paternal instincts (Father’s Day)
John and Carol go to a nice restaurant to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. As soon as they’re seated, Carol heads to the restroom. The waiter comes over while she’s away to see if they’d like to start with an appetizer or drinks. John goes ahead and orders both of their meals. He figures that after 30 years of knowing his wife, and with her recent medical appointments with her doctor, He would order something that he knew she would like but still met the doctor’s orders. The waiter takes the order for their meal and steps away. A few minutes later Carol returns. “The waiter hasn’t come yet?” she asks. “I put in your order for you sweetie.” Carol was furious. “Why would you do that? This is my special night. I wanted to choose something for myself! You know, I can’t stand when you…”
At that moment, the waiter comes with their drinks. “What’s this?” she asks sarcastically. “It’s your drink,” says John, as the waiter looks confusedly at them. It turns out this was the exact drink Carol was going to order. She slowly takes a sip savoring every bit of it, and then proceeds to continue. “Like I was saying, I can’t stand it when you do that. You don’t always know what I want! You don’t know what I’m thinking!” She waves down a worker passing by to bring her a menu as John sighs and rolls his eyes. As she’s looking at the menu and deciding what she wants to order, their waiter approaches with the food that John ordered. Her eyes pop wide open when she realizes the menu items she wanted to eat are exactly what John had ordered, down to the most minute detail. “You see there,” says John, “I DO know what’s best for you!”
The story ends well for John, which is how most paternalists THINK it will end. But in many (if not most or nearly all) scenarios the story doesn’t end so well. Oxford Dictionary defines paternalism as the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates’ best interest. The root word pater means “father,” and one who is paternal is befitting of a father. Those who practice paternalism feel they’re doing the best thing for you. But often, they have their own personal interests being considered.
The Jerusalem Council came about because of a dispute over the requirements to be a Christian. This was the first recorded council of church leaders discussing theological matters. There were Judaizers who had become Christians that were teaching “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved (Acts 15:1).” This controversy over circumcision was significant enough that Paul and Barnabas decided to travel to Jerusalem to be a part of the discussion. Where did this idea come from? Why did these Pharisee converts teach this as a requirement? Why were they practicing paternalism, deciding what was best for these believers that were not of the same race as they were?
We can only speculate why these teachers were influenced by the need for circumcision of all non-Jews to be required. We do know that the Church was growing fast. By this time, it was likely that the Gentile believers were large in number, and perhaps even outnumbered the Jewish believers. I could very easily see the goal of the Judaizers being to maintain CONTROL and POWER over the process and those who were not like them. What they were basically saying was “unless you act just like us, behave like us, buy into OUR culture and OUR beliefs as the dominant culture, and unless WE approve of YOU since WE control this whole process, and WE say that YOU are okay, you cannot be a TRUE Christian.”
Paternalism can easily influence any of us, regardless of our background. It certainly influenced the Evangelical Church as we know it today. One such person was Curtis Lee Laws, pastor of First Baptist Church of Baltimore, Maryland (1893-1908). Laws was concerned about the influence of modernism on African Americans during his time. In several articles published in the Fundamentalist journal The Watchman-Examiner, Laws (and others) would note that Blacks were incapable of making “a meaningful contribution” to the theological debate on modernism. Laws felt that it was incumbent on himself and other White scholars to “protect Blacks from theological harm” because they were so easily impressionable.
Christian Blacks, however, overwhelmingly held to the inerrancy of Scripture and acknowledgment of the Virgin Birth of Christ the Messiah just as the Fundamentalists did, and still do today. But they also believed that all Christians should be treated equally, which meant their definition of true Christianity didn’t always align and adhere to Fundamentalist doctrines and interpretation of Scripture.
Out of the Fundamentalist movement comes today’s Evangelical movement. At times, we may see paternalism peak its sinful head in the Church. Like the Judaizers at the Jerusalem Council, those with this attitude believe they know what’s best for others. Rather than considering other Christian perspectives, these paternalists can often feel their perspective is in their “subordinate’s” best interest, whomever they determine those subordinates to be. Meanwhile, the subjugated Christian feels rejected and disregarded, broadening the divide towards unity.
How do we combat paternalism in the Church? We should understand that it destroys the opportunity for unity to occur. Unity requires humility, which is a modest view of one’s own importance. When one part of the body believes that it matters more than other parts of the body, the body overall suffers (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Let us pray that:
We think with sober judgment about ourselves (Romans 12:3)
We walk in humility (Colossians 3:12)
We understand that we are all baptized into one body through the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13)
We avoid minimizing other viewpoints; we don’t pass judgment; we allow for other viewpoints “in the Lord;” don’t be a stumbling block (Romans 14:4)