You might actually find my recent post “Bad Dads” to be a good compliment to your post.

I am going to link to it and I hope that’s ok!

I think your definition of hyper-patriarchy is highly ambiguous, and begs many questions. I also think it is rather obvious that you define many terms differently than Mr. Abshire and therefore force an unnatural and ill-fitting meaning into his words. I believe that words have objective meaning and we may not import our own meaning to them. I also believe that the 9th commandment requires that we interpret the words of others with charity and as accurately as possible. You have done neither with Brian Abshire.
How do you define abuse? At what point do you deem that a husband or father has overstepped the lawful limits of his authority and must be held accountable for that sin? How do you define the binding of conscience? Whose conscience is being bound in your definition of hyperpatriarchy, and to whose conscience do you think Mr. Abshire is referring?
In order to have an honest, edifying discussion, we must begin with Biblical definitions and presuppositions. So how far does the authority of a husband or father extend?

That is exactly my point. And Mr. Abshire’s essay supports this assertions as well. He said,

“Thus, we ought to expect that in the process of trying to rediscover biblical patriarchy, some men will struggle with finding the proper balance. Some will confuse their own personal values with Scriptural ones-attempting to bind other?s consciences without lawful warrant. Some men will no doubt err by being too protective of their children. Yet the solution is NOT to undermine the concept that the father is the federal representative of his family, both to God and to the world, but rather instruct him in his duties before God and encourage him in fulfilling his divine mandate.”

This quote is not taken out of context, it is the whole paragraph. He admits some men will struggle to find the proper balance and bind others without “lawful warrant.” It is in what he calls “binding another’s conscience without lawful warrant” that I would call “hyper-patriarchy.” He cites the possibility of being “too protective” which again would be an example of what others call hyper-patriarchy.

Mr. Abshire sees the potential for abuse of authority as well. He gives the example of a father who “values personal pride” over the calling of his son.

“Some men might be tempted to value their personal pride over the calling of their sons – just as some former athletes insist that their sons must play sports, even if the sons do not have the gifts or the desire. However, the abuse of power does not negate the legitimate authority God delegates to any institutions; even David refused to assassinate the murderous Saul because he was ?God?s anointed.? In the end, who is best qualified to help a young man find his calling- some stranger with unbiblical values, or his own father who loves and wants his son to be a success?”

He appears to be saying, the father is wrong but don’t touch God’s annointed. Where is the admonitition for elders and teachers to correct the sin of the father? It isn’t there. Where is the instruction to the son or wife to seek out a remedy from those in the church who must hold this father accountable? It isn’t there.

His example is of “over-protection” is a common one for some who claim to be applying the principles of biblical patriarchy in their home. However in my experience the abuse of power is much more than just determining the calling of the son; the results are devastating to a family.

As far as examples of hyper-patriarchy teachings directly from the source, that is a separate discussion all together and would require an agreed upon idea of what is biblical patriarcy. Your definition in the original post addresses the definition for the wife, but other teachers extend beyond the definition beyond that point and would require a whole new comment at a different time.

The question I am addressing here and in my previous comment was the original one you asked which was “I really wonder about so-called hyperpatriarchy. We often hear about it, but how many of us have actually known such people within the body of Christ?
Not only is it a straw man argument irrelevent to the subject at hand, but I suspect hyperpatriarchy among Christians is also largely imaginary, due to misconceptions and misunderstandings.”

Hyper-patriarchy is nothing more than what Mr. Abshire calls binding without “lawful warrant.” If you prefer that term we’ll use that. But whatever you call it for a father to abuse his authority and impose requirements upon his children which the Lord does not allow needs to be addresssed. His example of sports and a son was simple, my experience extends beyond the simple to the profoundly sad.

Thankfully, though…I know many more families who are not.

I am with Spunky. I wish it were as simple as calling it a straw-man argument, but it isn’t always that easy. I am glad to know you don’t have any friends who are personally being harmed by it. It is a sad thing to watch.

Good discussion. And again, my fault doesn’t lie with patriarchy itself. I believe in Biblical submission. I don’t believe in making up our own rules to stick on top of it. God’s plan is always best, so why we feel we have to make it a little bit better by adding our own “stuff” is beyond me.