Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Contrasting Views of Fatherhood

Joshua Lamb

Modern Church History

October 31, 2016

Introduction

There is no mistaking that gender role within marriage is undergoing a massive shift in our society. The “traditional” view of a male-led household has faced growing opposition, both in and out of the church. The advancement of feminism has caused our society to take a new look at the marriage relationship and how it should be structured. How did this shift come about? What are the dominant views competing for acceptance? What does it mean for the church today? These are the questions we seek to answer in comparing American conservative and liberal evangelical views of the role of men within marriage. We aim to study fatherhood as it has been viewed by these two groups in America from the 1960s until present day. We claim that the conservative viewpoint is the closest to Scripture and the most thorough in providing practical guidance for the operation of families.

Historical Sketch

Setting up our examination, we must first look at how the culture at large has developed its thinking of marriage. This sketch starts during the 1960s with the advent of second-wave feminism. One of the biggest changes to families occurred in the 1960s through the passing of no-fault divorce laws¹. This represented a major shift in the cultural view of marriage – from “until death do us part” to a commitment of a temporary nature. Pastor Al Mohler interprets this as the changing of marriage from covenant to contract². The idea of an underlying and abiding commitment between spouses began to erode in American culture. Along with this, there was a shift taking place in the workforce, with more women seeking entry into law, medicine, and other professional occupations³. This was in large part catalyzed by feminist works such as the infamous Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, which was published in 1963 and argued for women’s expanded involvement in the public sphere⁴. The enlightenment ideals of “freedom, equality, and privacy” began seeping their way into the marriage relationship⁵. Thus, there was a decreasing view of responsibility to fulfill a defined gender role, replaced by an increasing view that self-fulfillment is more important. Within Christian circles, Valerie Saiving challenged what she referred to as the “split view of Christian ethics”⁶. By this she meant that the traditional characterization of men in the marketplace and women at home should not be assumed.

The trends continued along the same lines in the 1970s, with the notable existence of two feminist camps: the humanists who emphasized similarities between genders, and the relationalists who emphasized the unique caring capacity of women⁷. There was a simple goal to reach a certain equality between the sexes. Social science research on fatherhood began at this time because of two reasons: a notable increase in the rate of divorce, and the uptick in children born out of wedlock⁸. 1973 saw the tragic establishment of Roe v Wade, which allowed even married women to choose to abort children without consent of the husband⁹. From a legal viewpoint, this effectively placed birth decisions in the hands of the mother alone. Even the present day continues to be affected by this legislation. Birth control also increased during this time with the use of the contraceptive pill. Mohler comments here as well, stating that the pill created a “contraceptive mentality”¹⁰. Women were now allowed to abort children that were unwanted as well as take steps to prevent conception. One can easily interpret these trends as causing a diminished view of the role and authority of fathers in the home. Women were making increasingly independent decisions, and were able to lean on national and state laws for support.

The 1980s saw a shift from the rhetoric of simple equality, to a confrontation with the institutions that were said to be devaluing women and their contribution to society¹¹. The question “which is our greatest enemy: men or capitalism?” began to split feminist groups along different lines of thinking¹². Wives during this period of American history wanted to have all of the doors of opportunity open to them. It was about the freedom to work full time, homemake fulltime, or any combination of options. The institution of marriage itself took a massive hit when the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act of 1987 defined marriage as a “personal relationship”¹³. Nietzsche’s prediction that the western family would be “slowly ground into a collection of individuals” rang true¹⁴. This was a death knell for the idea of covenant in American society. For all intents and purposes, marriage increasingly began to be viewed as utilitarian.

The 1990s represented another shift in feminist thinking as academic institutions began to tout the banner that morality was a social construct created by repressive authorities¹⁵. They claimed that women needed to fight for liberation from these institutions. No doubt the church was seen front and center as an institution of repression. Sociologist Susan Barash also notes that women during this period began delaying marriage, from the median of 20 years old in the 1950s to 24.5 years in the 1990s¹⁶. These trends have only continued into the 2000s, with many sociological factors including the rise of pornography – which have caused men to delay marriage as well.

In summary, there is an increasing trend from the 1960s to the present which views married women as increasingly autonomous in both home and the workplace. It is in this societal context that we study the conservative orthodox and liberal views of fatherhood.

Orthodox Viewpoint

We now turn to examine the views that have held sway in the church during the period of our study. The orthodox view (also called “complementarian”) contends that the original Scriptural pattern for husbands and wives has not changed since God’s revelation, and indeed will continue to remain the same. In Mohler’s interpretation, Scripture defines marriage as a covenant that reflects God’s covenant love in Jesus Christ to the church¹⁷. As such it is a permanent and binding relationship in which the individuals are not considered autonomous, but rather as one flesh. The physiological, biological, mental, and temperamental changes between the genders are considered to be God’s design that they would function differently, especially in family life. Thus, fathers are viewed as having the status “head of household”. Orthodox believers claim that this view is the one shared by Christ, the Apostle Paul, and ultimately is God’s design for humanity.

Father’s Position

The father is placed in the role of leadership over the family. This is especially true in regards to spiritual leadership (1 Cor 11:3)¹⁸. The father is given the ultimate responsibility for the welfare and provision of his family in every regard, not only over children, but also for his wife (Eph 5:23)¹⁹. This is not to give men free reign to domineer his family, but rather has the spiritual goal of showing forth the Trinitarian nature of God²⁰. Orthodox believers also do not believe that the father is the highest authority, but the he himself is subjected to God and also to the oversight of the church. Thus, there is a Scriptural connection between headship at home and in the church²¹. Finally, the orthodox hold that the headship of a man is not something that is contested in the sphere of religion because it is recorded in the Bible as a fact – that is, men are not supposed to be the head of a household but are the head of a household²².

Father’s Responsibilities

It is out of this position as head that the father has certain tasks that he is responsible for. The orthodox view has never held that men are the unrivaled kings of their home, with no accountability or weight of responsibility, but rather that they hold a serious and sober role in reflecting Christ’s relationship to His church. Thus, fathers most of all are to love their wives and children sacrificially²³. Fathers are to exhort, comfort, and lead their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord²⁴. Fathers must initiate both spiritually and physically to guide their family as a shepherd, a CEO, a ship captain etc. They are to take ultimate responsibility for the smooth ordering of their home. This doesn’t mean that a father does everything in the family, neither does it mean he delegates everything. It means that he is ultimately responsible and accountable for the life of his family.

Orthodox View of Historical Changes

The orthodox view of fatherhood has not seen much historical development (and they regard this as a good thing). This duration is acknowledged freely by liberal Christians as well because it is used in rhetoric which condemns the “longstanding patriarchal establishment”. John Witte argues that from infancy the western tradition has viewed marriage in four perpectives: mutual contract, spiritual association, social estate, and natural institution²⁵. Wayne Grudem notes that it wasn’t until the last half of the 20^th^ century that women’s roles in the church shifted²⁶. Taken in the scope of church history this is really a staggering development. For thousands of years, the role of men and women in the church was largely traditional. Only in the last 60+ years has this taken a drastic turn. Historically, one of the most significant responses to feminism was the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womenhood which was published in 1987 as a response to evangelical feminism²⁷. Complementarian groups typically split into 1 point or 2 point complementarians – the difference being whether they support male headship in the home and church, or simply the church²⁸. A complaint from orthodox leaders has been the lack of teaching in the church regarding the traditional understanding of male headship²⁹.

Liberal Viewpoint

The liberal viewpoint (also called egalitarianism) has in many ways followed the cultural advent of feminism. This view espouses many of the same principles as the broader culture in pushing for “women’s liberation” from cultural institutions. They argue that male patriarchy has dominated Christianity and that it need not continue to be so. According to this view, both fathers and mothers are to be the same in authority. Much of this view can be summarized in the term equal-regard originating from Don S. Browning, who was the head of the Marriage, Culture, and Family Project. Liberals believe that male patriarchy is a relic of the past, that was treated in Scripture the same way slavery was – as a necessary part of that society which could be thrown off when culture was ready to walk forward³⁰.

Father’s Position

The fathers position is one similar to the mother, in that both are equal partakers of the divine mandate to “be fruitful and multiply” from Genesis 1:28. This “ontology of equality” is said to be in existence from the days of Adam and Eve until now. Some take it further to mean that this equal-regard principle is linked to the commandment to love neighbor as oneself³¹. The position of the father is still recognized as vital, but it is to serve the sociological assertion that children need the influences of both the father and the mother³². The importance of the father seems to be acknowledged, but then marginalized due to the view that the mother feels the imperative to care for the family more than the father³³.

Father’s Responsibilities

The responsibilities of a father are not as clearly defined in liberal Christianity, due to the principle of equal regard. Some put forth the idea that the division of labor along gender lines should revolve around altruism³⁴. Practically that means that whoever is best suited to do a particular task for the sake of the family should be the one responsible for it. If men are better at the budget or at changing diapers, then they should be responsible for those areas. Liberal Christians argue that household responsibilities should not be thought of in terms of gender distinction, but in terms of the household as a whole, which allows for different ways that responsibilities can be divided up³⁵. In feminist language, the family should operate on a “mutual covenant for interdependence and individuation of both partners”³⁶. This often means that both father and mother participate in the public and private spheres of life – both working outside the home and participating in child-rearing. Both the father and mother are responsible for an agape love which is “mutual, passionate, deeply interested, and unconditional”³⁷. Lastly, the liberal Christian ideal is to move beyond family as a social structure into the conception of the family of God. We must not operate in the realm of family responsibilities in the end, but rather on the broader spiritual family that we have as Christians³⁸.

Liberal View of Historical Changes

The historical changes in the liberal view are closely tied to the development of feminism in the broader society. Liberal Christians strongly identify feminist theology as arising from “experiences of oppression”³⁹. Thus, Christian feminists view married women as a long-oppressed group that was held in the bonds of male patriarchy. They believe that the conception of self-sacrifice was a tool used to subjugate women into a certain societal role⁴⁰. This was defined sharply by Barbara Kilkert Andolsen in 1980 when she stated that Christian self-sacrifice really turns into women serving for men⁴¹. As feminism continued to advance in society, the role of women in the church began to be questioned. In 1987 a group assembled out of the frustration that women were not allowed in ministry and began publishing the Priscilla Papers. These articles led to the establishment of “Christians for Biblical Equality” which was created in January of 1988 and espouses egalitarian principles.

Many changes took place in the later half of the twentieth century, including: the increase in female seminary professors, gender-neutral language in liturgy and Bible translations, increased publication in support of feminist Christianity, women’s gender studies in schools, and greater awareness of sexual and domestic violence⁴².

Christian feminism today is divided between two groups of thought: liberal monism which focuses on our generic humanness, and romantic dualism which focuses on the yin and yang of masculinity and femininity. However, the current trend is to leave these conceptions behind and simply think of our “relatedness” as human beings. Rather than gender definition, we are to define ourselves by the love we must give to the people around us⁴³.

Orthodox Critique of Liberalism

Having seen the two viewpoints and their development, we now turn to the criticism of each viewpoint. The Orthodox view does not regard itself to be oppressive and patriarchal, but rather points to Scripture as establishing a set pattern for how the home should operate. The liberal view caves to cultural pressure when it asserts that women in marriage should be equated with the slavery and subjugation of peoples in western history. Male headship is not designed to be ominous and oppressive, but rather to be a life-giving and wonderful picture of Christ and the church.

The orthodox also views the lack of headship in the liberal view as being unrealistic and impractical. All of society has clearly defined roles. There is always a principle of headship operating in business, politics etc. and to assume that the family operates differently is ignorant. Structure is necessary for the governing of affairs in every society and institution. Without it, there is an increase in conflict and miscommunication. Marriage is hard enough as it is without having to resort to a “choose your own adventure” model of family life – where all the roles and responsibilities are interchangeable.

Finally, the Scriptures set forth the principle that fathers are given the ultimate responsibility for their household. To work against this (as liberalism does) is to create a scenario where men are in sin because they are abdicating a clearly defined ordinance of God. We cannot take away the responsibility that God places in the hand of people and replace it with something of our own conception. If the liberal view espouses “love of neighbor” then it should take seriously the fact that minimizing fatherhood results in men being led into sinful error to give to others what they alone are tasked with.

Liberal Critique of Orthodoxy

The liberal criticism of orthodoxy centers around the view that male headship invariably leads to oppression and abuse. If the load of leadership is shared among the husband and a wife, then their position is equal and he therefore views her as a partner, rather than a servant under him. Some also claim that the concept of the “breadwinner husband” stems from the necessities of the industrial revolution, not from the New Testament⁴⁴.

Liberals also believe that orthodox Christians do not share their vision of Adam and Eve being given joint and equal dominion over creation in Genesis⁴⁵. They argue that the female responsibility in this has been minimized in society but that it is given an equal footing to men in the Bible.

Lastly, they believe that the Orthodox group is missing the reality of the priesthood of all believers when prioritizing the earthly family⁴⁶.

Practical Guidance

The church needs to take seriously the debate that takes place among the pews. These competing viewpoints are fighting for prominence. Can male headship be recognized as fundamental in family and church life? There are five takeaways from this historical issue:

Firstly, we must return to a Scriptural understanding of male-female relationships in marriage. Both the Orthodox and Liberal camps claim the name of Christ. If that is true, we must look to Christ’s Word to guide us, recognizing and putting aside the cultural bias that we bring to the Bible when we read it. We must be brave enough to look into the Word and obey the principles that it gives us, even if they sound out of place in a modern context. We are pilgrims here and citizens of heaven, and must obey heaven’s laws first and foremost.

Secondly, our view of relationships must be eschatological. The liberal view falls far short in recognizing the Christ-church principle of headship. That is, male headship is given above all else to display Christ’s love for the church. This must inform our understanding of headship and submission as being foundational to displaying the activity and intent of God on the earth. Fathers should be convicted by this benchmark, and wives should view it as a wonderful encouragement.

Thirdly, there are a select few principles espoused by liberal Christians which should be thoughtfully heard and perhaps implemented. One example is Don Browning’s 60-hour workweek. The goal of this proposal is that husbands and wives do not exceed a combined total of 60 hours per week in public endeavors, so that they can spend the rest of the time at home⁴⁷. This does much to curb workaholism and encourage involvement from fathers in the household.

Fourthly, men are to view their wives in as near a kinship as possible. The liberal complaint that wives are subjugated or treated as servants must be acknowledged. While it is not a reason to throw out the biblical notion of male headship, it is enough to warn us to be wary of abuses within the church. A holistic view of the marriage relationship needs to be frequently taught in churches, to prevent men from abdicating on the one hand and being domineering on the other hand.

Fifthly, we must view the family as being a “little church”. Liberal Christians seek to remove God-ordained distinctions when they press the priesthood of all believers to mean that we lightly regard our physical families. We are not lightly to regard our families, but rather we are to use them in such a way as to bless the church and the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, Trevor. Men of God. The Good Book Company, 2011.

Barash, Susan Shapiro. The New Wife: The Evolving Role of the American Wife. Lenexa, Kan.: Nonetheless Press, 2004.

Browning, Don S. Equality and the Family: A Fundamental, Practical Theology of Children, Mothers, and Fathers, in Modern Societies. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2006.

Carr, Anne, and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. Religion, Feminism, and the Family. 1st edition. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Crotts, John H. Mighty Men: The Starter’s Guide to Leading Your Family. Sand Springs, Okla.: Grace & Truth Books, 2000.

Fisher, G. W., and Charles Wesley. A father’s threefold ministry. Charlotte, NC: Fundamental Presbyterian Publications, 19.

Grudem, Wayne A. Evangelical feminism & biblical truth: an analysis of more than one hundred disputed questions. Sisters, Or: Multnomah Publishers, 2004.

Jr, John G. Stackhouse. Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2005.

Jr, R. Albert Mohler. We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2015.

Piper, John. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Publisher: Crossway Books, n.d.

Rigney, Joe. The Things of Earth: Treasuring God by Enjoying His Gifts. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2014.

Strauch, Alexander. Men and Women, Equal Yet Different: A Brief Study of the Biblical Passages on Gender. 36332nd edition. Littleton, Colo.: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1999.

Terrell, JoAnne Marie. Power in the Blood? The Cross in the African American Experience. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2005.

Tipton, Steven M. Family Transformed: Religion, Values, and Society in American Life. Edited by Steven M. Tipton and John Witte Jr. Georgetown University Press, 2005.

West, Robin. Caring for Justice. New York: NYU Press, 1999.

¹. Steven M. Tipton, *Family Transformed: Religion, Values, and ↩

Society in American Life*, ed by. Steven M. Tipton and John Witte Jr
(Georgetown University Press, 2005), 144.

². R. Albert Mohler Jr, *We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a ↩

Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and
Wrong* (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2015), 23.

³. Susan Shapiro Barash, *The New Wife: The Evolving Role of the ↩

American Wife* (Lenexa, Kan.: Nonetheless Press, 2004), 122–123.

⁴. Anne Carr and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, *Religion, Feminism, and ↩

the Family*, 1st edition. (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1996), 34.

⁵. Tipton, Family Transformed, 257. ↩

⁶. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 27. ↩

⁷. Tipton, Family Transformed, 75. ↩

⁸. Tipton, Family Transformed, 157. ↩

⁹. Tipton, Family Transformed, 259. ↩

¹⁰. Jr, We Cannot Be Silent, 89. ↩

¹¹. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 15. ↩

¹². Barash, The New Wife, 150. ↩

¹³. Tipton, Family Transformed, 257. ↩

¹⁴. Tipton, Family Transformed, 244. ↩

¹⁵. Jr, We Cannot Be Silent, 13. ↩

¹⁶. Barash, The New Wife, 183. ↩

¹⁷. Jr, We Cannot Be Silent, 103. ↩

¹⁸. John H. Crotts, *Mighty Men: The Starter’s Guide to Leading Your ↩

Family* (Sand Springs, Okla.: Grace & Truth Books, 2000), 1–2.

¹⁹. Trevor Archer, Men of God (The Good Book Company, 2011), 52. ↩

²⁰. Joe Rigney, *The Things of Earth: Treasuring God by Enjoying His ↩

Gifts* (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2014), 172.

²¹. Wayne A. Grudem, *Evangelical feminism & biblical truth: an ↩

analysis of more than one hundred disputed questions* (Sisters, Or:
Multnomah Publishers, 2004), 80.

²². Alexander Strauch, *Men and Women, Equal Yet Different: A Brief ↩

Study of the Biblical Passages on Gender*, 36332nd edition.
(Littleton, Colo.: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1999), 56–57.

²³. Archer, Men of God, 70. ↩

²⁴. G. W. Fisher and Charles Wesley, A father’s threefold ministry ↩

(Charlotte, NC: Fundamental Presbyterian Publications, 19), 4,5,8.

²⁵. Tipton, Family Transformed, 245. ↩

²⁶. Grudem, Evangelical feminism & biblical truth, 82. ↩

²⁷. Grudem, Evangelical feminism & biblical truth, 537. ↩

²⁸. Grudem, Evangelical feminism & biblical truth, 518–19. ↩

²⁹. John Piper, *Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Publisher: ↩

Crossway Books*, n.d., x.

³⁰. John G. Stackhouse Jr, *Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian ↩

Understanding of Gender* (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2005),
42.

³¹. Tipton, Family Transformed, 155,174. ↩

³². Tipton, Family Transformed, 190. ↩

³³. Robin West, Caring for Justice (New York: NYU Press, 1999), ↩

117–18.

³⁴. Tipton, Family Transformed, 74. ↩

³⁵. Jr, Finally Feminist, 91. ↩

³⁶. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 108. ↩

³⁷. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 115. ↩

³⁸. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 378. ↩

³⁹. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 24. ↩

⁴⁰. JoAnne Marie Terrell, *Power in the Blood? The Cross in the ↩

African American Experience* (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2005),
34,124.

⁴¹. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 27. ↩

⁴². Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, 30. ↩

⁴³. Carr and Van Leeuwen, Religion, Feminism, and the Family, ↩

106–107.

⁴⁴. Don S. Browning, *Equality and the Family: A Fundamental, ↩

Practical Theology of Children, Mothers, and Fathers, in Modern
Societies* (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2006), 87.

⁴⁵. Browning, Equality and the Family, 308. ↩

⁴⁶. Browning, Equality and the Family, 295. ↩

⁴⁷. Browning, Equality and the Family, 323. ↩