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 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.)