While it is true that in contemporary English speaking society patriarchy tends to designate chauvinist male rule. The Greek term in itself does not do so. According to Vine, the Greek word PATRIARCH comes from “patria” (not pater) a family, and “archo” to rule. Even the term “PATER” carries similar meaning as to how I use the term. Again, according to Vine, it is derived from a root signifying a nourisher, protector, upholder, a) of the nearest ancestor; b) of a remote ancestor, the progenitor of people, a forefather.

I am at this time simply not able to find a term to clearly designate what I am trying to say. I am trying to say that the Bible teaches a form of family rule, in contrast to bureaucratic rule as practiced by monarchs, Rome, and even Greek democracies.

But you realize, I hope, that ‘patriarchy’ is a loaded word, and one that generallymeans something quite different than the cooperative, interconnected village society you describe. Simply the fact that you can describe both tribal and Roman systems as patriarchies should indicate that a better word needs to be found. (Indeed, the relational tribal system does not have to be exclusively patriarchal. Tribal matriarchies share the same characteristics of being relational, organic, etc.)

Usually ‘patriarchy’ is used to describe a system wherein the males hold all the real authority and power while the females are regarded as lesser beings and often relegated to the level of servants or even chattal. To the extent that that was the case in both the Roman and African/Near Eastern tribal societies, I would hope no one would advocate it as a model for the church. I see you weren’t, but again, you really need a better word for what you are advocating.

re; (aside from the God ordaining patriarchy thing)

My use of the word, “patriarchy”, may be a very personal thing. To me it is not so much a male versus female concept, though a shadow of that element exists, but rather the concept of an organic family/tribe/nation versus a bureaucratic family/tribe/nation. To me, patriarchy is relational, a relationship of essence rather than bureaucratic, a relationship of delegated structure. Tribal patriarchy tended to be the former. Post Greco-Roman patriarchy tends to be the latter.

My suspicion has always been that the God ordained model for His children, including that of the church, is the conceptual family based patriarchal model. Throughout Scripture we see that model exemplified. We are seen as the children of Adam, the spiritual offspring of Abraham etc. As the Father, Son and Spirit are of the same essence One to Another (I in the Father and the Father in Me Jn 14:10-12), likewise are we, as members of the body of Christ, to be to one another. We who believe are family, of the same blood. Brothers and sisters in Christ. God is our Father. Christ is our Master.
Notice similar designations regarding the enemies of God;
Joh 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

According to Scripture, we do not become part of the family of God by appointment, legislation or any other means, but by birth (The New Birth).

According to Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 20 and 23, humans have been excluded from being Father, Master or Teacher in the Spiritual sense, as well as possessing titles of distinction. We are simply brothers and sisters in Christ. As I mentioned previously, some are however older, and some younger, some are male, and some female. There is a Biblical protocol in regards to relationships within the above distinctions.

As age, experience and gender are natural distinctions in a patriarchal environment, likewise should the distinctions be in the ekklesia. As one does not become male or female, or a natural parent or child by designation and appointment in a natural setting, neither can/should these designations be acquired by appointment in the church. Yes, we can recognize people to be such, but we cannot make them to be such.

Ekklesia government should be natural, as in a patriarchal society, not bureaucratized.

I’d also note that Paul himself clearly doesn’t meet the criteria that hen himself gives for elders (married, children, well thought of by outsiders). I doubt he meant to disqualify himself from ministry or leadership, so this list must be intended just for the office of elder.

Also, I wouldn’t be so sure that he isn’t referring to polygamy with the ‘one wife’ rule. It was still common in the Near East and certainly allowed among the Jews at this point in time (although I was generally thought a bad idea for a man who wanted peaceful household). It may also refer to the practice of having a concubine or other ‘legally-bound’ mistress.

http://www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org

It is at times very difficult to convey concepts adequately, because at times words within a language and even within a specific context do not necessarily convey identical meanings to all individuals. Therefore some concepts must be explained from many different angles.

I see no problem in any person being a Christian leader in a natural sense, whether old or young, whether male or female, though there are some contexts in which there is a God ordained Biblical protocol. However, once I begin to lead by force, that is another matter. Bureaucracy whether by majority vote or by personal enforcement tends to breed autocracy. Jesus condemned that type of leadership.

As I mentioned before, according to Scripture, God handed out Spiritual gifts to people irregardless of age, race, and gender. God Expects those endowed with these gifts to use them for the Glory of God both within and outside of the church. That is why we find younger people like Paul, Phoebe, Timothy, Titus, Priscilla, Aquilla etc., on the forefront of Christian service. All of the above were slaves of Jesus Christ and servants/diaconos of the church.

On the other hand, I can find NO Biblical evidence that any of the above were considered elders/presbuteros or bishops/episkopos at the time the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles were written.

There is such a thing as recognized elders within a traditional patriarchal society. Allow me to quote material from the African tradition;

“There are five major African initiation rites which are fundamental to human growth and development. These rites were originally established by African ancestors while they were living in order to link the individual to the community and the community…”

“In African culture, there is a fundamental distinction that has to be made between an “elder” and “older” person (All elders are older persons but not all older persons are elders). An older person has simply lived a longer life than most of people, but is not considered one who deserves high praise and respect.”

“An elder, … is someone who is given the highest status in African culture because s(he) has lived a life of purpose, and there is nothing more respected than living a purposeful life. The life of an elder is centered in the best tradition of the community, and is someone who has gone through all of the previous three rites (birth, adulthood, marriage), and is a living model for the other groups in the society to emulate.”

In most tribal societies, elders are older males who function as tribal heads/patriarchs. These men have passed through the warrior phase, and hence, may no longer be in the forefront of the physical activities of the tribe. This is the type of elders that Paul describes in 1 Tim. and Titus.

According to Scripture, the NATURAL elders who qualify according to the instructions given by Paul to Timothy and Titus, are to superintend and shepherd and be the carriers of the Biblical tradition, not by command, but by verbal instruction and example. These are the ones ordained by the Holy Spirit.

“I know I am barking up my tree again, but “PLEASE” consider the patriarchal, tribal model for a possible model of the early church.”

Is the idea that we are locked into a patriarchal tribal model of church because that is what the culture may have been among the early Jewish converts to Christianity? Is that really what you are saying?

What about this?
1 Timothy 4
11Command and teach these things. 12Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 13Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

Sounds to me like age is not, in and of itself, a requirement for pastoral office.

Yes, your observations are dead on.

I know I am barking up my tree again, but “PLEASE” consider the patriarchal, tribal model for a possible model of the early church. In that context, age/maturity/experience are paramount to leadership. Gender roles come in second. Spiritual engiftedness comes in third.
The Gifts of the Holy Spirit are not delegated by the church or by any individual, but by the Holy Spirit. They are not delegated to believers on the basis of gender, age, intellect etc., but according to God‘s Sovereign will. However, engiftedness is not the basis of Biblical leadership.
The Bible does not teach that the church is to choose/recognize people on the basis of their Spiritual gifts, but rather to choose/recognize ELDERS/SENIORS to superintend on the basis of their Spiritual gifts, character, reputation, successful living, and Spiritual maturity. Check out tribal systems in Africa and other tribal communities.
In that the church is not to be an autocracy, nor a democracy, but a family, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and hence, equal. Nevertheless, that family is made up of the older and the younger, as well as of male and female individuals. Each person is free to exercise his/her Spiritual gifts freely according to the protocol of the God ordained and God sanctioned patriarchal model.
Check the Biblical text. Check Biblical tradition. Check history.