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.
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?