July 5, 2005

Natalee Holloway and the Headship of Her Father

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 9:29 pm

I ran across this post at Slice of Laodicea via Bad Christian. In it, Ingrid criticizes Natalee Holloway’s father for not providing a proper biblical headship to his family.

The cameras were rolling, the distraught parents were sobbing in front of microphones and a prayer vigil was set up in the local Baptist church. Natalee Holloway, an 18-year-old high school graduate from Alabama, had gone missing May 30th while on a trip to Aruba with over 100 other partying high school seniors. As I write, she remains missing while several men are investigated for their possible role in Natalee’s disappearance.

Amid the emotion, blogger speculation and celebrity-style media coverage, a critical factor in the disappearance of this teenager has been ignored. What in the world was an 18-year-old girl doing in a nightclub at 2:00 in the morning, on a Caribbean island, consorting with strange men? What does it say that in all of the hours of media coverage and exhortations to, “pray for Natalee”, so little has been said about the scandalous state of fatherhood in our land that allowed this girl to be in such a terribly risky situation in the first place?

A young girl’s first line of defense is her parents, namely her father. God set up a father’s headship as a protection against the dangers of a world that preys on beauty and innocence. The daughter of a loving father is the beneficiary of a precious oversight that keeps her from the very real threats that menace her purity and safety. But America has thrown out God’s headship and authority in the biblical model of the family. Much of the church has, as well. Natalee is the unfortunate heir to a legacy of bitterness and death called feminism. Feminism laughs at the notion of loving headship. Feminism declares that females can take care of themselves, that they have need of nothing and that the very notion of innocence and purity is laughably archaic. Effeminized fathers go right along with this notion now, sending their daughters off to war in Iraq while their sons win football scholarships and sending their teen-age daughters off to Caribbean islands to party all night with strange men.

sarcasm warningIngrid is obviously not a Bible-believing Christian. She entirely disregards Paul’s admonition that women should remain silent and be in submission. How dare Ingrid, a woman, question the headship of Natalee’s father, a man? Mr. Holloway is certainly acting as the head of his family, and in his biblical role as ruler of the family, he decided to allow Natalee to go to Aruba. The problem isn’t Mr. Holloway’s headship, it’s that Ingrid is unable to submit to Mr. Holloway’s headship. The problem isn’t “effeminized fathers”, it’s emasculating women, and one in particular named Ingrid.

Now if Ingrid’s husband or father wants to challenge Mr. Holloway’s headship of his family, that’s fine. But if Ingrid truly believes in the biblical family and biblical roles for men and women, she should restrict her blogging to subjects appropriate to women: sharing recipes, tips on homeschooling children, and lessons on being a good helpmate. Obviously, Ingrid’s husband or father isn’t providing proper biblical headship for her. She can’t have it both ways: be an outspoken, opinionated blogger criticizing the parental decisions of a man she’s never met, and also a firm believer in the God-ordained submission of women to the headship of their husband and father.


  1. 🙂

    Too true.

    pax et bonum

    Comment by John — July 6, 2005 @ 1:19 am

  2. Loved the warning sign!

    Comment by Johnny Brooks — July 6, 2005 @ 3:30 am

  3. You have captured the essence very well.

    Comment by John — July 6, 2005 @ 5:01 am

  4. The sarcasm doesn’t really work, considering Paul’s admonition is in the context of the church.

    Comment by Rae Whitlock — July 6, 2005 @ 5:06 am

  5. Loved the sarcasm sign.
    I did wonder about this factor myself, not in the context of blaming the father, but just generally. How wise was it, in retrospect, to take this group of obviously wealthy, non-street-wise kids to a foreign country and then just turn them loose? What was and eighteen year old girl doing out with strangers at 2 AM under these circumstances? They had “chaparones” along, where were they while all this was going on? This kid obviously thought Aruba was Disneyland; equally obviously, she was wrong. Where were the adults?

    Comment by Susan — July 6, 2005 @ 6:59 am

  6. right on!

    Comment by bobbie — July 6, 2005 @ 11:07 am

  7. Hell of a point you got there. If you weren’t a baptist before-you are now!

    Comment by Howie Luvzus — July 8, 2005 @ 4:56 pm

  8. Enjoying your blog — thanks for leading me to the Christian Alliance for Progress!

    Comment by Apostle John — July 8, 2005 @ 5:51 pm

  9. Nothing sadder than a self-hating woman.

    Comment by LutheranChik — July 10, 2005 @ 4:37 pm

  10. i agree with susan,,what was a girl doing out at that time of morning with strangers,,and were were those people they called chaperones,they should have had them girls rounded up and back in the hotel by midnight in a strange place.

    Comment by marie — September 7, 2005 @ 3:37 pm

  11. Deft sidestep.

    Even as a G.dless Pinko I think there is still a real issue here
    that Christions are avoiding.

    Comment by Rolls — May 16, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

  12. […] The view expressed here is of a hierarchical power structure: men are to obey God and their church, women are to obey their husbands, and children their parents. Each of us is to accept the authority of those appointed headship over us by God, and to provide headship to those God commands us to lead. […]

    Pingback by I am a Christian Too » Conservatives Without Conscience: Christians and Earthly Authority — August 2, 2006 @ 8:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress