Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
SMM: Chapter 3—What Our Fathers Do for Us

SMM: Chapter 3—What Our Fathers Do for Us

Last updated on: August 14, 2013 at 8:41 am by Libby Anne

SMM: Chapter 3—What Our Fathers Do for Us 2013-08-14T08:41:22-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Guest Post by Kate

Originally posted Time To Live, Friend.

I think the Botkin sisters introduce this chapter best: “Because the Bible doesn’t give a huge amount of instruction exclusively to fathers and daughters, most of what we have to work from are the passages setting the patterns for men and women in general” (23).

Hm, maybe the fact that the bible doesn’t have a “huge amount of instruction” about fathers and daughters is a sign that they should stop making up stuff that the Bible doesn’t say. It really says something about the kind of hermeneutic you’re using if you’re writing a 328 page book off of a handful of verses. And that’s assuming that those verses really support the claims they are making, which I don’t believe they do.

Sentence three of this chapter made me throw the book across the room:“Even before the fall, there was an order—a hierarchy of authority—established by God…. The reason for her submission to him is not a result of the fall, or of our now sinful natures. It was God’s plan for humanity from the beginning” (23).

Hierarchy was God’s plan from the beginning? Yikes. Once again, there’s a lot of good stuff to read about why this isn’t the only interpretation of these verses. If you’re not already convinced, I would suggest starting by reading the links I posted in my chapter 2 review. Even if you are “complimentarian,” I don’t see how you can say men and women are *equal (*which the Botkin sisters say) and at the same time, conclude that God’s perfect, ideal plan has always been for hierarchy. Because I don’t know about you, but I don’t see equality and hierarchy as the same thing.

The Botkins continue to say that men have three responsibilities:

To lead by being a woman’s spiritual head and covering.
To provide for their families
To protect their wives and daughters

To support the first point, they pull the “Numbers 30” card. You can read the story here, but this bible passage is about a father being able to annul the vow of his daughter.

According to the Botkins, without the spiritual protection and covering of a father, a daughter will be able to make foolish vows before God and held responsible. With her father protecting her, she is no longer responsible for her rash decisions before God! Good thing she has that protection, because girls are silly and can’t make good decisions.

Now, even if I didn’t disagree with their application of this bible story, I am disturbed by the assumptions behind this idea of a woman needing a spiritual head and covering. Essentially, it is telling them—you can’t trust yourself, because you will undoubtedly make a bad decision without the spiritual guidance from your father. You can’t know as much spiritually as your father or husband, not because you haven’t studied or experienced as much but because of your gender. The men in your life know what God wants for you, better than what you know God wants for you. You can’t know God as well as the men in your life, so it’s a good thing you have men in your life to look after you. And they’re saying “be thankful you have this protection because otherwise you would be responsible!”

Because God doesn’t want to know women as much as he wants to know men? Because God speaks to men more than he speaks to women? Because God cares more about men than women?

What kind of assumptions are we having to make about God to get to the conclusion that a woman needs a man to be her spiritual “head” (what does that even mean?) and covering in order to communicate with God?

For the next point about a man’s role being a protector, the Botkins say,“Never in Scripture are women given the responsibility to provide for their families. This is a job specifically given to men, to the extent that if they fail in this responsibility, they are worse than unbelievers” (24).

Also never in Scripture? Daughters being told to confide in their daddies and be their best friend, and yet the Botkin sisters don’t seem to be bothered bythat absence. Furthermore, the Botkins have no Bible reference for the “worse than unbelievers” part, so I’m not sure where they’re getting that.

The Botkins flesh this protector role out further by quoting Ephesians 5:24 : “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”

And then:

“It’s interesting to see that there is even a distinction in the kind of love that men and women are to bear to one another. In the original Greek, the word ‘love’ used here is agape. Carolyn Mahaney, in her book Feminine Appeal*, explains, ‘The Greek word agape refers to a self-sacrificing love. It’s a love that gives to others even if nothing is given back.’ In contrast, whenever women are instructed to love their husbands, the word agape is not used. Women are to have phileo love for their husbands. Phileo love refers rather to tender, affectionate, brotherly love. It is men who are commanded specifically to show sacrificial love and be, as Christ was, ‘the savior of the body’ (body referring to the wife)” (25).*

The Botkin sisters are assuming that because the word “agape” is used instead of “phileo’ that this means it is the man’s role to be the protector.

But, well, if we’re going to play my-bible-intepretation-is-correct-because-i-have-the-original-Greek-word game, since neither of them are instructed to have eros love for each other, can just assume that the biblical way to uh, do things, is to not…do them?

Oh wait…

Clearly, it’s dangerous to start assuming lots of things based on one word or the absence of one word. Besides this, this verse is talking about a husband and wife, so why are they applying it to a father and daughter?

The Botkins still say that a woman is not supposed to be a protector but she can sacrifice her life for other women or children—just never a man. I have a question. What if the man is an unbeliever and by not sacrificing her life for this man, she is sending him to hell? Is it okay then? I mean, what is the more biblical thing to do here?

And I mean, how old does a male child have to be for a woman protecting him to be inappropriate? What about a man who is an invalid and can’t physically protect his wife? The Botkins ideas on gender roles might sound nice in theory, but when you look at the outliers that don’t fit nicely into their boxes you start to see just how absurd their assumptions are.

And if all this hasn’t been bad enough, they conclude, “A true woman of God will spend her life serving God with every aspect of her being, glorifying Him by following His pattern for the family. A woman who is willing to lay down her life for others will devote her life to her family, to her husband and children” (27).

Just put everyone else first and devote yourself to the Cause of raising lots of children so we can go back to the way things were when everything was perfect and godly in the past.

And then if that duty is sounding a little hard to swallow, a few dashes of fear mongering are added, in case you were forgetting what was at stake here: “…when the enemy comes to kill our children and hurt their mothers, God appoints men to stand up and shield those entrusted to their care. Without such protection, the next generation cannot survive” (28).

Then: “Because of international departure from God’s law, every Western nation is under God’s promised judgment. For some nations, this chastisement is more severe than others…When we understand this, it clears up a lot of confusion or depression we may feel when we look around and notice that our society is really sick ” (29).

The world is falling apart! The sky is falling! BUT WAIT! The Botkins have a solution to this calamity!

“First, we need to repent….all women are rebellious feminists at heart. … Second, we need to study the Word. [the Bible] alone can tell us what womanhood is all about. …Third, each of us must become true women….If we ever want men to fulfill their duty to us, we have to fulfill our duty to them. ….After years of studying the decline of our world, God’s requirements for righteous conduct, and how He is pressing His lawsuits against our disobedient nation, we believe that the way daughters are treating their fathers is one of today’s biggest issues” (31).

So start confiding in your daddy and everything will start being fine. Start following how we define a “true” woman and life will start getting better.

Malachi 4:6…”turn the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”

Or else God is going to kill you.

Don’t you just love the Botkin’s optimism?

Uncategorized

So Much More

Previous Post

August 5, 2013

Abstinence: A Birth Control Method That Is 100% Effective?

Next Post

August 6, 2013 Hana Williams Abuse and Murder Trial Ongoing

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Romans teaches that creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE