Do Fathers Own Their Daughters?

Awhile back I ran across the article "Daddy's Girl: Courtship and a Father's Rights" by Sarah Faith Schlissel (since married).  This article has probably been critiqued by others before me, but since it sets forth much of the real thinking behind the father-daughter relationships taught by the Patriarchy Movement (sometimes called hyper patriarchy), I wanted to deal with it here.  I realize there are many strains of so-called "Biblical Patriarchy", but from my research, what is practiced in regard to father-daughter relations appears to be very close to what this writer put down in print.  If some deny it verbally, fine and well.  Let us see them deny it in practice and then we will believe their claims.  This article was credited to have been published by The Chalcedon Foundation (not a small thing within those circles).

Some Background

Sarah Faith is the daughter of Steve Schlissel who has also written for Chalcedon.  Mr. Schlissel is reported to be a proponent of "Federal Vision" theology among Reformed types and is accused of teaching salvation by works. (Source)  He has been the pastor of a Messianic style church in Brooklyn, New York and said to be noted for his "...revelatory insights into the unity of the Old and New Testaments..." (Source)  What exactly they mean by "revelatory insights" I do not know, but it sounds as if he allegedly has "inside information" he got by "revelation", and that the rest of us peons must come to him for it.  This would be the environment in which Sarah Faith grew up.

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now
 the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Chalcedon Foundation, who reportedly published her article, was started by Rousas Rushdoony for the promotion of Reconstructionism as a means to force Christ's Kingdom upon secular culture and the church - a worldwide theocracy; or perhaps ecclesiocracy would be the right word.  (Ultimately, they believe they are responsible to "bring in the Kingdom" for Christ or force His Kingdom upon earth.)  I quote from their page:  "We believe that the whole Word of God must be applied to all of life. It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion...Chalcedon's activities include foundational and leadership roles in Christian reconstruction. Our emphasis on the Cultural or Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and the necessity of a return to Biblical Law has been a crucial factor in the challenge to Humanism by Christians in this country and elsewhere."  [Emphasis added.]

I'm not addressing the errors of Reconstructionism and Dominion Theology here, but I wanted to give some background to help the reader see where this young lady was "coming from" when she wrote what she did.  This does not excuse her, but it does help to show what kind of thinking is coming out of these groups.  And, remember, Chalcedon reportedly published this.

I got this article from the web site http://www.bibletopics.com The specific link is http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/92b.htm  I couldn't easily find out who runs this site.  I only noted that in the Bible Topics area they were posting verses on various subjects but that lists were incomplete or the verses were out of context.  There's a reason for that.  Let the reader beware!

The Article Itself

Sarah starts the article off by talking about how much she was a "Daddy's girl".  The similarities between them were so numerous, she informs us, that people call her "Daddy's Little Clone".  From her tone I'm fairly sure she had a good relationship with her own dad, at least from her perspective.

From this point Sarah's comments will be inside the boxes for clarity.  My comments follow.

Beyond being an X-chromosome donor, may we think of the "-'s" in "Daddy's" in the possessive sense, and affirm with legitimacy that Daddy is my owner? That "my heart belongs to Daddy" is certainly true. But do daughters, per se, belong to their Daddies?

The answer to this question will bring us the answer to the propriety of courtship as a model for a daughter's pre-marriage relationship with a prospective suitor.

Right off the bat, this is a rather shocking statement/question.  The intent of her article clearly becomes a defense of girls being the personal property of their fathers, as we shall see.  She applies this particularly to the subject of courtship.  Belief that daughters are the property of their fathers does not mean that fathers don't love their daughters (a man can love his property regardless of what form it takes), but it is a sorry ideology to apply to human beings created in the image of God.  While feminism has some serious errors and flaws, there is something very real to their complaint that this kind of thinking makes women into objects to be owned and passed from man to man without due regard to the woman's own desires, thoughts, personhood, etc.

Some of this ideology comes from misinterpretation of (usually) Old Testament scripture.  It should be clearly noted that there are many instances in scripture where a woman is treated as mere property which, though narrated, have no approval from God in the text.  Approval by God is assumed by many, but if God doesn't give clear approval in either a specific instance or in other scripture it is wrong to assume that He approved just because He told us about it.  Examples: We know that God did not approve of Samson breaking his Nazarite vow because God gave clear instructions as to how Nazarites were supposed to live and said Samson was to be one from birth.  We cannot assume that God approved David paying for his wife with 200 foreskins of Philistines because God never said anything about that anywhere to my knowledge.  Even more, God never gave specifications as to what a "bride price" should be - other than that Christ laid down His life for the church.

For the crux of the courtship question is not empirical, but principal [sic]. I define courtship as the discovery of a life-partner for a daughter under the direct oversight of the father. Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter's hand without her father's endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, "property" not his own. Daughters are Daddy's girls in the objective sense, and this particular daughter rejoices in that truth.

[Note:  I think she meant "principle" here, not "principal".]

The definition of empirical is "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."  The definition of principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning...a fundamental source or basis of something."

Frankly, I see "courtship" (for lack of a better word) as a mixture of both empirical and principle.  Experience and biblical examples make me think that it is some of both.  Following only principles will lead to hard fast rules which may leave out natural love and affection, experience and observation, and may even mean missing God's will.  Following only empiricism will lead to making feelings-based decisions from observation and experience, which presents its own set of problems and potential for mistakes.  Neither one alone is acceptable, but a mixture of the two - some good solid principles mixed with observation and experience - will give a more thorough perspective in building a potential marriage relationship.

Without getting into too much detail, the mention of the man seeking a wife in "unlawful ways" is bothersome since there is no "law" laid out in God's word for this procedure.  Of whose law are we then speaking? Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It is also disturbing that she refers to the potential suitor seeking a "daughter" without her father's endorsement as seeking "property" not his own.  This is rough, no doubt about it.  She's clearly referring to marriage as a transfer of "property".  As annoying as it is to say so outright, the feminists have not misunderstood people like this.  They view women as property, plain and simple.

For argument's sake we will assume that the definition that she is thinking of for "objective" is this: "not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."  So, she is boldly claiming that daughters are not just the intellectual property of their father, figuratively speaking ("These are my kids"); but the actual physical property of their fathers.  This means, by the interpretation of this type of people that daughters "belong" to their fathers as they might own a car or a house or a piece of real estate.  ("Daughter for sale. Enquire within.")  Sarah is actually taking pride in being a piece of stuff - a piece of property - in her father's collection of objects.

But, what if we are born again?  Who owns us then?  New Testament teaching to the church does not indicate that children or daughters are "owned by their daddies".  Any saved believer falls under another line of ownership in Christ.  First as joint-heirs with Christ.  Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ... 

Then we are in the larger body - the church - which is God's purchased possession. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. BUT - this is in the plural! "You", "ye", and "your" signify plural - the group - in the King James Version.  ("Thee, thou and thine" signify the singular "you" - a clever means for bringing the difference of plural "you" and singular "you" into English from the Greek.  Yes, those "archaic thees and thous" do serve an important purpose!)  So, this is a collective idea, not a singular idea.  Furthermore, we are bought from the bondage of sin, not from our fathers nor for our fathers, but FOR God.  The thought could be drawn from this that to claim any other ownership for Christians makes the price that He paid for us - the death of His Son for our salvation - a second rate ownership.  This is rather shocking!

Then we have 1 Corinthians 7:22-23, For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. This is speaking to servants - some of whom were presumably owned slaves - yet, God tells them they are His freemen.  Why?  Because they are bought with a price!  Again, the ownership of the saved is based upon the salvation Jesus Christ purchased with His own blood!  Therefore, we are not to be the servants of men.  Fathers are certainly men, so this shoots a big hole in the idea that daughters are "owned" and should be the servants of their fathers!  Daughters who are born of the Spirit into the body of Christ are not "owned" by their fathers.  They are the "property" of God Almighty based upon the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

In that context, it's important to realize that we Christians ARE owned by God.  Girls are not owned by their fathers. Fathers make mistakes and sometimes lead in bad directions.  Girls as well as boys need to learn to think for themselves before God and learn to discern the profane from the holy (Ezek. 44:23).  If their father leads into error, they have the Biblical right - nay, duty - to choose God instead!  (Example: Fannie Crosby's step-father joined the Mormons and his wife and step-daughter chose not to go with him.)  The idea that saved daughters are owned by their fathers rather than by God borders on blasphemy and tends toward idolatry.  It denies the prior claim God purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28), and sets up a man in a place that only the Lord God should hold.

This might sound harsh. "Ownership" makes some cringe. Okay, okay. So call it "authoritative stewardship." But for many, this is not much better. "What are you talking about? This courtship stuff may be nice (up to a point), and I agree that dating is unwise, riddled as it is with temptations--but hold it a minute there, sister! Are you saying that you're just a piece of property? How could you think of yourself in those terms? You need some serious help with your self-esteem there! Get real! Get with it! This is the 90s!"

"Authoritative stewardship", now that's a fine sounding phrase.   I believe this could be called bombast (see definition).

Notice the typical ploy she uses at the end of this imaginary "quote".  Instead of dealing with real concerns, she jumps to the worst accusations, ones which are not correct in the first place. Of course we don't need more self-esteem.  Of course we don't need to "get with the times" and interpret our beliefs by them. But, this does not prove that an unmarried daughter should think of herself as a piece of property in her father's possession.

Friends, always beware when someone arguing their position doesn't deal with the real issues and instead presents the worst possible imaginary arguments from "the opposition."  People that do such almost always have an ulterior motive, a weak point to prove, or simply didn't study enough.

Yes, it is grating to our ears. However, let's not dismiss the idea without examining its merits. The Christian worldview, informed by Scripture, functions as our spectacles.

Stop right there.  Let me clarify something.  We don't examine a theory or idea based on its merits. We examine it in light of scripture to see if it is true!  We may also consider it in light of common sense to see if it is reasonable.  There are many things in life that may appear good, but if they are contrary to scripture or are patently distructive it doesn't matter how "great" the results from a human viewpoint, they're still wrong.

Acts 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Be a noble Berean.  Check everything against the revelation God has given us in scripture.  And, use the good sense God intended you to have.

Then too, the correct "Christian worldview" is not informed by scripture, but rather scripture should define our worldview.  This may seem like a fine point, but scripture is not information - it is our final authority and absolute truth.  John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.  By it we can, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." as Jesus commanded in John 7:24.  In reality this is the foundational issue of this whole discussion.  It is and always has been about final authority since the day that Satan asked, "Yea, hath God said...?" (Gen. 3:1).  The true "crux of the...question" is who and what is the final authority in the life of a believer, including born again daughters of saved or unsaved fathers? 

But, for the moment, let's move on.

Through the Bible, we see the world as it is; and no part of life is exempt from God's governance. We want to live in accord with his law even if it means living in (uncomfortable) opposition to popular culture.

It's important to remember that the law was our school master to bring us TO Christ. It is not what we live under.  Galatians 3:24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Ephesians 2:14-15 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Also see 2 Cor. 3:6-11.

Everyone committed to advancing God's kingdom must be prepared to live against the norms of unbelief. Culture and custom which begin with God's word will inescapably conflict with culture which begins with the word of man.

Remember that this involves the belief that "they" are going to establish "the Kingdom" for or instead of Christ.  The problem is that their idea of the kingdom is wrong, and we are the church which is being built by Christ at this time.  We are building something, yes.  Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:10-13, According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
This doesn't sound like building the kingdom!

At least here she gives verbal credit to the authority of God's word.  However, I find it very telling that she doesn't use any scripture to prove her point as yet!

But now she takes a scary veer into bizarre manipulation of scripture and logic.

And the word of God teaches that progenitors have certain rights. Let's use that as our major premise and construct a syllogism. Major premise: The creator of something is sovereign over that which he created. Minor premise: God created all things. Conclusion: God is sovereign over all things. This agrees with Scripture: "The earth is the Lord's, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it, for [i.e., because] He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers" (Psalm 24:1). God created it; therefore, he has full authority over it.

First of all, her major premise is not going to hold water.  Creators of things, in the general sense as she states it, are not always sovereign over what they created.  How many writers of music and books have lost all "sovereignty" over their "creation"?  The conclusion here is true, but not because her "major premise" is true.  The conclusion is true because scripture tells us God is sovereign over all HE created.  But, it does not extend that privilege to man and things he creates.

This is also a really strange place to head to prove that a father has the right to rule over his daughter and own her! What brazen (mis)use of scripture.

1) God, not our fathers, created us both in our physical sense and in our spiritual re-birth. Psalms 139:14-17 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!  [This obviously applies to every human being ever created.]
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

2) We are more specifically made by our mothers than our fathers. After all, dads have a rather minimal, though essential, part in the whole process. So, based on this shaky "syllogism" it would appear that we should be a matriarchal people rather than patriarchal.  Hello?  (I put syllogism in quotes because I don't think hers works, so it isn't one.)

This idea that the creator is sovereign over his creation in the human realm cannot be comfortably extended to fathers because men are not GOD.  Wait...some people do say that hyper patriarchy is idolatry.  Hm...I wonder why!  Also, if you're going to apply this to daughters under this "logic", then you better include the sons and stop letting the guys off easier!  Let's be consistent  here!

Speaking more specifically of this sovereignty issue that she brought up --

This same truth is variously expressed in Scripture: "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own. . . ?" (Mat. 20:15). The potter (Rom. 9:21) has a right to do with his creations as he sees fit. Put another way, to generate something is to have an implicit sovereignty over it.

First off, Matt. 20 is dealing with the parable of the householder who sent the laborers into his vineyard to work at different hours of the day and then paid them all a penny regardless of how long they worked.  This has to do with how God chooses to reward His servants for their work, not His sovereignty over all His creation.  So, she's off track there.  (Always check a proof text for the context.)

Romans 9:21 says, Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  This is still uncertain.  The verse is talking about the actual and original creative act, and in the context appears to be dealing with predestination and sovereignty on a level that can only be applied to God.  It is a parable.  Stop and think - a potter has the power to make a vessel unto honor, but if that vessel is later repurposed to a dishonorable purpose, can a human potter stop that from happening?  No.  This really seems to be God's business then, since only He has the power to create vessels unto His purpose in the way Paul writes. 

Fathers have little power to make their children vessels unto honor or dishonor, not knowing whether those children will choose the way of salvation or not.  There have been kids raised in Christian homes where some went on to walk in God's ways, while others with the same upbringing turned from the truth and rejected Christ.  Fathers can't force a specific outcome just because they sired someone into the world physically.

Sarah Faith's point here is that because God as the creator has sovereign authority over His creation that means fathers (in the context of this article) have sovereignty over their daughters (in the context of this article), whom they "created".  This, friends, is a very, very long stretch.  How many of us enjoy "sovereignty" over anything we've "created"?  How many times do we find, to our sorrow, that we don't "own" things we've created?  We are not God!  And, even He allows for self-governance and free will in His human creation, for He is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9, and yet He does not force that will on all His created beings!  They must choose for themselves in salvation and many other areas.  (Joshua 24:15)

She does continue with a qualification, but I find it rather anti-climatic compared to the implication of parental - and particularly fatherly - "sovereignty" that she has just made.  The idea that a father has the sovereignty over his children's, or even daughters', lives based upon his "creation" of them is excessive at least, and at worst is smacks of idolatry.

We happily concede the fact that human ownership is always second order ownership under God, the only absolute Sovereign. Nevertheless, God has made explicit his will that parents, as the immediate generative source of individuals, are to be revered for that very fact, and the rights of parents are to be honored, by children and society.

Sarah finally includes both parents here.  (Mothers tend to get short changed a lot in "Biblical Patriarchy".)  She also acknowledges that the "ownership" of the parents is under God's ownership.  (Don't get too excited over that concession.  She'll blow it all to smithereens shortly.)  However, as we've seen previously, it's hard to prove that from N.T. teaching, which points in another direction entirely - that as believers we are owned by the Lord only.  Parents certainly are given some significant responsibility in N.T. church commands, but "ownership" of their children doesn't seem to be one of them, and certainly not daughters being "owned" by their fathers.

I'd like to point out that it is hard to prove that God has made "explicit his will" that "society" is required to honor parents' rights.  It's easy enough to prove from rights-oriented thinking of conservative (right-wing) political and social ideals, or from some Old Testament teaching, but not from the New Testament.  Parents had certain rights under the Mosaic laws that governed the nation of Israel in the Old testament, but kings largely did as they pleased, as did the heathen nations.  Samuel warned the Israelites in 1 Sam. 8:13 that the king they wanted would take their daughters to be his servants!  1 Samuel 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

The N.T. does not make it clear that state governments or secular "society" are to honor the "rights of parents."  Mainly this is because the N. T. makes no effort to control society at all during the church era except as we are the salt of the earth, Matt. 5:13.  (By the way, salt irritates and preserves and slows decay, it does not restore rot to goodness.  Only Jesus Christ can do that through the miracle of new birth.)  Mixing human political ideas with "the Kingdom" of Christ causes great confusion.  (Remember that it is necessary for her basic worldview to "prove" that society must bow to the dominion of Christ now because Dominionists believe they are going to establish and/or enforce Jesus Christ's kingdom on this earth.)

I don't feel qualified to discuss the role of sons, but it seems clear that there is a peculiar relationship between the father and the daughter.

No, of course she wouldn't feel qualified to discuss the role of sons.  After the "syllogism" she built, it would be hard to extract the boys from being under the same exact "sovereignty" of the parent-creators, and specifically the mothers since they are the most involved in the "creation"!  Hohum.

As to the last part of that sentence - Can we get a little scripture here to prove this?  What has been given so far specifically applied to God Almighty, not fathers and daughters.  To use that as proof that fathers have a "peculiar relationship" with daughters and that those same verses, which supposedly establish her theory, DON'T apply to sons is preposterous!  (I will tell you, however, who has "peculiar relationships" with their daughters!  If your head isn't swimming yet, just hold on.  It gets worse.)

Since a daughter is, by the grace of God, always under authority--there being a transfer at marriage from a father's to a husband's--daughters are "Daddy's" uniquely.

Can we get some scripture to prove this too?!  To say that because she moves under her husband's authority at marriage a daughter is therefore "uniquely" under her father's authority beforehand seems like reverse reasoning to me.  It comes out wrong somehow.  "Under his authority" in as much as he is the leader of the home, we accept, but this "unique ownership" is foreign to N.T. teaching.  As for calling on the grace of God to authorize her definition of "authority" - PLEASE!  This smacks more of the commandments of men than the grace of God!  Mark 7:6-8 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...

The application of Hebrews 12:9-10 extends to all children in context, Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.  From this we can see several things that do great damage to the "unique father-daughter relationship". 

1) Our fathers in the flesh correct us after their own pleasure. 
2) Their own pleasure does not necessarily coincide with God's "perfect will" for us (our profit spiritually). 
3) Consequently, the only "unique" father-child relationship that exists is with the Father in heaven through faith in Jesus Christ.  He chastens us for our profit so that we might partake of His holiness.  Now that's unique!  John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 

While he must raise his sons to be loving husbands and fathers who make houses possible, he raises his daughters to be submissive, godly wives and wise mothers, to make houses homes. He raises a son to be a provider; he raises a daughter to be provided for.

This sounds really "correct" within the presuppositions of many, especially "biblical patriarchy" and probably even many who claim to be Complimentarian; but is it biblical?  To me it appears to be a mixture of truth and presumption.

Are fathers required to raise sons "who make houses possible"?  1 Timothy 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.  Much as I don't like to admit it myself, that doesn't say anything about a house.  I'm sure that many of our persecuted and poverty stricken Christian brethren in various places and eras are thankful that wasn't mentioned!  Even food and raiment is not promised - but it's esteemed as "enough" for contentment in scripture.

Are daughters to be raised to "make houses homes"?  While that may be an attractive thought in our modern age, I can't think of anything that specifies that in scripture.  I don't see any reason why a man is less responsible to "make a house a home" either. 

Even the concept of the husband provider and wife provided for is awkward to prove satisfactorily from scripture.  Yes, I remember about the "keepers at home" phrase in Titus 2, and I believe it.  But, let's be honest here - that doesn't explicitly dictate that the woman can't help "provide" while she's at home.  Besides that, we run into a lot of snags in the N.T. in this line - Lydia (of whom no husband is mentioned) was a seller of purple (a high end job), Dorcus (of whom no husband is mentioned) had income enough to help the widows, and Priscilla worked with her husband Aquilla as a tentmaker and helped him instruct Appollos (Acts 18:2-3, 16).  We need to be very careful to keep our expectations regarding marriage and "family order" in line with actual biblical teaching to the church.

I also take some exception to daughters being trained specifically to be mothers.  The N.T. does not promise Christians children as a reward for obedience as God promised the Jews under the O.T. law.  In fact, our rewards are quite different.  Paul even encourages both men and women who are morally able to remain single so that they can serve the Lord without distraction. 1 Corinthians 7:35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.  I know this is not popular among those promoting the necessity of "raising arrows for the war on culture", but it is what the Bible says.  It seems more prudent to train daughters with skills that will be applicable in a broader spectrum of service to Christ than strictly being a wife and mother.

Proud independence is no noble goal for a woman, and the spirit which pursues it is no part of a godly girl's trousseau.

True enough - pride is always negative in scripture as far as I know.  But what about humble autonomy?  What about free will with meekness?  Again, she is using the ploy of appealing to the furthest position to justify her own extreme position.  (It doesn't work, ma'am.  Give it up.)

Added to this is the interesting thought - What if a father commands his daughter to be independent?  What if he wants her to make her own choice in marriage with minimal help from him?  No word on that here.  Presumably "good, godly covenant fathers" will automatically want to do this, which opens another whole can of worms.

Of course, those who exalt independence, denying headship to a husband, will certainly deny it to a father. Thus, they find the idea of courtship offensive. But those who acknowledge that God's way is right (Luke 7:29, 35) find the idea of "authoritative stewardship" quite pleasant!

She also uses an old trick that is totally unreasonable and devious.  The idea is that if we agree with God, we will naturally agree with her; and if we don't agree with her, we are disagreeing with God.  Did you get that?  It is intended to make us feel guilty and/or to coerce us into agreement by suggesting that if we don't agree, we don't "acknowledge that God's way is right" - in other words, we "don't love God".  I am so sick of this tactic.  "Quite pleasant" indeed!  You may keep your messy logic, ill-thought out premises and misuse of scripture, lady.  I'll pass on that.

The very first question of the Heidelberg Catechism is this: What is your only comfort in life and in death? The answer is matchless: That I am not my own, but belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to my faithful savior Jesus Christ. Sinners find this answer repulsive. "Not my own? That's no comfort! That means I can't do what I want!"

To quote a silly song, "Same song, same verse, Couldn't get better but it's gonna get worse..."

Again, Christ's ownership of us (plural - the church) is NOT a premise for declaring that dads OWN their daughters and have unequivocal authority over them.

Also, note how she's leading into her next point which is totally off base. Sinners don't like the idea of being owned by Christ... now watch her make an application for her own ideology:

Well now, isn't that the whole issue? We don't want to feel like we're owned, because we want to do what we want to do. It's as simple as that. We know that whoever owns us has authority to determine our comings and goings, and each of us wants to be his own boss.

Wow!  It so Isn't "as simple as that".  Yes, for the sinner that is an issue.  It is even for the Christian at times.  But, to say this is the sole reason that we object to the belief that fathers own their daughters is extreme simplification with an ulterior motive.  Again, we're supposed to feel wicked for even suggesting there's a problem!  We're being coerced, not instructed in righteousness.  Did you see the proof text?  Me neither!  It's not just that "simple" to draw the conclusions she wants to foist upon us.

Perhaps it should also be pointed out that having authority to determine comings and goings does not signify ownership.  The guards in a prison have this authority, but they certainly do not own the prisoners.  [That could lead to an interesting rabbit trail, but I'll restrain myself!]

Fathers don't "own" their children, even daughters, during those years that they supervise their comings and goings.  As Christians they are under-shepherds under Christ, but they do not OWN HIS sheep! (John 10:3-4 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.)  Any saved lady is not her own, nor her father's, but Christ's within the body of believers.  So!  It is then Christ who has the right to tell us when to come and go.  Parents do this for children for their safety and for order in the home, BUT marriageable age women are not children, and while honoring their parents and seeking their blessing if possible, they are not constrained to obey at all costs!  Parents have been known to command their daughters to do things clearly outside of God's revealed will (scripture). 

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.  Fathers are certainly men.

It is thus no wonder that sinners cringe at the concepts involved in courtship.

It's a long stretch between sinners cringing at the concepts of courtship and daughters being OWNED by their fathers.  People who don't believe in fathers owning their daughters sometimes even practice what "sinners" could call courtship. 

Did you note how she lumped everyone who "cringes" at the "concepts" of courtship under the name "sinners."  That's another neat trick of devious argument designed to make those who don't agree feel guilty or wicked or outside "God's will."  One could imply from her comment earlier about sinners not liking the thought of being owned that she is calling those who cringe at courtship unsaved.  Yes, there are people who will try to make you think you are not saved if you don't agree with them.  It's a common tactic in cults.  And, yes, I did just use the "C" word, because this lady is getting quite oppressive in the means she's using to force us to agree with her.

Watch the next trick now:

But saints are those who are obliged to come to terms with authority structures which come from the hand of God.

Yes, "saints" are obliged to agree with her definition of "God-given authority"!  So, we can safely say that the "sinners" above are lost and hell-bound because they don't like the concepts involved in courtship - meaning that "Daddies own their daughters"!  ONLY - she has not proven to us beyond a reasonable doubt that fathers owning their daughters is a God-given authority - or essential to "courtship", for that matter!  (Oh, and did I mention?  She hasn't proven that it's essential for salvation either!)  We will allow a reasonable authority or leadership, but not OWNership.  The guilt trips are getting more than a little thick.  IF we're saints, we're "obliged" to agree with her because she's right and this is "from...God".  Yet she still hasn't proven it from scripture.  Blah!

In all seriousness - there are people who actually believe this stuff whether in fact, theory OR practice.  Beware.  They may use these same tricks to frighten you into agreeing with them, even submitting to them.

[Note: If you are grown woman 20 or above who is having this forced upon you in order to make you comply with demands that you know to be contrary to God's word, please seek help among believers outside of your family's persuasion.  There are a number of Christian web sites where you may be able to find encouragement or help in dealing with this very real and very difficult form of spiritual and social bondage.]

And because earthly authorities are themselves under God's authority, we acknowledge that no daughter is obliged to obey commands from any source bidding her to sin.

She admits this, but then watch her totally "foul" and "off sides" it with the next lines of (il)logic.

Yet some would seek to use this concession by arguing, "What if God tells the girl to do something that her father doesn't approve of? What if, for example, the LORD reveals to her, through various signs and feelings, that she is to marry a particular man?  Wouldn't God's will for the girl supersede her earthly, mortal, imperfect father's will?"

There she goes again!  She runs right to the excessive extremes to argue her case.  Signs and feelings?  Really?  Who does she think we are?  An evil and adulterous generation who seeketh after signs (Matt. 12:39).  Maybe there are some of us out here who don't follow "signs and feelings."  What if a girl's father tells her she may no longer gather with the saints in fellowship because he doesn't like "the church" any more?  Let's ask a reasonable question with a clear biblical answer.  Oh, but "we" were establishing the father's right to OWN his daughter and thus to determine for her whom she will marry.  Yes, I...um...forgot where she was headed.  Ahem!

Now, I'll repeat the first and last questions again to make her answer clear.  Don't Miss This!!

..."What if God tells the girl to do something that her father doesn't approve of?...Wouldn't God's will for the girl supersede her earthly, mortal, imperfect father's will?"

Simply put: No. As strange as it may sound, in the peculiar relationship of the father and daughter, God, as it were, takes a back seat. God has created a hierarchy such that the daughter is directly answerable to her father, and her father then answers to God. This doubles the father's responsibilities, because he must account to God for the way he raises his daughter.

This is jaw dropping.  "God...takes a back seat"!  DID you just read that?

Setting aside her lame middle question, let's consider the first and last ones.  What if a father actually disapproves of something that God has commanded His children to do, and this "girl" is a saved "girl"?  Would it be God's will for her to obey her father's will instead?  Acts 4:19 tells us, But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.  Obviously the answer is, "No!"

Romans 3:4 ...yea, let God be true, but every man a liar...

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Fathers will answer for how they raise all their children, but this does not mean that they stand between their believing daughters (or sons) and the Lord Himself in some special way.  There is only one who holds that position - Christ Jesus.

For anyone who wants to argue that daughters aren't men so 1 Tim. 2:5 doesn't apply to them, I'd just remind you of this: 1 Peter 3:3-4 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible...  [And people wonder why we love the KJV.]

By the way, I'm more than a little weary of the idea being foisted upon us that the "poor men" have all this "extra responsibility" upon their shoulders as if somehow we ought to feel sorry for them or respect them for the "great load" they carry.  It is a form of manipulation for an abuser to pose as a "victim" in order to discredit the complaints of those whom he is abusing.  It is an identified trait of narcissists.  "Doubles the father's  responsibilities" indeed!  If he wasn't usurping God's authority he'd have a lot less to worry about!

The father's ownership, of course, is an in order to thing. God has given the daughter to the father so he can raise her in the fear and admonition of the Lord, protect her from harm and want, protect her from other men, and sometimes, protect her from herself, even from foolish decisions she might make on her own. [Emphasis original.]

 Well, what if...  Yeah, I know these types hate "what if" questions from us idiots out here.  We all do when we launch out into our own reasoning without scriptural foundation and don't want to answer questions from real life, or frankly admit we don't know.  "What ifs" get messy when all we can answer is, "I don't know", but sometimes that's what is needed. 

Anyway, what if a girl doesn't have a godly father?  What if her father doesn't assume this level of responsibility for her?  What if she has no father? This huge emphasis on the super-extremely-important role a father has for his daughter can only discourage young ladies who don't "enjoy" this kind of relationship.  What are they to do - other than give up?  This is sad and doesn't remind me of Jesus who said  "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."  John 14:18

Another interesting thought is what if the daughter isn't saved?  Does her father then "own" her in lieu of God's ownership of the saved?  There is no N. T. teaching to justify that, and it would be preposterous to apply O.T. teaching to the unsaved in this instance, as with many.

Now at the risk of sounding like I'm nit-picking, I'd like to talk about the protection factor here - harm, want, other men, and sometimes herself.  Up to a point a father can do this and should, but God's right to ownership of saved daughters supersedes the father's responsibilities.

The father cannot protect his daughter from all harm and want, and he shouldn't. 

2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.  We cannot escape all harm if we live godly in Christ Jesus.  There must come with it suffering at various times. 

Philippians 4:11-13 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.  Paul said he learned to suffer need and be content in whatsoever state he found himself.  It is God's will that we sometimes suffer want.  It is for our growth and good.  A father who tries to get in the way of that consistently may cripple the growth of his saved daughter.  2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 

Combined with other things this lady is teaching, this could be a great set back in a daughter's walk with Jesus Christ.  Taken with other tendencies in "biblical patriarchy", ladies could get the idea that they shouldn't have their own relationship with the Lord or think too much about spiritual things.  Sadly, this may explain why it's sometimes hard to have real spiritual conversations with women in these types of groups.  (Except the select few women who are allowed to be spiritual leaders.  The "yoginis" of "Biblical Patriarchy", if you will.)

How much a man is able to "protect" his daughters from want and provide for them does have to do with his income.  Curiously enough, there seems to be (and have been) a number of rather wealthy men at the top of the Patriarchal Movement.  Vision Forum, at least, seemed to target a more financially able customer base (who could have afforded their stuff otherwise?).  My own parents did not want to send their daughters out to work, and they and my brothers made sacrifices to accomplish that, but the plain raw fact is that not everyone is economically capable of doing that, especially when they are also having unlimited "arrows" to "fill their quivers" (that means lots of kids, for those who don't know the lingo).  Frankly, my parents couldn't have done it if they'd had more than four kids themselves.  Oh, and my sister and I both helped with my parents' business in various ways, but not because we were called to "serve our father's vision".  It was just practical and helped put food on the table.

[Comment on photo:  There's a good chance that these sharecroppers were born-again Christians.  Obviously this man was not in a position to keep the ladies nice and tidy at home while he went out and supported them.  Yeah, this might be excused as an "agricultural family business", but I dare say that some of these ladies would have rather been keeping the home than out hoeing in the Southern sun.  This is a hard way to make a living.]

A father also cannot always protect his daughter from other men, and consequently she needs to be taught how to protect herself or others should occasion require it.  She should learn how to discern evil motives in men, even ones who claim "godliness", and how to recognize potentially dangerous situations.  If the girls in the ATI families had been faithfully