Umbrellas for Umbrellas
Thoughts on the "Biblical" hierarchy of the family.
Recently, I saw this meme (below) on social media which prompted me to foolishly respond to it. The need to respond comes from the nature that this image of the umbrella analogy is still being used, accepted, and disseminated. What was also concerning was an individual who engaged with me in my response. I believe their argument was illogical but that’ll be addressed later. I will admit that the umbrella diagram looks good at a quick glance and I know that many pastors promoted this image at one point until they realized their mistakes. The mistake is obvious because, on closer inspection, it is ripe with errors and has led to a disservice to our Christian women. But on that note, let's first look into the background who created this image.
I cannot say who actually created the idea originally, but it's credited to Bill Gothard and his ministry known as the Institute in Basic Life Practices (IBLP). Both of which are primarily vested in the fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalists, such as the Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB), are primarily known for their conservative viewpoints determined from a literal interpretation of the Bible. The literal interpretation is not to be confused with a recognition of the authority of Scripture, which they hold to, but rather that they believe every word is literal and they do not differentiate between the genres of the Bible. Because of that, most of them are Dispensational in theology.
The other issue that I personally have noted is that most fundamentalist churches are isolated, particularly the IFB, as they view the “Independent” also literally and do not have any sort of ecumenical ties to other churches. They view the autonomy of the church as completely determined by the local congregation and do not see value in cooperating with any church that may differ from their values. Thus, they stand as the “righteous remnant” against the shifting tides that are affecting all other churches and see themselves as doing God’s work because “the world does not love them because the world also opposed Christ.”[1] Additionally, many also hold to a King James Version (KJV)-only stance on translations because of a belief that other translations have been altered by the world or culture. While there is a lot that Evangelical churches would find in common with the fundamentalists, in part because of the effect the movement had on organizations like the Southern Baptist Conference, the fundamentalists are rather extreme in their views and it has led to various dangerous results.
The IBLP is a non-denominational organization with many doctrines and a statement of faith that aligns with or is rooted in fundamentalism. From an external perspective, I cannot make precise claims about this organization and will not speak of any specific faults it has except for what has been recorded in the past, particularly dealing with the founder of Bill Gothard. But I do have an unease about the organization based on what I see as an unhealthy focus on the men and the father-son relationship with a minor emphasis on the family structure overall but I also realize that I could be reading into it due to my presuppositions. The reason I put this disclaimer to not necessarily speak ill of the organization but because Bill Gothard, who is the particular individual of distrust, resigned from the organization in 2014 and I cannot confirm what his legacy remaining is. But what existed prior is pretty disturbing and is a reflection of Bill Gothard himself.[2]
Why did Bill Gothard resign? Simply stated, there were accusations of sexual harassment by over 34 women. While he stated he had done nothing wrong, he resigned after a leave of absence and the IBLP, subsequently, moved their headquarters to distance themselves from him. Ultimately, I cannot confirm whether he is guilty of his actions or not as the legal cases go back and forth and are nullified because of statutes of limitations. However, the numerous accusations as well as his teachings, which are no longer available through non-archived websites, are more probable of disqualification in ministry than anything else. I also recognize that there are more articles written against him than for him, which means that to get unbiased information is difficult but also speaks to the level of claims that may be legitimate.
From what I surmise, his teachings were heavily weighted against women and an attempt to promote “patriarchy.” Some of his teachings were related to gender norms, that is, boys cannot play with any sort of dolls and girls play was limited to homemaker-type activities. It was a distinctly American concept that attempted to find support in Scripture. Additionally, he taught the complete submission of women to their husbands. The level of complete submission varies in which some may have been taught that they were to receive revelation, that is Scripture, from the husband only. Many were taught that complete submission was that the woman must do whatever the man told her. This could even result in actions that went against her convictions, and though she could appeal, it was the husband who still held authority and she had to perform as commanded. Additionally, she had to present an image of the family so regardless of what she felt, she had to keep up the appearances with a smile in public so that she would not be blamed for the family being shamed. It is a sad affair of action that was done in the name of holiness. And we can see this in the umbrella analogy.
First off, theologically speaking, the fact that there is an umbrella under an umbrella is illogical. If the first umbrella is the “umbrella of protection” that is a representation of Christ, and His people are under it, the only reason that there would be a need for a second umbrella is because the first one fails in one way or another. This means that Christ is not sufficient. I do not know what Gothard’s intention was in using this image but I do know that it has been promulgated through the American South and has deceived many for decades. What was most likely Gothard’s intention in this illustration was to show a sort of “chain of command.”[3]
This chain of command shows a representation of mediation between umbrellas. That God speaks to the Husband who speaks to the Wife who speaks to the Children. There is no personal relationship with God unless it goes through the hierarchy of the family. Therefore, the wife and child must go through the husband in order to petition, pray, or have any sort of spiritual bond with God. In a nutshell, Christ is no longer a personal savior but a familial one. The justification I heard of this is that the church is the bride of Christ and the leaders of the church are the men. Another way is that the man is the familial head of the family and therefore the one who ultimately submits to Christ. Therefore, others do not submit to Christ but to the one who represents the head of that structure. That is how holiness is achieved.
Another concerning part of this image is that it assigns what the praxis or practices of each member of the household are supposed to adhere to. It states that men are to be the protectors and providers of the home while women are the managers of the home and children by teaching and nurturing. This is a flawed concept in that it assumes that women have no authority in the protection or provision of the family. It removes the individual giftings of each family member and especially the function of working together to make one flesh. It assumes that the important parts are the men while the lesser, though still vital, are the women. Likewise, it removes the position that the man should be functioning in the managing of the home and the nurturing of the children. The entire model itself is flawed because this isn’t the actual biblical structure.
For those who question whether they should ever use this image. Personally, I would not use the umbrella analogy solely from a Baptist perspective. I cannot confirm that Christ’s umbrella is over my children, though my children have made a confession of faith, it is not necessarily standard in all Baptist homes. This doesn’t mean that I don’t raise them within a Christian home and instruct them as I would to find faith in Christ (Deut 6:7; Titus 2). It’s just that I cannot confirm they fall within Christ’s umbrella even though they are under my care and protection. Unfortunately, in this world, it is always possible that something may happen to one of our children and the question is whether or not they have found themselves in paradise. I have no sovereignty over their faith. I do not control their position under the umbrella but I do have the responsibility to raise them so that they would know Christ.
And that’s ultimately what the Biblical Family chain of command is. It’s not a dogmatic structure where the man has hierarchal authority but it is a helper-helper relationship of humbleness and cooperation to grow the family to be followers of Christ. The hierarchy of the family is about responsibilities. To each, there is an individual responsibility yet a common purpose. As Christ is given all authority, He has given man, through Adam, responsibility for his wife and children. Not authority. Women, therefore, are co-equal with the man to pursue what is Godly but the husband is given the responsibility to ensure that the actions are appropriate. Bill Gothard’s model of submission does not allow for the common pursuit or the appropriate rearing of children. It makes authoritative claims about submission that are not consistent through Scripture.
Additionally, the burden that is placed on the man may be too much. The level of temptation to sin when given that amount of authority and power is why it took Jesus to accomplish what we could not. But the burden may even be on the expectations we put on the men. Though Gothard’s teachings look like they consistently blame the wife, this model without his influence may put undue weight on the man who is struggling to accomplish it. I’m sure every family man would strive to be able to support and protect their family, but there are a lot of limitations to this. First, in order for the man to provide he must leave the home. He simply cannot protect the family unless he takes them with him and in some cases, that would mean bringing them into harm. Instead, when he is providing for the family, the “authority” of protection falls to the wife. The woman is already equipped to do such and the man may only need to supply her with the necessary tools.
And even if the man was there, I doubt that many women would lead their children into harm willingly, assuming they were of sound mind and conscience. Likewise, there is no doubt that a woman too may provide for her family as necessary. The examples are numerous. This may be seen by a woman who tends a garden, makes sourdough bread, reviews and discerns the ingredients of products, sells her wares on Etsy, or works a job so that her family does not starve. That’s because no woman would desire to lead her family into poverty because of a man’s pride. This is not a statement of the woman being the sole provider but that she may be a provider. There is a level of discernment and discussion that is made by each family regarding this manner. Not some institute overseer.
Biblically, we could find all of these characteristics of provider and protector under the “Proverbs 31” woman, though I believe that chapter is meant to be about general wisdom and not specifically women. However, elsewhere, are other examples. We see that it was the faith of Rahab that preserved her family from destruction and harm (Josh 2:12-14; 6:17). It was she who protected her family. We can also see how Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna provided for Jesus with their own possessions and wealth (Luke 8:1-3). There was no rebuking by the men but an acceptance of this gift for their ministry. Just as women may leave the household and work before marriage, they may also continue to provide for their family if that is what is best for that family. Marriage is a cooperation and not a hierarchy.
I mentioned that it was a meme that started all of this and in that meme, I replied with a condensed statement of the above. However, the social media response from one individual to my statement was simply, “1 Timothy 2:9-15.” Let me explain something about the context. The prior verses regard men praying, not just randomly, but specifically during the gathering of the church. Thus, the following statement regarding women has to do with the context of the church. Women are not to adorn themselves in lavish jewelry and make themselves a spectacle and are to remain quiet and submissive to learn from the pastors. The men are to open their hearts and pray without wrath and dissension as examples to the whole body (1 Tim 2:8). All of whom are to sit under the teacher who speaks of faith and truth (1 Tim 2:7). This means that the reply itself was an illogical attempt of debate through an out of context verse.
Another reason that the reply was illogical was because the verse of choice would state that only men are to teach. Therefore, by the biblical model presented, it is not the women who should teach unless they only have girls, but the men. And that is important. The largest flaw that most of American society is that men are disengaged with their children in one form or another. I am truly guilty of this having been in and out of my children’s lives, due to military obligations and deployments, and probably not teaching them as much as I should. However, most families have outsourced teaching to the state which is then primarily a profession of women. Additionally, when looking at it from the reverse, Scripture states that children are to honor not just the father or mother but both the mother and father (Eph 6:1-2). This indicates that raising the child is not limited to function by one parent or through the authority of one parent but that the union of the two holds the honor. It is also interesting to note that it is the father who must be restrained in his own emotions when dealing with his children (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21).
The next response that individual made to my reply was, “The Bible is clear. It’s not just one verse. When you have to write a whole page explaining what God wanted to say you know you are wrong. God is very clear – the wife should be subjected to the man. That’s how God left it. You can be pissy about it or listen to the commandment. Up to you. But you don’t get to change the word of God to suit your selfish desires.”
This is why I brought up the fundamentalists earlier. This is literal reading. First, to address writing a whole page for explanation. If it is wrong to write page upon page of what Scripture states, then every preacher and pastor would be wrong and out of a job. Every Sunday morning contains a reading of the passage and, hopefully, an exegeting of the passage to explain the context and the intention of such passage. To think that every great theologian is wrong and to assume that the clarity of the Bible is to be taken so literally. By this logic, the wicked would never feel pain because that’s what Asaph wrote when he said, “For I was envious of the boastful, I saw the peace of the wicked. For there are no pains in their death, and their body is fat” (Ps 73:3-4).
I wrote the pages not because I needed to perform mental gymnastics to meet my narrative. I wrote the page's worth of information to explain what was not being understood. The irony is that he, too, took to writing pages in response. Secondly, the Bible is clear. But its clarity is not to be thought of as simply as a textbook, written in the simplest of manner. Rather, clarity, or perspicuity, is a term to state that the Bible clearly defines what is right and wrong. To make it obvious what obedience looks like. This doesn’t mean we understand everything but we note that there are no contradictions contained nor are we left wondering what to do next. That is what clarity of Scripture means.
Therefore, when we read about the roles of women, it is simple to look at 1 Tim 2:9-14 and consider that women are just tools for the birth of children and for remaining silent. But if we are talking about clarity, that viewpoint does not align with Matt 28:16-20, the Great Commission. These men who would claim the submission of women would also say that it is their responsibility to preach the gospel to all. Maybe they would argue that only women can proclaim the gospel to women and not to men. Because these same would state that proclaiming is the same as teaching. But then they would have to justify what the gift of teaching is and whether teaching is reserved for elders only or if all people are to teach. The slippery slope is well within reach of this argument.
Maybe we should ask how one could consider Paul’s other writings to Corinth, in which he says, “And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. For otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave. The brother or the sister is not enslaved in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Cor 7:13-16).
The context is not of complete submission as we think of it but rather implied conversation. Paul exhorts the wife to lead the unbelieving husband to salvation while they are together, though the circumstances change if they willingly leave. If the woman is to remain completely passive, she would never speak the gospel. Instead, the passive action of the gospel is that Christians should be uniquely different from the rest of the world through praxis or lifestyle. When questioned as to why we are different, we do not submit to the world but actively explain our worldview through the gospel. The same is true for the wife to the unbelieving husband. Those of the fundamentalist movement may argue that the woman does not fall under the submission rule to the unbeliever. Yet, if the basis of the rules is applied to Adam and Eve, of whom the first transgressed, then why is it not carried on? I do not recall Paul detailing when the women do not have to submit nor do I remember reading when God’s expectations for the family were to differ based on our contexts.
Finally, the last part of his reply that I wish to address is that I must “listen to the commandment.” Maybe this is where I begin to nitpick but I do not see an explicit commandment to a family hierarchy. The commandment that God gave is that in His order, man and woman were to join to become one flesh (Gen 2:24) so that they may be fruitful and multiply (Gen 9:1). I do not remember the statement saying that Adam or Noah shall take control of the women and hold them to a set standard. In fact, not much is spoken of the women in these cases. The men were still held to a responsibility. There is a commandment to honor a mother and father (Exod 20:12), though I think the passage is more attuned to remaining alive and safe than it is a dogmatic statement. But I don’t think this is the commandment he was referring to.
The reason I even write all of this is because I have found that there are two loud sides to the gender coin that overshadow the rest of the Christian community. One loud side sees complete equality of women in saying that there are no distinct roles. This is the Egalitarian or secular side that is unable to acknowledge that one group is designed and better suited for a specific role over the other. Often, their argument is lopsided in that they promote the ability of women to do anything without considering the necessity of men to do what they are lacking. Instead, they’ll use an example of some female individual who is defying gender norms, normally in sports or business, and point to them as the capability to accomplish anything without stating that these individuals are a statistical minority. Often at a statistically insignificant level. What they actually do is discredit their own worth or uniqueness in their attempts to make everyone “the same.” They do not value the differences.
The other side is historically the ones in control through abuse of power and tends to desire to stay in control over others. Though I say that with harshness, it is because by experience these individuals do not deserve authority as much as they scheme for it. They tend to be the ones we see in the news who are caught up in physical, sexual, and spiritual abuse. These men look down on women and act condescending to them while attempting to elevate their own worth. They are like Adam as they are quick to cast blame at the first opportunity. When they study Scripture, they do not recognize how counter-cultural the gospel was for society. They do not recognize how Paul addressing women and slaves in Scripture is him breaking the cultural norms. Because in those days, a man would address another man to take care of his property. Paul addressed the “property” directly and thus, elevated them to equal status as individuals, humans, and brothers and sisters in Christ. But this side does not care to recognize these things because they were “blessed to be a man.”
I hope that the majority who read this are leaning into the middle. If not, I hope that there is a conviction to reject what you may have previously learned. It is a hope that we recognize that we are co-functioning. We act like the Biblical standard of marriage by God’s design by seeing the worth of each other and knowing that we have joined to become one flesh. For the man to listen to his wife’s suggestions and make the appropriate decision. For the woman who realizes the outcome may fall on the man’s shoulder and provides timely wisdom. For the woman who studies the depths of Scripture and discusses them with her husband. For the man who humbles himself and asks for his wife’s help. This is the righteous Christian home. It is the family that operates together as Christ’s church operates together. Yes, the man bears the responsibility for the family but he is not in it alone.
[1] James C. Livingston et al., Modern Christian Thought, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 389.
[2] “The Cult Next Door,” Chicago Magazine, accessed May 7, 2024, https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/July-2016/Institute-in-Basic-Life-Principles-Hinsdale/.
[3] “Religion: Obey Thy Husband,” Time, May 20, 1974, https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,944839-1,00.html.