Mothers, Look to Your Households

When instructing his sons what to look for in a woman, after instructing them to be wise and righteous for thirty chapters in the Book of Proverbs, the author now turns to talk about what the kind of woman a wife and mother should be as she exemplifies the themes of a wise person seen throughout the book.

Who can find a wife of noble character?
For her value is far more than rubies.
11 Her husband’s heart has trusted her,
and he does not lack the dividends.
12 She has rewarded him with good and not harm
all the days of her life.
13 She sought out wool and flax,
then worked happily with her hands.
14 She was like the merchant ships;
she would bring in her food from afar.
15 Then she rose while it was still night,
and provided food for her household and a portion to her female servants.
16 She considered a field and bought it;
from her own income she planted a vineyard.
17 She clothed herself in might,
and she strengthened her arms.
18 She perceived that her merchandise was good.
Her lamp would not go out in the night.
19 She extended her hands to the spool,
and her hands grasped the spindle.
20 She opened her hand to the poor,
and extended her hands to the needy.
21 She would not fear for her household in winter,
because all her household were clothed with scarlet,
22 because she had made coverings for herself;
and because her clothing was fine linen and purple,
23 Her husband is well-known in the city gate
when he sits with the elders of the land.
24 She madelin en garments then sold them,
and traded belts to the merchants;
25 her clothing was strong and splendid;
and she laughed at the time to come.
26 She has opened her mouth with wisdom,
with loving instruction on her tongue.
27 Watching over the ways of her household,
she would not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children have risen and called her blessed;
her husband also has praised her:
29 “Many daughters have done valiantly,
but you have surpassed them all!”
30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is fleeting.
A woman who fears the Lord—she makes herself praiseworthy.
31 Give her credit for what she has accomplished,
and let her works praise her in the city gates

Titus 2:3-5 likewise states:

Older women likewise are to exhibit behavior fitting for those who are holy, not slandering, not slaves to excessive drinking, but teaching what is good. In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, fulfilling their duties at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message of God may not be discredited.

Notice in both of these texts, the former often dismissed because the modern woman has different aspirations she wants to obtain and strive for, that a woman cannot be a good mother without being a good wife. The two are tied together. Much of this is because the woman is the picture of the church in submission to her husband. She teaches the children, not only by teaching them wisdom, but also, and perhaps even primarily, by way of her service and submission to her husband how they are to submit to God. Hence, she instructs not primarily with her mouth but with her conduct, her wisdom in action. 

Much of that conduct is her looking to the household of her husband. She does this out of fear of the Lord, as mentioned before. She runs her household as the manager. She makes sure the household is fed and clothed, she invests for the household (not just herself), she makes her household a service to others who are in need, and she includes her children in her endeavors. 

In contrast, as we see in Titus, she is not someone sitting around slandering others, gossiping, getting drunk, or being flirtatious or promiscuous with other men, but rather, as is fitting for a saint, she works on loving/being devoted to/caring for her husband, her children, at home, looking to be kind, i.e, looking to the needs of others, and submitting to her husband (of course, her also refusing to obey when commanded to sin as talked about in a previous post is also instructive to her children). 

In other words, Titus 2 is the NT version of Proverbs 31:10-31, and both indicate that in order for a mother to be a good mother by fulfilling her obligations to her children she must be a good wife because the one is the activity of doing the other. They cannot be divorced from one another. No one who is a bad wife is a good mother. No one who is a good mother is a bad wife. Hence, the obligations of a wife to her children is to instruct them both by virtue of her mouth and by virtue of her hands, and the home, therefore, is the focus of her obligations to her children.

Fathers, Manage But Don't Micro-Manage Your Children

 The instructions to fathers to their children show their obligations to their children that our modern society often completely neglects. 

It seems clear that fathers have the obligation to discipline their children, even to the point of excommunicating them from the household and their lives. We've already looked at the passage in Deuteronomy but Paul makes the parallel argument for anyone wishing to be an elder. He must be above reproach in the area of how he handled his children, both in discipline so that they are not free to go their own ways and become involved in wicked behaviors like sexual immorality and a frat boy lifestyle, but also in a way that is non-abusive so as to lead to the despair of the children. 

1 Timothy 3:4-5 states:

He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?

Likewise, Titus 1:6 states that he was to discipline his children in such a way so that are faithful to his conduct of life and can't be accused of any rebellion toward him or participation in debauchery. However, on the other hand, he is to do this in a way that is attainable and not exhausting or abusive toward the children.

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but raise them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4)

Fathers, do not provoke your children, so they will not become disheartened. (Col 3:21)

No one should read these texts as saying, "Hey, fathers, don't make your kids mad." That's not the point. The idea here is of a micro-managing father who sets the bar so high that his children cannot obtain it and become disheartened. 

Children desire to please their parents but if it becomes impossible they lose the will to do so and rebellion soon sets in. Likewise, an undisciplined child does whatever he wishes and rebellion becomes the status quo. In both of these scenarios, the micro-managing father who places too much upon his children so that they cannot obtain the prize of pleasing him and the father who places very little to no boundaries on his children, are wicked fathers, as both push their children into the stumblingblock of sin and rebellion.

Fathers must guard their children from partaking in any sins that God lays out, but not so in a way that increases the amount of hoops they must jump through in order to receive praise from their fathers that they lose their desire to become faithful since it is an impossibility that cannot be accomplished.

Fathers who do so do not represent the Lord either way. They represent their own lordship and display a fleshly understanding of their paternal governing role, and as such should not be elders of the church as the text states above since they would govern the church in one of these two diabolical ways (licentious or overbearing).

The micro-manager evidences a lack of faith in the Lord and places himself in the position of Christ, not as an emissary but as though he were the Lord Himself, lording it over others for his own personal benefit of creating the world as he wishes it to be, and the licentious father does the same and shows his true sinful character through his children. The truth is that a man with licentious children has been a man in rebellion against God himself. His children merely reflect him. 

Paul indicates that these types of fathers are immature at best and not Christians at all at worst. The new man that works to become the image of God in Christ must become a good father who both disciplines and educates his children in a way that does not exasperate them nor in a way so as to let them remain in rebellion against God. He is to teach them the Word of God, discipline them when they rebel, and be an example to them as one who has committed his life to Christ. He should save up for his children to leave them an inheritance but if he is poor, he is to leave them an inheritance that cannot be bought by gold and silver. This is the obligation of the man of God to his children.

Wives Submit to Your Husbands

 It's probably this one that gets the most press. Honor thy father or mother is ignored for the most part by adults because they think it no longer pertains to them but this one hits home for women. What exactly does it mean to submit to one's husband? The standard passages are as follows:

Wives, submit to your husbands in the same way that you submit to the Lord, because the husband is the authority of the wife as also Christ is the authority of the church (he himself being the savior of the body). But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph 5:21-24)

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Col 3:18)

In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, when they see your pure and reverent conduct. Let your beauty not be external—the braiding of hair and wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes— but the inner person of the heart, the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in God’s sight. For in the same way the holy women who hoped in God long ago adorned themselves by being subject to their husbands, like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. (1 Pet 3:1-6)

Submission is first described by Paul here as a recognition of Christ's authority and the husband's authority is an extension of Christ's in such a way so that the wife must subject herself to him in "all things." The authority seems total with obviously the biblical caveats that since Christ is the ultimate authority, the wife submits only so far as the husband does not command her in a contrary manner to Christ's commands to her. Her submission to her husband is in recognition of Christ's authority, so disobeying Christ in order to obey her husband is contrary to the foundational reason the command is given. She is to submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord because she is submitting to the Lord through her husband. Hence, the woman is always to submit to the Lord. As in all of these biblical commands when it comes to family, they assume that the authority is not commanding the one under that authority to sin against God.

The second thing to note is that submission is a synonymous word with obedience. Peter uses the word "submission" but then describes it as "obedience" while describing Sarah's obedience to Abraham, even noting the relationship as one where he is her "lord." This obedience includes a devotion to her husband that does not seek attention from other men by making herself beautiful for them but rather she works on beautifying herself through her faithfulness and obedience to him while placing her fears in the hands of God so that they do not turn into the pursuits of wicked women who shun the authority of Christ through their husbands for "good reasons." Peter ends by saying that although they might be afraid to entrust another human in this way, it is the way they identify themselves as the true seed of Sarah/Abraham, i.e., Christians, so that a woman cannot claim to be in good standing with Christ as a Christian but refuse to obey her husband.

This is true for even husbands who are not Christians in that their authority represents Christ's even if their conduct does not. 

Now, what other Scriptures indicate is that no one should obey any human being when there is a conflict between God and man. A husband cannot command his wife to jump off a cliff, drink poison, sleep with other men, go to an apostate or excommunicated church, go against the directive of the elders of a church, stop going to church, stop praying, pray to other gods, reject Christianity, etc., etc.

Since the entire goal of obeying the husband has to do with obeying Christ through the husband, when he leads the wife away from Christ a way like those mentioned above, he must be disobeyed in order for Christ to continue to be obeyed. Any wife who obeys her husband over Christ is an apostate, a traitor to her true Lord, and an infidel, since she has placed her husband over Christ rather than as the main vehicle through whom Christ is followed.

In this regard, the texts above are not calling for women to become blind and stupid because they just let their husbands direct everything but rather it is calling for them to evaluate whether what they are being called to submit to is of the Lord or of the devil. This means she must open her eyes, turn her mind on, and make bold and courageous decisions to submit to her husband in all things that do not sin against God but in no things that do. A woman who does otherwise, either way, has rejected the faith.

Honor Thy Mother

 Much of what is said of the father in the previous post can be said here, so I won't reiterate it again other than to say that the same penalty of death and damnation is for those who dishonor their mothers by not listening to their instructions, mocking them, dismissing them, not taking care of them financially, not speaking well of them, etc. 

But I do want to make the case here that this is because the mother is in unity with the father. I tell my kids all of the time that if they do not listen to their mother, they do not listen to me. My wife is me. I am my wife. She instructs them in accordance with what I have instructed. Her teaching is my teaching. Her honor, therefore, is my honor. 

Hence, in Scripture, because the wife is one flesh with the husband, and because in the Bible and the ancient world, the father's religion is the mother's religion, the father's instructions are the mother's instructions, the father is being treated well or poorly by how the mother is being treated. This is not unlike an emissary of a king being treated a particular way and the king seeing it as a treatment of himself.

The Bible knows nothing of a wife who has divorced her husband, and it does not seem to treat a woman who dishonors her husband even while married to him as included in his honor. Instead, she has divorced herself from him even while married so that she does not partake in his glory and honor. In this regard, I would argue that a woman who has dishonored her husband is not to be joined by her children in that dishonor. She is no longer of the adult child's father and so she is no longer a part of honoring the father.

In contrast to this modern woman, however, the ancient woman who is one with her husband is to be honored even if the father dies and she alone is over the children now. This is still to honor the father who has passed on and should still continue him and his instructions. Hence, one must honor father or mother, not because they are two opposing authorities but because they are one unified authority over the adult child.

Some texts even place the mother as first, emphasizing that one cannot dismiss the authority of the mother and still claim that he or she is honoring the father. Her authority is to be "feared," i.e., recognized as God's given authority rather than an authority given by the child (Lev 19:3). In other words, the adult child does not get to decide whether she has authority to instruct him, rather her authority is from God as representative of the father who is the representative of God.

And this brings us to an interesting discussion about the image of God and how it relates to women in biblical texts. In Genesis 1:26-28, the man is said to be the image of God, but the man is said to then be both male and female, meaning that "the man" represents both genders. "So God created the man as His image, as the image of God He created him, male and female He created them." In 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, Paul interprets this as the woman partaking in the image of God through the man, not individually by herself. He states, "he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man, for the man does not originate from the woman but the woman from the man, for, certainly, the man was not created for the woman's sake but the woman for the man's sake."

Our culture wants to see women as autonomous and directly imaging God apart from the man, but the Bible knows of no such direct connection. The man is made to be God's image, the woman participates in the image by being made as a helper to the man. She is vehicle through which he images God, as imaging has to do with the bearing of children in being fruitful and multiplying and taking over the world from the wild animals that rule it. She, therefore, is his emissary, and to dishonor her is to dishonor the man she represents, and therefore, to dishonor the God the man represents. The chain cannot be broken unless she breaks it.

This is why child custody hearings that award the children to the woman so often are wicked. Our culture has been trained by feminism to believe that children belong to the woman, even to the point of her having the sole right to terminate them in the womb. But the Bible teaches that the children belong to the man, and only by extension, belong to the woman. If a woman were to divorce a man, the children are to honor the father over the mother, but if she is in unity with the father, the children are to honor the mother as they honor the father because the two are the same authority with the same instructions, wisdom, and representative role to the child.

Proverbs 31:10-31 states that the woman committed to her husband and household will be the one who is praised by her children and husband alike. She speaks well of her husband, makes sure that his household is run well, instructs her children in wisdom and abundant love, as she fears the Lord in all things. In fact, Proverbs 31 are the instructions of King Lemuel that his mother taught him.

Proverbs 11:16 states that it is a woman of favor that holds on to honor. In Proverbs 19:13, "the foolish son is a destruction to his father and the contentions of a wife are a constant erosion." In other words, both of the son who is a fool and does not listen to his father is coupled with a wife who also is at odds with the father. They both erode the life of the father and are viewed as wicked here and having forfeit any honor due themselves.

So as long as the woman is in continuity with the father, she is to be honored as the father is to be honored. She is his glory, and so one cannot dishonor the glory of a man and say that he honors the man. As the man must represent God's authority, and cannot instruct his children or wife to sin, so the woman must represent the man's authority and cannot divorce herself from him and his teaching if she is to hold onto the honor due her.

If she does hold onto it, the penalty for dishonoring her, not fearing her, not taking care of her financially, not obeying her when the adult child is instructed in wisdom, is death because to dishonor her is to dishonor and refuse to worship God in the way He has instructed He is to be worshiped.

Honor Thy Father

 It is amazing to me how modern Evangelicalism has allowed so many people to do what is right in their own eyes when it comes to family. If you're not familiar, the phrase, "did what was right in his/their own eyes" in Scripture is constantly a reference to the wicked. The wicked do what is right, not what is wrong, in their own opinion. They don't get it from Scripture. They use Scripture eisegetically to back their opinions but they and their opinions are not in submission to Scripture so as to let it correct them.

I want to begin a series here concerning the obligations that each member of the household has to family members, and I'm going to begin from the bottom up because I see that as the order of egregious behavior toward familial commitments our church culture has allowed us to indulge in. 

So we will begin with the child's commitment to the father. What does the Bible say about the commitment children have to their Father?

First, I want to be very clear that the Bible is primarily instructing adult children, not little children. It is a given in every culture that little children would obey their parents. Evangelicals who are completely ignorant of the biblical model of family often think that the instructions given to children are referring to kids under the age of 12 or 18 but this is nonsense, as once we go into these passages, it is clear that (1) the children being spoken of are adults, and (2) the age of a small child, a kid as we would call him or her, is prepubescent and incapable of doing most of what is said of the adult child.

The obligations the adult child has to a father seems to be total obedience, respect, financial commitment, and emulation in wisdom and moral conduct when the father lives a wise and moral life. When the latter is not there, the former is still to be given since the father represents God's authority to the child.

The Ten Commandments of course command the following.

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16).

The commandment indicates that the inheritance of the land of promise is contingent upon the child honoring the father and the mother. Paul reiterates this in Ephesians 6:1-3 when he says, Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life in the land," and in Colossians 3:20, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."

The four things to note here from these texts for us is that children are to obey their parents in "everything" or they aren't honoring them, that long life in the land is contingent upon obeying one's parents, and that this commandment is likely of the first table, not the second because it associates the honor and obedience of the parents with fearing the Lord and receiving His reward. Hence, the commandments are to be divided as two tables consisting of five and five, rather than the traditional four and six. And, finally, that living long in the land is applied by Paul in a way to not be talking about having long life in the here and now but inheriting the world to come, which the land of Israel foreshadowed. Hence, obeying one's parents in all things, taking care of them, treating them with honor is the contingency upon which one will inherit eternal life, i.e., is saved or not.

The correct worship of God directly has to do with not worshiping other gods, making divine images, fearing God's name, honoring God's sovereignty through the Sabbath, and honoring/obeying one's father and mother. In fact, Leviticus 19:3-4 has the first table represented in a few of its commands (e.g., observe the Sabbath, no divine images), including the command that "Every man is to fear his mother and his father."

One worships God in whatever manner one treats his parents, particularly focusing in on the father here. He cannot claim to worship God better than he treats his father.

Jesus rebukes the Pharisees who think they can. They think they can treat their parents poorly but treat God well. They even contrast the two relationships by saying that they are giving to God by taking away their obligations to their parents. He confirms to them that they have set aside the commandment (and the reward with it I might add) by doing so. Notice the dialogue.

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.7 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Christ here says that they actually do this with many things, but note that this is what he decided to focus on because it contrasts true worship with false worship. They are concerned with externals like physical cleanliness rituals and tithing. Christ is concerned with actually worshiping God through the honor and treatment of parents. The Pharisees, being very devoted, religiously pious men, don't know God and it evidences itself through their treatment of their father and mother.

Now, let's look at some texts that talk about a grown child's commitments to their parents.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Notice here that this is not a five-year-old kid. He is a drunkard and a glutton. He also lives somewhere else. Note that it says that they are to bring this son to the elders of "his," not "their" town. So he lives in another town. He is still obligated to take care of them and obey them and yet refuses to do so. God says that he is to be violently executed by all of the men of his own town. He is not to inherit the land any longer. He is cut off from it. This is to purge the evil from among them, a phrase quoted by Paul when speaking of excommunication, and to cause other covenant members to be afraid to do the same thing lest they also lose their inheritance.

Again, this is an adult son who seems to now live in a different town than his parents but is not supporting or obeying them. 

Correspondingly, the children of a qualified elder must not be like this without having been cut off by his father, lest his father be disqualified from ministry. In 1 Timothy 3:4-5, Paul states:

He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 

This is stated in different terms in Titus 1:6.

An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of participating in debauchery and disobedient. 

Notice that, like in Deuteronomy, the children are to obey their father, and that these are adult children who are partaking in debauchery and are disobedient. The New Catholic Bible translates this phrase as "free from any suspicion of licentious or rebellious behavior." Most translations translate it as dissipation and rebellion," which would likely then see Paul as referring back specifically to the passage in Deuteronomy, as dissipation refers to a participation in drunkeness or sexually immoral behavior, a throwing off of one's duties to parents, and so they are not faithful children, which is what the phrase tekna pista actually means in context here. 

Christ reaffirms the command in Matthew 15:4, a parallel to the Markan passage above, by noting not only the original command but the subsequent understanding that if one speaks poorly of his father or mother he is to be put to death. The word kakologion means one who insults or speaks bad about one's father or mother. Christ is alluding to the LXX of Leviticus 20:9 here that expands the original command concerning cursing father and mother and makes it even a lesser speech of just speaking bad about them. Nothing is said of whether the things spoken are true or not. It is the fact that the adult child (the Pharisees being spoken to here are all adults, and mostly much older adults) who is commanded to honor is dishonoring by speaking about their parents in ways that would cause others to think less of them. In Proverbs 20:20, the one who does this has his lamp go out, metaphorically meaning that he will lose the ability to see what is true and be blinded to what is right and good.

Proverbs 23:22 commands, "Obey your father who begot you, and do not reject your mother when she is old."

Notice that a mother who is old is not usually a mother of a young child. This is to an adult child, which means that the adult son be spoken to here is to obey the father who begot him. The idea of obeying is that the wisdom of the father is not dismissed but listened to, since only the fool goes on his own thinking or the thinking of his peers. The wise man listens to his father.

It should be noted here that the mother is included because she is one with the father. The father is in unity with the mother and vice versa so that one cannot disrespect one without also disrespecting the other. Some situation where the mother has divorced the father is not something that is in view, as the woman could not divorce in ancient Israel, so the Bible assumes a unity. Hence, it is father or mother because the mother is the father (see for example how this is assumed in the sexual laws of Lev 18:8, 20:11, Deut 22:30, and 27:30). Hence, the command is really about the father being honored, which includes the mother who is in unity with him. The Bible considers the children as those who belong to the man, and only to the woman because she is joined to the man. Hence, the proverb notes that the father begot the son.

Hence, in Proverbs 6:20 (also 1:8-10; 15:20), the command is given to the adult son to "keep your father's commandment, and do not abandon your mother's instruction." The two are in parallel because they are viewed as one and the same.

In Deuteronomy, the actual covenant promises that are made by the people who are stating they wish to be in God's covenant include the declaration, "Cursed is anyone who dishonors father or mother." All the people are to shout, Amen!

Proverbs agrees and says that "the eye that mocks a father and refuses to obey a mother will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by vultures."

The eye represents one's thinking about his father and mother. Again, his eye, his ability to see, is cursed.

In fact, the entire Book of Proverbs demands that the adult son obey his father's instructions and listens to his advise or he is branded a fool and wicked (Prov 4:1; 13:1).

Notice that the wise son in Proverbs 13:1 obeys his father's instructions but the scoffer does not listen to rebuke. In other words, the wicked and foolish son rolls his eyes at his father in contrast to the wise son who harkens to his fathers instructions.

All of this is the obligation of the adult child to his or her father. All of this must be adhered to if one is to claim that he or she is fulfilling this command. As Christ notes, honor cannot be divided up so that some of these are obeyed and others set aside. One only need to dishonor someone in one area for them to be dishonored. It is only one insult, one neglect, one dismissal, one rolling of the eyes, one stubborn rebellion, one refusal to care for a need, one act of disobedience that is persisted in or justified without repentance that evidences the damnation of the individual. 

You see, we think that the obligation of the little child is to listen to a parent while young, but the children are extensions of the father and his household. Even when married, a son in particular is not then free to disrespect his father and to be a stubborn idiot who no longer has to listen to him. The son is to continue his father and his household. The adult child is not the judge of the father but to be judged by him. This does not mean that the father should insert himself into everything his son does but that is an issue for the father's obligations to his children we will deal with later. The point here is that even when married, as almost all Pharisees were btw, the obligations do not subside. While the father remains upon the earth and even after he leaves it, the adult child is to honor him in every way by adhering to his instructions, commandments, speaking well of him always, and continuing his household in acknowledgement of his good work and wisdom given to the child during his life.

All fathers are sinners, so one could easily excuse himself from obeying the command here by saying that his father doesn't deserve honor, but God doesn't position authority over us and then allow us to judge them as unworthy of that honor. God is the judge of those things. We are to honor and obey a father in the Lord who, like any authority, is exercising an authority on God's behalf and to the glory of God. Excuses are the roadways of the damned, or as Proverbs puts it, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is the pathway of death" (Prov 14:12).

Emotional vs. Logical Thinkers

Watching the Gavin Ortlund/Jonathan Pageau debate (link here) got me thinking about people I've encountered in ministry many times. Gavin is a logical thinker but Jonathan is an emotional thinker, and it was frustrating for me, as a logical thinker, to get through this debate because I think the topic itself is a ridiculous one to debate simply because its a matter of historical fact that both EO and the RCC absolutely condemned anyone who was purposely outside of the physical body of their communions. But if you're a modern EO or RC and have been heavily influenced by pluralism then you have to somehow syncretize your two commitments, and thus, we get this debate. 

The problem is, as always, eisegesis. When one has an emotional commitment to something, he wants it to be true and then looks for ways that he can interpret the data in order for it to be true. This means making arguments that don't stem from the texts looked at. 

Logical reasoning is exegetical in nature because its ultimate commitment is to whatever the truth might be as it is concluded from the text alone. Hence, it does not begin with the idea as a foregone conclusion. Instead, in this case, I am perfectly willing to let the pluralist EO be the victor here if that's what the texts bear out. I am also perfectly willing to let the exclusivist EO be the victor. I really don't have skin in the game which makes me capable of evaluating the texts correctly. It is abundantly clear that the exclusivism of traditional EO and modern pluralist EO visions are not in continuity with one another in the same way that Trent is not in continuity with Vatican II. 

However, I want to look at another claim, which is the one where these particular EO's argue that people outside EO are just missing the fulness of what it means to be a Christian. I find this fascinating in view of logical and emotional reasoning.

As I said, I've met many people who argue emotionally, and it always ends up in frustration because who can argue with bad arguments when the emotional thinker refuses to let logic correct them? 

But first I want to say that by "emotional thinker" I don't mean someone who gets animated when they argue. I get animated. Frankly, I've met very emotional thinkers who are extremely calm when they argue. It has nothing to do with getting animated. It has everything to do with how one argues, whether exegetically/logically or eisegetically/illogically. Emotional thinkers tend to be high on rhetoric devoid of logic rather than concentrating on the logic part due to emotional commitments to a proposition.

And this leads me to my main point. Logic is a characteristic of God. God is logic. Worshiping God means to be devoted in one's mind to logic and logical argumentation because one is seeking God through it, not merely the truth but also the way one comes to that truth.

Worshiping God also means to be devoted to God in one's heart. Devoting one's emotions to God is to devote a part of one's being to Him.

But here is the issue. Only the logical thinker can be fully devoted to God in both mind and heart, in both logic and emotion.

I'm not saying that every logical thinker is. I am only saying that every logical thinker can be. But this is not true of the emotional thinker. Because the emotional thinker uses eisegetical and illogical arguments because his emotional commitments govern his arguments rather than logic, he can only be devoted to God in his feelings, not in his mind.

Hence, the emotional thinker cannot be fully devoted to God by loving Him with his whole being. Yet, we think the emotional thinker is more devoted to God than the logical thinker because we associate feelings with spirituality and logical thinking with cold, unbelieving self-reliance. It's almost as though we think logic is natural and devoid of the Spirit and feelings are something supernatural. 

The irony, therefore, is that the fullness is being missed by Jonathan in this debate, and frankly, when I've seen him discuss anything. This doesn't mean that all EO's argue this way. Some EO's are very logical. This isn't an EO, RC, Prot thing. 

If you think I'm being unfair to Jonathan, go through and count how many false dichotomies and non sequiturs are made throughout this debate. It's incredibly frustrating because these types of arguments don't say anything, and yet, like most emotional thinkers, he says a lot of words to say nothing when he does this. 

And that is what emotional thinkers do. Their minds are chaos because feeling rather than logic governs their thought processes. It's like stopping to get directions from a talker and three hours later you still don't know where you're supposed to go. But these people think they've built their cases because they feel emotionally satisfied with their positions, and that's all that matters.

But God uses language which is rooted in logic both to communicate to His people and to have them worship Him in return. Logic is a means of worship and emotions should be led by it, not the other way around. This gives us the fullness of devotion to God that Scripture pushes us toward. Anyone who argues emotionally, and I have known many, are the ones who are missing it.

Contra rebellem Christianismum

I wrote this post back in November of 2020. It remains unaltered. 

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see the kingdom of God." I used to think this was talking about being a person of valor or having really pure motives or intentions. Now I realize that it's talking about one's mindset and whether it is cleared of false and rebellious ideas. Only these people get to see the kingdom of God, both now and in the eschaton. They can see it because all of the eye goop in the sights of other men isn't there. They see the authority and rule of God now and they will live in that authority then. But Christianity in the West has become something else these days. It has become a religion of goop.

Remember when churches used to gather as a church because it was about cultivating a spirit of submission to God's authority rather than flipping the government off? It's all about the spirit that is being cultivated, whether one of submission or one of rebellion. I have to say that I don't see a whole lot of the submissive spirit displayed among the Reformed these days, and that was long before the COVID thing came into our lives. What I see instead is a lot of people using the guise of obedience to the Bible to unleash their disdain for authority and spew venom toward restrictions they don't like. We can't be upset with God directly for anything going on of course. That would be wrong. But we can flip off His messengers by saying that they don't really represent Him and that allows us to say that they can go take a long walk off a short peer when they attempt to exercise actual authority over us. 

What is very clear, I think, to most people, even the rebellious, is that we are in a season of judgment. But that means that God will be giving people over to chaos, not just by sending viruses and financial distress, but also by giving them over to their spirits of rebellion and deception. They are rebellious because they are miffed when authorities restrict their "freedoms" and they are deceived in thinking that they don't need to submit to these authorities, that government no longer has authority whenever it gets in the way of our God-given, Declaration of Independence, card-carrying egalitarian freedom to do as I choose as long as, in my own eyes, I am obeying the Bible. Not quite the argument of the early church or that of 1 Peter but then again this was never about obeying the Bible anyway. It's about satisfying the fleshly desire to rule as god of my life. If I was a slave, then slaves obey their masters, even when it gets tough, even when its harsh and I don't think the masters deserve my obedience; but since I'm a god, how dare anyone restrict my reign. I'll let God do that occasionally when He agrees with me, but I am not going to allow a lesser god, even if he represents God in His authority, to tell me what to do. Jesus died so that I could be a god without restriction by others. At least that's what the Mormons, New Agers, and Secular Humanists tell me. 

The one question I have is this, however, "When exactly did the conservative Reformed church that whines so much about critical race theory, adopt liberation theology and its attitudes toward government? Of course, I already know this answer. It was adopted when people started to adopt political theories of liberation. It was adopted with the Libertarian view of government, which oddly adopts with it, at least amongst theonomy types, a strange application of the permissive principle that limits government to whatever specific laws are mentioned in Scripture and allows people to govern themselves in everything else. 

Most will talk about general equity but not necessarily in terms of applying that general equity to what laws one can have. So for instance, one might argue that having a fence railing on one's roof in the ancient Near East is equivalent to putting a gate around a pool, but then completely fail to see that it should apply to speed limits on the roads. Government has a household. That household is the country. If it does not regulate how fast cars can go or how they can drive, it is not being responsible in governing potentially unsafe space. Yet, the is the very reason one must put a railing on the roof. I could argue it's the responsibility of each person who comes to my home to govern himself and his children and I have no obligation to babysit people and their actions, but as a good theonomist we all must say, "By what standard?" God obviously does think it's your responsibility to make safe space that could be potentially dangerous.

It's my responsibility to make sure the food I serve is not poisoned. It's government's responsibility to do the same for its household. Yet, how many libertarian theonomists argue that the FDA is overreaching? 

What this also means is that if my home is filled with sickness, I have an obligation to quarantine and ban people from meeting there. The government has the same obligation with its home, the country. It has the right, according to the application of the general equity of the law, to make potentially unsafe space safe. 

So what are we to conclude with these libertarian theonomists who only want the specific laws mentioned in Scripture to limit governmental authority? I would argue that (1) a general equity view of the law does not limit diddly squat unless one compartmentalizes and arbitrarily decides to limit the application of such laws (2) the disposition of one in subjection is, wait for it, subjection, regardless of whether one agrees with their authorities or not (that's the actual point of having that relationship--if you agreed with everything, there would be no need of said relationship), (3) it's all a very big excuse to satisfy the rebellious nature of the flesh in a way that one feels allowed, and even encouraged by God, to do so, (4) it tends to be Gnostic in that it wants me to care for souls and not bodies unless the Scripture makes me care about bodies too and then I have to, (5) it has conflated a bit of liberation theology which itself stems from Enlightenment egalitarianism with Christian duty so much that now a contradiction exists between hearing these guys make their arguments and listening to Paul and Peter on the matter. Paul, if by any other name, rather than twisted would simply be rejected, and Peter would be viewed as a cowardly Christian, again, if we weren't supposed to actually see him as an apostle of Christ. Since we have to see them as having God's authority, we try to find better excuses to consider what they say cowardly and reject it.

Our motto as a church has been, "Obey until you can't obey," but it is clear that many in Reformed circles have the opposite motto, "Disobey until you're forced by Scripture into admitting that you may have to obey a little bit in such and such an area." This has become the religion of rebellious men and infects the rest of the body like a cancer. But that is the test of God's judgment. No one gets to stand except those who pure of heart, for only they will see the kingdom of God in the kingdom of men.