Through Deep Waters: Trusting God Through the Seasons of Grief

Through Deep Waters - Trailer from Jonathan Einwechter on Vimeo.

Learn more about the DVD here

 

Supreme Court Marriage Attack: Daniel's Remedy (Joel Saint)

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin Fights for Ten Commandments Monument

State Senator Lee Bright: Time "to make our stand" against Same-Sex "Marriage"

South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright recently said this to his fellow SC senators:

Members of the Senate, I heard our President sign a religious hymn and then Friday night I watched the White House be lit up in the abomination colors. It’s time. We’ve got Amazing Grace, we’ve got people in the stands here of faith.  It’s time for the church to rise up. It’s time for the state of South Carolina to rise up. Romans chapter one is clear. The Bible is clear. This country was founded on Judeo Christian principles and they are under assault by the men in black robes who were not elected by you. We better make a stand. What I’d like to see is these folks that are working in the position of dealing with these marriage certificates not to have to betray their faith or have to compromise their faith in order to subject themselves to the tyranny of five judges. What we need to do is to debate this on the floor.

Our governor called us in to deal with the flag that sits out front. Let’s deal with the nation of sin that we face today. We talk about abortion but this gay marriage thing, I believe we will be one nation gone under. Like President Reagan said ‘If we’re not one nation under God, we will be one nation gone under.’ And to sanctify deviant behavior from five judges. It’s time for us to make our stand. It’s time to make our stand and we’re not doing it. We can rally together and talk about a flag all we want but the Devil is taking control of this land and we’re not stopping him. It’s time to make our stand. Let South Carolina discuss it. If the state’s got to get out of the business of marriage then let’s get out of the business of marriage because we cannot succumb to what’s to come of the future of this nation.

Now I believe that Christ teaches us to love the homosexual but He also teaches us to stand in the gap against sin and we need to make our stand. I know how people feel, of all colors, about this. I know that we need to respect our brother and love our brother but we cannot respect this sin in the state of South Carolina so I’m asking you to open up the signing dye and let’s deal with marriage. If we’re not going to find some way to push back against the Federal Government like our forefathers did or push back against a tyrannical government like the founders of this nation did, let’s at least not put these citizens of South Carolina in a position where they’ve got to choose between their faith and their jobs.

(citation from Fox Carolina; bolded emphasis ours)

Roy Moore's Lawyer on Public Officials as Ministers of God, and their Duty to Oppose Sodomy

The following is a letter addressed to public officials from Win Johnson, an attorney who works for Roy Moore and director of Alabama's legal staff of the Administrative Office of Courts. It is an excellent call for all civil rulers to acknowledge the crown rights of Jesus Christ over all institutions in society — and to oppose the wicked ruling by the Supreme Court on same-sex "marriage" in particular.

Note that this was not sent per Moore's request, but by Johnson's own initiative. More about the letter can be read at AL.com, although the article is obviously written by someone hostile to Johnson and biblical civil law. 

Johnson's letter, according to AL.com:

(bolded emphasis ours)

Time for Public Officials to take their stand one way or the other

Jesus Christ is Lord of all. He came to save the world by His death and resurrection. That world includes you, me, the family, the civil government, all the institutions of life. He came to advance His Father's kingdom, not watch man run rampant upon the earth as if Christ had never come. As if it were the days of Noah!

Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous. If the public officials decide to officially approve of the acts of the wicked, they must logically not protect the righteous from the wicked. In fact, they must become protectors of the wicked. You cannot serve two masters; you must pick – God or Satan.

The criminal laws against homosexual sodomy are for the protection of the righteous, particularly the young, the weak, the vulnerable, who need the law to teach them right from wrong when in a vulnerable state. The U.S. Supreme Court, although it claims to have done so in 2003, cannot take something that God calls a crime and declare it not a crime.  

We're facing something even worse now, the civil government taking a new step and actually requiring the approval and sanctifying by the state of an evil behavior. Five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have now opined that the States of this country and all of us must approve of so-called marriages of same sex couples.

Therefore, the civil government must now become a persecuting power; you cannot avoid it. The civil government must protect what it approves of. It must protect the advocates' employment, their business dealings, their lives in every way. Against whom? Against those who think their lifestyle is evil. That's you and me, bible-believing Christians, the Church, etc.

Public official, what will you do? Will you stand up for the law of Alabama, for the people, for the weak and vulnerable, for the law of God? Or will you capitulate? Will you become complicit in the takeover by the wicked?  

"I must follow the law," you say. Law? What law? There is no law anymore, there's just opinion. One day this, one day that. When the law becomes merely the opinion of a handful of people on the courts, there is no longer any law. There is tyranny. There is chaos. But there is no law.

The young and the weak, those that are caused to stumble by courts that approve of what is evil, are those whom Jesus referred to when he said, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2. You don't want to be complicit in allowing such stumbling blocks.

Don't use the Nazi war-crimes trial defense: "My superiors (or the courts) told me to do it." You're not standing for the rule of law when you capitulate to a law that defies God and exposes people to the wicked. You're just a coward making excuses!

Or will your conscience cause you to resign? Why would you leave the people of this State, their children, your children and grandchildren to the wolves, those who would rend the society apart with their denial of what's good and evil?

Your duty is to stand against the ravages of a superior authority that would go beyond its rightful power and force upon the people something evil. That's what the founders of our country did when Parliament exceeded its powers. That's what the Puritans in civil government in the 1600's did when the King exceeded his powers.

On Judgment Day, you won't stand in front of the media, the advocates of "Equality," or even the federal courts; you'll stand before the King of Kings, the Judge and Ruler over the Kings of the Earth, Jesus Christ. His law is not subject to the vote of man, and He, as the good and loving author of that law, does not exempt any nation from it. The law's author, speaking of Himself as "the stone which the builders rejected," said, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Luke 20:18.

What can you do? You have authority as an elected official. You also are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and Alabama Constitution. Find a way to do so. Don't acquiesce to the takeover (actually the takedown)!  Use your authority and every legal angle to oppose the tyrants!  If necessary, just say, "No." It is not rebellion for you to say, "Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, beyond your authority, and detrimental to this nation." In fact, it's your duty. You're not opposing the rule of law, you're upholding it by saying that.

  

America's Supreme Theophobia (and more thoughts on the Same-Sex "Marriage" Decision)

"Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who
frame injustice by statute?" (Psalm 94:20)

by Steve C. Halbrook

Some thoughts in light of the Supreme Court's wicked ruling in favor of same-sex "marriage":

• A theophobic decision
  
  
  Many hold that anti-sodomite laws, or laws that do not favor same-sex lifestyles, are bigoted — with their proponents being  "homophobes."  Of course, if one is a "phobe" for opposing something (in this case, same-sex behavior), then those who call others homophobes are actually by their own standards "homophobe-phobes."
  
  
  And actually, since God hates same-sex acts, then to support them is theophobia — hatred for God. This describes much of America. And the five Supreme Court justices reflected this hatred in their theophobic decision to support same-sex "marriage."
  
  

• The myth of toleration
  
  Intolerance is inescapable; the moment one thing is tolerated, that which opposes it is not. The very concept of equal toleration for all is self-defeating; it is intolerant towards the intolerant. The notion that "one cannot impose his views on others" is itself an imposition of a view; it imposes the view that says that we cannot impose. In an "inclusivistic" political system, inclusivists exclude exclusivists.
  
  Those, then, who promote same-sex "marriage" in the name of tolerance are fiercely intolerant of God and Christians. 

• Christians learning the hard way about the myth of neutrality
  
  
  Christians are learning the hard way that adhering to the concept of religious/ethical neutrality in civil matters does not lead to reciprocation on the part of non-Christians. We have already pointed out the fallacy of equal toleration, and it must also be noted that we are either with Christ or against Him; and thus our laws will either be with Him or against Him.
  
  Indeed, the concept of neutrality bends the laws of logic, violates the law of God, and simply leads to the oppression of the church by God's enemies. When Christianity is not assumed by the state as the only true religion and as having the only true source of law (Scripture), then anti-Christianity is assumed in its place. For more, see the next point.
  
  

• A symptom of a greater problem: religious pluralism
  
  Christians have helped to open the door to this madness by advocating the atheistic doctrine of religious toleration. By the nature of the case, a nation's source of law is that nation's god. When Scripture is not the basis for civil law, then another religion/ethical system is. Thus, with civil toleration of non-Christian religions, so too has come civil imposition of non-Christian law systems (premised on non-Christian ethical, and thereby religious, foundations).
  
  This logically leads to, and even endorses, the redefinition of marriage by those of false religions (and here we include every worldview, secularism included). 
  
  
  What made the godly kings of Judah such great rulers? By enforcing biblical civil law, including the suppression of false religions. This pretty much ensures that marriage will not be redefined.
  
  And no, we are not talking about forcing others to be Christians (like how the liberals would force everyone to be pro-sodomite) — we are talking about the suppression of the outward practice and promotion of false religions. Liberals, by contrast, are obviously working for the the opposite — the suppression of Christianity.
  
  Christians, then, cannot have it both ways. They cannot support toleration of non-Christian ethical systems on the one hand, and on the other oppose same-sex "marriage."
  
  

• God's wrath and the Supreme Court justices
  
  The 5 Supreme Court justices supporting same-sex "marriage" have been warned - I wouldn't want to be in their shoes:

  
  

  "Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear,and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him." (Psalm 2:10-12)
  
  

  "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)
  

  
  
  
• God's wrath for "private" acts
  
  
  The fact that God unleashes His wrath upon nations for their sins refutes the idea that one can privately engage in victimless acts.  A nation that condones private sins risks public execution — with God as the executioner.  This was the case with the Canaanites. God destroyed them for such "private acts" as incest, adultery, profaning God’s name, sodomy, bestiality, and child sacrifice (an equivalent to abortion) (Lev. 18:6-23). Civil libertarianism is a sure path to destruction; same-sex acts affect more than just those involved.
  
  

• Could the backlash work in the church's favor?
  
  Maybe this will mobilize Christians and godly rulers to take a stand. If there is no reversal to our current direction, then what comes next? Same-sex "marriage" is not just about marriage (as important as that is); it is also about persecuting Christians.
  
  
  
  
• The duty of rulers to resist
  
  All rulers who fear God more than man must interpose to stop this wickedness. They must obey God rather than man. As the King of kings with all authority in heaven and in earth, Jesus Christ must be given supreme allegiance.
  
  

• A critical component for preventing this nightmare
  
  Biblical civil law, which most Christians today reject, includes a very critical part of the solution that would not only ban same-sex "marriage," but drive same-sex practices underground: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).
  
  This punishment is not to be carried out by vigilantes, but by the state when such acts are proven in a court of law. (Note that the punishment is for an act, not for identifying oneself as "gay".) God's civil law is a terror to evildoers (Romans 13); it has a "hear and fear factor" (Deut. 13:6-11; 17:12, 13; 21:18-21). With the "hear and fear" factor now removed, the evil are emboldened, and ready to trample Christ's church underfoot. We are paying the price for rejecting biblical civil law. 
  
  

• Justice Kennedy's fallacy
  
  Justice Kennedy claims that “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry.”
  
  However, Kennedy overlooks a central premise that marriage, as irrevocably defined by God, is between one man and one woman. Thus, one could just as fallaciously say that "Excluding injustice from a judge's decision conflicts with a central premise of the mandate for judges to judge justly"— which apparently is assumed in this very ruling.
  

• "Gay": hateful by definition
  
  God requires us to love Him and our neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). What does it mean to love God and to love our neighbor? It surely is not by inventing what we think the word "love" means. Rather, it is keeping God's commandments in their details: "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (verse 40). 
  
  
  And so Jesus also states, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The book of James applies particular commandments to the requirement to love one's neighbor (James 2:8-12; see also Romans 13:8-10).
  
  
  Since love cannot be separated from God's law, and since God forbids same-sex acts, then committing same-sex acts with someone is to hate that person — and to promote such acts is to hate those whom it is promoted to. Most of all, same sex acts and their promotion is to hate God. 

• The Supreme Court decision reflects national apostasy
  
  Per Romans 1:21-32:

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

•  Gospel Reformation
  
  
  Our national apostasy reflects the need for national revival. If we want any lasting reformation, the Gospel must be proclaimed to all (but not just for political reformation, but for the salvation of souls). Perhaps God, by His sovereign grace, will cause many to believe the Gospel, resulting not only in transformed hearts, but in a transformed political system (since a good tree bears good fruit).
  
  Conversion is the surest preventative to homosexuality (and therefore the redefinition of marriage):
  
  "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

For a further critique of the cultural acceptance of same-sex acts, as well as a defense of Scripture's criminalization of such acts, see God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws: Biblical Theocracy, Justice, and Slavery versus Humanistic Theocracy, "Justice," and Slavery.

photo credit:

"Crime Scene, Do Not Cross" Tape At The United States Supreme Court During The January 27, 2007 March On Washington (Washington, DC)  

© Jim Kuhn / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0) (license). Retrieved June 26, 2015, from 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Crime_Scene,_Do_Not_Cross%22_Tape_At_The_United_States_Supreme_Court_During_The_January_27,_2007_March_On_Washington_(Washington,_DC).jpg

Roy Moore's Response to the Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex "Marriage"

See more of Roy Moore's response here


 

Supreme Court Approves 'Gay' Marriage - Biggest Decision Since Dred Scott (Generations Radio)

"The Supreme Court has kicked the door wide open for 'homosexual marriage' and persecution of Christians in this country. Justice John Roberts (on the minority side in the 5-4 decision) says this decision will be 'No Comfort' for Christians and those Christian institutions that might discriminate against homosexuals.

"This will be a huge step towards the Neronic agenda - homosexual marriage and persecution of Christians in this country. Kevin Swanson makes the point that the decision itself constitutes God's judgment on a nation. God gave them up. . . What will Christians do now? We recommend the National Religious Liberties Conferences on November 6th and 7th in Des Moines."

   

TODAY ONLY: Download $100 Worth of Free MP3s from Western Conservatory

Western Conservatory, which offers some of the best biblical material on the family, is offering for today only (January 1, 2015) $100 worth of free MP3s. 

Get MP3s here

Note: to download an MP3: 
1) click on the lecture that you want to download
2) click the "free MP3" button (a new window opens)
3) right click the pause button on the audio player
4) click "save video as," and save onto your computer
 

Does Scripture Teach 1) Consistent Male Headship, or 2) that Parents have Equal Authority in Raising Children?

by Steve C. Halbrook

Should male headship be consistent, or restricted? While one would think that those in conservative Christian circles would advocate the former, there are some who advocate the following: "While wives must submit to their husbands in some respects, husbands and wives have equal authority in teaching and raising children."

Such a view bases itself on texts that require children to submit to both parents, such as the following: 

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother " ... " (Ephesians 6:1-2a)

My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching. (Proverbs 6:20) (see also Colossians 3:20, Proverbs 6:20, 10:1, 19:26)

For those who advocate this position, patriachy, which consistently advocates male headship in all aspects of family life, is in error; and some may go so far as to say that it demeans women and is destructive to the family. Here we examine the validity of this position.

Commands to submit to more than one person do not necessarily imply equal authority

(Above: General Douglas MacArthur lands
at the Phillipines)
Hierarchical authority is exemplified in
the military, where all officers have
authority, but officers of higher rank
have more authority than
officers of lesser rank.

Proponents of this position, however, must do better than simply raise the aforementioned passages to prove that in parenting, both fathers and mothers have equal authority, and that fathers do not have more authority than mothers. 

Here's why: a command to submit to two parties does not tell us one way or another about whether those parties have equal authority—or whether one party has more authority than another. 

If this is all we have to go on, then we certainly can't rule out the possibility that one party has more authority than another. There is no law of logic that opposes the idea of hierarchical authority. When it comes to military matters, for example, we have no problem understanding the idea that a soldier is to submit to both a sergeant and a general, but that when their orders conflict, the general is to be obeyed over the sergeant.

Scripture assumes the concept of hierarchical authority in 1 Peter 2: 

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. (1 Peter 2:13, 14).

Here we see a chain of human authority: "the emperor as supreme"—then "governors as sent by him."

We further see the concept of hierarchical authority in God's requirements to submit to both Him and to our earthly superiors. Children are required to submit to parents; wives are required to submit to husbands; servants are required to submit to masters; subjects are required to submit to civil rulers; and church members are required to submit to church elders. However, all of this is only insofar that God is not disobeyed in the process. When faced with disobeying God and disobeying man, one's answer must be: “We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29b).

If one holds that fathers and mothers have equal parenting authority simply because Scripture stresses obedience to both, then, if consistent, one would also hold that fathers and mothers have equal authority to the great God Almighty. After all, Scripture requires children to obey God as well as fathers and mothers. But surely they would not advocate such a wicked position, but would instead assume hierarchical authority by holding that God has greater authority than parents.

The doctrine of male headship opposes equal parental authority

Now that it has been shown that commands to submit to both parents do not rule out the possibility that fathers have more authority than mothers, we will now rule out the possibility that such commands could mean that fathers and mothers have equal authority in parenting. In giving instructions to the church, the Apostle Paul writes:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Surely this passage has implications beyond the sphere of the church gathering; indeed, neither Adam's creation nor Eve's deception occurred during church services. 

In advocating man's authority over woman, Paul appeals to man's priority in creation ("Adam was formed first"). Now, creation has implications for all situations; for instance, man and woman are no less created beings when it comes to parenting than in other matters. Therefore, a husband's authority over his wife cannot be restricted to particular situations, but must apply to all lawful situations—including matters of parenting.

Likewise, in advocating man's authority over woman, Paul appeals to the woman's deception ("the woman was deceived"). And since deception can just as easily occur in one situation as in another, again, a husband's authority over his wife cannot be restricted to particular situations; it must apply to all situations—parenting included.

Now, how is it that one can say that women have equal authority in educating their children, if women are more prone to deception than men? If a woman's deception is a reason that men should be in charge of teaching at church, wouldn't it also be a reason that men should be in charge of teaching their children? 

Elsewhere in Scripture, Paul, writing instructions to the church, says:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35)

Here we see that at home, the husband is to be the teacher of his wife. With this being the case, how can husband and wife have equal authority in teaching their children? 

Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11 very explicitly outlines the chain of hierarchical authority that surely applies to all lawful situations between husband and wife:

the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3b)

Finally, consider the following:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Since wives must "submit in everything to their husbands," it seems hard to believe that a husband's authority over his wife is restricted to simply the husband-wife relationship, and does not touch matters of parenting. 

Restricted male headship as a formula for confusion

The teaching that fathers and mothers
have equal authority in raising children
breeds confusion in the home over
when a father's authority begins and
when it ends.

Imagine the confusion that could occur in a household that holds that husbands only have authority over their wives in matters that don't involve child-rearing. 

For instance, if husband and wife have equal authority in raising children, what happens when they disagree about a child rearing issue? They won't necessarily agree 100% of the time. If they can't come to an agreement, then the children are forced into a no-win situation of obeying one parent and disobeying the other, or disobeying both parents. 

But there's more. What should be done when the two areas of husband/wife relationship and child rearing conflict? If, say, a husband asks his wife to do something not directly related to educating children, but his wife is busy educating their children, what does she do? On the one hand, she must submit to her husband in matters outside of child-rearing; on the other hand, her husband has no authority over her in child-rearing. 

By obeying the husband in this regard, the wife is giving the husband authority over education, since she is being required to cease educating temporarily. On the other hand, by not obeying her husband, the wife disregards the husband's authority over her in matters that don't involve child-rearing.

Moreover, where does one draw the line between a husband's authority over a wife, and a husband's and wife's "equal" authority over children? When are a husband's actions not ultimately a matter of child rearing? He works to provide for his children. He instructs his wife in the word of God, which shows her how to be a better mother. All of his actions are (or should be) examples for his children to follow. And so on.

Dangers of ignoring consistent male headship

In all of this we see that consistent male headship (biblical patriarchy) is in line with Scripture, and that the teaching that parents have equal authority in raising children is false and breeds confusion. Here are some dangers in ignoring consistent male headship:

It opposes Christ's total headship over the church 

Scripture teaches the following:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

This text affirms that just as the church should submit to Christ in all things, so should wives submit to their husbands in all things; "the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church." 

Due to this analogy of authority, if one were to say that a husband's lawful authority is partial, then one opposes the force of this text about consistent male headship—and in the process, opposes the force of this text about Christ's authority over the church in all things. Even if he would not consciously oppose Christ's total authority over the church, his doctrine opens the door for others to do so.

It deprives wives of spiritual and physical protection

In leading their wives, Christian husbands must model Christ's self-sacrificing leadership:  "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... " (Ephesians 5:25). In short, male headship is intended to benefit and protect wives—even to the point of the husband dying for his wife. To the extent, then, that male headship is denied, wives are deprived of the protection that they need, and are vulnerable to spiritual and physical dangers. 

It damages the father's role as spiritual leader

The view that parents have equal authority in raising and teaching children opposes the teaching that family worship must be led by fathers (at least when fathers are present). In such a scenario, mothers can lead family worship and thereby teach their husbands. This destroys the father's role as spiritual leader. While not all proponents of this view would advocate this position, it seems their own teaching logically leads to it.

It opposes elder qualifications and endangers the church

In listing elder qualifications, Scripture says that an elder must be

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:4, 5)

One cannot rule his house well by relinquishing male headship in matters of parenting. Therefore the teaching that parents have equal authority in raising children can produce unqualified elders—to the detriment of the church. For, as the cited passage says, "if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

It devalues women

God designed woman as man's helper (Genesis 2:18)—not to be an equal in leadership, but to serve man in his godly dominion endeavors. Thus Paul, while referring to Adam's priority in the order of creation (1 Timothy 2:11-14), stresses a woman’s duty to submit.

When a woman therefore behaves contrary to the role that God intends, then she is devalued, since God is the source of dignity. Wives are considered beautiful for submitting to their husbands—not by refusing to submit in matters of parenting:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3:1-6)

Anarchy and tyranny are the logical outworkings of
gender confusion.

It is destructive to society

When husband and wife attempt to have equal roles in parenting, it is destructive to society (including family, church, and state). For, to function properly, all areas of life require proper gender roles, since all areas of life are subject to God's rules of creation. 

Once gender confusion occurs, then the door is wide open to everything from women in positions of leadership, to sodomite "marriage." Men exchange the strength and restraint of biblical manhood for anything from effeminate timidity to childlike aggression. Anarchy and tyranny are the result. This is certainly the case in our feministic age, where we have the curse referred to in Isaiah:

My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

And so, while some who say husband and wife have equal authority in parenting might maintain that consistent male headship (biblical patriarchy) is oppressive, it is actually the case that their view is oppressive. For it is God's law—not man's traditions—that defines liberty; indeed, it is "the law of liberty" (James 2:12). 

Therefore, it is not consistent male headship—which is mandated by God's law—that fosters tyranny (although sinful man may abuse his responsibility, but this is a different matter entirely); rather, tyranny is fostered by denying consistent male headship. According to Isaiah 3:12, the rule of women is not considered liberating. 

It can provoke God's wrath

Disobedience to God can lead to judgment. If fathers relinquish a degree of their authority in the home, then their home could be at risk. 

Demeaning of Women?

Anyone who takes the doctrine of consistent male headship to mean that the mother cannot have a say in child rearing must ask himself whether he has been more influenced by feminism than by Scripture in this matter. Being in a higher position of authority than another does not necessarily preclude considering the suggestions of the latter. God created woman to help man, and the help she provides can include the wisdom that she has to offer. No one, not even leaders in high positions of authority, should neglect seeking out sound advice ("in an abundance of counselors there is safety," Proverbs 11:14b)—and one's wife can be the best place to start. 

Moreover, fathers are not the ultimate authority in the home. Jesus Christ, the King of kings, is. We previously mentioned the chain of biblical authority—"the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3b). Thus if one complains that a father's higher authority in child rearing demeans the mother, then would he also complain that Christ's higher authority than the father demeans the father? (Christ is of course of an infinitely higher value than man, but that is besides the point.) We must rid ourselves of this egalitarian mindset that finds it intolerable to not have equal authority with another. 

We must also point out that there are some circumstances that are less than ideal for mothers raising children. Sometimes, the father disregards his headship duties, and the mother is by default left to make the child-rearing decisions. Or there may be no father around at all. 

Finally, since God's authority trumps the father's, if the father makes decisions that can endanger the children physically (e.g., letting them play on a busy road) or spiritually (teaching them soul-damning heresies), then the mother may need to interpose, just as lesser magistrates may need to interpose against the tyranny of higher magistrates. Thus we see more leeway that mothers have than fathers when it comes to obedience in the chain of authority: mothers, when necessary, may interpose against the father, while fathers may never interpose against God.

The wise husband considers the wisdom that his wife
has to offer.

Concluding Remarks

As has been shown, fathers and mothers do not have equal authority in parenting and teaching children. While they are both required to perform these tasks, their authority is hierarchical, with the father being of higher authority than the mother. 

Hatred for the notion of patriarchy is not an argument against this position. It is a red herring and a straw man to attack abuses (actual or perceived) done in the name of patriarchy to oppose hierarchical parenting authority. 

First, I am unaware of any popular proponent in the Reformed patriarchy movement that advocates demeaning and abusing wives. Second, and to the point, the issue is, "what does Scripture teach?" Since Scripture teaches consistent male headship (which entails hierarchical parenting), then Scripture teaches patriarchy (since patriarchy means "father rule"). Since Scripture teaches patriarchy, patriarchy cannot lead to abusive relationships.

However, to distinguish this kind of rule by fathers from any tyrannical and non-Christian versions of father rule, we use the term biblical patriarchy. Biblical patriarchy emphasizes leadership not to the detriment of wives, but a self-sacrificing leadership for their welfare: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... " (Ephesians 5:25). 

As for the position that says that fathers and mothers have equal parenting authority, I'm not sure how this differs from egalitarian feminism (at least in the sphere of parenting). At the very least, it reinforces the deadly influence that feminism already has in Christian circles.

When fathers relinquish their leadership duties and become passive husbands, the consequences could be disastrous. Remember Adam, who did not exercise his authority by protecting Eve from the temptations of the serpent. Instead, he went along with her as an equal, and plunged all of humanity into death. We should have learned from this mistake by now.

In our strong defense of our position, we do not mean to suggest that those who disagree are necessarily bad fathers and bad Christians. Here we are challenging their doctrine (and not everyone is consistent with the doctrine that he promotes); and we all need correction at some point. We do hope, however, that they consider the dangers of their position.

With that being said, we will say in closing that instead of being passive, let fathers embrace consistent headship—even if it goes against the cultural grain of the world and even within the church. When it comes to leading their families, let fathers have the attitude of Joshua:

And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15)

________________________________________________

Note: a good article that we found helpful in writing this is "The Patriarchy Paradigm" by William O. Einwechter, where Einwechter refutes an article by P. Andrew Sandlin arguing that parents have equal authority in raising children. Unfortunately, Einwechter's article no longer appears to be online. 

Pre-Order New Book: A Theology of the Family (Edited by Jeff Pollard and Scott Brown)

This book presents a perspective on the family largely forgotten by the modern church. There are fifty-six authors featured in this volume; authors such as: John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, John Gill, William Gouge, Matthew Henry, Martin Luther, A.W. Pink, J. C. Ryle, R. C. Sproul, Charles Spurgeon and Thomas Watson. Each of them give a powerful testimony that the twenty-first-century church needs to be reminded of what she used to believe about family life. These authors bring a measure of the correction and the balm necessary to heal our amnesia and return us to biblical order.

Continue reading

Is a Woman’s Place in the Home? - God’s Design for Man and Woman (Generations Radio)

"Do women belong in the home, or should our wives be working outside of the home? Aquila and Priscilla functioned as a team, but how does this differ from Mr. and Mrs. Pastor running around today? Andreas and Margaret Kostenberger have written a thoughtful, careful survey and analysis of an emotional topic, the biblical role of man and woman in family and church. Kevin Swanson tosses out the tough questions, and this interview demonstrates the right way to handle these potentially volatile issues."

The Family and Inheritance (Ken Gentry)

IndoctriNation Movie - Free Version

Husbands Love Your Wives - Session #1: Authority

Husbands Love Your Wives - Session #1 Authority from NCFIC on Vimeo.

Family Covenant Ministries 30th Annual Conference & Curriculum Fair May 5-7

On May 5-7 at the St. Charles Convention Center in St. Charles, Missouri, Family Covenant Ministries is hosting its 30th Annual family conference. Speakers include:

• Joe Morecraft
• William E. Potter
• Roy Moore
• Paul Jehle
• the Duggars
• and more

For more about the conference, click here.

Confusion About the Mission of the NCFIC

Confusion About the Mission of the NCFIC.mp4 from NCFIC on Vimeo.

Family's Home Raided in Texas, Children Confiscated - Germany Tyranny in Texas (Generations Radio)

"The entire Western world is absorbed in socialist tyrannies, especially when it comes to family freedoms. A family in Texas was subjected to the 'worst nightmare,' when the 'Child Protective Services' raided their home and confiscated the children. Kevin Swanson interviews Tim Lambert from Texas Homeschool Coalition on the latest developments in the case."

With Vision Forum Closing, where can I find Solid Biblical Family Material?

Vision Forum has closed—and with it, the best one stop shop for biblical family material. Perhaps many are now wondering where they can find quality biblical patriarchy resources. 

While we are unaware of any site that comes close to offering as many resources as Vision Forum, there are several sites with material that is, doctrinally speaking, just as good. Between the following four sites, one should be able to get some of the best biblical family material available (we do not necessarily endorse everything on these sites): 

1. Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences

Resources: articles and products

About: "We exist to help Christians learn to biblically analyze cultures, especially their own, and to help lead their respective cultures in the right direction. 

"Our mission is to provide the resources and tools to help families and individuals gain the skills they need to become the leaders they wished existed in the arts and the sciences, politics, law, economics, local and international missions, and most of all, their own families, communities and churches."

visit site

2. Generations with Vision

Resources: radio show, articles, events, and products

About: "Heard in all 50 states and over 60 countries around the world, Generations Radio brings a fast and fresh perspective to issues touching Christian families. From cultural commentary and movie reviews to education and homeschooling, Generations Radio has it every day - all from a distinctively biblical worldview."

visit site

3. The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches

Resources: audio, video, articles, events, and products 

About: "The Mission of the National Center for Family Integrated Churches

1. Proclaim the sufficiency of scripture for church and family life

2. Promote the centrality of the church in God’s plan for families

3. Recover the biblical doctrines of manhood and womanhood in church and family life

4. Explain the complementary roles of church and family

5. Facilitate church planting and relationship building

6. Communicate the biblical doctrines of the church and family

7. Restore the biblical pattern of age integrated worship, discipleship and evangelism"

visit site

4. Voddie Baucham Ministries 

Resources: articles, events, and products

About: "Voddie’s area of emphasis is Cultural Apologetics.  Whether teaching on classical apologetic issues like the validity and historicity of the Bible, or the resurrection of Christ; or teaching on biblical manhood/womanhood, marriage and family, he helps ordinary people understand the significance of thinking and living biblically in every area of life."

visit site

How to Lead Your Family in the New Year (Geoffrey Botkin)

Part 1: How fathers can provide a foundation for growth, maturity and victory in the coming year, starting with the blessing of God. 

Part 2: How fathers can be good providers of plans and leadership, systematically laying out a road map into the 21st century.