Archive for August 7th, 2008


Your father is your covenantal head. He is your covering.

Again, says who? She’s operating off the idea that husbands and fathers are federal representatives of their families in much the same way as Adam served as the federal representative of humanity. I haven’t seen a really good case made for this yet. Doug Wilson writes about it in Reforming Marriage… the concept that husbands are the ones who are responsible for their wives’ sin and all that.

Modern women chafe at the command that wives “obey their husbands,” because they want to maintain their own autonomy. This is incompatible with the Christian worldview… When we step out from under our coverings and try to do things “independently,” we deserve whatever happens to us (financial struggles, family arguments, failed marriages, disobedient children, etc.). But you will note that the responsibility still rests squarely upon the male head!

To a agree, I think what Mrs. Chancey says in the first sentence of this quote is true. I know that i have a difficult time with the command to “obey my husband” because I have a hard time accepting the idea that anyone else but Christ (or myself, if I’m being brutally honest) is “my boss.” But what exactly is incompatible with a Christian worldview? The idea that women can be autonomous? I can give plenty of examples from Scripture of “autonomous” believing women. But I guess I just need to remember that God can bless the right thing done the wrong way, or whatever the Botkins say.

I have yet to read a satisfactory answer as to why women need “coverings” or “authorities.” The best I’ve heard is “That’s just the way God designed it.” That’s not really a satisfying answer at all, unless you are male. Is there something inherently wrong with women that we need “protection?” I’m not sure they would ever admit that, but this kind of thinking certainly leads me to believe that they do… that they are taking the whole “women are the weaker vessel” thing a bit too far.

Again, I am looking for Scripture to support the idea of the man as the covenant head of the household and that the result of all this “sin” coming from working, independent women will fall on his head. Last I checked, I am responsible for my own sin.

We all died in Adam, you’ll remember. When Eve took the fruit and ate of it, it was Adam’s sin, because he failed to serve as Eve’s covering and head. It was Adam’s sin that killed the entire race.

Adam’s sin was not not NOT his failure to serve as Eve’s covenant head and protector when she ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam did not sin when Eve sinned. His sin was that He took of the tree and ate of it himself. Adam’s sin was that he disobeyed God and broke the covenant of works (The covenant of works was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who represented all mankind as a federal head. (Romans 5:12-21) It promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam, and all mankind in Adam, broke the covenant, thus standing condemned.) Adam was commanded not to eat of the tree. He disobeyed when he ate of it and was condemned. I see no command of God for Adam to serve as Eve’s covenant head.

So what does the single girl do? Scripture tells us that sons leave, but daughters are given. Daughters do not go out into the world to seek their place in it. They are to serve at home and sit in discipleship at the feet of older women and their own parents.

I’m wondering where God says that sons leave the home while they are single but that daughters do not. I see examples of that happening, but no command to that affect. I would attribute that more to the cultural condition of the time rather than due to an explicit command. There is no command in Scripture for daughters to stay home and serve until they are married. There is a command, however, for them to be about the Lord’s business: “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. (1 Corinthians 7:34b)”

She goes on:

Only older, “true” widows who have lived ogdly lives are given authority to maintain their own households, but younger widows are to return tot heir father’s house until they marry again (if over- see Leviticus 22:13)

Okay, let’s do look at Leviticus 22:13:

But if a priest’s daughter becomes a widow or is divorced, yet has no children, and she returns to live in her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s food. No unauthorized person, however, may eat any of it.

Never mind that the entire chapter of Leviticus 22 is talking about priests and how they are to conduct themselves. The command is not for young widows to return to their father’s homes. In fact, there is no command here! Moses is making a type of in-then statement. If the daughter of a priest is widowed or divorced and she returns to live in her father’s house like she did when she was young, she may eat his food. There is no command here, not even for the daughters of priests of whom Moses is speaking in the context of the passage.

She is to study to become Mrs. Right… A man needs a “helper suitable for him.” He needs someone who can share his concerns, talk about them intelligently and help him come up with solutions.

I agree. But I found that learning how to do those things came after I married my husband. His needs are so specific and can’t really be generalized. That’s what being a “helper suitable” is all about. As a wife, I am suitable for my husband and him alone. God has created me with specific traits and skills that are suitable to bring alongside my husband to help him support his family and grow in the faith. I’m not sure the “relational stuff” can really be learned before you are married.

Daughters need to be taught how to add to the riches of their father’s household as a preparation for enriching their own future homes. If a daughter is not called to marry (the Lord gives her no desire to do so), she should serve in her parents’ home or help other Christian families in theirs (like the servant girls in Proverbs 31 oe like Dorcas). She should never venture out from under her father’s authority and protection. This sounds so backwards and servile in today’s society, but we musn’t care what the world thinks. We must cling to God’s truth and rejoice in it! The gospel is beautiful. It is health and life to meditate upon it. It is death to reject it.

So, this (the above) is the gospel? My husband read this and finally started to get why all this stuff is so troubling to me. It is death to reject patriocentricity because THAT is the gospel. Wow.


Read Full Post »