What do you think?
Rate this book
Honor Thy Fathers: Recovering the Anti-Feminist Theology of the Reformers
Calvin. Luther. Knox. Vermigli. In recent years, the Reformed world has seen a resurgence of interest in recovering the doctrinal work of these men and others from the shadows of centuries gone by. This work of retrieval often requires courage, as we modern heirs of the Reformers inevitably discover that some of what we thought to be "Reformed" proved to be theological novelty in the face of the primary sources. We often discover that 19th- and 20th-century social movements and cultural pressures have successfully smuggled their ideas into the bedrock of our thinking. Is there a clearer example of this phenomenon than the effect of the feminist movement on the doctrine and practice of the Protestant church? The goal of this book is to introduce the reader to the Reformed theology of the family and to contrast this theology with deviations among modern Protestant churches, particularly those who claim ties to the Reformed tradition. After studying our Reformed forefathers on the family and male rule in the home, the church, and the commonwealth, Christians must consider whether the modern church's departure from the teaching of these men has been more faithful to the Bible and has produced a more orderly society. Our spiritual forefathers would certainly say no.
170 pages, Hardcover
Published June 1, 2024
74 people are currently reading
653 people want to read
About the author
Zachary M. Garris
6 books102 followersZachary M. Garris serves as pastor of Bryce Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in White Rock, New Mexico. He holds a Master of Divinity from Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson) and a Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School. His writings have appeared in The Confessional Presbyterian, Presbyterion, and Chronicles Magazine. He is the author of Honor Thy Fathers: Recovering the Anti-Feminist Theology of the Reformers (New Christendom Press), and he writes at KnowingScripture.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
June 12, 2024
A short, meaty book. It took me about 2 hours to read, and is an excellent trumpet blas against the rampant egalitarianism and weak complementarianism in Reformed churches today.
July 2, 2024
A great reformed resource celebrating the heritage of masculine Christianity embodied by our forefathers in the reformed religion.
January 9, 2026
“Western Christian’s are doing everything but conserving the beliefs and practices of their reformed forefathers. Which way, Christian man?”
July 8, 2024
Once again Garris hits the nail on the head.
This book wonderfully showed the theology of our Fathers in the Faith when it comes to hard questions that the church today too cowardly to face.
If Garris writes a book, you best believe it’s going on my shelf.
This book wonderfully showed the theology of our Fathers in the Faith when it comes to hard questions that the church today too cowardly to face.
If Garris writes a book, you best believe it’s going on my shelf.
October 2, 2024
“Patriarchy is father rule, matriarchy is mother rule, egalitarianism is no one rules, and complementarianism is father rule but he can only lead in the way his wife lets him”
Many love the Reformers soteriological, ecclesiological, and hermeneutical convictions, but what about their theology of the home? What does Calvin, Luther, Knox, Perkins, Watson, and Bavinck have to say as well as the Heidelberg and Westminster on Male-headship?
In Honor Thy Fathers, Garris calls us to a retrieval of the Reformers view of Biblical Patriarchy within the Home, Church, and Society. He takes to task not only egalitarianism but also the soft complementarianism of modern evangelicals such as Nancy Pearcey and Tim Keller. Though he does argue for Biblical Patriarchy exegetically through the reformers, the focus of this book is a historical argument.
Tough read in our culture, but I think it a necessary read for those who claim the Reformed Tradition.
For his exegetical argument read: Masculine Christianity
Other agreeing recommended sources: Herman Bavinck: The Christian Family
Many love the Reformers soteriological, ecclesiological, and hermeneutical convictions, but what about their theology of the home? What does Calvin, Luther, Knox, Perkins, Watson, and Bavinck have to say as well as the Heidelberg and Westminster on Male-headship?
In Honor Thy Fathers, Garris calls us to a retrieval of the Reformers view of Biblical Patriarchy within the Home, Church, and Society. He takes to task not only egalitarianism but also the soft complementarianism of modern evangelicals such as Nancy Pearcey and Tim Keller. Though he does argue for Biblical Patriarchy exegetically through the reformers, the focus of this book is a historical argument.
Tough read in our culture, but I think it a necessary read for those who claim the Reformed Tradition.
For his exegetical argument read: Masculine Christianity
Other agreeing recommended sources: Herman Bavinck: The Christian Family
September 11, 2024
This book is a fitting and helpful companion volume to Garris’ earlier “Masculine Christianity.” Whereas the earlier work is exegetical, this one explores the same matters as they have developed in Protestant church history. I highly recommend it to anyone wanting to consider the background to “male rule” in the thought of the Reformers and Presbyterian Churches of today and yesterday!
November 19, 2024
A very clarifying book in lots of ways!
The feminist dogma in the air of our culture is suffocating and instead of empowering women it actually limits & hurts them while also emasculating the men.
Zach Garris pulls no punches in his analysis on the feminist deviations that are surely a result of the curse of the woman in Gen. 3 no doubt.
Pros:
- He helpfully gives a classically reformed take on key passages that are relevant to biblical gender roles in the family, church, (and even civil spheres).
This work is mainly one of historical theology, in that he is giving the perspective of Calvin, Bullinger, Gouge, Perkins, and others on the aforementioned roles.
- He’s consistent in his presentation and it’s clear what his opinion of feminist deviations are. I think it’s fair and I would agree that if we are to adopt reformed theology, then reformed practice should also consistently follow
- His scathing though honest critique of how modern reformed denominations have deviated from their reformed forefathers was very illuminating and I was surprised on the compromise from certain brothers on those issues when a lot of Garris’ critiques were not only in line with the historical reformed take on such, but also seemed to be biblically consistent
- His very thorough exegesis on passages related to church Government has all but completely shifted my perspective on female deacons (though I’m still figuring some things out and have questions)
- I always felt like both from scripture and natural law that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles (can still be in military), be police officers (can still be detectives), or be firefighters (the physical demand), or serve in top-level government roles (president, head of state, secretary of defense, etc). It’s makes me unpopular with certain types of people 🤷🏼♂️but I was glad to see the reformers felt the same way
Cons:
- Would’ve liked a lot more quotes from Calvin and others. Sure, his main goal is analysis but more exposure would’ve been nice, especially for those that may not go to the sources. It could be said though that you could obviously just look to those yourself (which I will be doing for sure).
- I noticed that in his positive affirmation of certain reformed writings (Gouge & Perkins particularly), he gave black & white approval to certain things that were said of the husband and wife in their relations/roles that were very clearly derived from natural law. The reason I point that out is: it’s better to make black and white statements & conclusions on matters of biblical clarity, whereas natural law often relies on the use of sound reasoning on the basis of observing the world and how it works. Hence, you can have conclusions with which you even hold convictionally but the exact specifications on how someone plays itself out can be different form person to person.
For example, Perkins & Gouge make many helpful comments on husbands & wife relating to each other in a proper authority/submission understanding while also some that, if I’m honest, if I were to dogmatically implement, my wife would be a robot (no thanks…)
Long story short, let’s be absolutely clear about what the Bible says in principle, and then understand that that dynamic works itself out differently with different couples, seeking to obey the Lord with their own individual personalities also in play
All in all, really enjoyed the book and if you’re willing to hear some hard but necessary things from godly men who loved the Lord & their wives and were students of the Word, this book is highly informative
The feminist dogma in the air of our culture is suffocating and instead of empowering women it actually limits & hurts them while also emasculating the men.
Zach Garris pulls no punches in his analysis on the feminist deviations that are surely a result of the curse of the woman in Gen. 3 no doubt.
Pros:
- He helpfully gives a classically reformed take on key passages that are relevant to biblical gender roles in the family, church, (and even civil spheres).
This work is mainly one of historical theology, in that he is giving the perspective of Calvin, Bullinger, Gouge, Perkins, and others on the aforementioned roles.
- He’s consistent in his presentation and it’s clear what his opinion of feminist deviations are. I think it’s fair and I would agree that if we are to adopt reformed theology, then reformed practice should also consistently follow
- His scathing though honest critique of how modern reformed denominations have deviated from their reformed forefathers was very illuminating and I was surprised on the compromise from certain brothers on those issues when a lot of Garris’ critiques were not only in line with the historical reformed take on such, but also seemed to be biblically consistent
- His very thorough exegesis on passages related to church Government has all but completely shifted my perspective on female deacons (though I’m still figuring some things out and have questions)
- I always felt like both from scripture and natural law that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles (can still be in military), be police officers (can still be detectives), or be firefighters (the physical demand), or serve in top-level government roles (president, head of state, secretary of defense, etc). It’s makes me unpopular with certain types of people 🤷🏼♂️but I was glad to see the reformers felt the same way
Cons:
- Would’ve liked a lot more quotes from Calvin and others. Sure, his main goal is analysis but more exposure would’ve been nice, especially for those that may not go to the sources. It could be said though that you could obviously just look to those yourself (which I will be doing for sure).
- I noticed that in his positive affirmation of certain reformed writings (Gouge & Perkins particularly), he gave black & white approval to certain things that were said of the husband and wife in their relations/roles that were very clearly derived from natural law. The reason I point that out is: it’s better to make black and white statements & conclusions on matters of biblical clarity, whereas natural law often relies on the use of sound reasoning on the basis of observing the world and how it works. Hence, you can have conclusions with which you even hold convictionally but the exact specifications on how someone plays itself out can be different form person to person.
For example, Perkins & Gouge make many helpful comments on husbands & wife relating to each other in a proper authority/submission understanding while also some that, if I’m honest, if I were to dogmatically implement, my wife would be a robot (no thanks…)
Long story short, let’s be absolutely clear about what the Bible says in principle, and then understand that that dynamic works itself out differently with different couples, seeking to obey the Lord with their own individual personalities also in play
All in all, really enjoyed the book and if you’re willing to hear some hard but necessary things from godly men who loved the Lord & their wives and were students of the Word, this book is highly informative
May 29, 2025
This book was written by a Presbyterian for Presbyterians (primarily).
Though shorter than I thought it would be, I greatly enjoyed the book. It’s fairly unlike anything I’ve ever read. I will say that the cover is a little bit deceiving as you hear very little from Luther or Vermigli.
Garris starts the book by explaining that “Reformed theology is not limited to God’s sovereignty in salvation or the unity of His covenant—it also provides a theological of the family.” This book is not meant to be application but rather a survey of the Reformers’ views, though there are many moments in which Garris quotes them that are very application-oriented.
Garris provides a deep foundation for understanding male rule within the Reformed tradition in the home, church, and commonwealth (ch. 1-3). Following that, he provides examples demonstrating how we have abandoned (to varying degrees depending on who you are, of course) the teachings of those whom we lift up so highly (ch. 4-5). He notes deviations from the Reformers particularly by the Kellers, DeYoung, and the PCA. Of course, it doesn’t matter if you deviate from the Reformers unless it means that by doing that, you deviate from Scripture. However, Garris provides a strong case for that being such. He provides helpful understandings of passages like 1 Corinthians 11:5, 14:34-35, and 1 Timothy 2:12 as well.
I’ve heard people make claims about moving away from the use of the word “complementarian,” though until I read this book, I did not understand why. Garris doesn’t advocate for that, per se, but distinguishes between narrow complementarianism and broad complementarianism. I might lean away from using that term to describe myself and prefer a different term like patriarchal, or even better, biblical.
Overall, I recommend this book if you really value the Reformers, your Presbyterian tradition, are a pastor, are in the PCA, etc. It’s certainly not for everyone, but there are things in this book that everyone can take away.
Though shorter than I thought it would be, I greatly enjoyed the book. It’s fairly unlike anything I’ve ever read. I will say that the cover is a little bit deceiving as you hear very little from Luther or Vermigli.
Garris starts the book by explaining that “Reformed theology is not limited to God’s sovereignty in salvation or the unity of His covenant—it also provides a theological of the family.” This book is not meant to be application but rather a survey of the Reformers’ views, though there are many moments in which Garris quotes them that are very application-oriented.
Garris provides a deep foundation for understanding male rule within the Reformed tradition in the home, church, and commonwealth (ch. 1-3). Following that, he provides examples demonstrating how we have abandoned (to varying degrees depending on who you are, of course) the teachings of those whom we lift up so highly (ch. 4-5). He notes deviations from the Reformers particularly by the Kellers, DeYoung, and the PCA. Of course, it doesn’t matter if you deviate from the Reformers unless it means that by doing that, you deviate from Scripture. However, Garris provides a strong case for that being such. He provides helpful understandings of passages like 1 Corinthians 11:5, 14:34-35, and 1 Timothy 2:12 as well.
I’ve heard people make claims about moving away from the use of the word “complementarian,” though until I read this book, I did not understand why. Garris doesn’t advocate for that, per se, but distinguishes between narrow complementarianism and broad complementarianism. I might lean away from using that term to describe myself and prefer a different term like patriarchal, or even better, biblical.
Overall, I recommend this book if you really value the Reformers, your Presbyterian tradition, are a pastor, are in the PCA, etc. It’s certainly not for everyone, but there are things in this book that everyone can take away.
January 26, 2025
The subtitle of this book is a perfect summary of what Garris sets out to do. He pointed out how the church today, even churches that label themselves as complemantarian, are fish swimming in feminist saturated waters.
The first half of the book looks at multiple Reformers/ Puritans on their views of father rule/ male rule in the church, home, & commonwealth. I’m sure a lot of Christians who would read these quotes from the Puritans/ Reformers would wince, not because they are not true, but because they have been indoctrinated by our feminist culture.
Garris is very polemical in the later half of the book, pointing out the pitfalls of complementarian pastors who have forsaken the historical orthodox views of the church on male rule. He wrote a lot about the Kellers and their ministry, because of how much they paved a way for feminist views in the PCA.
I loved the Bavinck quote Garris added at the very end of the book; reminding the reader that though we see tumult in the church, God’s purposes prevail.
“[Christians] do not look back to the past with homesickness, for even then not everything that glittered was golden. They do not surrender their hearts to the present l, for their eyes see the suffering that belongs inseparably to the present time. And they do not fantasize about a perfect society, because in this dispensation sin will continue to hold sway and will constantly corrupt all that is good. But they are assured that God’s purpose with the human race will nevertheless be attained, despite all the conflict involved.”
The first half of the book looks at multiple Reformers/ Puritans on their views of father rule/ male rule in the church, home, & commonwealth. I’m sure a lot of Christians who would read these quotes from the Puritans/ Reformers would wince, not because they are not true, but because they have been indoctrinated by our feminist culture.
Garris is very polemical in the later half of the book, pointing out the pitfalls of complementarian pastors who have forsaken the historical orthodox views of the church on male rule. He wrote a lot about the Kellers and their ministry, because of how much they paved a way for feminist views in the PCA.
I loved the Bavinck quote Garris added at the very end of the book; reminding the reader that though we see tumult in the church, God’s purposes prevail.
“[Christians] do not look back to the past with homesickness, for even then not everything that glittered was golden. They do not surrender their hearts to the present l, for their eyes see the suffering that belongs inseparably to the present time. And they do not fantasize about a perfect society, because in this dispensation sin will continue to hold sway and will constantly corrupt all that is good. But they are assured that God’s purpose with the human race will nevertheless be attained, despite all the conflict involved.”
August 1, 2025
An incredibly well researched book demonstrating beyond any shadow of honest doubt that many contemporary “Reformed” views on male and female roles in church, the family, and society are anything but Reformed.
October 24, 2024
This book was a bizarre clash of two halves that left me feeling a bit confused and, ultimately (in my opinion) missed the specific target set forth by the subtitle. Garris started strong with a widely scoped yet brief summary of multiple reformers views on a variety of gender role related topics. He seemed content to let the reformers speak for themselves, involving heavy quotation with very little editorializing. Even on topics where the reformers disagreed (eg Knox and Calvin on female civil rulers), Garris merely summarized the two views and their differences, without taking sides or adding additional biblical exegesis. In contrast the second half of the book was a bit of a ham-fisted (though largely correct) handling of (some) modern theologians' mis-steps in this area, which lost credibility by not only having the tenor (at points) of a tabloid opinion piece, but also allowing Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung to speak for all of reformed churches in America. All in all though, the first half was an excellent survey of a traditional reformed position which left lots of footnotes and loose ends for a curious reader to explore further, and I guess that was the point of the thing.
December 29, 2024
Outstanding. Garris makes an air-tight case for biblical patriarchy as the historic, reformed, and biblical view of the sexes relating to rule in the home, church, and commonwealth. He appeals to many of our reformed Protestant ancestors in the faith, and also to more modern reformed theologians such as Herman Bavinck as well. He later shows how feminism has invaded the church, even in conservative Christian circles. Every page seems to have multiple primary sources, and he is very fair in his writing, both towards those he agrees with and disagrees with. I really appreciated this because most modern theologians will shy away from these topics, even those who claim to be “Calvinist” or “Reformed” and Garris demonstrates this as well by providing multiple examples, such as the recent formation of “complementarianism”. A wonderful exhortation to love Jesus by obeying His commandments.
June 27, 2024
This is a must read
June 2, 2025
3.8
Good. Well researched. Thorough.
This book is for a very specific audience. Mainly reformed Presbyterians, but anyone could benefit from it.
I read this with a couple of guys and we talked about it and the experience was quite fun.
The book is well-researched, persuasive, gentle, and correct. I found myself being surprised at just how egalitarian our culture is. I am definitely a complementarian and was shocked at just how far evangelicalism has drifted from a once-normal belief (hint hint: it's all because of feminism). When reading the reformers I honestly was a little shocked at times, but they were right. It is crazy how the entire church believed in male rule up until the 19th century and then everything changed. Anyway, it was very convincing.
It is a decently dry read however and it's pretty academic so that would be the only warning.
Good. Well researched. Thorough.
This book is for a very specific audience. Mainly reformed Presbyterians, but anyone could benefit from it.
I read this with a couple of guys and we talked about it and the experience was quite fun.
The book is well-researched, persuasive, gentle, and correct. I found myself being surprised at just how egalitarian our culture is. I am definitely a complementarian and was shocked at just how far evangelicalism has drifted from a once-normal belief (hint hint: it's all because of feminism). When reading the reformers I honestly was a little shocked at times, but they were right. It is crazy how the entire church believed in male rule up until the 19th century and then everything changed. Anyway, it was very convincing.
It is a decently dry read however and it's pretty academic so that would be the only warning.
June 20, 2025
Probably closer to a 4 with a 3.8. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I wish it was longer. I feel like there was good examples as to how we should address the problem in the beginning of the book when we looked at the reformers point of view and it may be because I read that part of the book so long ago, but I wish there were some practical application given by Zachary Garris. Otherwise, seeing the reformers views on this subject has grown me as a Christian who is reformed and challenged me to learn more about what that means when I claim it. I was encouraged by the men I read this book with and all the good insight they provided.
June 20, 2025
PCA specific but still really insightful and challenging.
July 2, 2024
Very good historical survey of Reformed and Post-Reformed views on male/female roles in the home, church, and society. Garris does no fresh exegesis here. Rather, he points the reader back to his first book, “Masculine Christianity,” for a biblical defense of his reading and application of 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11&14, etc. This book is more narrowly focused on documenting historic Reformed interpretations/applications. The last two chapters demonstrated how modern Reformed denominations have walked away from their Reformed heritage on these issues.
July 28, 2024
Garris excels at historically demonstrating that complementarianism was created as a middle ground between feminism and biblical patriarchy. He goes on to show that today’s consensus view amongst reformed churches is almost unrecognizable from the views of their reformed forefathers regarding male rule. This work calls the church back to traditionally reformed views on church, home, and civil relations.
August 4, 2024
Yet again, Zachary Garris writes a phenomenal book. He provides great research and content on Classical Reformed Biblical Patriarchy from the Reformers and Puritans, and destroys feminism in the process. I highly recommend this book for a thorough and concise reading on Classical Reformed Biblical Patriarchy.
July 9, 2024
More of a historical addendum to Masculine Christianity than an abridgment. So good and so needed!
October 6, 2025
I found this book quite strange to read, not just because I disagree with the vast majority of it in terms of it's thought, but also just in terms of rhetoric and framing - especially in the second half of the book where Garris' own thought comes strongly, which I feel is of lower quality than the first half.
First some real positives - Garris does a great job of simply presenting and summarising the views of various different "groups" in Reformed thought and history, quoting often from primary sources. This gives the reader loads of access and exposure to genuine reformed thought - whether one agrees with it or not. This first half of the book is definitely the strongest (in terms of pure content, not that the content is agreeable).
The groups of / Reformed theologians span:
• Miscellaneous Early Reformed Authorities
• Vermigli
• Bullinger
• Calvin
• Various Westminster Divines (Perkins, Gouge)
• A few (?) Presbyterian Theologians
• Ussher (James Ussher, I've never heard of but I'm not Reformed)
• Voetius (who I mention here to highlight although flattened into Garris' taxonomy, seems quite different in his views from the rest of the mass)
• Various Puritan Theologians
• Various Reformed Confessions/Catechisms
• The "Leiden Synopsis" (marking the "ground zero" of Reformed theology that was Leiden University around the time of Dort, after the Remonstrants/Arminians got the formal boot)
Notably - early on and in the second half of the book - in terms of framing and rhetoric, it's sloppy if not dangerous. Firstly, it's downright anachronistic. The reformers were clearly not anti-feminist because formally feminism didn't exist, so it's just needlessly provocative. It's anachronism is acknowledged early in the book:
"I realize that the term “feminist” in the book title is anachronistic when speaking of Reformed theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries. Feminism as we know it arose in the 19th and 20th centuries. However, as I hope to show, the theology of these men stands against modern feminism and, therefore, may be properly described as “anti-feminist.”" (p. 10)
Secondly - the definition of feminism is so inaccurate as to be borderline slanderous:
"Here is my definition: feminism is an ideology that seeks to flatten the differences between men and women, particularly in the home, the church, and the civil government. Thus, feminism is an approach to the sexes. But it also has a goal—for women to become more like men, especially by trading babies and homemaking for careers outside the home." (p. 7)
I'm sure few feminists would agree and gladly sign this wholesale, especially any which profess a form of Christianity.
Lastly - this time pointing at the title rather than subtitle - although working with a foundation in the Westminster Larger Catechism Q124-133, there's an intentional truncation and modification of Scripture to fit a particular agenda. In order to make the rhetorical point of the book, the word "mother" is removed as the recipient of "honour" from Exodus 20:12/Deuteronomy 5:16 so that it just reads "Honor Thy Father", the original commands read:
"[12] Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving to you." (Ex. 20:12 NET)
"[16] Honor your father and your mother just as the Lord your God has commanded you to do, so that your days may be extended and that it may go well with you in the land that he is about to give you." (Deut. 5:16 NET)
Quite strange indeed, even without reading into any implications of this modification. Basically - a bad first impression is left in the first pages and introduction of this book.
It would appear this is a rhetorical move to emphasize the Reformed teaching on the fifth (of the ten) "commandments". That being the "fathers and mothers" of the command is not literal, but really means any authority above the individual, including civic. Its a very interesting exegetical move and insight into the Reformed interpretive framework which seems to be basically ubiquitous amongst the reformers - although I am not sure I am convinced by it:
"WLC [Westminster Larger Catechism] 124 teaches that “father and mother” in the Fifth Commandment should be broadly understood to mean “not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts, and especially such as by God’s ordinance are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.” Thus, WLC 124 affirms that there exist unspecified familial superiors, but since these are in addition to “natural parents,” they presumably include the husband. WLC 126 states that “the general scope” of the Fifth Commandment is “the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, equals,” and it cites Ephesians 5:21 to prove that we must submit to those in authority over us." (p. 40)
Not as large of a problem, but I think Garris flattens disparate, if not contradictory readings into an implied "Reformed Consensus", which already seems to be softened within its own tradition over time. And while a claim is made of the quoted authors being in agreement - it's not always clear from the excepts shown.
For example, its not clear to me that those later in the reformed tradition would understand women being "weaker" to mean that they are ontologically(!)/essentially/philosophically and intellectualy inferior in an Aristotelian sense! But this seems to be the view of atleast some of the early reformers - I do not think most Reformed today would go as far as to say this (thankfully!), and clearly seems unbiblical:
"[...] Eve, feebler and less intelligent [...] which is why the serpent attacked her. [... thus, woman ...] is by nature the weaker vessel.” - Johannes Oecolampadius (p. 17)
“Indeed the mother is inferior [...] concerning [...] wedlock: besides that, weaker also in nature and kind [...] ” - Wolfgang Musculus (p. 18)
"However, when compared to man, woman is not said to be the image of God, because she does not bear rule over the man but rather obeys him.” - Peter Vermigli (p. 18)
Unless I am mistaken, it seems clear that "nature" here means in terms of essence in a philosophical sense. I'm not particularly well versed philosophically, but wouldn't the "inferior nature" just be a different, worse nature? In any case, I think this demonstrates a difference that appears to be flattened into the "reformed consensus" - but I would say it's worlds apart to affirm a) an "ontological inferiority" of an entire sex, or b) affirming "accidental" or physical weakness, as some later reformers appear to:
“What is the duty of the husband toward his wife?
[...]
To give honor to her, as the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7), that is, to bear with her infirmities. To govern and direct her." - James Ussher (p. 34, glosses weakness as illness or infirmities, not philosophical nature)
"she essentially has the same human body as that of a man, while the difference to be observed is only of accidental attributes relating to the functions of generation and to certain kinds of qualities.” - Gisbertus Voetius (p. 37, explicitly denying essential difference)
An unclear "reformed consensus" doesnt incline the me to believe these views couldn't be even further (and therefore more biblically) developed - and given I disagree with them, I think they have been. Another case of disagreement between Reformed voices would be what should be done in the case of civic female rule.
I'm clearly not the intended audience for this book (being neither reformed nor "complementarian"), and Garris clearly aims this volume at those who claim to be in the Reformed tradition but don't hold to "historic" views - those within his own camp - so maybe it's fair enough.
On the other hand, whatever happened to "semper reformada", "always reforming [to scripture]"? Is it not possible Reformed communities may have advanced more faithful readings of scripture that trumps the historic Reformed tradition Garris surveys? Garris doesn't seem to think so, and the reformed tradition and the reformer's particular readings seem to take on a quasi-infallible status:
"At minimum, Christians who reject male rule cannot claim to affirm a classical Reformed view of marriage or anthropology. And if Reformed theology is synonymous with biblical theology, then this is not a good place to be." (p. 102)
Garris' section of the book where he weighs in personally was least enjoyable. Very uncharitable framing of even those within the reformed tradition who disagree with his readings (the Keller's and their ilk) and his own readings seems no more likely than those he disagrees with (although it's unclear as he does not cite any reformed authorities at this point, so I could be wrong):
"[I] argued that Paul uses “childbearing” as a synecdoche (a part that represents the whole), such that part of a Christian woman’s holiness is the fulfillment of the childbearing duties God has assigned her [...] " (p. 110n6)
And then there are also just some conclusions that are drawn by Garris himself that seem like a reach. For instance, after arguing that the term "diakonos" does not indicate any kind of ordained role, but could (and Garris would argue, should) be understand generically as "helper", "assistant " or "servant", he then goes on to argue:
"Some PCA churches may intend to commission deaconesses as female assistants to the deacons. This practice should be avoided because it introduces confusion and inconsistency regarding male diaconal assistants (who do not receive the title “deacon”)." (p. 115)
But wouldn't the "ambiguous" use of the term, which may be confusing, actually be just as clear as Scripture if Garris' previous definition is correct? If we understand "diakonos" to be a generic term as Garris believes applies to Phoebe - would keeping the confusion not actually be consistent with Scripture at this point as this covers both lay and ordained roles also?
All in all, not badly written, but written for a very niche audience of specifically traditional reformed complementarians - and the general framing reflects this.
You likely won't agree with, or be convinced by much (as I was not) if you aren't already Reformed - as the views aren't really ever defended, but assume one accepts the weight of tradition and the particular readings therein.
(Also, as a total and utter aside, because I do not believe Garris in any way is a promoter or intentionally echoing this, but more because I see it more a more recently. The book ends with the subtitle "Which Way Christian Man?", which as I understand is an echo of the popular phrase "Which Way Western Man?", describing which of two options men should take one prosperous and the other destructive.
The odd part is, as far as I can see, this is popularized from the book of the same name by William Gayley Simpsons, who as far as I understand, was suggesting the "way" that should be taken is a rejection of Christianity, and an acceptance of (genuine) white supremacy and a defense of the Nazi's.
Again, I do not think or want to suggest Garris is in any way associated or conscious of this - but I see the meme often online and it's an odd allusion)
First some real positives - Garris does a great job of simply presenting and summarising the views of various different "groups" in Reformed thought and history, quoting often from primary sources. This gives the reader loads of access and exposure to genuine reformed thought - whether one agrees with it or not. This first half of the book is definitely the strongest (in terms of pure content, not that the content is agreeable).
The groups of / Reformed theologians span:
• Miscellaneous Early Reformed Authorities
• Vermigli
• Bullinger
• Calvin
• Various Westminster Divines (Perkins, Gouge)
• A few (?) Presbyterian Theologians
• Ussher (James Ussher, I've never heard of but I'm not Reformed)
• Voetius (who I mention here to highlight although flattened into Garris' taxonomy, seems quite different in his views from the rest of the mass)
• Various Puritan Theologians
• Various Reformed Confessions/Catechisms
• The "Leiden Synopsis" (marking the "ground zero" of Reformed theology that was Leiden University around the time of Dort, after the Remonstrants/Arminians got the formal boot)
Notably - early on and in the second half of the book - in terms of framing and rhetoric, it's sloppy if not dangerous. Firstly, it's downright anachronistic. The reformers were clearly not anti-feminist because formally feminism didn't exist, so it's just needlessly provocative. It's anachronism is acknowledged early in the book:
"I realize that the term “feminist” in the book title is anachronistic when speaking of Reformed theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries. Feminism as we know it arose in the 19th and 20th centuries. However, as I hope to show, the theology of these men stands against modern feminism and, therefore, may be properly described as “anti-feminist.”" (p. 10)
Secondly - the definition of feminism is so inaccurate as to be borderline slanderous:
"Here is my definition: feminism is an ideology that seeks to flatten the differences between men and women, particularly in the home, the church, and the civil government. Thus, feminism is an approach to the sexes. But it also has a goal—for women to become more like men, especially by trading babies and homemaking for careers outside the home." (p. 7)
I'm sure few feminists would agree and gladly sign this wholesale, especially any which profess a form of Christianity.
Lastly - this time pointing at the title rather than subtitle - although working with a foundation in the Westminster Larger Catechism Q124-133, there's an intentional truncation and modification of Scripture to fit a particular agenda. In order to make the rhetorical point of the book, the word "mother" is removed as the recipient of "honour" from Exodus 20:12/Deuteronomy 5:16 so that it just reads "Honor Thy Father", the original commands read:
"[12] Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving to you." (Ex. 20:12 NET)
"[16] Honor your father and your mother just as the Lord your God has commanded you to do, so that your days may be extended and that it may go well with you in the land that he is about to give you." (Deut. 5:16 NET)
Quite strange indeed, even without reading into any implications of this modification. Basically - a bad first impression is left in the first pages and introduction of this book.
It would appear this is a rhetorical move to emphasize the Reformed teaching on the fifth (of the ten) "commandments". That being the "fathers and mothers" of the command is not literal, but really means any authority above the individual, including civic. Its a very interesting exegetical move and insight into the Reformed interpretive framework which seems to be basically ubiquitous amongst the reformers - although I am not sure I am convinced by it:
"WLC [Westminster Larger Catechism] 124 teaches that “father and mother” in the Fifth Commandment should be broadly understood to mean “not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts, and especially such as by God’s ordinance are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.” Thus, WLC 124 affirms that there exist unspecified familial superiors, but since these are in addition to “natural parents,” they presumably include the husband. WLC 126 states that “the general scope” of the Fifth Commandment is “the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, equals,” and it cites Ephesians 5:21 to prove that we must submit to those in authority over us." (p. 40)
Not as large of a problem, but I think Garris flattens disparate, if not contradictory readings into an implied "Reformed Consensus", which already seems to be softened within its own tradition over time. And while a claim is made of the quoted authors being in agreement - it's not always clear from the excepts shown.
For example, its not clear to me that those later in the reformed tradition would understand women being "weaker" to mean that they are ontologically(!)/essentially/philosophically and intellectualy inferior in an Aristotelian sense! But this seems to be the view of atleast some of the early reformers - I do not think most Reformed today would go as far as to say this (thankfully!), and clearly seems unbiblical:
"[...] Eve, feebler and less intelligent [...] which is why the serpent attacked her. [... thus, woman ...] is by nature the weaker vessel.” - Johannes Oecolampadius (p. 17)
“Indeed the mother is inferior [...] concerning [...] wedlock: besides that, weaker also in nature and kind [...] ” - Wolfgang Musculus (p. 18)
"However, when compared to man, woman is not said to be the image of God, because she does not bear rule over the man but rather obeys him.” - Peter Vermigli (p. 18)
Unless I am mistaken, it seems clear that "nature" here means in terms of essence in a philosophical sense. I'm not particularly well versed philosophically, but wouldn't the "inferior nature" just be a different, worse nature? In any case, I think this demonstrates a difference that appears to be flattened into the "reformed consensus" - but I would say it's worlds apart to affirm a) an "ontological inferiority" of an entire sex, or b) affirming "accidental" or physical weakness, as some later reformers appear to:
“What is the duty of the husband toward his wife?
[...]
To give honor to her, as the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7), that is, to bear with her infirmities. To govern and direct her." - James Ussher (p. 34, glosses weakness as illness or infirmities, not philosophical nature)
"she essentially has the same human body as that of a man, while the difference to be observed is only of accidental attributes relating to the functions of generation and to certain kinds of qualities.” - Gisbertus Voetius (p. 37, explicitly denying essential difference)
An unclear "reformed consensus" doesnt incline the me to believe these views couldn't be even further (and therefore more biblically) developed - and given I disagree with them, I think they have been. Another case of disagreement between Reformed voices would be what should be done in the case of civic female rule.
I'm clearly not the intended audience for this book (being neither reformed nor "complementarian"), and Garris clearly aims this volume at those who claim to be in the Reformed tradition but don't hold to "historic" views - those within his own camp - so maybe it's fair enough.
On the other hand, whatever happened to "semper reformada", "always reforming [to scripture]"? Is it not possible Reformed communities may have advanced more faithful readings of scripture that trumps the historic Reformed tradition Garris surveys? Garris doesn't seem to think so, and the reformed tradition and the reformer's particular readings seem to take on a quasi-infallible status:
"At minimum, Christians who reject male rule cannot claim to affirm a classical Reformed view of marriage or anthropology. And if Reformed theology is synonymous with biblical theology, then this is not a good place to be." (p. 102)
Garris' section of the book where he weighs in personally was least enjoyable. Very uncharitable framing of even those within the reformed tradition who disagree with his readings (the Keller's and their ilk) and his own readings seems no more likely than those he disagrees with (although it's unclear as he does not cite any reformed authorities at this point, so I could be wrong):
"[I] argued that Paul uses “childbearing” as a synecdoche (a part that represents the whole), such that part of a Christian woman’s holiness is the fulfillment of the childbearing duties God has assigned her [...] " (p. 110n6)
And then there are also just some conclusions that are drawn by Garris himself that seem like a reach. For instance, after arguing that the term "diakonos" does not indicate any kind of ordained role, but could (and Garris would argue, should) be understand generically as "helper", "assistant " or "servant", he then goes on to argue:
"Some PCA churches may intend to commission deaconesses as female assistants to the deacons. This practice should be avoided because it introduces confusion and inconsistency regarding male diaconal assistants (who do not receive the title “deacon”)." (p. 115)
But wouldn't the "ambiguous" use of the term, which may be confusing, actually be just as clear as Scripture if Garris' previous definition is correct? If we understand "diakonos" to be a generic term as Garris believes applies to Phoebe - would keeping the confusion not actually be consistent with Scripture at this point as this covers both lay and ordained roles also?
All in all, not badly written, but written for a very niche audience of specifically traditional reformed complementarians - and the general framing reflects this.
You likely won't agree with, or be convinced by much (as I was not) if you aren't already Reformed - as the views aren't really ever defended, but assume one accepts the weight of tradition and the particular readings therein.
(Also, as a total and utter aside, because I do not believe Garris in any way is a promoter or intentionally echoing this, but more because I see it more a more recently. The book ends with the subtitle "Which Way Christian Man?", which as I understand is an echo of the popular phrase "Which Way Western Man?", describing which of two options men should take one prosperous and the other destructive.
The odd part is, as far as I can see, this is popularized from the book of the same name by William Gayley Simpsons, who as far as I understand, was suggesting the "way" that should be taken is a rejection of Christianity, and an acceptance of (genuine) white supremacy and a defense of the Nazi's.
Again, I do not think or want to suggest Garris is in any way associated or conscious of this - but I see the meme often online and it's an odd allusion)
June 12, 2025
This was good. The beginning felt like a lot of review for me because I’ve read a few other things on biblical manhood/womanhood/the role of the family, etc. But I liked how the meat of the book was specifically how the reformers viewed these roles. The views are definitely backed with scriptural references.
This might be my own issue since I was raised to be a self-sufficient woman (a regular battle with the flesh!), but I felt like there was a lot of “this is what women can’t do” (which I agreed with) but I was left feeling kind of like, okay, so what did the reformers think women can and should do? I felt like there could’ve been more on the teaching roles women ARE allowed to have based on scripture. Writing articles, books, teaching children, leading ladies Bible studies, etc. - where does that fit in. Just some questions I still have after reading.
This might be my own issue since I was raised to be a self-sufficient woman (a regular battle with the flesh!), but I felt like there was a lot of “this is what women can’t do” (which I agreed with) but I was left feeling kind of like, okay, so what did the reformers think women can and should do? I felt like there could’ve been more on the teaching roles women ARE allowed to have based on scripture. Writing articles, books, teaching children, leading ladies Bible studies, etc. - where does that fit in. Just some questions I still have after reading.
January 9, 2025
Thoroughly researched and compellingly reasoned for such a small book. I couldn’t tell you for sure yet whether I agree with everything he says, but this book made me think deeply, reconsider some long held beliefs, and want to learn more.
I do understand his frustration at the creeping of feminism into our churches and families even in conservative circles, but I do still think some of his critiques against against contemporaries like Keller and DeYoung in particular are overly harsh. It’s perhaps just beyond the scope of this book, but I do question how he almost completely (except for one paragraph) left any discussion about Jesus and his leadership off the table.
I do understand his frustration at the creeping of feminism into our churches and families even in conservative circles, but I do still think some of his critiques against against contemporaries like Keller and DeYoung in particular are overly harsh. It’s perhaps just beyond the scope of this book, but I do question how he almost completely (except for one paragraph) left any discussion about Jesus and his leadership off the table.
August 17, 2024
In Honor Thy Fathers, Zachary Garris seeks to revitalize the thinking of the Reformers and the Reformed Orthodox on male rule. From Calvin, to Knox, to Vermigli, to Gouge, Garris shows how much we have deviated from the thinking of our forefathers. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is still confused as to what Biblical Patriarchy or gendered piety means and what our Reformed fathers thought about the subject. This work of distillation should challenge any modern evangelical who calls themselves "reformed." Are we willing to take upon ourselves the "reformed" label by simply cherry-picking the doctrines of grace and writings on heart piety? Or will we seek to revitalize the grand, thoughtful, and righteous thinking of our fathers? Steven Wolfe says it well in his review: "This work by Zach Garris forces us to choose between the safe retrieval of docterine alone and the dangerous retrieval of both faith and practice. It forces us to ask if we're really taking our tradition seriously."
July 10, 2024
This is a great short read. Garris succinctly shows us the reformed/biblical position on men & women in the home, church, and state, then compares it to some who claim the reformed position today and reveals how far they have strayed.
August 7, 2024
This book provided a fantastic look at Biblical views on the roles of men and women alongside the views of the reformers. It also gives a great history and commentary on feminism and the issues it has created in the church and broader society.
September 27, 2024
This is a good and short treatment of what the historic fathers of the reformed faith believed regarding gender roles. It also deals with some of the discussion around women in worship. This is a thought provoking read.
July 13, 2024
Must read. Zachary did his homework and demonstrates clearly that we’ve largely departed from our fathers in acquiescence to feminism.
December 30, 2024
Preface and Introduction
The preface and introduction caused me to feel the weight of this issue in modern times. Even as I spoke with a pastor, he seemed interested in an observation I made about how the same people who praise the reformers would disdain them today because of their opinions on the household and sex roles.
Part I: A Reformed Theology of Male Rule
Male Rule in the Home
This first section spends a lot of time on discussing how the woman was made for the man, not the man made for the woman. I have noticed that these quotes have caused me to push back on the "servant-leadership" language of today. In of itself, it's probably okay, because Jesus has first served us. However, we must ask "Why" terms are implemented. If the Reformers used that phrase, it likely would be more in line with the true sense of the word. I think that that phrase has been implemented primarily to cause women from not scorning their submissive state and condition. "Women submit to their husbands!", says the man. But the women then replies, "But wait, there is a mutual submission." The man says, "Men are leaders of the home, and their wives should submit to them.", and many a woman argues, "This is a servant leadership, I do not have to submit if I disagree!" This term has largely been used as a qualification and waters down marriage roles.
Secondly, it is interesting how carefully and beautifully the reformers articulated the office of motherhood and homemaking. How refreshing it is to see these things said unapologetically, with proper clarification. It is a great shame how many women read these adjectives commonly ascribed to the godly woman, and then proceed to scoff, "Gentle, quiet, beautiful, feminine, modest, obedient, submissive, content, elegant, delicate, graceful, and soft. They are the ones who are provided for, protected, and taught. They are described as a "glory", but not just any glory, but the glory of man." How disheartening it is to see women detest the description of a "fruitful vine", and a safe haven for the unborn. The reformers proudly speak of the superiority and inferiority of the male rule in the household. Those are two words that we would never hear today, although they should be read in their cultural and chronological context.
The Reformed on Male Rule in the Commonwealth
This section raised two points I found particularly interesting:
First, how reformers argued from the ontology of females that they are never ordinarily to rule the commonwealth. It was universally agreed that females should not rule by preference, and there is a vague exception for other instances (e.g., king's death, no male heir, etc.). It was proposed by a few reformers (viz., Knox, Goodwin, etc.) that female rule was never permissible. I think this is a clear overreaction to their relation to bloody Mary, and one of their contemporaries explicit stated so.
Secondly, their use of Deborah being an exception to female rule in the commonwealth (due to her office of judge) can raise a question against exceptions on female rule in the church. Something like this, “If Deborah being a judge gives permission to exceptions for female civil rule, why does her being a prophetess not authorize exception in the ministry?” Deborah was a prophetess, not a priest. It is still common in the New Testament for their to be prophetesses. However, they still do not hold the office of elder, deacon, nor do they teach in corporate worship or above/to men. Anyway, it is clear that Deborah was raised up simultaneously to her glory and shame. It was to her glory because she was called by God to a high office, and exercised the responsibilities thereof; it was to her glory because she was able to do it. It is to her shame that there were no men that were fit for this high office. Remember, she was called also to spite men. It's analogous to a single mother raising children on her own; it is a glory to her she is able to, but a shame that she has to both nurture and provide. To conclude, Deborah firstly was a prophetess, which has continuity in the New Testament, where it is explicit that prophetesses may not teach or exercise authority over a man.
Part II: Abandoning The Reformed View of Male Rule
Synopsis of Part II
Zachary Garris changes gears from a heavy historical theology to an analyzation of the reformed tradition in America (for the most part). Garris quoted some theologians (viz., Herman Bavinck), Garris spent most his time on the last chapter, "Complementarian Deviations" , which dove into Keller's complementarianism, the PCA Report on women in ministry, new interpretation of I Cor. 14:34,35, deaconesses, Paul on female prophecy in I Cor. 11, and more.
Servant Leadership
Zachary Garris I believe identifies what is a misnomer for male headship and authority commonly known as "servant leadership". Garris doesn't disqualify the servant part of leadership, but that is because leadership is fundamentally for the people you are leading. It is not to be conflated with being a servant that a wife is to a husband, which is described as a "helper". Garris lists several problems with this language:
The husband's authority is greater than that of a "tiebreaker" if there is a "stalemate". This language does not do justice to the command for wives to submit to their husbands in "everything" (Eph. 5:24).
This description does not account for the man's mission. The wife is said to join the man's mission, as she was created for man and not the other way. (See above on Synopsis on Part II for more).
Servant leadership can give the impression that his service to his wife is at odds with pleasing himself. I have read this one many times and I am a little confused on what he is getting at.
The husband's responsibility is not only or supremely to make his wife happy. He is not only leading her, but children, and anyone under his household or authority. Garris points out that sometimes these decisions may temporarily displease his wife, which may happen. It is not his responsibility to submit, but a wife's to submit to her husband. It is contrary to nature for a wife to direct and set parameters for how her husband can lead. Garris concludes this section, "The husband is to lead his wife unto holiness, for her spiritual good (Eph. 5:26-27). He is always to consider her good, out of love, but his leadership involves more than serving his wife."
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
The conclusion was succinct. The most important section (in my opinion) was the exhortation, "Which Way, Christian Man". That indeed is the question. This topic of anthropology in the church and state is not something that can be avoided. Silence is submission in this case. If men don't speak out, it is like a person who refuses to swim out of the riptide. Feminism will happily draw out the culture into choppy and dangerous waters, and many people hope that the guidance of that unstable water will lead them to a paradise island by chance, where they can anchor and find succor. We must fight back, and recover the anti-feminist theology of ages to come. And, if some would call the heading anachronistic, I'd encourage them to look into the type of phrase Garris is using. If I recall, he addresses that near the beginning of the book.
The preface and introduction caused me to feel the weight of this issue in modern times. Even as I spoke with a pastor, he seemed interested in an observation I made about how the same people who praise the reformers would disdain them today because of their opinions on the household and sex roles.
Part I: A Reformed Theology of Male Rule
Male Rule in the Home
This first section spends a lot of time on discussing how the woman was made for the man, not the man made for the woman. I have noticed that these quotes have caused me to push back on the "servant-leadership" language of today. In of itself, it's probably okay, because Jesus has first served us. However, we must ask "Why" terms are implemented. If the Reformers used that phrase, it likely would be more in line with the true sense of the word. I think that that phrase has been implemented primarily to cause women from not scorning their submissive state and condition. "Women submit to their husbands!", says the man. But the women then replies, "But wait, there is a mutual submission." The man says, "Men are leaders of the home, and their wives should submit to them.", and many a woman argues, "This is a servant leadership, I do not have to submit if I disagree!" This term has largely been used as a qualification and waters down marriage roles.
Secondly, it is interesting how carefully and beautifully the reformers articulated the office of motherhood and homemaking. How refreshing it is to see these things said unapologetically, with proper clarification. It is a great shame how many women read these adjectives commonly ascribed to the godly woman, and then proceed to scoff, "Gentle, quiet, beautiful, feminine, modest, obedient, submissive, content, elegant, delicate, graceful, and soft. They are the ones who are provided for, protected, and taught. They are described as a "glory", but not just any glory, but the glory of man." How disheartening it is to see women detest the description of a "fruitful vine", and a safe haven for the unborn. The reformers proudly speak of the superiority and inferiority of the male rule in the household. Those are two words that we would never hear today, although they should be read in their cultural and chronological context.
The Reformed on Male Rule in the Commonwealth
This section raised two points I found particularly interesting:
First, how reformers argued from the ontology of females that they are never ordinarily to rule the commonwealth. It was universally agreed that females should not rule by preference, and there is a vague exception for other instances (e.g., king's death, no male heir, etc.). It was proposed by a few reformers (viz., Knox, Goodwin, etc.) that female rule was never permissible. I think this is a clear overreaction to their relation to bloody Mary, and one of their contemporaries explicit stated so.
Secondly, their use of Deborah being an exception to female rule in the commonwealth (due to her office of judge) can raise a question against exceptions on female rule in the church. Something like this, “If Deborah being a judge gives permission to exceptions for female civil rule, why does her being a prophetess not authorize exception in the ministry?” Deborah was a prophetess, not a priest. It is still common in the New Testament for their to be prophetesses. However, they still do not hold the office of elder, deacon, nor do they teach in corporate worship or above/to men. Anyway, it is clear that Deborah was raised up simultaneously to her glory and shame. It was to her glory because she was called by God to a high office, and exercised the responsibilities thereof; it was to her glory because she was able to do it. It is to her shame that there were no men that were fit for this high office. Remember, she was called also to spite men. It's analogous to a single mother raising children on her own; it is a glory to her she is able to, but a shame that she has to both nurture and provide. To conclude, Deborah firstly was a prophetess, which has continuity in the New Testament, where it is explicit that prophetesses may not teach or exercise authority over a man.
Part II: Abandoning The Reformed View of Male Rule
Synopsis of Part II
Zachary Garris changes gears from a heavy historical theology to an analyzation of the reformed tradition in America (for the most part). Garris quoted some theologians (viz., Herman Bavinck), Garris spent most his time on the last chapter, "Complementarian Deviations" , which dove into Keller's complementarianism, the PCA Report on women in ministry, new interpretation of I Cor. 14:34,35, deaconesses, Paul on female prophecy in I Cor. 11, and more.
Servant Leadership
Zachary Garris I believe identifies what is a misnomer for male headship and authority commonly known as "servant leadership". Garris doesn't disqualify the servant part of leadership, but that is because leadership is fundamentally for the people you are leading. It is not to be conflated with being a servant that a wife is to a husband, which is described as a "helper". Garris lists several problems with this language:
The husband's authority is greater than that of a "tiebreaker" if there is a "stalemate". This language does not do justice to the command for wives to submit to their husbands in "everything" (Eph. 5:24).
This description does not account for the man's mission. The wife is said to join the man's mission, as she was created for man and not the other way. (See above on Synopsis on Part II for more).
Servant leadership can give the impression that his service to his wife is at odds with pleasing himself. I have read this one many times and I am a little confused on what he is getting at.
The husband's responsibility is not only or supremely to make his wife happy. He is not only leading her, but children, and anyone under his household or authority. Garris points out that sometimes these decisions may temporarily displease his wife, which may happen. It is not his responsibility to submit, but a wife's to submit to her husband. It is contrary to nature for a wife to direct and set parameters for how her husband can lead. Garris concludes this section, "The husband is to lead his wife unto holiness, for her spiritual good (Eph. 5:26-27). He is always to consider her good, out of love, but his leadership involves more than serving his wife."
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
The conclusion was succinct. The most important section (in my opinion) was the exhortation, "Which Way, Christian Man". That indeed is the question. This topic of anthropology in the church and state is not something that can be avoided. Silence is submission in this case. If men don't speak out, it is like a person who refuses to swim out of the riptide. Feminism will happily draw out the culture into choppy and dangerous waters, and many people hope that the guidance of that unstable water will lead them to a paradise island by chance, where they can anchor and find succor. We must fight back, and recover the anti-feminist theology of ages to come. And, if some would call the heading anachronistic, I'd encourage them to look into the type of phrase Garris is using. If I recall, he addresses that near the beginning of the book.
March 17, 2025
“Sometimes the way forward requires looking back.”
Very eye-opening book on how the Reformed tradition has strayed from the clear teaching of Scripture as well as that of our Reformed forefathers when it comes to the role of men and women in the household, Church, and commonwealth.
It makes me wonder, how many Reformed churches would allow Luther, Calvin, Knox, Vermigli, Warfield, or Bavinck into their fellowship if they were alive today?
Books like this are a needed reminder that being Reformed means much more than simply adhering to the five points of Calvinism. The Reformed tradition includes all areas of life, and we would do well to retrieve and submit to the theology of our forefathers—especially when it comes to gender roles.
Very eye-opening book on how the Reformed tradition has strayed from the clear teaching of Scripture as well as that of our Reformed forefathers when it comes to the role of men and women in the household, Church, and commonwealth.
It makes me wonder, how many Reformed churches would allow Luther, Calvin, Knox, Vermigli, Warfield, or Bavinck into their fellowship if they were alive today?
Books like this are a needed reminder that being Reformed means much more than simply adhering to the five points of Calvinism. The Reformed tradition includes all areas of life, and we would do well to retrieve and submit to the theology of our forefathers—especially when it comes to gender roles.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews