On Patriarchy

I see that Phil and I are on the same scent and barking up the same tree (since we're talking about guys, we might as well start with the dog metaphors right away!).  Like Phil, I am actually a bit reserved about the application of the term "patriarchy" to masculine leadership today.  The reason I brought it up in an earlier post is that the book in question declares biblical patriarchy to be a sin.  This is clearly wrong.  But patriarchy is not the term I would most prefer for godly male leadership today, mainly because it too easily down-loads social arrangements that do not possess an enduring biblical mandate.  If we want to highlight the permanent and enduring aspects of God's social ordering, it helps if we do not mix them up with those aspects that are not permanent and enduring.  To me, at least, patriarchy is so associated with, well, the patriarchs, that it may not be the best term for our present use.  Nothing wrong with Abraham and his boys, of course.  It's just that the kind of male leadership demanded by the New Testament does not seem to incorporate all the social privileges and obligations that Abraham held.