YeHaveHeard has been branching out.

Late last month my feature column Bill Gothard and Patriarchy: Re-routed Feminism? appeared on Quivering Daughters. That prompted much discussion about Christian homeschooling/ “character first” teacher Bill Gothard’s public pronouncement that Jesus’ the-greatest-among-you-must-be-the-servant-of-all statement means “that makes the woman the greatest of all because she has served every single person in the world by being in her womb.”

An excerpt, before getting to a few responses to critics (most of them from anonymous):

Perhaps [Gothard] said more, which isn’t shown, about Christ being the greatest Servant, Whom both men and women honor in the ways they serve one another. But if not, he rejected a prime opportunity to point to the Savior his organization claims to follow. Instead he pointed to humans, and to women in particular as in effect the world’s secret rulers — something Christ never meant whenever He taught on true servanthood.

Three passages in Scripture contain Jesus’ reminder that if one wishes to be truly great, he must become the servant of all: Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9:33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48.

In each account, of apparently the same dialogue about seeking servanthood as true greatness, Christ was speaking to His disciples. They were men. Women aren’t mentioned. He used a trusting child’s conduct as an example of true humility. Mark 9:37: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” And in Luke 9:48 He adds, “For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

What are the contexts here? Not gender roles. Not family. Not which gender should serve the most in a human way and thus be greatest. Jesus is pointing to Himself. These passages are about Him. And later, from the minor gift of washing His followers’ dirty feet to His earth-shaking, epic death on a cross for the salvation of His people, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sin — He proved Himself the One Who saves us, changes us, the Servant of all.

This exegesis shows Gothard’s view to be in flagrant error. But unfortunately this is not unusual for him — Gothard has often proved that salvaging Scripture verses and principles, out of context, is certainly not a practice limited to liberals or emergents.

What might have been equally disappointing, though, is that his defenders in the column didn’t even try to prove he was right.

Instead I read some of the same defense mechanisms I’d heard before, such as:

1. He’s a nice guy.
2. Have you tried to talk with him personally? (Implied: that is required, before you say anything negative.)
3. We’ve followed his teachings and we’re doing find (therefore our Anecdote simply surpasses yours).
4. Various ad hominem attacks against other Gothard critics, either real or perceived.
5. Gothard uses Bible verses in his teachings; therefore he’s touching Base and shouldn’t be questioned.
6. (Implied) Hmm, you must be one of those Christians who doesn’t believe in trying to live a holy life.
7. A derivative of the Gamaliel Game, a frequent (and fatalistic!) defense, based on Acts 5: 33-40, which in essence says “if he’s a bad guy, just ignore him and let God handle it.” Scripture neither condemns nor endorses Gamaliel’s specific advice in that passage, but certainly does elsewhere contradict the notion that Christians should just ignore false teachers!

Part 1 will consist of my response to Anonymous’ second batch of well-written questions. Part 2 will show my response to his/her actual first portion of questions and responses, which had initially been hidden by the site’s spam filter.

Responses to Anonymous

Thanks for stopping by, yet-another-Anonymous. Like most online-only conversations in which I engage, I wish we had the time and ability to add some semblance of relationship as the basis of our interactions, rather than the drive-by-debating common to the internet. Shall we imagine a brief visit between you, and my wife and I, in our living room with coffee or your beverage of choice, as I try to address your concerns?

6. Simply because the author of the article “Taliban Dan…” omits any reference to Bill Gothard teaching about walking in the good works God has created us for or honoring God with our lives does not mean that Bill Gothard (just a sinful, fallible instrument) omits them in his teaching.

From my experience with Gothard’s programs, I recall very little Gospel. This error is not unique to Gothard, but to many Christian leaders: they simply assume their followers/disciples will get that Gospel-of-Grace stuff out there somewhere, and can now move on to the “walking in good works” stuff without emphasis in the work Christ accomplished for us.

I don’t share that (often well-intentioned) perspective. A lover of Christ will be doing all he can (knowing God is at work in him — Philippians 2: 12-13) to preach the Gospel to Himself, living in light of what Christ has done and will do, not keeping that in the past and moving on to the supposedly more-important truth of walking in good works. Grace, as Gothard defines it, does include the power to obey God, but that is not the most important definition. Gothard in practice acts as thought it is.

We used the ATI curriculum for 12 years, and chose to get out—not with some personal vendetta against Bill Gothard and the program—but simply because God was leading us to other things—further training for His Kingdom.

Neither do I have a personal vendetta. But those who purport to teach the Bible should be held to high standards. While quoting verses, setting up systems purported to be based on truth, etc., are they applying right hermeneutics? Respecting God the Author of Scripture by reading and understanding it rightly?

The curriculum was full of scripture, and full of teaching about honoring God, His established authorities, and our fellow man.

I’ve shown above how Gothard severely twisted a single Scripture to make it man- (or woman-) centered, instead of echoing the deeper truth Christ was clearly teaching. Unless the reporter was making up that quote, Gothard is guilty of abusing the Word of God, not like a naive “baby Christian” but as a Christian leader.

In saying this, I take what he said at face value: he believes women are the greatest because they “serve” the most. That’s just not Biblical. Jesus was talking not to women, but to His own (male) disciples, saying they should strive to be the servant of all — and He Himself showed them how, and became the Servant of All, exalted over all: men and women.

Gothard is guilty of salvaging other Scriptures to further other goals, and that is wrong, no matter how Biblical those goals might be (such as Opposing Rebellion or Reminded us of Authority). Gothard’s woefully wrong reading of the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s son, for example, is a flagrant violation of how Scripture should be read: emphasizing Christ, as the narrative does, and not simply the Human Authority Structure.

The program was, as accused, full of steps, also, toward success in various aspects of Christian living. Some view this approach to problem solving as legalistic

Some might, but that’s not what I argued above. Similarly, Jesus faulted the Pharisees not merely for solving moral problems in step-by-step ways, but for making up laws and calling them God’s Law, and rejecting the point of the Law anyway: Christ Himself.

but others (and it’s just as valid a perspective) view the step method (merely breaking a problem into bite-sized pieces) as helpful.

Ordinarily I would agree. This would simply be seen as optional methods for doing our part, as Christians, to work out our salvation. But again, two issues:

a) Gothard doesn’t see these steps as optional. He calls them “life principles” and has continued to do this day to say they’re not optional.

b) The steps are often not only extra-Biblical (optional) but anti-Biblical. And adding to what Scripture says and calling it Scripture is just as bad as ignoring what Scripture does say.

Grace-oriented individuals should be careful not to condemn those who prefer a more structured approach.

Whether structured or not, all Christians are called to be grace-oriented individuals. That part is indeed not optional!

And whether or not a parent/person has a specific “structured approach,” if it’s not based in grace, it’s not Gospel-minded — and would warrant a Galatians-style letter from the Apostle Paul asking with love but passion: “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). Or he would write a letter repeating what he told the Colossians (in 3: 20-23) about wrong, anti-Biblical “structures”:

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—’Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

Neither is more righteous as long as both look to Christ as THE problem-solver and THE SOLUTION.

Which, as I’ve argued above, Gothard in-practice and even in-writing does not do.

However, perhaps you, most excellent Anonymous, were able to take what you found good about Gothard’s materials and see them through the lenses of God’s grace. If so, I rejoice! Yet I would ask that you recognize that others have not been so blessed, and are trapped on a graceless treadmill, trying to earn their sanctification through Gothard’s anti-Biblical materials. IBLP does not seem their whole System of beliefs as optional as you and I might see them, free to choose which ones to follow — or even to depart the whole thing and find better curriculum elsewhere.

7. It is simply Ungodly to undermine parents in trying to “rescue” daughters from what we perceive to be an oppressive lifestyle.

I don’t oppose that. Are you referring to something I wrote?

In fact, it’s a main mission of Quivering Daughters here to help carry out such rescues, of daughters who are trapped in not only what’s “perceived” to be an oppressive lifestyle, but what is — according to the Gospel, aided by sanctified common sense! — oppressive and grace-rejecting lifestyles. To see this further, I encourage you to look more on the site, and perhaps read Hillary’s book Quivering Daughters and Don Veinot’s book A Matter of Basic Principle: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life.

You see, the God of the universe gave each daughter her parents and each wife her husband. If we are willing to cease trying to give God and Ishmael, and trust Him (Jer. 29:11), He will complete his unstoppable plan of mercy and grace in the ultimate manner.

But the sovereign God works through means, Anonymous. He has given and encouraged (nay required) Christians to practice discernment, rather than being more passive (a la Gamaliel in Acts) and simply let things happen. Should we also apply the more-passive mindset to the pressing issues of our day, such as sex trafficking, racism or abortion? Surely not. Scripture doesn’t leave Christians with that option — though some of us may have different callings in this.

As an aside, I hear Jeremiah 29:11 quoted a lot, but out of context: that promise God made to the Israelites then is weakened when we apply it straight to ourselves without the background that He fulfilled it for them. Furthermore His perfect plans for them also involved plenty of hardship and learning from the ways they had rejected Him — only through better discernment and growth did they have “hope and a future.”

When we interfere in order to help him, we just mess things up.

Again, the point here is not simply reaching out to women (or anyone) who’s in a merely “perceived” oppressive lifestyle, but showing how this lifestyle is not only dangerous, but flagrantly anti-Biblical and not actually honoring to Christ and the Gospel.

8. When we are on the outside looking in to a situation, we make a lot of assumptions. My old English teacher used to say “To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.” Wouldn’t the Christian way be to spend our hours and days spreading the good news of the gospel and discipling young believers in a God-honoring way to aid in their sanctification instead of devoting entire ministries to breaking down or attacking the ministries of those we don’t understand (and thereby are suspicious of)?

Again, if you are referring to Quivering Daughters, I would ask:

a) Then why are you trying to oppose this ministry? Perhaps you don’t yourself understand what they see, what they know, and to whom they’re reaching. The problem with a Gamaliel-like “if it’s of God you can’t stop it anyway” notion is that it can’t be suggested consistently without self-refuting, and it’s not what Scripture says to follow anyway.

b) Yet again, these are about whether a professed Christian and supposedly Biblical organization is actually following Christ and the Bible. I’ve shown above how Gothard has violated both (as is a proven pattern in how he salvages other Scriptures to fit into moralism machines). If you’d like to engage my ideas in that area, Anonymous, I’d love to listen and reply.

Where is the glory for God in a ministry like this?

The glory to God is the same as Paul gave when he publicly opposed Peter for sucking up to legalistic Judaizers (Galatians 2) or called out a professing Christian for anti-Biblical behavior (1 Corinthians 5) or, in love, warned believers to avoid false doctrine and grow to be like Christ with all truth and discernment (Philippians 1, many other epistles). The God of love is also a God of truth, and a Christian’s discernment can be practiced with love and hope that the deceptive teacher will repent and correct his false teaching.

I know God has used others to correct my own wrong notions about “perfect” families, and even what the future eternal existence of a Christian will be (hint: it’s not just a spiritual nonphysical realm!). Thus I hope also that those professing to believe the Gospel of grace will speak and listen to one another accordingly, not making or hearing arguments based on man-made logic or inference from Scripture, but based on Scripture rightly applied, pointing to the Gospel.

Grace and peace!

In Passion and Purity, Elisabeth Elliot uses her love story with her first husband Jim Elliot to illustrate the practical principles of the book’s subtitle: bringing your love life under Christ’s control.

For five years she and Jim waited to pursue their relationship, because Jim knew he needed to be single for the missionary work he was undertaking at that time. During this period, Elisabeth kept detailed diaries recording her thoughts, prayers, and struggles with submitting to God’s will. It was not an easy road, but through Christ Jim and Elisabeth were able to offer their love to God and accept when His answer was “not yet.” It’s a profound lesson, and all the more when the blessing denied is such a wonderful one.

I was disappointed somewhat because I thought this book would be primarily about how to move toward purity, with some examples from Elisabeth’s life to illustrate her points. But instead it was the other way around — very autobiographical, with the principles of submission and holiness explored more incidentally.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. I just found myself not quite so interested in the details of her relationships with God and Jim; I wanted more focus on Scripture and practical purity. More structure would have been helpful, too.

Another thing I found problematic were some of Jim’s letters that Elisabeth quotes. Several were extremely open and honest about his sexual desire for her. I’m not a prude and I think physical desire is a gift of God and absolutely has to be addressed in any book about purity, but the desire expressed in his letters was so intensely private and very suggestive — not sinful, but not to be placed before the public eye. Some of it was so explicit as to conjure ideas that I needed to instantly dismiss. I think this places a huge limitation on how we can use and recommend this book, especially with teens.

Elisabeth frequently quotes old hymns and poems, and I found this wearing after awhile. The spiritual principles represented are timeless, but not every hymn or poem is. I like many old hymns and enjoy archaic language in poetry, and I understand they were extremely meaningful to her as she worked through these issues. These elements are just overused to the point of near-tedium.

So that’s a lot of negativity about the book. The things I liked can best be explored by quoting Elisabeth’s own words:

I am convinced that the human heart hungers for constancy… There is dullness, monotony, sheer boredom in all of life when virginity and purity are no longer protected and prized. By trying to grab fulfillment everywhere, we find it nowhere. (21)

So long as our idea of surrender is limited to the renouncing of unlawful things, we have never grasped its full meaning… (Lilias Trotter, 37)

Waiting on God requires the willingness to bear uncertainty, to carry within oneself the unanswered question, lifting the heart to God about it whenever it intrudes upon one’s thoughts. (59)

Waiting silently is the hardest thing of all… But the things that we feel most deeply we ought to learn to be silent about, at least until we have talked them over thoroughly with God. (60)

God gives us material for sacrifice. Sometimes the sacrifice makes little sense to others, but when offered to Him it is always accepted. (64)

Our vision is so limited that we can hardly imagine a love that does not express itself in protection from suffering. (84)

It is the control of passion, not its eradication, that is needed. How would we learn to submit to the authority of Christ if we had nothing to submit? (90)

There are some good principles here and I did not dislike the book overall. But this is mainly an autobiographical work and those who want a structured, organized, practical approach to biblical purity should probably look elsewhere.

(Continued from part 1, part 2 and part 3.)

If I said, “We evangelicals better think long and hard about our continued infatuation with and endorsement of … Sarah Palin,” what might be the reactions?

1) Yeah, that woman’s a nutty conservative, doesn’t care for the poor, is surely racist, etc.

2) Have you bought into compromising Christianity? We need to save America from liberalism.

Well, I haven’t said that yet. Actually it was Todd Friel, host of Wretched Radio, who said it. But regarding this issue, I’m about to start agreeing with him.

Fighting feminism

Sometimes Friel seems to forget that feminism is not the only threat to Christians. Yes, feminism gets a lot more press; it is more prevalent than other wrongs. Yet the other extreme is out there: chauvinism, often called “patriarchy,” an un-Biblical and God-slandering notion that daughters belong to fathers (who are like “high priests” of their own homes), that working outside the home automatically makes a woman a feminist, and other things.¹

Thus I would not simply criticize Palin for having any kind of job outside her home. Scripture does not directly forbid this, so why should I?

But if a church elder/overseer is called to keep his family well-cared for, and such a person must be a man, how much more should a woman who professes to know Christ want to avoid going out to be a leader if her home is a mess? (And when Friel talked about this, a certain news story hadn’t even yet broken.)

I feel sorry for the Palins. My reaction is similar to my thoughts last year, when all manner of Christians were ready to support a certain beauty pageant contestant who’d given a close-to-Biblical answer to a gay-marriage question. Given her raunchy behavior, shouldn’t the Church want to love this young woman, and correct her, helping her grow closer to the Jesus she professes to know? No — instead, Christians used this person. It’s like we care more for popularity and getting in the press than loving and teaching those who claim to be our own.

Sarah Palin and her family are not characters in an evening drama. They are not larger-than-life figures who can “handle it” because they’re somehow different. Flaws and positive attributes and all, they are real people. They need real help, from a real and active church. They need to be loved, taken in and taught. And yes, I wonder if Sarah’s children need their mom.

What they do not need is to be placed on pedestals and asked to lead us. That doesn’t love them. It doesn’t respect the God who places such value on being glorified in a Christian family.

Meanwhile, do other wives and mothers who want to glorify Christ feel pressure to Do, do, do, more, more, more? Does getting into politics, being the latest greatest Articulate Conservative Spokeswoman Running for Office, sound more appealing and worthy of acclaim than simply staying home and taking care of your family, loving your husband, and mostly loving the Lord?

It certainly is not wrong to seek high office. But when those who are — or who can — are rising to the top and doing all these Big Things in America, what might other women be feeling like?

Do other women’s sacrifices mean nothing? Is God more pleased with the women who plan to Save the Country? Is it well-just-okay to stay at home and work full-time to help your husband educate and raise your children, while the Big People go out and do the Really Big Things?

Faithful things

I’ll close with another quote from Friel, the second-to-last in this Do, do, do series.

Friel had talked about how pastors are under many pressures from Christians. Sometimes, without even knowing it, Christians may imply their pastor isn’t doing enough, or needs to have more attenders, better sermons, bigger buildings, and all that. Then Friel went on to say that Christian women are under some very similar pressures.

Number Two group would have to be stay-at-home moms. Has to be — stay-at-home moms. Shellacked for, “ohhhh, living at home and letting that oppressive man control you.” You know what? Staying at home, and doing that with your kids — that’s plenty big, ‘cause that’s the faithful thing. And I gotta tell you — that is the hard thing.

I really felt bad for those women who thought that they to go leave their babies at home, in the care of somebody else, so that they could go rescue society.

And by the way, what a slap in the face of every single man in this country. You mean, there’s no men who’ve already raised their kids who couldn’t do this?

Sorry, I can’t help but throw this in. We evangelicals better think long and hard about our continued infatuation and endorsement of — sorry, you can send us emails if you like — Sarah Palin. Her kids need her. “Well, they seem to be doing all right.” Uhhh, have you read the papers? Are you kidding me?

… Aren’t we the stay-at-home-mom people? Aren’t we the ones who say, “Well done, madam! You did the faithful thing. … You did the big thing.” One family at a time.

… God is smart, and He says to each and every one of us: “You do not have to do the big thing. You need to do the hard thing, which is the faithful thing.”

Tomorrow: The true Big/Hard Things and Radical Lives often seem so small.

Already this series started in part 1 with summarizing Christians’ views of male/female roles, especially as husbands and wives.

Part 2 introduced patriarchalists and asked whether their human-authority views are Biblical.

Part 3 showed how patriarchalists’ perspectives on “courtship” are based on false dichotomies between their methods and “man’s dating philosophy,” and more misreading of Scripture.

Part 4 reviewed others who’ve already been studying this topic for years, and showed how obsessing over “masculinity” further leads to “patriarchalist” men’s self-centeredness.

That can also include the idea that for “patriarchy” practitioners, a father can be in effect treated as a “priest” for his family. That is indeed the notion advocated by many patriarchalist leaders. Karen Campbell says “patriarchy” can also be called “patriocentrism,” i.e. father-centered.¹

And why not? Their beliefs are indeed centered around human fathers.² Patriocentrists have decided that fathers are in effect high priests for their families, reverting to Old-Testament Law codes (fulfilled in Christ, our only High Priest) and even worse, pushing Old-Testament lifestyles that have nothing to do with the Law. They believe all family members must partner to fulfill a father’s “vision.” They insist daughters must serve their fathers as “helpmeets” until they get married, and so on.

Plenty of Scriptures either don’t support this lifestyle or overtly oppose it. I’ve already gone over some of those. It gets worse when you mix in something called “federal vision,” and that’s another topic entirely.³

Yet as this series draws to a close, it’s time to look at some reasons why patriarchalists miss such clear Biblical truth and substitute man-made laws. To many readers, it all seems so clear that “those people” are crazy or un-Biblical, yet these are thinking people, many of whom are sincerely trying. So how do they miss it? I’ll offer a few explanations. You may think of more.

What’s especially scary is this thought: this could happen to anyone. The worst possible way we could react to “patriarchy” beliefs is thinking we have our gender-roles ideas all fixed now that we know what beliefs to avoid. After all, that’s the same reaction they have against feminism.

With that in mind, I’ll later end by asking: how can we be sure not to fall into the same traps?

Why don’t they get it?

Perhaps in the patriarchalist worldview the Problem of Feminism is just too huge, and thus their belief basis becomes “we must fix the Problem,” instead of “we must honor God and His Word.”

So instead of basing your life for Jesus Christ and the Gospel, you become increasingly aware of the things you are not: not a feminist, not pro-abortion, not liberal, not a public-school student, not one of those parents who have only two children and then stop because they’re selfish.

Is this not something that Satan and his minions would most want — to take our eyes off Christ and His Word about himself, and make Him merely an additive to Fixing the Problem?

Writing to his demonic nephew Wormwood, His Utter Subliminity Screwtape puts it plainly:

What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of “Christianity And.” You know — Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychic Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians, let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing.⁴

Screwtape also recommends the joys (for the devils) of pushing reaction-based religion:

We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere “understanding”. Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey.

For discerning Christians, what are some of the other “main bogies” to oppose? Let’s list some. Perhaps Christianity and Environmentalism. Christianity and Faith Tolerance. Christianity and Stop Global Warming. Christianity and Egalitarianism/Feminism. On and on it goes, when professing Christians leave the Gospel far behind or mix it with all these other Social Issues — that are supposedly just as important as making God our chief joy and loving Him for saving us.

Yet are these the only Christianity-And problems we face? Many patriarchalists seem to think so. In all the literature about fathers and families, courtship systems, and avoiding feminism, you find little or nothing (can anyone prove otherwise?) warning against opposite dangers, such as:

Christianity and the Law. Christianity and Quiverfull Patriarchy/“Familyism.” Christianity and Homeschooling Only. Christianity and Approved Denim-Skirt Intensive Dress Codes. Perhaps Christianity and Head Coverings. Christianity and Extreme Interpretations of Paul’s Advice to Women in Churches Which May or May Not Have been All or Partly Culturally Derived (Especially the Parts about Braided Hair and Jewelry). Christianity and the Law. Christianity and Approved Curriculum. Christianity and Voting For Only My Preferred Political Party. Christianity and Quasi-Whitewashed American History. Christianity and Women Don’t Really Need to Vote.

Either way, it focuses on un-Biblical, or extra-Biblical, codes of conduct, and issues and laws that aren’t even based in the real Law. They’re not absolutely essential to the Gospel.

Even worse — these notions end up shrinking or even opposing the Gospel and God’s glory.

Stealing the Father’s glory

The following comes from the Visionary Daughters website, in an article about honoring God.

8. Give your Father your heart, learn His ways and delight in them

Proverbs 23:26 says, “Give me your heart, my son, and let your eyes delight in my ways.”

The heart, called “the seat of the affections,” is the source of all passions, desires, loves, interests, likes and dislikes, convictions and opinions. Our hearts and all that they contain need to be surrendered to our Father […] to be molded and directed. You don’t need to give your Father a perfect heart. Give Him an imperfect heart, and talk to Him openly about your struggles and your weaknesses.

How do we let our eyes delight in our Father’s ways? We should begin by wanting to really understand who our Father is and why He does the things He does and think the things He thinks. Develop an interest in the things that are important to Him, and the battles He is fighting.⁵

By the last part you might have caught on to the fact that I actually tweaked that text just a little. You see, the original column had no capitals used for Father, as in God the Father, or pronouns referring to Him. Instead the blog item was actually talking about human fathers. All this is meant for them. To see the original version, click the link in the footnote and scroll down.

Now, I don’t want to pick on patriarchalists for only that example. I fully recognize that God can be given glory through our actions, and we don’t have to mention His Name directly or write a complete Gospel altar-call at least once an hour to others or else we’re suppressing truth.

And after all, one of the original sentences (which I cut out with the brackets and ellipsis) did read, “Our hearts and all that they contain need to be surrendered to our fathers, someday to our husbands – and ultimately to God – to be molded and directed.” Also it’s true that the post was about loving your human father for Father’s Day. But there is little on that site — not even in the blog category lists — about loving the real Father first and foremost. If this is there at all, it’s an afterthought. What about learning about Him and how to love Him? Not there. Maybe your human father will do that heavy spiritual lifting for you, while you’re fetching his slippers.

Unfortunately a lack of loving and giving glory to Christ personally is typical for patriarchalists.

Their human authorities replace divine authority, in belief and in practice. Rules and Right Living replace relationships. Systems replace God’s grace. And worst of all, despite the truth that Christ is our sole prophet-priest-and-king, the one mediator between His people and God (1 Timothy 2:5), patriarchalists overdoses on the concept of husbands imitating Christ and erect an extreme-Catholic-style notion of a father’s priestly role between his family and God.

Thus the argument against such man-centeredness is not just from Scripture’s silence, but the Bible’s clear emphasis on Christ and Him crucified, the real Gospel of grace, that overtly opposes such skewed views. Patriarchy beliefs are not only extra-Biblical and questionable; they are anti-Biblical and dangerous. Even worse, such a view fails to give rightful glory to God.

But I submit there is something even worse than that, which some Christians could fall into after they have really studied “patriarchy” and found it wanting.

Opposite reaction

One commentator, just yesterday on the excellent Quivering Daughters blog, wrote this:

I grew up in the rather prototypical patriarchal household in the 70s–before Gothard, et al, got up a full head of steam but their ideas were starting to float around the Evangelical churches I grew up in and the families we associated with–and left Christianity in my heart in the mid 80s and physically left the building in the early 90s.

But I’ve always been a mystic, a Seeker of Truth wherever it may be found, and I found that, once I abandoned the dogma of You Must Believe Doctrines, I could commune with the Divine in the way I had always sensed possible while in the church but the doctrine got in the way.⁶

Perhaps the writer didn’t mean it this way, but at the least professing Christians ought to be more careful with our language.

When people ignore true doctrine, you can’t “solve” the problem by throwing out more doctrine — that makes no sense. Yet many people have done this very thing, committing the same error of the patriarchalists: they’ve equated lies with truth, and decided that because they know what lies to avoid, they can gladly go completely opposite.

But Christians cannot “commune with the Divine” without doctrine — truths about Him.

If “doctrine” is taken to mean lifeless, pointless teachings about fine points of philosophy or something, I could understand that. Yet Christian doctrine should include the truth that persons are valuable, that God is merciful and does not tolerate human authoritarianism. Through true, Biblical teaching about God’s nature and actions (doctrine), we know He is love.⁷

While the above commentator may not have meant she has rejected any teachings about what God is like or has done, others formerly buried in patriarchy have sadly gone this far.

Anyone who’s read my previous writings knows where I have been, what I’ve believed, practiced and taught. Here’s how I see it now:

The Bible is an ancient text written in a time and culture radically different from our own. It was written by men who were privileged enough to know how to read and write ~ and it establishes a self-serving, male-dominated religion which uses the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell to keep the disenfranchised content in their servitude. (OMG ~ I sound just like Karl Marx.)

It seems crazy that thousands of years later, we should be trying to emulate the family structure and gender roles of an ancient society which viewed women and children as property.⁸

Clearly we can’t be sure we have all our beliefs fixed just because we reject “patriarchy.”

Instead Christians must sort lies from truth, ensuring we don’t commit this same sin of the “patriarchs”: overcorrecting from the lies we’ve identified, and swinging wildly into a whole other ditch of lies and un-Biblical notions. We must turn from the lies and turn to God’s truth — which Christians believe can only be found in Scripture.

Both egalitarianism/feminism and “Biblical patriarchy” contain bits and pieces of Scripture. But the pieces are split off from the main truth, taken elsewhere and used to build a whole system of belief and practice that may be consistent with itself, but not with Scripture.

Our aim should not be to avoid one or the other. Nor should it be to cry “avoid Christianity” any more than patriarchalists cry “avoid the world.” Who should be in our center? Jesus Christ.

Last year my wife and I (before we were married) began a study of Ephesians 1.

Like all the Bible implicitly, and the New Testament explicitly, this book and passage focuses exclusively on Christ, His supremacy and His centrality.

I highly suggest reading this as I found myself doing — thank God! — slowly, carefully, doing your best to take in every incredible detail. And please, consider how different Paul’s Christ- and grace-centered message is from that of man- and moralistic machine-centered views.

In a very similar text, the Apostle Paul repeats such truths, presenting and rejoicing in this amazing Jesus Who saves His people from their sins. Then Paul zooms in on applying this truth. He doesn’t even directly rebut whatever legalistic beliefs the Colossian church members had been accepting — instead, Paul shows Jesus, Who He is, what He does, and above all His glory.

Sometimes I catch myself reading passages like these through new eyes.

It’s almost like I now see why God’s has purposed to allow false views to infiltrate the world, and even the Church. They compel us to re-examine Scripture, and not just so we can beat the bad guys or think ourselves better, but to remind ourselves of His glorious truths and grace.

When compared with the dull, black-and-white man-centered perspectives of patriarchy, the awesome and glorious living color of the Bible and especially God’s glory shines even more bright and incredible.

And thanks to Him, it reflects truly Biblical views of children and parents, husbands and wives, families and churches, that truly honor His Word, His grace and Himself.

(Continued from Sins of the ‘patriarchs,’ part 1, part 2 and part 3.)

By this point, many proponents of “Biblical patriarchy” — and I hope you folks are being good Christian sports and still reading! — might have already begun skimming and missing things.

As I said yesterday, one of these things is the truth that many Christians do reject man-made selfish “dating” and also dislike patriarchalists’ preferred methods of arranged-marriage-esque “courtship.” One can say that as often and as graciously as possible, and patriarchalists simply won’t engage with a balanced marriage-minded-courtship-with-dating-allowed view.

I’d like to assume the best and conclude that they’re just distracted by shiny spiritual objects.

But at worst — it’s proven true before — they simply refuse to get it, at least not yet.

Why? That’s the topic of tomorrow’s column. But for now I can say this: not in the age of the internet and easy-access data about false beliefs can patriarchy teachers easily claim ignorance.

Unfortunately, those who promote patriarchalist-style autocracy also transfer their control-the-family tendencies into control-the-debate tendencies. And those who’ve delved more deeply into the issue often expose this control on their blogs and sites, often because they have more experience with standing up for what Scripture actually does and does not say.

On many patriarchalists’ anti-feminism-pro-”femininity” sites, I can’t find any straight-up debate about whether patriarchy is superior to Biblically based complementarianism. So far all I’ve seen are responses to a much simpler and easier-to-rebut feminist beliefs, such as professing Christians who ask (honestly or challenging) “what’s such a big deal about modesty” or espouse overtly feminist ideals. And for those who claim the “patriarchy” movement is legalistic, patriarchalists respond with suspicion, as if everyone who cries “your patriarchy is legalistic” is surely pushing for license and lack of Biblical discernment.¹

So to learn more about whether “Biblical patriarchy” is really Biblical, one must look elsewhere.

Debate distinctions

Have Christians already been dealing with this issue? Yes, and these responses haven’t just been from professing Christian feminists who want to put women pastors into pulpits.

Last year I spent several hours in a crash-course review of patriarchalism and patriocentrism, courtesy of blogger and web-activist Karen Campbell (aka “thatmom”). In fall 2007, Campbell recorded a nine-part series of podcasts focusing on the issues. Along with guest and a fellow homeschooling mom named “Spunky,” and Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach, Campbell addressed the issue with humility and orthodoxy. Gently but directly, they questioned patriarchalist teachings, presented the most outrageous quotes from patriarchalist leaders’ statements and books, and showed how such ideas are not only utterly foreign to Scripture, but directly contradicted — especially when it comes to the belief that a father is equivalent to a representative or “priest” between God and his family.

These Christians’ grace-based care and Biblically based reasoning might surprise any patriarchy proponent who’s been paying attention. No one on that podcast, or among many former-patriarchalist moms and other Christian bloggers and critics, has swung to the opposite extreme and demanded women preach from pulpits and guys stop being their families’ leaders.

Instead, Campbell and others believe in and love the husband/wife roles found in Ephesians 5: 22-33 and other passages. Patriarchalists don’t seem to get this, or refuse to see: sorry, but one can oppose your views and not be a bra-burning, abortion-advocating Godless feminist.

However, one can oppose feminism while also being a wimpy, leadership-obsessed, chest-thumping chauvinist.

I’m not saying all patriarchalists promote this. But do they discourage it?

Maybe a patriarchy preacher could avoid the debate by pointing out that many who oppose their teachings are women. But notwithstanding Don Veinot’s research into the topic (last I checked, he was a man), let’s turn the large homeschooling tables: an equally committed cabal of women are promoting “patriarchy.” On blogs and at conferences, they’re equally avid evangelists for the Christianity add-on as the men. So what’s the difference?

Sometimes I do wish many Biblical complementarian teachers would directly disavow patriarchy in the way it’s meant by Vision Forum and other homeschooling-bent leaders. So far my guess is not that they are okay with that kind of patriarchy, but simply aren’t aware of that particular danger. Say the name “Vision Forum” to an average, mature Christian man — as I’ve done myself — and you get a blank look. That’s great, if the person is solid; yet it can be risky if you’re, say, a newbie homeschooler, too easily impressed by all those “perfect” families.

However, here’s one possibility — maybe all those complementarian husbands, fathers, pastors and theologians are just different like this: they don’t feel compelled to obsess over the subject of their own manly manliness to think they’re masculine God’s way or loved by Him.

Faux-man-ship

One of the more comical and yet sobering aspects of patriarchalism is their obsession with Manliness to the point of constant gazing at their own (presumably hairy) navels.

If some women may be deceived into becoming feminists, some men just as eagerly believe others’ lies, or their own lies, and become masculists.

Either error results in forsaking Biblical roles for men and women, husbands and wives. And either puts the focus on playing your role, being who you’re supposed to be or who God made you to be, not on the God Who will not give His glory to another and Whose light we reflect.

Some men try to look all “manly” with big guns, big chests, beer and/or skanky women and/or disgusting accessories on their trailer hitch posts. It’s stupid — a caricature of the real thing.

Others have as many children as possible, and dominate their families. And that is worse.

Patriarchy leaders talk a lot about chivalry, being strong, being manly, women-and-children-first-like-it-was-on-the-Titanic. But that particular emphasis stands tall, strapping and in weak contrast to its lack of reminding husbands to serve their wives and children in other ways.

This reminds me of a quote from (I may get in trouble for this) a certain “superhero” sort of character from the critically appraised classic film Hellboy II: The Golden Army:

HELLBOY: I’d give my life for her. But she also wants me to do the dishes!

This ironically contradictory attitude is perhaps no more evident than in the often over-the-top admiration heaped on patriarchalist husbands by adoring wives, or the image the husbands publicly project of themselves. Are not the men allowed to honor their wives just as much and praise them for their love for Christ, not just their happy-homemaking skills?

But it becomes far worse than that. Last year I learned that a “Manliest Man” online contest sponsored by the Old Spice company was won easily by one of the patriarchalists’ poster guys. To support the eventual winner, the entrant’s wife, herself a popular patriarchy-promoting author/blogger/speaker, wrote a 600-word essay praising his manly virtues and his manly accomplishments and his manly idealism and his manly family-caring manliness.

Reading this page for the first time, I voiced aloud a let’s-prove-this suggestion: I’d like to play “Where’s Waldo?” with this woman’s material promoting her husband. Only, instead of looking for Waldo, let’s look for Someone else’s Name.

Read it through yourself. See if He’s there. Even a brief mention would be nice.

No. Christ receives no credit. You might think we’d at least hear about His Father.

(Tomorrow: why don’t they get it, and how can we avoid their errors and better love Christ?)

(Continued from the previous Sins of the ‘patriarchs’ columns, part 1 and part 2.)

Eureka! I’ve found both of them — first, the chat from December 22, 2007, with Lacy, then my girlfriend and courtship/dating partner, now my wife; and second, a new link for the How to Do Courtship Exactly Right-style article that kept us awake and laughing past 2:30 a.m.¹

Myself: Well, according to the directions ter foller, what are we doing “wrong”? [… Lacy is bringing it into view on the webcam] Whoa! Is that legal-size paper?!

Lacy: (No… just looks that way ) Well, let’s see… Well, for one thing, we’ve got the order all messed up

[...]

Myself: What’s the real Order, then?

Lacy: Apparently it’s Friendship (for preparation), Courtship (for investigation), and something they term as Betrothal (not sure what that’s about, except that the guy makes out a BIG check to the Dad or somesuch nonesense) [...] We’ve mixed up the first two dreadfully. And there’s not supposed to be any sort of “emotional” attachment until Betrothal

Myself: “BIG check”?! Egads!

[...]

Lacy: Yeah, like ten percent of your life savings… and they’d better be good

Myself: Stoics … Christoplatonists² … Gnostics … sissies!!!

Lacy:  Told you it cracked us up! [...] http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/Rediscovering%20the%20Timeless%20Truths.htm. Read it and weep

[... Later, I’m reading.]

Myself: “Faith, not feelings”?!!

Lacy: None. ever. They’re bad

Myself: Christoplatonist bilgewater!

Lacy: No kidding!

Myself: Seriously, though, Lacy … now I’m feeling sooo guilty now. These dratted feelings. They just keep preventing me from thinking about things from a faith perspective. It’s either/or, you know.

[...]

Lacy: Check out “Victory Over the Dating Spirit”… just the title cracks me up

Myself: See, of course you know this, but … they define “dating” as that whole hook-up-and-break-up thing, and never as a subset of the direction-driven Adventure mindset …

[...]

Myself: I have been so wrong about this. Wrong, wrong, WRONG! Apparently … emotional and other attractions are not supposed to be discerned before commitment! OH — MY — GOODNESS GRACIOUS LAND SAKES ALIVE. Now I’ve had it.

Lacy: See? We’ve blown the whole thing

Myself: Danggit. Well, it’s been nice knowing you. ‘S been fun.

False ‘dating’ dichotomies

Patriarchalists may honestly hope to do everything right regarding male/female relationships. But in their haste, many go far beyond rightful reminders about the important roles of family, friends and leaders to provide counsel about building a relationship with someone special.

However, not even Josh Harris wants to be the “love doctor” anymore. I don’t want this either.

So let’s assume here that courtship is a good word, and we already know dating without being marriage-minded is absurd, and too many Christians need to pay attention to the Bible on this.

But patriarchalists take “courtship” into extra-Biblical and even un-Biblical extremes of man-supervised marriage, literally man-supervised, based on their fathers-and-daughters beliefs. Again, they do not view these as optional for Christians who want to follow God’s will. Unless your human authority gives explicitly un-Biblical counsel, you must follow his lead in courtship.

And a daughter’s potential marriage, of course, can only occur with a father’s (or authority’s) direct oversight. Any kind of one-on-one “dating” is seen automatically as worldly rebellion against Godly standards, focusing only on infatuation, self-gratification and lack of commitment.

Thus patriarchalist teachers give little room for anything other than this false dichotomy: either you support our kind of systematized courtship, or you’ve bought into immoral, feelings-driven man-centered dating.

So what if you’re a Christian girl whose father does not care to supervise your courtship? Or a single older woman whose father has long since died and who doesn’t have church support? Or a young woman attending college across the country (most patriarchalists wouldn’t support that anyway) who can’t submit to her father in all ways? Patriarchalists might not state overtly that your situation simply won’t do, but at best, they simply won’t know what to do with you!

Perhaps worse, patriarchalists bypass or reject the truth that God can make know His will and His grace even if you become involved with someone and marriage does not work out.

Instead, “arranged-marriage-esque” courtship proponents claim or at least strongly hint at this: if you have strong feelings for someone you don’t eventually marry, especially before you’ve already committed to marry him/her, the consequences are bad. At best, you’ve given away part of yourself and shown inappropriate emotions. At worst, you’re outside of God’s will.

Such beliefs not only minimize Christians’ freedom in Christ and His grace, but His sovereignty to keep us naturally wanting to glorify Him, and our trust in His ability to preserve us that way.

Does this mean anything else goes?

The last time I discussed this topic, some people assumed that if I didn’t like patriarchalist arranged-marriage-esque courtship, then I must also be saying something like “lighten up, who really cares about Godly standards, have fun dating, or worse, we don’t want to be legalists.”

Unfortunately this is one of the strategies some patriarchy preachers use against their critics. Maybe it’s not that they are intentionally setting up a false dichotomy; maybe they sincerely have this if/then mindset, supported by selective anecdotes that only one kind of courtship is spiritually superior. Either way I would plead, in Christ, to read (really read) this explanation:

If your kind of Courtship is defined as:

• direction-focused, Christ-centered, Grace-minded interaction,
• when you are mature enough to provide for a husband or wife, spiritually, emotionally, and financially,
• with help from spiritually minded friends and family,
• with someone of the opposite sex to whom you’re attracted and can see yourself marrying sometime relatively soon …

… Then absolutely we favor that!

Nobody here is suggesting someone should be free to date/court with no parental input, no counsel from family members and friends (especially trusted church friends), no physical-affection boundaries, and not trust in God to bring you the best. So please, let’s not fall for the logical fallacy of false dichotomies.

With courtship “versus” dating, obedience to parents “versus” not agreeing with them, physical expression “versus” don’t-touch-ever, there is middle ground.

Many discerning Christians believe in marriage-minded Courtship! But they may also rightly believe in Dating as a subset of Courtship. Going out to dinner or a movie, or just walking, or just spending time together, is a great way to build a God-honoring friendship and a romance that just may last a lifetime.³

(Tomorrow: further reading from those who know about beliefs in not-so-Biblical “patriarchy.”)

(Continued from Sins of the ‘patriarchs,’ part 1.)

Are many common views of “Biblical patriarchy” actually not so Biblical?

This topic could take a while to discuss, so if you have a question, comment or rebuttal, please do engage in the comments below. And especially compare whatever you read here not just with any particular Christian teaching or Anecdote, but with rightly read Scripture.

Meet the patriarchalists

Have you ever seen them? They may be at your church or homeschool group, or passing in the store, or (very likely) loading up into a church-bus-sized van to go to the Creation Museum. They are often very well-behaved, with quiet children within a wide spread of ages and heights, often with denim skirts (the girls, that is) or jumpers or both, and they have a lot of children.

Inevitably they’re homeschoolers. Perhaps their most famous representatives are the Duggars, stars of a Learning Channel series who last month were on People magazine’s cover and everything. And as Tim Hawkins reminds us, homeschool families are meek. Unique. Geek.

I myself grew up the oldest of six homeschooled children. Like many I’m sure, I’m excited to see large Christian families able to get on TV and everything to (I hope) show God’s glory that way.

Yet the increased media attention on many homeschoolers could raise interest in a darker side of homeschooling. I do not say this to be dramatic, but merely out of concern that some homeschoolers could draw attention not to God’s glory and the Gospel, but to their own special lifestyles and extra-Biblical, or even anti-Biblical, beliefs. Many such families read articles about, receive catalogs from, and go to conferences featuring, organizations that teach what they call “Biblical patriarchy,” promoted as God’s best (or only) path for a family.

Some of it seems innocuous enough, such as encouraging boys to imitate American heroes or girls to dress like frontier women.¹ When Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach² began researching “Biblical patriarchy” ideas, he described his first impression of one homepage.

At first glance, Vision Forum’s web site looks more like a web site about American patriotism than anything about Christianity. As I read through the opening page, I came across this statement: “Vision Forum Calls for American Christians to Remember the Mighty Deeds of God at the Quadricentennial of Our Founding as Nation.” Well, I am an American patriot, and I do believe God has done some great works in this nation. However, is there a theme here? Is Christianity supposed to be evaluated mostly through the grid of patriotic Americanism? Certainly, this is not stated and may not be intended, but isn’t that how it comes across?

Overemphasizing “Americanized” Christianity can interfere with the Gospel, yet it’s not necessarily heresy. In my view it’s among the least of many problems with patriarchalist beliefs.

Questioning human authorities

For patriarchalists, God can far too easily become little more than one’s Authority, with intermediary human “authorities” in between Him and us.³ Thus, families behave the same ways, especially in relationships between husbands and wives, and fathers and daughters.

In too many patriarchy-based families and churches, fathers veritably own their daughters. This is not a reactionary exaggeration describing adherents to organizations like Vision Forum. One can read their websites and see young women’s cheerful proclamations about having her heart and life “belong” to her father until a potential husband arrives — that is, for a courtship arranged and supervised by the family patriarch.

Many such beliefs are based on a low view of God, an exalted view of man and man’s righteousness, and worse, unnatural reading and wrong eisegesis of Scripture. Patriarchalists often equate practices that are described in the Bible, such as arranged marriage, and act as though these are prescribed, having just as much effect as direct commandments from God.

It’s bad enough that children, especially daughters, and whole families are undergoing a loss of freedom in Christ because of this false teaching. Far worse is that this teaching takes glory from God Himself. And what about the Grace that Jesus suffered and died to give His people for His own glory and their eternal good? It is merely is thrown into the grinding machine of Moralism.

False ‘authority’ dichotomies

Though this perhaps sometimes happens by accident, such moralistic, if/then mindsets affect how one views everything in the family: from raising children to finding the best forms of church, to media discernment, discipline, dealing with teenage changes and emotions, education choices, careers and balancing job and family, and dating and courtship.

Again, patriarchalists do not present these teachings as optional. Patriarchy websites and resources in effect treat particular lifestyle choices as just as essential as the Gospel. If such writers do remind people that some Christians believe differently and we love them too, I haven’t seen it. Therefore my point is not simply that Vision Forum and other patriarchalists’ beliefs are without Biblical basis, but that they do not teach or act as if they know these are issues upon which sincere Christians can disagree and still be in the true and orthodox faith.

This mindset especially affects daughters in a family. Patriarchalists explain it this way: if you’re a daughter and you leave home, going outside of your human father’s authority to make a life of your own — at best this is not God’s will for you. And at worst, you are or will soon become a feminist-leaning rebel destined for a wrongly lived life, maybe with illicit sex and everything.

Such a view is popularized by the homeschooling duo known as “the Botkin sisters.” As teenagers they wrote a book in which they claimed that a Christian daughter must serve as her human father’s “helpmeet” until such time as she gets married.

Another patriarchy advocate writes:

I encourage you — give your heart fully to the Lord Jesus Christ and to your father (or if you are married, to your husband) and be under his authority. Find your mission in being his helpmeet. Your job is to honor and serve him as your leader, your protector, your head. The Word of God tells us as women to delight in being keepers at home and to love children. We are to make our father’s (or husband’s) home and work as productive as possible.⁴

How is this any different from Roman Catholics’ over-veneration of accepted saints? Protestant patriarchalists would be all over that, even while themselves elevating human fathers into roles of spiritual authority (and even mediators for their families) alongside Jesus Christ Himself!

Elsewhere I’ve provided specific examples of this. And in summary: to support this belief of fathers’ authority roles, patriarchy proponents often cite Old Testament narrative that describe this, not prescribe this. They then read such violations of sound hermeneutics into New-Testament passages, such as Ephesians 5, about true husband/wife roles and “children obey your parents,” as if all these ideas about fathers and daughters are simply the same.

In my view, this is already pretty bad. Perhaps I could stop the column here and simply note that the idea of giving this much glory to any human being is not only leaving a door open for abuse (a lesser charge), but worse, stealing glory and authority that belongs to the Lord alone.

However, instead of only lambasting how woeful it all is, as some websites do, or go into rants about personal woes with patriarchalists, I’d like to explore more about how this works out in practice, and compare patriarchy teachings with Scripture to see whether these ideas are found there. If not, let’s at least disregard these beliefs as only optional for Christians. And at most (I’m afraid it has gotten to this point), we must throw them out as perversions of Scripture.

(Tomorrow: to support particular “courtship” models, patriarchalists insist on false dichotomies and more unnatural readings of Scripture passages, turning descriptions into prescriptions.)

Patriarchy. To some readers this could sound, well, patriarchal — chauvinistic, anti-woman, rolling back the rights won by suffragists, resulting in manipulative behaviors, unloving lifestyles, and even domestic violence and abusive fathers.

But to others the term connotes a more-Biblical lifestyle; a rejection of feminism, anti-life attitudes and abortion; the natural conclusion of homeschooling, and/or a return to a safer and more secure mode of life that respects men, returns women to their place in the home and ensures sons and daughters won’t fall prey to worldly influences.

Until last week, YeHaveHeard only included one column touching on the topic, An open letter to newbie homeschoolers (Dec. 2, 2009). Before that, I’d written more about the subject on my old site, FaithFusion.¹ Yet throughout this week, patriarchy, families, fathers’ roles and children’s obedience will be in direct focus, starting with this, the first of a five-column series.

Last week’s open-letter-styled Sure you want to support Vision Forum? named one of patriarchy’s chief proponents, a homeschooling-oriented organization based in Texas.

But my intent isn’t to be just another “watchblog” and go after names and offices. Not that I’m disregarding those either, but I hope to focus not on personalities, but on vital doctrinal issues.

There is a risk to doing this: it’s not like all problems are solved by picking on patriarchalism. After all, they’re often the ones who teach as if all our problems will be solved simply by seeing the dangers of feminism — and that can too easily result in chauvinism. But it’s a start: seeing more clearly what the Bible doesn’t say.

That’s a lot of isms. Before proceeding into what patriarchy proponents believe, let’s lay out how this series will define the three “main” views of male/female roles.

I’m sure people hold to many overlapping subsets of these — for example, some who practice egalitarianism may not even know the term, or do not believe women should be pastors over congregations. But most Christians’ beliefs about men and women can be categorized like this:

1. Patriarchy or patriocentrism

In conscious opposition to feminism, egalitarianism, and the humanistic philosophies of the present time, the church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.²

This view, advocated by organizations such as Vision Forum or others who like the word “vision” (such as “Visionary Daughters”), emphasizes that a husband/father is the head of his household — patriarchy, similar to how families behaved in the Old Testament.

Some patriarchy preachers even teach about a father being equivalent to the “priest” of his family, representing his wife and children to God. And many other lifestyle choices are based in Old Testament descriptions of, say, King Saul giving his daughter in marriage to David.³

With a man as the head of his household, a wife submits to him, and she, along with their sons and daughters, join in to fulfill his vision for the family. Closely affiliated with these tenets is the belief that one should seek “a full quiver” (Psalm 127: 4-5) — i.e., have as many children as possible.⁴

Daughters, especially, must train as “helpmeets” for their own husbands, if they marry, by serving their father until such time as he finds them husbands.

Many of these beliefs are not inherently anti-Scripture: for example, though many Christians may argue against keeping daughters at home until marriage, or arranged marriage, nothing in the Bible expressly forbids these practices. However, they are also not commanded in Scripture. And to say these beliefs are as Biblical as Scripture’s most important messages, especially the Gospel, leads to problems. If nothing else, some “patriarchy” practitioners, or patriarchalists, teach and act as if their auxiliary beliefs are as vital as the Gospel — at best a risky message.

2. Egalitarianism or feminism

There may be other verses used to support the idea that in Christianity, men and women have not only equal value, but nearly equal roles. Yet Galatians 3:28 is the main one I’ve heard to support this belief in egalitarianism.

Many egalitarians use this is a “filter verse” to interpret many other sex-roles-related Scripture passages, such as Paul’s interesting instructions about head coverings.⁶ In this view, because we already know “there is no male or female … in Christ Jesus,” it makes sense to conclude men’s and women’s roles need not be diverse or unique.⁷

In effect egalitarians’ definition of equal means there is little or no difference how husbands’ and wives’ roles function at home. So while a husband may be his family’s main provider, it’s fine for a wife to work outside the home as well (perhaps with their children in public school).

From what I’ve seen, this leads to lessened emphasis of unique traits of men and women, or boys and girls. Some Christian egalitarians believe women may even serve as pastors in a church; after all, we are all one in Christ, and we don’t want to be chauvinistic.

As one woman once kindly argued to me, to say otherwise would be to limit God’s gifts to members (such as a woman with a teaching gift). That in effect would say to certain parts of the body, “I have no need of you,” she said, a violation of Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 12 that the body of Christ has members with diverse gifts.⁸

Most patriarchalists seem to base their views upon reactions against egalitarianism/feminism. From what I have read and seen, patriarchalists are either ignorant of the third belief, which I believe to be more Biblical — or else view it with suspicion as if it’s an un-Biblical compromise.

3. Complementarianism

Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles in life and in the church. It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture.⁹

This seems to be the most solid and Biblically based view — I will not hide my “bias”!

Complementarianism is (or should be) founded not just in a this-is-the-way-it-must-work basis, or a reaction against either feminism or patriarchy, but passages such as Genesis 2, Ephesians 5 and many other texts that echo this glorious truth: God has always planned to pattern human marriage, and husbands’ and wives’ roles, upon Christ’s love for His Church.

That love, grounded in the Gospel of the living Word Who is both grace and truth (John 1) is the basis of our roles. And how Christians teach and act those roles must come from the heart — not simply by following a particular education or courtship model.

This allows for some varying perspectives on many more-difficult Scripture passages about, say, women keeping silent in church.¹⁰ It also helps prevent legalistic attitudes about a wife working outside the home, or daughters going to college. This avoids practicing The Gospel Plus Patriarchy, but the Gospel alone — born out in these areas of life.

Regardless of how Christians apply those beliefs exactly, Christians should agree on this: no view claiming husbands and wives have different roles (i.e., servant-leader or servant-follower) means that anyone is inferior. Many theologians show from Scripture that this is reflected in the Trinity: God the Son, Jesus Christ, obeys God the Father and is even “subordinate.” This in no way means either “Person” of the Trinity is more important; in fact, they are all fully God.

Perhaps the best source for learning more about complementarianism is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and their main book, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (I still haven’t read it all; I tend to focus on the chapters relate most to what I need to learn. Perhaps that’s how it should be read.)

Conclusion

The rest of my series this week will focus more on what complementarianism is not.

While I don’t want to commit the same error of only reacting against the wrong idea, it can be helpful to learn by contrast. And too many patriarchalists teach and act in ways not only not commanded in Scripture, but often commanded against. At stake is not only families’ health, or whether parents encourage a son or daughter to use all of his or her gifts for God’s glory, but whether Christians are upholding the Gospel, and not The Gospel-And-My-Shiny-Family-Belief.

In which the Author, Being of Sound Mind and Body, shall Endeavor to execute Flawless Feats of Peril and Risk and moreover Defy Stereotypes

To all newbie homeschoolers,

Congratulations! You have made an excellent choice in choosing to homeschool your children. Whether that decision was recently, or five years and four children ago, I can say from experience: homeschooling is great. You have more time with your children. You don’t need to face as much atheism, pagan sex education, ungodly peer pressures and other garbage. Homeschooling seems to fit closely with the Bible’s ideal.

I’m a homeschooled graduate myself.

Where you are in the early Hundreds, newbies, my parents once were in the late Eighties, back during the homeschooling “pioneer” days. Ask them.

Been there, done that. Lifepac English, Saxon¹ math, Bob Jones history. Paperback books by Mary Pride, large family, public comments (some positive) or stares (most negative), and becoming an oldest brother all over again at age 17. Along with that, a snarky stage of aren’t-I-the-fine-decent-homeschooled-kid that I blame only myself for having, and which I hope I’m mostly through with today.

In 2001 I finished homeschool and started college. About ten years later, I have a print journalism degree, a job at a small-town community newspaper, a young wife, bills to pay, and everything.

So in 15 to 20 years, your young children may resemble me. By then they may have the same challenges, reactions, struggles and positive development as I can report now.

This brings me to the fact that I don’t find myself in the position of hating homeschooling or my Christian upbringing. In fact, my wife and I hope to homeschool our own children when we have them. Even when we began courting², I recall, one of our first discussions was what we liked and what we would do differently.

From your perspective, I suppose, all this brave new homeschooling world looks very new and shiny, revolutionary, exciting and more than a little scary. Especially if you were not homeschooled yourself, you are following in the footsteps of the original homeschooling pioneers.

Yet these same pioneers, looking back now, would surely do things differently, not just with teaching methods, but in many assumptions they had at the first.

My suggestion: learn from their mistakes and negative experiences, and carry forth the lessons into future generations. But were there negative experiences? Can you place yourselves in that frame of reference, and ask this question:

What are the unique pitfalls of homeschooling?

This has an inherent pre-question: Are there any pitfalls?

The reason I ask is because most newbie homeschoolers, in their it’s-all-so-shiny-and-amazing stage, may see only the good reasons, and fewer pitfalls.

That’s understandable! Compared with public schools, the pitfalls may seem shallow.

Of course, everything has pitfalls, but that’s not reason enough to avoid doing something. Christianity itself has pitfalls (such as losing your life for Christ’s sake to save it). Homeschooling has pitfalls, too — lots of them.

But before considering them, and especially the main one I’ll describe here, the above question and frame of reference is vital. Without recognizing these homeschooling pitfalls exist, you’ll have blind spots. You may repeat the errors of previous generations.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of that happening in the modern homeschooling movement.

So much could be said here. But if I tried to cover all the pitfalls, without balance on the other side, it would likely look like a long screed against homeschooling altogether. Instead I will focus on what I consider the number 1 pitfall in homeschooling today.

It’s an annoyance at least, and at the most, it’s hideously dangerous.

In the worst cases, it flatly contradicts the Gospel.

Pitfall no. 1: un-Biblical “patriarchalism”

This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles.

Without that insistence in mind, anything here will seem like it’s advocating feminism!

For years, organizations such as Vision Forum have been pushing “patriarchy” as the essential component of homeschooling family structure. Doug Phillips is one such leader; others, such as Douglas Wilson³, comprise a growing movement known as “federal vision.” Women such as the Botkins form the female side.

Again, by patriarchy I don’t mean merely husband-leadership, wife-submission, or children-obey-your-parents. All of those are Biblical concepts. Rather, the word denotes a father-ruled system, in which wife and children, especially daughters, are meant to submit to the father and support his vision for the family. This includes not just spiritual growth, but his career, likely a home-based business, and keeping the family stable.

Another term is patriocentric, or father-centered. For many, these are interchangeable.

And they are un-Biblical, for they equate all kinds of notions about what submission should and should not mean, with legitimate Biblically defined husband/wife roles.

Rather than upholding Biblical guidelines for a husband/father’s spiritual guidance, this view turns him into a default “high priest,” between God and his family. That includes his wife. That includes his children — no matter how old they are. It overextends the metaphor of Ephesians 5, and considers the father as in charge, not just a means of, his wife’s and children’s sanctification. And what his “vision” is, theirs should be too.

In these circles, a father is also said to have a special role in the lives of their daughters, being the main man in their lives until such time as he gives them to actual husbands of their own. Daughters in turn serve as their father’s “help-meets.” This includes a lifestyle beyond normal learning of home-making skills; daughters should supposedly serve their father in ways like their own mother. And the most vocal of patriarchalist leaders, male and female, insist that anything otherwise is rebellion.

A young woman once asked me how, if the daughters-as-helpmeets view is wrong, the Bible says daughters should be interacting with their fathers. The answer is that the Bible is completely silent about daughters specifically! “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1) and related verses about children, sons and daughters, are as close as you get. Daughters don’t get specific instructions about getting along with Dad, any more than sons get specific instructions about Mom.⁴

Clearly, fathers should serve as examples of Godly men to their daughters. But patriarchalist teachings, specifically those of Vision Forum and “Visionary Daughters,” go too far — beyond what is right, beyond grace-based living, beyond Biblical balance.

Encouragements for newbies

Again, this is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. Read John Piper’s and Wayne Grudem’s big book on the subject, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, with essays from many writers. Piper also has excellent sermons on roles, based in the Bible and on grace. Complementarianism is Biblical. Neither feminism nor patriocentrism are.

So what does all this have to do with brand-new homeschoolers?

Many of you grew up with wrong or un-Biblical assumptions going the other way. Maybe to you, hearing about a movement that puts men front and center is such a refreshing change. There’s much that’s good about that. But as described above, so much of it is not good. Rather than a return to Biblical balance, it’s an overcorrection.

A related question then becomes: can someone react from feminism too much?

In so many situations, I have seen the answer is yes.

My advice is then, as a homeschooled graduate who hopes to stay Scriptural in the way a home is run and children raised: test everything with the Word. Patriocentrism doesn’t pass the test. But so many newbie homeschoolers don’t know that, because it all looks so shiny — and better than feminism and secularism.

But both of those are un-Biblical. Don’t overcorrect for one and slide to the other extreme. Be vigilant! And maybe someday, you’ll have a family whom God has ultimately raised and guided, as their only Mediator, to thank Him for giving you.

More to come on homeschooling pitfalls, depending on reactions from readers.

Your thoughts?