An Open Letter to Kevin Swanson Regarding Your Response to the Botkin Sisters’ Apology
Dear Kevin,
We are writing to you as fellow Christians, many of whom have known you personally, worshiped alongside you, served in church leadership with you, attended your conferences, and participated in the Christian homeschooling community during the years when these teachings were being promoted.
Our shared history is significant to us. We recognize the years you have devoted to encouraging Christian families, defending the importance of biblical discipleship, and calling parents to take seriously their responsibility to raise their children in the faith. Many of us shared those commitments and invested considerable portions of our lives in the churches, ministries, and communities shaped by them.
It is precisely because of that shared history, and because we take the responsibilities of Christian leadership seriously, that we feel compelled to address your recent response to the Botkin sisters' public apology for their book, So Much More.
We have been deeply troubled by what appears to be an unwillingness to acknowledge your own role in promoting the teachings they are now repudiating. Even more concerning is the apparent contradiction between your recent statements and your own documented words from the years when these teachings were being promoted.
We are not writing to attack you personally. We are asking for something more fundamental: honesty about the historical record, a willingness to examine your own teaching, and accountability for the influence you exercised as a Christian leader.
ONE -YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU NEVER READ SO MUCH MORE
In your October 7, 2026 Generations broadcast, you stated,
"Sadly, I haven't read the book. I haven't read So Much More."
You went on to acknowledge that you probably should have investigated the book more carefully. Yet in your earlier interview with the Botkin sisters in September of 2005, A Vision for Daughters, you said, "It is one of the very best books I have ever read…Let me encourage you to get this book. This book will change the way that you live. It will change the way we do economics. I believe books like this will have significant economic consequences, social consequences. These are the sorts of books it will take to rebuild the way that we think and the way that we establish our cultures and our societies.
And, ladies and gentlemen, it couldn't come at a better time. The Western world is breaking down. This is a powerful book. It is an intelligent book, written with balance, with honor and respect. This book will save a lot of pain for a lot of women. I think it's going to be a defining book for the next generation. If you have a daughter, you must get this book. Let me encourage you to get So Much More. Get So Much More for your daughters by calling 877-842-CHEC” (Sources listed at the end of this letter).
In that same exchange, you praised the sisters for writing their 345-page book from home and for their decision not to attend college.
This was not a passing mention of a book you had merely heard about. You explicitly represented yourself as having read it, enthusiastically praised it, and gave its authors a platform to explain their vision for Christian daughters. These two statements are directly contradictory and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness.
How can you describe a book as one of the best you have ever read and then, twenty years later, claim that you never read it? Perhaps you have forgotten reading it. Perhaps you meant that you never read it in its entirety. We recognize that memories can fade over two decades. But the contradiction is significant, particularly because your recent statement appears in the context of distancing yourself from the book's problematic teachings. If you read and endorsed the book, your recent denial requires correction. If you praised and promoted it without actually reading it, that raises equally serious questions about your responsibility as a Christian teacher. Either way, we believe the appropriate response is to acknowledge the contradiction openly rather than minimize your involvement.
TWO - YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROMOTING THESE TEACHINGS
We recognize that you may not have personally taught every application contained in So Much More. But there is an enormous difference between not teaching every specific application and bearing no responsibility for promoting the broader theological framework.
You and other influential leaders within the Christian homeschooling, Christian patriarchy, and family-integrated church movements were not simply observers while these teachings spread. You promoted books, interviewed their authors, spoke at conferences, and helped establish particular visions of family authority and biblical womanhood as models for Christian families. Your Generations ministry provided a platform for Geoffrey Botkin's multigenerational family vision. You publicly praised his daughters' book and helped introduce its ideas to countless Christian families.
Your own teaching about preparing daughters primarily to become their husbands' helpers and home managers reflected important elements of the same theological framework. These teachings did not emerge in a vacuum.
We understand that publicly interviewing someone or recommending a book does not constitute agreement with every sentence. But when Christian leaders repeatedly promote a particular theological vision, elevate its proponents as examples, and encourage families to organize their lives around its principles, they bear responsibility for the influence of those endorsements. The question is not merely whether you personally taught every restriction that the Botkin sisters now reject. The question is whether you helped build, promote, and legitimize the theological framework that made those restrictions persuasive to thousands of Christian families. We believe the historical record warrants an honest acknowledgment that you did.
THREE - BIBLICAL COMMANDS AND PREFERED APPLICATIONS
One of the most significant points in the Botkin sisters' apology is their acknowledgment that they frequently presented their preferred applications as biblical ideals, even when they did not explicitly describe those applications as divine commands.
This distinction is essential. In your October 7th interview with Josh Swisow, you warn people not to “Displace God’s law with your own traditions where your own applications displace God’s law”. It is interesting how you can see this in others, but you can not see this in your own teaching.
A Christian teacher does not have to say, "God commands every unmarried daughter to remain in her father's home until marriage," to create a culture in which women believe leaving home, pursuing higher education, developing careers, or following independent ministry callings represents spiritual compromise.
When influential teachers repeatedly describe one particular lifestyle as more biblical, more faithful, more feminine, or more honoring to God, they communicate moral expectations even while technically allowing exceptions. And when those expectations are reinforced through sermons, conferences, books, radio programs, and church communities, they become extraordinarily powerful. Many of us witnessed firsthand how these expectations shaped the decisions of Christian families, the identity of young women, and the course of their lives.
The practical message was often that a faithful daughter would remain under her father's authority, embrace his vision for the family, prepare primarily for marriage and motherhood, and avoid pursuing the independence associated with modern feminism. Even when alternative choices were technically permitted, they were not necessarily presented as equally faithful expressions of Christian discipleship. This is precisely the problem the Botkin sisters are now acknowledging.
We would ask you to consider how your own teaching contributed to this same confusion between biblical commands and preferred applications. Did you consistently distinguish what Scripture actually requires from what you believed was wise or ideal? Did you give equal dignity to Christian women who pursued education, employment, independent living, or ministry opportunities outside their fathers' homes? Did you consistently affirm that adult daughters could discern God's calling and make lawful decisions before him without submitting those decisions to their fathers' personal visions? These are not peripheral questions. They go directly to the theological errors now being confessed.
FOUR - YOUR CONTINUED USE OF FALSE DICHOTOMIES AND MANIPULATIVE PERSUASION
We are also troubled by the rhetorical methods you continue to employ when discussing biblical womanhood. In your recent Generations YouTube episode (the October 7th video), you contrasted girls who stay home with the danger of encouraging career-minded "boss babes" who freeze their eggs. More broadly, your discussions of feminism and biblical womanhood have often framed the alternatives in similarly extreme terms. The implication is that women must choose between embracing a radical feminist ideology that prioritizes career, rejects motherhood, and accepts abortion, or embracing a godly vision of womanhood centered on domestic responsibilities and dependence upon men. This is a false dichotomy.
It is also a manipulative form of persuasion because it uses fear of one extreme to make the alternative appear to be the only faithful Christian option. A Christian woman can reject abortion, cherish marriage and motherhood, submit herself to Scripture, and still pursue higher education, develop a career, exercise independent judgment, and use her gifts in the church and the world. A woman can be a devoted wife and mother while also serving as a physician, teacher, attorney, entrepreneur, missionary, or business leader. A single Christian woman can faithfully follow Christ without organizing her entire adult life around preparing to become someone's wife.
These are not necessarily compromises with feminism. They can be legitimate expressions of Christian discipleship. When you caricature women who pursue education, ministry, or professional opportunities as selfish, worldly, or hostile to motherhood, you obscure the actual theological question: What does Scripture command, and what freedom has God given believers to make different choices?
The Botkin sisters have acknowledged that their own teaching relied upon similarly distorted alternatives. We find it especially concerning that, even as you respond to their repentance for these errors, you appear to continue using some of the same rhetorical methods. We urge you to examine not only the conclusions you teach but also the methods you use to persuade Christian families to accept them.
Christian teachers should persuade through careful exegesis, sound reasoning, and truthful representation of opposing positions—not through fear, caricatures, or artificially limited choices.
FIVE - THE THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK DESERVES REEXAMINATION
The Botkin sisters' apology is not simply a rejection of an isolated teaching about unmarried daughters living at home. They are reconsidering an entire framework of assumptions concerning paternal authority, women's callings, education, employment, singleness, domesticity, and the relationship between the biological family and the church. It does not escape us that they are speaking out in humility and the many men who propped them up with the same teachings are staying silent and taking no responsbility.
The Botkin Sisters acknowledge that they extended biblical passages beyond their intended application, elevated personal convictions into spiritual expectations, and treated their preferred family model as though it represented God's design for Christian women generally.
They have also recognized that these teachings sometimes displaced women's individual responsibilities as disciples of Christ with obligations to serve the visions and priorities of their fathers. We believe the leaders who promoted this broader framework should be willing to examine how their own biblical interpretations contributed to the same errors and wounded many.
The question is not whether marriage and motherhood are honorable. They unquestionably are. The question is whether Scripture teaches that every woman's primary purpose is to support the calling of a man, that adult daughters remain under paternal authority until marriage, or that education, ministry, and professional development are inherently less faithful choices than domestic pursuits.
Some of the teachings we urge you to reexamine are:
-The use of the word ‘helpmeet’ (ezer in Hebrew) to place women in a subordinate role, when that word is used 14 times describing God being our helpmeet/ezer, and He is clearly not subordinate to us
-The implication that the dominion mandate in Genesis 1:28 was given to men and that women are to serve their vision, when that command was given equally to Adam and Eve - both men and women
-The claim that the Scriptures are written primarily to men and that the teaching on Sunday is presented to men, rather than seeing women in the church as equal recipients of God’s word and teaching.
-The claim that it is wrong for homeschool moms to prepare their daughters for work outside the home (in your October 7th YouTube video), when Scripture constantly shows examples of both single and married women filling their dominion mandate outside the home and in the community.
-The teaching that women in general are ‘more easily deceived’ based on poor exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:14
-The teaching that fathers should lead family worship rather than mothers
-The teaching and practice that women should not gather for Bible study unless a male is present to guard what is taught
Overemphasising the principle in Numbers 30 of a father's authority
-The teaching that a father is the ‘prophet, priest, and king’ in his home
We believe this interpretation and application extend beyond what Scripture actually teaches, especially concerning adult daughters. But even more troubling are the unintended consequences of this teaching.
SIX - UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF DESTRUCTIVE MARRIAGES
In attempting to protect daughters from making unwise decisions, this system you taught and promoted often deprived them of the very opportunities they needed to develop wisdom, discernment, and the ability to hear the voice of God for themselves. Discernment develops through practice: evaluating character, recognizing warning signs, making independent decisions, and learning to take responsibility for those decisions. When young women are consistently taught to defer to their fathers' judgment, they may enter adulthood without the confidence or experience necessary to make one of life's most consequential decisions: choosing a husband.
We are deeply troubled by accounts of young women raised within this framework who married spiritually immature, controlling, or ungodly men, sometimes placing excessive confidence in their fathers' approval while lacking the discernment to recognize serious character deficiencies themselves. The tragic irony is that a system designed to protect women may have made some of them more vulnerable to unhealthy and destructive marriages.
A daughter trained primarily to submit to male authority may be poorly equipped to recognize when that authority is being exercised in an ungodly or abusive way. We are not suggesting fathers should have no role in advising their daughters. Wise parental counsel is invaluable. But there is a profound difference between helping a daughter develop discernment and replacing her discernment with paternal authority. Christian parenting should equip daughters to become mature women who can evaluate character, recognize sin, establish boundaries, and make wise decisions before God.
We urge you to consider how your teaching on paternal authority undermined that very goal and contributed to some of the painful consequences now being acknowledged by women raised within this movement who found themselves in destructive marriages as a result.
SEVEN - THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF THESE TEACHINGS
We also believe your response has failed to adequately acknowledge the seriousness of the consequences described by women who lived under these teachings.
Women have reported losing educational opportunities, delaying financial independence, suppressing their gifts and aspirations, remaining in controlling family relationships, marrying foolish and sinful men under pressure, and spending years believing that following Christ required subordinating their adult lives to their fathers' plans.
Some have described spiritual manipulation and difficulty recognizing or resisting abusive authority. And some have turned away from God altogether due to the poor representation of the character of God passed down to them by teachers like you.
We are not suggesting that every family who embraced these teachings experienced these harms, nor are we claiming that you personally intended such outcomes. But Christian leaders have a responsibility to consider not only what they intended to communicate but also the foreseeable consequences of the theological frameworks they promoted.
When teachings consistently discourage independence, limit the believers' freedom commanded by Paul, elevate paternal authority, and portray alternative paths as spiritually suspect, it should not surprise us when some women struggle to recognize their freedom and responsibilities as adult disciples of Christ.
We would hope that the testimony of women who have experienced such harm would lead you to listen carefully and examine whether your own teaching contributed to the culture in which those experiences occurred.
EIGHT - THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CHRISTIAN LEADERS TO ACKNOWLEDGE ERROR
James 3:1 reminds us that those who teach will be judged with greater strictness.That warning should produce humility in every Christian teacher, particularly those whose ministries have influenced thousands of families like yours. We are all capable of misinterpreting Scripture, overstating our conclusions, and allowing our cultural assumptions to shape our teaching.
The question is not whether we have ever been wrong. The question is how we respond when credible concerns about our teaching are brought before us. The Botkin sisters have demonstrated a willingness to revisit their interpretations, identify where they went beyond Scripture, and publicly apologize for the consequences of their influence. Will you as well?
We believe the men who promoted and legitimized these teachings should demonstrate the same willingness. We are particularly troubled that your recent response appears to minimize your historical involvement rather than openly examining it. For those of us who served alongside you, attended your conferences, and participated in the communities shaped by these teachings, this raises serious concerns about integrity, honesty, and accountability.
We are not asking you to assume responsibility for every decision made by every family influenced by your ministry. We are asking you to take responsibility for what you actually taught, what you publicly endorsed, and the theological assumptions you helped normalize.
These are reasonable expectations of anyone entrusted with Christian leadership.
OUR REQUEST - Kevin, we would welcome a thoughtful and substantive response to the following concerns.
First, we ask you to explain the contradiction between your earlier recorded statement in 2005 that So Much More was one of the "best books you had ever read" and your recent claim that "you never read it". If your recent statement was inaccurate, we ask that you correct it publicly and acknowledge your violation of the ninth commandment.
Second, we ask you to acknowledge your historical role in promoting the Botkin family's teachings and the broader framework of Christian patriarchy and paternal authority that informed them.
Third, we ask you to seriously examine whether your own teaching elevated preferred applications of biblical principles into expectations of Christian faithfulness, particularly concerning adult daughters, education, employment, singleness, and women's individual callings.
Fourth, we ask you to reconsider your use of false dichotomies and rhetorical caricatures when discussing women who pursue paths different from your preferred model.
Finally, we ask you to engage seriously with the theological arguments and personal experiences presented in the Botkin sisters' apology as well as the points listed above in section five rather than distancing yourself from the movement that helped give those teachings their influence.
We recognize that such self-examination is difficult, especially when it involves decades of public teaching and ministry. But we also believe that Christian integrity is demonstrated not by defending every position we have previously taken, but by submitting our teaching to the authority of Scripture and acknowledging when we have gone beyond what God has said.
Our concern is not merely about a book published twenty years ago. It is about the responsibility of Christian leaders like you to handle Scripture faithfully, represent their own histories truthfully, and respond humbly when the consequences of their teachings are brought into the light.
We hope you will receive this letter in the spirit in which we intend it: as a serious appeal from fellow believers who share a history with you, care about the integrity of Christian teaching, and believe that truthfulness and accountability are indispensable to faithful leadership. As a pastor and elder, you are given the high calling and responsibility of accurately representing the word and character of God to his people. You are also responsible for taking seriously the concerns and warnings given to you by your brothers and sisters in Christ.
We pray that your response will demonstrate the humility, courage, and integrity that Scripture calls all of us to exercise.
Sincerely,
Former elders, deacons, church members, conference attendees, and fellow Christians concerned about the teachings and influence of the Christian patriarchy movement.
Source - 2005-web.archive.org/web/20060905163130/kevinswa..... (Claiming So Much More was the best book he has ever read)
2026-https://youtu.be/hmdzUjmIzsM?si=FWE1UtiX6f1fEKbz (Claiming he has never read the book)