For those cultures in transition, remnants of the older worldview often struggle with the implications of the newer worldview. Hence, in ancient Rome, the perversion, moral decay and political tyranny of the Imperial system persecuted the upstart Christian covenant community that offered its families justice, freedom and moral restraint. Yet even as the Roman patrician class died out due to sodomy, abortion and infanticide, the Christian community gained both economic and social power as God blessed the labor of their hands, and the fruit of their wombs.

We now live at the other end of the spectrum; after fifteen hundred years of Christian civilization, Christendom largely abandoned the Dominion Mandate in the 19^th century and Western civilization returned to the ancient, pagan ideals of autonomous Man, rejecting the yoke of God’s Law. At first, this transformation promised freedom from the “tyranny” of Christian morality; but a hundred years later, we can now see that the promise was a lie; our political governments have become new tyrannies, our economy ravaged by oppressive taxation, our popular culture sunk into a moral cesspit.

The Christian family, especially the role of the father, has been under relentless attack by the forces of secular humanism. Egalitarianism, though arising originally in a legitimate desire to allow all men, regardless of race, to enjoy the benefits of Christian civilization, eventually came to enthrone the will of the individual and to decry ANY differences-including biological ones. In the past fifty years women were “liberated” from the home and promised that they could “have it all” including family, career and autonomy if they adopted humanist values. However, humanism has largely destroyed the American family; birth rates have plummeted to sub-zero replacement levels, divorce rates skyrocketed, and millions of children, the victims of broken homes, are now at risk of mutigenerational poverty, crime, and drug addiction; in effect becoming cultural parasites.

The solution begins of course with personal regeneration and a lifetime process of sanctification. Yet, despite all the books, radio programs, seminars and special events that “focus on the family” unless Christians return to fundamental Biblical presuppositions we will only see the family and the broader culture continue to decline. Let there be no mistake; ultimately, the kind of culture we build (or the kind that our children inherit) will be dependant upon whether we understand and apply a consistent, comprehensive Biblical worldview. Christians conquered the pagan Roman Empire NOT through guerrilla movements, political action campaigns or sending our best and brightest young Christian minds to the prestigious philosophical academies specializing in Greek philosophy; the Christian church WON because we applied the Lordship of King Jesus FIRST in self-government, in our homes and relationships with one another.

In the great cultural battles of the 19-20^th centuries, Christians lost all the institutions they had built to humanism as their once world-conquering faith was reduced to an empty, religious experience that had little effect on either their own lives, or the broader culture. By 1973, the humanists declared victory by declaring the murder of unborn children a constitutional “right.” They now control the economy, the political system, most of the media and popular culture.

However, one encouraging sign of God’s providential care of His people is that since 1973 He has begun to reawaken tens of thousands of Christians to the need of developing a consistent, comprehensive Biblical worldview. One application of that worldview has been an attempt to recapture the Biblical concept of the family, especially the father’s role.

While one cannot really yet call it a “movement,” the term “patriarchy” has made a return describing an attempt to develop a counter-cultural model of the Christian family and by extension, a just Christian social order. Those who self-consciously identify themselves as supporting “patriarchy” are not yet united in just what this term entails but there are enough people affirming this view that many in the wider Christian community now believe them to a “serious threat” that needs to be addressed. Books, web sites, journal and magazine articles are appearing in various places critiquing the “patriarchs.” Since the contemporary cultural model of the Christian family is clearly dysfunctional (i.e., 75% of children growing up in the “average” evangelical home will leave the faith by the age of twenty-five and divorce rates for Christians are approaching secular norms), many Christians are looking for an alternative model. While examining the reasons why the Christian family has crumbled so quickly is beyond the scope of one brief essay, it is worth our time to examine “patriarchy” as a viable, Biblical alternative.

First, the name itself often leads some Christians to have a negative disposition before they have even considered the position. The word “patriarchy” conjures up images of a stern, Old Testament figure (perhaps with a long white beard), ruling his  family with an iron hand, squelching individual initiative, oppressing women and micromanaging every aspect of his children’s lives. Since most will reject that image, they then also reject the concept, without actually evaluating what a “patriarchy” might be and whether or not it is something of which God might approve.

The word “patriarchy” simply means “rule by fathers” and stands in opposition to such alternative ideas as “oligarchy” (rule by elites), “monarchy” (rule by one-usually a king), “aristocracy” (rule by a privileged class), or “democracy” (rule by the “people”) etc. In all the above “systems,” rule by someone is inevitable; somebody must have the final authority for making decisions. Modern humanist culture has indoctrinated most people, including Christians, to assume that “democracy” is somehow the “best” form of government with the idea that everyone is “equal” and should have an “equal” say in everything. This idea of “democracy” has even infiltrated the Christian home with a widespread elimination of distinct roles between men and women and a subsequent devaluation of the authority of the parents. However, it might be interesting for the average Christians to learn that the men who gave us our “democratic” institutions, ushering in the most productive, freest and socially responsible cultures in the world’s history ALL rejected “democracy.”

The Reformers saw “Democracy” as an ancient Greek heresy contrary to Biblical social and political theory. Instead, the greatest theologians of the Reformation affirmed the doctrine of “federalism” or “representation” based upon the model found in Genesis. In this view, one man stands for the group. Theologically it referred to Adam representing the entire human race (yet unborn) and therefore when he sinned, we all sinned in him. The corollary to this was Jesus being the Second Adam, standing in for His Elect; if we all died in Adam; we are all saved in Christ. Through federal representation, His death could atone for all His people’s sins (Rms 5:12-19).

The Reformers applied the doctrine of representation to the social and political realm when battling against the “divine right of kings.” They saw the Biblical office of king as simply one of representation; the king as the supreme executive of a nation has a responsibility to those he represents.  Hence, the king was not above the law, but under the law as God’s magistrate. Therefore, ungodly kings could be deposed and the people could choose a new representative. The Reformers found Biblical warrant in the way that the Hebrews governed their republic in Scripture; the “elders” of the twelve tribes elected the king; which was how Saul and David received their kingships (1 Sam 11:15, 2 Sam 2:4, 3:17, 5:3, etc.). Each tribe elected “elders” to rule over them and these elders then chose the king. Granted God first anointed the king; but the elders had to confirm their “calling.” Solomon’s son Rheoboam lost the Ten Northern Tribes because he insisted on being a tyrant so they refused to acknowledge him as king and Israel became a divided nation (1 Kings 12:16).

Hence, our modern concept of representative government, wherein the people choose leaders for themselves, is a direct application of the Reformation theology of Federal Representation and Biblical precedent. Americans in particular are the direct heirs to this theology; the Declaration of Independence is a legal document listing the abuses of the English king and justifying removing him as our Federal “head.” The Constitution of the United States is an attempt to work out this same Federal theology in determining the proper balance between individual, God given liberties with the necessity for sound political government.

Thus, theoretically, the people elect as their representatives members of congress, the president, governors, mayors, city council members, sheriffs, judges, etc., to rule IN THEIR PLACE. Please note that this is not technically “democracy;” the President of the United States does not have to conduct a referendum before making an executive decision; nor do the members of congress have to conduct an opinion poll before making a law. Each sphere of our government has legitimate, lawful authority to act in their given areas in the name of the people. If we, the people, disapprove of their actions on our behalf, then we recall them from office by electing someone else. We even derive our term “federal government” from this theology of representation.

Granted, in our modern political system we daily see horrible abuses of power from all three branches of our government; but these men derive their lawful authority to act (when they act lawfully) because they are the representatives of the “people.” They stand for us and act in our name. Hence, the older word to describe our form of government was “Republic” not “Democracy.”

Now what has all this to do with reforming the Christian family and evaluating “Patriarchy?” In effect, Western civilization WAS a “patriarchy” up until recent times; and some form of “patriarchy” was assumed as the normal means of governing not only households, but also entire nations. The English proverb “every man’s home is his castle” represents the cultural assumption, handed down from antiquity, that the father, as head of his household, WAS the federal representative of his own family to the broader community. In some sense, both monarchies and aristocracies were both developments of this same principle of patriarchy.

Until the twentieth century, Americans almost universally held to this doctrine of representation in some form or the other. The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered “inferior” or “too emotional” (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community. By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!

However, by the end of the 19^th century, American Christians had largely stopped thinking in theological terms. Instead, an emotive, subjective religious “experience” (called Pietism”) emphasizing individual conversion replaced the comprehensive Christian worldview of the Reformation. As Christians failed to think Biblically about all of life, they were unable to withstand either the new philosophies gaining ground in the universities or deal effectively with the changing social conditions of the Industrial Revolution. By the 20^th century, American Christians saw the “height” of Christian activism as banning alcohol while at the same time affirming a woman’s right to vote. Both ideas were unmitigated disasters; God has not allowed the civil magistrate to outlaw wine and God never gives women the “right” to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families.

In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.

Granted, many wicked men can (and have) abused their lawful authority, treating their wives with contempt, condescension and not always governing their homes according to God’s law. Yet do irresponsible or even sinful fathers justify undermining the divinely authorized family structure? One might argue that this was the actual intention; as men rejected God in the 19^th century, they sought to build socialist utopias in the 20^th. One of the bulwarks against socialism was and is the Christian family; self-governed men and women working diligently at their calling and given freedom from interference from the State will prosper economically and socially while raising sober, responsible children. Socialism however, must control EVERY aspect of society and therefore the independence of the Christian family is a direct threat. Hence, socialism must destroy the family and their interdependence, to remove it as an impediment to humanist control. No matter that, in doing so, the State destroys the wealth of that society, or that their interference in the family creates asocial deviants who clog the court systems and require building ever larger prisons; when men suppress the truth of God they become fools (Rms 1:20ff).

Rediscovering the Biblical concept of “patriarchy” is a first attempt in countering modern, dysfunctional humanist cultural values. The godly family IS the foundation of the social order; God created the family FIRST, and then out of the family came the state AND the church. Furthermore, there can be no legitimate doubt that the father, in the home, has genuine authority from God to govern the family; and both the wife and the children are required to submit to his lawful governance (cf. 1 Cor 11: 8ff, 1 Tim 2:11ff, Eph 5:22, 33). Not even the church is to take precedence over the father in lawfully governing his home (c.f. 1 Cor 14: 34).

However, Biblical patriarchy cannot simply mean elevating the role of the father or it risks creating domestic tyranny in place of political tyranny. There are of course pagan concepts of patriarchy that are just as destructive to a divinely guided social order as the Biblical one that reinforces and encourages it. Swinging to an ungodly extreme of the social pendulum will not bring about genuine revival.

The doctrine of representation provides a necessary theological presupposition that encourages genuine reformation in the family, and the establishment of a stable social order. The model for the Christian family is NOT the post-war “Father Knows Best” or “Leave it to Beaver” where an “all-wise” father governs a “ditzie” wife who vacuums in a cocktail dress. Instead, we must rediscover the father’s role in governing the family wisely and justly according to Divine Law as he represents the family to the outside world. We must also understand and accept that with authority comes responsibility; the family belongs to God, not the father. The father cannot govern any way he pleases but only as a wise steward of God’s people; and like unjust, tyrannical kings, God CAN and WILL depose us if we do not fulfill our responsibilities according to His law.

For example, Biblical patriarchy never excuses, justifies or motivates godly men to devalue, denigrate or relegate godly women to “second-class” status in the home. Women are NOT inferior to men even if they are subordinate in their roles. Husband and wife are to be “one flesh;” which is more than a quaint euphemism for marital intimacy but rather a spiritual union of two individuals (1 Cor 6:16-17). Granted the wife is to respect her husband and submit to him (1 Ptr 3:1) but the husband is also required to treat her with grace, kindness and respect granting her honor as a joint-heir of the Kingdom, lest God refuse to hear his prayers (1 Ptr 3:7). In pagan patriarchy, the wife was often little more than a domestic servant and child-bearer (as in ancient Greece, the “cradle” of “democracy”) but in the Biblical view, God praises the godly woman for her industriousness, creativity, aesthetics and business acumen (Pvbs 31:10ff). A wise man, understanding his duty as representative, will therefore lawfully utilize all the assets of the family, including his wife’s wisdom, gifts and concerns, for the common good of the family.

Furthermore, the Biblical patriarch will understand that as the federal head of his family, he has a divine obligation to work, self-sacrificially for the sanctification of his wife just as Christ works for the sanctification of His church (Eph 5:23ff). While he has responsibility to provide for the physical welfare of his wife and children, fundamentally his most important task is to present his wife “perfect” in Christ and bring his children up in the “discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:1ff). In both these tasks, he must not “vex” those under his care by being arbitrary, capricious, or self-serving. God gives the Biblical patriarch his position of authority FOR the benefit of those under his authority.

The Biblical patriarch thus assumes personal responsibility for teaching his wife and children; out of his “secret” worship, meditating on the Divine Word, (Josh 1:8) God equips him to minister to his entire household through family worship (Deut 6:4ff). Furthermore, as the federal “head” of his family, he adjudicates disputes, resolves problems and maintains justice in the home. Having argued in other places that the primary function of headship is judging rather than legislating, we will not duplicate that material here. However, our basic assumption is that the Moral Law of God is sufficient legislation; the task of any person in authority is to apply that law wisely and justly; i.e., the king to the political realm, the elders to the ecclesiastical realm and fathers to the family realm. Thus, the primary task of the Biblical patriarch is to study the Law of God, meditate on it, immerse himself in it and then APPLY it to every area of his life and the lives of those under his care.

Furthermore, Biblical patriarchy understands that as sons and daughters mature and get married, they form NEW covenant relationships that supersede their previous households (Gen 2:24). Godly marriage requires a transition of authority from the father, to the son. There is still a family relationship; albeit a transformed one. In pre-industrial cultures wherein most economic activity was family based, the setting up of these new households did not negate the broader family relationships; often sons continued working with and for their fathers. This meant that the “grandfather” retained some authority (as the head of the family business) while recognizing the legitimate authority of his sons over their own households.

Since the Industrial Revolution, most men no longer work for their fathers and often move far away from them in search of better economic opportunities. While this sociological process has brought individual prosperity, it has been at the expense of the wider family; in earlier eras, families lived in close proximity, and the extended family provided work, welfare, and education for ALL of its members. With the fragmentation of the family due to industrialism and urbanism, the “nuclear” family is often unable to survive on its own. The State then steps in at taxpayer expense, to provide the social necessities that once the family provided.

Our point here of course is that in a Biblical patriarchy, there are limits to lawful authority. While direct authority as a father ends when the children form new households, yet, there are also legitimate other spheres of authority (such as a family business) that the Biblical patriarch can lawfully employ. For example, a godly patriarch might well disinherit a rebellious, prodigal son, reducing the son’s status to that of a “servant” as a way of encouraging repentance (cf. Luke 15:19 with verse 31).

Only as a man demonstrates “domestic competence” in his own home is he then authorized by God to minister to the broader community (I Tim 3:1ff, Titus 3:5ff). Men, who have not demonstrated that their own wives and children are growing in godliness, grace and sanctification must never be entrusted with the souls of those outside their own homes (as in the church).

Different men will of course work out these basic principles in different ways; for example, finding an alternative to post-industrial economics, some men might establish a family business that employs his wife and children in profitable enterprises; others may have to work outside the home to provide for their households. Some men may decide that certain activities are counter-productive to the spiritual welfare of his family while other men decide differently; e.g., whether a wife may work outside the home or not until God blesses them with children. The basic principle is that God’s law is sufficient and we must not make rules where God Himself has granted liberty.

Since we are now three generations into the modern humanist interpretation of the family, rediscovering Biblical patriarch is fraught with danger. Since so many modern Christian men are too lax in leading their families, failing to teach and protect them, they risk losing them to humanist culture. In response, other men will be too strict with their families and hence risk “vexing” their wives and children. There is also the danger that some men will over-react against the common emasculated concept of the modern “father” and will overcompensate by denying any authority other than their own; including lawful authority in the church and State. The simple fact is that ALL men will sin; they will sin against God and they will sin against their families. However, the divinely required methodology of dealing with that sin is by meditating and applying the unchanging standards of God’s law, being humble before Him, recognizing and confessing that sin, and then through repentance, taking the appropriate course of action.

Thus, we ought to expect that in the process of trying to rediscover Biblical patriarchy, some men will struggle with finding the proper balance. Some will confuse their own personal values with Scriptural ones-attempting to bind other’s consciences without lawful warrant. Some men will no doubt err by being too protective of their children. Yet the solution is not to undermine the concept that the father is the federal representative of his family, both to God and to the world, but rather instruct him in his duties before God and encourage him in fulfilling his divine mandate.

Some of the ridicule, animosity and sheer contempt hurled at the “patriarch” movement is inexcusable and often made by those who seem to have accepted current cultural values as universal norms. Even the worst examples of modern “patriarchy” show more Biblical warrant than the unconscious adoption of secular humanism commonly held by many “Christian” families. For example, some “critics” are aghast that some fathers want their sons to work in the family business rather than allow them to “explore” other “alternatives.” Granted, a godly father as representative of the entire family will understand the doctrine of “calling;” that God has uniquely gifted each of his children and one of the parent’s most vital roles is to assist the children in discovering and preparing for that calling. Some men might be tempted to value their personal pride over the calling of their sons - just as some former athletes insist that their sons must play sports, even if the sons do not have the gifts or the desire. However, the abuse of power does not negate the legitimate authority God delegates to any institutions; even David refused to assassinate the murderous Saul because he was “God’s anointed.” In the end, who is best qualified to help a young man find his calling- some stranger with unbiblical values, or his own father who loves and wants his son to be a success?

Others criticize the “patriarchs” for “idolatry” in elevating the family as the “center of life.” However, what IS the center of “life?” Granted, the sovereign Lord has ultimate claim to all our love, worship and service, but this God established the family as the basic element of community; it was not good for the man to be alone, so God created the family. In the family, we find both unity and diversity; many members but still one - just as there is one God in three persons. Many Christian critics appear to have unconsciously enshrined the post-industrial, segmented “family” with its emphasis on individualism as the ideal without questioning the underlying presuppositions.

Some have criticized the “patriarchs” for having the view that “the mother’s role is to bear children, cook food and keep her mouth shut.” If this accusation were true, then it would be a serious blow against “patriarchy;” however, one searches in vain for those “patriarchs” who espouse such a view. The godly “patriarch” lives with his wife in an understanding manner (c.f. 1 Ptr 3:7ff) and represents HER views to the world as a part of his greater duty as her federal head. Yes, undoubtedly, many ungodly men tyrannize their wives; but the problem is their own personal sin- NOT the theology of “patriarchy.”

Finally, some criticize the “patriarchs” for not wanting to invest in an expensive college education for their daughters because we “we need more young ladies in law, school, medicine, the arts and so on.” Again, this criticism assumes a modern cultural value and established it as the norm despite the fact that it has no Biblical warrant and constitutes social suicide. Even the radical feminists today admit that women cannot adequately function as both a “career” woman and mother. A simple examination of the birth rates for professional women shows that the more highly educated women become, the less likely they are to get married and the less likely to have children. Thus, this writer is actually encouraging brilliant Christian women to take a course of action that will mean cutting off their genetic inheritance for future generations! We do not need more female Christian lawyers, doctors or artists, but more godly women raising more godly children who will fill the earth and subdue it to the glory of God. And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will not use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother? Thus, this “reformer” is actually encouraging a sociological system that impoverishes the family and reduces its ability to exercise godly dominion.

God requires fathers to govern their own households as a part of the Dominion Mandate; and with the vast changes to social structure since the Industrial Revolution, many Christians have erred in trying to fulfill this duty. However, “teachers” in the church are supposed to assist godly fathers in their dominion duties, not berate them because sometimes not every father gets it completely right. Yes, there are individual men who are insecure, intolerant and imperious; but the problem is not “patriarchy” but personal sin. The modern dysfunctional American family structure that so many “Christians” want to defend is a dinosaur, about to become extinct. Right now, cultures with strong, patriarchal views, rejecting the modern fragmented understanding of the family, have dramatically increased birthrates over the humanist West; and they are about to conquer Europe, Japan and the United States in the coming century through immigration. While Western “families,” exalting in the quest for self-fulfillment and individual actualization, decline, those who retain the older concept of the family, even pagan perversions of patriarchy, are increasing and multiplying.

Therefore, let those who earnestly seek a return to the Biblical family carefully search the Scriptures to develop a consistent and comprehensive Christian view of the “patriarch’s” role. Let them meditate on the doctrine of “representation” and understand both the legitimate authority of the father, as well as the limitations of his role. Let fathers govern their homes wisely and justly for the benefit of the entire family not giving in to pride or arrogance. Let the “patriarchs” raise strong, self-governed sons who have discovered their calling and who will work diligently at fulfilling it. Let the “patriarchs” raise godly, modest and temperate daughters who rejoice in their duties as wives and mothers, teaching their children and managing the households. And as for the critics; let us not worry about them-they and the children they never bore, raised nor discipled, will soon be a thing of the past.

“That’s my point” my friend replied, “how many people do YOU know who raise their kids properly?” Now I had to step back for a moment and think. Right now, in our present church situation, I think ALL our parents are doing a very credible job of raising godly, dominion oriented children. However, to be honest, that has not always been my experience in the broader church over the past three decades. In fact, I have been pretty shocked at times at just how badly so many Christian parents have “flubbed” their parental responsibilities, which in turn has motivated me to spend so much time teaching on Biblical principles of child-rearing.

“Now, here’s the clincher” my friend concluded, “have you ever noticed a connection between women who work at home in a family business, and the fact that their children are all under control, civil, play well with others, and are respectful of adults as well as being superior students in home-school?” Now my friend is an entrepreneur whose wife works with him managing the family business. At the same time she also is busy raising their four children, home-schooling the older ones, while carrying the youngest on her hip and managing the household. He then cited several other families we both knew who were in similar situations. Each of these families had successful, growing home-businesses in which the wife was intimately involved (in fact, was essential in running), as well as home-schooling. And all of these families were raising delightful children; respectful, bright and articulate, little people who were a pleasure to be around.

Thus, my friend suggested that working in the family business actually FORCED wives to be more effective in every other area of their life; and he has a point. Many Christian women today are caught in a cultural cross-fire between contemporary values that elevate the self above the family, and their God-given desire to stay at home and care for their children. Some Christian women essentially abandon their children to day care and the public school system while they go about achieving their “dream” of having a career. Many “Christian” men actively push their wives in this direction because they want the toys a second income can provide.

In contrast, many godly women try to opt out of the contemporary cultural model by becoming what we call the “home-everything” type; the ones who grow their own wheat, to grind into flour, to bake their own bread. Some cynical types call them the “Little House on the Prairie” moms- those who think that if they have a garden, make their own clothes, and spend their day doing 19^th century type chores they are somehow closer to the Biblical ideal of motherhood.

Now, my friend has a passion for helping people improve their economic situation by encouraging them to become self-employed and starting their own businesses. Usually, these businesses demand that the wife play an important role in managing it. Many families are hesitant to actually take the risk because they fear that Mom will not be able to fulfill her domestic responsibilities. Yet, as my friend pointed out, the women who manage successful home businesses are also the very same moms whose homes are well ordered and whose children are growing into the kind of dominion oriented people we all want them to be. Hence, he wondered whether there was something about being an entrepreneur that led to women learning how to organize their time, develop their talents and make them into better wives, mothers AND business women.

As much as I appreciated my friend’s very interesting observations here, I had to point out that the above assessment contained a classic logical fallacy; “correlation does not imply causation.” Simply because two events happen close in space and time does not necessarily mean that one causes the other, since there may well be some other factor that caused BOTH. In this case, simply because a woman who is a successful entrepreneur is also a classic Proverbs 31 type woman does not mean she got that way because of running the family business. It is just as likely that the basic skill set that allowed her to become successful in her business is the same one that allowed her to become effective in running her home and raising her family. In other words, a woman who was self-motivated, well organized, intelligent and conscientious to her duties is likely to be successful in any endeavor, whether it be business, domestic management or raising children.

Remember, the section on the “excellent wife” in Proverbs 31 BEGINS with the fact that such women are indeed rare -“An excellent wife, who can find; her value is above rubies.” I think many highly successful, intelligent people often do not understand that not everyone can do what they find so easy. You see, whether our pride likes to admit it or not, people are different with different abilities, skills and opportunities. It may be heresy in modern American culture to say this, but some people are just better at some things than others. No matter how firmly we may want to be a certain type of person, or accomplish a certain kind of job, if we do not have the natural gifts, then we will never be successful at either.

Everyone acknowledges this fact of life in regards to certain talents such as athletics, music, painting, etc., and we usually highly value these gifted people, paying them extraordinary salaries to entertain us. Granted, many people never live up to their potential and most people do not work hard enough to reach even a portion of what they COULD do. But that is different from the popular cultural fantasy that anyone can do anything if they just believe in themselves hard enough. For example, if you want to win a gold medal at the Olympics, it takes more than dedication, hard work and self-confidence; you have to have the genes for superior athletic performance as well-after all, they only give one gold medal for each event (OK, apart from the team sports). Everyone who competes WANTS the gold, but only one receives it. However, what about the thousands of other people who work hard, have the “eye of the tiger” but never even make it to the national team?

The same difference in range of abilities applies to every other area of life as well; some people are smarter, with better natural abilities than others. If they have the character to work diligently and conscientiously at developing those gifts, then they will (all other things being equal in the providence of God) become more successful than less gifted people. However, some people, no matter how hard they work at trying to develop certain skills, will never be able to succeed in certain tasks. For example, a person who lacks basic mathematical ability will NEVER succeed at say, astrophysics.

Some people are smarter than others, some are more coordinated than others, and some are just able to organize their time and resources better than others. In other words, if you were to plot any human ability on a graph, a tiny number of people would be represented as being exceptionally gifted, some people would be represented as completely incompetent, and most people would fall somewhere in the middle-being able to do most things but not really excelling at anything. However, the good news is that in the modern world, even a person of average ability can often become quite successful because the “competition” is so often so lazy that they never begin to develop their natural talents. Since most tasks in life are done by people with average skills, then the person with above average discipline and diligence can often excel.

Most Christians, if they even consider these kinds of issues, rightly focus on the importance of character, rather than raw ability because we know that what a person IS, is far more important than what a person DOES. We acknowledge that God loves the poor, the dispossessed, the feeble and frail, and that being “successful” in life is just not as important as having a godly character. After all, God chose the weak, the base and the foolish of this world so that He might confound the wise (1 Cor 1:26-29). Furthermore we have an objective standard to measure character, the character of Christ; but something more ambiguous when evaluating “success.” Is “success” determined by the amount of money we make, the kinds of possessions we own, the types of vacations we enjoy? If we think about it, we might conclude that “success” in this life is determined by a person working faithfully and diligently at his calling and that as a result, he is able to bring more and more of life under the dominion of King Jesus.

Thus, when it comes to interpreting and applying Proverbs 31, most Christian women focus on the character aspects rather than the entrepreneurial ones; after all, every woman can aspire to being a godly woman (Pvbs 31:30) -not all can or will be a successful business woman. There is an insidious type of socialism that forms an unconscious set of assumptions amongst many Christians. Many American Christians, even though they enjoy one of the highest standards of living in human history, at the same time feel guilty about their wealth and tend to romanticize poverty, disparaging the  very idea of capitalism and profit. While we cannot open that particular can of worms here (but see my book, “Wisdom and Wealth”) let it just be acknowledged that many Christians equate poverty with spirituality, to the detriment of godly dominion.

Hence, as a result, many Christian women spiritualize certain aspects of Proverbs 31; i.e., the “home-everything” sort we mentioned earlier. Over the years I have met a number of conservative, godly women who just loved working in their gardens, baking their own bread, making their own clothes and were raising their daughters to do the same. They were “proud” of the fact that THEY did not fall prey to the humanist ideal of the independent woman who hates the family and refuses to raise children. And all of them use Proverbs 31 as their justification. Yet, sadly, I fear that many of them are misreading the passage- the Proverbs 31 woman has almost NOTHING in common with the life-style of the average, conservative Christian woman today; even the ones striving to respect their husbands, bear and raise a large family, and work at home.

Take for example just one verse, “She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard.” Am I the only pastor to have heard many sincere Christian women using this verse as their justification for spending a large part of their day working in the garden? Yet, was this really what King Lemuel’s mother was trying to teach (31:1-2)?

Now, just think with me for a moment; what was the historical context of this comment on how a godly woman spends her day? Land (like time) is a finite resource; there is only so much to go around and therefore, the wise person makes the best use possible out of it. A field (probably best understood as an enclosed piece of land) can be cleared to grow crops; however a wise person will grow those crops that promise the greatest return. For example, if lots of farmers are growing oats, then the supply of oats will exceed demand, and the price of putting another field into production will not be worth the time and investment of money. Furthermore, some fields are bottom lands near rivers and streams with good soil and other fields may be on rocky hill-sides making cultivation difficult. Bottom land is therefore more valuable and more expensive to buy than land that is hilly and rocky.

In this case, the Proverbs 31 woman “considers” a field; in other words, she analyses whether or not a particular field will be advantageous to her goals. And her goal is to plant a vineyard (which is clear from the second part of the couplet; her intention is not just to buy a field but rather to buy a field suitable for a vineyard). This means that rather than buy expensive bottom land, she might be able to buy cheaper, hill-side land that does not need to be plowed each season. In other words, she can buy cheaper land that is still suitable for her long term goals.

Now, in the ancient world, vineyards were quite important; the average person consumed massive amounts of wine compared to our modern habits. Granted, that wine was far less alcoholic than the kind we make today, but people still drank it probably more often than water. Now, here is the problem; if you do not make your own wine, then you have to buy it from someone. Hence, the cost of acquiring sufficient quantities of wine for one’s household is an ongoing expense; in other words it is money flowing out of the household rather than coming in. The godly woman of Proverbs 31 thus sees an economic problem and figures out a wise solution. She looks around for a suitable piece of land that will be good for growing grapes; likely land that is cheap, because while it is difficult to cultivate for grain crops, is suitable for vines. Furthermore, it has to be a piece of land that is going to be cost effective to own; putting in a vineyard is both capital and labor intensive; the costs do not stop with the purchase price. One has to have grape cuttings, which need to be tenderly and skillfully handled. The grapes have to be picked at the right time, in the right way. The grapes then have to be squeezed to obtain the juice and the juice wisely fermented to produce good quality wine (the juice will ferment regardless of what one does- but without the required skills it will ferment into vinegar).

Thus, the godly woman of Proverbs 31 diligently searches to find the right piece of property at the right price, which she can then develop as an ongoing source of a necessary daily household item. As a result, the cost of domestic consumption of wine goes dramatically down even as her capital assets go dramatically up. Furthermore, if she manages her new vineyard well, she can produce not only enough wine for her own household, but also a surplus that can be sold to other households as well. Thus, the Proverbs 31 woman both DECREASES the costs of a necessary product for her own family while INCREASING family income.

Now THAT is what this verse is talking about; a godly woman as a financial asset to her family. She not only saves the household money, but actually becomes an income producer. This verse simply has NOTHING to do with a woman who likes to spend her day in her garden. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with liking to putter around in a garden but we need to call this what it really is, a hobby, of no more spiritual significance than playing golf, watching TV or reading a good novel.

Yet, many otherwise godly Christian women are incensed when I point this out to them. They have argued that they ARE saving the family money by eating food they grew themselves! OK, let us look at that for a moment; how many man (er, excuse me, I meant “woman”) hours does it take to grow all the vegetables your family eats in a year? Now, let us compare what it would cost to BUY those vegetables from the local grocery store. Vegetables are extremely cheap because we have entire agribusinesses dedicated to using state of the art technology, mechanization and the division of labor to lower the individual cost. Mom, working in her own little vegetable patch, simply cannot compete with the local grocery store.

What, you say that YOUR vegetables are organically grown and don’t have all those pesticides and such? Well, OK, let us go to an ORGANIC farmer, then, and compare HIS prices with YOUR labor costs. If you factor it out, the average person will find that they are actually working for pennies on the dollar. In other words, if the same woman was actually working in a family business for the same amount of time as she spent tending her garden, she would find that she could BUY all the organic vegetables she needed and still have considerable assets left over for all sorts of other things; things such as adding an extension to the house, replacing automobiles, saving for retirement, etc.

You see, even an organic farmer is able to maximize the amount of produce he obtains from his fields; something that the small subsistence farmer cannot hope to duplicate. As a result even without the advantages of fertilizers and pesticides, he can still produce food more cheaply and more effectively than the average person working in a small garden. Does it not make sense, then, for the godly woman to take advantage of this same division of labor to maximize HER time to generate MORE income for her entire family?

And the same principle applies to almost all the domestic skills that some Christian women so highly value. Granted, you make wonderful home-baked bread; but you can buy bread for a fraction of what it costs you in time to bake it yourself. Yes, we are all impressed with your sewing skills; however, clothing in the West is cheap and every hour you spend on making a dress is an hour you are NOT spending on work that could actually improve your family’s economic situation.

Yet, as often as I pointed these things out, there are a number of women who refuse to listen. You see, they LIKE how they spend their time making their own clothes, growing their own food, or baking their own bread and they really do believe that by doing these things, they are modeling the Proverbs 31 woman. And if their husband is one of those extraordinarily skilled men making so much money at his calling that the family does not NEED extra income, then I guess working in the garden is certainly better than watching soap operas. However, the average family is usually pretty strapped for cash. For a number of reasons, it is increasingly difficult for Christian families to live on just the husband’s salary. If a Christian woman refuses the temptation to leave the home, does it not make sense for her to find some way to contribute to the family income by working at SOMETHING she can sell to the outside world?

We are now into the second generation of “home-everything” women who were raised with the idea that by doing all these things they really WERE “holier” than all those godless strident feminists out there destroying the culture. And for taking such a stand, and being willing to sacrifice both income and personal enrichment for the benefit of the family, such women are to be commended. However, maybe it is time to start thinking about how godly women can actually do more than just play Martha Stewart during the day. At least we can dismiss the false piety that so many have come to associate with digging in the dirt.

Yet, after having said all the above, it is NOT just as simple as women starting their own home businesses; as you will recall, this was my original point of departure with my friend. Not all women are equally gifted, not all, therefore, will be equally “successful.” It can be difficult to find a business that the woman can manage without having to sacrifice her home or her children. And I think it is self-evident that some women, no matter how sincerely they may WANT to do this kind of work, simply do not have the ability to create a successful home business. In fact, if a young single man WANTS the kind of wife we have been talking about, he needs to be careful about the kind of woman he marries in the first place; “Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she will be praised.”  (Hey, I just thought of the best Christian put down of all time; if you really, REALLY want to insult a godless woman WITHOUT getting a slap in the face, or a punch from her husband, just say, “My, what a charming and beautiful woman you are…!”)

I guess all that I am really calling for here is a little self-examination and a little intellectual and spiritual honesty. As a Reformed pastor, I am committed to the dominion mandate, of helping people look beyond their own pleasures and interests to the expansion of the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, I believe with every fiber of my being that the primary means of expanding the Kingdom will come, FIRST, through reforming the home. Growing populations displace stagnant or diminishing populations; furthermore, if we train self-governed, disciplined godly children, they will grow into dominion-oriented adults who will increasingly bring broader and broader segments of culture into submission to King Jesus. It is no accident that humanism in its feminist guise is culturally self-destructive (“those who hate Me love death”); women who buy into the contemporary model have far fewer children, later in life. They have so few in fact, that they are at sub-replacement levels - just look at the demographics for Japan, Britain, France, Holland, and Germany.

However, because we Christians believe the family to be so important, thus far, the best we have done to counter the culturally suicidal values of modern humanism is to take our wives and daughters OUT of the workplace and teach them to value their families over their careers. But, we have NOT yet managed to find an effective way for godly women to fully develop their skills and abilities within the context of the home. Instead, too often all we have done is make them wear metaphorical little bonnets and told them to play in the garden for a while. There was a reason why 19^th century women spent their work day baking bread, tending gardens, sewing and the like; in a largely agrarian culture, that was the best way a woman COULD support her family. But the culture has changed and we have to find a way to apply the unchanging principles of God’s law to a changing social reality.

In short, it is not godly women who have failed, but the ones who are responsible for understanding and working out the implications of a consistent Biblical worldview - in other words, people like me (and my professional colleagues who write long, brilliant books on economic theory but never seem to deal with how to make this work in an average family). However, please give us a break; it really is difficult trying to wade through the confusion of values, priorities, and challenges of what it means to live and thrive in a post-Christian, post-agrarian, and now postindustrial world. We know that godly women are gifted and that the family NEEDS their gifts if we are to see the next generation grow and extend the Kingdom; we just haven’t yet figured out all the details.

My friend is certainly correct that the families that we know who are successful economically are also successful in domestic issues. Each household has a godly, hard working woman with disciplined, well mannered and enjoyable children. Each of these women manages some sort of business requiring skill-sets that any corporation would love to recruit. However, we also know OTHER families, with people of “equal” commitment to godliness, people who by every indication, sincerely WANT to do the right thing, and BE the right kind of person, who are not QUITE so successful in life. The men are often employed in not so well paying jobs and do not really and honestly have the managerial skills necessary to own and operate their own businesses. The women I am thinking of are often sweet-tempered, gracious ladies who work hard every day at SOMETHING, even though, as far as I can see, no one is breaking down their doors bidding for their skills. And the children of these families are usually, “good” kids (and by “good” I mean that they are not living contrary to God’s law, they are respectful of their parents and they work diligently at whatever task is set before them). So is there anything that THEY can do to improve their economic situation and so truly emulate the Proverbs 31 woman?

Application

In order to find our way out of the current dilemma, we first need to take a step back and discuss several issues we raised earlier. A large part of the current problem facing godly women is that the world has changed since the Industrial Revolution that has negated her traditional role in the home. Until the advent of mechanization, a woman’s work had pretty much remained unchanged from creation. She had a vital, indispensable role in helping her husband with the dominion mandate. However, by the latter decades of the 19^th century, larger and larger areas of her traditional work were no longer essential.

Most Christians unconsciously assume as the model for Christian femininity a view which in reality came from a very brief cultural period from 1945-1960. During that time, America was the only major nation whose economic and industrial infrastructure had not been destroyed by the war. Furthermore, there was worldwide demand for American industrial products. As a result, wages were at an all time high and even working class families could expect a growing standard of living. With universal public education and widely held Christian values, American Christian families could send their children off to public schools with every expectation that their home values would be reinforced and supported by the state. With Dad earning high wages, there was no economic incentive for women to work outside of the home, and with the kids spending most of their day in relatively safe and civilized public schools, there was little to keep Mom occupied in the home. Cooking and cleaning were just not as labor intensive as they had been a hundred years before; just think of the difference in time it takes to wash clothing by hand in say, 1850 with a wash tub and board, and throwing dirty clothes into a electric washing machine! Cooking over an electric oven is a far less difficult endeavor than cooking over a wood stove. Buying prepackaged groceries from a Super-Market was considerably cheaper and more time efficient than taking care of chickens, milking cows and growing one’s own vegetables.

As the blessings of middle class prosperity spread throughout the culture, many Christian women found that they enjoyed large amounts of free time. Many spent their day involved in church activities, or social projects for their community. Others dallied the day away in watching the infamous soap operas. Regardless of HOW a woman in this period spent her time, industrialization had changed the way that women worked.

Then, in the 1960’s and 70’s, much of that changed; increasing affluence meant that the middle classes could now send ALL their children (all 2.2 of them) to college with the hope that a college education was a ticket into the upper middle-class. Since the modern university system had been occupied by the humanists for an entire generation, young women were indoctrinated into a new worldview that taught them that ANY differences between gender roles were entirely artificial. After all, because industrialization and mechanization had removed the necessity of brute, male strength, now women could do 80% of the same work as men. Work at home was hardly challenging and humanism provided a philosophical justification for women to enter the workforce in large numbers. No one, of course, foresaw that with so many women competing with men for jobs that real wages would go down for everyone, but that is what happened.

With women entering the workforce, and trying to find fulfillment in a career, the family directly suffered. You simply cannot work outside the home and still raise a large family. As women’s wages went up, birth rates plummeted. However, now, because of the downward spiral of wages due to the increased number of women entering the work-place, the family NEEDED the income from the wife’s labor outside the home. However, by the 1980’s a massive shift was beginning in the Christian community. More and more Christian women realized that they had been sold a false bill of goods; working outside the home did NOT provide the kind of self-realization and fulfillment that had been promised to them. Many wanted to come BACK to the home; but many men simply could not earn enough money because of the changing economic situation.

Which then brings us to our current problem: these sincere Christian women rejected the humanism of feminism and reclaimed their God-given place as wives, mothers and keepers of the home. However, the cultural situation has changed since 1950; her traditional work is no longer cost effective. Godly women want to WORK at home, but she does not have a good role model of what that work should be; what is she to do? Many women chose to go back to the 19^th century model of the “Home Everything” approach because it WAS real work, it resonated with our most ancient domestic values and it was certainly better than watching the “soaps.”

So, where does that leave us? One of the main points of this essay has been to demonstrate that our very picture of the Proverbs 31 woman is in error; she is not a domestic diva, but a wise and talented woman who contributes to the household’s economic well-being while not sacrificing her family for her career. Our task, therefore, is to take the universal, unchanging qualities of this woman and apply them to a changing cultural and economic situation. For example, the Proverbs 31 woman makes belts and sells them to the local merchants; this is NOT a Biblical exhortation for godly women to get into the belt crafting business, but rather represents the principle of bringing income into the household by using her gifts, time and energy.

Not every woman can or will be as successful as her model from Proverbs 31, but every godly woman can and should consider HOW to evaluate her situation wisely and consider how she can really contribute to the family’s economic progress. Our goal ought to be to find a way to keep our wives at home, while at the same time, allowing her to be a financial asset to the family. This is exactly what the Proverbs 31 woman did; what we have to figure out is how to apply those same principles to modern culture.

In the final analysis, my friend and I noted that there was one factor common to every successful Proverbs 31 woman; each and every one of them had a strong, godly man who was the undisputed head of the house. Each of these men had self-consciously looked for a godly, talented woman to act as his help-mate and was motivated by something other than the myth of romantic infatuation as the basis for a strong Christian marriage. After marriage, these same strong, godly men created opportunities for their wives to develop their gifts and callings, usually within the context of the man starting the business and then turning its management over to their wives (if nothing else, she kept the books, managed the inventory or ran the necessary errands). In other words, it was not an autonomous woman, seeking to “find” herself outside of the covenant relationship, but rather a true partnership wherein a godly woman found a strong man she could respect who then helped to her develop the very talents that made her successful.

On the other hand, we both knew of too many situations wherein weak men attracted women who were tempted to usurp dominion over their husbands. Precious time and emotional energy were then wasted as the two battled for control of the relationship- with the man, almost always eventually giving in and letting the woman take dominion. Neither she, nor her husband was very happy, and the children were usually tyrannical little monsters. Godly women, on the other hand, wanted and waited for godly men; men whose leadership and character they could trust. And as a result, they built not only strong marriages, and godly families, but successful businesses as well.

In fact, many Christian men object to their wives being a financial asset because it is a matter of pride that “my wife doesn’t have to work.” However, that again is a cultural value that came AFTER industrialization when the average man went from working for himself on a family farm or family business, to working in a plant or mill. Households that required a woman to work outside the home demonstrated that a man’s labor was not valued highly enough to take care of his family. However, the Proverbs 31 woman DID work “outside the home,” at least in some sense, since she bought land, created and managed family business as well as caring for her husband and children. 

So, let us look at this situation from the perspectives of a single woman, a woman without children, a woman with young children (who need close supervision) and a woman whose children are older and able to be more responsible. Each situation may require slightly different applications of the same, universal principles.

First, for singles, young men and women must carefully evaluate potential life-mates. Other proverbs tell us that it is better to be poor and live in the corner of an attic then to share a house with a contentious woman. And ladies, there are a lot of quick talking but mushy headed fools out there who can and will make your life miserable if you fall for their line. Thus, before we are ready for marriage, or consider whether someone else is suitable, both single men and single women ought to see if a person has a good track record of being responsible, hard-working and thrifty individuals. Remember, the best indicator of future performance is past performance. If a person has NOT been thrifty, reliable, frugal, diligent and conscientious to his duties, no matter how “gifted” he or she may be, then there is no reason to suspect that this will change in the future.

Therefore, I think all women ought to develop a skill set in their own area of gifts and abilities with the idea of one day using them to help the family economically. Now, different girls have different strengths and abilities and their education should be oriented towards using their natural gifts in some way.

Since the godly woman wants, FIRST, to be a godly wife and mother, she should probably not, generally speaking, invest in a “professional” education that would equip her to be a doctor, lawyer, or the like. I can almost hear the cries of outrage here but just think with me for a moment; and before you start writing that nasty email to put me in my place. Even the feminists recognize that a career and a family is an intolerable burden with inevitably, the family suffering. You simply cannot raise a large family while working full time as a professional. Hence, the brightest and most gifted women who try to balance both end up having fewer children.

Now, think with me in the long term; all of us are stewards of not only our natural gifts, but of our genes as well. God gave the human race only a certain number of exceptionally gifted people; gifts which one needs to be successful in most “professions.” If a woman with these “gifted” genes has a career, rather than a large family, then she might do much good in the world, but not as much as she could by bearing and raising GIFTED children. The more godly children she raises, the greater investment she is making in the future as the gospel spreads through the world. And that, I fear, is the real reason why so many wonderfully gifted women choose career over family; they think in the short-term, with their own self-interests being valued over long term dominion in the name of King Jesus.

However, if a woman has a grasp of history and of God’s providential work, she will realize that she is a steward of what has come down to her from her ancestors and is responsible to her descendants. Therefore, logically, what BETTER investment of her life could she ever make to the advancing Kingdom of God than bearing and raising superior, gifted, godly children? However, most people, even Christians do not think this way because at the heart of our value system is the importance of the self; i.e., it is MY life and MY pleasure and MY career that takes precedence over ANYTHING else. We simply do not think we have any duty or responsibility to the future because all that concerns us is THIS life. The above is consistent with autonomous humanism, but is NOT historic, Biblical Christian faith.

Thus, for women to seek advanced academic education in preparation for a demanding professional “calling” is not unlawful, but simply not the best investment of her time, money and life. It takes years of formal, difficult academic education to achieve minimum proficiency in any of the professions. Yet, if she then decides to focus on raising a family, all that investment is GONE (not to mention the incredible amounts of capital spent on an education that she will never then use). This is why there is such a strong negative correlation between education and the number of children a woman has. By the time she is ready to BEGIN her profession, she is already in her late twenties. After working for five-seven years, she is now rapidly approaching the age where she can no longer have children. Hence, at best, she may have one or two. This means, that in the long view, the percentage of gifted, intelligent people is DECREASING at the same time that modern technology DEMANDS ever more capable people!

However, the godly woman, like the godly man of Psalms 127, understands that she lives to facilitate dominion over the earth in the name of King Jesus and that her children are her arrows into the future. Thus, she willingly gives up her personal career, confident that this sacrifice is going to be a blessing to generations unborn. Yes, there are some women that could make brilliant surgeons, outstanding scientists, or even wise and insightful lawyers (such as Debra). However, by focusing on her children, she is gifting the NEXT generation with five, six or even 10 times the number of gifted, godly men and women. Thus, she is in fact MULTIPLYING her effect on the world! And is THAT not a far more important and significant contribution to godly dominion than ANY work she might do in this life?

Thus, the godly woman, even those wonderfully gifted, will want to find some way to work IN her home raising HER children while at the same time, doing some work that will bring in extra income. She will see her first duty to God by being “fruitful” and multiplying, sending out a godly seed that will rise up and bless her for her sacrifice.

So now we have a godly Mom, raising her dominion-oriented children for the future, but also recognizing that she must work in the PRESENT to help THIS generation; how does she contribute financially? Now, generally speaking, a person makes money by selling either goods or services. However, since mechanization means that fewer workers are needed to produce ever more goods and services, most people cannot actually produce a product at home that can compete with a large company; hence in one sense, there are fewer opportunities here for a home business. However, no matter how productive manufacturers may be, they STILL need ways of distributing their products, and managing their sales. This is where a wise woman can find a niche in the market to sell either the product directly OR help by providing some sort of administrative service.

For example, a single woman, if she has the gifts, might want to get a general education in business or office management with maybe an emphasis on accounting or book-keeping. This way, she can MANAGE the family business, if she and her husband can start one, allowing him to work OUT of the home, while she contributes fully, but stays IN the home.

In the same way, computer graphics, word-processing and web-site design and management are also good possibilities for investing in education. If a godly woman today cannot MAKE her own products as the Proverbs 31 woman did, she still may well be able to retail the products of others IF she understands how to buy cheap and sell dear. The Internet has opened up a whole new world of business opportunities to the home-based business if a woman understands how to make that infernal machine (i.e., the computer) do what she wants it to do.

However, not all women are oriented towards business, accounting or computer type skills; some women have real gifts in the more “artistic” areas. However, a woman who likes to wile away the hours painting pictures of birds or bowls of fruit is going to find it difficult to be a financial asset UNLESS she thinks of it as a business. There is work for free-lance artists, writers and musicians (especially in terms of tutoring) and though not as economically advantageous as say, running a retail, mail-order business, a godly woman CAN contribute to her family’s income this way. She just has to take it seriously as a job, find the niche in the market and work diligently at it.

For example, say a young woman has a gift for writing. J. K. Rowling has become a multi-millionaire by telling stories about that Potter kid; so it can be done. However, writing professionally requires a specific gift, a lot of work, and the ability to handle constant rejection, for not a lot of money. There are a lot of people who want to get published and of the few who do, even fewer can make a living at it. Thus, you have to study the market to find out what people are paying to read. You also have to have the natural gift of being able to tell a story BETTER than all the other wannabe’s out there. You then have to find either a publisher, or set up your own publishing business and be willing to do the work of selling your books to a distributor who will then get it into bookstores.

In short, whatever a woman does, she has to think of it as a BUSINESS, not just an interesting way to pass the time until her husband comes home. She has to find a market for her goods or services, compete with others in the market place, manage her time and work diligently at whatever she does.

For married women with very young children, the choices become more restricted. Clearly, when you have four babies at home, all under four, your day is already exhausting with just taking care of the kids. New babies often have erratic sleep and feeding schedules that keep Mom up half the night. Little children during the day have to be kept safe from experiments with electricity, chemicals and strange dogs. Then, if the husband works outside of the home, any woman will want to spend some quality time with him when he gets home, if nothing else to just talk to an adult for a while.

Obviously, the best situation is one wherein the husband works at home in his own business allowing him both to encourage his wife as well as be around for his children. It is a completely different dynamic to work at home, with the kids crawling around your feet than it is to have to make the mental readjustment so many men are forced to make from “work” to “home.” Dad’s presence in the home, even when working, has a powerful impact on the entire family dynamic which must never be underestimated or under-appreciated. However, few families enjoy the luxury of Dad working at home.

However, even the Mom with a growing crop of kids to manage CAN still maintain SOME sort of economic activity IF the husband is willing to help her research and create a business. Here is where an Internet based “mail-order” business can be quite helpful and profitable. Together, in the evenings, husband and wife can work together, do the required research on what is selling and then develop a system. However, again, this has to be treated like a real business; a woman who wants to sell lace dollies is going to be frustrated if she spends thirty hours a week crocheting them but no one wants to buy them. Being an “entrepreneur” means constantly analyzing the market and discovering finding out just what people WANT to buy and how much they are willing to pay for it; and then finding a source that will allow a reasonable mark-up. All this research takes TIME- time that could be spent working in the garden, making your own clothes or vegetating in front of the TV. However, knowledge always pays off IF used wisely.

A home-based retail business like this requires constant analysis of the market; the “hot” product one month may be stone cold the next. A woman running this kind of business ought to be willing to see ten products fail for every one that succeeds. Furthermore, she will base her business on “ship on demand” companies so that she basically NEVER ends up stuck with a garage full of unsold inventory.

If a person is gifted in doing research, and has some basic computer literacy, she CAN build quite an effective home business by using market-places such as eBay and the like to sell something. In effect, this is basically the equivalent of having an electronic yard sale; don’t sneer-my mother bought and paid for three houses and left an inheritance for her five children by running a constant “yard sale” out of her garage. Her inventory came from other people’s yard sales but because she had a good eye for what something was worth, she managed to pick up antiques and the like fairly cheaply, and then resold them to the “classier” up market shops the tourists visit. No, my Mom never got “rich” this way; but for a woman with an eighth grade education and no formal skills, she took care of herself and her grandchildren this way. EBay and the like may provide a more sophisticated selling mechanism but the canny business woman CAN make a nice contribution to the family’s bottom line every month.

As the children mature, some households may want to start some sort of “service” business, such as professional office cleaning. This requires working outside of the home, but may well be a suitable business of those women who may not have outstanding managerial or computer type skills. Mom will use some of the older children to watch the youngest ones, while the others provide her basic work force. Here, her larger family size is actually creating a “workforce” that benefits the entire family. One of the reasons (not the only one) for decreasing family size since the Industrial Revolution has been that children went from being economic assets (more hands to work the family farm) to economic liabilities (more mouths to feed, clothe and educate). However, the godly woman will seek creative ways to teach her children not only the value of hard work but also as means of increasing family wealth; wealth that will pay their education costs and leave a godly inheritance for THEM!

Since many businesses do not want the costs of hiring a full time janitor, there is a market for people to come in, before the start of the work day to make their premises presentable. This will mean getting up at 4:00 in the morning, which will require going to bed much earlier than most people are accustomed. Usually, the “work” is nothing more strenuous than some light cleaning, vacuuming, buffing floors and emptying the trash; certainly things which people with average strength can do. Most often, the business itself has all the equipment needed so the investment cost is minimal.

I have known several families who made a very respectable living from offering such services. Usually, Dad was the major worker with help from the children, while Mom managed the accounts, recruited new clients and kept the books. However, a mother COULD do such work with just her children, and be home ready to start the school day by 9:00 AM. One of the advantages of having a large family is that as the older ones depart the home to set up their own households, the younger ones can be trained in the family business, learning the basic skills they will use in whatever their calling turns out to be.

Granted, no one has ever gotten excited about a glamorous career in professional cleaning; however, each of us must work with the natural abilities God has given us. The work may not be exciting, but it can be pleasingly remunerative; several families in my experience made six figures every year just by earning a reputation as reliable, conscientious cleaners. Furthermore, though they had to start their work day early, they finished usually by late morning and thus had the rest of the day to use as they wished. The kids thus learned both the value of hard work (the parents paid them) but also received exceptional home-school educations. And for the Moms who liked working in the garden, they had all the time they needed.

For older women whose children have now all grown up, or for those families who in God’s providence, are not blessed with children, many may consider working outside of the home. While I can find nothing innately unlawful about this, my experience has been that usually, this kind of work brings an incredible amount of stress on the woman, and puts her in a difficult position. Many women find themselves torn between their desire to please their husband, and their desire to please their boss. Furthermore, many Christian women have discovered that working with unbelievers leads them into situations, conversations and associations that interfere with their Christian walk; Paul said it this way, “Do not be deceived, bad company corrupts good morals.”

Thus, even the most godly woman can find herself at the end of the day stressed out, anxious, depressed and is likely to take it out on the one human relationship God requires her to honor; the one with her husband. Because men and women are different, with different needs and orientations, such a woman often NEEDS to relieve that stress by receiving soft, nurturing attention from her man. However, their husbands have also faced difficulties, trials, stuffy bosses, stupid co-workers, etc., during the day and have a great many frustrations, worries and irritations of their own. But a man usually does not want to TALK about the day, but put it behind him by watching the news, reading the paper (or the Internet variant), work around the yard or such.

Hence, two people, both with things to work out of their systems, have completely different and often incompatible ways of dealing with the stresses of the work place. Some women can feel as if they are being ignored, undervalued, unappreciated and that their husband is an inconsiderate, ungrateful brute. Some men, on the other hand, may feel that their wife is an irritating, constant nag and seek relief someplace else; i.e., at the local bowling alley, bar, gym or just tuning everything else out by watching TV or playing on the computer. In other words, while the economic situation of the family may improve with two incomes, often the price that is paid is the very relationship that the income is supposed to encourage and support. People then grow apart, have unresolved anger and sometimes even bitterness about their partner.

Thus, I would suggest, if possible, a woman with no children in the home might want to avoid working for someone outside the home and instead try to think creatively with her husband to find ways that she can still remain “home-based” in one way or another. Granted, any home business has a certain degree of frustration and stress; but there is a whole magnitude of difference between that stress that comes from having to deal with bosses and co-workers, which often leaves a person feeling powerless and hopeless, and those that come from making something YOU own, work efficiently and effectively.

The above list just scratches the surface of what a woman CAN do to assist her family economically. The means can be as diverse as the gifts, skills and abilities that God gives to each of us. A woman does NOT have to be a “super-woman” to emulate the Proverbs 31 woman; she just has to learn to see the opportunities that exist around her; and she needs a godly man to lead and support her. Granted, not every woman will create a home-based business that makes the family millions; but every woman CAN help the family economically and give her children a godly inheritance of character, education and wealth.

It is never too late to repent and put things in order. Let the man, first, become self-governed, seeking wisdom and getting his own life under control and THEN he can begin working on helping his wife discover and utilize her gifts. When he learns to lead firmly, confidently and self-sacrificially, demonstrating his willingness, like Christ, to “give himself up” for his wife, then God may grant him grace so that his wife will follow. And with that kind of husband and that kind of wife, they will not only raise godly, civilized, dominion oriented children, but will likely find some measure of economic prosperity as well.

Rev. Brian M. Abshire, Ph.D.

The Deplorable Condition of State Subsidized Education

We are now living with the fruit of 150 years of State supported education; a situation that should never have existed, should never have been paid for by tax money, and should never have become institutionalized (see Rushdoony’s Messianic Character of American Education). However, most Americans, with no real appreciation of history, simply accept the status quo because they know nothing different; many of us reason, “Well, that’s the way things are!” without questioning whether it is the best, or even desirable way to approach fulfilling our goals. But all one has to do is read the actual writings of the founders of American public education to realize that our present system was DESIGNED to replace Christianity as the basis of our culture. Men believed that “enlightenment” through “education” would cure all social ills-many of which they ascribed to religion. In many respects, American education philosophy was a vain attempt to have the fruit of Christian civilization, while ignoring the root. Rather than transformed hearts, the humanists in the 19th century believed man could be saved by “knowledge;” the ancient heresy of Gnosticism.

Thus the tax-financed public education establishment is, and always has been hostile to the historic Christian faith. It cannot help but be this way, because it was always intended to offer a solution to man’s social and cultural problems apart from Christ. In a time when the culture was more consistently Christian, we could avoid the worst implications, because usually, it was Christians who manned the ramparts of the educational establishment! I well remember when I began in public school in 1960; we had Bible study every morning, prayer and our teachers all held to a strong sense Christian morality which was universally accepted in the broader culture. But within just a few years, as the culture went through a convulsive religious revolution, the society changed. Prayer and Bible reading were outlawed, a new morality became accepted, and a new generation of teachers were indoctrinated into a consistent secular humanism and then let lose upon an unsuspecting public school system. In fact, it can be argued that public education itself contributed significantly to the secularization of American life; the humanists early on captured the major universities and colleges, using them to spread their view. They then taught the next generation of teachers, who adopted many aspects of humanist and socialist “religion” during their own college and university training. These teachers then brought those views into the classroom, indoctrinating our children.

At rock bottom, state education has always been immoral because we have been stealing from some men to pay for the education of other men’s children. We instituted the property tax which is blasphemy, for the land belongs to God and no man has the right to tax what belongs to Him. Thus through our own envy and greed we find ourselves captives of a militant humanism; we thought we could give our children a “free” education by having the State steal from others through taxation. Wicked men then used that greed to enslave a nation to godless beliefs and values. And what did we get for all the money we stole? We reap what we sow, an educational white elephant that consumes our resources and gives us the worst educated children in the industrialized world not to mention providing a haven for drug-abuse, drunkenness, immorality, promiscuity and anti-Christian propaganda.

Granted, millions of Christians (and concerned secularists) have pulled their kids out of the State schools and given them home-based education. This simple assumption of personal responsibility on the part of parents has been honored by God; surveys show that our children are better educated, at less cost than their state school peers; not to mention more mature, socially stable and psychologically fit. Even if Mom, who usually does most the educating, lacks the accreditation of her public educational peers, she is doing an outstanding job. Christian parents ought to be extremely pleased that their investment of time and effort in home education means that THEIR kids have a solid foundation for life.

However, what happens after High School? What kind of advanced education will our children need, and how can we provide it without bankrupting ourselves, or mortgaging their future through student loans? If we take seriously God’s promise that a large family is one of His greatest gifts and blessings, then how do we PAY for all those kids to go to college? Furthermore, what will happen to our kids if we DO send them off to college? Secular high schools are bad enough, what with the rampant immorality, drugs, and ant-Christian propaganda, but how much worse is it secular colleges and universities? Do we now compromise our convictions, and put our kids into the drug-infested, immoral secular institutions of “higher learning” to have them ridiculed for their faith, tempted by rampant immorality and attacked by the politically correct? Or are we just giving into fear? These are good questions, and deserve our best answers.

How We Got Into the Present Mess…

Every parent wants their children to be successful and prosperous in life; to have a calling compatible with their gifts and to do well at that calling and have God prosper them accordingly. And in this world, usually SOME sort of education is needed to develop the skills needed to work in that calling.

In the past fifty years: other than blue collar jobs, the primary means of preparing for one’s calling usually meant finishing high school, going to college and getting a general degree. In the past, it did not really matter what a degree was in, as long as one had SOME sort of diploma. In the past, the percentage of people attending college was very small and therefore college graduates could demand a high price for their labor. Furthermore, American industry needed an “army” of mid-level managers and someone with a college degree had an “inside” track for getting a good job with great potential. Therefore, it was widely been assumed for more than a generation that most children NEEDED a college education if they were going to be more than “hewers of wood and drawers of water…”

When Christianity was disenfranchised from the state universities, Christian colleges grew up to meet the demand of providing both a Christian education and preparation for life and work. Many Christians rightly rejected the humanism of modern secular universities, as well as the immorality. Christian colleges seemed like a good alternative to traditional education.

Sadly, Christian colleges are no longer (if they ever were) safe havens for our kids. Most Christian campuses sold out to humanism right at the beginning by accepting state accreditation. They wanted the approval and acceptance of humanists and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the humanist’s standards. But in order to be accredited, their professors had to attend accredited graduate programs from secular universities. It was almost inevitable that these future professors had to compromise with humanism to obtain those fancy degrees from the prestigious schools we are all so in awe of (see our other essays in this issue). I am not for a moment calling either the sincerity or motivations of Christian college professors into question; they often WANT to offer a Christian worldview; but where did they ever have the opportunity to LEARN a Christian worldview? They can teach, only what they have been taught. Therefore, our children do NOT learn a consistent Christian worldview in the average Christian college, but leftist, socialist humanism; granted it is humanism that has been watered down, sanctified with the occasional Bible verse and sweetened with prayer- but it is still the same old humanist rubbish that is being taught in the secular schools.

Furthermore, Christian colleges were financed by Christians as opposed to state universities which are heavily subsidized by taxes. Thus Christian colleges simply cannot compete economically; they have to charge more because they are not allowed to steal tax payer’s money as the State does. Hence there is a two fold argument AGAINST Christian colleges; they cost far more than state institutions AND often teach the very same humanist nonsense as their secular peers. Ok, granted, the BEST Christian schools will make some concession to popular “Christian” morality; no drinking, no smoking, no mixed dorms, etc., but does that no say something itself about the superficiality of their commitment to a consistently Biblical worldview?

Let me make a prediction, based no on prophecy, but rather on extrapolating from current social trends; the current university and college system is a dinosaur, waiting for an extinction order. Does this seem radical? Well, let us explore this for a moment.

First, public universities are heavily subsidized by government money, money that is fast running out. Politicians are caught in a squeeze play; on the one hand they KNOW that people want cheap education for their children, but are also outraged by oppressive taxation. As socialist policies continue to permeate American culture, businesses are creating less and less wealth. Less wealth means less tax money. Already, America has lost most of its industrialized jobs to overseas competitors. Today we are a nation much like a profligate heir living off Daddy’s inheritance; unless we get off our backsides and start bringing in more than we are spending every month, eventually, we are going to be living in a cardboard box and eating at soup kitchens. Politicians KNOW this, but they cannot admit it to the public or they won’t get elected. But the days of “cheap” education are waning.

Secondly, a college degree is no longer the guaranteed ticket into the middle-class that it once was. The working world does not need more kids with liberal arts education and no real skills, that market is already saturated. When only a few people have “something,” it increases in value. When EVERYONE has something, then its value goes down (just think about the difference between a beach full of sand and a handful of diamonds; which is worth more?). Thus in ONE sense, public universities are victims of their own success. As more Americans grew wealthy through hard work, diligent savings and frugal living, they had more assets they could use to give their kids an even better life. A college education seemed to provide that better life so more and so more Americans invested in buying that education for their kids.

But very quickly, the market became saturated; college grads today are finding it increasingly difficult to find a good paying job. There are just too many people with the similar academic backgrounds competing for the same positions; positions which are already drying up because America no longer needs that army of middle managers we mentioned earlier. Furthermore, since 1968, American women have entered the workforce in large numbers, also increasing the pool of laborers and therefore undercutting the wages of all workers.

For example, in the old days, a Ph.D. was the union card to academic advancement; since colleges were expanding to take advantage of all the new students, there was a crunch of qualified instructors. At the same time, more kids had more money to invest in even more education, and for a while there appeared to be a critical demand for professors. However, even more quickly, a legion of Ph.D.’s entered the workforce.

Today, Ph.D.’s in History, English, Philosophy, Social Sciences etc., are flipping burgers because the market is saturated. There are more people with degrees than there are jobs for them to fill. Being old and cynical it is hard to shock me these days but every so often even I have to shake my head when I meet some very bright young person telling me about their wonderful advanced studies in Medieval Chamber Music! When I ask them “What are you going to DO with that degree” they look at me as if I am some uncultured barbarian or something! They do not seem to understand that education, as wonderful as it may be, is an investment both of time and money. Now if you have wealthy parents who plan on taking care of you for the rest of your life, you can pretty much do as you please; and studying some esoteric aspect of human civilization is infinitely preferable to becoming a lazy profligate. But if you don’t have those kinds of resources, then the question must be asked, “How are you going to make a living?” Many bright college students (especially those working for advanced degrees) never really ask that question.

Now let me be really cynical; some of them never ask those questions because their instructors take great pains never to bring the subject up! You see, those professors KNOW that their job is on the line. If they do not have students taking THEIR classes, THEIR jobs are in danger. So they will do whatever it takes to convince kids to choose majors just so they can have some students. It does not matter that the student will end up with an academic degree that is useless- you will be ridiculed for even asking the question! Never underestimate the power of human depravity or self-justification.

Is There a “Better Way?”

Now having said all the above about the present deplorable state of education in America, you can still get a good education, IF you know what you are doing, plan wisely and invest carefully. But it must be remembered that the humanists ARE consistent with their worldview and will lose no opportunity to indoctrinate your children into their religious presuppositions. They truly see it as a “holy mission” to destroy your child’s faith and to welcome them into the ranks of the cynical, worldly-wise clique of the “enlightened.”

Therefore, today, a traditional college education (whether secular or “Christian”) may not NECESSARILY be the best investment of your money or your child’s time. Christians ought to recognize that a “traditional” education may NOT pay off either in terms of helping a child develop a Christian worldview (which is necessary if all of live it is to be lived to the glory of God), OR in terms of producing future financial prosperity. I am not saying it cannot be done, only that we have to be as “wise as serpents and gentle as doves” when it comes to helping our kids plan their future.

Allow me to suggest that many Christian parents may want to consider alternative methods of preparing their children for their future vocation; education is expensive, and therefore ought to be evaluated just as any other expense, as a potential investment. If you could pay $100 dollars a month for a telephone service, or $20 a month, which would you choose? Sure, the hundred dollar service might come with some nifty bells and whistles-it might even impress your friends; but if money is limited, and you can get by with the cheaper plan with no loss of service, which is the better investment?

There is a famous illustration used in every Business 101 class about a company at the end of the 19th century that made the best buggy whips in the world. They were flush with cash, competent in management, had a highly motivated workforce and dominated the market. Yet, of course, they went bankrupt in just a few years. Simply because something worked well in the past, does not mean that it will continue to work well in the future, especially if there are changes coming on the horizon. If Christians want to give their children a good education that will really prepare them for life, they may have to reconsider the wisdom of investing in even the most prestigious “buggy-whip” companies in the nation.

In light of that, let me make three, radical statements that will be shocking to the average Christian parent: Radical statement #1: most Christian kids probably do NOT need an expensive formal, academic education, but rather training in a specific skill that they can then develop over a lifetime.

Radical statement #2: Christians ought to consider opting out of the traditional labor force, and develop, when possible, self-owned businesses; the entrepreneur is the wave of the future.

Radical statement #3: therefore, a traditional college education may well be neither desirable nor necessary for MOST covenant children.

Now did THOSE statements get your attention? If this was a book, rather than an essay, I would develop each of these precepts from current research and illustrate them from various “real-life” people I know and have worked with over the past decade. But all of us recognize that the shape of the American economy is changing. We can lament the loss of our industrialized base to foreign nations, but the reality is that you and I cannot stop it; we have to plan how our children are going to survive in the new economy. My parent’s generation could pretty much count on getting a job out of high school, with minimal formal education and staying with that job, and that company until retirement. That option became rare in my generation and will be almost a myth for our children. If they want to provide for their families and prosper in life, they are going to have to work throughout their lives to develop their “skill set” to meet the new needs that ever changing technology will bring.

Granted, some professions, such as Law, Medicine, Engineering, etc., will always require certain formal academic education, and hence, some of our kids will have to run aspects of the humanist gamut because the humanists hold monopolies in these areas. If you want to play in their field, then you will have to play by their rules; and therefore SOME of our children will have to go this route; but the majority may want to consider another way.

For example; since MOST college education today does not actually prepare your child for a vocation, then it is a waste of their time and your money to invest in an expensive Liberal Arts degree. Sure, such majors are a lot of fun for the intellectually inclined. Sitting in a class room discussing literature, philosophy, history, etc., is intellectually stimulating and interesting. But really, unless a child is absolutely brilliant, he is unlikely to be able to make a living in these areas. So unless you are rich, and can afford to let him live in your basement for the rest of his life, shouldn’t he be studying something useful?

What you REALY want is for your child to be rooted in a consistent, Christian worldview (even if you may not always understand all that worldview entails yourself). Parents who send their kids to a Christian college often assume that the professors are smarter, holier and more consistent than they are and therefore better equipped to teach their children about the glorious gospel they so dearly love. Sadly, that “faith” is often misplaced; Christian schools go to a great deal of effort to make sure that Mommy and Daddy never find out what is REALLY being taught in their classrooms else little “Johnnie” would be whisked off to some place more orthodox. However, the underlying desire of the parents is legitimate; they want their children to be smarter, better educated and more consistently Christian in their thinking than they are.

Secondly, a godly parent wants an education for his children that will develop specific skills that the child can use to make a living in the real world. As mentioned above, because of the changing nature of the workplace, the BEST future for MOST Christian kids is to start their own business. The clever man who can see a need, and find a more efficient way to meet that need is ALWAYS going to find work, AND make a lot of money at the same time. But this kind of man needs a certain orientation, a way of thinking, that traditional educational establishments jut cannot provide. There is a real difference between the “scholarly” mindset which emphasizes study, evaluation, and reflection, and the skills needed to survive in the real world. Just think about this; how many business professors have run successful businesses” Or how many “creative” literature professors have ever written a best selling book?

Now, whenever I make this next statement, howls of outrage come from every corner and people start warming the tar and gathering feathers. But I think it is important, and so I am going to say it anyway; FORMAL academic education for your daughters may not be a good financial investment. OK, settle down and let me explain. In all honesty, what is your highest ambition for your little girl? You want her to be godly woman, who meets a godly man who will love her, provide for her and give you lots of godly grandchildren, right? And to be honest, that is exactly what your daughter really wants as well. College has been seen for years as the best way for girls to meet the “right” kind of guys and hopefully that special “magic” will occur and both your and her dreams will come true.

Sadly, as the culture changed, public universities became deathtraps for Christian women. First they are indoctrinated into the idea that to be REALLY important, they had to have a “career.” Secondly, they were enticed into an immoral lifestyle while they were working on preparing for that career. But if a girl managed to fend off the little deviants who wanted to add her to their list of “conquests” not to mention her humanist professors (figuratively AND literally) what does she have to show for her four years of hard academic work?

Well, unless her parents were rich, she probably has a lot of school debt. If she did not meet someone she wanted to marry in college, then she enters the work force for a few years, and hopefully makes a little dent in that debt. Then, before too long she does meet “Mr. Wonderful” who sweeps her off her feet. And of course, because at heart, she really IS a godly young woman, she wants to start a family. So then she leaves the work force and becomes a full time Mom. But those pesky school debts are still there; all that has to show for all that time and money she spent is DEBT! Granted, there are emotional and psychological benefits to having a college education; it does help her “self-esteem.” But if that is the only real benefit, are there not better, more cost effective ways of achieving it?

Am I saying that women ought to be uneducated, barefoot, pregnancy machines? No, not at all; remember the qualifier I used above was “formal” academic education. Every godly woman ought to be well educated; if nothing else just to be able to educate her own children. Education, especially a Christian one is highly desirable just because the more we know about art, history, science, literature, philosophy, etc., the more we can glorify our Father in Heaven! Every godly person, male or female ought to be as well educated as their own gifts and abilities allows. No, the issue is not having an education, but GETTING that education; but there are many ways to achieve this end- and not all of the best ways involve sending your daughter off to a four year college.

Granted, in today’s wicked world, your daughter may have to face the real possibility that she could marry a cad who will run off and leave her with a houseful of children. Therefore she needs SOME sort of skill that she can use to provide for her family (consider it a sort of “life insurance” policy; nobody ever wants to use their life insurance, but it sure helps in a disaster). But college is not necessarily the best way to give her those skills.

If your children want technical skills, they can obtain the requisite education at State schools. However, to take advantage of that education, they will have to run the humanist gamut for at least two years; therefore they need to have a sound foundation BEFORE they tackle the humanists.

Thus here is the dilemma; State schools are cheap but humanistic. Christian colleges are expensive but still humanistic (though with the worst moral aspects inhibited). Yet, in some ways Christian colleges are even more dangerous than secular universities because if your children attend the local State college, they know up front that their secular professor is a God-hating reprobate; forewarned is forearmed. Yet even these comparatively “cheaper” secular schools will still cost you a small fortune (if you have a large family), and your children will face ungodly temptations and influences.

Yet you still want to give them the best education possible, to fit them for living in this new century, and by God’s grace, to prosper in it. What do you do?

Home Schooling through College

Instead of your children leaving home and being thrown into an ungodly mix and subjected to four years of humanist indoctrination, perhaps there is a better way. What if I told you that I know how you can protect your children from the pervasive influence of humanism, provide them with a sound grounding in a consistent and comprehensive Christian worldview, and yet STILL prepare them for their calling? Oh, yes, and did I mention you can accomplish all the above without grants, student loans, or second mortgages? Does this sound too good to be true? Well, let us see…

Whitefield College in Florida has been working on developing a college education to help your children develop a consistent Christian worldview. These courses are available on CD-ROM or old fashioned audio-tape. Students rent the lectures, listen to them at their leisure, read the assignments, write essays and research papers and take proctored examinations to demonstrate proficiency over the material. And they can do all of this while living at home! If you home-schooled your children through high school, you can now continue the process right through a Bachelor’s degree for a fraction of the cost of a regular residential education.

However, one might rightly ask, “well how does this actually prepare my children for their vocation? Can you REALLY study medicine, law, engineering, etc. through a home study course? Besides, what if my child needs a graduate degree? If he needs to go for a Master’s what will they think about a degree earned at an institution that is purely distance learning?”

Well, there are several factors to consider. First, the undergraduate degree today is the equivalent of a high school diploma of forty years ago; it is simply a sign that a person has achieved a bare minimum of formal education. Where one goes to college (apart from certain, prestigious institutions such as Harvard, Yale, etc.) is really not so important for the average student as much as how well he does on certain standardized tests such as his SAT’s and GRE’s (Graduate Record Exams). Score high on your GRE and advanced programs are almost universally available to him. Remember, education is a business and the more “companies” competing for business means that they are desperate for you to patronize THEIR goods and services. There are now a great many educational “businesses” competing for students. If your child can show competence by standardized testing, then he can pretty much pick the advanced program that best fits his needs.

However, please also remember that the educational establishment is a union, and before admitting people into the HIGHEST levels of their union, they will require you to pass their initiation rites. For some fields such as Law and Medicine, these rites can be pretty daunting; they have a vested interest in controlling who practices law or medicine. If I were a cynic I might suggest that this is a clever way of decreasing the number of workers available so that they can increase their pay. Bar Exams and Medical Boards (and the very selection process for medical school) are there not just to make sure that only the “best and brightest” can practice medicine or serve as attorneys; they are also there to make sure that only the “right” kind of people work in these areas. If your child has a calling here, they must be able to convince the “powers that be” that they fit the criteria. It can be done without compromising Biblical principles; it just takes the “right” preparation.

And of course, if a child believes he has a calling in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, etc., he needs the best possible grounding in mathematics, and science he can get. These are not the easiest subjects to master without skilled tutors to help.

However, there is a “dirty” little secret that no one in the traditional educational establishment wants you to know; the first two years of college are essentially a recapitulation of high school! Today, the average four year institution needs to spend two of those years making sure their students are basically literate because the high schools have not been doing their job for a generation. Incoming freshmen at even prestigious colleges are often not as literate as people with a sixth grade education a hundred years ago! (Many are functionally illiterate being unable to express themselves in the English language). Therefore, because the level of public education is so bad, colleges need to essentially teach freshmen and sophomores what they should have already learned in high school.

However, if you home-schooled your children, it is very likely that THEY are already two years ahead of their public schooled peers! Therefore, why spend all that time and money just to have them go over the exact same material, all over again-albeit this time from a humanist perspective? Sure for certain callings, a recognized degree from an accredited institution might be necessary, but who says you have to pay for the first two years!

Therefore, there are two options. First, find a school that will accept CLEP tests. The College Level Examination Program is a series of standardized tests that a freshman can take that will give him advanced standing. Essentially, he can test out of the first two years of college! I did this and basically was able to complete a fully accredited four year degree in two years (graduating magna cum laude in the process).

However, there is a second way that your children can shorten their educational process, saving them time, and you money. Perhaps you want them to study some things in more detail before they begin their academic work in a secular institution. Simply have them take the first two years of college courses from Whitefield; general courses that apply in any school, but ones taught from a comprehensive Biblical worldview. When finished, your child can then transfer the credits into a secular college. Students can then take whatever major courses they want at local technical colleges and universities, but they can do so with a Biblical worldview protecting their faith.

Advanced education is now so common in the United States that almost every American is within relatively easy driving distance of SOME sort of college. Hence, Whitefield does not have to offer advanced courses in astronomy, physics, calculus, engineering, biology, etc. Instead, they arm your children with a consistent worldview developed in their core courses, which equips them to analyze unbiblical ideas in every area of study and reject them. Thus, when they are ready, they can go wherever they need to go to learn the practical skills needed for their calling. Believe it or not, the greatest threats to your children’s faith do not come from the “hard” sciences but from the social “sciences.” Whitefield allows you to by-pass all those courses.

Meanwhile, the student lives at home, works at a job, saves money for his future, all the while getting the best possible education at the cheapest prices. Parents then can monitor their children’s education, still be involved in their lives, and the family is not broken up at the very time a child needs his parent’s input in making crucial life decisions.

Granted, this “alternative” to the traditional practice does not give your children the “expected” experience of college. For many in American culture, college has become a ritual, a transition period between childhood and maturity. It is largely seen as a time to escape from the restrictions of home, blow off some steam, sow some wild oats, make new friends and have a good time; all while hopefully learning something that will help them make a living. Often, in more affluent times, college was seen as a way of giving your kids a positive experience-in making them smarter, wiser and better equipped to appreciate the world than their parents.

But times have changed. First of all, Christians rightly reject the very idea of their children using college as an excuse for moral rebellion. Furthermore, kids now need real education and training just to survive, let alone prosper. Furthermore, there are some very bright, highly motivated people out there who see THEIR calling as winning your children out of your “ignorant, narrow-minded, bigoted” religious views.

So before you just assume that a traditional college education is the ONLY way to go; consider the alternatives. Give your child a sound intellectual grounding in the faith in schools such as Whitefield. Work with them to help then discover their calling BEFORE committing to an expensive investment in education. Discourage them from spending four years of their time (and tens of thousands of your dollars) in obtaining a degree in some interesting, but useless field where they can never hope to make a living. Prepare them to do as well as they can on standardized testing so that if they do need advanced education, the scores are there to open the necessary doors.

But most of all, take personal responsibility for your children’s education. Start with family worship and catechism so that at your knee they are learning about God and His Word. Make sure that they are thinking practically about their future and that their education is related to living a life pleasing to God. If at all possible, teach them how to think like an entrepreneur, able to see possibilities and make a living outside of the “main-stream.” But most important of all, do what you can to make them see that loving God, obeying God and bringing every area of their lives in submission to King Jesus is their greatest and highest calling.

For more information about Whitefield College and its programs, visit to http://www.whitefieldcollege.org/

Being the brand new pastor of the most prestigious church in town, I was trying hard to watch my P’s &Q’s. I had made my mind up BEFORE taking this job that I would adopt a low profile at first and try to change as little as possible. Sure, the weekly “special” music was not to my taste, the organist was a bit of a pain, and there were many little things that needed attending to (like praying that God would convert half the congregation!). But since I was the new kid on the block (and my congregation was largely composed of people over seventy!), I decided that I would spend most of my time preaching, teaching and visiting the “saints,” while seeing how things developed in other areas.

Like most churches, toddlers were automatically placed in the nursery. Slightly older children were dismissed immediately before the sermon for “Primary Praise.” For those between 10-12 there was “Junior Church.” The teens (there were only a handful) were allowed to sit in the balcony together.

But each week, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. A few minutes after the sermon began, one by the one the teens would start leaving the balcony. OK, nature WILL call on occasion, but EVERY WEEK? And why should it affect the ENTIRE youth group (all five of them)? And why did NO ONE ever come back until just before the closing hymn?

Being a naturally suspicious sort, I asked Carl, one of the deacons, to check the situation out for me. Sure enough, the next week, as the sermon began, the teens started disappearing. I gave Carl the subtle sign that we had agree