NEOPURITAN

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

PSALM 127:3-5

In review of what we saw from the opening chapters of the Bible, the triune God made human beings to speak about himself—that was what Image meant—and we do not restrict this God-glorifying function of the Image to the Image existing in isolation. God did not make man to be in isolation. And that social dimension to the image is most clearly seen is how He brings together this first social that we’re going to look at: the family. The basic thing that God does in response to it not being good for man to be alone is to “make him a helper fit for him.” We saw that woman was an ezer, or picture of the Spirit of God reflecting all of the life-giving and comforter aspects of life. At this point we have to avoid two extremes about this doctrine of Complementarian gender designs. The difference between the sexes has marriage as a central material end, but it does not have the act or reality of a particular marriage as its origin or basic meaning. In other words, marriage can be an end cause of gender difference without depending on a particular marriage in this lifetime ever occurring or even going well.

• WHAT IS A MARRIAGE?
• WHAT IS A FAMILY?
• WHAT IS A HOME?
• WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS AND OTHER SPHERES?

The Big Idea is that the family is the multiplication of the Image and therefore the home is a fortress for the preservation/perseverance of this Image.

A word of warning: The biblical doctrine of the family is a divisive doctrine. It divides the church between the younger and the older. Those who have been there and done that have been young idealists. They were once excited about putting into practice the biblical mandate; and they have seen the biblical truth of Job—that God does with homes something bigger than He commands of family members. But cynicism lurks in that lesson. Those who are just getting started see in the Bible a world-changing ethic that flows from the home to the whole world; and naturally anyone that sees this is going to immediately see childbearing and homeschooling in a different light than they otherwise would have. Their immediate thought it: Wow, I’ve got to do this! “Got” becomes a slippery words that begins to rise above everything else in the Christian worldview. And legalism lurks on that slippery slope. Both sides forget the fundamental principle of biblical ethics—that we do what we do because of what it says about God, not because of what it says about us—and therefore both sides tend to pit one side of the biblical teaching against the other: old creation and kingdom against gospel and new creation; or vice-versa.

I. WHAT IS A MARRIAGE?

A) The Unity and Diversity of the Image in Men and Women

1. As to unity, both man and woman are created as mankind (adam) and are therefore equal in dignity. In being placed in eden they are both given the same basic, ultimate vocation: namely, worship. On the other hand, they are also created “male and female,” and thus man is formed from the ground (adamah), whereas the woman (ishah) is formed from the side of man (ish). They are given a unified set of names (Adam and Eve) and they are given a diverse met of names (Man and Woman) in order to reflect that they have the same ultimate purpose, but diverse specific tasks. And the God of perfect wisdom built them specifically for their specific tasks. John Piper has labeled this well and so we will defer to his breakdown here[1], though I will combine it with the linguistic dynamics of Genesis 1-2:

Men                               Women

Gender-Specific Dispositions                       lead, provide, protect                affirm, nurture, receive

Location of Glory-Seeking                            ground / impersonal                 side / interpersonal

Basic Complementary Need                         ground / respect                       side / love

2. Marriage is the “material unity” of the two image-bearers. It is not the only unity of their design; but it is the clearest display of it and therefore very much on purpose. Marriage is neither a social contract (secularism) nor a sacrament (Romanism), but a divinely ordained covenant [cf. Mat. 19:4-6]. This means that every single marriage—whether of believers or unbelievers—is made by God.

B) Complementary Differences Complement In and Out of Marriage

1. There are more cans of worms crawling around at this point than we could possibly clean up, so let’s confine our study to the two most obvious difficulties: First, how do we understand gender distinctions apart from this one flesh union? Second, where do we draw the lines between God’s design and man’s distortion? These differences are creational-not-conventional. Gender as convention represents a materialistic worldview and a program of social engineering, the immediate goal being to change conventions. And these differences are also psychological-not-simply-biological. Gender as strictly biological is also coming from a materialistic worldview. Such distinction will help the church understand when their values about gender are coming from Scripture or culture, and whether or not we are trying to perform our own social engineering within the church.

2. Notice that when Jesus reaffirms the original design of marriage in the New Testament He parallels this with the continued design of gender uniqueness: “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” [Mk. 10:4]. Man is not at liberty to undo male and female anymore than he is at liberty to undo any particular marriage union.

C) The Genesis of Gender Psychology

1. As we turn to Genesis 3 we can see that in the Fall we do not simply have a fallen race, but also the fallen sexes. The curses specific to the man and woman directly mirror their design. The gender-specific Image cracks. So, the man who sought God’s glory in the cultivation of the earth now seeks his own glory in the cultivation of the earth; so, the woman who sought God’s glory in the cultivation of relationships now seeks her own glory in the cultivation of relationships. That which at first yielded a harvest of worship now yields thorns and thistles and coldness and neglect. The abuse is in the use because the distortion is of the design.

II. WHAT IS A FAMILY?

A) To Multiply the Image is a ‘General Imperative Blessing’

1. Again misunderstanding abounds. But each of these three words will be important and avoid all of the extremes. God’s words in 1:28 reflect all three of these essential elements: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” It’s general because it is to man-kind (adam), as the anthropological account that treats man and woman distinctly as individuals waits for Chapter 2. It’s an imperative because God says to mankind to “Be fruitful.” Some may be concerned that this is Law-therefore-not-Grace. But that assumes that God would ever command of you something that is either not good or at least neutral. All of God’s commands are blessings!

2. Notice also from 1:28 that the family precedes the state as the cause to an effect. Fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion. Who has dominion over the whole earth? Obviously only more image bearers. So, the family is the most basic institution of the original creation. When it goes, all of society goes; for the family is the social DNA—the base informing society that issues forth into the traits of society at large—from the bond of a man and woman comes all of the rational creatures that comprise total society. We might say about the family that it is the microcosm society where the other three spheres we will speak of after are the macrocosm of society. For society to intrude upon the specific prerogatives of the family would be like a mad scientist fiddling with the embryos of all of the members of the next generation.

B) To Multiply the Image is a Communal Gift in the New Creation

1. What if we have a basically positive vision of the family against the secularizing tendencies of modern culture, but we are equally suspicious of a legalistic interpretation of this domestic imperative? The three-fold doctrine above should have already helped. The command spells out a general vocation and never mandates amounts of children, nor excludes vocations that do not include childrearing. But let us say we need more to assure us. Jesus helps us here. When Peter asked him about leaving everything behind for the sake of the kingdom, Jesus replied that these (including children) would be made up for “a hundredfold…[with] children” in the kingdom [cf. Mk. 10:29-30]. In other words, when Jesus redeems you He also makes true the prophecy about Him redeeming all that you’ve lost [cf. Joel 2], and that includes any loss of reputation, favor, status or sense of worth within the domestic sphere. No matter how God has shaken the home you came from or the home you tried to build, you are an equal member of the household of God and all things really are in common, which doesn’t mandate a communist cell. What it does mandate is more of a war-time lifestyle that sees everyone on the same side in the greatest war conceivable. But this camaraderie goes together with this charity. No widow, no orphan, no single mother has to come crawling back to the suburban heroes of the church to carve out a measly existence in the church penalty box. The Holy Spirit is doing something new with every broken person and it does not, and cannot wait, till you get your suburban ducks in a row.

2. We do not want to commit a fallacy by arguing from someone else’s false good to the negation of a true good. For instance, in the Bible barrenness was always dreaded by wives and used as a symbol of spiritual destitution. So if we hear a triumphalist view of childbearing equating barrenness to disobedience, we can commit this fallacy by arguing not against them, but against God’s value of multiplying the image. Likewise, the Roman Catholic doctrine that marriage, and therefore sexuality, is exclusively for reproduction leads to everything from identity crises, priestly celibacy (and potentially abuse) and the forbiddance of contraceptives. We can commit the same fallacy by arguing, not against their fallacy, but against God’s primary design of marriage for procreation.

C) The Largest Context Even for the Old Design is the Gospel Declared

1. This may be hard to get our minds around, but the New Testament seems to be consistent that at the highest point in the ethical hierarchy of the old institutions is the purity of the gospel witness. Thus leadership, submission, covenant-keeping faithfulness and forgiveness, all take precedence over any other ethical inference which we might otherwise rightly draw from Scripture. In commenting on all the “for the Lord’s sake” calls to submission in 1 Peter 2 and 3, Andreas Kostenberger concludes that “leading unbelievers to Christ is a greater cause than insisting on justice in human relationships.”[2] And it is precisely the display of the gospel in these submissive acts which so powerfully leads sinners to Christ.

III. WHAT IS A HOME?

A) The Home as a New Image Fortress / Incubator

1. If a child is nothing but a new human, and every human is made in the image of God, then the home is meant for the preservation and perseverance of this image so that the family can propagate this image: preservation, perseverance, propagation. ‘Image-Mutations’ are the results of nature and nurture. In his book, Shepherding a Child’s Heart, Ted Tripp gives us a good biblical counterpart to the psychologist’s nature and nurture breakdown. He calls these the basic “God-ward orientation” of the child’s soul and the “shaping influences” upon the child’s soul. The God-ward orientation is basic to everything else, but the influences are still shaping. And this follows from our doctrines of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. But this breakdown is just one more safeguard against flying to the extremes of pietistic cynicism or else “blood and soil” legalism.

B) The Home as a Covenantal ‘Circle of Blessing’

1. Fathers were given the role they were to speak of God, which is why Paul retains the patriarchal stamp on familial reality in Ephesians 3:  and 6:  . Once again there are two extremes. One is to make patriarchy foundational to theology and the other is to see it as essentially corruptive. Instead patriarchy exists because of what it says about God; that there is patriarchal abuse simply means that there is a distortion of the design. Kostenberger points out that “it was not primarily the power and privileges associated with the father’s position but rather the responsibilities associated with his headship that were emphasized.”[3] God binds all the members of the family to speak about himself in general, but He bind each member of the family to speak about himself in particular. So, again, there is unity and diversity in the covenant relationship.

Mothers were not directly addressed in Ephesians 6, not because Paul forgot them, nor because there were no Ephesian mothers! It was because the Deuteronomic mandate to the patriarchy was retained in the New Covenant. And that also does not mean that mothers do not have similar responsibilities; rather that mothers do not suddenly become fathers! Now to the unity of the parents’ calling, notice that the man and woman are both called to accomplish the four vocations in general, but that the man is pictured specifically heading the cultivation and scientific aspects in the temporary absence of the woman (and it’s not a good thing!)—and so does not mean that women may not work outside of the home, but—which draws attention to the man’s physical capacity and spiritual aggression to do those things in a way that women, in a normal context, have no desire to do. Their help comes in a different form. But a wife is still related to these. The initial two commands explain how this is. The imperatives of multiplication and dominion center on the home and the reproduction of Image bearers, which means the cultivation of a new generation of spiritual giants [cf. Ps. 127:3-5]. It is viewed as the most powerful thing: the location of the most motion of earth, since here is the image. The image is not what the man is “working on” at work, nor what the electorate is “voting on” in the public square. The Image is most nearly the ones who are grown in the home.

2. Within the covenant relationship there is blessing; with disobedience and separation comes a curse. The immediate task of the parents’ communication to the children is of this covenant dynamic. This is the way Paul interprets the fifth commandment:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (this is the first commandment with a promise), that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land [Eph. 6:1-3].

3. Formative discipline refers to the formation of the whole person. All of life is this kind of discipline. It may be helpful to remember that “disciple” literally means “disciplined one.” So in the Great Commission what are we told to do in making disciples? The formative process is described as “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” [Mat. 28:20]. Corrective discipline refers to the changing of external elements, whether environmental changes or punishments imposed, in order to prevent the irrational soul from moving outside of the circle of blessing because they are manifesting a state of mind that is incapacitated to the point of immediate danger. Naturally it is a last resort. However that does not mean that it may not be frequent, as the Proverbs make clear: “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” [13:4]; “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him” [22:15]; “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die” [23:13]; “If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol” [23:14]; “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” [29:15].

The interplay of formative and corrective discipline flows from the understanding of a Christian parent of when the rational soul or irrational sin is the immediate target. The rational soul is the norm; but there is a time and place for snatching someone from the edge of a cliff. Tripp says about the norm: “Changing behavior without changing the heart trains the heart toward whatever you use as your means…[God] produces change from the inside out.”[4] So in having a total vision of God’s role and your role, where should your role be aimed as a parent? It should be cultivating the thing that God is already doing: aiming at the inside-out function of the intellect in the soul.

C) The Home as a School-House and Seminary

1. Since the discipling of the human soul is primarily formative (intellectual), not corrective (physical), it follows that there is a total relationship between the information of the biblical worldview and the formation of the godly soul. The form of discipline is essentially intellectual: a subject we will return to in great detail in our final session.

2. A school-house must be geared toward the generations. The language of the commands in Deuteronomy is aimed at the generations because the whole point of the family is the propagation of the Image. And if the image is formed essentially through the intellect, then naturally it follows that one can only aim godliness at the generations through multigenerational education. Paul gives us a hint what this means in the Pastoral Letters where the charge to Timothy and Titus for the maintenance of the churches they were founding was essentially doctrinal. In the second letter to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to “Guard the deposit” [2 Tim. 1:14].

IV. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS AND OTHER SPHERES?

A) The Doctrine of the New Creation Informs the Doctrine of the Spheres

1. In the original creation there was unity and diversity in the spheres because of what it said of the unity and diversity in God. So, as Christ creates the new creation, there is a unity and diversity of the City of God (New) over/in the city of man (Old). And the new unity and diversity trumps the old because it is the real reality. As John Owen argues in The Glory of Christ, the new creation is founded on God the Son (the infinite, ontological Word) whereas the old creation was founded on only secondarily on God (the spoken, creational word). In the first, Owen says, “he hangs the world upon nothing,” whereas the new world springs forth from the Rock who is Christ. It is forever and eternally real, stretching both time past, space present and off beyond the end of this age; the world of history in Adam was a vapor, a shadow, a sketch, only eschatologically real. All of its directives, all of God’s commands in it, are to be interpreted in light of the new divine directives.

2. And the individual Christian is the focal point of the new creation. The church is nothing but the communion of saints—yes the body of Christ—but the traffic from eternity flows from God’s word to the conscience of the individual Christian before it flows anywhere else! This is why the church can be “over” the whole of the family and the husband/father, wife/mother, or child can decide “over-against” the dictates of either family or church at the same time (in a different relation). The sense in which the church stands over the other orders is entirely with the word of God. The sense in which the individual Christian stands over the orders (including, if need be, the local church) is entirely with the word of God. In other words—in this hierarchy—it is the word of God that gives unity to the diversity of the individual conscience (NC), the supreme sphere of the church (NC), and the lesser sphere of the family (OC).

B) The Church as the Actual Kingdom, the Family Members as the Potential Kingdom

1. In the oldest concepts of physics we would draw a distinction in motion between potency and act. This is Aristotle’s notion, but I have made use of it many times before and it is useful in the same way as the alphabet it, if anyone is wiggling. Now if the church, or city of God, is the form of the new creation, which is the greater reality, then the matter of our biological (or adopted) will only be acted upon in a gracious way to the degree that we see the church as the superior reality. Only this will be good for them and break their idols. What moves upon, and actuates this potential spiritual life, are the Word and the Spirit. And these two elements are given principally to the church. Our biological children are potential members of the kingdom, but they are not actual members until or unless the Holy Spirit ministers the content of the gospel to their hearts.

2. The church is not the collective family and the old family is not the church. Here the Family Integrated movement commits a doctrinal error. Voddie Baucham’s Family-Driven Faith (2007) offers many good correctives and many good directives for the home, but its view of the relationship between the family unit and church methodology goes wrong right from the title. Our faith should not be driven by our family, but our family (as everything else) driven by our faith. This difference is not merely cosmetic. The impression is given within this movement that the biological family forms the solution to the disintegration to both the body of Christ and its mission.

3. Neither Kostenberger nor the CBMW ever sufficiently show how the church, as the new creation, stands over institutions such as the family in a way that wars against the extremes of pietism and triumphalism, of cynicism and legalism. The Complementarian doctrine has spent its first twenty years of expression pitting the biblical view of gender and family against the culture rather than answering the more delicate and intricate issues of extremes within the church. We should extend patience and show maturity in our own thinking by keeping our criticism of Complementarianism at a constructive level. There should be no doubt that it is the biblical position in general, but that it needs to be refined as to particulars. But I would also insist that it needs a deeper theological foundation in Genesis 1 and 2 as we are attempting to do.