Happy Fathers’ Day to you who are dads and granddads!
I want to begin with the familiar truth: Ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims. One of the bad ideas causing massive victimhood today is egalitarianism, the denial of creation role distinctions between moms and dads, and the heretical denial within the church that “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” The first egalitarian was Satan, who demanded the right to be equal with God. As the father of lies, who masquerades as an angel of light, his strategy is to label the biblical teaching about gender oppressive patriarchy and then support this accusation with dishonest reasoning that in every case, violates the laws of logic. This episode reviews those dishonest arguments, makes a fresh biblical case for fatherhood and reviews recent research that substantiates the significance of God’s fatherhood design.
The words, patriarch, patriarchal, and patriarchy seem confusing to all of us. Abraham is called a patriarch in church, which means that he lived to be the ultimate great-grandfather, a good thing. But increasingly in our culture, patriarchy refers to an abusive, unjust system of government in which men hold all the power, The rising generation is being taught that when the Bible makes distinctions between gender roles, it reflects the sinful patriarchy of an unenlightened, old-fashioned cultural system that abused women and children.
Unfortunately, since Satan is the author of these attacks and he masquerades as an angel of light, the accusations of biblical oppressive patriarchy can sound right on the surface. Satan is a subtle liar. We have to place the lens of “logical fallacies” over these arguments to see that they are lies. Here are five logical fallacies that make up the core of the argument that denies that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.
A. Straw man. This way of arguing misrepresents your opponent’s views. The biblical teaching of male leadership at home is falsely identified with an extremist point of view, like that of the Vision Forum movement that believes that women should not vote, that higher education is not important for women, and that unmarried adult women are subject to their fathers’ authority. In my denomination of 250,000 who believe in biblical role distinctions in marriage and the church, I don’t know a single person who holds such views. This dishonest approach is taken because egalitarians can’t defeat the biblical truth.
B. Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning assumes what you are trying to prove but doesn’t actually prove it. Here is an article entitled Is the Bible “Patriarchal” Yes and No--An Excerpt from Gender Roles and the People of God, by Jeremy Bouma. Bouma writes: “Proponents of gender-based hierarchy don’t believe ontological equality of men and women leads to functional equality; equality of being does not lead to an equality of roles.” Bouma assumes that “hierarchy,” i.e. an authority structure, proves inequality, but doesn’t give the logical support for that claim. And, in fact, that logical leap is false. Does a citizen submitting to a police officer mean that he believes he is inferior to the police officer? Does an athlete submitting to her coach mean she is an inferior human being to the coach? Does anyone actually believe that a child submitting to his parent implies that the child is a human being without as much intrinsic worth and dignity as the parent? God, the Son is fully equal to God the Father in every single way. But for the purpose of salvation, he submitted to the Father’s will. Submission does not mean inequality! But egalitarians still make this claim.
C. Implying causation when there is only correlation. A coach who always wins when he wears a certain pair of socks reflects this logical fallacy (if he actually believes it). This argument is: a) the Bible gives leadership power to men in the home, b) men in the home use that power to mistreat women, c) therefore the cause of the problem is God giving men the leadership position in the home. The truth is that it is not the structure that is the problem; it is human sinful nature. Furthermore, objective research cited by Nancy Pearcey in The Toxic War on Masculinity reveals research showing that it is those most committed to the Bible who are the best husbands. “Those who attend church at least three times a month are more loving to their wives and more emotionally engaged with their children than any other group in America. They are the least likely to divorce and they have the lowest levels of domestic abuse and violence”(p 36).
D. Misrepresenting the facts. The word, “patriarchy” comes from PATER “father” + ARCHE “rule.” Historians tell us that Roman households were patriarchal; the father had absolute power to rule. This practice was called “patria potestas.” If after his child was born, the Roman father gave a thumbs up, the child was kept. If he gave a thumbs down, the child was immediately drowned. The power of life and death over wives was practiced rarely but wives generally had no legal rights. However what was true of Roman fathers was never true of OT or NT ones. Neither Israel in the OT, nor the church in the NT were patriarchies, when it comes to absolute legal power. No Israelite or Christian wife or child was under the naked, individual, capricious rule of an all-powerful father. Both Israelite citizens and church members were under the Rule of Law. OT fathers were under the Mosaic Law and NT fathers were held accountable for their behavior by the church elders.
However, the term patriarchy is also used, generally speaking, for male leadership and specifically for societies in which the land was transferred through the male line, which was true of Israel. Egalitarians dishonestly confuse the definitions, attributing abuse to OT and NT fathers.
E. Ad populum argument. This argument ridicules the other side as being completely out of date with modern thinking. It says, in essence, “People who hold your view sound like the people who once thought the earth was flat.” Here is an example of this argument. It is from a Christianity Today article, entitled Leaving Patriarchy in the Past, which reviews John Stackhouse’s book, Partners in Christ: A Conservative Case for Egalitarianism.
“Stackhouse acknowledges that certain New Testament passages embrace a sweeping complementarian viewpoint. He maintains, however, that once a culture has left its patriarchal origins behind, these passages are no longer meant to be obeyed.”
This argument is based upon condescension towards anyone who holds the outdated idea that men should lead their homes. It reeks of arrogance, i.e. assuming that our current Western egalitarian culture, which calls viewing differences in male and female roles sexist, is enlightened more than every other culture that has not “left patriarchy behind.”
The egalitarian argument sounds good, but it is based upon deception. God warns us twice in Proverbs: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death (14:12. 16:25)
God has designed human beings to need a father. This truth is easily lost when loud voices in our culture proclaim that gender differences don’t matter. Let’s examine the case for the significance of fatherhood.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FATHERHOOD
A. God, himself is called, God The Father. Names matter in Scripture. God did not call himself God The Mother. Jesus, as the Second Person of the Trinity repeatedly referred to himself as the Son and in prayer called the first person of the Trinity, Father, teaching his disciples to do the same (Matt 6:9) When Jesus gave his marching orders to his church, he commanded, Go and make disciples, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of The Holy Spirit. There is something about the very nature of God that is described by the word, Father.
B. Adam and Eve were created as God’s image bearers for an intimate love relationship with him pictured by “walking (together) in the Garden in the cool of the day.” (Gen 3:8). This relationship was severed by sin. Jesus, the Second Adam comes to restore his people to the original relationship we were created to enjoy. Jesus is the picture of fully restored humanity and as a human, the Second Adam, he relates to God as his heavenly father. This paradigm for our restored personal relationship with God is picked up by Paul in Romans 8, For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” It is true that Paul uses sons here, instead of “children” probably because he has in mind our inheritance, which in Judaism came through the father. Nevertheless, all believers have the privilege of calling the God of the universe, Abba! Father! Abba, which could be translated, dad or daddy is a tender term that represents the intimacy, closeness, and dependence that a child feels towards his father. Paul does not say that we can now call God Mama.
C. The environment that God chose for growing a child to physical, emotional, and spiritual health is a family where the child is loved by both a father and a mother. Creation, itself, tells us that the nuclear family is not just a social construct. The biological fact that conception takes place in the context of husband and wife making love speaks volumes about the best environment for that child to be nurtured to healthy adulthood. I want to say that again. The very way a child is created speaks volumes about the environment God designed for them to flourish, namely a mom and dad who deeply love one another. In God’s obvious creation design, for a child to fully thrive, he needs a family with one mom and one dad who love each other. Denying God’s design of male and female to complete each other is not only a denial of God’s special revelation, his Word, but of general revelation, what we can observe in the natural order.
D. The family code sections of Ephesians and Colossians are significant. They, address wives, then husbands, then children—commanding them to obey their parents. So, we might expect the next group Paul addresses to be parents; but it is not. How about mothers? No. Elsewhere, Paul does command older women to train the younger women to love their children (Titus 2:4). But it is striking that when Paul addresses household responsibilities, especially the training of the children, God doesn’t mention mothers but gives commands to fathers. This pattern of responsibility began with Abraham, the Father of the Christian Faith. God said of Abraham, I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him (Gen 18:19). This responsibility was not given to Sarah.
When it comes to household management and training the children, Paul writes, Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. We are not told why mothers are not specifically addressed, even though children are commanded to obey both parents. But, may I suggest that fathers being given this specific command does make sense given that one of the primary results of the fall is that men inherit Adam’s passivity. Adam failed to step up, defend Eve against Satan’s temptation, and lead the way to flourishing, by being obedient to God’s command not to eat the fruit. He failed in his masculine calling to protect those in the garden and to cause them to flourish (Gen 2:25). Masculine passivity in training the children makes their discipline of the children haphazard, random, and inconsistent. Inconsistent discipline is one of the fastest ways to provoke anger in a child. One moment, he gets away with murder, the next time he barely steps across the line and is slammed with punishment. That will provoke hot anger. However, consistent discipline trains a child to know what the boundaries are. It is not a harsh, seat of the pants, reactive discipline that only provokes anger.
In contrast to provoking anger, says Paul to fathers, bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Three important words in this phrase describe the biblical approach to rearing children. First, dads are NOT to watch their children grow up but to bring them up. This Greek word means literally “out of nurture.” A father’s discipline begins with tender care, the way a nursery worker nurtures along a small, tender sapling. The second word (ESV discipline) is PAIDEA, from which we get pediatric. It means the training of children. A father’s authority is never to be used selfishly, or reflexively. Rather, it is to be part of a TRAINING plan. The third word, instruction, means literally “to put into the mind.” Deuteronomy 6 gives a picture of this process.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (vs 5-9).
Certainly, moms help teach and instruct the children. Eve is created to be a suitable ally and helper to Adam. But the responsibility for training the children rests on the shoulders of the father.
E. The significance of fatherhood is not only clear in Scripture (special revelation); it is also clear from observing the world around us (general revelation).
- Ernest Hemingway understood the significance of broken father/son relationships. He wrote a story about a father and his teenaged son. In the story, their relationship became strained and the son ran away from home. His father began a journey in search of his rebellious son. Finally, in Madrid, Spain, in a last desperate effort to find him, the father put an ad in the local newspaper. The ad read: “Dear Paco, Meet me in front of the newspaper office at noon…all is forgiven…I love you, Your Father. The next day at noon in front of the newspaper office, 800 “Pacos” showed up. They were all seeking forgiveness, love, and restoration from their fathers. (Ernest Hemingway short story, The Capital of the World.)
- Here are some facts about the effect of father absence on children in American society from the US Census Bureau data for 2019 the Percent of Children Who Live With Their Mother Only is about 45% for Black children, 24% for Hispanic children, and 18% for White Children.
- According to the US Dept of Justice report, "What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?" children from fatherless homes account for:
- Suicide: 63 percent of youth suicides
- Runaways: 90 percent of all homeless and runaway youths
- Behavioral Disorders: 85 percent of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders
- High School Dropouts: 71 percent of all high school dropouts
- Juvenile Detention Rates: 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions
- Substance Abuse: 75 percent of adolescent patients in substance abuse centers
- Aggression: 75 percent of rapists motivated by displaced anger
RECENT OBJECTIVE STUDIES
John Stonestreet of the Colson Center cites a one-year-old study from researchers at the University of Virginia and Hampton University. The study found,
“that disparities in academic performance between students of different races and ethnicities essentially disappeared when they had fathers in intact homes. The presence of dad also eliminated the racial gap in behavior issues in school, meaning father absence is almost certainly the main driver of such problems. Involved fathers made an especially big difference for girls’ mental health, with 10 times the number of female students being diagnosed with depression and risk of self-harm when they had disengaged or absent fathers. This aligns well with abundant prior research demonstrating that girls with uninvolved dads show far higher rates of promiscuity and risky sexual behavior, including teen pregnancy. In other words, if we want to address these problems, much like behavioral and academic issues among boys, there is no better investment than encouraging fathers to be involved.”
Jay Fagan and Glen Palm, at the Institute for Family Studies explored how fathers build attachment with their infants through different mechanisms than mothers, typically relying on “rough-and-tumble” play to establish emotional security and a foundation for future learning.
“The term “activation relationship” describes the emotional bond between fathers and children that enables the child to feel safe to take both physical and social risks and explore their environment . ... When fathers interact with sensitivity and warmth, they provide a secure base for exploration and encourage children to go out into the world and then come back to share with [their] fathers.”
SUMMARY OF WHAT A CHILD NEEDS FROM HIS FATHER OR FATHER FIGURE
Like Father Like Son
May this list provoke gratefulness for the earthly father we had, a challenge for the father we want to be, or thankfulness for the heavenly Father that God is:
1. A welcoming father: I always have time for you.
2. An approval-giving father: I’m proud of you. And what you did honors Christ.
3. An identity-building father: My daughter, I can’t believe how greatly God has gifted you for the work you are doing.
4. A freedom-giving father: What do you think you should do? I’m confident God will lead you.
5. An adventuring father: To follow Jesus is to enlist in the greatest cause in history the overthrow of Satan and sin to establish his kingdom of righteousness.
6. A wisdom-giving father: I saw something exciting I never saw in the Word before
7. A grace-giving father: Son, your failures can never diminish my love for you.
For Further Prayerful Thought:
1. Which of the dishonest, fallacious attempts to support egalitarianism most leaps out at you? Why?
2. How has your relationship with your father shaped your life? How does it shape your relationship with God, the Father?
3. How would you argue the biblical case that a child needs both a mother and a father?
.jpg)
