The Truth About The Biblical Family Structure
How an Umbrella Upsets People With Poor Biblical Perspective
Over the past year and a half since I started creating Reels on Instagram, I have used an image of an umbrella nested under other umbrellas to represent the Biblical family structure.
Although this analogy is imperfect, it is the closest I have seen in image form. This image has been used many times, and each time, I hear about the cult leader who created it.
Recently, I came across a blog post about this umbrella analogy, and the author linked to one of the Reels I created with that exact image.
Bill Gothard Made It, So It Must Be Bad
A common criticism I encounter is that because Bill Gothard created this image, it must be inherently flawed. This point was also brought up in the blog post, echoing comments on Instagram.
However, just because a corrupt individual created an image does not mean the image itself is false. I have never agreed 100% with anyone's teachings; the only source of absolute truth is the Bible. If something I hear or read contradicts Scripture, I adhere to Scripture.
The umbrella image does not conflict with the Bible. While imperfect, it serves as a decent attempt at illustrating the relationship within a family. As I mentioned earlier, no human depiction of a theological topic can be perfect. Christ and the Church is the perfect metaphor, as it is how the Bible illustrates the idea.
The issue lies not with the Bible but with the shallow study most people give the topic. If we allow our preconceived ideas about marriage to taint the Biblical illustration, we are wrong from the start. We must consider all verses about marriage and Christ's relationship with us when forming our opinions.
An Umbrella Under an Umbrella is Illogical
Critics argue that an umbrella under another umbrella is illogical because it would not get wet. While this is true, claiming an image must be logical to be useful is strange, given that much Biblical imagery defies human logic.
Despite its flaws, the umbrella image still conveys the hierarchy or chain of command within the family. You could replace it with arrows, circles, or squares, and the understanding of the family unit and its operation would remain.
Chain of Command Means a Mediation Between Umbrellas
Some argue that the umbrella image implies a mediation between the husband and Christ. This is not conveyed in the image unless one forces that interpretation.
Given the illogical nature of the umbrella analogy, it may be pointless to state this, but an umbrella does not mediate anything. There is no imagery to support the idea of a husband mediating between his wife and Christ.
Image Displays Roles Members of the Household Should Adhere To
The article expresses concern about the image defining household roles. However, clearly defined roles are essential for the smooth operation of the family unit. Without them, ships sink, companies go bankrupt, and governments collapse.
The Bible provides clear roles for both men and women: men are to provide for their family, lead their families, and teach their children about theological matters. Women are tasked with managing the home, feeding the family, supporting their husbands, not teaching theology, and remaining silent during church preaching.
The Author Cannot Confirm That Christ’s Umbrella is Over His Children
The blog post questions whether Christ’s umbrella extends over children. I firmly believe it does. Children are under the umbrella of Christ, His covenant, and His Kingdom.
Baptism is the sign of the covenant, as circumcision was in the Old Testament. Since no covenant excluded children, they remain under Christ's authority. For a deeper understanding, research covenant theology and why the Church has always baptized children.
The Biblical Family Chain of Command is "Helper-Helper"
The Biblical family unit, as described in Genesis, was created by God. God made Adam, then created Eve to be his helper.
This is not a "helper-helper" relationship but a structure where the man receives a command from God and the woman assists him. The author of the blog post claims this "helper-helper" relationship promotes humility and cooperation, but these qualities are not exclusive to a non-hierarchical structure.
A man can be humble and cooperative while still leading his family.
Christ Has the Authority and Man Has None
While Christ has all authority in heaven and earth, Kings delegate authority, and Christ bestows authority upon men to lead their families. Daniel 7:27 states that the saints will rule and reign with Christ:
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Daniel 7:27 KJV
Men have authority because Christ delegates it to them to rule their families well and in love. To say no one has authority other than Christ contradicts itself, as the blog post also mentions children not being under Christ because they have not professed faith.
If children are not "under Christ's umbrella," why would they be under their parents' protection, guidance, and teaching? The husband and father are given authority by Christ to lead their family effectively. This is stated in 1 Timothy 3:4, where Paul tells Timothy that a Pastor must "rule his own house."
A man who does not rule his house is disqualified from being a pastor. Even if one is not called to be a pastor, striving to meet these standards is important. The pastor is to lead his flock as a reflection of Christ and this is exactly what men must do for their families.
The Burden That is Placed on the Man May Be Too Much
Yes, the burden on men is heavy, but this is why they are the stronger vessel. There is no reason to place the father's duties on the mother, as she was not designed to handle that burden.
1 Peter 3:7 commands husbands to dwell with their wives according to knowledge and honor them as the weaker vessel. Honoring her means lightening her load so she can fulfill her duties effectively.
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
[1 Peter 3:7 KJV]
The Woman Would Protect and Provide if the Husband Was Not Present
While a woman would protect and provide if necessary, the correct Biblical family structure is designed so she does not have to. There are exceptions when the husband must leave for business, placing the burden on the wife temporarily. However, this should not be the norm.
The husband protects and provides so the wife does not bear these burdens daily. When I leave for work trips, my wife must "do it all," and the burden is heavy. When I return, the burden is lifted. Just because a woman can take on these roles does not mean she should.
We Can Find the Characteristics of Provider and Protector Under the "Proverbs 31" Woman
The author argues that Proverbs 31 is about general wisdom, not specifically women. However, the chapter clearly describes a woman and her attributes, intended for women to emulate.
Yes, the Proverbs 31 woman engages in activities like selling wares, but she also feeds and clothes her family and keeps the house in order. She manages the home and sells any extra she produces, which does not imply a full-time job outside the home. Her primary focus is the home.
Conclusion
There is more to the article, but I am exhausted covering these points. Husbands are to lead the family; wives and children are to follow. This does not mean the husband has no role in the children's lives or that the wife should never protect her child.
The umbrella image is imperfect, but it is not inherently wrong to use. The arguments in the blog post seem to project preconceived ideas about the family onto the image.
Below is an attempt at a "better" image of the family unit. If you disagree that children are under Christ's authority because they have not professed faith, you will still disagree with this image.
Comments are open to all subscribers for discussion on this topic.
The scripture and tradition and Church fathers are clear. The is a hierarchy and there are roles. Feminism has infected the thinking of the modern world. I’m reading “The end of Woman” by Carrie Gress about the true history and teachings of feminists and its very anti God and anti family.
Let me start by saying that, by and large, I agree with almost everything here that you've said on this topic.
The following items are the few that stood out as worthy of further discussion.
1) Umbrella and Headship
I was a bit surprised that in this whole discussion about the umbrella image that you never mentioned headship or vows or authority. The umbrella view, in my mind, is representational of the shelter / protection that each spouse in the marriage provides to the level below it. While the umbrella's "imperfection" is thought of when the father's umbrella blocks the rain from the outside, we must recognize that, as fallen people, sometimes the father rains on the mother who must protect the children from him. OR the father informs his wife about what's going on so she can then consider how to protect / train the children for a possible eventuality. Example: Von Trapp family in Nazi occupied Austria were insulated by many things going on outside their home by their father, but he needed a good wife to make the house a home w song and not a junior military post. Then they needed to prepare the whole family to leave Austria as the Nazi occupation got worse, and the new mother's joy of music gave them the perfect distraction to make their daring escape.
2) Baptism of Children
The most egregious item to prompt my response is the belief in the baptism of children. While Catholic tradition might go way back, there is no Scriptural precedent to support this. In order to do this, you have to misunderstand both baptism and the spiritual place of children.
Baptism is entirely predicated on a confessed faith in Christ for salvation from the eternal consequences of that sin caused by a person's own sinful heart and actions. While there is Scripture to support the "sinful from birth" idea, there's no Scripture to support the "children are deserving of Hell" idea.
A) Knowledge of Sin. My mother is the kind who believes that ANY disobedience by a child of any age = eternal damnation to Hell forever since failure to obey their parents is a violation of God's law of "children obey your parents". If that's true, then certainly a newborn baby is rebellious beyond belief since they refuse to stop crying when told to on their first day of life. Or we can recognize as parents what God recognizes in many of us adults that our ability to understand might not be as clear is it ought to be. Thus grace pervades, even in God's eyes, over swift justice for a time. As the child grows, so too does their understanding of what is told to them, what they want, and their ability to choose different paths. A newborn is innocent, and their worst actions aren't sinful even in God's eyes. A newborn lives in pure grace.
B) Submission to father / parent. Even as I mentioned headship before, children in submission to their parents also fall under their determination of righteousness even as a wife's vow is subject to her husband's approval to be binding (Num 30). Even the elders will give an account of your submission to them as part of their accounting before God (Heb 13:17). The feedback loop of action / response is shortest for a child with their own parents. They are guided by them into the paths of righteousness and consider their place by the feedback they are given.
C) This then begat the phrase "age of accountability". But what is that age? It's not universal. A 10 yr old hated his parents so much that he murdered them. I'd say that's a pretty evil child who should face serious punishments both now and in eternity. I also know a 25 yr old w Down's Syndrome and the mind of a 3 yr old.
Let's go back to the original candidate for baptism: a confessed faith in Christ for salvation from the eternal consequences of the sin caused by a person's own sinful heart and actions.
* Can a child "confess faith" before they can speak the common tongue?
* Does the child recognize the discrepancy between their internal desires and God's objective standards?
* Does the person recognize Christ's death to pay the eternal consquences for their sin on their behalf?
I changed it from child to person in the last question because that's why you can't count Christians at the local swimming pool. It's not the water that's holy; it's the mindset of the person submitting to the process.
While the church I grew up in spoke against "child baptism", they had their own form it. As kids reach school age, the pressure by the parents on the kids increases. These weren't baptism for sin, but "child dedication ceremonies" more for the parents' standing w fellow church members than changing the child's relationship with God.
I was originally baptized at ~8. My wife was ~12. We couldn't tell you what we were repenting of; we had no real recognition of being sinful.
My sister once said, "I never cussed, smoke, drank, or had sex before I got married. What did I have to repent of?"
I can hear you now, "If only she knew what sin is in that statement!"
Exactly the point, she was pointing out that her baptism in childhood happened when she was naive to the sin in her life compared to what became so evident after she grew up. My wife and I had the same experience.
After a more thorough reading of Scripture, I changed many of my stances on issues to be more in line with what God was saying in His word and was brought to the point of repentance over many unrecognized sins in my life and was (re)baptized at 29. My wife had her own struggles and moment of recognition before her (re)baptism at 28.
In the Law, Jews had no choice to be in the Covenant or not. They were subjected to the rules of it from birth. Circumcision was a reminder of that. Baptism is NOT circumcision. How can you read so many passages against the REQUIREMENT of circumcision and still believe that baptism is the new circumcision? Even more, how can you read verses like Jesus own prediction: Matt 10:34-36 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household." and come away thinking, "Ah. I need to force this on my children against their will before they're old enough to speak against it."
3) I never heard of Bill Gothard until today. Hmm...
Wikipedia - "His conservative teachings encourage Bible memorization, large families, homeschooling, aversion to debt, familial patriarchy, the submission of wives to husbands, and modest attire."
I can see why liberals hate him. I don't see anything wrong here.
"In 2014, he stepped down from IBLP after 34 women accused him of sexual harassment and molestation, with some incidents allegedly occurring when the victims were minors. In 2016, Gothard and IBLP were sued by a group of alleged victims. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2018, as the statute of limitations had been exceeded."
Sounds like a modern #MeToo lynching, aka "cancel culture" with false accusers coming out of the woodwork making stuff up for political purposes. Just like they attacked Bill Cosby, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump, and anybody else who disagree with their anti-family, anti-God agenda.
What exactly is the problem with Bill Gothard?