I have seen many things in my first decade of ministry (*I wrote this in 2015)

I have witnessed a group of elders call a meeting at a divorced woman’s home to start the last stage of a discipline process against her that she didn’t know she was in, and the subject of which was not told to her until arrival. That is a classic tactic of cults.

I have seen elder boards kick men out of churches who were not “performing,” and to force others to get counseling that they can’t afford, and take the blame, even though such husbands were the ones that brought it to them and asked for them to counsel (which she refused).

Another elder board gave bogus counseling to a woman to separate from the husband, preventing real counseling with both of them to ever get started, and then did not disclose her whereabouts after she had left at their prodding. Naturally they refused others looking into the situation.

Another elder board pressured the young men at a church with few older men to receive the “counsel” of the older men of another church, which amounted to young ladies having the men vetted as candidates for marriage solely on the basis of finances accumulated by the ripe old age of twenty.

Another pastor and wife were invited to what they were told was a retreat, only to find an intervention to force them to admit disqualification; then after they left for their actual vacation, they came home only to find out that those elders had asked the board as a whole to discipline and fire him.

I could tell countless such stories. 

This is not a statement against any individual or group of people. 

This is a statement against an idea, or set of ideas.

I know of no such person named “Federal Headship Nomism” or “FHN.” It is a name that I gave to a basic way of thinking about the Christian life. I think it is a bad way of thinking. In fact I think that this way of thinking is so bad that it actually becomes harmful to everyone who believes it and many people around them. But I know of no one who simply is this thing. They may be persuaded of it, or they may not. If they are persuaded, assuming I have their ear, my goal would be to persuade them otherwise. My goal is not to heap scorn upon anyone, but to show a more excellent way.

FHN: A Name and an Idea

Federal Headship Nomism (FHN hereafter) is a name I gave to an “unorganized theology.” In other words, you will not read about it in a textbook on systematic or historic theology. Nor is it ever defended openly and honestly, for such a view is patently indefensible. I do realize that some elements of it will show up here or there,1 but I can only assure the reader at this point that I am talking about a rather large web of ideas. It would be more accurate to call it a “way of doing church” or a particular understanding of the Christian life.

As we examine the name we will see how each of the words comes into play.

The word federal comes from the Latin word for “covenant” (foedus).

The head of any covenant is God’s ordained authority figure.

Nomism is a term for any legalistic system: from the Greek for “law” (nomos).

Of course the concept of federal headship is biblical. That bare combination of words is not the trouble. Moreover the federal head—in this case, the husband-father—is obligated to God through his love of his wife and through his raising and disciplining of his children. And such an obligation, where it is commanded in Scripture, can properly be called law. So, that there is such a field of moral responsibility of the highest order is not in question. There is a head of the home, such a relationship is covenantal (or federal), and such an obligation is by God’s law. All of that is biblical as far as it goes. 

But how far does it go? Does it go as far as the gospel itself?

Right here lies our first clue to the error: If the obligation to be a federal head in the marriage relationship, and in the institution of the family, is truly divine law, then what is the standard for obedience? Is it perfection or will imperfection do? It is perfection. At this point, the hesitant reader may forget that I have already insisted upon the fact that federal headship is a biblical concept. The obligations that comprise its relationship to God are therefore imperative. That means law. That I have just pointed to perfection is not some clever way “out of that,” but rather a clue to remember your Reformed doctrine of the law. Here, its evangelical use is not to be pit against its directive use.

Now if the standard is perfection, then what must the relationship be between this head’s performance and Adam’s performance and Christ’s performance? Let us all agree that Adam and Christ and every husband-father, just as every church elder and every civil magistrate (or, for that matter, every employer), is a federal head. On that, there is no disagreement. But let us also agree with Paul—against FHN—in Romans 5:12-21 that the first man, with his act of unrighteousness, and the second Man, with his act of righteousness are the quintessential mountain-peaks in this story. What they did are what initiated mankind’s guilt and innocence in the ultimate courtroom.  

Let us think of Adam and Christ as “meta-federal-heads” and the husband-father of a home as a regular, little federal head, purely and simply. I make up this term, “meta-federal-head,” only to make an all-important point. One of the main things that FHN has to assume in its basic understanding of the Bible is to “push down” the mountain-peaks of Adam and Christ, minimizing their federal headship, and so “push up” the new mountain-peak of each Husband-Father, inflating the role of their federal headship.

How all of this happens requires some hard thinking. What is more important is a kind of summary definition of FHN that can orient us to its true nature and avoid the temptation to early caricature and distraction.

FHN is a vision of the Christian life in which the husband-father is to be considered disqualified to the degree that “things in the home” do not rise to some standard of order. Such includes his disqualification (1) from active participation in the life of the body in general, (2) service in ministry in particular, and, most crucially, (3) leading his wife and children until some ill-defined pattern of that already ill-defined standard has been recovered.

As every lie is a twisted truth, let me anticipate the objection that there is such a thing as domestic order and that the man is most in charge of that. I have already stated that, but my operative assumption is always that passions about this issue make for hard hearing. The first point of order will have to be whether the standard is actually something that Scripture expressly says or at least implies. We will come back to specifics. But such important qualifiers are important to tie together with that opening definition.

The need for two such qualifications, seem to me, to rise above the rest.

First, the “standards” to which the male head is to conform are precisely extra-biblical (and, I will argue, anti-biblical) standards—usually the external particulars of some male in the church less than Jesus—and second, this is not principally about elder qualification and 1 Timothy 3:3-4, although it has obvious implications for that particular set of qualifications.

It may be asked at various points in our study where FHN leaves women? Up until now I have only discussed how FHN exposes men to the wilds of perfect righteousness in a sinful nature, but any woman who hears about this system will quite naturally feel diminished. That is because there is an implied insult. While FHN disqualifies all actual men on planet earth from the kingdom of heaven, it also reduces women to something below even our kingdoms on earth, and in fact something of an inanimate extension of the man’s will. The last thing I would want to do by this writing is to further that insult by minimizing this. However, I have chosen to go to the heart of the matter, which is FHN’s graceless war against freemen. 

We should not be surprised by any of this at a worldview level. Think about it this way. Just as feminism destroys femininity, so there must be a twisting of the masculine that destroys masculinity, whatever one wants to call it. The words “patriarchalism” and even “chauvinism” are unhelpful in this context for several reasons that I do not have space to develop. The distortions of the masculine and the feminine hold out empty promises to the two sexes that destroy them both; and of course they distort our relationship with each other.

One of the most obvious features of FHN, when one sees it operating, is that its male proponents are not careful with their words that would otherwise hold out a traditional honor to women. Most of this has to do with the fact that those who carry on most about all of this are young men who are careless with words in general. The biblical reasons for authority-submission roles between men and women are not treated studiously and theologically, and in that void, the insecure young men (and women) begin expanding these circles out to anything that will insulate them from various kinds of vital nuance. It is into this void of wisdom that FHN places the wife and children under the male head of the house.

This issues forth into a larger set of extra-biblical obligations for women as if it were divine law. At its extreme, even when daughters have grown up they are bound to their biological fathers, and if none is present, a next suitable head is sought. If the lead male allows any of those under his “covering” to “get away from him” he has forfeited God’s grace. I am perfectly aware of the controversy of allegedly similar teachings from those such as Bill Gothard and whether or not he actually taught that. The reader may rest at ease from their distraction. This is not a writing about him. 

Theological schemes that place man under law and woman under man in an ultimate and unqualified sense—however “patriarchal” their motives and their appearance—are paradoxically anti-male. Yes, they dehumanize women (and, again, I do not mean to minimize that), but what we need to see is that they also immobilize men. The whole system is built by the devil to make sure that the church never does anything and no man ever gets back on his feet in his own home. And I really do mean that. I believe this is one of those many “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1) that the powers of darkness inject into the church for our harm. 

As the Big Idea to a two-part class on the subject, I once said that “Federal Headship Nomism is a heresy at first and a cult if unchecked.” That may sound provocative at first glance. It may indeed be provocative. However the more important questions should be: Is it true? and then, even if it is true, Should it be said? I am convinced that the right answer to both of those questions is Yes.

In another teaching on this subject, I used the word “witchcraft” to describe FHN. Perhaps that too was provocative. As a matter of fact it was intended to convey a very accurate and practical point. But in order to see it, we will need to view our answer to what FHN is from one more angle. 

Analogous Heresy and Superstition

The conservative Evangelical man often laughs at the Word of Faith movement due to its New Age maxim that “Faith is a force and words are the container of that force.” Indeed the Word of Faith movement has its roots in Eastern mysticism. But what would be so different if we substituted a few of those words in the Word of Faith maxim? Suppose we said: “Faithfulness is a force and my wife and kids are the containers of that force”? What would this amount to? Both of these maxims are examples of what we have called, in a sermon series I preached on Job, Christian karma—which says, in effect, ‘What goes around in your moral performance comes around in your spiritual destiny.’

Now aside from coming from a different worldview altogether, namely an Eastern worldview, even smaller doses of it can wreak havoc on our own worldview. Whether we are talking about one’s internal faith (Word of Faith) or one’s external faithfulness (FHN), sovereignty has been transferred from God to the man. It is the differences between the two systems that may deceive us. The differences are superficial. In the Word of Faith movement, the payoff to our newfound providence is health and wealth. In FHN, the payoff is the mantle of spiritual authority in the church. Spiritual maturity and ministry qualification are the effects of the appropriate domestic causes. It is a short step from this to sounding scriptural. 

However, just listen carefully to the two mystical maxims side-by-side again:

(A) “Faith is a force, and words are the container of that force”

and

(B) “Faithfulness is a force, and my wife and kids are the containers of that force.”

Do not both show up in the accusations of Job’s three friends? Do not both hold out Job to be a monumental failure? That they are explicit claims to leverage the supernatural is what equates them to witchcraft, for that is precisely what witchcraft is. But if Simon the Magician could not purchase the Holy Spirit with his money, then neither can today’s suburban hero leverage God’s blessing with his morality. 

There will nevertheless be a nagging resistance to catching the nuance.

God blesses faithful men. I remember hearing those words from an elder at an independent Bible church celebrating that church’s first few years in existence. God blesses faithfulness. That also sounds very biblical. Is it not true that if we are faithful in little things, He will put us in charge of much? Indeed it is. Jesus Himself said so.

So let us position “faithfulness” against “unfaithfulness” in the same way that we do “righteousness” against “sin” or else “obedience” against “disobedience.” So far, so good. Now let me throw a monkey wrench in the spokes of your perfection party: Let us also position “faithfulness” against “failure” and see if the reader squirms. Are there any differences? Think of Job if it helps.

Have you ever tried to do something and failed? I have, many times. Sometimes it seems that I do little else. I am always trying something. I am very rarely satisfied with the results. Perhaps that is the perfectionist in me. On the other hand, someone may offer criticism (hopefully constructive) that I am doing the wrong thing, or going about it in the wrong way. Here the problem would not be perfectionism but incompetence on my part. But in either case, notice that I am not in any deliberate way trying to fail, or not trying at all. That lack of trying to do the right thing really would fall under the above categories “unfaithfulness” or “sin” or “disobedience,” rather than simply a loss.

Another objection immediately follows: “Just a moment—incompetence can also be a sin.” Indeed it can, to the degree that it is forced, or, in other words, to the degree that means have not been employed that one ought to have accessed given a range of factors. But then that begs a lot of questions in evaluating whether or not the failure is also to be fixated on as unfaithfulness—questions that move us beyond the surface where FHN remains. 

What FHN is Not

My mission is to not cause any needless offense. I would plead with anyone who is offended at my criticism of FHN to read this introduction over and over again. I am absolutely convinced that if anyone is offended by the case against FHN, it will be because they have to ignore the substance of this simple appeal. I have never run into anyone who is offended by my teaching on this that has honestly grappled with these qualifications. Everything the offended parties hear is answered decisively here. They are getting the sense that one of the following things is under attack. But this is not the case. There is absolutely no reason to take offense when the qualifications given below are taken in the spirit in which they are offered.

With that goal in mind, here are seven things that FHN is not. 

First, FHN is NOT one’s devotion toward one’s own family. 

The feelings of love that one has toward his or her family, the fondness of memories, the attraction to their kind, the joy in their company, and the concern for their well-being. All of these are good and healthy and biblical, and none of these sentiments are what is meant by FHN. Obviously each of us will experience these sentiments in different ways and to different degrees. Throughout the course of an individual’s lifetime, these feelings will wax and wane. So we are not guilty of holding to FHN by being on any part of that spectrum, but we would be if we condemned someone else for being at a particular point on that spectrum.

Second, FHN is NOT one’s level of excellence given toward one’s own family. 

The Scriptures are clear that “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31), and surely those of one’s household are chief among those who will witness God’s glory through our lives. And on the flip side, “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). Such a responsibility is heightened for the prospective elder of a church: “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?” (1 Tim. 3:4-5) Many other verses could be cited to show the same, that God commands of us all, and especially of the husband-father, a maximization of excellence and exertion for one’s family. So that can’t be it. That is why I do not think that advocacy of family-integrated church or discussions of multigenerational faithfulness are guilty of FHN. They can be, but the problem would never be excellence in these areas per se. 

Third, FHN is NOT one’s level of blessing / success with one’s own family. 

In other words this isn’t a war between the haves and have-nots of family life: one kind of church for people who have nice families and another kind of church for people who don’t. To make a study of FHN is not to give a voice for the have-nots against the haves. God is not against those who have blessed families. On the contrary, it is God who gives the blessing and then calls it by that name: “The LORD will command the blessing on you in your barns and in all that you undertake” (Deut. 28:8), and “An excellent wife is the crown of her husband” (Prov. 12:4), and “children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Ps. 127:3). And notice that we, the whole church, are blessed by families who are blessed. All other things being equal, stronger families make for stronger churches in countless ways. Our trouble is that FHN does not let all other things remain equal. But let us just get this straight. If anyone’s contemplation of these things makes them envious of someone’s spouse, or resentful toward how well someone’s children behave, or suspicious of what they are all hiding, then we are entirely missing the point. These blessings and successes are not the same thing as FHN. May we all be blessed in our homes! Many Christians have such blessings and yet are pictures of humility and generosity toward those who do not. 

Fourth, FHN is NOT taking the husband-father’s headship ‘too seriously’. 

As already indicated, federal headship is the biblical mandate. That is clear from the Proverbs. It is clear from the many narrative examples of the Old Testament. It remains clear in the teachings of the Apostles, not least of which is Paul’s carrying forward the fifth commandment into the New, to the Ephesians, which includes imperatives to the husband-father toward his wife and children:

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself” (5:25-28).

“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (6:4).

Given the gospel-proclaiming stakes here, certainly none of us can say that we have ever taken this “too seriously.” 

Fifth, FHN is NOT the conviction toward homeschooling over other forms.

Given the mandate to parents in Deuteronomy 6 and the whole-life discipleship implied in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), it would seem that homeschooling, which ought to have always happened in one form or another, is all the more imperative in our day and age in which “acceptable” forms of education do the bidding of Babylon. Whether one literally schools at home the entire time or joins with like-minded Christians in a school is another story for another day. Or is it? The insistence that one size fits all here, between the help of the local church and the competencies of the parents—that can be motivated by this very thing I am calling FHN. But the conviction that I just set forth (and so I am obviously in agreement with it against the antichrist government school system), in and of itself, is not the same as FHN. 

Sixth, FHN is NOT the units of time one spends resting at home or on vacation.

I have run into this one long before I ever pastored at a church. Many people in suburban Evangelicalism really do expect the church to be shut down in the summer simply because they, and all the people “like them,” are going on vacation. What else can be said but, “Have fun!” But why should the church stop what it is doing on that account? What happens in FHN is that rest is defined primarily in terms of home-time-away-from-the-church. If anyone is exhausted, then it is because there is too much church going on. When such a presupposition is accepted, common sense is thrown to the wind. The most obvious diversities concerning seasons of life and psychological dispositions are simply ignored. Some people are in the baby-having stage, some have multiple kids at different ages, some are empty nesters, and some are single or have no kids altogether—“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven” (Ecc. 3:1). On the other hand, some people have four kids and can manage them remarkably better than others who have the same number of four kids. What do we do? I suggest that we treat them on a case by case basis. It does no good at these points to use universalizing words like “we” and “can’t” because very often someone else can. To fail to take such obvious differences into consideration is to fail to think of people as unique individuals that are exactly what God has made of them. Our message to servants in the church is simple. If it is not the right season for you personally, please do not serve under compulsion! Other people can and will serve in those areas. If that is a struggle for you specifically because you fear that the task will not be done right, or done at all, beware of the pride that says, “If not me who—if not now when!” We should never mistake a universal rule of exhaustion for what is really our own season of life that we simply haven’t come to terms with yet.

Seventh, FHN is NOT this or that isolated error which may inflate the role of the family or pit it against the church. 

There is a difference between a functional worldview and merely “stepping in it.” There are full-blown worldviews, which are studied and articulate and consistently operational wherever we move. Then there are what we might call functional worldviews, which do not necessarily apply across the whole board of our lives, but which are nonetheless decisive in some areas (and the area we are focusing on is the church). And then there are just good old fashion occasional errors in reasoning that we will all make until the day we die. They are the blind spots or the failed first attempts or the curiosities spoken in our out loud voices. With a little accountability and a whole lot of grace, they are actually pretty harmless. And we can step in it in ways that parrot words and ideas that are held by the Federal Headship Nomist, and yet it does not follow that we ourselves are foot soldiers for its cause.

(To be continued)

__________________

1. When I say that you won’t find this whole view “in any books,” I mean it as a whole view. The many resources put out by Doug Wilson will naturally come to the mind of many as an example. In a subsequent installment, I do cite a few places in the book Reforming Marriage that are relevant. However, I do not want to reduce this idea of FHN to the “Wilsonian” way or “the Moscow mood,” as it has recently been called. There is something more widespread we are dealing with here, and it could more easily be dismissed as parochial or bound to a personality by pinning it to either Wilson in particular or the Federal Vision more generally.