Union Not Patriarchy? Why Not Both?

   

Ordained Servant is an online periodical primarily for ordained officers of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Ten times each year a new issue finds its way into my inbox. There have been excellent contributions through the years, but also not-so-excellent contributions. The March 2026 issue contained the article “In Defense of Union, Not Patriarchy” by Rev. Aaron Mize which fits into the category of not-so-excellent contributions.

 

Mize’s article is a response to the article “In Defense of Patriarchy” by Rev. Peter Van Doodewaard, who is the pastor of Covenant Community Church (OPC) in Taylors, SC. His article, “In Defense of Patriarchy” was published on reformation21, an online magazine by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, on February 5, 2024. For the sake of full disclosure, while I was preparing for gospel ministry at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Van Doodewaard was my pastor and I served with him on the Session of Covenant Community Church. That there is going to be some bias on my part is undeniable. This response to Mize’s article will not be exhaustive, but will highlight key things I personally believe to be important.

 

My concerns about this article can be summarized as follows:

1.     The article exemplifies a redemptive historical/biblical theological approach that has run amok and is out of control, such that as I read it my thoughts quickly turned to the ancient church’s allegorical & anagogical interpretative approaches.

2.     The presented exegesis as well as interpretations of various texts is rather disconcerting.

3.     The arguments and conclusions presented are the same kind as those of feminists, egalitarians, and side-B folks (think Revoice).

 

These are not mutually exclusive.

 

A common argument made by those who are or have been influenced by feminists and egalitarians is one that Mize states clearly: “Patriarchy appears nowhere in the pre-fall order.” This is demonstrably false. Firstly, the man was created first and while this in and of itself does not prove the presence of patriarchy pre-fall, it cannot be ignored. The Apostle Paul used this fact as a foundational reason as to why women are not to teach or have authority in the church; it was not ultimately because of a particular issue in Ephesus as egalitarians often contend, but more foundationally because the man was created first. Second, according to Genesis 2:18 the woman was created to be his helper (Heb. ezer). Mize rightly notes that the Bible uses this word to describe God as our help. However, there appears to be a subtle assertion that because the Bible speaks of God this way, it must mean the woman is a helper in the same way. Egalitarians and feminists make this same basic argument. While Mize did not go there, I half expected talk of “ezer-warrior” to come precisely because that same argument is used by egalitarians. Third, according to Genesis the man names the one taken from his rib “Woman.” To name something means you have authority over that something. What else could this mean other than patriarchy pre-fall? The fall did not bring patriarchy/hierarchy, but rather the fall corrupted it.

 

That leads to Mize’s discussion on Genesis 3:16. It is here that I see a redemptive historical/biblical theological approach that runs amok and strips the text of any ethical implications and/or consequences of the fall. In this article, Mize argues that “the text should be read in light of the promise of Genesis 3:15 and the vision of Revelation 12.9 The woman’s pain and desire are not domestic emotions at all but redemptive travail” referring to a previous article he wrote for Ordained Servant in April 2024. I have no problem seeing an applicatory conclusion that would have us all longing for Christ in this sin-cursed world, but the text of 3:16 is most definitely about “domestic emotions,” to use his curious expression, even taking into consideration the promised seed of 3:15. Redemptive historical approaches to interpreting portions of God’s word are wonderful when used appropriately, but this is not such a case as it goes too far. Interpretations of this kind often lead to seeing the text as being only about Christ with little regard (if any) to matters of sanctification, ethics, human nature, sin, obedience, etc. Everything becomes “a specifically soteriological/redemptive text with other implications stripped out.”[1]

 

There was something I found rather perplexing (even troubling) at the beginning of Mize’s discussion on Genesis 3:16. He states, “Van Doodewaard advocates for ‘father-rule’ as part of divine order. [Emphasis original] While he does not cite Genesis 3:16 explicitly, he works within the broader complementarian/headship framework in which that verse is often presumed.” My concern here is the use of terminology. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it seems that Mize has an issue even with the label “complementarian.” If that is the case, then what other label remains? We already know he does not like patriarchy, but if “complementarianism” is also an issue, what term is left except for egalitarianism? I am open to correction here.

 

Speaking for myself, I really don’t have a problem with the label “patriarchy” describing my views. Unfortunately, the rabid anti-patriarchy outrage machine on the interwebs seems to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word and assume I might be to the right of Bill Gothard. Mize’s article appears to mirror that same knee-jerk reaction in places. For example, he states “To call Christ κεφαλὴ (kephalē, “head”) is to speak of organic relation, not domination. Life and nourishment flow from the head to the body; the body lives in the head’s vitality. So the husband’s headship signifies not hierarchy but communion—an embodied participation in the self-offering that makes the church his own.” Mize muddies the waters by using the word “domination” as it often carries a rather negative connotation though the word does not necessarily carry it. Those who have been adamant in their anti-patriarchy stance often accuse proponents of wanting to control (re: dominate) women.

 

Another point Mize makes concerns the meaning of the Greek word kephale translated “head” in Ephesians 5. This is an argument I have seen made repeatedly by egalitarians.[2] The use of kephale as “source” or “nourishment” is not what is problematic (e.g., Ephesians 4:15-16, which he cites, in its context certainly seems to carry this understanding); rather it is the denial that it connotes authority. While Mize himself does not explicitly say that kephale never carries such a connotation, it is an argument clearly stated by egalitarians, and he clearly thinks it does not in Ephesians 5. Regardless, it is an argument that Scriptural use directly contradicts.  The Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Old Testament – used it this way in Judges 10:18 and again in Judges 11:8-9. Paul in Ephesains 1:22 uses it this way as the surrounding context demands. He does so again in Colossians 1:18 & 2:10. To be fair Mize rightly notes that Paul correlates the relationship between husband and wife with relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church. Christ is our head and He is our king. As disciples we are to keep all that He has commanded (see Matthew 28:18-20). As our King (and head), Christ rules and defends us.[3] Thus, the aforementioned correlation includes authority by good and necessary consequence and adds further support to the idea that kephale also connotes authority & rule in Ephesians 5.

 

More can be said in response to the article, but I want to turn my attention to the periodical itself. As I mentioned above, Ordained Servant is a publication of the OPC. It is published primarily for the edification of ministers, elders, and deacons in our denomination, though obviously anyone can read it online. The articles submitted and published are not necessarily the “official position” of the OPC. For example, there may be articles and subsequent responses submitted that discuss the question of weekly communion. There is no “official position” of the OPC in that regard. Nevertheless, the editorial policies indicate that “Ordained Servant publishes articles inculcating biblical Presbyterianism in accord with the constitution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church” and “does not intend to take a partisan stand but welcomes articles from various viewpoints in harmony with the constitution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.” Thus it is easy to come to the conclusion that Ordained Servant believes this article is “in accord with” and “in harmony with” the constitution of the OPC.[4] I do not believe it is and I know that I am not alone, especially given the Westminster Larger Catechism’s exposition on the fifth commandment, which the reader can find for himself.

 

When I started writing this response, the article was removed from the OPC website, though the PDF of the whole issue remained which I downloaded as did many others. Now it appears the entire issue was wiped from the site, hence no links to the article. I’m glad it was deleted. I hope and pray that the process for selecting submissions to be published in Ordained Servant is handled with greater care going forward. In addition, I pray that the officers of the OPC, particularly her ministers and elders, would stand strong and fend off the constant barrage of encroaching feminism and egalitarianism plaguing much of the broader Church. May the Lord continue to sanctify Christ's Church.

---

[1] Rev. Andrew Smyth on X. As I was drafting this response, I happened to run across his post on this very matter which saved me a little time.

[2] A simple online search will reveal this to be an accurate observation.

[3] See Westminster Larger Catechism #45 and Westminster Shorter Catechism #26.

[4] “The constitution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, consists of its standards of doctrine, government, discipline, and worship, namely, its Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Form of Government, Book of Discipline, and Directory for the Public Worship of God,”; OPC Form of Government XXXII.1

How God Created Man

Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. 10. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.(1)

(1) Gen. 1:26-28; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24.

God created all things in the space of six days and all very good. We saw this in the previous question concerning creation. Now we come to the pinnacle of creation: man. On the sixth day of creation, after everything else had been made, God took matters into His own hands, so to speak. Previously as God created He said, "Let there be..." and there was. Now Genesis 1:26 gives us something a little different. "Let us make man in our image..." God could have said and done as He had done with everything else He created: "let there be man." Thus we see right from the beginning of verse 26 that there is something special about man. 

Genesis 2:7 expands on this and tells us that "the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature" (ESV). There is a lot packed into this verse and much of it is to get us to meditate on the wonder of it all and not necessarily to answer all the potential questions that may arise. First, God formed the man. The verb here is related to the idea of a potter forming something out of clay or even a carpenter making something out of wood. In other words, man is a creature who is carefully crafted by God. You are the way you are because God carefully crafted you to be the way you are. Second, God formed man out of the dust of the ground. The word translated "ground" is the same basic root for "man" and for that matter "Adam." It is true that 2:19 says something similar about the other creatures, but taken with chapter 1 we can still conclude that the creation of man is still quite unique. Third, God breathed into the man the breath of life. Fourth, man became a living creature or perhaps somewhat more woodenly, man became a living soul.

Returning to Genesis 1, we see another profound truth, namely that God made man male and female. This is a biblical truth that is under sustained attack by the world today. The simple truth is that there are two and only two sexes/genders. Many today attempt to play semantic games by trying to differentiate sex and gender; it is true that the two are not quite identical in terminology, but the point is that for mankind there are males and there are females. That's it; nothing beyond that. Arguing for multiple genders or arguing against your own gender is simply sinful rebellion against God and His created order. Christians must not compromise here. It is not hateful to uphold this truth contrary to what the world may tell you.

In addition to what has been noted above, man is created in the image of God according to Genesis 1:27. What exactly does this mean? God has no body; we have already seen that God is a spirit. Man clearly does have a body, so being made in God's image is not about man looking like God or resembling Him in some physical sense. Rather, as our catechism answer indicates, we are made in God's image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. These three characteristics of being made in God's image come from both Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 4:24. In both of these verses, we see how knowledge, righteousness, and holiness are connected to the image of God. But what does all of this mean?

Concerning knowledge, man as created had a knowledge of God, knowledge of himself as created, knowledge of the rest of creation around him. This was not an exhaustive knowledge since only God has exhaustive knowledge. Simply put, man was able to know what God revealed to him. The living animals do not act according to knowledge, but rather by instinct. Not so with man. One way this knowledge is demonstrated is in his naming of the animals. He could see and observe the animals and gave them appropriate names. Sadly, our knowledge has been severely dimmed due to the entrance of sin into the world.

Concerning righteousness, man as created was righteous. Simply put, man did what was right. Of course, what is right is what God says is right. God always does what is right and man created in God's image will reflect God by doing what is right. This, too, has been terribly affected by the entrance of sin into the world such that man has lost original righteousness and everything he now does is tainted by sin.

Concerning holiness, man as created was holy. This is not unrelated to righteousness, but whereas the concept of righteousness stresses our deeds, the concept of holiness stresses our state. To be holy means primarily to be set apart. Man certainly was set apart because no other creature was created in God's image; no other creature could commune with God; no other creature had dominion over the rest of the creatures. Once again, the entrance of sin into the world corrupted this aspect of being God's image.

God gave man dominion over all the creatures. No other creature was granted such dominion. He was commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the whole earth and subdue it. Theologians frequently call this the cultural mandate. Many in the world today say the world is overpopulated and we should have fewer children. God clearly says otherwise. While it is true that God said for the creatures to be fruitful and multiply, something very subtle is present in 1:28 concerning man: God said this to man whereas with respect to the other creatures God simply declared it, as it were. This, too, shows the unique position man in that there was to be mutual communication between God and man.

All of this matters because - as we shall see later in the catechism - Jesus Christ took to Himself a human nature, but without sin. On account of what Jesus did for us, we are being renewed in God's image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness as both Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 4:24 indicate. This is why Christ is able to redeem and save us fully... He is truly man in all respects yet without sin. He is the true image bearer and those of us who have placed our faith in Him are being conformed into His image.

 

How God Executes His Decrees: Creation

Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. 8. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. 9. The work of creation is, God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.(1)

(1) Gen. 1; Heb. 11:3.

As we have seen previously, God's decrees are His eternal purpose. The question then arises, how does God carry out, i.e., execute His decrees? Question 8 of the catechism spells out two ways: creation and providence. This post will focus on creation and a future post on providence.

Scripture begins with the creation account and these powerful words: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is probably a summary statement for all that follows in the rest of Genesis 1. One key point is that God was already there and it is implied here that there was nothing else except for God. As the catechism question notes, God made all things of nothing. Trying to imagine nothing is not an easy task. Most of us probably try to think what nothing is like and come up with some kind of empty space. However, that imagined empty space is still something! What we are learning here about God's work of creation is that while there really was nothing else besides Himself, God also needed nothing else in order to create everything else. He simply spoke and it happened. "And God said, 'Let there be...'" 

And there was!

This is the word of His power. Earthly kings with great authority can speak and his subjects will carry out whatever the king says to do. Not so with God in the work of creation. God spoke and there were no subjects to carry it out... it simply happened because He spoke! Christians really ought to reflect on this more than they do. Creation itself declares clearly God's eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:19-20).

The next clause has no small amount of controversy surrounding it. What does "in the space of six days" mean? It must be noted that this is not a new controversy even though there have been some new contributions (to put it charitably) to the debate in more recent years. Much of the debate centers on how to interpret Genesis 1, particularly the days of creation. Are the days of creation in Genesis 1 just that..... actual days? Is Genesis 1 merely figurative or poetic? Does Moses borrow from other cultures' own creation account? These are just some of the questions that have been and are being discussed. The text of Genesis 1 as a whole has all the usual earmarks of fitting into the genre of historical narrative. In addition, the Hebrew word "day" (יוֹם, yom) has as its most fundamental meaning just that.... day. The word can connote other things depending on the context, but ordinarily it simply means "day." More can be and has been said in this discussion, but it does seem rather clear that Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit went out of way to underscore that what he was writing is what actually happened, not what figuratively happened. Simply put, the days of Genesis 1 are just that... ordinary days.

Regardless, one thing is certain; everything God made was very good. This makes perfect sense given that God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His goodness. As noted earlier, creation clearly reveals God's divine attributes and one of those attributes is God's goodness. God in His goodness created all things, He looked on all that He had made and it was very good!

The Decrees of God

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. 7. The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.(1)

(1) Eph. 1:4, 11; Rom. 9:22-23.

How many times have you heard that things happen by chance? You received a job offer here, but not there; your car breaks down on the way to your first day of work; you get sick at the beginning of a vacation. There are many such real life situations in which people will attribute the "inconvenient" things that occur to this thing some call chance. However, chance is really nothing more than a mathematical or statistical calculation; it cannot do or cause anything to happen.

Sadly, Christians fall into this mindset of attributing things to chance, especially when seemingly bad things happen. When seemingly good things happen, many Christians are right when they attribute those to our God in heaven, but will often say people in the midst difficult situations that this was not God's plan or something similar. To be honest, when facing some of difficulties of life, it is hard to understand how it is that such a statement is supposed to bring one comfort.

This question and answer from the Shorter Catechism states the biblical reality over against any idea that things happen by chance. All things happen because God has decreed them to happen. It is rather interesting that there's a shift from the plural "decrees" to the singular "eternal purpose." All of God's decrees are a part of His one overarching eternal purpose. These decrees never conflict with one another due to some shortsightedness or limitation on God's part. There is an eternal purpose for all of His decrees and His decrees ARE His eternal purpose. This purpose, these decrees are a result (as it were) of the counsel of His will. Thus, there is an omniscient wisdom behind everything that takes place. Even the fall of man through Adam was ordained by God that He might manifest His grace in the second Adam - the Lord Jesus Christ, thus bringing all glory to Himself. Everything that comes to pass is for His glory; everything that comes to pass does so because God has foreordained it to come to pass.

It must be admitted that sometimes this is a hard teaching for us to swallow. We see much suffering in the world and the "easy" way to look at the evils we see is to say something to the effect that God did not plan that or God did not bring that to pass. The question or the doctrine of God's decrees is sometimes a difficult one especially when the effects of sin in this world come to bear on us. There are certainly times when God's ways confuse us and leave us asking "Why?" One thing to remember through such difficult circumstances is who and what God is. Remember from question #3 that God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His goodness. He cannot but do good. While you may have difficulty understanding how good can come of our hardships, while you struggle with such a mystery, God does not. Since He is all wise and all things are ultimately for His glory, let that be enough. He will certainly give you the strength in Christ to see it through. Remember as well that God ordained Christ’s suffering and death for you (Acts 4:28). Keep in mind that God does nothing capriciously, but decrees all things for His glory and the good of His people.

God in Three Persons

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. 6. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God the same in substance, equal in power and glory.(1)

(1) I John 5:7; Matt. 28:19.

We come now to the question in the Shorter Catechism that has caused all kinds of confusion, or more accurately, the doctrine presented in this question has brought this confusion. The formulation of this doctrine (along with those espoused in the previous questions) predates the Westminstarian explanation by over one thousand years. We find this teaching in such statements as the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. This is what has come to be known as the doctrine of the Trinity.

The word "Trinity" or "Triune" is not found in Scripture, but the concept certainly is. As this question shows us, in the Godhead there are three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Ghost if you prefer the olde English of the 17th century). The formulation of this doctrine as we understand it today - and have understood it for centuries - did take time to develop. Its formulation and expression came about due to heresies concerning God that crept into the Church even in her early days. Unfortunately, such heresies are still with us today.

This doctrine is difficult to comprehend. As we saw before, there is but one God. Nevertheless, this one God is God in three persons. There have been all manner of attempts at creating analogies to help people understand this truth: the clover, the three states of water, the egg, the bike wheel, etc. When it comes to understanding the doctrine of the Trinity and you are tempted to think of an analogy to help you understand....... don't. Please, just don't. Such analogies inevitably lead to one of the heresies this doctrine's formulation was intended to combat. It is even more tempting to rely on such analogies when teaching the Trinity to children. However, given the fact that we as adults cannot fully comprehend what it means for God to be Triune, it is better to teach our children in humility by reminding them that we do not fully understand it either, but we believe it because God teaches it in His word.

There is one true God in three persons and each of these three persons is God. They are the same God  or as the catechism, the same in substance. They are not parts of God. There are not three Gods. To say that each person is the same in substance means that each of the three persons is the same God and each person is rightly worshipped and glorified as God. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Spirit is God. The doctrine of the Trinity (along with the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ) is not a mystery for us to solve, but rather a mystery for us to receive and believe.

The Lord Is One

Q. 5. Are there more Gods than one?
A. 5. There is but One only, the living and true God.(1)

(1) Deut. 6:4; Jer. 10:10.

In one sense, the answer to this question really could have been just one word: "No." Despite that, the Westminster Divines express the answer to this question in a rather emphatic way to drive the point home. Not only that, they qualify the direct answer with who it is. There is one and only one God. There is no other (cf., Isaiah 42:8). 

This God is living as opposed to the gods of the nations, for those so-called gods are nothing but the figment of their imaginations. These gods have no life in them. They do not an cannot see, hear, create, or do anything at all. 

Our God, the only God, the God who reveals Himself to us in creation and in Scripture is ever living. For creatures, living involves often a beginning, growth, change and development, yet because of sin it also involves slow decay as a part of that change. Not so with God. He unchangeably lives. He has all life in Himself as He is uncreated; life was not given to Him nor was it obtained by Him. He lives.

This God is also the true God. As already noted, the other so-called gods are nothing and therefore false gods. All that the God of the Bible is (see the previous question) cannot be found in the false gods of our imaginations. They have no being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, or truth that is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. The God of the Bible alone is true God.

What does this mean for us? Remember man's chief end and realize that in our glorifying and enjoying Him forever, we owe Him our allegiance. All that God made serves Him and His purpose (more on that in the near future). Since He is the only living and true God, we must serve only this God. Sin has entered into this world and as a result, man serves the creature rather than the creator (Romans 1:25). It is only through the saving work of Christ that sinful man can once again serve the Creator... the one, true, and living God.

What Is God?

Q. 4. What is God?

A. God is a Spirit,(1) infinite,(2) eternal,(3) and unchangeable,(4) in his being,(5) wisdom,(6) power,(7) holiness,(8) justice, goodness, and truth.(9)

(1) John 4:24.

(2) Job 11:7-9.

(3) Ps. 90:2.

(4) James 1:17.

(5) Exod. 3:14.

(6) Ps. 147:5.

(7) Rev. 4:8.

(8) Rev. 15:4.

(9) Exod. 34:6-7.

How does one define the God of the Bible of whom the Scriptures principally teach what we are to believe? Such a task is both daunting, yet simple; that latter description is used by design. God is pure spirit and as such has no parts like any other creature does. He is a spirit who is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Notice that God is described here by the Westminster Divines by what He is not (indeed He cannot be these things). He is not finite, has neither beginning nor end, and does not ever change. The Westminster Divines, following Scripture, describe God for us by means of what He is not. Simply put, God is not like us for we are finite in time, space, knowledge, thought. Every human being that has ever lived had a beginning. Every human being grows and it may be better to describe us as “human becomings.” God does not grow, does not get weary, does not learn, etc. These three descriptions of God have sometimes been called His incommunicable attributes, i.e., no other created thing can be infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Only God has these characteristics and in this sense is wholly other than the rest of creation.

The remaining attributes listed in the answer is not exhaustive, at least not obviously as expressed. For example, some have wondered how God’s attribute of love could have been forgotten, but careful consideration will lead to the conclusion that God’s love is actually subsumed under God’s goodness. Be that as it may, the rest of these attributes as given by the Westminster Divines have sometimes been called His communicable attributes because men and women are made in God’s image and thereby reflect these attributes in some way. However, though man as originally created does indeed have being (existence), wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth, he does not and cannot possess these attributes infinitely, eternally, and unchangeably. Man had a beginning whereas God does not (that tense change is deliberate!); man learns and grows in wisdom, whereas God knows all, determines all, and as such there is nothing that God will ever learn. We could continue, but the point is clear. Why is this important? Everything else in theology flows from this truth. Everything. It is this God (and no other) that we glorify and enjoy forever. It is this God alone who is able to save sinners such as ourselves by the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ.