How Fathers Can Protect Their Daughters in a Defiling Age, by Scott Brown

March 17, 2017

I recently came across a collection of recordings from Vision Forum's 2008 Father-Daughter retreat, and listened to them with some delighted horror. Given the recent news that has come from the Brown household, I thought it might be a propos to post a what Scott says regarding the protection of daughters.

Scott starts with an illustration from the crucifixion (John 19:26,) when Jesus commits his mother to John’s care. This is a principle of the kingdom of God, and godly men see to it that their women are provided for in unbroken protection all the days of their lives. This is the illustration Scott wants to introduce the doctrine of the protection of daughters.

Christianity exalts womanhood, and places its value high above the comforts of all man. It commands the husband to give his life to her and suffer death if necessary. A daughter is protected by her father, a sister by her brother, a young girl in the meeting of the church so that if she’s widowed they will protect and provide for her. Most importantly, these foreshadow how all women are placed in Christ (Scott quotes the “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” verse) for their blessing no matter what might happen to them. This is the great love of God for women.

Scott contrasts this with other religions. Hindus despise females because they’re a liability because of their dowry. Often they’ll kill baby girls. Muslims don’t educate their women, force them to marry without their consent, make them servants, don’t allow them to own property, and despise them. They are required to be subjected to polygamy. The atheist makes the woman an object of licentiousness, and a throw away, does not care if she is divorced, and only cares for her outward appearance. He doesn’t’ work to protect her heart or body, and only provides for her in a hovel in a welfare state where she might be abused and abandoned. Would you give your daughter to Rousseau, Nietzsche, or Hitchens?

Scott turns now to Genesis 19, the story of Lot and his daughters. The protection of daughters reached a low point in Lot’s household in Sodom. Scott has five points he would like to make regarding Lot and his daughters.

Lot’s failure to protect his daughters is on display in this story, and this helps us understand how a father can abdicate his responsibility. Lot’s offering his daughters to the men of Sodom is an outrage and we are so repulsed by it that we miss the point. The core of the problem was sinful incursion in Lot’s life that expressed itself in lack of protection for his daughters. Don’t be so quick to distance yourself from Lot, because you are not exempt from the pressures and social issues that were pressing on Lot.

Scott says that Genesis 19 requires careful interpretation. If we breeze over the text, we might think the focus of the text is the evils of homosexuality, and dismiss it because we’re not homosexuals. If we do this, we might miss the clear lessons here. In the same way, we like to think of other people, instead of ourselves, when we read about the Pharisees.

Scott talks about the broader Scriptural record of Lot, and goes to 2 Peter 4. This text, he says, is the interpretive key. Lot was not reveling in the excesses of Sodom, he was outraged by the evil conduct of his fellow citizens, and deeply conflicted by what he observed around him. People who are repulsed by Lot may be surprised by how Peter refers to him, and that he calls Lot righteous. Scott suggests that we’re not so different than Lot. We’re outraged by the trends around us, we cast judgement on the sins running amok in our culture and there’s no way we can completely disengage from the evils of this culture.

Knowing that Lot offered his daughters to the evil men of Sodom is shocking, but this is still what the word of God teaches. Lot stood in judgement of the wicked men of Sodom, and they thought he was judgmental, and holier-than-thou.