Chapter 3 - Fathers, Daughter, and Protection

The central point of this chapter seems to be setting the foundation for further specific topics by discussing some of the basic principles that apply to male/female relationships and how our society has lost these principles. Some important points were made and I appreciate the emphasis on male servant leadership. However, the chapter did little to provide Scriptural support for the father/daughter relationship they focus on and it also seemed a bit hyped-up in regard to issues in society.

The chapter began by stating that, “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 passages setting the patterns for men and women in general…” (page 23)* Perhaps it would be helpful to consider that maybe there isn’t a huge amount of instruction exclusively for fathers and daughters because Scripture does not place emphasis on the father/daughter relationship, but rather husbands/wives and parents/children, or at times fathers/children.

The authors noted three responsibilities Scripture lays out in regards to men and women’s relationships. One, man is to lead woman. Two, man is to provide for his family. Three, husbands and fathers are to protect their wives and daughters. The first two responsibilities do not refer to fathers and daughters specifically and the verses provided reference Adam and Eve (his wife) and a father providing for his family. The third responsibility is supported by an excerpt from Numbers 30, which describes how a father may nullify an oath/vow that his daughter makes to the Lord. I noticed that these verses note twice (verses 3 and 16) that the daughter is “being in her father's house in her youth” and also “being yet in her youth in her father's house”. I think this is important because I believe that the principle refers to the father’s protection of children, not his daughter in particular, and also because as a young woman grows older, her responsibilities to her parents change. I doubt the authors would say that a father does not owe his young sons protection as well. The Mosaic law, in this instance, does describe how to deal with this specific circumstance, but it does not support the father/daughter relationship this book describes.

The second part of the chapter emphasized how our culture has lost the Scriptural values we held in the past, particularly in relationship to men and women. This is true, to an extent. Men are often faced with wondering whether an act of courtesy will offend a woman and some woman do take these acts of courtesy as suggesting that they are weak or inferior, rather than of value. However, I think there is an overemphasis on the past as something ideal. For one, every society is sinful and where one society errs on one extreme, another errs on the other. Whereas our culture today does not teach the value of saving sexual intimacy for marriage, certain societies of years past would likely cast out an unwed mother, forcing her to face shame and giving her no support or care.

Further, the beautiful Victorian ideals of a century (or more) ago often were a façade, behind which existed the same sins we have in our world today: prostitution, adultery, premarital sex, etc. And aside from the issue of sin, the dark side of this era included families struggling to survive with young children working in factories for long hours, low salaries, no protection from injuries at work, and so on. Women weren’t all staying at home with their children. Some of them simply couldn’t afford it.

The sisters then contrast the past with the present. They describe moving to New Zealand, where they were “confronted with fashionable European socialism, Fabian feminism, and trendy androgyny. It was anti-patriarchal, anti-male, anti-marriage and anti-family…we saw that women for the most part are not respected; they are viewed as prey, as objects to exploit and discard.” (page 30)** This image sounds quite horrendous! :) I haven’t lived in New Zealand, but I did spend over a week there on my honeymoon this past summer and while it was more secular than the US, I did meet gentleman who treated me respectfully, couples who had been married for years, and actually, what I noticed more than secularism was the high immigrant population, both Asian and Indian. Point being, while the culture does exhibit the emptiness of secularism, I find their description slightly hyped (like the description of the past) – just in the negative direction instead of positive.

Rather than looking to the past, I believe we should turn to Scripture to find inspiration for how we should live our lives and what principles should guide our relationships. It can be helpful to examine the past and present, but we must keep Scripture as the forefront. The past may have positive aspects, but only Scripture can truly give us a vision for these principles.

At the close of the chapter, I found my greatest point of concern. The last statements of the chapter came out of nowhere and surprised me. After laying out the responsibilities of men as given in scripture and after describing men’s lack of chivalry and tendency to “exploit and discard” women, I would have expected a challenge to men. But instead, the chapter closes by saying, “After years of studying the decline of our world, God’s requirements for righteous conduct, and how He is pressing His lawsuit against our disobedient nation, we believe that the way daughters are treating their fathers is one of today’s biggest issues. One of the reasons our society is in moral shambles is because dishonoring sons and daughters are invoking God’s curses on the land…” (pg 31-32)***

I was dumbfounded. Suddenly, the ways daughters treat their fathers is the issue? This issue will be addressed in more detail in a further chapter, but I believe it illustrates an underlying problem with these young women’s perspective. Although the daughter has a responsibility to honor her father, within the family, the greater responsibility is placed on the parents’ shoulders, to love and care for their children and to raise them with principles that will lead them to honor their parents. Yes, children have choice and are called to honor, but parents have greater responsibility to protect and provide a safe, Christian home.

If these girls could step outside their happy home and see the pain of other families, I think (hope!) their perspective would change. There is the father who is not true to his marital vows and abandons his family for a younger woman, rarely coming to see his children – the father who places all his time and energy in his work, leaving little time for his family and no time for relationships – the selfish father does not serve his family, but who seeks to serve himself, even to the point of disrespecting his wife and turning to pornography to meet his desires – and at the extreme, an abusive father who doesn’t even protect his family from himself. These aren’t rare situations. I’ve seen each of them, some in my own family, some in my friends’ families. I cannot blame these daughters for not having a relationship with their fathers. I cannot even blame them for anger toward to fathers or not wanting to have a relationship with him. After experiencing this kind of pain, you protect yourself. While daughters should not let bitterness build in their hearts, they should not be pressured to make themselves vulnerable to further pain and they should draw proper boundaries. It may not be possible for them to have a healthy relationship with their father and that isn’t their fault.

Conclusion: While I appreciated some of the Biblical principles of how men and women ought to relate, this chapter provided no foundation from Scripture for this father/daughter relationship emphasis. Its denunciation of secular society while idealizing the past isn’t very realistic. And I was very bothered by the heavy responsibility placed on daughters when it comes to their relationship with their father.

*Botkin, Anna Sofia & Elizabeth. So Much More: the Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God. 1st. San Antonio, TX: Vision Forum, Inc., 2005.
**ibid.
***ibid.