirit of Jewish tradition, according to Lamm, support a woman’s independence and a woman’s rights. If we hear Scripture used to support that a woman cannot be without a male head or cannot govern herself, this does not come from Jewish tradition.

In the next post:

Daughters hold the legal title of “hefker” (a state of “ownerlessness”) prior to marriage and are not considered to be the property fathers.

Copyrighted material quoted here under fair use for educational purposes from “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” by Maurice Lamm. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1980.

Tweet

Comparing Patriocentricity with "The Jewish Way In Love and Marriage"

About twenty years ago, as my now husband and I prepared to covenant together in marriage, we read every Christian marriage and relationship book available at the time, and they were plenteous. My husband found a beautiful book along the way called the "Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" by Orthodox Rabbi, Maurice Lamm.

This, of course, is not the Gospel or the Word, but in keeping with a sound hermeneutical approach and considering that Christianity originated with Judaism, it certainly could not hurt to consider what the other half of the "Judeo-Christian" ethic had to say about marriage and proper conduct. As the years have worn on, I have only begun to appreciate how important and helpful this beautifully written book became to us. Not affected by the Greek/Western prudishness or the austere clinical aspects that are found even in some Christian marriage books, this very Jewish book openly discusses delicate and intimate matters of marriage that most Christians blush over, all with poetic, reverent joy and eloquence. It’s among the loveliest non-fiction books I’ve ever read. It’s not Gospel by any stretch, but it rejoices in so many of the aspects of holiness, love and family that are shared by Christianity and Judaism alike, so I find it very informative. It’s been a great blessing to revisit it after so many years.

I thought that this book would be well-received at our former (spiritually abusive) church in Maryland, especially when I heard how so many people there appreciated some of Bill Gothard’s teachings on marriage. I did not delve deeply into this study, but many that I know did study his ideas, many of which seemed to be based within Jewish law. Hah! As my relationships grew and I met more women within the church as time went on, I eventually learned of the marital problems that some of these teachings and the counsel of the elders promoted there. Here is my most concise and however blunt summary of my overall impression: "Submit to me, Woman!" I had to chuckle when I first read Johnson and VanVonderan’s "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse," for in similar context, they have a chapter subtitle concerning women that says "Submit, or else!"

Basically, the advice and counsel given by leadership at that church relied heavily upon submission teachings such as those promoted by Bill Gothard, and what was communicated and effectively understood by the women in the church was very different from what I learned from Lamm’s book. Lamm was a rabbi and widely respected teacher, lecturer, writer and counselor (according to his blurb). In the book, published in 1980, on one of the first few pages, he dedicates it to his wife and celebrates their 25th wedding anniversary.

I have great admiration for this as well, unlike so many of the "young buck" ministers of today who tell so many others how to live their lives and raise their children while their own children stood no higher than their belt loops and they boasted few silver hairs of wisdom. I also find it terribly interesting that Bill Gothard (though he apparently dates young women per the account in "A Matter of Basic Priniciples") gives such specific and authoritative advice about marriage when he has never been married himself. But that's a whole other blog post... When you need brain surgery, do you want the guy who's only assisted through half of one, or do you want the expertise of the surgeon who's had an impecable reputation as an excellent and successful brain surgeon for 10, 20 or 25 years?

Something very interesting happened while I attended that church and heard of some of the outright bizarre and what I believed was sub-Christian advice and counsel that circulated among the women at my former, spiritually abusive church. When I heard things that essentially all boil down to "Submit, Woman" from women in the church, I stated that from my understanding, it was the woman who opens the door to the marriage chamber in the Jewish tradition. I loaned my copy of the book out to several people and, apparently, it caused quite a stir for some.

I was approached by an elder’s wife who asked to borrow the book because she’d "heard about" what some of the women who borrowed the book had to say about it. I happily brought it in for her the very next day, and she behaved as though she was excited about it. In the habit of loaning out books but often not seeing them make their way back into my library, my husband and I set up a system to keep track of things. Very neatly recorded with a date and all the vital book information, I noted that I had loaned this book to the elder’s wife. After a couple of months, I asked for her to return the book... And guess what? The elder’s wife insisted that she’d never heard of that book, didn’t know what I was talking about and looked me straight in the eye and said that I had never loaned her any such book! She looked me directly in the eye and said that no such events or discussions had ever taken place. Hmmm... I wonder if they went to lengths to actually burn it? I would not be a bit surprised if someone there had.

I’ve heard many of the same arguments from within the patriocentric movement, echoing the teachings of this church, presumably influenced by Bill Gothard’s teachings concerning the teachings of Judaism and marriage. Based upon Lam.’s book and using that as a comparison, Jewish law and Jewish tradition concerning marriage present a paradigm that is VASTLY different from that followed by the so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement. Granted, I hear these concepts from women and I don’t doubt that the white-tower patriocentrists will call me a Judaizer, Kabbalist of some sort, a communist and whatever other pejorative rabbit they can pull out of a hat to poison the well and contain whatever I quote here from Lamm’s book. (Milieu Control from Lifton 101...) But to the contrary, I believe that Lamm’s material demonstrates that the patriocentric concepts are actually pagan and not Judeo-Christian at all.

I believe that Lamm’s language will also reveal some of the subtle ways that the patriocentrics deny the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ alone by actually adopting some of the "sanctifying" works of their own law. Jews live under the law, and I believe that the patriocentrics do as well, though because of professed faith in Christ, sanctification is only partially mediated by works (that which initiated, enhances or facilitates the work that is solely done by the Spirit.) Sanctification (for the Reformed Protestant) comes only through faith and is not mediated, enhanced or facilitated by our human works (that which Protestant theologians have termed "Romanist" because this was the practice and teaching of the Roman Catholic church, most notable through the practice of selling indulgences).

By adding the significance of the outward works (in this case, adhering to Old Testament or even Jewish Tradition) as having the power to effect that which can only be done by the miracle of the Spirit, I believe that the patriocentrists have adopted the outward signs and symbols of the inner work of the Spirit – a celebration of marriage and family – and have made them a legal requirement for ongoing sanctification in the heart of every Believer. I believe that some of the language that Lam. uses, as it is reflected in the works based faith of Judaism, demonstrates how modern patriocentrics actually use family and marriage as a type of sanctification practice.

The book speaks of what is meant (under the Old Covenant, mind you) by a husband sanctifying a wife, how a couple sanctify marriage, how mutual consent and participation governs marital relations, and even how Jewish law demonstrated that married women retained their individuality and their personal rights. Actually, in one passage, the book discusses how men have no rights in marriage and only responsibilities in contrast to the wife who is granted specific rights within marriage. So, though I strongly encourage all who read here to remain faithful to the Word of God and recognize that I am not displacing the Word with any of man’s wisdom or tradition, I encourage you to open up to the practice of good hermeneutics, considering the beliefs of the "other half" of the Judeo-Christian ethic regarding marriage from the viewpoint of a rabbi. (I highly recommend the book, by the way!) Consider what the students of the Old Testament believe about what the Tanach, Mishna and what Traditional Jewish Law has to say about conduct within marriage.

As a little teaser, before I dive into topics that the patriocentrics would prefer to keep hidden, just like the wife of my former elder’s wife, I’ll give you a taste of some of the beautiful sections that really rejoice in the best of both Judaism and Christianity. (Why does this sound so much more balanced than the rhetoric of the patriocentrists – and it’s so much more eloquent???)

Pg 121: 

Marriage is the natural home of love. Here it can grow and enrich itself, and leave something worthy in its wake. Love that is not able to express itself in the cares of married life is frustrated love. "It is not good that man should be alone: says Rabbi Jacob Zevi Meklenburg, "means that man’s inner capacity for goodness can never be realized unless he has someone upon whom to shower his affections." 

Mature love is expressed through giving, and through giving comes even greater love. To have a child is a flesh-and-blood connection with the future, and the birthplace of humanity’s future is the home. The future of the whole Jewish people depends upon marriage, the covenantal relationship of husband and wife. Marriage is not simply a private arrangement designed solely for mutual satisfaction; its importance rests in how the couple perceive their bond, the love they demonstrate, and the constellation of virtues they bring to the home. 

Every marriage covenant must partake of the original covenant. Jewish values thrive not as ephemeral theories, but as they are lived daily. This means that the Jewish couple needs a religiously-ordered home, an investment in the Jewish community, and a concern with the fate of God’s world.

I believe that the material from "The Jewish Way" will be quite eye-opening! Come by and visit later in the week and over the next couple of weeks as I get some blog posts together.

I don’t know from whence "patriarchy" developed their concepts of intimate relations and marriage (though I have my theories!), but they didn’t get them from traditional Judaism (if Maurice Lamm’s book serves as any indication)!

Tweet