A Rebuke of “Disciplines of a Godly Man” by R.

Kent Hughes

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and
doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own desires
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the
truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” – 2 Timothy 4:2-5 

First, I’d like to clarify that I understand that this book was written to be an accessible
book for the lay. Nevertheless the issues I present to you here, I believe, make this book a
critical mistake for men to glean wisdom from; thus unprofitable for the body of
believers. This is not to say there is no true proposition to be found, but the snares of the
traditions of men are lying in wait within them. (Mat 15:1-9, Col 2:18-23, 1 Tim 1:3-11)

Overall Contentions: Ch.1-3

1. Imbalanced Sources: There is an imbalance of scripture references and references

to other sources. By references I mean essentially any time unique scripture is
cited and the sources sited in Notes at the back of the book. This does not include
all of the storytelling and general references to other people and their lives.
Within the first three chapters alone there were a total of 23 brief and 3
comprehensive scriptural references, if being generous. While, if being modest, a
whopping 31 brief and 7 comprehensive references to other sources. (2 Tim 3:13-
17)
2. Dubious Sources: The people and organizations that make up the pool of
references are questionable. Including statistics from United Methodist surveys, a
pop psychology magazine, and a Gallup Poll that is no where to be found using
the source citation. Also, the fact that the statistics are so dated and often involve
polls on people’s subjective opinions rather than hard facts of reality gives them
very little weight to the speculative conclusion the author offers us in no uncertain
terms. Here are some examples of the questionable figures I’ve uncovered.
a. Paul Johnson: Catholic Egalitarian Hypocritical Pharisee. A Catholic who
believes in clerical celibacy, being the requirement that certain members
in clergy be unmarried. Even worse he believed in the ordination of
women as priests. He also had an 11 year affair that was discovered in
1998, he began this affair a year before the quote used in this book.
3. Lofty Speculation: There are far too many unsubstantiated blanket statements, as
well as harsh condemnations with little to no scriptural support. At worst there
seems to be scriptures being twisted to support an obvious unchecked dogma.
4. Misleading: Thus far the book seems to be a very shallow dogmatic attempt to
make men feel bad for being masculine in order to present a list of DON’TS
rather than disciplines (more of what we should DO); all wrapped up in a cheesy
writing style and try hard poetic language. He claims to not be Victorian, but
betrays himself with his romanticism and mysticism that was characteristic of that
era.

Major Criticism of Ch. 1 Godliness

  Anti-Masculine: The first half of the chapter leading up to his second reason for
this book in pg. 15 “Why the Disciplines?” was actually very agreeable, albeit
long winded. But we then get to where things began to go downhill, and fast. We
come to the strong claim that men are “so much less spiritually inclined and
spiritually disciplined than women.” This is a lot to unpack, given that there are
many influencing factors for why one might think this is the case. I would
contend that even if the statistics he mentions are true across the board that this
proves that “church incorporated” and their literature is far more geared to
feminine participants. Observations from church service and offerings at
bookstores should be proof enough for one to see this clearly; an emphasis on
emotions, relationships, drama, and simplicity. Now if one would argue that there
are no God intended differences in the masculine and feminine nature, then that
would need to be proven first. So for brevities sake, I shall assume we have
common ground on this matter. The conclusion drawn from the statistics overload
at the outset show very early on what narrative the author has bought into and
wants us to: That men are in desperate need of help being spiritually disciplined
and women don’t. I believe the contrary is true and this is why frivolous divorce
is primarily initiated by women, abortion is legal and common, and why fatherless
homes is the common denominator for crime, same sex partnerships, poverty, and
abusive relationship. (Citations needed, don’t take my word for it.) This runs us
right into a presupposition that men are not responsible for the spiritual disciplines
of women. Be it as a father or husband or male mentor, that responsibility has
been abdicated to the women themselves to sort out. This goes much deeper than I
can go with notes already too copious for the setting I am presenting them, but I
pray you will study to show yourself approved and renew your mind with the hard
teachings in these passages of scripture. (1 Cor 11:1-15, Deut 22:20-21, Isa 3:12,
Exo 20:17, Eph 5:22-33, Num 30:5-8, 1Peter 2:18-25 & 3:1-7, 1 Ti 2:11-15, Tit
2:3-5, Gen 3:17, Gen 4:7 & 3:16, 1 Cor 16:13, Gen 1: 27-28, Gen 2:18)

Major Criticism of Ch. 2 Purity

 Proudly Puritanical: Identifying with the puritans and considering them

“supremely biblical” makes sense of the entire chapter. He references 1 Thes 4:3-
8 to try to capture every new law he wants to add to what it means to live in
purity. We need to judge for ourselves what may or may not be profitable to
living the way scripture commands. There may be some wisdom to gain from the
way puritans looked to protect themselves from sin, but “woe to those who call
evil good, and good evil” Isaiah 5:20. Are we to teach as law the traditions of
men? Is the Law of the Messiah more burdensome than the Law of Moses? This
is a teaching that places condemnation upon you for not even being disobedient.
There is plenty of sexual activity explicitly condemned in scripture; where is the
call to abstain from them? Puritans held that sex within marriage was only holy if
it was done with intent to procreate. This chapter captures the new wave of
pharisaical teachings that our Savior rightly criticized.
Major Criticism of Ch. 3 Marriage

 Hyper-Spiritualization: There are many places within this chapter that adopts a
Greco-Roman approach to loving your wife. Simply put, if you are trying to take
the Word at face value and as literal, you won’t mistreat such a self interpreting
passage as Eph 5:23-33. Death does mean death. This is what is Victorian about
his approach to this topic. We lose the actual duty to protect and be willing to
literally die for you wife in the midst of this mystical “lifelong practice of death,
of giving over not only all you have, but all you are.” I’m sorry, but my Messiah
doesn’t give me ALL He has or ALL He is. My inheritance in Him is great, but
He is still my master and seeks what I need not what I want from Him. And even
at the resurrection, all He IS is far greater than anything I will ever be. This line of
thinking removes men as the driving force in a family that is entrusted with the
faithful stewardship of his wife and children. The list of passages cited in my
handling of Ch. 1 should overwhelmingly support this claim. Woman was created
FOR man and to HELP him. Man was created to image God, woman to image
man. We are the head of woman and without us the women are running around
without heads! It is all too clear if we let His Word renew our minds rather than
trying to make the word fit our emotions! We as men need to stand up and be
faithful with the duties our creator has given to us, not bury it in the ground until
He returns! Are we really ready for His return? May we repent and stop repeating
Adam’s mistake of heeding his wife when he knows the mission and needs to take
the lead. Mr. Hughes, whether intentional or not, is misleading us to only see our
reflection as the Messiah to our wives as just an example of Godliness, not
leading her to Godliness.