by John Sandeman

Hardliners. That is the public image of Sydney Anglicans on gender issues. But there's a new wave of American Christian critics who would say we are wimps. They have invented a new term of abuse: "soft patriarchy'. It is thrown at evangelicals who have male headship in their theology but are too equal (for the critics) in the way family life is lived.

This soft patriarchy is described in several recent books. For example Christian America, by University of North Carolina sociologist Christian Smith, finds that American evangelicals speak complementarian rhetoric and live egalitarian lives.

Oregon State University sociologist Sally Gallagher interviewed evangelical men and women across the US, finding that households adhere to male headship as an idea, but "practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus".

The sample might be biased but this pewsitter sees many families operating this way. My guess is that most of us blokes are soft patriarchs.

I guess the "hard patriarchy' that critics want would have husbands take on the role of Victorian entrepreneur, counting every widget made in his foundry, while the softer sort is like a CEO who sets the company culture and delegates.

I often hear the idea that guys should have a last resort veto. But hard patriarchs have a default position that males make (most) decisions. Soft patriachs think that everything should be discussed. So if you only have a last resort veto you are on the wimp team, brother. Or, to put it another way, the words "servant' and "leadership' belong together.

For critics, families that depend on female-earned income are "feminist'. This pewsitter imagines this is the first time Moore College students supported by spouses have had that f-word used about them. But on reflection, it fits. Equal wages for women have probably paid for lots of blokes to go to Bible college.

In Sydney, we have a habit of being Bible-based without taking a knee-jerk hardline position. For example, belief in a six-day creation is not required to establish that you believe the Bible. Nor is double predestination to establish that you believe in grace. (Some among us do believe those things and in heaven I might have to concede they were right.)

Australians tend to be pragmatic. We have an anti-drug campaign that cracks down on drugs and hands out syringes. I see this same pragmatism in the Sydney Diocese. We are Australians, after all.

This pewsitter thanks God we are not the local version of the American Christian right, but a people doing our best to live our lives with the Bible open.