Different interpretations of Father? 

In "The Role and Responsibility of Women" (12-8-95) Father is translated as saying men must follow women. He says, "Men ... you cannot follow your appetites and abuse your wives. You must consult with the women; you must seriously receive and follow them, acknowledging that the heavenly way of blessing is coming through them. The women are on my side, so the 2.5 billion women are hanging on to me; what can I do with them, since I am only one person! In order to re-create the 2.5 billion men, we must cut out the body of Adam and engraft the pieces to them. By serving their wives and children completely, men can stand in the position of the Archangel who has completed his responsibility." He then says something about a "national blessing" in the future in which men "will become the Second Adam." After this "second level blessing" there will then be a third blessing.

What does Father mean by this? I think it would be wrong for UC feminists to take this speech to mean Father is against patriarchy. In the context of all his speeches, he is 10 to 1, or 100 to 1, or maybe 1000 to 1 emphatically for women following men. He practices what he preaches by appointing men 100 to 1 to leadership positions. He overwhelmingly preaches for women to stop being domineering. What he is saying in the quotes above is that women should be respected, listened to and if they have a good idea, followed. Any leader should do this with his followers. Women should think and offer ideas and insights.

Father starts his speech immediately saying that the world is in "such a mess because of women." Eve blew it and God has had "to work hard for tens of thousands of years." Women, he says, must restore Eve's mistake: "all women are responsible for restoring their husband and son." How do they do this? He says, "Each woman has to find her husband and educate and nurture him to be the kind of husband whom God desires. The woman has to restore her husband into the ideal husband." Women throughout history have "killed" God's Adams: "She killed three men: Adam, Jesus, and the Second Advent. Adam represents the center of the family, Jesus the center of the nation, and the Second Advent the center of the world. These three husbands were killed by Eve. The prepared bride must restore the rights of Adam and enable him to gain the elder sonship, parentship and kingship on the family, national and worldwide levels."

Women must restore Eve by helping men become the "center" of all levels of leadership. Men are the leaders and Eve set in motion the pattern of women bringing men down, even the messiah. Father often says men are the "center." He says "center" means "subject." Women are never to be the "center."

The plan in restoration is for women, he says, to "absolutely obey" the messiah because he is the perfect Adam. Women then can "kick out" Satan. Throughout history "there were only deficient husbands" who must now "help" their wives "fulfill her position." Adam was spaced out in the Garden and didn't pay enough attention to Eve. Men must restore this by respecting Eve and follow her ideas when she is right. Men are not supposed to be arrogant authoritarians.

Elizabeth Handford -- Me? Obey Him?In the wine ceremony, the woman receives it first. For forty years, Father has always stressed the importance of women in restoration. I interpret this speech to one of those times when he is being principled by saying that since the first human being who screwed up was female, then women must take initiative to do what Eve did not do. I wouldn't read more into this speech. I don't see it as a call for matriarchy in the home or the state or the church. Father wants men to be the subjects -- before and after the blessing. I think he is saying that men must not be cruel, insensitive, and patronizing to women. Jesus treated women with far more respect than anyone ever had before. Unfortunately, many men did not follow in Jesus' footsteps. Father cares for women as much as he does for men, and if they have a good idea or revelation he will praise them and have everybody go learn from them. The question is how do women "nurture him to be the kind of husband whom God desires." I feel the best handbook that goes into detail and brings Father's airy philosophy to earth are Christian books such as Fascinating Womanhood, The Way Home and Me? Obey Him?

One of the best ways for men to help their wives so they can go out and do community work is to build a successful career or business that provides enough income for the family to live decently and for the wife to have some money to spend on missionary work.

When Father occasionally says things that may seem to differ from what I'm saying, we must look at the context of his words. For example, he may say that men are archangels and women are Eves and that men should serve and learn from women. I interpret this as meaning that men should not be martinets and earn their right to be leaders. Men are supposed to listen to women. God speaks through them also. They are to be partners as well as followers. Father is not into authoritarian dictators.

Beverly LaHaye's The Desires of a Woman's Heart

 Beverly LahayeLaHaye writes in her book The Desires of a Woman's Heart, "Unless we accept the Bible's teaching that woman was created for man, we cannot begin to follow God's plan for happy marriages. Denial of this foundational truth may be the first step of rebellion against God's plan for happiness in marriage."

She titles the next section "Feminism's Toxic Influence" saying, "Our world is reeling from the ravages of feminist rebellion against God and God-given authorities. Women are taught to resent male authority as well as every other authority in their lives. The liberal feminist line teaches that women and men are interchangeable, and some in our churches are misinterpreting Galatians 3:28 to mean that there is no difference between men and women with regard to spiritual authority. However, a contextual look at this passage reveals that it speaks of equal access to God and equal entitlement to God's spiritual promises and blessings. It does not live up to the feminist ideal of identity of function."

"A man's role as leader is threatened when the woman refuses to give him the support he needs in the challenging task of undertaking godly leadership. We continue to see women usurp men's roles in the home and in the church, which squelches men's ability to lead, protect, care for, and provide for their families, churches, and communities."

"But sometimes men are their own enemy in the struggle over roles. They are often as confused as women as to what their roles should be. Afraid of being regarded as politically incorrect and chauvinistic, men often retreat into the safety zone of indifference, listlessness, and apathy. I believe that men must rise above the worldly criticism and solve this problem by developing and living according to biblical convictions on their calling and responsibility as men, regardless of whether or not they get the encouragement from women to do so."

"Men and women are not interchangeable. We need each other as men and as women, not as androgynous human beings. Most women are not looking for emasculated, wimpy men. What do women want in a husband? Let's look at several important characteristics."

She says women want godly husbands: "We want to love and respect husbands because they are godly, but the biblical model of a godly man in leadership and a wife who submits is not followed in today's world. 'The Western world,' writes James Dobson, 'stands at a great crossroads in its history. It is my opinion that our very survival as a people will depend upon the presence or absence of masculine leadership in millions of homes .... I believe, with everything within me, that husbands hold the keys to the preservation of the family.'"

"I believe women want a husband who will be loving and respectful to them and at the same time exhibit the strength and courage necessary to lead the family."

Words can trip us up easily when discussing relationships. We have to define our terms. One of the most popular words used today is"partner." Homosexuals especially like this word. The feminist author of The New Victorians explains the communist/feminist dream of partners:"For many, such an oversimplified view of the sexes and society is ridiculous .... many young women .... don't like the idea of ... archconservatives promoting sexist stereotypes. Young women today want women and men to form equal partnershsips in work and family, not to be driven apart and forced into confining gender roles." Aubrey Andelin defines partners correctly. He says that a husband and wife have a "complimentary partnership" but have separate roles that don't interchange except in "emergencies". He says, "In the ideal home the man's and woman's duties are distinctly divided. There's little overlapping except in emergencies. Not only does this follow divine command, but also logic and reason. Every group must be organized to avoid chaos. This consists of delegating duties to each member, making each accountable for his assignments. A family is a small organization and thus must also follow this pattern."

"The joining of these roles forms a complementary partnership. Neither the man nor the woman is superior. Both are indispensable and of equal importance. But as we see so plainly, there is a difference of responsibility." Men and women are partners in that they are united in a common cause and have equal value, but the word"partner" is not the best word to use because men are to lead women. The relationship between men and women is vertical also. It is a monarchy, not a democracy. Feminists like the word partner for that very reason. It is rebellion from their position as objects or followers.

For hundreds of years Americans read books teaching this truth from authors who believed in the Bible. One of the most popular manuals of the seventeenth century was Of Domesticall Duties written by William Gouge in 1622. One of the most popular in the eighteenth century was The Well-Ordered Family by Benjamin Wadsworth in 1712. In the nineteenth century many lived by these principles as taught in Manners: Happy Homes & Good Society All the Year Round by Sarah Hale. One of the most popular today is Helen Andelin's book, Fascinating Womanhood. The UC should be writing a book to carry on the task of explaining and refining this truth in the language of today.

Emil Bruner

Let's look at some passages of the Swiss theologian Emil Bruner who wrote in Man in Revolt: "The primal truth, however, is this: God created man in His own image; male and female created He them. This truth cuts away the ground from all belief in the inferior value of woman. The Creator has created man and woman not with different values but of different kinds, dependent upon one another, a difference in kind which means that each complements the other."

"Man and woman have received a different stamp as human beings ... Both are called to be persons, to live in love, in the same degree, but in different ways. The man is the one who produces, he is the leader; the woman is receptive, and she preserves life; it is the man's duty to shape the new, it is the woman's duty to unite it and adapt it to that which already exists. The man has to go forth and make the earth subject to him, the woman looks within and guards the hidden unity."

"The man must ... generalize, the woman must...individualize; the man must build, the woman adorns, the man must conquer, the woman must tend; the man must comprehend all with his mind, the woman must impregnate all with the life of her soul. It is the duty of the man to plan and to master, of the woman to understand and to unite."

"In these distinctive qualities there lies a certain super- and sub-ordination; but it is a purely functional difference, not a difference in value, it is not a scale of values. The special call to serve where love is perceived as the meaning of life, is rather a privilege than a humiliation."

"As husband and wife -- with their different structure and their different functions -- are one in the physical fact of sexual union, so they ought to be one in all their life together; through all the differences of mind and spirit, they should be one in all they do and are, for one another, and for their whole environment. The husband, for instance, simply because he enters into contact with the outside world, is not the only one who is related to the whole. Just as the wife is of equal value as a member of the Church, of the community of the faithful, so she also, like her husband, should bring her own contribution to the welfare of the nation, and of humanity as a whole. Only her contribution will always be more intimate, less evident to the outside world, more hidden and individual than that of the man .... If woman is to give her best, and is to make her specific contribution, there must be, even in her public service, some measure of differentiation from man's way of doing things, some space for the more intimate and personal element."

Beverly LaHaye writes in The Desires of a Woman's Heart: "Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation, found that men turn conversations into competitions for power. Women, by contrast, tend to view conversatioins as negotiations for closeness in which people seek and give confirmation and support and try to reach consensus. Perhaps it is our need for intimacy and affirmation that has strengthened our communication skills."

"Some feminists try to avoid discussion of the very physical, psychological, and social differences between men and women, because these dinstinctions don't do much to support their ideology. Tannen observes that 'the desire to affirm that women are equal has made some scholars reluctant to show they are different, because differences can be used to justify unequal treatment and opportunity."

"It is interesting to note that in spite of the negative impact these findings may have on feminist ideology, Tannen feels compelled to reveal them. She realizes that understanding and honoring the differences between men and women plays a pivotal role in forming and maintaining healthy relationships between the sexes: 'Denying real differences can only compound the confusion that is already widespread in this area of shifting and reforming relationships between men and women. Pretending that women and men are the same hurts women, because the ways they are treated are based on the norms for men. It also hurts men who, with good intentions, speak to women as they would to men, and are nonplussed when their words don't work as they expected, or even spark resentment and anger.'"

"It is clear that in spite of feminist rhetoric downplaying the uniqueness of men and women, there's no denying the fundamental differences between us. Woman, of course, is the only sex capable of giving birth to and nursing a child. Our unique brain structure produces suble and not-so-suble differences in the way we interpret our surroundings. Our conversational style differs from that of men. When it comes to relationships -- the crux of life -- men and women have different needs and experiences."

"Unless women become tough and callous, repressing our God-given sensitive nature, we will always be hurt when treated roughly. We are not 'one of the boys.' We are women, and we want men's appreciation for who we are."

"I'm not saying men should treat us as though we are weak, powerless, incapable, inferior creatures. Far from it -- we've all seen the power of a determined woman! We want men to encourage us to exercise our influence in a godly way. We want the power to be meek, not weak. This power will free us to live according to our feminine nature as nurturers, supporters, and bearers of culture and civility."

"We would like men to understand us as women and to stop competing against us as if we were imitation men. We would like them to befriend, defend, and support us. We would like both men and women to be free to be the friends God designed us to be."

Barbara Bush is an example of a woman staying in the background and now she has a son who is Governor of Texas. The hand the rocks the cradle rules the world. Some sisters equate Father's rare comments on politics or to do some public service to mean they are to have careers. How interested is Father in politics? Does he talk about things that politicians talk about -- like trade, welfare reform, the deficit, the DEA and all the alphabet soup agencies? What does Father talk about? He spends all his time talking about men and women, marriage and family. He is interested in the billions of homes on this earth and the trillions of homes that will come in the future. He is interested in blessing millions of people and having all women stay home and homeschool their children. He is not very interested in a tiny percent of women running for political office. Even if every U.S. senator was a woman, that would be only 100 women. What is that compared to 1 billion wives? It's not even worth talking about. What Father wants 99% of sisters to do is stay home and homeschool their 12 children with other sisters who also have 12 children in a community where they all live together.

God and Father are capitalist/traditionalist. Father is giving money to the conservatives, not the liberals. Father is for "prescribed roles". He says, "A woman must become a true wife and the homemaker of the family." I have never visited a UC home where the brother cooked dinner. This sure looks like sisters have prescribed roles to me. Father says unmarried men and women are not to shake hands with each other. Father says, "A wife should have the attitude to accept her husband's opinion 100%. She should create so strong an internal bond to her husband that she accepts his actions 100% as well. She should go east when her husband orders her to go. If a woman doesn't follow where he goes, she is not a wife at all." This quote is not an isolated one or taken out of context. It is the central motif that runs throughout his speeches.

Previous Home Next