An excerpt from last year — read the complete column here.

Time for a seasonal issue. Ho, ho, ho! Does the Bible say it’s wrong to have Christmas trees?

Ye have heard that it was said …

It’s wrong to have and decorate a Christmas tree (Jeremiah 10: 1-5).

AKA: Having a Christmas tree could be like having an idol.

What’s the Word?

But who was Jeremiah’s audience? What was their situation and motivation? Are their trees-as-idols really the same as Christmas trees today, and are all Christians who enjoy Christmas trees thus automatically guilty of the same sin? Some solutions …

(Continued from yesterday’s excerpts from pastor/author Kevin DeYoung’s recent post …)

Earlier this year, DeYoung also went through seven common Scripture passages that are often used to support notions of “social justice” in secular society. He shows how such texts can’t be taken out of the context of God’s redemptive history and used for mere social improvement, and addresses many truths about what Scripture actually does say.

My contention is that these passages say more and less than we think, more about God’s heart for justice than some realize, and less about contemporary “social justice” than many imagine.

And my wish is that DeYoung will sometime adapt this series into a book.

Seven Passages on Social Justice (1)

Isaiah 1: Can we take God’s condemnation of Judah then and apply it to our society now?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (2)

Isaiah 58: Does Scripture support stopping perceive wealth inequities as “social justice”?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (3)

Jeremiah 22: Whom did God critique — Judah’s rulers, or all Judah’s people? If so, what for?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (4)

Matthew 25:31-46: When Jesus describes caring for “the least of these,” who does He mean?

(If you read any of these columns, read this one. It’s the first place I heard it clarified, with Biblical balance yet careful exegesis, that “the least of these” has a more-specific meaning.)

Seven Passages on Social Justice (5)

Amos 5: Back in the Old Testament — who defines real “justice,” God or modern-day activists?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (6)

Micah 6:8: Does Scripture here vaguely endorse improving society, or outline specific injustices?

Seven Passages on Social Justice (7)

Luke 4:16-21: Did Jesus claim He came to Earth to focus on “the materially destitute and the downtrodden […] to bring the year of jubilee to the oppressed […] to transform social structures and bring God’s creation back to shalom” (as opposed to that whole dying-on-the-Cross business)? Or did He mean something else here: not helping the downtrodden achieve justice in this world, but sinners to awake from their spiritual death and delight in Himself?

Some of these myths I’ve never heard about. Have you?

• Thinking that to this day, women have more ribs than men because God took a rib from Adam’s side to make Eve.
• Believing that archaeologists have found the bones of giants (a la Goliath’s race) in Saudi Arabia.

Regardless, Answers in Genesis is on the case, doing more iron-sharpening-iron and not just picking on the obvious Bad Guys (as some apologetics organizations are wont to do). As of this month, their new series Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use has included quick rebuttals of the men-have-more-ribs and giant-bones-in-desert notions.

Explains Dr. Tommy Mitchell in the series’ introduction:

Why would we advise against using some arguments that appear to support creation? Simply put, some arguments are wrong, even if what they are arguing for is ultimately right. We would do a disservice to our witness for Christ by knowingly using bad argumentation—effectively bearing false witness—even if those arguments are used to support the truth of the Bible.

I happen to know AiG takes some hits for writing columns like this. You’re taking away all our favorite arguments! some people say. Yet as Mitchell later admonishes, ignoring real refutations of a favorite “evidence” or rhetorical point doesn’t help Biblical faith. If an argument is wrong, we must throw it out, and use only Scripture — the foundation of all good reasoning — as our basis.

No matter how attractive a “favorite” argument is—no matter how “perfectly” it seems to explain something in the Bible—if it does not hold up to scrutiny, it should be avoided. Casting aside a flawed model is not the same as casting away Scripture.

Some frequently used arguments are based on inaccurate historical data. Some are based on scientific models that were attractive at one time, but have been found to be unsupportable after further analysis. Some arguments are no more than mere speculation from the outset and should be avoided.

Further reading: Searching for the ‘Magic Bullet’ by Ken Ham, and AiG’s more-detailed inventory of Arguments We Don’t Use. Perhaps this new series will further address two poor arguments:

1. Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)
2. Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)

The second one, especially, gets around a lot in Biblical-creation circles. But because of its vagueness, and implication that some kind of new-information-producing evolution does occur, Christian should retire it.

So what apologetics arguments would you retire, whether ones commonly used to advocate Biblical creation science or Christianity altogether?

“Thou shalt not kill.” Hmm, but doesn’t God kill people? He sounds very nasty to me.

(Cue references to Old-Testament wars, pagan kings getting heads chopped off, etc.)

It’s been a while since I’ve heard that. It’s sometimes spoken as a genuine question, but from what I’ve seen, much more often used as a cheap debate “point.”

One could certainly say much more about the difficult nature of hearing that God did command the Israelites to wage war against other peoples. But suffice it to say, the verse in newer, less-likely-to-be-misread translations actually reads:

… And the clear, main meaning is that of killing someone intentionally, of one’s own volition.¹

This does not apply to God, Who had His reasons for telling His people to kill others, to avoid the others’ sin and corruption.

Either way, a non-Christian would be stumped to explain how, exactly, it would be wrong for a stronger group to conquer a weaker group, even if they did falsely do so in the name of a mean nasty tribal “god.” After all, isn’t this simply species evolution in action?

Phil Johnson has just asked people not to debate the Age of the Earth on his Facebook page, after he Tweeted/posted this:

What to do with Dr. Mohler’s Ligonier message? Biologos is fumbling and scrambling: http://bit.ly/95ie0x

This gives me great relief, because I’m very busy today and had to fight the dreaded Debate Draw! But now I have better reasons to ignore and move on, not engaging some of the popular ideas that have recurred there.

That includes this one:

I’ve always held to an old earth idea…after all, Jesus did make aged wine at the wedding feast…so its not beyond God to make things that are aged already.

Yet if one assumes this is true, consider a few points and questions:

1. Why didn’t God reveal the Earth was far older than we’d thought?
If God did create Earth to “look old,” He also inspired His primary revelation in a written Word that gives us the “appearance” of a “younger” Earth. Why include lists of generations (likely without significant gaps¹) that when added together in ways the original authors would have meant, yield ages of thousands of years, not millions/billions?

2. How does “God made with appearance of age” help anyway?

John’s Gospel reveals the wine Jesus made was superior in quality, so we might guess it did seem to be old (John 2: 1-11). However, Jesus made this wine quickly — it was, in fact, young. If the “God made with appearance of age” idea has any merit, it would still prove the “young-earthers’ ” point: that despite whatever things appear to be, the world is not that old and was made in six short days.

3. So what does on “old earth” look like?

Do we have a version of Earth that we know for sure is old, so we can compare it with this Earth? Without historical witnesses, who decides the age? And why should we accept conclusions about history based on the words of scientists who

a) were not there to witness and record it?

b) decide a priori that evidence shall not be interpreted according to views that integrate God or Biblical truth, but instead with Only Naturalism Allowed presupposed rules?

c) make little distinction between present-day operational science and their own constructs of unobservable, nonrepeatable history?

4. What did the Flood do?

If God made the Earth with “appearance of age,” and that age included fossils, the global Flood would have destroyed them all anyway. Some try to get around this by positing a “tranquil flood,” or even less Biblical, a local flood. But again God is left surely guilty of deceiving His readers, for the constant repetition of the flood’s worldwide nature in Genesis 6-9.

5. Will we ever get past the same old “science vs. religion” myths and the even bigger myth of “neutral” scientists?

Some may never understand this, but the argument really isn’t over millions or thousands of years anyway. Rather, does the book of Genesis mean what it says, based on its genre and how its Author, and the human authors He inspired, intended it?

A Christian cannot add the secular-origins-science belief in millions of years into Genesis without also adding death, disease and suffering, for both animals and whatever human-like creatures preceded Adam and Eve. Such addition not only fails to respect Genesis, or actually reconcile the Biblical account and evolution-based origins science, but results in a greater difficulty for the Gospel: in such a view, a “loving” God approves of death, disease and suffering.

There’s less (or no) reason to oppose death, disease and suffering now.

By comparison with historical “fact” of particles-to-people evolution, the doctrines of God being love and creating His world with love sound senseless and pathetic.

The same God created using millions of years of death and suffering, then called it “good,” acted as though Adam’s and Eve’s sin was the problem, not Him, then inspired a book that misleads us.

Conclusion

I’ve written this quickly, and it could sound more callous than my usual style.

Christians can certainly believe in secular-science notions of history, and I know many good Christians who do. Maybe they haven’t thought about it, or maybe they have studied the issues and come away legitimately convinced in mixing evolution-based history constructs with Biblically based history constructs.

But taken to its logical conclusion, adding millions-of-years evolution to Scripture erodes the Gospel’s foundation and cheapens the very reason Jesus needed to die for His people.

Yet it’s a testament to God’s grace that He keeps such people in the faith, loving them and using them mightily for His Kingdom, regardless of such Gospel-eroding beliefs. I suppose either way, He gets the glory.

The BioLogos Forum. It has a very cool name, and I can just see its shiny Starfleet-style insignia on a letterhead or uniform. Its mission: to “promote and celebrate the integration of science and Christian faith.” But according to Phil Johnson yesterday, so far it’s pretty lame.

[A]bout two weeks ago, Darrel Falk (president of The BioLogos Foundation) Fedexed me a copy of a letter he wrote to John MacArthur. It seems the staff at BioLogos had been reading a series of posts about Genesis and the biblical account of creation on the Grace to You blog and they were convinced MacArthur’s critique of uniformitarianism missed the mark.

[…]

Mr. Falk’s letter to John MacArthur informed him that BioLogos was about to do a three-part response on the subject, defending uniformitarianism. So I figured I would wait and read what they have to say.

What a disappointment. It seems to me the whole BioLogos response is merely a drawn-out way of saying “Nuh-uh!” You can read their responses for yourself: here, here, and here.

In the first article, Stephen O. Moshier essentially argues that uniformitarianism itself has never really been uniform. He says the term “as it is used by geologists today [is different from] the 19th century definition.” Supposedly, Dr. MacArthur did his readers a disservice by not chronicling the evolution of uniformitarian definitions.

That’s fine, but utterly beside the point. Don’t the curse and the flood still refute the uniformitarian presupposition? Biblical arguments are missing from Moshier’s article (oddly titled “The Biblical Premise of Uniformitarianism”).

Well, OK, biblical references are not entirely missing. I should mention Moshier’s one lame appeal to the words of the sage in Ecclesiastes 1:9: “That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.”

As if that disproved the Genesis account and settled the dispute on the side of the skeptics in 2 Peter 3:4.

I’m still wondering: why are some Christians so determined to let evolutionary ideas, based upon only allowing non-God assumptions about history, dictate how we understand the Bible?

This isn’t the same as disagreements over end-times beliefs or baptism. Proponents of those views can find Biblical support for their side, and that is the basis of whatever arguments they use. But in this case, it’s Christians (some of whom just don’t know) accepting inherently anti-God biases and then trying to interpret them as if they were made by objective observers.

And by the way, few people claim a Christian who believes evolution is a heretic. But if you follow the logical conclusions of believing Genesis is only metaphor, you run into so many core-doctrine problems: death before sin, God saying disease was “good,” the flood account being twisted into a “local” flood instead of the clearly described global cataclysm that it was — and ultimately the very reason why Jesus needs to redeem this world.

As I recently wrote to a family member:

Why accept the secular scientists’ “rules of the game” anyway? They’ve already presupposed that God has little or nothing to do with origins worldviews and interpret evidence accordingly. Moreover, origins worldviews have nothing to do with finding or presenting different sets of evidence that speak one way or the other. For unobservable events in the past, such as creation or evolution, all we have are present-day evidence in the present. Which presuppositions best explain it? Let’s admit we have them. More here.

[In the God-used-evolution notions,] creatures on Earth would be living, dying, killing each other, getting bone disease and cancer (as fossils show). Was this before God created the first humans? If so, how could He pronounce this world “very good”? Yes, one can be saved without believing in a literal Genesis, but despite that disbelief, not because of it. We reading Scripture naturally everywhere else; why avoid that in Genesis? The creation account is irrevocably intertwined with all other Scriptural truths: Who owns us, His goodness, what caused sin, why we need to be saved, why marriage is what it is, why public nakedness isn’t cool, and many more.

BioLogos is apparently sticking true to the idea of uniformitarianism. Maybe after millions of years of changes, they will be using the actual Bible to defend evolution-based beliefs.

So far all they have is a nice series of hypotheses about how God somehow used evolution and worked His way up to the first humans. It’s a fun story, with intelligently designed ideas about another world, but it isn’t about the world God actually gave us, the world He created — after which He was kind enough to share with us in Genesis about the process He used.

Also I do wish Tim Keller, even if he isn’t sure how to understand or explain anti-God assumptions about man’s origins compared with the Bible, would get out of this shindig.

(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.”)

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.

To the [popular and solid Christian organization] ¹ staff,

It’s been a privilege to know [ministry contributor] for five years, since meeting him at the [university name]. In April 2005 he and I […] both attended an on-campus lecture by [atheist spokesperson, well-known as enemy of Christian organization]. We soon found each other to be Christian brothers and have stayed in touch ever since.

[…]

Recently […] we have been discussing the organization Vision Forum (VF) and its beliefs about “patriarchy.” My wife and I have been married for a year and we are strong and joyful “complementarians,” believing the Biblical truth (in Ephesians 5 and elsewhere) that God has patterned husband/wife roles and marriage after the loving union between Christ and His Church. However, we have concerns about VF, and [your organization’s] affiliation with this organization — which has included offering VF materials and columns on VF’s website.

[My friend] has asked my wife and I to relay to [your] staff some sourced quotes from VF’s online materials.

No doubt you have heard of some online sites whose writers — some of whom push un-Biblical feminism — play “watchdog” against Vision Forum and its affiliates. But because of the difficulty in sorting through these (and sorting truth from opposite error, including many true-life raving “Christian feminists,”) we have not included their critiques. Instead we ourselves have collected the following quotes, and I (Stephen) have written some thoughts on VF’s views, and especially its misuse of Scripture to support them.

Our concern is not based on any cultural “fundamentalist” belief in “strict separation” or “second-degree separation.” Nor do we claim to have all the “issues” against VF or its affiliates presented here. Rather, we ask: does [your ministry] know about VF’s beliefs in at least three areas? We also hope your staff will undertake their own careful research into VF’s teachings, found online and in their tapes, DVDs and books.

Here our emphasis will be VF’s “patriarchy” beliefs that they’ve publicly articulated, and not any “under the table” teachings. We also include quotes from Vision Forum-approved leaders (many of whom are women), such as Jennie Chancey of the Ladies Against Feminism website, and the Botkins.

1. Vision Forum insists a Christian woman must not obtain an education or hold a job outside the home; rather, if she is unmarried, she must stay under her human father’s authority.

Though many Christians (including me) would argue against this view, it is not itself anti-Biblical. However, VF does not seem to recognize this as an issue about which Christians can hold different views. VF’s leaders and resources encourage all Christian young women to remain under their human fathers’ spiritual authority and vision for his family, until the father releases his daughter to be married.

Thus, the Gospel and true Biblical authority on actual unquestionable matters are both sadly cheapened.

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection.

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, authors and date unlisted, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010)

Readers can decide whether Vision Forum’s cited verses for the specific beliefs about father/daughter relationships (Genesis 28:1-2; Numbers 30:3ff.; Deuteronomy 22:21; Galatians 4:1,2; Ephesians 6:2-3) are faithful and natural readings of Scripture, taking into account the differences between Old and New Covenants; and, for the epistle references, the simple contexts of the Apostle Paul’s arguments. Yet in my view, VF here has contradicted sound hermeneutical principles (which the organization says it endorses).

How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” . . . A woman cannot both “keep at home” (or “guard the house”) and “keep” in a separate workplace. She cannot both “obey her own husband” (emphasis mine) and obey another boss (even if it is one for whom her husband has asked her to work).

Jennie Chancey Responds to Titus 2 Cynics, Jennie Chaney, Dec. 10, 2003, Vision Forum website (accessed June 7, 2010).

By contrast, a recent post to the “Ladies Against Feminism” site, by Jasmine Baucham (daughter of Dr. Voddie Bauchum) offers a kinder and more grace-based approach that simply encourages women to rethink any wrong ideas they hold about Biblical roles and their education choices.

However, VF’s resources, articles and culture overwhelmingly see only secular feminism as Christian families’ main enemy. They do not talk about the risks of overcorrecting into chauvinism, much less the possibility of minimizing Christ’s role as believers’ only High Priest in their haste to uphold fathers’ roles as their families’ heads. Worse, statements about fathers’ “authority” over adult unmarried daughters are not accompanied by Gospel-centered context or support for this teaching from Scripture.

By serving her mother, creating a peaceful home atmosphere, and furthering her father’s goals, this young woman is a blessing to her family and to others. Her secret is placing herself under her father’s authority and at his disposal, content in her God-given role. This daily training has another reward—she will be well-fitted for marriage as a help-meet suitable for her husband. Fellow daughters, do you truly work at pleasing your father and helping him to accomplish his goals? Do you enjoy spending time with him?

Being Your Father’s Daughter, Elisha Ann Wahlquist, June 27, 2005, Ladies Against Feminism website (accessed June 7, 2010)

To raise a daughter without thought to marriage, to instill in them a spirit of independence from the family, or to focus their training on a career outside the home, is actually to disqualify them for graduation and the next step in life. In contrast, a woman who meets the biblical requirements for graduation is one who is comfortable being under the jurisdiction of her father and seeks to make him successful in every way.

Christian Graduations and Young Ladies, Doug Phillips, June 16, 2003, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010).

Let me tell you, there is liberty in submission. There is liberty in submitting to your father. Don’t let your heart be taken captive by the independent spirit of feminism. We as daughters are not sufficient to guard our hearts — God has placed us under the authority of our fathers to protect our hearts.

So 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.

The Feminism of the Mothers is the Destruction of the Daughters, Sarah Zes, Jan. 14, 2004, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010).

VF and affiliated advocates seems not to recognize the lack of any Biblical support for the false dichotomy that either a daughter is influenced by worldly feminism or she must serve as her father’s “help-meet,” being under his authority and serving his vision until such time as the father allows her to be married.

In this seemingly polarized view of either compromising feminist Christian or Biblical “patriarchy” believer, VF ignores Biblical balance and emphasis on Christ, His holiness and love (and sacrifice under God’s wrath for sin). And secondarily the Gospel brings Biblical complementarianism, which upholds husband and wife roles of loving leadership and submission, yet also recognizes cultural variables and Scripture’s silence about whether fathers ought to have authority over their daughters until giving daughters to husbands, etc.

2. Vision Forum promotes father-supervised “courtship,” not just as optional or beneficial for Christians, but required especially for a man’s daughter.

This concept recurs in many VF articles and resources, and is often promoted by VF-affiliated homeschool moms (such as Jennie Chancey) as part of the antidote to feminism. These principles are purported to be based on several Scripture verses — whose application upon closer inspection utterly falls apart.

23. Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse. While a father may find a wife for his son, sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.” A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process. Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers, an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although the final approval of a husband belongs to her. Upon a Marriage taking place, a new household with new jurisdiction is established, separate from that of the father. (Gen. 24:1ff.; 25:20; 28:2; Ex. 2:21; Josh. 15:17; Jdg. 12:9; 1 Sam. 18:27; Jer. 29:6; 1 Cor. 7:38; Gen. 24:58)

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, authors and date unlisted, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010)

The above-listed Scriptures do not at all support VF’s this-is-how-it-should-be assertions about courtship.

1 Corinthians 7:38 could be addressing a father and daughter, or a man and his betrothed, or other scenarios. According to my reading, Biblical scholars disagree on exactly what is happening here. But VF’s citation of this Scripture as only applying to fathers and daughters, not even allowing for differing views by orthodox and even Biblical-complementarian scholars and readers, is at best disingenuous.

Scripture also describes Old-Testament men (such as Abraham, Jethro and Saul) giving their daughters in marriage, but never endorses this as the Biblical method for a man to find his daughter’s spouse.

VF is guilty of eisegesis and bad hermeneutics, applying descriptive Scriptures as if they are prescriptive.

This text fails to provide context and read Scripture naturally, rather, forcing from narrative a lifestyle that Scripture does not promote. Such “literal” readings, in the wrong sense, disrespect God’s Word and give credence to atheists’ and skeptics’ false charges that too many Christians “read all of the Bible literally.”

3. Vision Forum has obscured many views of its leaders by removing videos, resources and articles due to their controversial statements — yet has not publicly amended its beliefs.

This is less substantive than other criticisms, but still worth mentioning. Perhaps the clearest example is this: without explanation or retraction, VF has removed articles that directly claim it is a sin, and a violation of the role of Christian husbands as heads of household, for a woman to go to college or vote in elections.

And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?

[. . .]

God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11 ff).

Originally seen in Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation as of Sept. 20, 2007, since removed. Cited in Answering Vision Forum, Don Veinot (a rebuttal to Vision Forum’s Aug. 29 letter), on Midwest Christian Outreach’s The Crux blog.²

Conclusion

In our view, [your organization’s] relationship with Vision Forum is a matter of concern for Christians who believe the authority of Scripture, yet believe differently about Biblical requirements of family relationships.

Wise Christians (we hope we are among them!) know that it is not technically heresy to claim that women must never attend college and must serve their fathers as “helpmeets” until marriage; or that the best method of “courtship” is for a father to choose his daughter’s husband and supervise their relationship; or even that women should not vote (though we are among those who would argue heartily that such ideas are wrong!).

However, it is at least approaching disregard of Biblical authority, and perhaps even heresy, to add any of these ideas to Scripture as if they are required or “normative” of Christians.

One reason we appreciate [your organization] is its emphasis only on matters upon which Scripture is so clear. [The ministry] has glorified God and earned Christians’ respect for avoiding secondary issues, or taking a stand on issues about which Christians can sincerely disagree and still be counted within the true Church (such as end-times beliefs, Calvinism and Arminianism, politics, the nature of baptism and so on).

We wonder if Biblical authority is as much undermined by adding to the Bible as by taking away from the Bible. Perhaps such error can be even more dangerous — it’s easier to discern something is not in the Bible Biblical as it is to discern that someone’s belief has been added to it, “proved” by twisting Scripture.

Thank you for your time, and even if we disagree on this, we wish God’s speed, blessing, growth and wisdom to the ministry, its leaders and employees, efforts and front-line work for Christ’s Kingdom.

Which is the most popular error today:

1. Saying the Song of Solomon¹ is only allegorical?

2. Going crazy with sermons about sex based on the book, and with really annoying and juvenile ads about the sermon series that tend to offend even non-Christians?²

I’m not sure which is more prevalent; however, I do know I hear more of the latter extreme.

But recently I heard another presentation of the former view: The Song of Solomon is clearly allegory.

And a related thing Christians often say is something like: I am the bride of Christ.
Continue reading …