Having just spent a delightful two plus weeks with my charming, college educated daughter and her little boys, I got up this morning to be introduced to this link and I am appalled. I am just about to begin reading the Botkin girls’ book entitled So Much More for a project I am working on, but this documentary by them is truly over the top. Please watch it and think about the heresy that is being passed off as “biblical womanhood.”
This documentary on visionary daughters is frightening on a variety of levels.
Please note that this discussion has continued on a second thread since it was getting way too long to upload! Please join us here to keep discussing visionary daughters.
******This thread has been indexed. Please download the PDF file here: visionary-daughters-thread-1
June 11, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Heresy? From your comment, I was expecting something greatly different from what I saw on that video.
What did you possibly see that you thought was appalling, “over the top,” “heresy,” and “frightening”?? All they showed was a bunch of strong, happy families and girls who seek the Bible’s guidance in their lives.
I have a master’s degree, I will probably begin a second master’s degree next year, and I have a professional job. However, I thought that their documentary sounds great. This world needs more people who look directly to the Bible, not to society and the world, for their example of how to make daily decisions.
The girls in the video did not look “weird” or anything. I would be proud to have such a daughter. The girls in the documentary had the joy of the Lord in their faces.
Do I believe in the value of educating women? Obviously, I do. But God’s values are more important than any college degree.
Really, I am shocked that you were shocked. Where do you get the idea that what they are promoting is not what God wants? Where are you getting your philosophy? Remember not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly. That would include where we get our ideas for what is acceptable.
It makes me nervous that you call this “heresy.” Heresy is a belief that contradicts the Bible, and I have a hard time seeing how this documentary does so.
I hope that my tone does not seem too abrasive. It is hard to interpret someone’s spirit by reading just the typed word, but please know that I am typing this in surprise and gentle concern, not in anger.
June 11, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“I know that my lifestyle is countercultural, and i don’t care. Because God’s Word is the standard that drives me.”
I guess that would be what I have a problem with: this statement seems to imply that staying at home, not going to college or getting a job, is what God’s Word demands, and it doesn’t.
Anytime we try to add to God’s Word, taking our interpretation as the Gospel-Truth, there’s a problem.
June 11, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Amy, I would simply ask you this question….can you show me from Scripture that a young woman or a wife has no calling of her own, that “biblical womanhood” requires serving a father and his calling, that this is the standard for all young women? This is what the Botkin girls are saying. This is what their interviewees are also saying. To add to God’s word in this way IS heresy.
I used to think that this hyper-patriarchal view was simply someone’s choice and that we ought to not express an opinion about what these families choose. I no longer believe that. Rather, I see it as a dangerous heresy and here is why. These people are adding to the Word of God, are imposing a legalistic standard on the body of Christ, to the detriment of all of us, and are taking more than half the body of Christ and telling them that they cannot use the unique gifts that the Lord has given to them. And all of it is based on man’s paradigm rather than on what the Scripture teaches.
You say that God’s values are more important than any college degree. I completely agree. I also believe that God’s Word is higher than man’s ways.
In case you are interested, Midwest Christian Outreach, a well-respected cult awareness group, is about to publish their Summer 2007 journal which discusses the cultic nature of the patriarchal movement. They have spent months researching these teachings about women and have held them up to the truths of Scripture. I think when it is published, it will be eye-opening for many people.
June 11, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I personally know two families like this: one family imposes their personal standards on others by saying that it is “wrong” to do anything but stay at home, the other family just lives their life by their standards and makes no attempt to convince anyone that it is “right.”
However, I would stop short of calling the former family heretical. Heresy is a very strong word, and I would need a whole lot more proof from both sides than what is provided here or on the link before you can convince me that what the Botkins are saying is completely without Biblical support.
June 11, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Heresy seems like a strong word but how do you define it? If you define it as an adherence to an opinion outside the authority of scripture, I think the Botkin sisters are skating on thin ice with their theology.
The caption above the documentary states that they desire to promote girls staying “at home until marriage.” The whole “keepers of the home” reference in Titus 2 clearly refers to women with husbands and children, not to unmarried, childless women.
Because there is no scriptural basis that a young woman without a husband or children must forsake a college education, pursing missions, working outside the home, etc.—coupled with the clear teaching in scripture of Christian liberty—then I would agree that the Botkins’ philosophy could arguably be considered heretical.
As a side note, I know a lot of quality Christian men who would be turned off by this type of woman who thinks she is being godly by staying by daddy’s side until her theoretical prince comes charging into the picture. I wonder how many women—those who will eventually marry and those who won’t—will have regrets that they followed the Botkins’ teachings without seeing the larger picture.
Coming from the perspective of a married woman with one child and one on the way (who strives to be a biblical keeper of the home), I realize that my single years were very valuable in accomplishing things for ministry and laying the foundation for the rest of my life. There are things you can do for God and others when you are single that, for logistical reasons, you cannot do when you are married. It’s sad that many girls are being encouraged to limit themselves while single.
June 12, 2007 at 4:03 am
I guess my question would be, what would one CALL a teaching that promoted a certain very particular way of life, a way of life only available to a small percentage of girls (those with intact families who have enough money to support them indefinitely), and then basically label this way of life as the ONLY truly Biblical choice?
The direct implication, of course, is that all other choices a young woman could make (college, getting a job outside the home) are sin.
What should we call a teaching like this?
I agree that “heresy” is a very strong word…but, it’s not like the Botkin sisters are just out there promoting some “alternative lifestyle.” They are teaching that college for girls is a sin. They are asserting, in fact, that their bizarre take on the Bible is the only truly correct way to live.
If we saw that kind of thinking in any other ministry, we’d probably call it heresy. But when it’s promoted by people we admire, people who hold to OUR values, we seem to throw discernment out the window.
And I agree, all the young women in the video clip WERE nice-looking. That fact alone gave me pause. Where were the “average” girls? Or was there a deliberate attempt to show only pretty people, to better promote this teaching as admirable?
June 12, 2007 at 11:58 am
Joan,
I asked myself the same question….what is the correct word to describe what the Botkins, Jennie Chancey, etc. are promoting? Is heresy too strong of a word? And how is it defined…teaching outside of orthodoxy I suppose is the simplest definition.
Then I asked myself these questions….Is it inherently wrong for a young woman to stay home until marriage? No. Is it wrong to solicit money from like-minded people to support a documentary on something you want to promote? Probably not.
But then I asked myself if the following statements are within the bounds of biblical (orthodox) teaching:
“help us reveal the picture of THE
biblical home”
“help us show Christians and nonChristians something they’ve never seen before: strong, close-knit families, united in vision”
“to be the daughter God has created them to be, serving their fathers in whatever he is doing.”
“THE Biblical model for an adult daughter”
So, what they are saying is that a single adult daughter who is not home serving her father is not the picture of biblical womanhood, is not doing what God created her to do, and has never been part of a close-knit family with vision.
The conclusions are obvious….a lifestyle outside of these standards is considered to be sin since the opposite of biblical is unbiblical, ie, sinful. So what is to be of those young women who want to make another choice? Are their choices considered to be sin? Do fathers have the right to restrain their daughters and prevent them from leaving home? If these things are considered to be sin, then should church discipline be brought against a family who chooses a different path or against a daughter who “rebels?”
We hesitate to call something “heresy” but we must remember that thsoe of us who believe in raising strong daughters and that women are to be encouraged to use their gifts outside of the Botkin-prescribed formula, are quickly called “heretics” by those in these camps. I know it is true because I have seen it done. Just look at how the Bayly brothers approach someone who even suggest another view or even ask questions. They are labeled as heretics and run off the page.
If someone can find a better word to describe this false teaching, I am open to replacing the “heresy” word.
June 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm
thatmom,
I’m so glad you wrote what you did, because you articulated exactly what bothered me about this video: calling a particular choice “the Biblical model” is essentially asserting that all other courses of action are UNbiblical.
If living at home, not pursuing an education outside the home, not working outside the home, and primarily serving one’s father are what make up “the Biblical model” for young women, then anyone who does something different must be pursuing an UNbiblical model, right?
If the word “heresy” has too many strong and negative connotations, then perhaps calling these ideas “false teachings” might be better? “Heresy” DOES mean “false teaching,” but the term “heresy” probably ought to be reserved for non-Biblical views on crucial doctrines like salvation and sin.
On the other hand…unbiblically implying that a particular course of action is a sin…well, I guess they ARE promoting a twisted and incorrect doctrine of sin.
June 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm
You really are putting words in their mouths. Why is it that you react so strongly to that little video? Those girls were not attacking you or your lifestyle; they were promoting theirs. There is a big difference. Never in that video did they say that going to college is a sin, etc.
It seems that the dangers of worldly feminism have affected your minds more than you might realize. You don’t have to like their life. But attacking it as you are doing really is “over the top.”
June 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm
But Amy, if you promote something as the Biblical way of doing something, that IS an “attack” on every other way of doing that thing. If you call something the “Biblical model for an adult daughter,” then other models are Biblically inferior…or, by implication, SIN.
I am about as far from being a “worldly feminist” as you yourself probably are. I would never defend “worldly feminist” ideas. But I WILL defend the Bible. I WILL stand against people who go around promoting their lifestyle choices by attaching a false sense of Biblical authority to what they’ve chosen to do.
June 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I realize that this is an emotional subject close to all of our hearts- I get upset at the thought of denying anyone -especially on basis of gender- the right to make a choice. If girls like these are being denied the ability to make choices, then yes, I would be very concerned. A wants to go to college, but her father won’t let her. Another close friend is at college, but she is not allowed to live outside of the home until she is married, and she will not be allowed to marry until after grad. school- which for her, is 5 more years away, and she’s already a senior.
What keeps these girls in subjection to “outdated” rules? The fifth commandment: Honor thy father and mother. Does that commandment dictate that you stay at home? No. Not that alone. However, there ARE implied biblical “models” for the example that the Bodkin sisters support. Are those models women who lived in a culture that suppressed women? Yes. Could the Botkins be mistaken when they assert that we should follow that model when our society is not oppressive towards women? Yes.
However, in the arguments above, I’m reading more spite and hate than any logical, calm, charity-filled, Spirit-filled statements. Why not encourage people to read the book, alongside the Bible, and decide for themselves?
What if we are the ones that are wrong? What if it is the most Biblical way of life for a daughter to remain at home until marriage? Are they truly denying college? Even the first girl I gave as an example is taking correspondence courses. Are they denying anything that they need? Or merely want? And is what they want truly best for them? What if the best thing for them is to stay in the safety and shelter of the home?
June 12, 2007 at 4:47 pm
By the way, the definition of heresy is:
A fundamental error in religion, or am error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctring of religion.
Websters 1828. Key word being fundamental.
June 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Lani, maybe I’m just oblivious, but, could you point out specific examples of “spite” and “hate” that you’re seeing in this dialogue here?
You’re so right, passions run high whenever this subject comes up.
I get worked up when I sense that teachings are trying to add something to the Bible that just isn’t there. I believe this is one of those teachings. For every “normative” situation or verse pulled out of the Bible that supports the idea that home, and ONLY home, is the appropriate place for all females, you can find another that shows women functioning outside the home, alongside men. Most of those are in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospels and the book of Acts. Jesus Himself rebuked Martha for being too focused on “much serving” and told Mary that she had chosen the “better thing,” which was learning at the feet of Jesus.
So yeah, I’m passionate on this subject. If remaining at home till marriage is what a girl and/or her family wants for her life, I have NO PROBLEM with that. But, if that same girl goes out and preaches this lifestyle as “God’s design” for ALL girls, with the unspoken implication that nothing else is “God’s design,” then I have a problem with that. Preaching a new doctrine of what is right and what is sin is…well…not right.
June 12, 2007 at 5:25 pm
One more thought, and then I have to get back to cleaning my basement…
What would the Botkin sisters and their supporters say if thatmom made a video promoting college as a good choice for Christian girls?
If everyone were to be honest, I’ll bet there’d be an outcry against it…which would then expose the truth, that these folks really DO believe that attending college is wrong.
June 12, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Amy,
I have read the Botkin Sister’s book “So Much More” and they are patently opposed to females attending any college or University. They are also opposed to women serving in the mission field and they declare mission organizations unBiblical. They believe it is wrong for women to be out and the work place and they believe a daughter is to be a helpmeet to her father until the day she marries. Their father has a section at the end of the book on the Bride Price.
I found the promo extremely mild compared to what is in their book. They believe their way is *THE* biblical way.
June 12, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Finally! Caroline is napping and I can type up something here!
Karen knows how much I like her, but I have to admit I winced a bit when I read her initial post. ***I*** knew why she wrote what she did because I know the reading and thought that has gone on for months and months behind those statements. But if someone read them and was not able to put them in a complete context, they do sound very over the top. So I see how people could take it that way.
That being said… The Botkin sisters are lovely, articulate girls. I thought the video was very well done, visually appealing, and I loved the music. And that bothers me. Only because I too know a lot of what is behind it. It SOUNDS so lovely and all, but if you really pull apart the statements, there are lots of red flags that go up (as Karen already listed in comment 7). The two that bothered me enough that I wrote them down:
1. What does the (THE not A) biblical model for an adult daughter look like in the 21st century?
2. To be the daughters serving their fathers in whatever he is doing.
I have not read their book although I would like to do so just so I can say I have. So I’m thankful that “Concerned” talked a little bit about the book since she/he has read it.
These teachings do disturb me greatly. Like others have said, I have no problem at all if a woman lives at home until she gets married. I can see a lot of situations where it might work well for everyone involved. But I’ve also personally interacted with women who were put into these kinds of situations against their will and there is no other way to describe it other than abuse. And that doesn’t even begin to touch on the widespread devastation that it causes within families and churches. So the thought that they want to distribute this video to millions of families saddens me because I know the suffering that will result because of it. Will a few families find some truth in it and become a stronger family because of it? Probably. But I’m far more concerned about the other end of the spectrum and the negative outworkings of this view.
And I’ll throw out something else that has long bothered me. In no way do I mean this as an attack on the Botkin sisters. As I said before, they are lovely, articulate young women. But I am growing increasingly concerned by how many “experts” there are out there in the Christian world who really have not come close to achieving any kind of long-term level of expertise in the things they promote. For example, young couples with small children who teach about training children and courtship when they are still raising their children and have never experienced courtship themselves or taken their children through the process. Does it bother anyone else that there are a lot of folks out there teaching others when they have not shown themselves over the long-run to be credible live-ers of these ideas? In the instance of this video, do two young women (17 and 19, I believe) really have the authority and perspective to tell other how to “do” this? They have barely started on their journeys, they have not successfully married, and so they really have not shown by their own lives the eventual outworkings of this teaching. Perhaps by interviewing others farther along in the path for the movie they feel that they have authority, but, again, there is something that bothers me about two who are so young telling families how they should be living their lives.
Well, I’ve said enough. Again, there is no malice in anything I’ve written. I’m just raising some questions.
Sallie
June 12, 2007 at 8:49 pm
[...] you are interested, there is a lively discussion going on at the True Womanhood blog. (I admit I have been very scarce there as of [...]
June 12, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I have been considering buying So Much More in order to gain some insight into the Botkin sisters’ teachings. With two young daughters (so far), my husband and I find ourselves seeking what is best for them in regards to college decisions, living on their own while single, etc.
However, even though we may eventually conclude that our daughters should (not that we would force obedience from an adult child) remain in our home and under their father’s protection, there is something I always find interesting when the Visionary Daughters are writing, and this is the concept of a daughter as helpmate/helpmeet to her father. Biblically, I only see a wife portrayed as a helpmate. As the wife as my husband, the helpmeet designed specifically for him, it would disturb me to have one of my daughters suggest that she, too, was my husband’s helpmeet. I would like to see the Scriptures that back them up on this point.
June 12, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hello, I have never been here before so I would like to introduce myself so that nothing I say here will be misunderstood. I am a single mother of 2 homeschooling children. I work outside the home part time and from the home all the time. I do not have a “degree” but did attend collage for a while, and after 15 years of marriage found myself single.
I am not able to view the Botkin video because I am on slow speed internet. But, I have read the Botkins book and I have met them and their family in person. I have heard them speak with other members of their family and I feel like I am acquainted enough with them to comment on this subject even though I have not seen this particular video clip.
I understand how easy it is for flags to be raised and concerns to be voiced over something that is so radically new. I had raised flags too. But after really hearing the heart of the message that is being taught by many, not just the Botkin girls, I have since laid down my concerns. I have read through all the comments here and it seems to be a pretty unanimous group about the fact that there is no biblical model for it in the bible. But, I would raise this notion for your consideration. The idea here is that a young woman would be protected by her father and cared for until the time that she can be protected by her husband. Not held prisoner. And there are biblical grounds for that in the bible. There is not one young woman in the bible that lived alone. She was with her father until she was given in marriage to her husband. If the woman was widowed she returned to her fathers house because it was not good for her to be alone. Priscilla, in the New Testament ministered with her husband, not alone. And Martha and Mary lived with their brother. Widows are also to be taken into the church when there is no family to help them. This was for the protection of women, not the control of them. Think about when you were away in collage. What were you tempted with, were you able to keep yourself pure? The premise behind not going to college is not to keep woman uneducated so they are easier to control, it is to protect them from the dangers that are in the world. I have met many people who believe that daughters are to be in the home until marriage. Some of them go to college but live at home, some do college on the computer and some don’t go at all. I for one do not want my daughter out in a dorm unprotected. But, I would never deny her an education.
Women are supposed to be helpmeets to their husbands. (that is in the scripture) How better can they learn to help their husband than by helping their father? This does not mean that they can do nothing else. Each one has their own identity, their own desires and styles and interest. But, they are learning how to take their interest and apply them to the family vision, and later to their husband’s vision. And, if they marry a like-minded believer (not unequally yoked) then her husband will already be interested in the same things that she is interested in. So she can better Help him.
We have a tendency to view these ideas based on our current culture. But the bible was not written only to the culture in which the prophets and apostles lived. It was written to ALL men. God knew where this world would be today, and the instruction that He gave then is applicable to us now. And the examples He gave us to follow are not living documents to be changed through the ages. They are examples and rules to live by for all time.
We live in a post feminist society. In our generation EVERY thought has been polluted by feminism. If you were educated in the modern school system or attended college in the past 150 years then you have been affected. Yes, woman can do anything men can do. But the question is should we? What does God say? God does not say don’t go to college, but He does say be a keeper of the home. He gives many scriptures admonishing us to be keepers of the home and gives many examples how to do so. The Proverbs 31 woman is well educated, she has her own businesses making cloth, she also purchases fields, she manages her household well and does many other things. That is the example to look for in a biblical woman. We are all to be servants in Christ, so why not serve our fathers. We are all to be servants, so why not serve our husbands and children, instead of the college dean or boss. Who would God rather you serve?
Back to the Botkins, they are serving the Lord. What else really matters? Is it wrong to encourage young women to serve the Lord, to dress feminine, and to be keepers of the home? Our daughters have enough people in the world giving them examples of the wrong things to do. Following your heart, when your heart’s desire is to serve God can never be wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
God Bless you all, for seeking His will
LGM
June 12, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“There is not one young woman in the bible that lived alone.”
Beyond the hermeneutical question of culture (if a single/widowed woman lived with her brother/husband, is that a normative command then, or is it a cultural issue, relative to that day?), I wonder if it’s true that no woman in the Bible lived alone.
Could anyone tell me: What patriarchs did these women live with?
Lydia (Acts 16)
Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27, Mark 16, and John 19)
Susanna (Luke 8:3)
Dorcas (Acts 9)
Phoebe (Romans 16:1)
June 12, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Great points made above by Sallie. What has struck me about the Botkin sisters for a while is the idea of two very young women becoming “authorities” on a particular cultural movement. I know some very sweet teenagers, but I wouldn’t take their advice on anything, except maybe how to set up a MySpace page.
June 12, 2007 at 10:47 pm
i, too, would like to know (if it can be known) if it’s true that no woman lived alone (without a man).
lorrie, i think that it’s pretty clear by the comments here that choosing an alternative lifestyle based on your interpretation of the scriptures is not what is being discussed. insisting that a lifestyle that is not of the botkin variety is sinful is the issue at hand.
the botkins may be “serving the Lord” as you put it, but many people attach that label to their actions but are not promoting what the scriptures teach, but what they want everyone to believe the scripture is teaching, and do so in ways that call any other option “sin.”
nothing is wrong with encouraging women to serve God, be feminine, or be keepers at home. what is wrong is insisting that there is only one way to serve the lord (staying home “serving” a father), only one definition of feminine (no comment here), and only one definition of “home” “keeping at home” and what all that entails.
and, as soft a spot i’ve got in my heart for napoleon dynamite (“just follow your heart, that’s what i do . . . “) i don’t think that desiring to serve God with your heart makes following your heart a wise thing to do or good advice at all. the heart is deceitful — sometimes what seems right is wrong, etc. ::shrug::
June 12, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Molly said: i don’t think that desiring to serve God with your heart makes following your heart a wise thing to do or good advice at all. the heart is deceitful — sometimes what seems right is wrong, etc. ::shrug::
Molly, I so agree with you.
My sister and I have had some good discussions lately about how our lives would have turned out had the Visionary Daughters and their ideas been around when we were that age. Truth be told, my “heart” (even though I was a very earnest Christian young lady who wanted nothing more than to serve God) would have been THRILLED to have had a “legitimate” reason to avoid college.
Often our “hearts” will lead us to do the easy thing, the comfortable thing, the safe thing…which, as all of us know, may not necessarily be the BEST thing.
June 12, 2007 at 11:39 pm
I found the video also shocking. It isn’t anyone’s place to try to determine what God’s will is for someone else’s life.
God calls people to so many different things based on how he created them. He has gifted us so differently. We are to be used for his work and glory. I am married myself, but if I wasn’t I know that there are so many areas God could use me, like on the mission field or in a public school teaching. How can we reach un-saved people if every un-married daughter is at home taking care of her father?
Women who are mentioned in the Bible as being involved with Jesus’ ministry were not at home taking care and serving their fathers, they were out serving the people and helping Jesus’ as he ministered to them.
June 13, 2007 at 12:26 am
i’m really curious about what it is that daughters are doing to “serve” their fathers at home. what does this mean? what do their fathers need them to be doing? particularly when the daughter is grown and there aren’t any little ones for whom to care in their father’s homes. what does the father need his daughter to do that his wife is not able to do? is the wife sitting pretty while the daughter does the dirty work? i really don’t understand what these daughters will be doing to “serve” their fathers. ::shrug::
June 13, 2007 at 12:47 am
Let me first say that I agree with you ladies about following your heart. That is not at all what I meant. I know that as humans we are born with a sinful nature and without the spirit of God to lead us it is impossible to please God. It is VERY important in EVERYTHING we do to line it up with scripture. No arguments there. This is also true even when we don’t agree. IF you don’t agree with what the Bodkins teach, that is ok. There are some areas that I am not totally sold on. But don’t sit here and call them Heretics when they are clearly serving the Lord according to “A” biblical Pattern.
We have a responsibility to search the scriptures for truth. Not truth that is influenced by our culture, our thoughts and our emotions. I first learned about this type of lifestyle several years ago. I was leery, skeptical and truthfully very judgmental about it. Because, after all I am a single mother with out a protecting father/husband/patriarch. Am I sinning because I don’t have a male head? NO, of course not. Neither are other women and families that don’t agree with this teaching. To say so, would be to say that your salvation depends on it. And clearly it does not. Is there a preferred way in the Bible that God would have us live? I think so. After searching the scriptures for the past couple years I cannot find anything that would lead me to believe that the Bodkins are Heretics. The premise in which I live by is simply this, “If I were on a deserted island and all I had was the scripture to tell me how to live, how would I live”? Everyone needs to examine this teaching side by side with the scripture. Put aside all your pre-conceived ideas about biblical womanhood and truly study the scripture with fresh eyes and a teachable spirit. I am not above reproach. I am soo not perfect. But, I am searching the scriptures daily about how I should live. And we all should be doing the same.
“Could anyone tell me: What patriarchs did these women live with?
Lydia (Acts 16)
Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27, Mark 16, and John 19)
Susanna (Luke 8:3)
Dorcas (Acts 9)
Phoebe (Romans 16:1)”
I did say that it was customary for widows to be taken into the church. That is why Christ instructed the apostle to care for the widows and orphans. Just because the bible doesn’t list a father/husband/patriarch doesn’t mean that one was not present. There may have been some women without patriarchs, but it was not the normal pattern of scripture. The ladies that traveled with Christ received their salvation and were covered by the head of us all. JESUS
Keeper of the home (titus 2 )concordance definition# 3626 Greek word oikouros means staying at home, domestic:-keepers of the home.
June 13, 2007 at 1:02 am
Molly, there are a great many things for a daughter to do. When we view being at home as menial and laborious in chores or household duties, it is hard to understand what this could be like. But when we view our home as a place of ministry then the opportunities are endless. In the New Testament in Acts we learn that the church met daily in homes and broke bread with others, this is not just other Christians. The home was the place of ministry. Therefore when you view the home as such there are many things to do to make sure the home is a joyous, clean, inviting place to be. Most of these task fall under the usual homemaking skills.
I know several young ladies from many families that are living at home and helping their fathers. The idea is that the family is a unit and each member plays a part. For instance if the father is in construction and owns a business. And the mother is schooling her younger children or preparing for dinner guest or just seeing to household duties then the daughters can lend a hand to dad in his business. Not by labor but by answering phones, preparing taxes, doing payroll, or any other administrative duty, If she was into architecture she could even work side by side with him designing buildings. This would enable dad to not have to hire a stranger to do these task. It keeps the money in the family and keeps dad from working with a “secretary” that is not his wife.
The girls in the Bodkin family are not the only ones that serve their father. But all members of the family have a part to play. That is why we are born into families, and not born as individuals. We learn who we are as individuals as we grow and work within our families.
June 13, 2007 at 1:31 am
>
I agree!!! This is the biggest point that has bothered me in ages! I’m not called to be my father’s helpmeet! I used to be a home-only-until-marriage person and planned to get married very young. What I found is that life doesn’t always go according to plan…
June 13, 2007 at 1:34 am
oops, sorry. the above comment removed what i was quoting…
–there is something I always find interesting when the Visionary Daughters are writing, and this is the concept of a daughter as helpmate/helpmeet to her father. Biblically, I only see a wife portrayed as a helpmate. As the wife as my husband, the helpmeet designed specifically for him, it would disturb me to have one of my daughters suggest that she, too, was my husband’s helpmeet. I would like to see the Scriptures that back them up on this point.–
I agree!!! This is the biggest point that has bothered me in ages! I’m not called to be my father’s helpmeet! I used to be a home-only-until-marriage person and planned to get married very young. What I found is that life doesn’t always go according to plan…
June 13, 2007 at 1:39 am
Lacey said: “Women who are mentioned in the Bible as being involved with Jesus’ ministry were not at home taking care and serving their fathers, they were out serving the people and helping Jesus’ as he ministered to them.”
Well said, Lacey. Very true.
Lorrie said: “The premise in which I live by is simply this, “If I were on a deserted island and all I had was the scripture to tell me how to live, how would I live”?”
Lorrie, I don’t doubt your heart for the Lord. But this question is simply not a good standard for making decisions. First of all: you do not exist in a vaccuum. The Christian life is not just about you reading your Bible in isolation–it is about APPLYING the Word, and this application, of necessity, involves interaction with others. The Great Commission, the Greatest Commandments, much of Scripture is pointed at how we live out what Christ taught. If I lived on a deserted island, for example, what would modesty matter? But it does matter when I’m living in a society where I represent Christ.
Lacey also wrote: “The ladies that traveled with Christ received their salvation and were covered by the head of us all. JESUS”
YES!!! And that is true of women now, too. Jesus is our head–hallelujah.
June 13, 2007 at 1:40 am
Sorry last quotation should be attributed to Lorrie. *oops!*
June 13, 2007 at 1:56 am
Lorrie,
I think if a girl chooses to do this, then wonderful. My issue with the Botkin Sisters stems from their putting forth that THIS is the Biblical way. If that is to be true then it must be true for all people in all situations. Where does this leave the many daughters who have no father in the home? How would this work in a 3rd world country where poverty does not give the choice of being a SAHM..? Where does it leave the orphaned?
If it were a Biblical concept it would translate into every culture for every time. If it were a sin for a woman to be out under from a male’s protection than God would not place women in situations where they have none. God does not put is into situations where we have to sin. There is always a means of escape.
I am not seeing this a a Biblical conviction, but a preference.
There are many wonderful Christian women all over the world working in different spheres of the work place. I praise God for them and for the way they are witnessing for Christ.
Blessings,
Renee
June 13, 2007 at 2:03 am
Shanna,
I am not living my life as if I were on a desert island. I am only examining scripture without the influence of culture and pre-conceived ideas.
This line of thinking is very foreign to the way I was raised. But, with the modern church run amuck allowing all sorts of atrocities to go unchecked. We should all be examining scripture in this way.
I am not trying to offend anyone. I was only trying to bring a little more understanding to the teachings that are not new to our culture, but are only new in our post feminist society.
June 13, 2007 at 3:01 am
I don’t have time to comment on the actual discussion, but I wanted to thank everyone for their gracious attitudes. I’ve seen these kinds of discussions deteriorate quickly in other places and I really appreciate the kind and Christ-like tone that has been maintained here all day.
June 13, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Disclaimer — I posted this same comment on Sallie’s blog.
One young lady in the documentary said “I know that my lifestyle is counter cultural.” Only in the past one-hundred years has this lifestyle become counter cultural. My own family lived out this Biblical model for centuries up until about 60 years ago. What do we have to show for it now? College educated divorcees with broken homes and/or children with broken homes. Our culture has taken a bad turn. I think if most were to reclaim and practice this Biblical model, our culture would improve. I don’t think the Botkin sisters are promoting that a daughter behave like a wife. For centuries children have worked to keep the family going, especially on a farm. All shared the same vision. It’s not demeaning or taking from the wife to support one’s father in his modern-day vision. Come on! Also, I don’t think parent’s are shirking their duty when they expect older siblings to help with the younger. How else is one to master the basics of childrearing? I know from experience that doing this on the job is not pleasant!
I for one regret every moment I spent in a college classroom. I studied history (graduated with a BA) and realize now that I could have studied history at home while learning how to care for a home and family. This knowledge, that is so vital to my life now, was acquired and is still being acquired on the job. Not an easy task. College is not necessary. Oh, but one needs college in case something happens!!! Not if one’s father, brothers, uncles, and male cousins know that one of their primary responsibilities is protecting the women of their fold, not just expecting them to make their own way!
Oh, but a homeschool mom needs college to teach her children! Teaching children is not such a difficult task that it requires a college education. I for one know the type of students who go into education. Many are exceptional, but just as many aren’t. Many are just Praxis crammers who then go on to sub-standard diploma mills to get their masters because they have to. College nowadays is a money-making scheme, and one that usually places a serious burden of debt upon the student or parents. Also, not everyone should go to college, but many who don’t do, and because enrollment numbers need to be kept high, the classes are dumbed down.
A serious classical education can be had a home. This is how it was done in the past, and there is nothing keeping this from happening today. It boggles my mind that so many homeschooled children of the past and even public schooled children of the past were much more articulate and educated than many people today — even many with college educations. I do admit, though, that in today’s society, most males, unless they engage in a family business or agrarian endeavors, have to go to college because of the high esteem this culture has placed on a college education which makes it almost impossible to land a good-paying job without at least a BS, especially now that women are competing for jobs.
The Biblical model may not be the only model, but it is the best. If it were the only option for women I think our culture would be the better for it. One does NOT have to go to college “realize” the gifts God has given. Just pick up a classic and learn! Start a blog and write! Seek a knowledgeable person in a field you are interested in a offer to be an apprentice! Save yourself the time, trouble, and money of a devalued college education. Life is the real school — especially for women.
June 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Jenny,
I am really sorry you feel that way about your education. A true liberal arts education is about CONVERSATION. If you feel your could get the equivalent of your education by reading classics by yourself, you either took the wrong classes or went to the wrong college.
I know a brilliant homeschooled adult who had a very rigorous homeschool education (more rigorous than anyone I have ever heard or read about.) She had siblings. She finally went to college for one year in her mid twenties. She was more well read than all of the students, and still felt that year was very valuable for her, and a piece of education she had always missed (in spite of siblings, online, etc.) finally fell into place. Then she got married and moved and is happy to be where she is now.
Honestly, I do not find the tasks of home-making very difficult or hard to learn. I think they are easy to pick up on the job and a lot of community is formed among women in churches when some teach others particular skills (smocking, knitting, etc.)
June 13, 2007 at 2:40 pm
At the core of the Botkin teachings is the concept that I have decided to call “patriocentricity,” which isn’t actually a word and if there is a “real” word for this concept, I hope someone points it out to me. Patriocentricity goes beyond a father leading his family, as in “patriarchy” of the Old Testament and in the more generic uses we see today, and places the father in the idolatrous role of, as some call it “prophet, priest, and king” of the household.
As with other heretical teachings, those streams of off-beat Christianity that meander their way in and out of true, mainstream, Biblically-based beliefs, patriocentricity places the focus of the life of a Christian on one person. For example, the teaching of ecclesiocentricity is that the center of a Christian’s life ought to be on the leadership of the church and that is also heresy. It is my opinion that both of these extremes have missed the point of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ….it is in HIM that we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28) We do not find our salvation in Christ through either the leaders of a church or the heads of households. We find this relationship only through confession of sin to Christ alone and trusting in Him alone for “all that pertains to life and godliness.” (2 Peter 1:2) This fill-in-the-blank-centricity is the stuff that cults are made of and Christians ought to be throwing up red flags wherever and whenever anybody is established as the center of a group of believers, whether in a church or in a home.
The apostle John addressed this when he wrote “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” (I John 2:20) John was writing as a warning to those who come under the influence of false teachers who would deceive them into thinking that they did not have their own anointing and calling from the Lord!
The true Biblical model for relationships is found on the pages of Scripture in all the one-anothering commands. I have written extensively about this on my blog the past few weeks, but in essence, we are called to an organic, grace-induced relationship within the body of Christ. I see no ecclesiocentricity for church members in the Bible. I also see no patriocentricity in the home. Where does it tell us, for example, that a father’s calling is the only calling within the family unit? Why is a daughter’s calling less important or the spiritual gifts she has been given of less value? If someone could just show me an established pattern of this within the Bible as a command I would reconsider this position.
I would also like to point out that the idea of daughters returning to some paradigm from the past is not grounded in Scripture or confessional standards. If this view is a command, why is it not taught as so in the Bible? Truth be known, there is very little in the New Testament that instructs parents on how to raise their children aside from the one anothers. Going further, if you look at the Westminister Standards, for example, there is nothing that prevents a woman from holding an office in the church and there is also nothing whatsoever that states that the Biblical model for young ladies is to serve the calling of their fathers. Wouldn’t you think if this was “the” Biblical model that the Scripture would state it clearly and that the Westminister Divines would have likewise made it a priority?
What I believe is happening is that, rather than doing proper exegesis, ie, drawing out the meaning from the text, patriocentricitists practice eisegesis, which is the process of interpreting a text so as to introduce one’s own ideas. And that, I believe, is why it makes it so dangerous to those unsuspecting “millions” who may see the Botkin film.
Also, please note that this issue isn’t about the loveliness of the young ladies, the fine character of families who practice this lifestyle, the choice to attend or not attend college, a myriad of personal antecdotes, etc. It IS, however about the authority of Scripture, especially when commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel of grace is at stake.
June 13, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I appreciate your comment, Jenny.
As far as much of education being “conversation,” that can be true; but we must be discerning about with whom we are conversing. I am not going to learn much from conversing with an atheist about the important things in life, because his premise is incorrect.
I would like to address the idea that these girls are not authorities on the topics they discuss because they have not yet had full experience.
Something my pastor just said last Sunday is very appropriate here. He pointed out that experience is NOT where we base our authority, but rather on the authority of God’s Word. Therefore, for example, someone with no children COULD advise someone else how to raise her children, if that advice is based purely on Scripture.
June 13, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Oh my, Kristen. Neither do I “find the tasks of home-making very difficult or hard to learn.” In fact, the ones I learned before baby were quite easy to pick up. It is after the baby came along that picking up new skills became a challenge, merely for the time involved. Also, I have not been blessed with community. I have no family or friends nearby. I’ve tried communicating with the neighbors, but none of them want to be bothered. What little community I have found in church consists of women who work outside of the home, delegate their homemaking tasks to others or do them poorly, or who are SAHM but spend all their time carting their children to and fro while shopping and spa-ing.
My college was a small state college in a rural setting. There was no conversation. We sat and listened to lectures, wrote book reviews, took tests, and researched and wrote papers. I remember one class where discussion was encouraged and my and others opinions were either disregarded or ridiculed. So, discussion was there, but only to be participated in by certain students. So, you are right on that point, I guess I took the wrong classes and went to the wrong college.
I still hold that college is not necessary, especially for the future wife and mother. It might be nice for some to experience it, but just like we don’t need a trip to Philadelphia or DC to understand and appreciate our own history, neither do we need to go to college to be well-rounded individuals or good wives and mothers. I still think a good education for women is to be taught from a young age the skills necessary for homemaking, which don’t just include handicrafts. There is gardening, budgeting, childcare……. There is no better place to learn this than in one’s own home, provided it is a good environment, or like you mentioned, from others in the community.
I will add, though, that perhaps I feel so strongly about this because I am living a very simple life, with the hope of someday becoming a self-sufficient homesteader. This is a life of more than just pretty-ing the home, knitting some scarves on a lark, making a pie crust from scratch, homeschooling my children, and reading the classics at night around the fire. Boy is homesteading so much more!
Kristen, I’m not trying to be mean in this response, I just wanted to let you know more about where I am coming from. I also didn’t want others to think I was some dolt who didn’t know how to quilt.
Fun discussion! By the way, I’m only able to spend this much time online today because we are moving in a few days, all the packing is finished, and I have no housework to do. I do need to go play with the little one though! I love it when there is a good discussion online when I actually have time to participate.
June 13, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Sarah says,
Therefore, for example, someone with no children COULD advise someone else how to raise her children, if that advice is based purely on Scripture.
Can someone show me where “daughters at home” is commanded in Scripture? Where is the “Thus saith the Lord” here?
I have heard the desert island quote by Doug Phillips quite a few times. However, I am still not seeing the Biblical mandate here.
I have read the Botkins’ book and found the Scriptural support to be lacking. They do use Numbers 30:16 as their base yet, every Bible commentator I have looked this up under describes this verse as applying to taking vows. I haven’t found anyone else translating this verse as a pattern for the Father/Daughter relationship.
The other Scripture verses used are wife to husband verses, and that does not translate to the father to daughter relationship.
If a family feels led to raise their daughters this way that is one thing. If they were standing up and saying we recommend this way, that is fine. To say it is a sin against God or unbiblical is a very serious teaching that needs to be rightly divided by the Word of God.
June 13, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Sallie said in comment #16, “Does it bother anyone else that there are a lot of folks out there teaching others when they have not shown themselves over the long-run to be credible live-ers of these ideas? ”
That is an excellent question. And one I would like to address in light of So Much More which both my daughter (age 18) and I have read.
There are numerous instances in the book where the Botkin uses an example from scripture to, in my opinion, erroneously prove their point.
Let’s look at one such case, missions work. The premise they put forth is that it is “not purely biblical for women to become overseas missionaries on their own.” (P.263) As an illustration they say that “there is a wrong way to do right.” Their example is Sarah and Abraham. God spoke to them and told them they were to have a son, and in her zeal to make it happen, she went about it in a wrong way. That is there proof that there is “a wrong way to do right.” Fine.
But it in NO WAY proves that a young unmarried woman is wrong for going on the mission field as a single woman. The leap from Sarah to single missionary women is just not supported in scripture. They imply that a woman who goes on the mission field as a single lady, is making the right thing happen, but the wrong way just like Sarah.
They then go on to say, “Independent missionaries and modern missions organizations that operate outside church authority appear to be outside Kingdom architecture.” (P. 263)
But what’s odd about this is that their father supports a man (Doug Phillips) who operates a “missions” organization to the family. Vision Forum Ministries is an independent organization that operates outside of the authority of the church. From their mission statement they say, “Vision Forum Ministries is committed to affirming the historic faith of biblical Christianity including the precious doctrines of the sufficiency of Scripture, the priesthood of the believers, the historico-grammatical approach to interpretation, the sovereignty of God, and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.” The Botkin girls speak at some of their events. And the sister organization to Vision Forum Ministries, Vision Forum Inc. published their book.
If they are consistent, their work as daughters should be under the authority of the local church. Yet it isn’t. Yet, they are VERY crtical of outside independent missionaries especially ones which permit women.
They state, “Never in Scripture do we see an example of women being called or commissioned or sent out as a missionary – only men.” They there extrapolate that this is not God’s biblical design.
But do we see any examples of young women writing books, creating videos, or promoting them on the internet? No. So are we to extrapolate that the Botkin girls are not in God’s will like the missionaries they chastise?
And then they go on to identify two very respected Godly women Amy Carmicheal and Mary Slessor and warn against using “real life” examples to prove that God does call women to work in the mission field. On page 262 they say, “We should give godly people honor for the worthy things they did and learn from their examples. But we should recongnize that these godly women do not in fact feature in the Bible.” Their premise is sound. That is, Scripture not life experience is what we should look toward.
But do the Botkin girls practice what they preach? Do they only use scripture and not real life examples? No. In fact, they identify many young women as 21st Century Heronies of the Faith. (see page 7)
These “heroines” range in age from mid-teens to mid-twenties. Why are they? They state, “because they have dealt so courageously with the destructive influence of feminism.” Continuing on page 8, “In becoming ladies, they have become heroines at a time when militant feminism has created a horrendous culture of intimidation that makes purity, gentleness, and biblical womanhood uncool.”
So are we to use “real life examples” or not? We can’t use Amy Carmicheal or Mary Slessor as heroines of the faith. These two ladies have stood the test for a lifetime and were faithful, but the Botkins are allowed to hold up young women as “heronies.” Young ladies who have yet to demonstrate their heroism. They are to be considered heros simply for their decision to “turn their heart to their father.” By implication Slessor and Carmicheal do not meet the term “heroine” simply because they chose to go out into the mission field instead of remaining home “under their father’s roof.” To the Botkin girls a “hero of the faith” is someone who applies the teachings in their book. It appears it doesn’t matter if we have proof of their heroism, and they have yet to demonstrate fruit that remains for a lifetime.
A decision to do something is NOT the same thing as doing it. So for me it isn’t troubling so much that the Botkins wrote a book sharing what their father has taught them. It is that what their father has tauhght them is inconsistent with the book they have produce.
June 13, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Oh Spunky, how I miss your blog
Excellent point. I haven’t added anything here because I feel so inadequate voicing something I don’t truly understand.
I will say this: I think the diversity of the Body of Christ is what makes it so beautiful. It was the Pharisees long ago demanding circumcision as a showing of holiness and faith. When we take extra-biblical mandates and modesl such as the patriocentricity/patriarchy-on-steroids model and try and pass it off as a Biblical mandate, then we look very much like Pharisees, I think.
As the Body of Christ we must stand for truth yet, somehow we’ve got to be able to be ourselves. The way I walk it out is going to look very different from the Botkin sisters (or the homeschool family down the street, or the pastors’ family, and on and on and on).
The other thing that bothers me about this patriocentricity thing is that it is so EXCLUSIVE. What about the throngs of single parent households out there? I’m not a fan of divorce at all, but the reality is we live amongst many broken homes. We have families that have been widowed. Where do they fit in with this patriocentricity? It almost seems holier-than-thou if you’re on the outside looking in, and perhaps it does from the inside as well.
June 13, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Ok, since someone else brought up Vision Forum… (BTW… Spunky, loved your comments. Yes, yes, YES!!!)
David remarked to me last night that isn’t it strange that the Botkin sisters are raising money to produce this video when this is exactly the type of thing that Vision Forum delights in producing? Since VF published their book, doesn’t it seem that they would also be salivating at the opportunity to produce/fund this video? Perhaps the Botkins want to produce it and own it completely, but I thought David had an interesting point.
Sallie
June 13, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Spunky,
Great examples of eisegesis at its finest.
June 13, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Sallie,
David has a very interesting point. I am wondering what kind of funding they think they need,too, since it doesn’t look like a special effects money drainer to me. I mean, now just about anyone can produce a first rate video project with some rented equipment. Interesting….
June 13, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Renee,
I was addressing the concept of authority in general, not making a specific comment about a specific issue.
It was mentioned that certain people are not qualified to give advice in areas where they have not proven themselves already, and I was just saying that experience should not be our guide in which advice to listen to.
June 13, 2007 at 5:02 pm
My concern is the assumption that all christian women will eventually become wives and mothers. The Lord doesn’t give this gift to all and sometimes witholds marriage until a woman is past child-bearing age. Where does this video leave them? Thankfully the Lord is gracious.
June 13, 2007 at 5:58 pm
It is also interesting that the Botkin girls are soliciting funds outside the local church to fund their video. They are working independently of their local assembly to raise the necessary revenue to do “God’s work.” This is contrary what they would feel is God’s intended order. Let me explain.
In their book they state (page 267), “Would the well-intentioned missions movement have started outside the church if the word of God had been abiding richly in the church?” Probably not. Will well-intentioned women bear more fruit if they return to those Scriptural roles and tasks God custom-designed for thier utmost faithfulness and complete spritual joy? We think so.”
Then the Botkins rhetorically ask,
Because we’re living in a time when our society and our churches are so far from God’s design, wouldn’t it be permissible to work in less-than-biblical orgnaizations? At least they seem to be getting things done?
This is the big temptation. Missions orgnaizations are indeed doing the great bulk of the hard, scrificial and emergency work worldwide. But remember what happens when Christians compromise, our King is not comprehensively honored and the advancing Kindom falters. No pragmatic substitute should ever be endorsed over the order God intentioned.”
So if missions work is wrong because it is a well-intentioned substitute for the work the church should be doing, what is their video?
No where in the trailer to this video do the girls even reference the local church or it’s rightful place in teaching these principles to daughters. Isn’t this well-intentioned video just a subsitute for the work of biblical leaders?
It would seem to me that to be consistent with their beliefs, this video would be produced under the authority of the local church and taught by the biblical leaders or their wives. Soliciting funds would be totally unncessary since it is being produced by the local church.
Therefore, this video can only only be viewed as a “pragmatic substitute” for God’s intended order within the local church. Something the Botkin girls said cannot be endorsed.
June 13, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I’ve shown this trailer to three people, all Christians. All had a reaction similar to ThatMom.
Do you really think the Botkin sisters had the ability to choose in this situation? At 17 and 19, it appears to me that they’ve been brainwashed from a young age. MCOI reports that the group they are involved with is cultic in nature. Are we really talking about women of sense and intelligence making a thoughtful choice? Or are we talking about deceived young ladies being used for the ends of the patriarch movement?
I’ve not read So Much More – and now I may have to, as I had no idea how influential this book is becoming – but based on reports from ThatMom and now this trailer, I do believe their theology is questionable. There are no pronouncements in scripture regarding the ills of college education or adult daughters being called to serve their daughter in a quasi-wife/husband relationship (to me, that is nothing less than creepy).
The Botkin sisters do present their model as “The Return to the Biblical Model.” Those who endorse their book use similar terminology. We all know that Doug Phillips and Jeanie Chancey teach that college is a essentially a sin, and outside of God’s true “calling” for women. Again, the scriptural support for this idea is nil to non-existent.
I wonder how they would feel about my husband. I’m a college grad now in law school (not OBCL, for clarification, but a real, pagan, brick and mortar institution of legal learning). Obtaining a law degree is one of the chief ways I am able to help him in his business. I am receiving higher education in order to help my family and serve my loving husband (as well as live what I believe to be God’s calling). Am I outside the Biblical model? My husband wanted me to go to law school, and encourages me in it. I use my legal skills to serve him and help our family. What say the Botkin sisters to this? I am in full submission to my husband and serve him by receiving a graduate degree. Somehow, I doubt their model of Biblical womanhood allows for this.
June 13, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I just checked where to send donations if one is interested in supporting this effort.
Donations can be sent to the Western Conservatory of Arts and Science. A tax exempt ministry “committed to helping Christians understand and fulfill the responsibilities of family, church and community discipleship.”
Ephesians says it is the role of the local church that equips the saints to do the work of hte ministry. Organizations like Western Conservatory are, according to the Botkin girls, “well-intentioned” substitutes for God’s design and order. Shouldn’t they be working within their local church doing the work of ministry instead of setting a ministry that they admit is less than God’s best to tell the rest of us how we ought to be doing it? Then drawing from the girls own conclusion, Western Conservatory will not even be necessary.
June 13, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Here is the website for the conservatory.
http://www.westernconservatory.org/
June 13, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Spunky, I just want to thank you for your well-reasoned and clearly documented insights into the book and its confusing applications. Each of your comments has made me almost clap out loud, sitting at my computer.
June 13, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Spunky,
I want to point out that their local church is pastored by Vision Forum’s Doug Phillips and that their father is an elder-in-training there.
June 13, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Oh Spunky, God has given you a great mind. Thank you for taking the time to help clarify this issue. Where else do you write? I need regular doses of your stimulating perspective. Seriously. Let me know.
June 13, 2007 at 9:15 pm
That’s interesting Karen (thatmom). From the Vision Forum Ministries website on Integrating Church and Family Scott Brown writes,
“But there are two activities that are clearly communicated and commanded and demonstrated in Scripture for teaching children God’s Word: Fathers teaching daily (Deuteronomy 6), and able teachers preaching in the church (Ephesians 4). If we look at Scripture alone, we must conclude that God’s way of teaching children is through the engagement of fathers and through the preaching (“kerusso”) of qualified teachers within the context of the church.’
So where does a book/video from the Botkin daughters (children themselves) that teaches biblical truth to children fit in Kingdom architecture outlined in Scripture and articulated by Mr. Brown? Obviously, they are neither fathers nor are they preachers teaching in the local church. According to Mr. Brown, teaching children occurs only within those two parameters. (Not in a video distributed over the internet to millions of girls.)
Consequently, there is no biblical justification for Christian girls teaching other girls “how to wage war with the world and win.” (page 7) Yet the Botkin book is produced by an organization that rejects this activity as being extra-biblical. And the video operates outside the local church entirely.
The responsibility for correcting their error rests with the local pastor, Doug Phillips.
Quoting again from Scott Brown, “Since Scripture speaks clearly on the matter, then it is the responsibility of church leaders to insure that what is clear, what is commanded, and what is demonstrated in Scripture is fulfilled in their ministries.”
So is Doug Phillips going to rebuke Geoff Botkin for allowing his daughters to operate outside the bounds of the local church and request that Western Conservatory be shut down?
June 13, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Oops here’s the link to the article by Scott Brown.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/the_sufficiency_of_scripture_a.aspx
Also, I apologize for my “bad manners” and not acknowledging and thanking you all for your kind words. I just didn’t want to get sidetracked from the excellent topic and discussion.
Hello to Lindsey, Sallie, and others. I appreciate your encouragement!
Martha, I had a blog called SpunkyHomeschool where you can read some of my writing. I don’t maintain it any longer, but the archives are still up and that might keep you busy for a while. You can click on my name and you’ll get there.
June 13, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I have just one more comment here and then I will leave this one alone.
It sounds to me that everyone is assuming that since the Bodkin ladies are putting out this video by themselves that they are not submitted to the local church in this project. The project doesn’t have to come from the church to be supported by it. The Bodkin ladies are looking to their father for guidance, their father is looking to the local body or the church leaders. They can produce a video on their own with the blessings of the church under the covering of their father and still meet the guidelines pointed out by Scott Brown and Doug Phillips above. And not be hypocrites to what was written in their book.
The local church is not brick and mortar. The church is the body of Christian believers.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about people you don’t know, based on a video that is a couple minutes long.
I know personally that in reference to Duet 6. Fathers are commanded to teach their children as they sit in their house, as they rise up, as they lay down, as they walk by the way. How can a father teach his children, son or daughter, if they are not in the home?
Don’t assume that the Bodkin ladies have no say in their lives. They count their selves blessed and are happy serving the vision of their family. And yes they have walked through being visionary daughters. They are adults now, so that means that they have grown up in the visionary daughter roll. And they are qualified by their experience to teach on this subject.
By calling this web site true biblical womanhood, does that mean that people who don’t believe what is written here are not true biblical women????
June 13, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Sorry
the web site is true womanhood, my bad. But the question is still a valid one.
June 13, 2007 at 11:08 pm
lorrie:
all of the contributors have different lifestyles and perspectives here — there is no one lifestyle promoted or preached here. the blog is called “true womanhood” because this is what we discuss here. we don’t have some model of what “true womanhood” that we are insisting to be the only true way.
read our purpose page for more info.
June 13, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Lorrie, I think what most of us are questioning here (or at least I am and that was my perception of the discussion above) is if there is a BIBLICAL MANDATE to back this up.
They come across as quite lovely and I am sure are very sound Christian young ladies. But to “sell” their lifestyle as THE Biblical way for daughters without anything to back it up is erroneous, or at least I think so.
I have no doubt their father, the church, Doug Phillips, VF or whomever has supported it, and they’re probably just going right along with their blessings. But Spunky raises a very valid point…how can you teach that there is no teaching outside of scripture, yet release a video marketed to young daughters in THE Biblical model of daughterhood?
It shall be a good source of income, no doubt!
I don’t think questioning is a bad thing. Too often Christians, especially women, check their brain at the door when discussing topics of nature to the church and the faith because we’ve been told not to think too much and just “go with the flow.” I myself probably think TOO MUCH because it often puts my mind and my heart in a real quandry.
June 13, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Lorrie, you said, “It sounds to me that everyone is assuming that since the Bodkin ladies are putting out this video by themselves that they are not submitted to the local church in this project.”
No I’m not assuming that THEY are not submitted to a local church. I am saying that this project is not under the authority of a local church they operate under the authority of Western Conservatory. Funds are sent to them not a local church. No local church is listed under the question of accountability. They report to a board of advisors, NOT the local church. So while the girls are submitted to a local church as individuals, they are placing this video project under the authority of a different organization which is NOT accountable to a local church. The fact that their father or their local church may give their blessing does not change the accountability structure.
You also said, “The project doesn’t have to come from the church to be supported by it.”
Personally, I agree completely with you Lorrie. There are many excellent missions organizations who are don’t come from a local church. However, it is the Botkin girls who are at odds with their own teachinbg. They condemn women missionaries as outside “Kingdom architecture” for not being within the dictates of a local church, not me. I am using their own writing and applying their theology to their own practices. They identify three entitities the church, the family, and the state. Currently, as a 501(c)3 non profit, they are accountable to the state NOT the local church. In fact, as a 501(c)3 I believe they must fill out Form 1023 where they must specify that they are NOT financially accountable to another organization. So from the perspective of the state, they are recognized as an independent non-profit. Something that the Botkin girls condemn as being outside of “kingdom architecture.”
Lorrie said, “They can produce a video on their own with the blessings of the church under the covering of their father and still meet the guidelines pointed out by Scott Brown and Doug Phillips above. ”
Again I personally agree with you. But the Botkin girls do not see it that way. It is in their writings that they condemn those that work through organizations outside the local church. They call them “well-intentioned” substitutes for God’s design and order. It is on that premise that they chastise women missionaries as not being “purely biblical.”
But I must ask you, how are girls producing a video on their own with the blessing of their father, any different than a single missionary preaching the gospel with the blessings of the local church under the covering of their father? To me nothing, but to the Botkins it seems a lot.
For BCA to give their blessing means that they endorse a ministry created by two teenage girls that teache other Christian children Biblical Truth. But according to their own website, the only ones who can Scripturally teach children are fathers and biblical leaders within a local church. They don’t meet either qualification. Thus they are operating an independent ministry outside the local church. Again, I don’t see a problem with it, but they do.
Lastly you said, “You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about people you don’t know, based on a video that is a couple minutes long. ”
I am making no assumptions. The website that collects their donations provides no indication of accountability from a local church body. In fact, as a 501(c)3 they may actually be restricted from doing so.
On page 260 the girls write in reference to something a woman named Jennie said, “the need is for comprehensive sheparding through churches and biblically qualified leadership. It is in this sphere that the fundamental needs can be met and root problems alleviated.”
The Botkins video, by their own admission, is a well-intentioned but effort but does not comply with their own requirement of operating through a local church. If it did, they would have no need for the services of an organization such as Western Conservatory of Arts and Science.
June 13, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Spunky wrote: “For BCA to give their blessing means that they endorse a ministry created by two teenage girls that teache other Christian children Biblical Truth.”
Actually, Spunky, I spent some time yesterday reading through their website and they don’t just teach other Christian children. This post is written in response to parents who apparently wrote to them asking for advice.
http://visionarydaughters.com/2007/05/authoritative-parents-adult-daughters-and-power-struggles
Here are a few quotes:
Authoritative Parents, Adult Daughters, and Power Struggles
Posted May 14, 2007, by Anna Sofia
We received a letter recently asking about the balance between a father’s authority and a daughter’s independence. Knowing that this question is a common one among girls making the transition from childhood to adulthood, we have decided to post our response to this family.
Dear damsels thinking yourselves in distress,
Your parents have both written to us to ask us our advice and encouragement on your situation (parents and maturing daughters striving to understand the balance between authority, liberty, maturity, submission, and responsibility.). What we would mostly like to do is share some of our thoughts on family dynamics in a household of adults.
Later on…
Communicating with our fathers
Your mother mentioned that communication is an issue.
June 13, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Ok, while I’m quoting things, here’s another passage that bothers me:
Preparation for Marriage
Don’t be impatient for Prince Charming to rescue you from your father’s “heavy hand,” thinking that once you’re married to your perfect husband, your authority problems will vanish. It’s folly to think it will be easier to respect and submit to a husband than a father.
We’re not ready to consider ourselves eligible for marriage until we’ve learned to trust an imperfect individual with our lives. To communicate with a man, which will always be a struggle. To submit to an imperfect man’s “whims” as well as his heavy requirements. To order our lives around another person. To accept the burdens a man places on us cheerfully. To esteem and reverence and adore a man whose faults we can see clearly every day.
These are things we will face every day as wives, just as we face them every day now as the daughters of our fathers. We need to practice now, trusting our heavenly Father to lead our earthly fathers, and our earthly fathers to lead us, even though we know they’re not perfect.
June 13, 2007 at 11:57 pm
One last one and this is one of the areas that deeply concerns me about this teaching because of what it does to the young women who buy into this and are not in a place where it is practiced. How many of them suffer needlessly, thinking they are living a second-class Christian life because their father won’t do what this book says? So these poor girls end up carrying a huge burden over something not central to their faith in Christ and walk in Christ.
“Dear girls, if you have a father who wants to be your Christian authority and protector, and lead you in paths of righteousness, you are three of the most blessed girls in America. Most the girls who write to us after having read our book beg for help because their fathers still don’t have the vision, and aren’t really comfortable with their daughters trying to live the biblical model at home; or that their fathers don’t have their own businesses and don’t have anything for their daughters to do; or that their fathers are indifferent to them, and uninterested in their lives.”
June 13, 2007 at 11:58 pm
According the Western Conservatory website, here’s how they answer the question of accountability,
Are you accountable?
Yes. Audited records are available for examination by interested parties.
And on their “about” page they identify who they are accountable to,
“We stay focused on the main challenge of the Great Commission and remain accountable to the Word of God and the counsel of wise men, financial auditors and qualified attorneys.”
Clearly, the local church is not who they are accountable to. As a non-profit para church minsitry they have wisely and correctly selected financial and legal counsel to be accountable to. This is precisely the type of organization that the girls say young single women should not be a part of. “God’s work must be accomplished God’s way.” they emphatically state. “One thing thing we never see in the Bible is women working in missions organizations or an first-century equivalent.” (p. 264)
Western Conservatory is an educational ministry to “To empower Christians to own the claims of Christ and extend his kingdom to every area of his jurisdiction.” which as I previously quoted focuses on the “Great Commission.” That clearly sounds like a missions organization, doesn’t it Lorrie? So why are the Botkins particpating in the very type of organization they are so critical of in their book?
June 14, 2007 at 12:03 am
Sallie said, “Actually, Spunky, I spent some time yesterday reading through their website and they don’t just teach other Christian children. This post is written in response to parents who apparently wrote to them asking for advice.”
So they are not just teaching children, but mothers as well? Certainly that would be a twist of scriture for one who believes in Biblical authority of the home and church. Why aren’t they directing these parents to their father or biblical leadership?
Sallie also said, “One last one and this is one of the areas that deeply concerns me about this teaching because of what it does to the young women who buy into this and are not in a place where it is practiced. How many of them suffer needlessly, thinking they are living a second-class Christian life because their father won’t do what this book says? So these poor girls end up carrying a huge burden over something not central to their faith in Christ and walk in Christ.”
That was my daughter’s concern with this book. She knows of quite a few college girls, who after reading this book wanted to drop out. Their fathers said, “no.” They now feel conflicted and in some cases feel that their father has abdicated his authority. They want to “come home” but he says “stay put.” So the girls begin a search for another authority to guide them in “Biblical Truth.” They use message boards in a search to find a church and a “spiritual father” to take them in. Sad and so unncessary.
June 14, 2007 at 12:19 am
Spunky said: So they are not just teaching children, but mothers as well? Certainly that would be a twist of scriture for one who believes in Biblical authority of the home and church. Why aren’t they directing these parents to their father or biblical leadership?
No, Spunky. Read the bold part again in comment 62. “Your parents have both written to us to ask us our advice and encouragement on your situation…” It says that BOTH of their parents wrote to these girls asking for advice. Why is a father writing to two teenagers to ask advice about how to raise his daughters?
Spunky wrote: That was my daughter’s concern with this book. She knows of quite a few college girls, who after reading this book wanted to drop out. Their fathers said, “no.” They now feel conflicted and in some cases feel that their father has abdicated his authority. They want to “come home” but he says “stay put.” So the girls begin a search for another authority to guide them in “Biblical Truth.” They use message boards in a search to find a church and a “spiritual father” to take them in. Sad and so unncessary.
That is profoundly sad.
June 14, 2007 at 12:27 am
Sallie your comments/quoting in #63 are so sad to me. These women have such a warped understanding of 1) God; 2) Fatherhood; 3) Marriage; 4) themselves.
Marriage is not a covenant of “heavy requirements” or submitting to his “whims”. This is wrong – this sounds very Islamic to me. The more I read/hear about this group the more I see how they are like they are very Muslim in their treatment of women.
I would be very interested to hear from women who have been a part of this group and are no longer.
This is all so sad.
June 14, 2007 at 12:33 am
In my limited experience with young women reading books of this nature and being “convicted” as to the new “right way” of living (and their fathers not following the same newfound convictions)- the young women can become arrogant, feeling more spiritual than their fathers, when, in fact, the father’s reluctance stems from wisdom and caution over some of the teachings. It would be better for these young women to pray that God will give their fathers wisdom and discernment for their situation (such as whether or not to drop out of college), instead of presuming that by reading a book, they (the daughters) now have all the answers.
June 14, 2007 at 12:52 am
Jennifer to the credit of the Botkin girls they do suggest approaching their father humbly and make their desires known. They are very cautious about encouraging a spirit of arrogance in those that read the book and seek to apply teaching. So I can’t fault the Botkin girls for how arrogant others become based on what they write, nor did I feel that there was a tone of arrogance in the girls writing. It was the substance of what was written and how they applied Scripture that I found troubling.
June 14, 2007 at 1:03 am
But as my daughter Kristin (18) says (she was reading over my shoulder)
“Any time you write things of this nature, it is obvious that most girls will take this as THE “right or biblical” way to go. Girls are just so impressionable and easily swayed. So any words of caution are not usually heeded. It’s like holding up a “stop” sign to Niagra Falls and expecting it to stop. It just ain’t gonna happen.”
Sallie, thanks for pointing out the parents and the emphasis on fathers asking teenage girls for counsel.
Barb, I know quite a few people who were a part of this type of thinking but are no longer. Sadly, their thinking usually changes when their is a severe moral failing on the part of the father. It is gut wrenching to watch these girls see their fathers, whom they idolized, fall so greatly. The girls hearts are crushed and their faith is shattered. Equally sad, the wives of these men blame themselves for “not being good enough.” Needless to say it’s a mess. The lack of accountability is what leads to these situations.
June 14, 2007 at 1:52 am
Barb,
I am currently doing research and making contacts with several people who have been involved intimately with this issue, both girls who lived it and those who have tried to help them when they finally got out of abusive homes. The end result will be a series of podcasts later this summer. I will keep everyone posted.
June 14, 2007 at 1:53 am
Jennifer said:
“In my limited experience with young women reading books of this nature and being “convicted” as to the new “right way” of living (and their fathers not following the same newfound convictions)- the young women can become arrogant, feeling more spiritual than their fathers, when, in fact, the father’s reluctance stems from wisdom and caution over some of the teachings.”
the same can be true of wives who are in patriocentric circles and begin having these expectation on their husbands.
June 14, 2007 at 1:55 am
““Any time you write things of this nature, it is obvious that most girls will take this as THE “right or biblical” way to go. Girls are just so impressionable and easily swayed. So any words of caution are not usually heeded. It’s like holding up a “stop” sign to Niagra Falls and expecting it to stop. It just ain’t gonna happen.””
I strongly agree. And when the Botkins are perpetually introduced as the standard bearers and called upon to teach at father-daughter retreats, the pressure is on for the girls to become like the Botkins to secure the approval of their fathers.
June 14, 2007 at 2:36 am
I hope this doesn’t seem cynical or sarcastic (because truly, I’m not meaning it that way)…
But, does anybody suspect, like I do, that Scripture plays just a supporting role in this movement, rather than being the driving force?
Has anybody else ever thought how convenient this stay-at-home-daughter thing actually is for these large patriarchal families? Not only do they get extra helping hands around the house, they also save half the typical college tuition costs, if they only plan to send their sons.
I don’t mean to suggest that a group of patriarchs got together and plotted this doctrine. But I do think it’s only human to be attracted to teachings that go well with our current life situation…teachings that make us feel better about our choices. I think that might be one subconscious reason why parents are attracted to the Visionary Daughters stuff.
And on another level, this teaching appeals to college-age girls’ natural inclination to be countercultural. The Botkins’ video even featured a girl talking about how “countercultural” the SAHD (Stay-At-Home-Daughter) movement is.
Again, I don’t mean to be disrespectful to anyone who chooses home over college. I would have done the same thing if I’d had any “out.” But, since the Botkins’ use of Scripture seems quite shaky, at best, I’m just wondering if there could be other motivating factors for this SAHD thing.
June 14, 2007 at 2:48 am
Joan I believe the motivation for this teaching rests in Reconstructionist theology and the Dominion Mandate. Postmilleniallists believe their will be a “Golden Age” which will precede the Second Coming of Christ. This mandate means that Reconstructionists must work hard to “reconstruct” or occupy and rule over every sphere of society applying Mosaic Law to each sphere. The family is one of those spheres. And in that, a daughter’s “destiny” is to be helpmeets to their fathers until they can marry and assist Dominion men following Old Testament Mosaic law. But the underlying premise for much of their teaching is rooted in Reconstructionist or Dominionist doctrine.
June 14, 2007 at 2:57 am
The Botkins harsh crticism for female missionaries is rooted in a teaching which believes that female missionaries is one of the chief reasons many, like the Botkins or Phillips, attribute the feminization of the church.
Quoting from Doug Phillips blog which quotes the Church Effiminate by Robbins,
“During the 19th century there were three major movements in American Protestant Churches that began the process of feminizing their leadership. The first of these was the Sunday school movement. The second was the foreign missions movement; and the third was the deaconess movement.”
This feminization of the church is contrary to what they believe about Old Testament law, which must be applied to every sphere of life. So in order to “reconstruct” this area, we must remove female missionaries from the field, along with getting rid of the Sunday school and deaconesses.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not a fan of a lot of church programs including Sunday school or youth group, but I don’t see a “mandate” to take dominion over them in accordance with Mosaic law in order to usher in a “Golden Age” either. It is within the theology of many who believe the Dominion Mandate that these things are REQUIRED and not optional for a church to be operating in true biblical order.
June 14, 2007 at 2:58 am
Here’s is the link to Doug’s blog,
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2006/10/1818.aspx
June 14, 2007 at 3:03 am
Today I got out the only Vision Forum CD we have left in the house – Discovering Life Purpose. We hung onto it because we thought Doug Phillips made some interesting comments about exceptions that I don’t see made by most of the people who subscribe to his teachings. So today while I was doing dishes and such, I started going through it again so I could find those sections and transcribe them here. (Hopefully tomorrow!)
Anyway, about five minutes into it I thought, “I should have kept a tally of how many times he uses the word ‘dominion.’” It must have been literally dozens. He used the term “Dominion Mandate” many times as well. Those ideas are central to just about everything he teaches.
June 14, 2007 at 3:23 am
Good Evening,
I am one of those “young ladies” who was deeply into the “Biblical Womanhood” movement. I was first introduced to it all at the age of 13 or 14. I liked it. I liked it because it talked about marriage and that was something I have always wanted or wished to be, along with a family. My relationship with Christ was there, but not very strong foundational. The more products came out the more my mom and I bought. It sounded so good and easy. Life in a little bubble, perfect father/husband with vision, a wife, children, Christ, etc…. Where is the real world? A life of trials, falls, hardships, unperfect parents, unperfect children, making mistakes, being stregthed by God to the point where you feel the rubber band is spliting, questioning your faith at times.
I reached that point in my life about 8 months ago. I was 18 years old. The Lord pulled me away from biblical womanhood in a sense. It was difficult, I felt I was a failure, that my walk with Christ was just based on me being a woman and constantly reading things on being the godly daughter I was “supposed to be” and scripture about womens roles. It was tearing me apart. I would constantly be asking my mom for help and her wisdom. She was or had gone through the same thing. Was I dishonoring God? What Lord are you teaching me? Is this really You or is this satan testing me. Around and around these questions circled my head for months. It was at a point when I realized I had been Idolizing their beliefs rather that seeking God for His wisdom in my life.
Since then I have been more a peace where the Lord has placed me or used me. I no longer feel I am keeping the Lord in a box.
He is all powerful and gracious to bring me along.
Young ladies, please guard your hearts. There are so many things that like to pull us in differnts directions. We need to seek the Lord and Him be our guide. Measure everything up with scripture and follow Christ where He directs us. He directs each and every person (beilever in this case) differently both spirtually and physically.
He is our guide. Not the Botkin sisters, Vision Fourm, ect…
June 14, 2007 at 3:38 am
Lauren said:
“The Lord pulled me away from biblical womanhood in a sense.”
Lauren, I believe it sounds like just the opposite has happened to you. The Lord is drawing you closer to Him by showing you that His will for you will not be thwarted by man’s ways.
Thank you for sharing and may the Lord bless you as you seek to serve only Him.
June 14, 2007 at 3:59 am
Thank you all for this wonderful conversation. I am a 28 yr old single woman who grew up in this mind-set. Both of my younger sisters are married and one has 4 children. Their husbands are wonderful and we are so glad that they are a part of our family. But God has not chosen to give me a husband and that has been difficult.
I suffered what a counselor recently suggested was clinical depression for about 3.5 years (19-22) because I was a young woman who loved God with all her heart but felt incapable of upholding the standard of godly womanhood laid before me. I lived at home with my parents on their farm in Missouri, took care of the majority of the domestic work so that my mother could work on the farm and interacted primarily with my family. Finally, at the age of 22, with one younger sister already married, my father approached me about going to college. He told me that he thought that my gifts were not being used well, and he thought my chances of meeting a possible marriage partner were better if I went where other intellectual people were likely to be.
In college (in another state 8hrs from my parents) I studied creative writing and pursued the possibility of 2 year missions in Chile working with a denominational missions organization as a teacher for two missionary families. As I prayed and sought counsel I ended up deciding to move to the city with my best friend and to pursue graduate school and work. I now live in a lovely apartment IN the city (also 8 hrs from my parents, but in the opposite direction) with my best friend (another single woman), work as a teacher for the summer and am looking for a job for the fall. Graduate school did not work out, but I am meeting some lovely people and have found a wonderful church community.
I love my parents. Above all else I want to honor them. But I have learned that as an adult I am directly accountable to God for my salvation and my obedience to his Word. My father has given me his blessing. We have a wonderful relationship and I speak openly and honestly with him about EVERY area of my life. My parents pray for me daily and strongly desire that I get married. I hope and pray for marriage as well, but in the meantime, I am accountable to God for this time and the gifts he has given me.
I do not feel skilled to comment on the biblical nature of the Botkin sisters’ viewpoints, although I find myself agreeing with the excellent minds commenting on this post. I do, however, feel that I need to speak as a voice coming from this experience. I have friends who are in their late 20s and even early 30s who have fully subscribed to this view and are MISERABLE. I wish that I could lend them some of my backbone so that they would have the energy to at least question the place that they are in. They only want to get married, but in many instances they are completely isolated from from any possible marriage partners. They are pursuing lifestyles that are dictated by their Father’s interests and have laid aside their own desires and interests. They have nothing to offer a husband except obedience. How can they be adequate helpmeets? There is more to supporting your husband than good housekeeping skills and a smiling face when he comes in from work.
What else can I say? Following God with all your heart is a wonderful life, but it rarely looks the same for everyone. I agree that this thinking has cultic tendencies and can be dangerous for girls who are raised to be docile and submissive. These girls need to be encouraged to grow in their relationship with God, practice discernment, and learn to actively love the people that God brings into their lives, whether they are part of their family or church, or part of the larger world.
May God bless you mothers as you seek to raise your children to know and honor God, whatever their lives look like.
June 14, 2007 at 4:07 am
This is simply a “thank you”…I found this discussion via Sallie’s site and just want to say I’ve found it fascinating… Spunky, your blogging is missed! The way Sallie and Spunky, in particular, have simply compared the Botkins’ theology to the Botkins’ actions was extremely illuminating.
I love that I can come here and find a stimulating discussion with different points of view on a fascinating subject, without “flame wars.” Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.
Best wishes,
Laura
June 14, 2007 at 4:21 am
1. “Has anybody else ever thought how convenient this stay-at-home-daughter thing actually is for these large patriarchal families? Not only do they get extra helping hands around the house, they also save half the typical college tuition costs, if they only plan to send their sons.”
Yes. Yes. Yes. I can name several prominent families that take advantage of these girls, too – young keepers at home sent to serve them for free by their parents.
My own husband’s cousin is 18 and she does all the cooking, laundry, cleaning, and home teaching in her family. She is the oldest of 5 (with plans for the parents to have another). The family brags about all this, even after another relative once asked what the mom does all day (while I should add, most home school moms with SAHDs work just as hard as the SAHD). I feel badly for this girl. I wish I could do something, but you know how hard it is for folks to hear reason when they become entrenched in this ideology.
2. “We’re not ready to consider ourselves eligible for marriage until we’ve learned to trust an imperfect individual with our lives. To communicate with a man, which will always be a struggle. To submit to an imperfect man’s “whims” as well as his heavy requirements. To order our lives around another person. To accept the burdens a man places on us cheerfully. To esteem and reverence and adore a man whose faults we can see clearly every day.”
My heart breaks for the Botkin sisters and how they view marriage. My husband is such a gracious and kind person who serves me every day. He would not wish to intentionally burden me or cause me difficulty with “heavy requirements” and “whims.” I love my husband and am appreciate his care for me. We serve each other as Christians and strive to make important decision together. We are all called to lay our lives down for each other, not merely wives and daughters to husbands and fathers. The calling to serve is a two way street.
3. Just for clarification, in case anyone took offense, my previous comments about my traditional law school were not meant to degrade OBCL in any way. I know many fine lawyers who went to OBCL. I reread my statement though, and thought someone might take it wrong. At the time, I just wanted to point out that I my schooling in law is probably beyond unacceptable to most who subscribe to the SAHD doctrine (funny that it would be pronounced SAD!).
June 14, 2007 at 4:24 am
I missed this:
“I have friends who are in their late 20s and even early 30s who have fully subscribed to this view and are MISERABLE. I wish that I could lend them some of my backbone so that they would have the energy to at least question the place that they are in.”
I know some of ladies in this exact situation as well. My heart breaks.
June 14, 2007 at 4:28 am
I was about 20 pages into the Botkins’ book anad went back to the beginning this evening to begin reading and taking notes at the same time. On page 7 they state: “The lifestyle and worldview we present is not merely theoretical. It was lived before, when women were much happier. It is being lived again today by brave young women who are determined to follow THE (emphasis mine) wise course of womanhood, lovingly designed by God Himself, whatever the cost. As we were writing this book, we were delighted to find that a biblical understanding of the father-daughter relationshp is spreading farther and faster than we dared to imagine.”
I believe it is true that the Botkins’ perspective is a growing one in the homeschooling community. It was present, to some degree, 22 years ago when we first homeschooled. However, now there is a new group of leaders who are holding to these views and are promoting them at conferences all over the country. As a matter of fact, I was recently told by a homeschooling support leader that the “keepers of the homeschooling conferences” do, indeed, have an agenda to promote, this being part of it, and they will screen out speakers who do not hold to these views.
The sisters go on to say: “Many of the answers and solutions we, and they,(referring to the girls who were interviewed for their book) have found will seem incredibly extreme and drastic. We believe that in a day of extreme apostasy and judgment, extreme measures are exactly what are called for, and that a drastic step in the opposite direction is exactly what we need to take.”
So, they believe that holding to another view is extreme apostasy and judgment is forthcoming. In other words, they are endorsing an extreme position on purpose, to thwart opposing views. This isn’t about a choice.
One more quote for tonight from page 8, describing those who were interviewed for this book:
“The most common theme in every story is repentance. Each young lady faced a challenge of obedience to something in the revealed word of God. These girls realized where they were wrong and turned to a new direction…changing their ways of thinking and their actions. Today they are at peace with God and their circumstances, though they all must continually contend witha predominanantly feminist culture.”
So, since repentance is what is required for sin, these girls were sinning by not following the visionary daughter mandate and needed to repent.
More later…..
June 14, 2007 at 4:31 am
Rebecca,
Thanks for sharing your personal story. It sounds like you had a very wise father who admired your gifts and wanted to see you flourish. Please come back and share anytime!
June 14, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Lauren and Rebecca – thanks for your stories. I hope and pray you are/will be surrounded by fellow believers who teach and demonstrate Christ’s love and freedom. His way is not a burden when it is HIS way and not man’s. I pray you have discernment and wisdom from the Holy Spirit to know in you hear, mind and soul the difference and the courage to walk in His direction.
June 14, 2007 at 1:04 pm
rebecca said:
“They only want to get married, but in many instances they are completely isolated from from any possible marriage partners. They are pursuing lifestyles that are dictated by their Father’s interests and have laid aside their own desires and interests. They have nothing to offer a husband except obedience. How can they be adequate helpmeets? There is more to supporting your husband than good housekeeping skills and a smiling face when he comes in from work.”
this is truly concerning to me. it opens the doors for abusive marriage relationships when daughters are taught that their greatest role in a marriage is to obey and submit. marriage is a lot more than that! my husband would be disgusted if all that i had to offer him was a clean house, sex, and a smiling face when he came home from work. but he’s not the kind of selfish man who wants a wife for the sole purpose of having his “whims” fulfilled. yuck! i really feel sorry for girls who go from a father/daughter relationship that the botkins describe to a husband/wife relationship that the botkins describe.
thanks, lauren and rebecca for being so candid. ::hug::
June 14, 2007 at 1:05 pm
FYI,I also happened to read the back cover of the So Much More book and saw that it is endorsed by R.C. Sproul Jr., Jennie Chancey, and Stacy McDonald.
June 14, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Rebecca wrote: “I have friends who are in their late 20s and even early 30s who have fully subscribed to this view and are MISERABLE.”
This is part of my concern that two young ladies who are 17 and 19 are promoting this stuff. Will they have the same vision and delight in this if they are into their late 20′s and 30′s and are still not married? When they are older and their life still revolves around doing what their father wants them to do? Girls at 17 and 19 have all the idealism in the world and their whole lives are still ahead of them. It is easy to subscribe to this stuff when you are still under 20 or so. I’d like to hear from some women who are much older and still love this idea. I doubt there are very few of them.
And yet imagine the incredible pressure these older young ladies are under to not rock the boat! Who likes to admit they are wrong? Who wants to admit to their family and peers that they wish they HAD gone to college or gotten a job or moved out or gone into missions or what have you? Imagine how incredibly difficult it would be emotionally, spiritually and psychologically to say to yourself and others – I’ve totally screwed up my life. And what can it potentially do to their trust in Christ? I think the potential for fallout in this area is huge as well.
Rebecca wrote: They are pursuing lifestyles that are dictated by their Father’s interests and have laid aside their own desires and interests. They have nothing to offer a husband except obedience. How can they be adequate helpmeets? There is more to supporting your husband than good housekeeping skills and a smiling face when he comes in from work.
This broke my heart when I read it. “Nothing to offer a husband except obedience.” Oh my. I don’t even think obedience enters David’s mind in our relationship. We are partners, working and loving together, encouraging one another, building one another up, challenging each other to become stronger people and more faithful followers of Christ. I know David appreciates that I do a good job of “keeping house” (notice I said good, not fantabulous), but I think if you asked him he would say what he appreciates most about me is my friendship and loving support.
June 14, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Lauren and Rebecca: With tears in my eyes, let me thank you for sharing your real-life experiences. As others have said here, may God continue to use and direct you.
More hugs.
June 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Rebecca, I just want to encourage you in something. I grew up in a small town and was surrounded by girls who were all married by the time they were 22 (the majority had married shortly after high school).
It can feel like being 28 and unmarried makes you a “really old maid,” but the reality is, that’s all relative. I was in a situation like yours and even though I liked my career, I spent a lot of time wondering if I would ever get married. In fact, I spent a lot of time worrying about it.
But God had a plan for me, and I did end up getting married when I was 32! To a wonderful man, and now we have 3 children. We met on a Christian internet dating service. My cousin (who has a PhD) met her husband (an M.D.) on the same site, and my sister also met her husband in a similar way.
I would encourage you to trust the Lord. I know from personal experience that that is easier said than done, but as God said to Abraham, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” The answer to that is NO. Nothing is too hard for the Lord, not even sending you the right man at the right time.
June 14, 2007 at 2:25 pm
You know I just couldn’t stop thinking on this last night and felt I had to be fair and offer one more thing.
If my daughters came to my husband and I and asked to be SAHD and follow this model, I think we would support THEM (our child, not the idea). I am sure the Botkin sisters lead lovely, productive lives. I’m not debating that for one second.
My problem with the video/movement/whatever is that I fear in certain circles, namely the conservative Christian homeschool circle I’m in, that it will be the next “gospel” and as it was stated in the trailer, THE BIBLICAL MODEL FOR DAUGHTERS.
I have issue with the fact it is being sold as THE WAY to do things. I actually don’t have a beef with the whole idea of daughters staying home until marriage. The servant of the father is a bit creepy, I have to say, but I would love for my daughters to stay home if that is THEIR desire.
But then again, if they desire to go to college, be a missionary, or whatever God calls them to, I will be just as happy.
If this is the Biblical model of doing things for all daughters, then why is it so “counter cultural” as they state? It seems to me they’re trying to be counter-cultural within the Christian community and Body of Christ as a whole. That is what seems “off” to me.
June 14, 2007 at 2:47 pm
The Botkins use of scripture to make their claims is often an example of “biblical gymnastics.” That is, a lot of tumbling and twisting to reach a desired outcome.
Here is one such place that I have found,
On page 39, in answer to the question, “How can I show my father love?” The girls begin their answer with the scripture Proverbs 23:26. They say, “Proverbs 23:26 suggests in a paraphrased form, that daughters give their fathers their hearts, “and let your eyes observe my ways.”
It is a Scriptural slight of hand and the girls apparently know it. The verse says, “MY SON, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.” The girls don’t quote the first portion, why not? Because it isn’t addressing daughters but sons. (There are actually very few instances where the Bible addresses only daughters or young ladies.) They are using a Scripture intended for sons, toward young ladies. If the intended it to be applied to both sons and daughters the bible refers to “children.” Such as Ephesians 6:1 “Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right.” While this slight of hand isn’t serious in its application, it is inappropriate and lacks true scholarship. It should be unacceptable to use God’s Word in a sloppy manner simply to further our personal agenda. A case can be made that it is a good idea for a daughter to ‘give her father her heart,” but the argument cannot be made using this verse as the Botkins attempt to do. But as a reader, I was willing to excuse this in their zeal to make a point about a daughter’s heart toward her father.
However, in other instances this Scriptural gymanstics has more serious consequences. That is, the Botkins attempt to make the claim that daughters are to be a helpmeet to their fathers until they are given in marriage. Quoting from page 62, “You may not immediately see how much your father needs your help and just how much you can help him, because the very importance of being a “helpmeet” has been forgotten.”
The girls use, in part, the Proverbs 31 woman as a basis for this claim. Thankfully, in this case the girls readily admit that this was written to wives, but use it to show what a good helpmeet can do for a man. And I agree, truly a good helpmeet is a blessing to her husband. No problem there.
The girls then go on to place the very success of men on the women around them. Page 46, “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”
So how did we go from a Proverbs 31 woman as a good wife, to placing the burden of their father’s success on wives AND daughters? There is no Scriptural support for such a claim.
Their assertion is not supported scripturally. In fact, scripture actually says the something distinctly different from their premise.
In 1 Corinthians 7 we read, “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.”
The Bible does NOT say she is concerned about the affairs of her father, but of the Lord. In that framework, she can choose to be a helpmeet to her father if that is the direction of the Lord, but there is NO biblical mandate to solely be his helpmeet until marriage. Nor is there a biblical mandate that the father require this of her. It is in this misapplication of scripture that leads to conclusions that are not supported Biblically. And for young ladies seeking to live Godly lives but without any discernment the teachings presented here by the Botkins present a great danger. They will attempt to live out a “mandate” that is not required of them, but placed upon them by the Botkins and the mandate their father has given to them.
June 14, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I really wasn’t planning on commenting here, since I don’t like to get into debates, but I just had to say something.
I’m only 15 years old, so none of you may take any weight in my words, but please at least take time to consider what I have to say. This whole discussion (and every other discussion about doctrine on the web) has really begun to grate on my nerves. Everyone who has taken place in this discussion so far has claimed to be, or is known to be, a Christian, and THAT is what grates on my nerves, NOT the discussion itself. If we are truly Christians who love the Lord, and one another as our brothers and sisters, we will let doctrine alone, and just do what we are ALL told to do in the scriptures, something that EVERY Christian doctrine agrees with: get out there and witness to people, tell them about our Lord! Why are we wasting our time, arguing about this doctrine and that doctrine, when there are people out there who are lost in this broken world, dying and going to hell because we prefer arguing over which doctrine is right and best to making sure that we bring the Good News to them? Nowhere in the Bible have I found a verse that says we are to discuss doctrines….in fact I believe there is a verse (please pardon my lack of knowledge as to where it can be found) where Jesus says NOT to debate over silly doctrines as the Pharisees do! Rather than debating doctrines, we are to go and tell the world about the One who has given us the mouth to debate with, the ears (or, in the case of internet, the eyes) to hear each other’s opinions, and the brain to think of our replies to each other’s statements. We need to stop debating and start talking (and I don’t mean just “talking” but talking about Him to others who don’t know about Him). And besides, what kind of example does this show to any non-Christians who may come across this discussion, or another doctrine-related discussion? What would their opinion of Christians be after seeing us debate one another, and question one another’s beliefs?
I’m sorry if I sounded rude, or disrespectful…it was not meant to sound that way, nor do I wish it to. I’m just very frustrated about doctrinal discussions…
June 14, 2007 at 2:59 pm
HannahBeth, I think you are wise beyond your years. I’m (gasp!) nearly 30…and doctrinal things bother me too.
HOWEVER—I think when you have children you may see this a little differently as to why it is so important to us (or at least me, as a mom). We don’t want our daughters, or our sons falling prey to extra-biblical requirements. I want my children to know the GOSPEL and the LOVE of God, rather than a bunch of extra fluff thrown in to look nice. It is so easy to be drifted by the winds of mankind especially when you are young and impressionable.
Yes, our call is to go out into the world and exalt the name of Christ. But we need to know the Word and rightly be able to divide it. When man, under the guise of spirituality, adds in extra requirements, we need to be able to point that out and realize it.
The faith is black and white, but we make alot of grey areas for ourselves.
I feel your frustration and I say that being as young as you are, you are already a very wise young woman and will go far in this world with your can-do attitude. God bless you.
June 14, 2007 at 3:06 pm
HannahBeth, I am impressed that you cared enough to weigh in. You are right in one respect, that we do need to share the Gospel more.
BUT, sharing Christ and discussing doctrine are NOT mutually exclusive. That is, it’s not like you can’t (or shouldn’t) do both. Engaging in a good debate about doctrine doesn’t mean that you can’t also share the Gospel. That’s sort of like saying that if you eat fruit, you won’t eat vegetables.
In fact, we are commanded in Scripture several times to be careful about the doctrines we believe. Check out I Timothy, for instance. I Timothy 4:16 says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
I think this discussion is serving a very important purpose. If a teaching is out there, we have a RESPONSIBILITY as Christians to hold it up to the light of Scripture to see if it is right. How else can we “watch our doctrine closely”?
I’m so glad that you, as a 15-year-old, care so much about sharing Christ. Blessings!
June 14, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Hannah Beth,
Your heart for the lost and preaching His Truth is wonderful. I share a love for telling others the Truth about God’s salvation and eternal life. Your admonition wasn’t rude and well taken.
I’d like to address your thoughts for a minute…
You said, ” If we are truly Christians who love the Lord, and one another as our brothers and sisters, we will let doctrine alone,”
and you also said,
“Nowhere in the Bible have I found a verse that says we are to discuss doctrines.”
Witnessing to the lost and discussing are not mutually exclusive events. That is, we don’t have to do one or the other, but in fact we can do both. And Scripture bears that examining the teachings or doctrines of others is one of the trademarks of those of “noble character.”
Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
and in 2 Timothy 2:15 the bible says, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
These discussions can be uncomfortable for us. It is hard to take a look at our suppositions and see if they are indeed supported by Scripture. But that doesn’t make them inappropriate. These discussions sharpen each of us to ensure that we are correctly handling the word of Truth. There are good teachers proclaiming what is true and there are false teachings leading people astray. It is only through examinations and discussions where our words are accountable to other believers are we able to determine who is the good teacher and who is the bad. If the Bereans felt it appropriate to examine the teachings of Paul and the Bible records them doing so, it is equally appropriate for us to examine the teachers of our day.
Hannah Beth, I encourage you to keep your zeal for the lost, the world needs young ladies such as yourself who desire to bring the Good News. And with that we must make sure that what we preach to them is exactly that, Good News and not a false gospel. Discussions such as this help us do exactly that.
June 14, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Hannah Beth,
I’m so glad you took a chance on us and posted your thoughts. I know it was probably hard to do so. The other ladies have already given you an excellent Biblical perspective on why this is so important. I will add a more personal one.
The reason this discussion is critical for me and for many others who may be reading this but have not posted is because this teaching and several others closely related to it destroyed my family. And by destroyed I mean destroyed. I have only one sibling, a brother who will not associate with me or my parents because of teachings such as this. My parents are not allowed to see their (at least) five grandchildren and my brother and sister-in-law have never met my eight and a half month old daughter. They have not even acknowledged her existance. Because we will not subscribe to teachings such as this, they have cut themselves off from us completely. We are not true Christians in their minds.
These discussions are critically important because teachings such as this are destroying families in this country. They are robbing families of their joy in Christ, they are robbing individuals of their freedom in Christ, and they literally destroying families. When people start throwing around definitive terms such as “THE biblical model for young women”, you better believe EVERY Christian better sit up, grab their Bible and start evaluating what is being said.
In Christ’s love,
Sallie
June 14, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Thank you all for your words of wisdom….I will truly think about them, and I really do see the truth in what you’ve said. Thank you for being so kind about it!
June 14, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I’ve often wondered what “helpmeet” means to the Botkin ladies and other patriocentrists (I LOVE this term, BTW!). I’m sure their answer would be someone who can support her husband’s vision, provide stimulating conversation, keep house more than adequately, and throw a great party. And while I agree with all of these ideas, I can’t get behind their one-size-fits-all method of how these qualities are developed in most women. They present their way as the “biblical model” but give little to no evidence from Scripture that supports their paradigm. And no, you cannot proof-text this using wife-husband verses and yet, their entire model is based on just these verses.
God speaks of the relationship between parents and children instead of that between fathers and daughters. My daughter is to obey her father because she is his child, not because she is his daughter. What is the difference? Well, the same commands which apply to my daughter are also applied to my son.
I do see the “daughter staying home until marriage” paradigm in Scripture, but not because God command that it be so. I hate to use the cultural argument here, but I do think it applies. Women stayed home because they had no other choice. And some single women didn’t stay home! Look at the female disciples of Jesus. For example, Mary Magdelene followed Jesus, city after city. As far as we know, she didn’t have a husband.
If the case could be made that God explicitly commanded women to stay home until marriage, rather than inferring it from several OT texts (just as valid if taken within the proper context of course), then I could get behind this idea. However, you have to string a bunch of Scriptures together to make the case.
I found the Botkin’s book to be deeply offensive, and not because I found some truth in it and didn’t want to submit to it. Their argumentation was weak at best. They commit the hasty generalization fallacy more times than I can count. Their views are based on Reconstructionist and postmillenial theology, both of which have numerous theological problems. And frankly, I found it rather presumptuous of them to be “teaching” these ideas to anyone else. Following the “biblical model”, shouldn’t fathers be teaching this to their daughters? Shouldn’t the church be teaching this to its members? The can’t use Titus 2 to back themselves up really. Well, I guess they can, but who are they trying to teach? Girls who are under their own ages? They may claim to be making up for some kind of need in the church, but that flies in the face of their paradigm.
I could go on, but, ironically, I have to go care for my home
This is a great discussion, ladies. Can’t wait to read more!
June 14, 2007 at 4:43 pm
just wondering…..
If the Botkin girls believe that they are to serve their fathers in his calling, is telling all girls that this is the Biblical model their father’s calling and they are fulfilling it? If so, why isn’t the book written by him? If so, why isn’t the request for funds being done by him? It appears to me that this is THEIR calling. Has this struck the rest of you as hypocritical?
June 14, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Sallie,
Thank you so much for so candidly sharing your life with us. Just this morning I was talking with a friend who does not agree with the Botkins but she sees no reason whatsoever to become embroiled in a discussion of these things. After she explained to me all her reasons for thinking we ought to not worry about it, I told her that I have one very compeling reason to confront these teachings….it is destroying families. Then I read your story and it gave me a chill. Sallie, it is for people like you and your family that I will continue to address these issues. Again, thank you for sharing with all of us.
June 14, 2007 at 4:48 pm
HannahBeth,
I so appreciate all your insights here. I have been reading and re-reading some biographies this summer and your zeal for the Gospel message reminds me so much of some of the women of the faith I have been “meeting,” women like Gladys Alyward and Betty Greene. God placed in their hearts and minds a vision for ministry and called them, specifically them and not their fathers, to full time service for His glory alone.
Again, thanks so much for sharing with us.
June 14, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Sallie’s not alone. We are experiencing the same thing.
We are seeing families, friends,and our church being divided all because of these and other extra Biblical teachings. It is heartbreaking.
Thank you Spunky for your posts. I have read the book, and you are right on. I don’t suppose we could talk you into reopening your blog for a chapter by Chapter review?
)
June 14, 2007 at 4:57 pm
HannahBeth,
Jesus commended Mary for sitting at his feet and learning about Himself. Is this not doctrine? He also told her, in response to Martha’s irritation that Mary wasn’t helping her with the housework, that Mary had chosen the better way.
The angel sent the two Marys from
the tomb to tell the disciples the glorious news of the resurrected Christ, the most significant “doctrine” in all of God’s word.
What we believe about God and who He is and how His grace affects our lives is all doctrine and we are told that “all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.”
Doctrine is central to our relationship with Jesus and without sound doctrine (truth) we cannot present any Gospel message to a lost world.
Just a few thoughts….
June 14, 2007 at 5:15 pm
That mom said, “If the Botkin girls believe that they are to serve their fathers in his calling, is telling all girls that this is the Biblical model their father’s calling and they are fulfilling it? If so, why isn’t the book written by him? If so, why isn’t the request for funds being done by him? It appears to me that this is THEIR calling. Has this struck the rest of you as hypocritical?”
The answer to this can be found in the words of Elizabeth Botkin as recorded in a Vision Forum newsletter. She admits to being aimless at age thirteen and writes how her father helped her through this time.
She writes, “Neither Anna nor I remember exactly how everything fell together after that, but very suddenly, we had a desire to understand our role in dominion warfare and disciple-making. Before that, we didn’t really understand what daughters were for … besides doing our school, helping with dinner, and being nice to our little brothers.
Like good home-schooled girls, we grew up knowing that we were supposed to be different from the world. But we didn’t know we were supposed to engage the world, and change the world, and teach the world to do all things the Lord commanded.
Then Dad taught us to look for the needs of the girls of our generation. One of the first needs we noticed was that every girl we knew was struggling with a similar aimlessness, and we could find little to no teaching on visionary daughterhood. So we decided to write the book that we wanted to read. That was the impetus behind So Much More.”
So this stay at home daughter now has a purpose, telling other girls about the wonderful life of a stay at home daughter. They have found fulfillment telling others how to live the live their father has chosen for them and spiritualized it by calling it a biblical mandate. It becomes a self-validating calling. They are using their apparent success as authors as proof for their belief. But it actually proves nothing about the Scriptural truth of what they believe.
The purpose that he gave them is hypocrtical to his own beliefs. He has transferred the call of fathers to teach their children to his daughters calling and purpose. There is no scriptural precedent for unmarried daughters teaching other young Christian girls how to live their lives. In fact, the church that he is a part of teaches that only fathers or biblical leaders are to teach children. It is there that I find great hypocrisy.
June 14, 2007 at 5:20 pm
here is the link to the Vision Forum newsletter, I keep forgetting to include it in the post.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/newsletters/newsletter.aspx?id=03-05-07
June 14, 2007 at 5:52 pm
does anyone else think this statement is really sad: “we didn’t really understand what daughters were for … besides doing our school, helping with dinner, and being nice to our little brothers.”
!!!
June 14, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Mollie—yeah, never thought of it that way. The more I think on this whole SAHD/patriocentricity thing I get more and more creeped out about certain parts of it.
Other parts are whole and pure and beautiful, but some if it just comes across as very, very odd and unnatural. There was a recent pic and controversy over at VF about the father/daughter retreat where the little girls were encouraged to shave and dress their daddies, which I think is WAY OUT OF LINE.
But that is another blog for another day, isn’t it?
June 14, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Mollie asked does anyone else think this statement is really sad, “we didn’t really understand what daughters were for … besides doing our school, helping with dinner, and being nice to our little brothers.”
Considering the age in which Elizabeth was speaking about herself was thirteen, I’d say that was pretty honest. I didn’t feel too sad. It’s the reality of a young lady who no longer finds dolls as much fun, but hasn’t quite entered into complete womanhood. Her statement is understandable.
What I found sad was when she said, “we could find little to no teaching on visionary daughterhood.”
Where was her father? If her father was teaching and instructing her, why the need for teaching outside of him? What was she searching for that which her father didn’t provide? And when she didn’t find it, why did she feel the need to meet the failure of her father or other men in her church? Remember such efforts are viewed by the Botkin girls as “well-intentioned” efforts outside of God’s Kingdom architecture. Her desire for Godly teaching Visionary Daughterhood should have spurred her to have her mother or father or the biblical leaders to action. Instead, her father spurred this young lady to meet the need herself and sell it to other unsuspecting but equally aimless teenage girls. That’s what I find as profoundly sad.
June 14, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Lindsey -
Leaving a comment like that without a link is grounds for a blog flogging. Tsk, tsk.
Sallie
June 14, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Lindsey,
One of my biggest issues with this whole movement is how unnatural it is. The one anothering relationships that are, without question, Biblical commands, produce relationships that are genuine, not contrived, organic, not programmed, lovely, not creepy, and fruitful, not stifling.
June 14, 2007 at 6:29 pm
So as not to witness said flogging…..
scroll down to thursday, April 8, 2004 for articles and pictures.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2004/04/
June 14, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Mollie said,
does anyone else think this statement is really sad: “we didn’t really understand what daughters were for … besides doing our school, helping with dinner, and being nice to our little brothers.”
!!!
I think it’s sad because young girls are being robbed of dreaming dreams. Their parents have their lives mapped out for them..homeschool/courtship/marriage/babies..
God may have a different plan for that girl. There are several single women in the Bible. The girl may face infertility..I fear for these girls whose Prince Charming does not show up when they are 18..or who aren’t able to conceive.
The Christian walk is not a formula. It is an exciting journey with twists and turns.
June 14, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Whew, thank you thatmom. Actually I was off trying to find the post so I could come back and put it here:
Here is a different one:
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=107
I am sure they meant it as “good clean fun” (no pun intended) but it just is so unnatural and rather creepy I think. Call me silly, but if anyone is going to shave and dress my husband it will be me, thankyouverymuch. Some things are for married couples and not daughters. Would he let the sons shave him as an act of manhood? Probably not.
Anyhow this is completely OT and I’m sorry for “going there” but I just HAD TO. My inner evil twin was begging me.
Now, I must step away from the computer and go make potato salad and roasted asparagus for our Father’s Day dinner with my dad who is coming over tonight. (and I won’t be shaving him).
June 14, 2007 at 6:58 pm
i guess what is think is sad about it is that at that age a girl shouldn’t feel that she doesn’t have any options, that she will always being doing what she’s doing now, first for her father, then for her husband. whether or not she attends college, it’s unfair for a girl to not have a chance to experience and enjoy other aspects of life. i enjoy being a mother and a homekeeper, but there is much more to me than that, parts of who i am that have nothing to do with being a wife and mother. it should be this way for every woman.
June 14, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Lindsey, you made me laugh out loud with your comment about making potato salad and NOT shaving…hahahaha…
Honestly, when I first heard about it, I thought I was the only one who thought that shaving exercise was weird. I really wondered whose idea it was, and why! Does anybody know what an exercise like that would accomplish? I mean, what was the point? I’ve always been close to my dad, but I can’t imagine him EVER wanting his daughters to do stuff like that!
I realize this might be a bit off topic…and yet, from my understanding, the Botkins’ ministry (for lack of a better word) is closely related to this father-daughter retreat?
June 14, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Can a boy crash the party here?
Mollie, that’s one of the things that I find sad about the Vision Forum catalogs. You’ll notice that there’s tons of exciting toys for boys to explore, fight, do science projects, archeology, and more! WOW! What fun! But what are girls told in these catalogs: have a beautiful girlhood, but with no items to develop their intellect. You’re just ornamental and have doll parties.
While those things can be fun for girls, there is so much more to a woman’s mind and capabilities. I grieve for women who get stifled by fathers who think they’re supposed to raise their daughters this way.
When I waited on God for a wife, I wanted a wife who was smart and godly, who knew things and would be interesting to share life with, and not, as Rebekah wrote in comment 82: “pursuing lifestyles that are dictated by their Father’s interests and have laid aside their own desires and interests. They have nothing to offer a husband except obedience. How can they be adequate helpmeets? There is more to supporting your husband than good housekeeping skills and a smiling face when he comes in from work.” I grieved over the stories in her comments about the older girls who are still single in their late 20s and 30s and are miserable because of the fruit of these teachings.
That’s why I’m glad I married a college-educated and intellectually stimulating wife. My life is so much richer because she could follow her dreams. We have such good talks and share so many neat experiences because she has been able to pursue her dreams. And now we have a business at home that has been successful in part because of what she pursued while single.
June 14, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I guess I can kind of see the shaving exercise as a cute thing with little girls..the Father singing songs to “woo” (their words) the daughters exercise was a little “Ick” inducing. However, it is when I read *this* in the Botkin Girl’s Book on how a daughter should dress that I get the creepy feeling……….
If he, for instance has a preference in colors that I wear, I seek to honor him by finding that out and dressing in a way that would please him.” So Much More p.35
Also, the applying of the wife verses to the Daddy/ Daughter relationship. It is everything together that makes me uncomfortable. Daddy is not a practice hubby. He is Daddy.
June 14, 2007 at 9:37 pm
David,
I’ve had the same thoughts about the vision forum catalog. As toddlers, of course my girls love dolls and dressing up, but they also love to play fence with daddy, and would be thrilled to get a sword and shield! I hope they want a science kit or detective kit someday… that they would use their minds to explore the world and problem solve. Those skills are important for women as well.
June 14, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I think HannahBeth’s comment is a perfect illustration of the scripture quoted above, that a young single girl can focus on serving God only (her reference to missions), while a married woman also has to focus on the needs of her husband and children–in this case, finding out what teachings my daughter may be exposed to and how to arm her with spiritual truths.
I am often confused and frustrated by all the different teachings of this age–from this patriarchal movement to extremely liberal feminism and everything in between. Reading a discussion like this sometimes gives me a headache, honestly, because I don’t WANT to put the mental energy into figuring out what the truth is and what I believe. Honestly, it would be much easier to subscribe to a simple set of rules, the “how-to”s of Christianity
However. I am quickly reminded that when I became a mother, this is what I signed up for. It is important–no, VITAL–that I teach my children how to discern truth, how to think critically, how to search the scripture and consider the context, and how to support their viewpoint and this, HannahBeth, is why discussions like this are important. If you go out into the mission field with no doctrine and no knowledge of what you believe and why, your faith will be blown away the first time someone challenges you. There are lots of voices saying many different things, and as a believer you have to know how to deal with that.
By nature, I tend to be very black and white; I want to think a teaching or movement (or blog
) is all right or all wrong. But this is dangerous thinking, because only the Bible is *all* right. Most of the “movements” like this one have some grains of truth in them, and that’s one thing that makes them so dangerous, because so many people recognize bits of truth so they subscribe to the whole thing. As believers we need to know how to separate what is *truth* from what is someone’s opinion or belief BASED on that truth. (I would add we must also use this discernment when reading discussions like this one.)
One last thing that comes to mind–there are many things that, as a believer, would be the wiser thing to do–this doesn’t mean that to do otherwise is a sin.
June 14, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Kristen:
You said “As toddlers, of course my girls love dolls and dressing up, but they also love to play fence with daddy, and would be thrilled to get a sword and shield!”
It reminded me that Mollie still hasn’t gotten over the fact that her two brothers closest in age to her had light sabers and she had to use a curtain rod! She did have the Princess Lei buns, however!
June 14, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Jeana,
I appreciate so much of what you said, in particular “Most of the “movements” like this one have some grains of truth in them, and that’s one thing that makes them so dangerous, because so many people recognize bits of truth so they subscribe to the whole thing.”
I have purposed to spend some time this summer reading a variety of books that are popular within the homeschooling community and your statement can be said about each one I have read. Just because people use Scripture does not mean that they use it in context or apply it the way it is meant to be applied. Thank you for reminding us of this!
June 14, 2007 at 11:33 pm
What an interesting discussion! The whole Vision Forum “vision” fascinates me- the mindset is so different from my own background and at odds with so much of my own experience. One question that I have is this: exactly where are these daughters supposed to find their husbands? Virtually all the married couples that I know met at 1) college or 2) work or through work friends (my own parents, who were married 51 years- until my mother’s death, met at college; my husband and I met through work friends, etc.) Is matchmaking one of the purposes of these Vision Forum “events”? It seems particularly problematic to me because I get the impression from some of the blogs that I have read that many of the families who espouse the SAHD philosophy live in somewhat rural areas, with small churches. Is this practical problem ever addressed?
June 14, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Well… I know there are some models of “courtship” promoted that tread dangerously close to almost being an arranged marriage of sorts… would these folks support that type of thing as well, to address the issue of finding husbands for these daughters?
June 15, 2007 at 12:49 am
I am Rebecca’s sister, (the one that is married with 4 kids!) I just want to say that my sister’s comment is right on and I appreciate her courage and individuality! (Even though she can drive me crazy sometimes!) I got married at 19, had 4 kids in 5 years, (I know you are all freaking out right now!) and I am now homeschooling. (Though I do not want to be considered a part of the kooky homeschool movement that is out there now.) So, I never had to experience this SAHD thing.
This was God’s plan for ME, not all homeschooled girls. There are so many issues about this Botkin’s girls thing that really concerns me, but so many wiser folks have commented on them already.
I just want to say that being a wife and mother is just one facet of who I am. I am also a sister, daughter, friend, a WOMAN. How would being a SAHD prepare me for the other aspects of my life that aren’t wife and motherhood? If who I am is wrapped up in only my husband and children, then any woman could be in my place. (Though I doubt my husband would agree!) I do think that preparing girls to become wives and daughters is important, but what about preparing them to be their true selves in Christ and to know their purpose. (Not just their husbands purpose, but their own. God will usually have both purposes intertwine.) How to even know what that is.
I don’t think that I am explaining this quite right. Sometimes, I have difficulty getting what’s in my head down in words that make sense. (Rebecca has always been better at that.)Not that you need anymore opinions, but I just wanted to share after reading this whole thing.
I wish you all God’s guidance in your lives!
Amy
June 15, 2007 at 1:31 am
Elizabet asked, “One question that I have is this: exactly where are these daughters supposed to find their husbands?”
How about a Christian courtship service run by Jennie Chancey’s mom and step-dad?
http://biblicalexaminer.org/cc/Introduction.htm
Here’s a snippet from their site,
“Bettie and I have looked around, and we have found a sad situation. It seems that one of the main reasons for going to college is to find a husband or wife. That is a poor reason for that kind of expenditure in time and money. I know there are many young men who are looking forward to and preparing for marriage, but have no calling of God to go to college. There are many young women who have been trained by their parents to be godly helpmeets and homemakers who have no calling to go to college and be a “career woman”. In fact, why would a woman go to college except to find a husband?
I will go further, and say, a woman in college is in violation of Titus 2, unless her goal is to be a better helpmeet and homemaker. A woman does need to be well educated in order to home educate her own children when the time comes; but going to college to prepare for a career outside of her home violates Titus 2.
Home educators seem to have problems finding suitable mates, because home educators are so widely scattered. But then the danger of not home educating our children and the danger of sending them to a government school is that they may give their hearts and affections to pagans, not to mention the pagan education they will receive.
So, we would like to consider starting a distinctly Christian matchmaking ministry. There will be extensive forms to fill out. It will not be restricted to a particular theological view, but it will be toward distinctively faithful Christians. We will work at matching according to basic doctrine.”
June 15, 2007 at 1:38 am
Much love to my little sister! Amy is wonderful and I heartily agree with her. Becoming fully who you are in Christ is a lifelong adventure and the best thing that parents can do is encourage their children to know God and through him to know themselves.
Thanks again for all your encouragement, ladies! I look forward to the day when I can write lovely things about my husband and children, but until that day, I am grateful that I live with a wonderful woman who also desires to do God’s best, in an exciting city, with a job that allows me to influence people and use the gifts God has given me. There is no greater joy than living a life that uses all of who you are and to know that you are loved. God is so gracious to me!
June 15, 2007 at 1:53 am
[...] I’ve been spending all my blogging time over at the True Womanhood blog, participating in the “Visionary” Daughters discussion that has hit 128 comments. It is a GREAT discussion. Some of the women have done a [...]
June 15, 2007 at 2:43 am
…because dating services are so traditionally Christian? Yes, I think I remember something about dating services in the Old Testament…Where was that, First Fabrications?
And no, I’m not criticizing anyone who uses a dating service, but this is getting more and more bizarre! To start with a super-stringent, do it exactly like they did it back in Bible times mindset, and then start throwing in all these modern trends, willy nilly?
June 15, 2007 at 2:48 am
“First Fabrications?”
My daughter and I got a good chuckle out of that!
June 15, 2007 at 3:11 am
Rebecca,
Hang in there. I did not marry until I was 36. My husband is older than I am.
My congregation has lost families over this teaching. They left our congregation since our leaders do not believe in this teaching. And, every so often, they try to get some other people to come to their functions in the hopes of getting these folks to join their group.
Sad.
June 15, 2007 at 4:07 am
Hello. I am “Lauren’s” mother…C.A. Worcester. I would like to add just a little “hind-sight” to our journey through “Really, True, Only One Way Biblical Womanhood”. My gained knowledge is this….IT DOESN’T WORK.
My beautiful daughter comes from a mother who has been married 3 times. I had a child when I was 17…he is now a 24 year old drug addict. I am a high school drop out. I didn’t become a Believer until 1997. You would never know what a messed up mother my daughter has had if you knew her personally. I thank God for His gracious hand in our lives and He as molded her and grown her in ways that I just stand in awe of. Sometimes I can’t believe she turned out so well with so much misguided instruction from me.
Starting around 2001, we got involved in the P. Movement. I bought ALL the tapes, books, DVD’s, ect.. that I could get my hands on. My daughter and I constantly listened, read and watched “How to be a Biblical Woman”. With my unChristian past, I really yearned to be this beautiful, perfect, Godly mother to my daughter. I thought it was funny how we were learning together the art of womanhood. Good things did rub off, but along with the good things dark areas started to appear. Feelings of inadequecy, my feelings of being so far behind the curve, my daughters feelings of not having a Biblical father to guide her and to be involved with. My husband is a good man and a good father, but he wasn’t and still isn’t a Vision Forum man. This type of living caused a great deal of strain on relationships in our family. I just couldn’t understand why God laid out this example for us to live and as hard as we tried we could just never get it right.
Finally, after many years of banging our Victorian Hair heads against the wall, we both sort of figured out that this isn’t the kind of woman God wants. I can’t be something I am not and I know my daughter can’t either. We are both still shaking off the dust from our long journey and we have learned SOME very good lessons….not everything is bad, but having the ability to measure man’s (or should I say (girl’s) standard against God’s is a very necessary thing. If anything, we should be teaching ourselves and our children how to THINK. Think, think, think some more. Question things, look at all sides, put the pieces together and see how it looks against what God has said.
My heart aches for the precious time my daughter has wasted because of what I thought was the right way. My lack of discernment has cost her time and heartache. Instead of meeting the world in the name of Christ, I have isolated her from it. Not that I think she should be thrown into the world – no way – but teaching her how to come along side the world and be the shining light God wants her to be for Him.
I think David said earlier that he is grateful for a wife that has been educated and is using her mind. Maybe college really isn’t for everyone, but a mind that is thinking and creative, a mind that is curious and teachable, that is something that everyone should strive for and want. I mean really, would you want to be married to a man whose sole purpose was to be obedient to you? Agreed with EVERYTHING you said and did? Could only converse about certain things and didn’t have the resourcefulness to find solutions to problems/issues that come up in everyday life?
June 15, 2007 at 5:35 am
“He will reveal very personal priorities he set for them from birth, and how he inspired in them a desire to model dominion-oriented femininity. He will disclose principles every father can draw on when it comes to motherhood, work, education, interaction with young men, speech, fashion, and deportment.”
This is taken from the Vision Forum website. Does anyone remember men being responsible for teaching girls to be women in the Bible? It seems that task was given to older women in Titus…
June 15, 2007 at 11:14 am
CA Worchester.
Thank you so much for sharing your beautiful testimony of God’s grace in your life. I think you have brought up something really important to consider.
I have noticed that many of the people who have embraced the patriocentric lifestyle share backgrounds similar to yours. In the genuine desire for living a godly life, they have ridden the swinging pendulum as far away as possible from what they perceive to be worldliness. Then, as Martin Luther discovered, they reach a point where their own “monasteries,” if you will, cannot prevent them from sins and temptations and they realize that sin lurks inside of all mankind.
Only through daily repentance and perserverence, walking in faith and by God’s grace do any of us find the correct path for our lives. No list of rules will help.
CA, I am blessed today just to read your story and am so grateful that you told it to us. As I survey the patriocentric landscape, I worry about the mothers. Homeschooling moms have placed all their eggs in the raising children basket. When they trip and fall, much is at risk. They need to be encouraged and yet the way of the patriarchs only leads into a dessert, rather than to springs of living water. Thank you for encouraging those moms today and giving all of us that fresh drink of truth! Bless you.
June 15, 2007 at 11:33 am
“He will reveal very personal priorities he set for them from birth, and how he inspired in them a desire to model dominion-oriented femininity. He will disclose principles every father can draw on when it comes to motherhood, work, education, interaction with young men, speech, fashion, and deportment.”
This is taken from the Vision Forum website. Does anyone remember men being responsible for teaching girls to be women in the Bible? It seems that task was given to older women in Titus…
Katy,
Having officially moved into the “older woman” camp (should I share the story of my early morning, no-glasses-on chat with my “cat” only to find out I was talking to my purse?) I have wrestled and struggled through the “curriculum” if you will. What is an older woman supposed to teach?
Titus 2:5 says “3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. ”
I believe the purpose of this admonition being for older women is because we “get it” since, at this point in life, we have seen it all. We have experienced all that comes with raising a family, and being married to and living with a man. Often times we have experienced great losses, through miscarriage or death of a parent, job loss, or what have you. We have witnessed many broken relationships and are usually able to see the consequences of sin for what they are. We don’t have all the answers but we have learned that the best answers for problems can be found on the pages of Scripture rather than in the corners of our own hearts, where deceit lies.
The other truth in your observation, Katy, is that Titus 2 tells us that older women are to teach younger women to be subject to their OWN husbands….not Mr. Botkin, Mr. Phillips, or anyone else. I think there are many, many godly husbands who do not want some of this weirdness for their daughters. It is not that they are lazy or uncommitted men or slackers of any sort. On the contrary, they are men who want to see their daughters flourish, using the many gifts God has given to them for use within the body of Christ and they are each man enough to not be put into any particular mold. One thing I have noticed in patriocentric circles is that many of the men are not even students of the Word, rather they are students of the blog, or newsletter, or this conference, or that lecture series. They have to check out how Doug Phillips or R.C. Sproul Jr. or whomever does something in order to do it themselves. In retrospect, perhaps this is one of the reasons they do not want to see daughters excel in areas where they might feel threatened.
June 15, 2007 at 11:34 am
“My heart aches for the precious time my daughter has wasted because of what I thought was the right way. My lack of discernment has cost her time and heartache. Instead of meeting the world in the name of Christ, I have isolated her from it.”
CA, I learned something a long time ago. God is faithful to restore that which the locust has eaten, even when we have been the locust!
June 15, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Opening another can of worms…..
Geoffrey Botkins is one of the elders-in-training at Doug Phillips’ church in Texas. Phillips highly recommends and his Vision Forum sells a series of books for girls called the Elsie Dinsmore series. Here is what the Vision Forum catalog says about them:
“In the nineteenth century, millions of readers learned the meaning of godly womanhood from a little girl named Elsie. Her commitment to principle in the midst of adversity and her passionate love for Jesus Christ were the theme of twenty-eight volumes spanning her life. These are the original twelve volumes presented just as a young lady would have found them one hundred years ago. Over the last several years, I have heard hundreds of reports from home schoolers and Christian families about the blessings these books have been in their lives. Elsie raises the standard of godly womanhood to new heights. Feminists will not be happy with Elsie. She is a God-honoring young woman who strives to solve problems while working through biblical authority structures. By Martha Finley. Twelve hardback books. Nearly 4,000 pgs. of reading.”
I do not know if these are the orignials or if they have been “cleaned up” for current readers. However, here is a commentary of these books from a woman who read the originals as a girl. I believe that, even in a “cleaned up” state, these books teach young readers of the series to long for an inappropraite relationshp with their fathers. Here is that commentary:
“I have a strange question here. Has anyone actually read the ORIGINAL Elsie series? I did, as a kid. And a few years back I set out to collect it again, searching through used and antiquarian bookshops. As of now, I own all 28 volumes in the old-fashioned maroon covers that I remember. They evoke nostalgia for my younger self, the little girl that used to spend hours poring over Elsie’s long history. To me it was a never-ending saga with all the excitement and melodrama that I craved.
In many ways the original series was a soap opera. There was Elsie’s seemingly hopeless love for papa in book 1 and how, against all the odds, she finally won him over. There was her “death” and miraculous resurrection—a supernatural event, no less!—-in book 2. Then in book 3, there were Elsie’s suitors: poor Herbert, who died of a broken heart when she wouldn’t have him; and treacherous, insincere Egerton, who nearly broke ELSIE’S heart.
In book 4 there was her marriage to the much older Mr. Travilla, which as a child I considered unnatural and kind of “icky.” Followed her near death experience on the honeymoon, when a rejected suitor tried to murder the newlyweds. By book 5 it was the Reconstruction Era, with Elsie under attack from the Ku Klux Klan and…well, you get the idea. One sensational happening after another. No wonder that, as a kid, I loved the series. And—I’m ashamed to admit—not for the piety of our little heroine, nor for the good Christian message that she conveyed. Quite honestly I was—and still am— fascinated by the utter perverseness of Elsie Dinsmore.
PERVERSENESS? How so? Well, if you don’t believe me, read the original books. Unless I miss my guess, you’ll be shocked. First and foremost, there’s the racism. Elsie’s slaves are denigrated, de-humanized, and made to appear as half-witted children. I can remember one passage in particular in which she was teaching the way of salvation to the younger ones, and she ended her sermon by promising them that “they wouldn’t be Negroes in heaven”(!) For sheer offensiveness, it’s pretty hard to top that.
And then there was Elsie’s religious bigotry. For all her sweetness and love, she had zero tolerance for anyone who thought differently. And since, within the context of the story, our saintly heroine was always right, no one could ever win an argument with her. My word, how Elsie hated, and I mean HATED, the Roman Catholic Church! To her it was all “ignorance and superstition,” with evil Popists lying in wait to imprison Protestants in dungeons and torture chambers. She actually went mad for awhile, when papa threatened to put her in a seminary. And similarly she disliked Mormonism, calling it “a lustful, wicked pretense of a religion.” Not very tolerant, our Elsie, and by today’s standards not very politically correct!
But the worst thing about Elsie was the incestuous subtext. All suggestion of this has been expunged, thankfully, in the modern revisions. But in the original series, Horace Dinsmore was besotted with his daughter, and she with him. The “love scenes” between them went pretty far. I can recall all manner of inappropriate behavior: papa coaxing Elsie to a seat upon his knee, papa “fondling” her incessantly, papa pressing kisses on the ruby lips. And in later books of the series, this father-daughter weirdness became a family tradition, carried on by the “next generational” Captain Raymond and HIS daughter, Lulu. As a child I recognized that “something wasn’t right” about these Oedipal scenes, although I didn’t understand psychology and therefore couldn’t put a name to it. But at one point, I said to myself, “Elsie can never get married, because she’s already in love—-with her father!” Looking back, I still marvel that Martha Finley
—sweet, innocent Sunday school teacher—could have written such an erotic subtext without even realizing it.
And today I have mixed feelings about Elsie. Being an adult now, with a sense of humor, I can reread these monstrous little books and…well, laugh. But a child? NO CHILD SHOULD EVER BE GIVEN THE ORIGINALS. The originals do NOT covey a wholesome message. I’ll collect them as mementoes of the past, I’ll even be amused by their purple prose and melodrama…but I’d never give them to a child of mine to read.”
June 15, 2007 at 1:01 pm
[...] have a great discussion going on at our True Womanhood blog and you are all invited. At the center of the discussion is the book [...]
June 15, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I’ve spent a good amount of time reading through some of the comments but can’t make it through the entire list without taking too much time away from other duties that need doing–my apologies if I repeat something someone already touched on. So many good points have been made and I’m tempted to repeat some of them to clarify my position, add disclaimers, etc etc. Please trust my tone is interested and sincere, not confrontational, and that not mentioning other points to the argument doesn’t mean I think mine is central.
But, in perusing various comments and pondering the issue, one thought rises to mind: the Botkin paradigm seems flawed for several reasons that have already been discussed, not just philisophically but LOGICALLY. Now, I haven’t yet read the book but think I will so that I can find out what exactly they DO say, in full. But from the brief survey of their video, it strikes me that if one WERE to rebuild a past cultural norm, their starting point is disordered. They seem to advocate rebuilding at the wrong level. If you found a building in ruins, lacking a sound foundation and caved-in beams, would you start building upper rooms in meticulous detail before you first repaired the foundation and the first-floor beams? No! You would end up further damaging the overall structure of the house and DESTROYING all of that hard work you put into those upstairs rooms when the whole thing comes crashing down again because it lacked proper support underneath it. The end result would be worse than the original disrepair! If the Botkins or other “patriocentric” adherents truly wish to rebuild past cultural structures, they will need to admit that they are trying to build upper rooms on faulty foundations and caving beams: totally renovating the roles/expectations of daughters without first addressing the overall spiritual health of the family–starting with the man who takes the most responsibility under Christ and thus ought to be the most humble and the MOST servant-hearted, not the most ego-centric and hard-handed!–fathers. Not to mention a thousand other more important “foundational” issues that go into building a structurally sound home and society.
Please note that my above analogy is meant merely to point out a flawed logic to the Botkin paradigm; I didn’t mean to suggest one way or another that reinstituting cultural norms found in “Bible times” was necessary (or I might have asked where their full-length head coverings are). Admittedly current cultural norms are not always biblical, and certainly families, Christian and otherwise, are in grave disrepair. But the answer isn’t reverting to the incidental details of past times, nor is it in totally disregarding them. The real issue, as it has been since the very first family walked the earth in disorder, is the sinful human heart.
June 15, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Jen: Excellent point.
June 15, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Karen –
I’ve never read the Elsie Dinsmore books, but this is not the first time I’ve heard these kinds of complaints about them. Sorry I don’t have anything bookmarked to share, but just wanted to say that this person you quoted isn’t alone in her assessment of these books.
June 15, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I also wanted to say about the shaving and dressing Daddy thing…
You know, context is everything. If I were at an Awana games night and they had the kids shaving their dads in a contest, it would be funny and enjoyable to watch. If they had a race to get their dad’s tie on, etc. it would be funny. But when you take the entire context of what is being taught in patriarchy, I agree with what others said that it is creepy.
Related to this…one of the best statements in this whole discussion was by Concerned in number 121: “Daddy is not a practice hubby. He is Daddy.”
June 15, 2007 at 4:11 pm
““to be the daughter God has created them to be, serving their fathers in whatever he is doing.”
“THE Biblical model for an adult daughter””
No where does the Bible delineate between pink and blue commands for sons and daughters. Both sexes are to obey their father AND mother.
Where does the Bible teach us that a daughter is to stay at home and serve her father while a son can go out and puruse a vocation? In Bible times, and that IS where they are getting all these doctrines of men they are trying to pass off as the very precept of God, sons stayed and served their father. He didn’t go off and pursue his own thing.
1 Cor. 7 tells us that a single woman is free to wholey devote herself to God. A married woman is concerned about how she may please her husband (vice verse) and a single woman is concerned about how she may please the Lord.
It seems that this teaches us just the opposite of what the Botkin girls teach us. No where in scripture does it tell daughters that they are to devote themselves wholely to their father and to do his wll in all things and work to please him in all things, fawn over him, (ie., clothing colors, hairstyle, etc)
The scripture teaches children to honor their MOTHER and FATHER. Where is the mother in this video? Why isn’t the daughter said to be staying at home to serve her parents and honor them and please them? Why is the father elevated when scripture no where elevates him in the life of a child?
I see a direct corrolation between Elsie Dinsmore (a training manual for these young girls) and the Botkin’s philosophy. I have been doing some reading and have been reading Elsie’s later books and I am really concerned about what is being taught by example in those books.
June 15, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Sallie,
I agree with you about the context of the shaving competition. I would have no problem if this was a game for fun but VF expressly says they do this activity to teach daughters to “serve” their fathers.
It really should be the other way around. Fathers are to serve their children and they lead by their example. Instead of VF making it about a time where dads can show their daughters how to serve them, it should be about how dads can show their daughters how they serve them. They could serve them tea. They could have the fathers doing hair-dos on the daughters.
Or, how about taking them to the lake and jumping on the Blob with them? Or taking them out to the archery field and having them shoot arrows? Or taking them horseback riding?
Why the difference between the father/son retreat and the father/daughter retreat when no where does it say that daughters are to serve and obey their parents any less than sons are to serve and oby.
June 15, 2007 at 4:14 pm
The first thing that struck me while reading all the great comments here is: I have a 19 year old daughter who lives at home with us, by her own choice. She helps my husband out in his business in varying degrees. She is like my right hand in a number of my endeavors. But it has never dawned on me that she is some kind of heroine, doing something courageously counter-cultural and godly and wonderful and ultra-Biblical and powerful and…well, you get the picture. I’ve noticed, over the years, that Doug Philips and his followers tend to use the most over-the-top rhetoric to describe the most mundane sorts of things. We’ve laughed ourselves silly as a family reading some of his descriptions of formerly homeschooled kids getting married. One would think two young ‘uns getting hitched was some sort of grand, world-improving, profound, epic event to read him go on and on about it.
I realize now that, if we were just a little more imaginative, my daughter and I could have started some organization, written a book, and produced a video all about how godly and lovely and precious my daughter is and how she is battling the evils of our society and turning the world on its head — perhaps even ushering in worldwide revival — with her life message of, “Don’t move out. You’ll save a lot of money by staying home, money you can then spend on your education.” Oops…wrong message. She needs to gussy it up with a lot of Bible verses and pious-sounding talk.
The hilarious thing I that we know all sorts of young women — and men — who are still living at home. They don’t seem to have this need to make everything they do sound oh so very godly or pretend they are part of some “movement”. Plus, it’s silly to claim this is counter-cultural when I’ve read magazine articles about the phenomena of adult “children” who simply will not leave home. Why give up a good thing?
June 15, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Karen,
I should read backwards since I come into these things so late and just sound redundant!
I am glad that you got that quote that I posted.
Here is another review from Amazon. I second the recommendations of the two books at the end of her review. They are both great books for girls. In fact, “The Wide, Wide World” was the one Jo was reading in “Little Women” that made her weep! They are both sold by Lamplighter and I highly recommend Mark Hamby and his ministry. He has learned a lot through trial and error.
I will tell you that these are not speculations about anything. These are exact quotes from those books.
“I’ll risk having my comments dismissed as the ravings of a sinful mind by my fellower reviewers who are impressed with this novel’s Christian message because I’m sure that there some concerned parents out there who would appreciate knowing that this novel discusses Elsie’s love for her father in language that many would consider more appropriate to an adult romance novel. I could say a great deal about the many problems, literary and otherwise, that I see in this book, but I’ll settle for just providing a few examples of what I regard as its most troubling element so parents can judge for themselves before buying. “The little girl . . . was rehearsing again and again in her own mind all that had just passed between her papa and herself. She dwelt with lingering delight upon everything approaching to a caress, every kind word, every soothing tone of his voice, and then picturing to herself all that he might have done and said if those unwelcome visitors had not come . . . And half hoping that he would send for her when they had gone, she watched the clock and listened intently for every sound.. . . But her bedtime came . . . She lay awake for some time, thinking of his unwonted kindness, and indulging fond hopes for the future, and then fell asleep to dream that she was on her father’s knee, and felt his arm folded lovingly about her, and his kisses warm upon her cheek. Her heart beat quickly as she entered the breakfast room the next morning. . .His cold and distant manner to her and his often repeated reproofs had so increased her natural timidity . . . He saw that she feared him, and to that feeling alone he gave credit for her uniform obedience. . . He had no conception of the intense, but now almost despairing love for him that burned in that little heart, and made the young life one longing, earnest desire and effort to gain his affection.” And: “She admired her father, and loved him, ‘oh so dearly,’ as she often whispered to herself, but would she ever meet with anything like a return of her fond affection? There was an aching void in her heart which nothing else could fill . . Was her craving for affection never to be satisfied? . . . If I might climb on his knee now, and lay my head on his chest, and put my arms around his neck, and tell him how sorry I am that I have been naughty, . . .If he would forgive me, and kiss me . . . Or if I might only stand beside him and lay my head on his shoulder, and he would put his arm around me, it would make me so happy.” Or: “Then for the first time he folded her in his arms and kissed her tenderly, saying in a moved tone, ‘I do love you, my darling, my own little daughter,’ . . . Her joy was too great for words, for anything but tears. ‘Why do you cry so, my darling?’ he asked, soothingly, stroking her hair, and kissing her again and again. ‘Oh, papa! Because I am so happy, so very happy,’ she sobbed.” And then there is Mr. Travilla, Elsie’s father’s best friend (whom, if I’m not mistaken, she marries in a sequel despite his being at least 15 years older). Here’s a nice scene with him: “As Elsie ran out into the hall, she found herself suddenly caught in Mr. Travilla’s arms. ‘A merry Christmas and a happy New Year! little Elsie,’ he said , kissing her on both cheeks. ‘Now I have caught you figuratively and literally, my little lady, so what are you going to give me, eh?’ ‘Indeed, sir, I think you’ve helped yourself to the only thing I have to give at present,’ she answered with a merry silvery laugh. ‘Nay, give me one, little lady,’ said he, ‘one such hug and kiss as I dare say your father gets half-a-dozen times in a day.’ She gave it very heartily. ‘Ah ! I wish you were ten years older,” he said as he set her down. ‘If I had been, you wouldn’t have got the kiss,’ she replied, smiling archly.” Perhaps a little too “archly” for an 8 year old girl, in my opinion. I’m sure that many will not see anything troubling in such passages; however, I also know others who have thought that this novel depicts child/parent love in terms that border on erotic. You can judge for yourself. If you’re looking for similar bestselling 19th century novels that teach young girls the lesson of Christian submission, consider Susan Warner’s _The Wide, Wide World_ or Maria Cummins’s _The Lamplighter_. They are far superior as literature to the Elsie books. “
June 15, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“Finally, after many years of banging our Victorian Hair heads against the wall, we both sort of figured out that this isn’t the kind of woman God wants. I can’t be something I am not and I know my daughter can’t either. We are both still shaking off the dust from our long journey and we have learned SOME very good lessons….not everything is bad, but having the ability to measure man’s (or should I say (girl’s) standard against God’s is a very necessary thing. If anything, we should be teaching ourselves and our children how to THINK. Think, think, think some more. Question things, look at all sides, put the pieces together and see how it looks against what God has said.”
ROFLOL!! What an image you have left in my head! I totally relate to your story. I was a single parent at a young age, basically raised myself and my son all by myself. I supported both of us by working full-time and going to school at night. Not something I would recommend but it is what it is. My parents, like many other parents, gave both my sister and I the lecture when we started high school that we should be prepared to be OUT of the house by the time we graduate.
But, I did the whole patriarchy thing via ATI/Gothard/Phillips/Lindvall and I tried for many years to be something I was not. My husband kept on telling me that he likes me better the “old” way. I just thought he needed to catch the “vision” of the Bible.
I became a Christian when I was 23 and my son was almost 4 years old. I met my husband the same year. He had been a Christian for quite some time. I never had a problem understanding the Bible until I was introduced to all the extra-biblical teachings of the patriarchal movement. You can’t read a Bible verse without thinking it has got to have something to do with submission and a man’s authority.
June 15, 2007 at 5:11 pm
To the point of “dominion-oriented femininity”
here’s an article entitled, Daddy’s Girl, from Sarah Faith Schlissel. THe original source is cited as the Chalcedon Foundation.
http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/92b.htm
“Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter’s hand without her father’s endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, “property” not his own. Daughters are Daddy’s girls in the objective sense, and this particular daughter rejoices in that truth. I am owned by my father.”
(and then further into the article she states)
“As strange as it may sound, in the peculiar relationship of the father and daughter, God, as it were, takes a back seat. God has created a hierarchy such that the daughter is directly answerable to her father, and her father then answers to God. This doubles the father’s responsibilities, because he must account to God for the way he raises his daughter.”
Where is the biblical justifcation for a father owning a daughter like “property” or that he is her intermediary with God?
And how is it that God takes a back seat to an earthly father? The Lord takes a back seat to no man.
They cite Numbers 30 which speaks to a father’s ability to annul a vow his daughter makes. But that must also be considered in light of 1 Corinthians 7:34 which says,
“An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.”
There is no indication that an unmarried virgin is the property or under her father’s ownership. She is to care for the things of the Lord. Not distracted by the cares of this world.
But to a daughter who is taught from her birth that “dada” is her Lord and God takes a backseat, how can she possibly question what he tells her based on what she may read in the Bible on her own?
June 15, 2007 at 5:35 pm
First, I think Sallie raised an excellent point regarding the context of the “shaving their dad” thing but if none of us were at this father/daughter retreat, do we really know what the context of it was? We may be jumping to conclusions on that one.
I really related to what someone said about believing your own background was not biblical or not conservative enough, and therefore being drawn in to something the complete opposite.
My husband and I have have been rather drawn by some aspects of the patriarchy mindset, and he and I talked about this discussion a lot last night.
I think we tend to have this dreamy idea of how things will be when our own kids are grown and in that fantasy this idea of the devoted daughter seems to fit. But while we were talking, I asked him, “If something happened to you, should I move back in with my parents? Would I consider myself back under my father’s authority?” The idea seemed preposterous! One reason being that, while I love my dad, his religious views and world views are very different then my husband’s and mine.
And it seems that some young women have come to the same conclusion, as someone mentioned that some young ladies are seeking out men of the same patriarchy mindset to “replace” their own fathers. But didn’t one of the Botkins girls make the point that they are to submit to their fathers even if they don’t agree with him? It seems that there are some things that are “acceptable” for the fathers to disagree on, but being of the patriarchal mindset is not one of them.
So if all of the above is true (and I am allowing that some of the things discussed here may not be completely accurate reports but if they are) then aren’t we back to a mindset of “submission IF…”? I will submit to my father, so long as he believes the same things that I believe? They just have different “if”s than the women they are proclaiming to be in sin. Isn’t that like saying, “You should submit fully to your father–but only if he agrees with what I am teaching you.”
(Now I can’t find the comment that said some young women are seeking out “fathers” of this mindset. Did I dream that? If so disregard.)
The other concern I have is this: If I raise my daughter to believe that her sole purpose is being a wife and mother–aren’t I setting her up to feel incomplete and like she has no purpose if she doesn’t marry? And further, isn’t that setting her up to jump on the first proposal she gets in order to fulfill her “purpose”, even if the guy is not really good husband material?
June 15, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Keeper of the home (titus 2 )concordance definition# 3626 Greek word oikouros means staying at home, domestic:-keepers of the home.
For your consideration…oikouros…
June 15, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I’ve really enjoyed reading this discussion, and as a younger woman knowing there are older, married woman here, I would like to ask after your wisdom.
My best friend is in a difficult situation because of her parents. She says that they love her, but to be honest, I don’t see any emotion resembling love present. She is constantly ridiculed and demeaned, and her parent’s marriage is anything but healthy.
Recently, her mother (who “wears the pants”) placed a set of restrictions on her that are nearly impossible to meet and are downright unhealthy. She obeys them according to the fifth commandment, and says that she can’t do anything else.
This is an abusive environment (I’m not sure… but I think it may be physically abusive- I live 2,000 mi. away). She is 20 years old, attending college, and at the moment, has a full-time job. However, she is still living at home because her parents have forbidden her from leaving until she is married, and they won’t allow her to marry until she has a masters.
Does the fifth commandment really force young women to submit to hostile environments? I can’t see how it does, but she’s convinced. I’m not even sure where the line between submission and independence is… what can I say to her?
June 15, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Spunky says: ““Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter’s hand without her father’s endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, “property” not his own. Daughters are Daddy’s girls in the objective sense, and this particular daughter rejoices in that truth. I am owned by my father.”
(and then further into the article she states)
“As strange as it may sound, in the peculiar relationship of the father and daughter, God, as it were, takes a back seat. God has created a hierarchy such that the daughter is directly answerable to her father, and her father then answers to God. This doubles the father’s responsibilities, because he must account to God for the way he raises his daughter.”
Dare I employ the heresy word once again?!?!?! God, as it were, takes a back seat? This has to be the end result of this patriocentric madness. Afterall, if men honestly believe that God is taking a back seat to them for any reason, they become gods themselves, no? Outrageous!
June 15, 2007 at 6:21 pm
from Ellen’s link:
There is a verb form of the root word, “oikodespoteo” that Strong’s defines as “to rule a household, manage family affairs”; this is our job.
“Oikouros” is no goddess. “Oikouros” is us! We, as women, have the God-granted responsibility of guarding our homes against those who would do it harm.
And I believe this includes defending our homes from such comments as Spunky just shared, as well as little Elsie!
Thanks for sharing, Ellen!
June 15, 2007 at 6:45 pm
The problem with taking something that is DEscriptive (all the ways in the Bible that women and girls were treated) and trying to make it PREscriptive (the only way to do it right) is that you run into questions like Isaac and Rebekah.
How would these girls respond if a servant of a young man’s father showed up and gave her a nose ring – will they simply go and marry a man they had never met? This is “Biblical”.
If this is a lifestyle choice for these girls, more power to them – I’m sure they are showing the glory of God in their lives. But you have to show me where that life is mandated by Scripture, and not culturally descriptive.
We have Christian rules to live by. If these girls are trying to add to them, and make them seem binding upon others, this is a problem.
It is not their life that is an issue, it’s the making of new “law” that I have a problem with.
June 15, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Spunky,
I have forgotten about that article!! Double YIKES!!!
Daughters are property of their fathers in an objective sense?
God takes a backseat to the father? WHOAAAA!!!
““As strange as it may sound, in the peculiar relationship of the father and daughter, God, as it were, takes a back seat. God has created a hierarchy such that the daughter is directly answerable to her father, and her father then answers to God. ”
Yes, it DOES sound strange because that isn’t found in the Bible that I read. How is the daughter any different than the wife? Well, she isn’t. Under their system, the wife is directly answerable to her husband, so, therefore, God also takes the backseat to a husband.
I wonder if they asked God how He felt about being relegated to the position of a backseat driver?
If this isn’t the very definition of idolatry, I do not know what is.
“First, I think Sallie raised an excellent point regarding the context of the “shaving their dad” thing but if none of us were at this father/daughter retreat, do we really know what the context of it was? We may be jumping to conclusions on that one.”
But, VF did give us the context of this exercise. It was to train the daughters how to “SERVE” their fathers. Couple that with the blindfold game they played where the daughters eyes were covered and then had to follow their father’s commands/voice. That was another TRAINING exercise in that it was supposed to train the daughter to hear her father’s voice and obey it.
And, why aren’t they doing this with the boys? In an AWANA gathering it would be all children having fun with dad by shaving his face. Why aren’t boys learning how to serve their fathers in this way? Where do we find these pink and blue instructions to children in scripture? We don’t.
We have our context. We know why they picked those activities for the daughter/father retreat.
June 15, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Karen,
I think you can rightly use the word “heresy” after the quotes from Spunky.
I really don’t know if that word is strong enough.
Job 9:33- no mediator between us and God
1 Ti. 2:5
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
The word “men” is the word “anthropos” which means mankind which includes females.
God takes a back seat to NO one and anyone who lifts himself up above God in the life of anyone will suffer the same fate that Satan did when he dared to make himself higher than God.
It is the height of arrogance to say such a thing and it is diametrically opposed to the Gospel message.
June 15, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Ellen,
I liked your article on the Greek word oikouros.
That word definitely carries with it the weight of power and authority. It doesn’t carry with it the connotation that many give it. This is a woman who is militant and guards the home. In order to do that she must have that authority given to her by God. If we will grant the woman of the home the full weight of the meaning of that word then I see no problem. It is when people take away from that word and make it into something it is not when the problem comes in.
That means if someone brings pornography into the home, she exposes it and does away with it and protects her whole family from it. If someone brings destructive and false teachings/philosophies into the home, she exposes it with the word of God.
This is a description of woman who has more than just cooking, cleaning and changing diapers on her plate.
June 15, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Wow, what a discussion!
I’ve been observing the Patriarchy movement via the internet for a few years now with an odd sort of curiosity. I’ve seen the same things you all have seen via the web- the wedding showcase on Doug Phillips, the championing of “fecundity” on Scott Brown’s website, the Daddy/Daughter retreats, the homeschool conferences, the Dominion arguments, etc. and one thing I just can’t seem to comprehend is the glorification of the Victorian era, especially when the subject is women. Don’t get me wrong, I love Jane Austen as much as the rest of us (Persuasion is my favorite of her titles), however one common thread I find between groups who wish to return to “better times” is a whitewashing of how those times really were. Life for the majority of individuals living in the Victorian era was not straight out of one of the Victorian era prints that grace the covers of Vision Forum books and cds. Life for those in the lower classes was difficult and many of the women were forced to work difficult jobs. This idealization of the past baffles me, although it probably shouldn’t, it seems to be human nature. Of course some things were “better,” this is a fallen world, it’s only going to get worse. But to idealize something to the point of revision and to spread that revision as Biblical truth leads to many broken hearts, false teachings, and to some extent idolatry. Why are we trying to “return” to something that never truly was?
June 15, 2007 at 7:41 pm
” Virtually all the married couples that I know met at 1) college or 2) work or through work friends (my own parents, who were married 51 years- until my mother’s death, met at college; my husband and I met through work friends, etc.) Is matchmaking one of the purposes of these Vision Forum “events”? ”
Doug and Beall Phillips met at her work while she was working as a professional.
June 15, 2007 at 7:44 pm
“Also, the applying of the wife verses to the Daddy/ Daughter relationship. It is everything together that makes me uncomfortable. Daddy is not a practice hubby. He is Daddy.”
Concerned,
Well said. I may just borrow that phrase.
There is nothing wrong with a healthy relationship with one’s father but where is the line? Girls are not to be romantically ANYTHING with their fathers.
June 15, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Thank you for this enlightening discussion. Thanks especially for the reviews on the Elsie Dinsmore books. I had NO idea!!! They’ve been on my wish-list, but no longer. There are many other books that are much more deserving of our time and money.
This discussion has given me much to think about and I appreciate the time that you ladies have taken to share your research and discernment!
Blessings,
Angel
June 16, 2007 at 12:02 am
[...] “visionary” daughters Having just spent a delightful two plus weeks with my charming, college educated daughter and her little boys, I got up […] [...]
June 16, 2007 at 4:10 am
Lani,
If she were my friend, I would tell her she is an adult, she is free to move out, she has a job, so she has money.
I would just do it, then tell the folks I did it. I would tell them graciously and kindly.
If she can find a church with some Bible-honoring elders that would take her on and help her restore an adult relationship with her parents, she would probably find that an enormous help.
June 16, 2007 at 4:54 am
Lani,
I stayed at home too long (through college). I think I would’ve been much better off leaving sooner.
The problem was, I didn’t believe in myself and had been taught that I couldn’t make it (it was not reasonable or true, but such was the state of my mind). You friend sounds like she is in a far worse situation and she probably does not think she can manage on her own. She may even think she is worthless and have very low self-esteem. The most important thing is to love her and not judge her about whether she moves out or not. She will eventually; she just needs to believe in herself more.
As it was, I got married only a few months after I moved out on my own. I think it would’ve been much better for me if I had had more time on my own. It allows you to to work through things emotionally, mentally, and spiritually.
June 16, 2007 at 10:44 am
I finished listening to the “Discovering Life Purpose” CD I mentioned, but it apparently was not the one I was thinking of. Perhaps it was the VF CD on what to do about college? Does anyone have that one and want to listen to it? I’m almost positive Doug Phillips talks about the exceptions of women going to college and they weren’t just “live at home under your father’s rule and take distance courses” type stuff. It seems like he talks about God calling some women to go to college, etc. that would be directly in conflict with what (apparently) the Botkins and others are teaching. (I say apparently because I do not have a copy of their book and I’m going just on what others have written here.)
June 16, 2007 at 11:11 am
“and one thing I just can’t seem to comprehend is the glorification of the Victorian era, especially when the subject is women.”
From what I have observed, it is the pre-civil war south that is the time period and culture that is most emulated within patriocentric circles. There is most definately a move back toward, or atleast a glorification of, an agrarian lifestyle, which was common prior to the Industrial Revolution.
After the Civil War, the country changed in ways that made this “idyllic lifestyle” (for those at the top of the heirarchy), impossible. Women’s suffrage, civil rights, the temperance movement, etc. all were “assaults” on the antebellum way of life and are forever changed.
Today, you cannot go very far within patriocentric circles without learning that their views, typically, but not always, include women not owning property, one household vote for men, both in church and civil government, women not being allowed to work outside the home in any season of her life, a southern view of states’ rights, including a glorified view of the old south and a rewritten record of slavery. This may seem outrageous, but I once was part of a church group who regularly talked longingly about the ways of the pre-civil war south and the “fact” that had the south won the war, we would have a truly Christian nation (the south) in which to live. They despised Abraham Lincoln and one elder even talked about “the good the KKK had done.” Wonder why we aren’t with that group any longer?
It is hard to get your arms around the whole picture but during the past few years I have spent some time reading about women and their roles in the pre-civil war southern culture and the Vision Forum catalog for girls portrays pretty well what that culture looked like for little white girls during that time. Want to know how they dressed? Look at the link for “modest” clothing from some of the sites like Ladies Against Feminism. Many of those clothing lines are actually made using Civil War reinactment patterns.
Much of what is taught as far as views of women is concerned is based on the teachings of Dabney, a seminarian, theologian, and, in reality, a racist, from the mid 1800′s. If you are interested and so inclined, here is a sermon preached by Doug Phillips back in 1996 when he was keynoting at The League of the South. It is entitled A Southern View of Patriarchy.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=350512168
June 16, 2007 at 11:18 am
Sallie,
I was talking with a young woman the other day who used to work with Doug Phillips. Seeing her tremendous talents and gifts, he encouraged her to attend law school. That was “back then.” She believes that his views on this have now evolved into what is promoted throughout the writings of those published by Vision Forum, ie the Botkin view.
June 16, 2007 at 11:49 am
Karen said: “From what I have observed, it is the pre-civil war south that is the time period and culture that is most emulated within patriocentric circles. There is most definately a move back toward, or atleast a glorification of, an agrarian lifestyle, which was common prior to the Industrial Revolution”
I think a lot of current proponents of agrarianism would take issue with this statement. Most of the agrarian bloggers I read have no interest in the antebellum south or returning to that way of life in general. They are, however, very interested in living a simple life, a more hands-on life – what many of them would call the good life, something that is also very much an interest of mine. Cumberland Books would be a good place to start if someone wants to explore the things that the agrarian-minded folks are thinking about.
June 16, 2007 at 11:58 am
Sallie,
You are correct that most agrarians don’t want to go back to the days of the old south.
I remember longing to live on 5 acres and to be self-sufficient. I still long to simplify my life. From my own perspective, embracing the antebellum life would certainly not simplify anything.
But the point I am making is that most people who are embracing the views of the old south long for an agrarian lifestyle. Does that make sense?
The difference is that today women who live an agragrian lifestyle have to work hard, there are no slaves to do the work. Modern agrarians recognize this and aren’t enamored with a feudalistic system.
However, feudalism is exactly what is suggested by pro south patriocentrists. It is kind of like a saying we have at our house. Not all homeschoolers are weirdoes but it sure seems like all sorts of weirdoes homeschool!
June 16, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I know I’m a latecomer to this post, and I’ve admired the rational and gracious discussion. Kudos to you all!
I just watched the video *after* reading all your comments. I’m grieved. I noticed very clearly that the MOTHERS are missing. So many pictures of old men with doting young women! Harumph!! Add that with the other cultural themes you all are mentioning, and these young women are being set up for disaster.
I don’t even know if God is in the backseat. I think they left Him at the last reststop.
Tsk-tsk.
June 16, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I just have to say…
Has anybody ever thought about what nearly all advertisers use to promote their product/idea/etc? Has it come to you yet?
Young, Beautiful Women!
Can anyone imagine a teenage girl’s response to Mr. Botkin standing up there and saying all the things his daughters are saying? Why should she take some man’s (who is NOT her father) word for it? But coming from someone of her generation, it just might keep attention long enough to sink in.
But coming from Mr. Botkin (or Doug Phillips), it’s a thousand times more likely to come off as what it really is: some weird extra-Biblical Dominionist propaganda. It’s a much smarter advertising move (and so convenient, too) to train your daughters to make it sound so pretty and world changing. And it’s free, too.
June 16, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Karen – Yes, I understand what you are saying. I just wanted to make sure it was clear to others who might not be familiar with those terms. I think agrarianism has some good ideas to offer so I didn’t want people to link it to patriarchy.
Alisa – Good point.
I just watched the video again for the first time since this discussion got rolling. You could make a long list of all the over-the-top statements in it. I didn’t write them all down, but something about the fact that these girls are rebuilding the foundations of Western Civilization? Really?
But the one that got me that I wrote down was this: “Help us show the Christian and non-Christian world something it has likely never seen before – family units that are strong, close-knit, united in vision, productive and dynamic.” Dollars to donuts that this would describe a lot of the households represented by people who have commented on this discussion. Not perfect, but still displaying those qualities. But do you notice what is missing from that list? What about spiritually vibrant?
June 16, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I talked with my husband about this last night during our date time at the Olive Garden
He made a very interesting comment about this whole thing and that is, “When you feel like you have to create some sort of system what you’re really saying is that the Gospel isn’t enough.” I have thought about that over and over and have to agree that I haven’t heard one word in the video (haven’t read the book) about how the Gospel changes our hearts and causes us to seek purity, loveliness, and holiness and gives us the power to resist temptation.
June 16, 2007 at 6:49 pm
But do you notice what is missing from that list? What about spiritually vibrant?
Joyful? Happy? Content?
June 16, 2007 at 7:19 pm
There’s a subtle danger of a movement like this. All sorts of “biblical” ideas, and they back it up with tons of scriptures that when taken together can sound so true and so good and so right that it can be convicting to the undiscerning mind.
I often say to my wife that it’s amazing how Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees and scribes searched diligently to find eternal life, but yet Scripture was to point to Him. The Pharisees and scribes read the Scriptures like crazy, had all these systems set up in order to “be right”, and yet look what happened. They MISSED it! All that reading and study to do what is right and yet they missed it. Just because someone is very conservative and has a lot of scripture to quote doesn’t mean they have the right answer.
That’s a sobering fact for all of us, yet I can’t help but be grieved for the patriocentric crowd who seem to be missing the point in their zeal to “exercise dominion”. The Pharisees were so mad that they were being told they were wrong that they eventually killed Christ. And I note more often that when these people are questioned, they get pretty perturbed.
Jesus said, “Go and find out what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice”. That mercy and servanthood would be the desire of these husbands, not a rulership that squelches women’s gifts and abilities.
June 16, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“Has anybody ever thought about what nearly all advertisers use to promote their product/idea/etc? Has it come to you yet?
Young, Beautiful Women!
Can anyone imagine a teenage girl’s response to Mr. Botkin standing up there and saying all the things his daughters are saying?….. But coming from someone of her generation, it just might keep attention long enough to sink in.
But coming from Mr. Botkin (or Doug Phillips), it’s a thousand times more likely to come off as what it really is: some weird extra-Biblical Dominionist propaganda.”
Alisa,
This is such a good point.
If you notice there are never any “homely” girls featured time and time again on the VF site or in its materials. The pictures always seem to be of the same girls, too.
June 16, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I have been thinking more about this and what really made the whole idea of “Beautiful, Biblical Womanhood” appeal to me:
The pictures of mothers and children were pretty to me….I wanted to be that woman in the picture lovingly holding a baby and picking apples with my toddler. I wanted my dress to look that way too. No spit-up or bra strap showing. I wanted my hair to look nice…..no ponytail or frizzy messy hair on me!!
I thought making my home perfect would give me greater spirituality. I painted, scrubbed, moved furniture around, hung pictures, ect., I was never content.
Maybe if I had a menu planner – that might make things better. Hmmmm, maybe I should incorporate high tea time everyday. Why can’t I have a peaceful evening meal with my family? What am I doing WRONG????
Ok, maybe it is just my husband. He is not doing what a “Man of Vision” is described as doing. He is such a mess…..if only I could fix him a little bit more.
All I do know is that I very much lacked in my life older, Godly women. I had no one except these women or shall I say men, that were espousing the “How to be….” directions. Now that I think about it, why would a man tell me HOW to be a woman anyway? Why would any man back “in the day” want to waste his time on telling a woman how to “be” if he was so intent on dominating the world anyway? Wasn’t he off to greater things than just to hang around the home and make sure she was fluffing the feathers properly?
Oh, and one more thing….women like myself…the ones that don’t come from a strong Christian/Believing home…..we are many!!! There are so many of us that have by God’s Grace been turned around and made new! We have so much to offer younger girls and women. We know by experience what it is like to be a single pregnant girl. We know what it is like to have an unbelieving father. We know what it is like to make really BAD choices and suffer the consequences of those choices. We know what it is like to be “tossed off” by those women who deem us “bottom of the barrel” because we a little “rough around the edges” still. We know what it is like to live……REAL LIFE.
I feel a little silly even being in this discussion because I do not write very well (yet). I am working on it. What I want to say doesn’t come out very clear or organized at times. But I am making a diffence in my little corner of the world.
I agree with the other comments, now that I have thought about it more in-depth, that this whole Biblical Womanhood agenda (for the most part) is being promoted and presented by younger women and sometimes girls. The only person I can think of at this time that we have a book written by that had older children was Stacey MacDonald. My daughter just reminded me that we also have some CD’s by Susan Bradrick too. I am not saying that you have to be “old and experienced” to offer any kind of encouragement or guidance, but being a woman of God is a BIG area and to draw lines around God is pretty bold and assuming….especially if have never experienced life and a life that is not from a text book style “Chrisitan” home. I don’t see many books out there by girls who grew up and are still at home that talk about how messed up their parents were and how to make a break and go God’s way. Hmmmm, maybe I should have my daughter write one…..:-)
June 16, 2007 at 9:18 pm
EEEKKKK!!!! I didn’t proof read my last post…. please overlook my mistakes!!! (This is what happens when you are racing to write something before the baby wakes up from a nap!! Hee hee)
June 16, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Dear C.A.,
I beg to differ, you write VERY well!
No matter how many times I wander away from this truth (and try to tell myself that if I was just better at scheduling/homekeeping/etc.), God is patient to continually remind me that the only TRUE KEY to victorious living for the Christian is this:
“Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU”.
Thanks so much for your perspective!
June 17, 2007 at 10:45 am
This is the link to “Daddy’s Little Girl” mentioned above by Spunky.
http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/92b.htm
Now a great response to the Schissel article. (Hat tip to Corrie)
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/largerhope/Courtship%20&%20Betrothal%20Essays/God%20in%20the%20back.htm
June 17, 2007 at 10:57 am
David said:
“I often say to my wife that it’s amazing how Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees and scribes searched diligently to find eternal life, but yet Scripture was to point to Him. The Pharisees and scribes read the Scriptures like crazy, had all these systems set up in order to “be right”, and yet look what happened. They MISSED it! All that reading and study to do what is right and yet they missed it. ”
After nearly 30 years working in sales, my husband started a new job this past week. It is the job of his dreams and I am so enjoying how much he is enjoying it!
Two changes on my end that have come with his change, however, are that 1) I need to pack a lunch every day and 2) He has to wear clothing made of 100% cotton because he comes into contact with high voltage equipment. This is in contrast to “salesman wear” and lunches with clients.
I cannot tell you the delight I have had all week planning fun lunches every day. And when I steam and iron his clothes, I pray for him…what a great opportunity. But what has really struck me this week as I have done these things at the same time I have been thinking so much about patriocentricity is how much I love caring for my husband without any list of rules of what to do. He never once demanded these things from me. In fact, he said “Oh, I can do that” when I added these things to my to-do list.
He and I were talking over breakfast yesterday morning about the unorganic nature of so much that comes out of the patriocentric circles. I had just read a section in the Botkin book where the girls were instructing wives in their behavior toward their husbands and it really made us laugh outloud. My husband doesn’t want me to approach him or care for him according to some list of rules and regulations. He wants it to come from my heart.
The same is true of God. When some man (or woman) has prescribed a list of their version of rules for obedience, God doesn’t want that. Our relationship with the Lord and our relationships with others must be natural, flowing from a heart that has been touched by God’s grace.
Thanks, David, for your comments. They are always appreciated.
June 17, 2007 at 10:59 am
CA,
Please keep adding your thoughts….they are good ones.
June 17, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I have noticed the arrogance within this movement. One of the ladies that broke away from my congregation had her sights on one of the other mothers in our congregation. The break away lady has been trying to get this mother to conform to her ways for some time.
The worst part is that this breakaway lady told this mother, many times, that she is a godly wife and mother. The implication being that this other mother was not godly. That seems the height of arrogance to me.
This same woman made a comment about my toddler-a girl-saying that “she seemed to be tough”. I remember we were looking at each other for a moment afterward, and I felt funny about why she made that comment. It wasn’t what she said or even how she said it, but I still felt something was off. Now I know what it was.
My blessing is apparently “tough”, still likes to play with cars, trucks and trains-thus I am a bad mother for allowing this, and could not possibly be raising a godly daughter.
How do these people explain Deborah’s role in the Old Testament? Guess she wasn’t godly either, even though God put her in the role of judge.
June 17, 2007 at 3:46 pm
From Comment #175
“I just watched the video *after* reading all your comments. I’m grieved. I noticed very clearly that the MOTHERS are missing.”
The answer to the idea about fathers being the center of it all can be found in this article Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation by Brian M. Abshire on the Vision Forum website.
“While one cannot really yet call it a “movement”, the term “patriarchy” has made a return describing an attempt to develop a counter-cultural model of the Christian family and by extension, a just Christian social order.”
He describes the “doctrine of representation” where the father as the leader speaks for the family.
“The Reformers saw “Democracy” as an ancient Greek heresy contrary to biblical social and political theory. Instead, the greatest theologians of the Reformation affirmed the doctrine of “federalism” or “representation” based upon the model found in Genesis. In this view, one man stands for the group.”
He then says, “In effect, Western civilization WAS a “patriarchy” up until recent times and assumed as the normal means of governing not only households, but also entire nations. ”
Tying the points together, he believes that a “federal” husband and father is the answer to returning Western Civilization back to biblical patriarchy.
“In effect, Western civilization WAS a “patriarchy” up until recent times and assumed as the normal means of governing not only households, but also entire nations. The English proverb “every man’s home is his castle” represents the cultural assumption, handed down from antiquity, that the father, as head of his household, WAS the federal representative of his own family to the broader community.”
Applying this to the househould, “The biblical patriarch thus assumes personal responsibility for teaching his wife and children; out of his “secret” worship, meditating on the Divine Word, (Josh 1:8) God equips him to minister to his entire household through family worship (Deut 6:4ff). ”
So it is the father who holds reponsibility for all things in his househould. Which is how he justifies a woman not voting. Since she would just vote the way her husband does, it would be a doubling. And no woman would ever think of nullifying his vote with a different vote of her own. It is against biblical order.
Anticipating criticism that this becomes “idolatry” he states, “Others criticize the “patriarchs” for “idolatry” in elevating the family as the “center of life.” However, what IS the center of “life?” Granted, the sovereign Lord has ultimate claim to all our love, worship and service, but this God established the family as the basic element of community; it was not good for the man to be alone, so God created the family. In the family, we find both unity and diversity; many members but still one-just as there is one God in three persons.”
Notice how his response goes from worshipping the creator to the creation. He assents that a sovereign God has ultimate claim to our love and worship, but that He established the family. However, there is no “but” with God he shares his worship with nothing else. That something else is an “idol.” The center of life is God the Father. But he asserts that since we see the trinity in the family, this is not idolatry. I see the trinity in the three forms of water, but I don’t consider water worthy of my adoration! Such subtle flaws in logic make them family idolatry and patriocentric theology believable to many people.
Also anticipating the crticism that the wife will be relegated to “bear children, cook food and keep her mouth shut.” He says, “If this accusation were true, then it would be a serious blow against “patriarchy;” however, one searches in vain for those “patriarchs” who espouse such a view. The godly “patriarch” lives with his wife in an understanding manner (cf 1 Ptr 3:7ff) and represents HER views to the world as a part of his greater duty as her federal head.”
So because we can’t find any examples of this, and “good” patriarchs represent HER views to the world the assertion isn’t true. But that is not sufficient proof that to the critcism is not valid. How do we know that the man is represents HER views? We must believe the husband. Would a patriarch ever admit that he is voting based on his wife’s views, which are contrary to his own. No. So that’s why we find no examples of patriarchs who espouse the view that women just bear children, cook, and keep their mouth shut. They can’t voice an opinion different than his, and he sure is gonna spill hte bean!
Here’s the link
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx
June 17, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I posted this previously on Sallie’s blog:
“I agree with Jess so much on this point. I feel myself a “young Christian”~ I may not be physically ‘young’ (at 25), but it is only within the last year and a half that I have come to a true relationship with Christ, after being “saved” from the age of five and raised in the church. I felt deeply convicted that I needed to know God’s Word…to read it for myself, and seek understanding…something I had never done until this last year. I am not quite through my first time through the Bible from cover to cover.
For that very reason, I am very careful as to the spiritual matters I discuss on my blog. I will freely testify to God’s provision and movement in my life, but I will rarely, if ever, comment on a theological sticking point because I fear my own misunderstanding of the Scriptures. Perhaps in time I will, but I would be loath to post something that would lead my readers away from the Truth of God’s Word. (Please don’t think this is a judgement or anything against bloggers who do…I greatly enjoy and am encouraged by many of you wonderful women like Sallie and Jess who challenge me constantly to think and evaluate the Scripture.) It’s just where I am at personally.
Which is why the film troubles me. I am not sure where the Botkin sisters are getting their authority. I am not even sure (as many have pointed out) that they are holding to their own evaluations of what is “authority” (being under the local Church, for example). Things aren’t lining up. I am woefully ill equipped to examine it all. But you bet after reading all of this I will be reading the Word and praying for discernment in all of this. Because something is off, and I can’t quite articulate what it is. ”
Upon more prayer and examining many of the Scriptures that have been repeatedly mentioned…what is “off”… I can come to no other conclusion that it is in fact heresy. To say that the man (husband or daddy) stands as an intercessor between the woman (wife or daughter)and God is wrong and against scripture. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME.” (John 14:6,emphasis mine)
What is more, and I repeatedly come back to this, and my husband continues to point out…we are to examine the teachings of everyone against the Scripture…as Spunky made an excellent and much better worded point in 99. Not only do the Botkin’s seem to have a very restricted view of the same scriptures, but they also do not hold to their own teachings! If they won’t even prescribe to their own teachings, how can we trust them to “teach” us about the word of God?
This discussion has struck me to the core…thank you for all the comments and the lack of flames…as a mother of three (soon to be four), 2 boys and 1 daughter…I am again reminded why I must constantly “put on the armor of God” daily in watch care over my family.
June 17, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Veracity in #186 – “How do these people explain Deborah’s role in the Old Testament? Guess she wasn’t godly either, even though God put her in the role of judge.”
The following are from my comments and Jen’s replies over at Jen’s Gems about the patriarchal explanations of Deborah:
“This is how the story of Deborah has been explained to me: that God would prefer to be able to use men to speak for Him, but in the event that there is not a God-following man to be found (a man not “doing what is right in his own eyes”, as they were fond of doing in the time of the judges), He will use a woman.
While there a many holes in this argument that I will address below, don’t let this escape you: GOD WILL USE WOMEN, and in fact DID use a woman to lead and speak HIS word and wisdom to HIS people.
So even if it is true that God’s “prefers” to use a man, it is obvious by His actions that He is not OPPOSED to using a woman. And one look at the rest of Scripture shoots down the claim that He will ONLY use a woman in the absence of any qualified men. Anna was a prophetess, and Simeon lived concurrently with her and was no less a godly man, as well as Miriam, who served alongside Moses and Aaron and indeed, they were a tight knit trio. Just read the chapter where Miriam is struck with leprousy.
As a began to write, I might have agreed that Deborah’s experience is “non-normative” (though no less valid), really, because it’s what I’ve always been told. But as I looked at a list of prophetesses in Scripture, it hit me that, while perhaps less frequent and a smaller percentage than their male counterparts, there is indeed a PATTERN of prophetesses in HIStory.
Miriam – Ex. 15:20
Deborah – Judges 4
Huldah – 2 Kings 22:14
Noadiah – Neh. 6:14
Anna – Luke 2:36
Philip’s four daughters – Acts 21:9
(there may be more, but that’s whose on my list)
Then there’s the women, that while not classified prophetesses, God still chose to use: Ruth, Jael, Abigail, Moses’ mother, the Egyptian midwives, Rahab, and so many more.
Tell me, do all these add up to “non-normative” to you?”
Alisa: “So even if it is true that God’s “prefers” to use a man, it is obvious by His actions that He is not OPPOSED to using a woman.”
Jen: Doug Phillips would not agree. This would be a story about sin. The men sinned by abdicating. Deborah sinned by taking the lead. If she would have waited, a man would have come along and stepped up to the plate.”
My response : “No doubt the men (and women) were sinning, because they were all doing what was right in their own eyes. And granted, the men, at least Barak and Sisera, were just plain chicken.
The part I find it hard for Doug to ignore is the fact that God DID in fact speak to and through Deborah. So if Deborah was in sin, was God (since they can’t charge God with sinning) honoring her “good intentions” though (in their minds) it was actually sin? I’m just wondering how Doug would explain this away, that God would be complicit in Deborah’s “sin”.
Because if God didn’t speak to her, she was one lucky phony. That’s a lot of coincidences, that her battle prophecies would be so accurate, that she would predict the victory to be a woman’s (Jael’s), that “the land was undisturbed for forty years”, the same forty years that Deborah judged the cases brought to her. And if she was a phony, she was also the biggest hypocrite, praising God with that long song of hers, all the while sinning by listening to God. I suppose she should have covered her ears while God spoke to her.”
June 17, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Joy,
I’m glad you posted this comment over here as well since it is so good. It resonates with me because of what I’ve gone through over the past several years. Even though I had on many levels a great deal of spiritual maturity, for a number of years I did not write for publication except for things that were definitely non-theological in nature. Why? Because I was afraid of leading people astray. I’m glad I did not blog while David and I were in the thick of things. I didn’t send out magazine articles. I was too concerned that in my own struggles to work through all this patriarchy “stuff” (that had for the most part been thrust upon me) that I would write things I would later regret.
There really is a fine balance between proclaiming the truth as best you understand it and recognizing that you bear a lot of responsibility for the truth that you proclaim to people. It troubles me to see some bloggers who tell everyone else how to do everything in their lives when their own life is so new and relatively untested. I’ve seen bloggers proclaim that “this is the way to do this” and then recant it a few months later. I wonder how many burdens they have added to others along the way when they were not even able to carry their own load.
Related to this… I’ve often wondered if God withheld Caroline from us until we were past all of this “stuff”. I am glad that we did not have her while we were trying to figure out what we believed about these issues. Once we were (relatively) emotionally free from all of this, Caroline was given to us. Coincidence or Providence? I may never know, but I’m inclined to think the kind and loving hand of Providence.
June 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Joy wrote: “Upon more prayer and examining many of the Scriptures that have been repeatedly mentioned…what is “off”… I can come to no other conclusion that it is in fact heresy. To say that the man (husband or daddy) stands as an intercessor between the woman (wife or daughter)and God is wrong and against scripture. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME.” (John 14:6,emphasis mine)”
Joy, I’m really proud of you! Though you say you feel so ill equipped to decipher through the “off” components of patriarchy, you just proved that we ALL are capable and it is our God-given privilege to be able to “rightly divide the Word of Truth”, a right that patriarchy would tell us only belongs to men.
And I guarantee you that “pregnancy-brain-drain” shares at least some responsibility for any fuzzy thinking you might have. =^)
June 17, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Spunky says
Which is how he justifies a woman not voting. Since she would just vote the way her husband does, it would be a doubling. And no woman would ever think of nullifying his vote with a different vote of her own. It is against biblical order.
I have often wondered why Doug Phillips doesn’t mention he is against women voting at his hs convention talks. It seems only after you delve into VF do you find out more of the contro beliefs.
June 17, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I think that Spunky (187) and Joy (188) have really pointed out the problem and the solution to this issue. Spunky has pointed out the “Federal Headship doctrine” as the basis for why this issue exists. The whole idea that a man is to be, in effect, the “priest” of the home is why there is such an attempt to get everything in order and to rule in such a manner.
But Joy has really nailed the issue with a wonderful statement of freedom, “I can come to no other conclusion that it is in fact heresy. To say that the man (husband or daddy) stands as an intercessor between the woman (wife or daughter)and God is wrong and against scripture. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME.” (John 14:6,emphasis mine)”.
Joy, nobody could come up with a simpler explanation why the idea of federal headship is extra-biblical! Jesus’ own words are simple and to the point. Well said.
I’ve listed to messages by people in the patriocentric circles where it was explained that a husband is going to bear the sins of his wife and family! Yikes! I couldn’t believe my ears! How could that be? The idea of federal headship is that a man is ultimately responsible for his family. No wonder there is such a need for control and obedience of his family.
If I may point out an Old Testament verse that emphasizes the opposite, and frees us all up to own our PERSONAL responsibility and our walk before the Lord… “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, NOR THE FATHER BEAR THE GUILT OF THE SON. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself”. Ezekiel 18:20 (emphasis mine)
Also, when we arrive in heaven and are judged, Jesus is clear that we are not given in marriage at that time (Matthew 22:30). At that time we will be judged only as ourselves before Him. There’s no room for federal headship here.
The sad thing about all this is that patriocentric men have placed way too large a burden on themselves.
June 17, 2007 at 10:00 pm
The concept of the husband as the priest of the home who mediates between God and his wife or children IS heresy. The Botkin book is full of such references.
On page 40, quoting from a girl named “Hannah” who is one of the “modern heroines of the faith” according to the Botkins,
“it was not until I understood my mission as a daughter of the King of Kings that I understood my mission as a daughter of the king of my home. I know my place and glory in my duties for I know that only when I am faithful to perform my duties will my father rise higher in his….He was just my dad. But now he is my father, my friend, my guardian, my priest, and my knight in shining armor.”
During the time of the patriarchs in the Old Testament, the fathers functioned as priests for their families. Look at Job 1:5 where Job is making burnt offerings on behalf of his sons and daughters.
“When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.”
We also regularily see the patriarchs offering sacrifices on other occasions, such as when Noah and his family safely left the ark.
This all took place prior to the time of the Levitical priests who acted on behalf of the people, a type of Christ that pointed the way to Jesus.
When Jesus died on the cross, the veil was torn down (Matt. 27:51), symbolizing that there would no longer be a need for anyone to offer atonement for our sins. Jesus was the one time sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:12) And now we all have access, directly, to the throse of God through Jesus, our great High Priest(Hebrews 4:14-16). How I love the passage in 1 Peter 2:5-9: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through jesus Christ…But you are a chosen generations, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness tinto his marvelous light.” And, we now how the privilege of offering our bodies as a living sacrifice (Roamsn 12:1-2)!
To even suggest that the father stands in as the “priest” of his home is heresy.
June 17, 2007 at 10:09 pm
David said: “Also, when we arrive in heaven and are judged, Jesus is clear that we are not given in marriage at that time (Matthew 22:30). At that time we will be judged only as ourselves before Him. There’s no room for federal headship here.”
This is one reason why I believe it is so important to stress the one-anothers of Scripture. My husband is my husband and the Bible commands that I submit to him. But he is also my brother in Christ and I am his sister. And the Bible commands that we submit to one another. To take it one step further, which relationship has eternal ramifications? There is no marriage is heaven but the brother and sister in Christ relationship will last for eternity, therefore does it not make sense that we major on the application of that verse?
The Botkin sisters have a section where they talk about wives submitting to their husbands and they never mention the “submit to one another” passage. They use this passage to show that daughters are to submit to their fathers, too.
Then,they spend much time talking about the importance of girls “giving their hearts” to their fathers. In fact, this is a primary theme throughout the book as throughout patriocentric teachings. On page 32 they state:
“We believe that they way daughters are treating their fathers is one of today’s biggest issues. One of the reasons our society is in moral shambles is because dishonoring sons and daughters are invoking God’s curses on the land. They’re not only bringing destruction and misery upon themselves, but also upon their nations, as God wanrd in Malachi 4:6 “…I(turn) the heart of the chidlren to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”
They leave off the first half of that verse that says “turn the hearts of the fathers to their children.” Once again, Scripture is compromised to make a case for patriocentricity. Fathers and daughters are on a one way path toward daddy worship and not the two way relationship that will last for eternity.
June 17, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Whew…
I am always afraid sometimes when I post that my meaning will be completely misread.
I have thought about my own relationship with my father as I have been examining this discussion. I find it echoes in many ways what CA Worchester said in her original post, about coming to a place with her husband (and her daughter with her father) of near “contempt” for his “sinning”. While never reaching the partiarchy issue, my dad has always been intensely conservative, black and white…yet, my family life was horrendous. My parents were constantly fighting. I struggled with the biblical concepts like “be kind”~ why in the world should we be kind to people outside the house if we are treated awfully within the house? We’re talking name calling, swearing, the whole nine yards.
As I moved out and attended a Christian college, I began to have a serious crisis of faith, on so many levels, for so many obvious reasons. I came to a place where I (quite pridefully) began to view my parents with contempt for the lack of “walking the faith”…those two or three years were horrendous in relationship with them! But God kept quietly calling to me, and I finally heard. I finally realized that my parents weren’t perfect, and that was okay! That for all their mistakes, without their influence, I might never have met God…that the Truth they “talked” even if they didn’t “walk” was still True!
My experience doesn’t begin to even border on patriarchy, and yet I experienced some awful feelings of contempt and anger that were incredibly misplaced…how much more could this increased by teachings such as the Botkins? It places an incredible responsibility on the man…something that he can never measure up to, because he is human…and how many bible verses can we find about the human heart and its foibles?
I love that passage from 1 Peter that thatmom posted…I immediately went and highlighted it!
June 17, 2007 at 11:11 pm
David said, “The sad thing about all this is that patriocentric men have placed way too large a burden on themselves.”
I think you’re right David. And I also think that patriocentric men, have also enabled prideful but woefully insecure men to hide their shortcomings and remove any eathly accountability from their lives. Patriocentric fathers cannot show any weakness or lack of control. Their churches suppport this “man centered” absolute rule, so any shortcoming isn’t viewed as their fault, but someone else’s (usually their wife), and this in turn gives them a “free pass” to do as their flesh desires.
As I have seen first hand in more than one “patriocentric” home this leads to a severe moral failing. The moral failing is aided by a wife who won’t speak out for fear of not reverencing her husband, or worse the belief that she is actually the cause of his moral failing. Remember the quote from the Botkin book, Page 46, “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”
Surely, God will ultimately hold each of us accountable for our actions. But earthly accountability is also necessary. I rarely go over the speed limit, but instintively if I pass a police officer on the highway I glance at the speedometer. Why? Because I just passed by someone who can hold me accountable if I’m not following the law. That is how God designed us and why submitting to “one another” is so important. When a man refuses to submit to any earthly accountability, pride and eventually sin are the tragic results.
June 17, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I believe that Joseph Smith beat this group to the punch. Their conclusions sound so similar.
But the absence of mothers is really, really, really a problem. Thanks, Spunky, for the textual references. But uh. . . . It’s kind of a fact that when daughters are treated in the way described here they are vulnerable. I’m trying to be discrete in how I say this, and I wish I had my sources to quote from (they are at school). But uh, it really looks like nothing more than an old man having a bevy of pretty young things around him. It looks BAD!
And if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it ain’t good.
June 18, 2007 at 4:40 am
Camille,
I hope you come back with those resources….I completely understand what you are saying and I agree. The very fact that men like Schlissel believe that you “own” your daughter and that the Botkins teach that the wife verses apply to the daughters, sends up red flags. No one is accusing anyone of anything BUT this view does set people up for gross sin. I look forward to more comments from you on this.
June 18, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Hello Hello!!! I was doing a little more research and found this post on the “Visionary Daughters” website. I believe it is from October 2006. I didn’t read every single word….I skimmed through it….my small tot who has an afterburner on his feet is making it very hard these days to read EVERYTHING!!
Anyhoo….I thought it might give a little more insight to some of our previous posts regarding “What are they thinking!!!!!!??????”. Since we are Brothers and Sisters in the Messiah, we must continue to be gracious to one another and I thought that we should take the time to see what else they have written in regards to the “Father” issues we have been discussing.
Blessings and Shalom, C.A. Worcester
Copied from “Visionary Daughters” Website
What About Mom?
Posted October 26, 2006, by Elizabeth
Why did So Much More focus on fathers, not mothers?
A few people have noted, with some concern, that our book placed a great emphasis on the father-daughter relationship, without much mention of mothers. They are worried that So Much More was off-balance in this regard. If by “off-balance,” they mean we talked more about fathers than mothers, they are absolutely right. If when they say “off-balance,” they think we believe fathers are important and mothers aren’t, they missed the point of the book.
One theme subtly directing the whole book is that mothers who mother according to biblical patterns are of inestimable value and incomprehensible influence. Our goal in writing this book was to equip the young woman to become this kind of wife and mother.
The Bible places stress on the importance of both parents, commanding children to honor and obey both father and mother (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Ephesians 6:1).So Much More’s emphasis on the father doesn’t preclude the importance of the mother, any more than the existence of a book on mathematics proves the author thinks biology is less important. Obviously, to have a balanced, thorough understanding, we need books on both.
Our intention was to focus, in this book, on fathers and daughters, based on a need we were personally seeing in the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Europe. This need was a serious lack of teaching about the role a father should play in his daughter’s life. We thought that need was screaming to be addressed for a number of reasons. Here is one of them, quoted verbatim from So Much More.
In this generation, girls are facing a lot of problems. In fact, this year young women are facing a lot more problems than they did a century ago. Some of these are novel problems invented by modern times. We know more than we wish to know about the problems troubling young women, because ever since we were little girls young women have been coming to our home to get a taste of functional family life and pour out their troubled hearts.
They are facing all kinds of complications, conundrums, cynicism and confusion over where they’re headed in life. They struggle with a proper idea of femininity and masculinity, a healthy view of authority and submission, a sense of direction and priority, the concept of protection and security, and an elementary understanding of what it means to be daughters of God.
We’ve found that these girls all have one more thing in common: they are missing a functional, confiding, loving relationship with their fathers.
Oh sure, they have happy, casual buddy relationships with their dads, but this is not a substitute for a strong, biblical relationship that edifies, inspires and strengthens both the father and the daughter.
Is their missing relationship with their fathers the root of all their other problems? No, not the only root. But we believe, after years of studying both God’s Word and modern times, that the forgotten principles of fatherly protection and daughterly honor are the missing dynamic girls need in leading fruitful, stable, happy lives which will give honor to God. We do not believe that the father-daughter relationship is somehow more important or special than the mother-daughter relationship, or the father-son relationship, nor do we mean to breath into this relationship a kind of super-special, mystical quality never seen in the Bible. But we do believe the father-daughter relationship is one of those being more ignored and abused this generation than others, with distastrous and heartbreaking repercussions. Girls are hurting from the absence of strong, biblical relationships with their fathers, and repairing these should be a priority for the young women of our generation. (Chapter 2, pp 15,16)
In other words, one of the reasons we chose this angle was because the father-daughter relationship was being neglected. As we were researching what teaching is available to daughters, we were delighted that girls have access to such resources as Stacy McDonald’s wonderful Raising Maidens of Virtue, as well as one of our childhood favorites, Beautiful Girlhood by Karen Andreola, and numerous others which by no means ignore the father but place special focus on the relationship between the mother and the daughter. Anna and I have talked about writing a book about mothers and daughters someday. Maybe we will wait until, if the Lord wills, we are mothers ourselves. Maybe we will leave it to women who are better writers and can explain themselves without causing confusion.
But fathers are more than “the missing part of the puzzle.” There are other reasons we think teaching about the father-daughter relationship is particularly important.
#2. Because if girls don’t have good relationships with their fathers, there will be vitally important things they fail to learn about their Heavenly Father and their future husbands. Here is another excert from So Much More:
The fact that God describes himself as a Father to us shows that the position of earthly father is like an earthly reflection of God. To understand God’s nature as our “Father,” we need to understand what a father is for and how we are supposed to relate to our fathers. This is why it’s so important to God that we show our fathers love, honor and obedience. … The virtues we learn by being good daughters to our fathers on earth help us in being good daughters to the King, and prepare us for this life and the life to come. Being protected by our fathers teaches us how to be protected, loved, and cherished, and the responsibilities that go with this blessing — how to be faithful, how to be trusting and how to have a yielded heart. Learning how to relate this way to our earthly fathers will teach us to relate this way to our Heavenly Father.
#3. Because, notwithstanding its teaching on the importance of mothers, the Bible places special emphasis on fathers as the heads of their households. The theme of Scripture is patriarchal, not matriarchal. The father is given special responsibility for the rest of his family. It seemed logical, in a book primarily about familial relationships, to point readers chiefly to the headship of their fathers.
#4. Because the state of relationships with fathers can determine the quality of all other familial relationships. As the head of the family, his strong connection with everyone else is the root of family unity and harmony.
It’s not just daughters who are suffering from solid relationships with their fathers.
When a father doesn’t have his daughter’s heart, her respect, her support and her help, he is weakened. And when the head of the family is weakened, the whole family is weakened. This generation in particular is marked by weak familial relationships, we believe because of a lack of recognition of the father’s headship. The poorness of his relationship with his wife, his sons and his daughters, we think, is the root of the rest of the relationship problems. As young women striving to “teach the [even] younger women,” we can’t exhort sons to strengthen their relationships with their fathers, or wives to submit to their husbands. But we can, and will, encourage girls to fight with all their might against the inherently anti-Christian, marxist stereotype of “dopey dad,” and build their fathers up to be greater men.
#5. Because, thanks to the homeschooling movement, most homeschooled children have pretty strong relationships with their mothers. Homeschooling started out as primarily a mothers’ movement, and though many fathers approved the decision to homeschool, often they gave most the responsibility of raising and educating the children to the mother. Hence, a strong bond between children and mothers, but a weak one between children and fathers. What should give us great cause to rejoice is that in this generation, we are finally seeing fathers turn their hearts to their children, and the homeschooling movement is becoming the biblically balanced movement it should be.
#6. Because disconnection between fathers and children is an interestingly serious greivance to God, and invokes peculiarly severe judgment. In the very last verse of the Old Testament, we read of the mission of John the Baptist. “”…And he will turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.” (Malachi 4:6) Bad relationships with fathers (note: not mothers!) incur national judgment!
We read of John’s mission again in Luke 1:16,17: “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias [Elijah], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” This is amazing! “Turn[ing] the hearts of the fathers to the children” is compared with turning the disobedient to righteousness, and prepares the people for the Lord!
This was our mission in writing So Much More — to turn the hearts of the daughters to their fathers. From the start, that was the goal of the project and the main theme of the book.
By the way, So Much More was nearly named “The Forgotten Dynamics of the Father-Daughter Relationship,” or something similar. But everyone whose opinion we asked immediately responded, “Oh, but your book is about so much more!” Which is a rather broad topic… but we took the hint and adopted the title.
Though we tried to pack in as much information as we could, So Much More needs more. It is by no means complete, and even though many people have kindly called it “comprehensive,” it really isn’t. Every day we think of more that should have gone into it. Does anybody want to volunteer to write Even More?
What’s a Single Woman to Do?
Posted October 26, 2006, by Anna Sofia
Here is an excellent article by our friend Jennie Chancey.
“Thus goes everyone to the world but I, and I am sunburnt. I may sit in a corner and cry, ‘Heigh-ho for a husband!’”
~ Beatrice in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (Act II, scene i.)
Today’s single Christian woman is often made to feel that she should be just like Beatrice, sitting quietly in her corner and waiting for “Mr. Right.” I know; I used to be in that corner. An “old maid” at 23, I watched dozens of friends get married and start families and felt sometimes like a second-class citizen among all the blushing brides. I had been brought up on the principles of courtship and maidenly virtues and really wondered if there was a role open to me in the Church and in society as a single woman. After all, the Bible clearly tells us that “The woman was made for the man” (I Cor. 11:9) and is intended to be his helper (Gen. 2:18). Throughout the Bible, the woman’s orientation is geared toward the men in her life, whether a father, a respected elder, a husband or a protective brother.
I bounced back and forth between contentment as a single woman and frustration with my desire to be a wife and mother. I finally told my parents that I’d decided not to marry at all, since, apparently, no good men were forthcoming, and I was tired of just waiting around, crying “Heigh-ho for a husband” (not aloud, grant you!). My parents had always encouraged me to be content in whatever state the Lord put me, but they had also spent years equipping me to be a capable wife and mother. I could cook, keep house, sew, decorate, paint and organize to beat the band. I loved children and babysat all I could. But I still felt like my life was in “limbo” compared to my married friends. Little did I realize how many single friends felt they were in the same boat.
“Singles Enter Here”
There are thousands of single women of all ages in the Church today who feel like they are stuffed into odd corners or categorized into “support groups” for other singles. Unfortunately, this only adds to the feeling that there is no role for the single woman other than that of waiting for The Man to come along. Granted, marriage is “honourable in all” (Heb. 13:4) and definitely a calling for which God will equip the majority of us, but there must be something better to do than twiddling one’s thumbs before marriage. What if Mr. Right doesn’t come along for twenty years? Or forty?
Fortunately, there are some folks out there these days who are starting to rethink the single woman’s role and find inspiration in the very passages usually held apart for married ladies. One such person is Jennifer Lamp, whose book, His Chosen Bride (available from GraceWorks), takes the Proverbs 31 woman as a role model for the single lady, applying each verse beautifully and aptly. Lamp points out that single women are united to their Heavenly Bridegroom and should consider Proverbs 31 in that light. Seen this way, the passage offers great scope for the single woman, showing her that her services are needed in her own family, in the Church and in society. As St. Paul writes, “There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband” (I Cor. 7:34). This doesn’t mean that married people cannot focus on God’s work, but their orientation is going to be different because of the many duties they have toward their spouses, children and in-laws. The single woman is “free” in this sense to concentrate on many families and give of her time more liberally than the married woman often can.
The “Ministry” Mindset
Naturally, when we talk about the single woman’s “ministry,” thoughts of grand missionary trips overseas pop into mind. While mission work is definitely important, the Bible shows that the woman’s “mission” is primarily oriented toward others in her own immediate community and radiates from the home. Think of Dorcas, who sewed garments for the poor (Acts 9:36-40) and Lydia, who invited the entire church to meet in her home (Acts 16:14,15). Unfortunately, our culture worships high-profile, “glamorous” jobs and looks askance at anything that might be construed “mundane,” “demeaning” or “lowly.” But this thinking is contrary to what Scripture clearly teaches us. Jesus said over and over again that “whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:26b,27). And His example was so clear as He washed His disciples’ feet, touched lepers and reached out to the lowest social strata all around Him. The Lord of the Universe washing feet! And we think that the only “real” ministries in the Church are teaching, traveling to foreign lands and converting massive numbers of people to Christ. I think it’s time to reconsider that notion.
Most of the time, single women are urged to go out and get a regular job, since there is obviously “nothing else” for them to do. This could not be more false! When I used to read the Proverbs 31 woman passage with my mother, I’d ask, “Mom, where does she get all those ‘maidens’ to help her out?” Today we have thousands of “maidens” who are at a loss for what they can do as a ministry. Ladies, here is one that is crying out to be filled! I’ve known large families who have unmarried women come and live with them for weeks, months or even a year at a time to help out with homemaking, cooking, daily organization and more. Freed up from such tasks, stay-at-home moms are better able to concentrate on their primary ministry to their husbands, children and younger women. And what a training opportunity for the women who live with them! Hands-on, daily work in the home among likeminded people is ideal. I only wish I had thought of doing this when I was a teenager. The young women who have performed this ministry tell me it has blessed them and enriched them in ways they could never have imagined. Today, stay-at-home moms are made to feel guilty if they cannot “do it all,” but you’ll find that the Proverbs 31 woman was great at delegating tasks. To whom will the Proverbs 31 women of today delegate tasks if all the single women are running away from home-based ministry to seek “more worthy” occupations? I wish I had asked myself that question ten years ago.
Scripture also holds midwives in very high esteem (Ex. 1:17-20) and shows what a wonderful ministry they have to the women around them. Many women are gifted in this area and called to medical ministry. It is my personal belief that women are best suited to serve as birth attendants and to take care of “women’s health” issues. I know of one godly elderly woman who was not called to marry and has served a small rural community as a nurse practicioner for over fifty years. She is a gentle, kind and wise lady who truly loves the women and children she serves. Her outreach to the poor has been especially helpful where she lives, and she has shown the love of Christ to countless people. Nursing is something toward which women are often naturally oriented. Keeping order and cleanliness in the sickroom is an honored “profession” that goes back hundreds upon hundreds of years. I know of several young women who have apprenticed with midwives or served as birth attendants in the home and in the hospital, bringing comfort to women and skill to the tasks at hand. Helping to usher life into the world or to care for women’s health needs is something that will always be necessary. A woman who has a specific gift for or interest in medicine may certainly want to consider this avenue of ministry.
Yet another important “job” often overlooked is the command to “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12). The single woman has a very unique opportunity to make this commandment especially beautiful for her parents. One thing I loved doing while I was at home was working with my father as his research assistant (he was a historian and author). I was able to help him build his own business while sharpening skills that he desired to teach me (thorough research, writing, editing and more). The daughter at home has a fantastic opportunity to honor her father by supporting what he does. If she cannot offer that support directly, she can do it by showing him respect for his job as breadwinner and teaching younger siblings to respect and honor their father as well. The same is true when it comes to honoring mothers. Learning alongside her mother, the single daughter can (and should) eventually take tasks completely off her mother’s hands (as should other siblings). My mother trained her children to do the laundry by the time they could stand on a stepstool and reach the knobs on the machine. She taught all of us to vacuum, mop and dust at an early age. By the time I was eight and my brother was six, Mom really didn’t have to do laundry or much of the housework any longer. She was able to focus her time on teaching us at home and creating fun projects for interested little minds. Single women have a great opportunity to bless their own families in this way, and this ministry is every bit as important as preaching to crowds of people. In fact, it is what makes preaching possible. Christianity lived beautifully is what makes the message appealing and draws the crowds. When the family is going in ten different directions and each member isn’t oriented toward the others, the world sees chaos and disorder. It doesn’t make for much of a message.
Questions Single Women Can Ask Themselves
As the single woman looks around for ways she can minister to her family and to the Body of Christ, she should keep several things in mind. First of all, “Is what I am doing honoring the Lord, specifically in the way He wishes women to honor Him?” The best way to ascertain this is to make a thorough study of the women of the Bible and see how God used their femininity for His glory. The unique role of the woman isn’t less important than the man’s, but it is different. Next, “Is this work going to call for me to do things that should really be done by a man?” We honor men when we step aside and let them do the jobs for which they are best suited. Our egalitarian culture would have us believe that men and women can do the exact same jobs equally. Plain old common sense, backed by good research, shows that this just isn’t true. Women firefighters struggle to lift hoses and ladders or pull dead weights from burning buildings while men (with their God-given upper body strength), can undertake these tasks with apparent ease. This kind of work is not safe for the women involved or for the people who need the help of able firemen. Our post-modern culture wants to emasculate men and masculinize women. Go against this folly by undertaking a ministry that is distinctly feminine. Finally, “How can I use my time as a single woman to the greatest advantage for God’s kingdom?” The answers to this question are many. For starters, the single woman has more time for reading and study. A broad liberal arts education and in-depth Bible study should be available to every woman. A good education, based upon a Christian worldview, builds a woman in her God-given calling and makes her even more effective. That doesn’t mean you need to go off to college, either. I did, but I wouldn’t repeat it. Four years away from home and real ministry is a waste of time and money if you can read, find godly mentors and follow a regular course of study on your own. There’s no excuse for stupidity in our day of 24-hour internet access and live tutors available around the globe on any topic. I’ve learned more and read more since I graduated from college than I ever learned there. And I’ve been able to go deeply into areas of study which were only touched upon in my major classes. A good education is one that builds the mind without building the ego. Besides study, the single woman has time to teach young girls (perhaps mentoring a few if she has special skills or talents). She can run a home business as well, concentrating on an area of talent or specialization. Many times, a friend will say, “You’d really be good at…”. Why not see if that talent might be one the Lord could use to bless others? There are single women running a variety of excellent home-based businesses, including sewing for others, cooking and delivering entire meals to customers, baking pastries and/or decorating cakes, arranging flowers, coordinating weddings, running weekly “mother’s day out” programs, hostessing fancy teas for ladies’ groups, catering, writing, editing, designing websites and more. The opportunities are boundless when you really start looking!
Some women reading this might be older widows who are now wondering what they are supposed to do. When life has been oriented around the husband’s calling for many years, it can be hard to feel out a new direction. St. Paul clearly teaches that the older women are to “train the younger women …” (Titus 2:4). One cry I hear constantly from young women around me is, “Where are the godly older women who should be teaching us?” Sometimes they are busy with their own families, but often we find that they are sitting quietly, feeling unneeded in Christ’s Body. How many churches shuffle their “seniors” into classes for the “old folks” and segregate them from the young people they should be mentoring? Sadly, the majority of churches do this. While older ladies and gentlemen should have ample opportunities to fellowship with one another, they certainly shouldn’t be placed where they are unable to train those who are coming up after them. What a fountain of wisdom we have within the Church if we’d only tap into it! Older single women (even those who have never been married) have much to offer us. They are often the best ones to teach us contentment and patience.
There are ample opportunities for ministry for single women of every age and station in the Church, the family and society. While the vast majority of us will go on to marriage and families of our own, there are some who will not and who are called to remain single for life (I Cor. 7:7-10). Even if she is preparing and hoping for marriage, the single woman should not feel that she needs to be watching and waiting for Mr. Right while the world goes by. The principles of courtship are excellent and do prepare women for godly unions, but they should not cause us to lose our focus on what God would have us do today. Josh Harris makes this point beautifully in many of his talks and in his books. The whole point of rethinking our approach to male-female relationships is to get us to focus on something other than male-female relationships — namely, to focus upon the Lord’s unique calling for singlehood. Look around you. There are needy people right there within your own families, in your church and among friends and strangers. What can you do as a single woman to glorify God and serve Him right now? How can you honor and obey your Heavenly Bridegroom and bring “him good, not harm, all the days of [your] life?” (Prov. 31:12). Instead of crying “Heigh-ho for a husband,” consider crying out to your Heavenly Husband, Who knows your needs and has wonderful work for you to accomplish!
Coram Deo,
Mrs. M. L. Chancey
June 18, 2007 at 8:50 pm
thatmom,
What you’ve uncovered about the original Elsie Dinsmore books is repulsive. (comment 140)
What about Stepping Heavenward. I think author is Elizabeth Prentiss. Or any of the other books from Keepers of the Faith.
Anyone familiar with these?
Thanks,
Susie
June 18, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“The fact that God describes himself as a Father to us shows that the position of earthly father is like an earthly reflection of God.”
Tsk, tsk. . . . and God also describes Himself using maternal metaphors too. It took me months after my son’s birth to digest all the nursing metaphors God uses to describe His relationship to the Church.
They are making God over into their image, plain and simple.
June 18, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I hope the number of the comments on this page is encouragement for this blog to keep going and to foster even MORE discussion on this topic! I’m married and working on my Ph.D. in physics and feel absolutely called by God to be in my present state. But with all that’s out there on conservative Christian women only staying at home, it can feel pretty lonely at times. I’m glad to read the discussion on this topic and welcome the opportunity to read more.
June 18, 2007 at 11:29 pm
“The fact that God describes himself as a Father to us shows that the position of earthly father is like an earthly reflection of God.”
This is a lopsided view of things. Genesis 1:27 tells us: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In the original language, by the way, the word “man” is not “male,” but rather the word for “human being.”
This isn’t a new idea, unfortunately. There are other hyperpatriarchs out there who will frankly state that men image God more than women do.
June 19, 2007 at 2:58 am
I heartily agree with most of the comments made about this topic and anything I would have to say has been said more eloquently than I could. However, I must take issue with this. I realize that CA is quoting from the VF website when she wrote in comment 200:
“Nursing is something toward which women are often naturally oriented. Keeping order and cleanliness in the sickroom is an honored “profession” that goes back hundreds upon hundreds of years. I know of several young women who have apprenticed with midwives or served as birth attendants in the home and in the hospital, bringing comfort to women and skill to the tasks at hand. Helping to usher life into the world or to care for women’s health needs is something that will always be necessary. A woman who has a specific gift for or interest in medicine may certainly want to consider this avenue of ministry”
I could just scream!!! I am a registered nurse, a COLLEGE degree is required to be a nurse. An advanced practice degree (master’s degree) is required to be a nurse midwife. The elderly woman she spoke of was probably from before the state’s nurse practice act came into law so she was “grandfathered” in. (A lovely LPN from my hospital just retired and that is how she became a nurse). But that is just NOT how a medical ministry is obtained. Yes, nursing is typically considered to be a woman’s job, but there is plenty to lure men into this profession. It is a highly technical, scientific profession and I am highly insulted at this young girl’s comment on something she about which she knows nothing.
I’m sorry, I get hot under the collar about this entire issue, but I’m also quite proud of the difficult work that was required for me to earn my degree and pass my state boards. A doctor friend of mine told me that she knows for a fact that once you make it into medical school, the instructor’s do everything possible to help you to graduate. In nursing school, it is difficult to be admitted and even more difficult to pass.
June 19, 2007 at 2:58 am
I have read all 204 (so far) comments. I am so thankful that the Lord our Creator HAS made us women, that He HAS called us to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
I’ve found the discussion fascinating. Partly because I believe I really understand the perspective of these young women and the patriocentrists (excellent word, again, Karen!) and how much is well-intentioned–though it brings fetters and chains, not freedom in the Gospel. My natal family was on the fringes of the early days of this movement–my parents balanced enough not to buy into it, though I was quite susceptible. I could have easily embraced much of this. (Ironically, it was my Dad’s and later husband’s discernment that kept me from wholeheartedly buying into it.)
Nevertheless, I did accept some of these legalistic (though they would decry legalism!) patterns promoted by the patriocentrists –as well as other legalistic ways of thinking and living, even while believing I was free of legalism. To the decree I did buy into any of these “philosophies” or “better” ways of doing things, was the degree of bondage I had. Even though I looked to Christ alone for my salvation, even though I really was seeking the Lord–I was finding my worth in how I measured up to wo/man made standards.
Paved with good intentions. . . It breaks my heart how many women–younger women and older women–just want to do the “right” thing in walking with the Lord, and in doing so are enslaved to extra-biblical, wo/manvmade ideas.
Thank the Lord for the Gospel and Christ.
June 19, 2007 at 2:58 am
Karen,
The girls and I have really enjoyed this discussion, esp. hearing from Spunky again. I have more time to read than write, but I did want to add this info from Vision Forum Org, the alternate site: re-170 This made me wonder if Vision Forum still had anything to say about college… here is an article I remembered that doesn’t specify boys only, just refers to children … I found it when I searched “100 colleges” http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/education/the_dorm_key_ritual.aspx
… I am happy to see it is still available at http://www.VisionForum.org. That is the other, non product/non blog site.
June 19, 2007 at 3:10 am
“Girls are hurting from the absence of strong, biblical relationships with their fathers, and repairing these should be a priority for the young women of our generation. (Chapter 2, pp 15,16)”
Wait a minute here-this sentence is contradictory to the whole patriarchal movement. The fathers are the ones who have ultimate responsibility for their families, we were told earlier. Daughters should not do anything without their father’s approval, yet it is now up to the daughters to repair the relationships with the fathers?
According to everything else they’ve written, it is the fathers who are responsible for repairing the relationship, not the daughters.
June 19, 2007 at 8:04 am
Susan T,
Thank you for pointing out the website on the “Dorm Key Ritual.”
It’s riddled with half-truths and distortions. Like too much home school literature, it plays on the fears of parents “losing” their kids.
For example, the bit about scholarships not being available. 5 of my parents’ children have gone to college thus far. 5 of us received full tuition scholarships and sometimes a stipend for books and other expenses on top. We are all home school grads save one who went to public high school, and I wouldn’t say a single one of us was particularly brilliant or athletic. I received a large scholarship for law school as well. And college does not have to cost $140,000. You can get a fine education at a state university – often near your parents – for half the price and sometimes less.
My parents are both former public school teachers. They put a great store by college in spite of some of the patriarchal doctrine and practices they’ve adopted.
June 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm
In thinking about the Monstrous Regiment of Women clip and the comments from someone from the UK, I wondered this….
Are the teachings from the Botkin sisters universal? If they cannot be applied for all time in all cultures, then they cannot be considered to be mandatory for all women.
June 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I can recall another discussion online about this “no college for girls,” stay-at-home-daughter thing, and what struck me as funny about the other discussion was that eventually, the patriocentric women simply HAD to make exceptions for the medical profession.
Somehow, according to their logic, if a woman wanted to go to school to be a midwife, then that was OK. Being a nurse or a woman doctor was NOT a sin, while college for other subjects still was regarded as “generally sinful.”
I always thought this kind of logic was crazy and basically nullified any talk of “sin.” If you can create an exception for if something is a “sin” or not, then your doctrine is extrabiblical and the thing is NOT, in and of itself, a sin.
I’ve said this before in other places, but I wonder what you all think: if you’re REALLY going to live true to your convictions, and you believe that ALL females belong in the home, then why is your conscience OK with patronizing stores, restaurants, or hospitals where women are employed outside the home?
June 19, 2007 at 4:31 pm
And, Joan, to add to that … why would pastors who vehemently object to women working accept tithe money coming from women working outside the home? Funny, I’ve never heard of a single pastor who refuses to accept tithes from such women.
June 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Wow, “Light M,” I’d never thought of that one. That’s an even better point.
June 19, 2007 at 11:33 pm
My father did not give me an option to stay at home and not go to college. He is a godly man–even went to Seminary and has pastored for decades. But he also felt that I needed a college education and needed to learn how to support myself. In order to honor my father I had to go. I did…and when I finished he said that I needed to be supporting myself. I am.
I know I’m not alone in this situation…I know there may be families who will allow their daughters to stay at home but I am guessing there are just as many Christian families who will not allow this, or discourage it.
Where does that leave the daughters? Are we not living to as high a standard of Biblical womanhood? Because we’ve been out of the home will we make inferior wives?
June 20, 2007 at 12:39 am
Beth,
I’m a nurse, too (haven’t worked in 2yrs because I have babies), but those statements from Mrs. Chancey irritated me, too. Being a nurse is more than bring babies into this world. It looks like she seems to think that women nurses should only be taking care of women:
“Helping to usher life into the world or to care for women’s health needs is something that will always be necessary. A woman who has a specific gift for or interest in medicine may certainly want to consider this avenue of ministry.”
So, we will leave the health of the men (who aren’t our husbands or fathers) to other men??? Right. Welcome to the Land of Oz.
Florence Nightingale didn’t just stick with sick women. Wasn’t her work to get rid of these primitive ideas???
I LOVE having men in the nursing profession, too. My BIL is a nurse.
Very interesting converstation ladies…and the few guys who have added to it.
June 20, 2007 at 12:43 am
One more thing. Does anyone think that the title, “Return of the Daughters,” is a little too similar to LOTR’s “Return of the King”? Even the music sounds like the theme music from the movies. It just struck me as corny. I think they should change the name of the documentary. This is a minor issue, but I was just wondering if anyone else noticed this.
June 20, 2007 at 4:02 am
I just came across some articles by young ladies on the VF site….note that all the pictures are of beautiful young girls. Kelly Brown I know, has been held up as pretty much the perfect daughter. Her marriage at age 21 or 22 and now expecting first child is the example of what all girls should strive for.
One thing I’ve noticed….does anyone even know her younger sister’s name? Her younger sister is not married…and is a little bit heavier-set—perhaps not what the world would see as “beautiful”–and I didn’t even know she existed for a long time.
I have a medical condition which will prevent me from ever having children of my own. If I followed Vision Forum theology then I will not be able to fulfill one of my primary God-given tasks.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/my_fathers_daughter.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/called_to_the_home_called_to_r.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/thoughts_regarding_the_fatherd.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/a_special_word_for_proverbs_31.aspx
June 20, 2007 at 4:10 am
Here are a few quotes from the above:
From “Called to the Home”
“In summary, I do not see how a career outside the home in any way honors or obeys God’s design for who we are as women.”
Ouch.
So even though I had no choice but to work outside the home–in a “career” in the medical field, even though I had to do that if I wanted to have food to eat, I am not honoring God’s design for who I am as a woman.
From “My Father’s Daughter”
“I understand that some of you may be asking this question after reading my testimony. “What if I don’t have a father that is involved? What if my father isn’t guiding me in that way? How can I be shaped and challenged?”
I can say this: If this is the case in your life, I would encourage you to find a godly man that knows God’s word, and loves God’s word. A man you can trust. Maybe it’s an Uncle, a Grandfather, or a pastor. Ask him to shepherd you. Maybe it’s your mother.”
So if we don’t like how our dads do things…we find one who fits with our beliefs? Should I find someone who supports my desire to stay at home? How does a mother fit this? I am confused.
And frustrated. And disillusioned.
June 20, 2007 at 4:54 am
Marie said… “So if we don’t like how our dads do things…we find one who fits with our beliefs? Should I find someone who supports my desire to stay at home? How does a mother fit this? I am confused.
And frustrated. And disillusioned.”
Yep, that’s pretty much it. If you don’t want to obey the father God gave you (or he hasn’t caught the “vision”), then go find a surrogate. I’m not kidding.
I knew a case where a man befriended two younger men and thought he had found some new disciples into patriarchy. Having some respect for this man and being just plain curious, the younger guys listened. The more they listened, they realized that he wasn’t encouraging them to turn their hearts towards the godly father they already had, but wanted them to start looking to this man as their new spiritual father! The great, supportive father they already had didn’t have the “vision” of being a patriarch, so go find some other guy whose “patriarchal vision” you can help bring into reality!
June 20, 2007 at 4:55 am
Zan, the same exact thing thing crossed my mind!!! =o)
June 20, 2007 at 5:09 am
Botkin girls – “Learning how to relate this way to our earthly fathers will teach us to relate this way to our Heavenly Father.”
It’s all find and dandy for them to say this, but let me tell you, in reality, daughters of patriarchs aren’t allowed to have their own relationship with God. I’m not kidding.
It all must be filtered through the father. Because what if the daughter thinks that she hears from God that He is calling her to go to college to prepare for life, or to go to the mission field, or some other independent, rebellious notion that is nowhere to be found in Scripture?
In the general, psychological sense, they are correct in asserting that absolutely no respect for authority in general makes it hard to submit to God in a personal relationship with him.
But the lengths that their notion is carried to in it’s application is in direct contradiction of Scripture as some wise commentors have shown above. “and no one shall come to the Father except through Me”.
June 20, 2007 at 6:06 am
“In reality, daughters of patriarchs aren’t allowed to have their own relationship with God.”
I believe your observation is a profound one, Alisa, and certainly warranted.
Heresies arise, and have arisen throughout Church history, often in response to a perceived (if not genuine) weakness in orthopraxy. When we see the visible church, by and large, underemphasizing someone or something, there is often a strong temptation to overemphasize it.
Unfortunately, cowardice and rashness are each equal in their perversion of the virtue of courage. To err in one direction is no better than to err in another.
If abandon-the-home feminism is one error, what is the corresponding error in the opposite direction, which we must also flee?
I believe we see it depicted in the film clip almost from the very beginning…
“…heroines who are happy, satisfied, and productive living at home with their families.”
As it happens, I am well acquainted with a number of these young heroines who, try as they might, are neither happy nor satisfied. They strive with all their soul to honor these teachings, and to be happy and content, and yet they find it an impossible task. However, without the benefit of an alternative, they know no better than to simply keep trying and trying and trying, doomed to perpetual failure due to their adherence to a theology that is impossible to please. In contrast to the promise of “happy, satisfied, and productive” young women, many of our young maidens have experienced, and continue to experience, disillusionment, apathy, depression, and other signs of manifestly poor health due in no small part to our insistence that they achieve the impossible.
I intend no guilt by association, but as a reader of Mormon literature I feel obliged to comment that those who would effectively counter the heresies inherent in patriocentric doctrines ought to take a subscription to Ensign, NewEra, and some of the other LDS publications in order to better understand the theology from which these practices spring.
For my own part, I would say that the Botkin girls have done an even better job of marketing these principles of ‘Kingdom Architecture’ than some of the Mormon literature I have come across. Though some may prefer to avoid the unpleasant implications, the principles being espoused are much the same in both cases.
If one thing is clear, it is clear that the Botkin girls believe strongly in their message. Now all that remains is to redirect that message back within the proper channel of Christian doctrine. It is not feminism, and it is not anti-feminism. It is, as the title of this blog declares, true womanhood.
June 20, 2007 at 6:19 am
David E. – “In contrast to the promise of “happy, satisfied, and productive” young women, many of our young maidens have experienced, and continue to experience, disillusionment, apathy, depression, and other signs of manifestly poor health due in no small part to our insistence that they achieve the impossible.”
As you brought up feminism, and I read their quote “happy, satisfied, and productive”, I realized that both agenda’s have the same catch phrase. Hmmm… Quite interesting.
My assertion is that the reason so many are so miserable is because they are NOT carrying out God’s plan for who He created them to be. While the Botkin’s/Patriarchalists believe they have biblical support, their methods actually fly in the face of “productive” Christianity as laid out in the Bible. I’m too tired at the moment to elaborate, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize how these girls are, in the very least, personally stifled and in many cases, greatly dehumanized.
June 20, 2007 at 7:23 am
As I was skimming through the articles quoted by C.A., I caught the phrase “Marxist stereotype of the dopey dad.” Now I quite agree that the dopey dad is a damaging stereotype, but I can’t for the life of me see how it’s Marxist (although 3 a.m. is a bad thinking time…). I’ve noticed before, reading LAF and related sites, that “Marxist” is the epithet second only to “feminist” and applied with even less precision. I’ll grant its widespread influence but I have to wonder what they think it means. Just a tangential observation on this fascinating thread.
June 20, 2007 at 10:04 am
Dana,
The further I am reading into the Botkin book, the more credit Marx and his teachings are given for who knows what. It is also my understanding that Geoffrey Botkins, the girls’ father, sees everything through a Marxist filter. He is one of the two elders in training at Vision Forum and Jennie Chauncey of LAF and her husband are closely connected to FV as well. I will have more insight into this as I finish their book. Right now, I would say that it is the explanation for their blanket hatred of any sort of egalitarianism.
June 20, 2007 at 11:03 am
Ok, I am finally going to comment.As the UK reader mentioned by thatmom I can say that these issues are not heard of here to the best of my knowledge.
Zan- Return of the King- my primary thought on seeing the title. Even the writing is similar.
Susie- Stepping Heavenward is a good book. Have not read Elsie Dinsmore but they don’t sound too similar.
Beth- My husband is a nurse…..go male nurses! I am an Occupational Therapist by training…and we need more men in that profession too.(and that degree was HARD work!)
Funnily enough the sibling in my family who did not complete a uni degree was the only boy (although he did get his degree this year through distance learning
I was the only one who actually left London though and although I fell during my time away I also gained more than I thought possible.
I am a wife and mother and have a Bsc (hons)My parents have almost always worked..although my mum was blessed with work that fitted around us. I can cook, clean, sew (ish) and ‘keep house’….but am far short of many of the ideals suggested by others…..but my marriage and home is happy- becauce Christ is the centre, not because I bake perfect pastry, make beautiful clothes and win the local prize for jam making! (sorry if that sounded a bit harsh but I don’t see why women should be judged on their creative skills!) My Father loved (loves) us dearly, disciplined us as needed, and showed us through his faithful service to God where our true responsibilities lay. This often meant that he was out a lot- at church- but his example will never leave me and my husband has been greatly blessed by it too.
We all differ. Different methods suit different people- no getting away from it – but scripture requires discernment. To say something is THE biblical way when many scriptures do not support it is wrong. To cause confussion and disruption in families is wrong. Sadly, if someone believes something and has been taught it enough they are unlikely to see the wood for the trees (take JW’s- no matter how you may seek to persuade them, unless the Lord works, they cannot see the truth of the scriptures right in front of them)…and please note- I am not calling the Botkin sisters JW’s! Just an example.
June 20, 2007 at 11:50 am
From “My Father’s Daughter”
“I understand that some of you may be asking this question after reading my testimony. “What if I don’t have a father that is involved? What if my father isn’t guiding me in that way? How can I be shaped and challenged?”
I can say this: If this is the case in your life, I would encourage you to find a godly man that knows God’s word, and loves God’s word. A man you can trust. Maybe it’s an Uncle, a Grandfather, or a pastor. Ask him to shepherd you. Maybe it’s your mother.”
This theme is echoed throughout the Botkin book. THey speak of the role their own dad has had in the lives of other young people. If we are to believe in Biblical Patriarchy the way that Vision Forum presents, this would be allowed for hte boys, but what about young ladies? Why would a Mr. Botkin take another man’s “helpmeet” and counsel her? Would he do the same with another man’s wife? I certainly hope not.
Further, what wife who didn’t like the counsel of her “head” is free to just shop around for a “head” that suits her understanding of Scripture? If a bad husband (unless criminal or adulterous) does not justify a wife leaving her husband, then certainly a young lady whose father is not “visionary” according to the principles of the Botkins would not justify her leaving him. This sort of nonsesne are the predicaments that this theology presents.
The Botkins do suggest a mother, brother, or elder as well. But a father who is not “visionary” is not likely to have sons or a pastor that is either! Where does that leave a “visionary” daughter?
It is the very sort of nonsense that leads to young girls searching forums on the internet for “Spiritual teachers.”
June 20, 2007 at 2:04 pm
This sort of thinking, can lead to disastrous consequences. I knew of someone whose husband was not leading his family. However, they attended a bible believing church as a family. The wife went to the pastor for counsel. The result was an adulterous relationship that ripped apart our church. The consequences reaped from women who get it into their heads “God’s way” as told by some author or teacher are never good on a marriage, family, or church. And a young woman who is told to find for a man she can trust to replace her “absent” father, is setting herself up for disaster. And often it’s not just one family that is destroyed in the process but many.
June 20, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I agree with Spunky….been there done that. Undoing it all now.
June 20, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Spunky, your way for articulating and verbalizing your extremely logical and Biblical arguments is truly a GIFT (and thank God that He is using it and getting the glory for it!). You have no idea how frustrating it is to try to say something you KNOW to be TRUTH, and search in vain for the words to make yourself understood.
Your two previous comments addressed exactly what I wanted to say about “shopping for a visionary head instead of honoring your God-given father”.
So thank you for putting words to our thoughts! It feels so good to see it laid out so plainly! =^)
June 20, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Hey that would be a good book title: “Shopping for Daddy”….
June 20, 2007 at 6:55 pm
C.A.,
I had to laugh at that one!
What gets me, is that they literally invite these young people to go “shopping” for the “right visionary patriarch” and join onto their patriarchal team. I guess they should take advantage it, since it might be they only choice they get to make on their own, if Daddy does the shopping for the spouse and makes all they decisions of how they will fill their single years.
There are so many contradictions to this when held up against their own applications of parental authority and courtship.
June 20, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Thanks Alisa! This conversation has been a great help to me as well. Your words along with the comments of so many others, refine and challenge my thinking. I appreciate the open and gracious way all 200+ comments have gone.
Apparently, other blogs are not as welcoming of this king of dialogue. I was discussing alleged “attack” on patriarchy on the blog of CS Hayden a former intern of Vision Forum and for some uknown reason, all the comments were deleted. I saved them, and in an totally expected twist they ended up on Minstry Watchman. You can read my comments here.
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=111
If you decide to read it, please let me know if you felt that I had crossed a line in my conversation. I love public forums simple because they allow all of us to be accountable for the words we speak.
It is this sort of squashing of meaningful dialogue that has me concerned about Vision Forum and why for the time being we have decided no longer to support them. They appear to view any scrutiny as an “attack.”
(Moderator: If this comment is too off topic please delete.)
June 20, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I am new to blogging, so bear with me, please. I know Karen because I was the instrument God used to bring her one son and his wife together. My husband married them and baptized their two children. Even though we are no longer in that congregation, they are still dear to us.
Karen led me to this blog for reasons I’ll get into and I have just read through all 230 of them. Very interesting discussion.
My husband candidated at a church that followed the teachings of Vision Forum. They were sweet, hospitable people. They greatly appreciated my husband’s biblical preaching, but they decided not to call him because our family did not meet their expectations. The Lord has blessed us with seven children, one of them already a resident of heaven; they have been homeschooled their entire lives; we did the courtship thing with our oldest daughter who is now a stay-at-home mom for our two sweet granddaughters. Sounds like we should have fit in, huh? But we didn’t because we wore pants. How awful!!
My two lovely daughters (ages 17 and 18) who dress modestly and are quite submissive and respectful to their father were asked why they would wear pants because the Bible says they are not suppose to. My daughters, more politely, said that it did not.
Are their standards extra-biblical? I think so!
The daughters of the family we stayed with were very good at looking after little ones and planning and preparing meals and even sewing for a Mexican orphanage, but other skills like reading had been overlooked.
We have since read some of the Stacy McDonald book and the Botkin sister book. We agree with much of what has been said on these posts. I have found other’s more knowledgeable comments very interesting and at times disturbing. Thank you for all this.
June 20, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“What gets me, is that they literally invite these young people to go “shopping” for the “right visionary patriarch” and join onto their patriarchal team.”
C.A., that’s sounds eerily like cultic recruiting.
Spunky, no line was crossed in your comments. Very articulate reasoning and compassion towards Joshua. I feel bad for him. Here he is, looking for help, and his pleas are deleted in an act of censorship!
June 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Spunky,
I was actually quite surprised to see how you were able to show that you are indeed really bi-partisan, and on the same page with Joshua when it comes to seeking Truth.
A few things he said showcased what is so disturbing about the movement. “We’ve shared The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy with a lot of other families because we want to see a lot of Christian families doing patriarchy.” DOING patriarchy??? It almost sounds as though they are recruiting for a network marketing business. Now, while I have nothing against them (actually some network marketing businesses are really great opportunities for certain people), why would you acquire such a mindset with more fervor and gusto than you would in sharing the actual “Jesus died for you and saved you from your sins” Gospel? The terminology just came off a little odd.
Joshua goes on: “Some have been open to becoming patriarchal too, especially when they see that it’s biblical.” Why would you have to think about it? If it’s biblically mandated and you fear God, then it would be a no-brainer, right? Doesn’t the lack of a black and white mandate leave the principles in the position to be “considered” as a wisdom issue for each individual family?
“It’s hard to argue against something that’s biblical”. Could this have something to do with Doug Phillip’s absense of a response to all the Scriptures used to discredit his tenets?
Spunky, I don’t think you were out of line or unreasonable at all. I think it was a combination of Anonymous’s “no-beating-around-the-bush” style and fact that the logic of what you showed them challenged them more than they (Caleb and possibly Joshua) were willing to accept and face. But you already knew that when you said, “The truth demands something of us. Though the truth ultimately sets us free, it does so at some cost. And that cost is usually our pride. We don’t want to admit that we or someone we admire might be wrong.”
At first it was surprising that Ministry Watchman would care about Caleb Hayden’s blog and it’s deletions, until I realized that it is precisely this kind of activity, exclusivity, and mentality that has earned it it’s status as a cult. It’s too bad that a seemingly nice young guy like Caleb Hayden got caught up in it. But isn’t that exactly why so many of us are here, to hopefully prevent more well-intentioned parents and innocent children from experiencing the damage that extra-biblical teaching results in?
June 20, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Mary Jo,
It is exactly this kind of enforcement of personal preferences that they have declared to be biblical mandates that has earned Hyper-Patriarchy all this unflattering attention, and just another reason that it has become a cult.
Personally, I think God was merciful to you that your family was NOT accepted for that position.
June 20, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Spunky,
Oh, very very well said!! I’ve gleaned good thoughts and appreciated some excellent reasons/arguments/defenses from a lot of the comments but your consistent clear writing has been an especial blessing. I’m very glad to have found this thread–Praise the Lord!
June 20, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Hi, Spunky! I’ve missed you!
I do not think your comments were in the least bit out of line or questionable. You made excellent points, and I think only those who have made Doug Phillips an extra-biblical guru would have taken offense at them (do you remember my ‘who’s your guru’ post? I’ve been revisiting those thoughts a lot of late).
My oldest daughters have been reading this thread today, and they are totally creeped out by the shaving Daddy activity, and let me tell you they have a fantastically close relationship with their daddy. They adore him. And they thought that whole shaving exercise was was very, very odd. I’m trying really hard to be fair, and I can see how that could be funny and fun, but it’s a hard stretch for me.
They were already not impressed with what they had heard of the Botkin sister’s book (they have friends who have read it and loved it), and they loved Spunky Jr’s Niagara Falls analogy.
Here are a handful of other thoughts I’ve had as reading (some trivial, some not):
Jane Austen is not Victorian. She’s Regency. Personally, I prefer Edwardian era clothes.=) Really.
More seriously, too many people on both the left and right are far too fixated on clothing issues. Not hiring a preacher because his daughters wear pants is pharisaical. That is imposing an extrabiblical requirement on others- and it’s based on some very poor exegesis (I have read and article by Stacy MacDonald promoting dresses only, and it is that of which I speak). Likewise, over on Jen’s blog I have seen some horribly harsh and unjustified (plain ugly) comments criticizing people who like and wear period clothing, or who, however mistakenly, believe they should only wear dresses- and the criticism largely seems to me to be for being unfashionable- as though that weren’t a violation of the very spirit of Christ and the books of James. Other people’s convictions (or even mere preferences) ought not to be criticized for not being fashionable enough to suit those who don’t share them. I say that as somebody who would probably be considered frumpy by most (including my mother), who always wears dresses, and I just disagreed with that same Mother for requiring a boy in her Sunday School class to take his hat off in the building (for cultural reasons only) or not come back and for telling a teen new convert that she needed to buy some dresses to wear to church. In the area of dress I think we need more self examination and less inspection of others.
I think the Botkin sisters are totally off the mark in this statement:
We’re not ready to consider ourselves eligible for marriage until we’ve learned to trust an imperfect individual with our lives. To communicate with a man, which will always be a struggle. To submit to an imperfect man’s “whims” as well as his heavy requirements. To order our lives around another person. To accept the burdens a man places on us cheerfully. To esteem and reverence and adore a man whose faults we can see clearly every day.
But I think maybe some of the criticism about what’s wrong with this has missed wider part of the problem with their statement as well. The problem isn’t that they say we have to do these things to be ready for marriage, we do. It’s that they indicate we have to be able to do them exclusively in relationship with FATHERS in order to do them exclusively for HUSBANDS.
The truth is that being mature and sharing a living space with any other human being requires all these things. Trusting an imperfect individual with our lives?! You have to do this just to get in a car with another driver, or even just sharing the road with other drivers. You do this when you go to the doctor, when you leave somebody else in charge of the cooking, when you trust somebody else to turn off the stove or iron, to safely put away firearms if they believe in the second ammendment, to unplug the curling iron and to put away the potato salad on time. And the only way to really do this and do it well is to trust GOD first and foremost and HE cannot be ‘in the backseat’ for that. You’ve got to have Him driving, and frankly, sometimes you’re still going to lose your life.=(
Sharing your living space with any other people requires that you communicate with them, and a smoothly running household will mean there is *mutual* submission to whims, ordering your lives in consideration of one another, cheerfully accepting ‘burdens.’
We have another family living with us right now, and while obviously that sort of submission is deeper and more meaningful (and necessary) in a marriage, to some degree all this is happening in our house. We break out into song on a whim, they don’t, but they get stuck listening to our nonsense anyway. They object to magic in movies and stories, we don’t. We do watch Harry Potter movies- obviously they don’t. And so we don’t watch them when they are around because that would just be man. They didn’t ask us to do that, we just thought it was right. They let their children punch each other. WE don’t. We eat foods they are not used to. They play certain kinds of practical jokes on each other that we don’t, and some of the ones we think especially icky, they don’t play on us. We didn’t demand that- they just noticed we don’t have exactly the same sense of humour so they hold back around us.
They might take a whim to do some baking in the kitchen and I might have to work around that, or the other way around. One of us might ask the other to watch our children on short notice. NONE of us DEMANDS these things- it’s just that all of us have ‘whims’ and sometimes those whims cannot help but encroach just a little on what somebody else is doing. If I fall asleep on the couch she shushes her children. If she says her children can’t have any more chocolate, I don’t eat mine in front of them. It’s basically just consideration.
They have scheduled activities that require them to be gone when we might wish they were here and vice versa. We are night owls, they are early birds. This means we try to be quieter than usual at night and go to be a little earlier, and they are quieter than usual in the mornings and go to be a little later.
This means we try to remember to sometimes include foods they are used to, and they offer to cook. Sometimes I want the washer when they are using it and sometimes they want it when I am using it. And they kindly walk further at night to use the bathroom because their bathroom is on the other side of our wall. NONE of us REQUIRES this of the other- we are Christian people who love God and so we love His children and try to be good at those ‘one another’ passages.
The Botkins error (or rather, one of them) is to make a slavish devotion and sacrifice an exclusively female to father/husband trait (and I say that as somebody who is probably more ‘patriarchy minded’ than anybody else here).
Sure, it’s good if I esteem and reverence and adore my husband, and I hope he worships the ground I walk on, too.=) But I don’t want him feeling that way about his mother, and I don’t want my girls feeling quite so wifely towards their father.
ALL Christians are supposed to consider one another as better than ourselves, to esteem others, to put others first.
And, as others have pointed out, it is oddly contradictory to demand that girls must esteem, reverence, and adore their fathers whose flaws they can see every day, while also telling them that if Daddy doesn’t feel that patriarchal glow, they should feel free to go pick some other man to esteem, reverence, and adore and have that man (not their daddy adn not their husband) ‘mentor’ them. That’s not very reverent, is it?
THAT’S apparently an unforgivable flaw.
June 21, 2007 at 12:36 am
Deputy Headmistress said:
“The Botkins error (or rather, one of them) is to make a slavish devotion and sacrifice an exclusively female to father/husband trait (and I say that as somebody who is probably more ‘patriarchy minded’ than anybody else here)….ALL Christians are supposed to consider one another as better than ourselves, to esteem others, to put others first.”
This is exactly correct. It really grieves me to see how the beautiful one anothers of Scripture have been turned into clubs with which to beat others over the head. These verses apply to all believers, there aren’t pink one anothers and blue one anothers.
June 21, 2007 at 12:38 am
Spunky,
I saw your comments on Caleb’s blog and left a comment myself, though it registered as anonymous for some reason….I have problems leaving comments on blogger. I knew, however, that anyone who left a negative comment would have it removed. I can’t tell you how many times that has happened to me within these circles.
You were more than fair, by the way. Poor Joshua….I just wish we knew who he was so we could invite him to join us over here.
June 21, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Hi Mary Jo!
I am so glad you have found us and even happier that you joined in the conversation! Thank you, again, for encouraging Clayton and Stacie. The Lord certainly gave me a treasure of a daughter-in-law in her, didn’t he?
Your story, from the first time I heard it, saddened me. Your daughters ARE lovely, modest girls. I know your sweet Talia the best and have been blessed by her love for her husband and children. I cannot think of a finer example of Godly womanhood! But you know what….I can’t remember, the times I was with her. what she was wearing…pants or a dress! But I DO remember how patient she was with her little girls and how attentive she was to the needs of others around her!
I think your story is another example of riding the swinging pendulum. We live in a culture that is saturated with sexual imagery and immodestly dressed women, even within the body of Christ. So, in order to not be immodest, those on the swinging pendulum go out of their way to dress so as not to draw attention to themselves, but, in reality, they draw attention in the wrong way.
I recently read a comment on the blog of a daughter from a patriocentric family. In talking about being dressed in Regency style clothing, most likely made from a Jennie Chancey pattern, she remarked at how much she enjoyed the attention she gets when she is dressed in this way in public, how people stare at her, etc. To me, that wasn’t being modest at all!
You mentioned reading Stacy McDonald’s book, Raising Maidens of Virtue. I recently finished that book and felt that underlying it is a spirit of fearfulness that I can’t reconcile with God’s sovereignty. Then someone told me they had read other comments from Stacy where she talks about their daughters not being allowed to go anywhere at all without being accompanied by a mother or father, including 20-something year old daughters. While I understand the desire to protect our girls and I also understand the personal convictions surrounding that desire, I think it sounds like a child training belief based on fear rather than on faith.
Another problem I had with that book (and it is being used as a Bible study in many places so we might want to evaluate it sometime) is that, as with many of the patriocentric writings, much of it seems contrived and
in-a-boxish.
June 21, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Thank you, DeputyHeadmistress! Your comment about not wanting your daughters to feel quite so wifely towards their father…that’s it! You hit the nail on the head on that one. I couldn’t quite put it altogether in my own mind until I read that phrase.
If a young lady has been brought up doing and believing all the things the Botkin girls and others teach (even with the blessing of their mother) why wouldn’t they be opening themselves up to begin to feel and act wifely towards their father? How unnatural! And I have to wonder what’s going on in the father’s mind amidst all of this!
The VG activity at the father/daughter retreat of shaving and dressing daddy I suppose could’ve meant to be done as a fun activity and nothing more. However, given the context of this WHOLE THING…it gives me the creeps.
Many teenage youth group games are also meant as fun activities, but many also border on inappropriate at the very least, in my opinion.
I guess I need to actually read So Much More to better understand what the Botkin girls are promoting.I’m really curious now.
Susie
June 22, 2007 at 12:05 am
Here’s another thing that concerns me very much, and that is what most of us and apparently nobody at VF sees about the way they are creating an environment that provides protective coloring for abuse.
I believe that the majority of VF men love their families and would be shocked, grieved, and appalled at the thought of somebody abusing his little girl.
But the fact is that there are some men who are perverts, and they don’t all hang out in bars, tattooed, pierced, and with warning labels. Predators follow the prey. And the reason we find such a disproportionate ratio of perverts in professions such as teaching, scouting, the priesthood, and ministry is NOT because these professions create perverts, but because perverts are attracted to places where they can look good (protective coloring) and have access to children.
The Patriarchy DP promotes, especially combined with exercises about shaving, grooming, and fixing up daddy’s tie, being blindfolded to learn total obedience- these are a pervert’s dream. I am NOT saying that even the majority of the fathers and daughters there have inappropriate relationships. I AM suggesting that what others mean for good, a pervert or two can twist for his own uses and evil. In order to protect themselves, and more importantly, their daughters and other little girls, it would at least be a good idea if somebody at these forums addressed this issue and made sure they said in the hearing of those children and in a way they can understand that there ARE wolves in sheep’s clothing, there ARE sinful fathers who abuse their daughters, and VF wants those girls to hear that when they teach obedience to fathers, they do not mean obedience to ungodly, sinful demands.
In fact, I think if VF made an extra effort to include this sort of thing in their teaching in front of daughters (and perhaps they are three steps ahead of me and they already do- does anybody know?), they could do more to protect some otherwise unprotected children than any of us. God could use that in a mighty way.
June 22, 2007 at 5:28 am
My daughters (age 17 and 18) and I read through the McDonald book together and it lead to some good discussions. The Bible verses she compiled about modesty, taming the tongue, contentment, womanhood were all good. Let me throw out the areas we had problems with as a way of review. Chapter 7 entitled “Fresh Milk” was, in my opinion, the one that bothered me the most. It was about the daddy that quit his job and was moving his family to a farm in Tennessee. “Hannah heard her mother’s broken voice asking forgiveness for doubting God’s sovereignty and trusting the riches of a secular job more than the riches of God’s provision.” It reminded me of that “home movement” put forth in the magazine “Gentle Spirit” (Does anyone else remember that one?)that encourage not only women to be keepers at home, but men to “come home” too. I pitied some of the women in the stories who were burdened because their husbands were not really providing for them. Do we want our daughters and our sons, even, to think that having a “secular job” is wrong? Making money at a job that is God’s calling and providing well for the family is an honorable thing for men.
My daughters didn’t care for chapter 9 – “Dwelling in Unity”. They really saw it as a discouragement in having friends other than their own siblings. They get along great with their siblings but they have some very good friends too. Christian friends that have been wonderful blessings to them and they have been blessings in return. We shouldn’t unnecessarily burden ourselves thinking we have to be all things to all our children.
Chapter 14 – “The Bath: Powdered and Perfumed” really shows the boxishness that Karen talked about. I can’t do that and I don’t allow my girls to do that and anyone else that would come to visit me, because scents, especially lavender, give me a headache and more. Does that make me a less pious Christian? LOL
In Chapter 18 – “The Heart of a Maiden”, it talks about their daughters giving their hearts to their fathers. As my husband says, it is more the responsibility of the father to guard his daughter against giving her heart to an inappropriate man. The daughter giving her heart to her father does suggest that daddy is, as someone else has already said a “prehubby”. There is almost an intimacy between father and daughter that really should be guarded against. In the practical tips for that chapter, she tells the young maiden to “keep away from discussions about romance, wedding fantasies, or eligible young men (whether they are godly or not). Yet you know how well they like the Jane Austen novels and Jane Eyre and the Elsie Dinsmore books. I would consider those romance novels fantasizing about the perfect man riding into the young damsel’s life on a white horse.
The book is written to promote modesty and purity amongst young women which is sadly lacking in our culture, even in young women who call themselves Christians. It is speaking about the very real necessity of a strong father who leads his family in rightly worshipping God and protecting his daughters against the real predatory nature of ungodly men. But it strikes me a bit that this book promotes a make-believe world of an idealized Victorian age.
That is my input on that particular book. Thank you for letting me express my opinion.
June 22, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Mary Jo,
Since I’m not familiar with this book (but have had enough of others just like it to last me a lifetime), I was just wondering what Stacy MacDonald was promoting in Ch. 14, powdered and perfumed. Thanks!
June 22, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“I can say this: If this is the case in your life, I would encourage you to find a godly man that knows God’s word, and loves God’s word. A man you can trust. Maybe it’s an Uncle, a Grandfather, or a pastor. Ask him to shepherd you. Maybe it’s your mother.””
Yes, why not the mother? Where is she in all of this? I understand that when boys get older they naturally gravitate towards dad. I don’t think this is a given and I still think that mothers and sons can have close and warm relationships. But, why would the girls also gravitate towards dad? It seems like mom is the incubator, the giver of milk, the diaper changer and the toddler trainer but then, mom suddenly disappears from her “very important role” as a mother.
It seems like a mother should be very involved in the teaching of scripture to her children and that the father and mother should be a united unit. It is not just the father with an appendage being their mother.
Timothy’s mother and grandmother seemed to do a fine job discipling him.
I would NEVER encourage a young lady to go looking for a mentor in some other man. That just isn’t smart. How do you know you can trust a strange man? Usually you find out when it is too late. Where does the Bible tell young women to go out searching for a father figure? That seems, well, dangerous and odd advice. It is inconsistent with scripture.
The Bible tells the older women to train the younger women. Why not point her to an older woman so she could take the young woman under her wing.
June 22, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“You mentioned reading Stacy McDonald’s book, Raising Maidens of Virtue.”
What I would like to know is who are the “rocks” and who are the “flowers” and what do the petals/hair symbolize?
My girls and I read that first chapter and we were all scratching our heads. We all figured that the rocks were men and the flowers were girls. The girls pulled out their petals (aka for butch hair cut) so they could be like the rocks. They wanted to be hard like the rocks. Or the rocks were the world and the flowers were Christians? But, the hair/petal thing made me think that it was more about cutting our hair short and wanting to look like boys by wearing pants.
I just don’t understand the whole parable. I guess I think too literally.
Did anyone understand it? Could you help me out?
June 22, 2007 at 11:13 pm
“It reminded me of that “home movement” put forth in the magazine “Gentle Spirit” (Does anyone else remember that one?)”
For what it is worth, the founder of that magazine, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, now is a self-described radical feminist, who has rejected much (not all) of what she once embraced. I don’t think one needs to go to the opposite extreme when one rejects a patriocentric worldview. However, I find it interesting that Cheryl has been both within and outside of that movement and has rejected it and is eloquent in explaining the damage that is often a direct result of the patriocentric ideologies.
June 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Corrie said:
“Yes, why not the mother? Where is she in all of this? I understand that when boys get older they naturally gravitate towards dad. I don’t think this is a given and I still think that mothers and sons can have close and warm relationships.”
This is Biblical…Proverbs 31 was written by a mother to her son. Sometimes I think this is forgotten. This wasn’t a father giving counsel on finding a godly wife, it was a mom. And of course, moms do “get it” when they talk to their sons about young women. I have 5 sons and have spent many a long evening in similar discussions with the three oldest boys.
June 23, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Corries, you ask about the rocks and the flowers. I think the whole first chapter was a long, flowery way to describe Christians who want to be in the world rather than stay in their own flower bed. Of course, you and I would differ with this book as to what constitutes “wordly” and what does not.
June 23, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Alisa,
Chpter 14 of Raising Maidens of Virtue, I think, is basically an admonition for young women to bathe regularily and to be aware of the offensive body odors that come with changing, adolescent bodies. Stacy talks about the importance to God of cleanliness and clean clothing. She also gives several example from her own family about liking to smell like certain scents.
While I agree that cleanliness is important (perhaps, being the mother of boys, we need just such a book for the male adolescent, though I do know that once they want to shower and smell nice, the downside is that they have probably discovered girls!), not everyone wants to smell like certain flowers or spices And, as Mary Jo pointed out, some people are absolutely allergic to scents and need to avoid them altogether.
One thing, too, is that I think the target audience for this book is pre-teen to young teen girls so it probably is a good chapter to include. I have bigger issues with other chapters.
June 23, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Mary Jo said:
“In Chapter 18 – “The Heart of a Maiden”, it talks about their daughters giving their hearts to their fathers. As my husband says, it is more the responsibility of the father to guard his daughter against giving her heart to an inappropriate man. ”
This is absolutely correct and simply stated the core problem I had with Chapter 18.
The chapter begins with the story of the morning where the MacDonald girls “gave their hearts,” in this case small heart pins, as symbols to their dad. It is a highly personal story and I was quite uncomfortable reading it; I felt a little voyeuristic. But mostly I felt like a standard was established that will certainly be followed by many families down to the very gifts girls give their dads. And that is what always concerns me about this sort of thing. It feel contrived and isn’t natural. The father-daughter relationship should be based on mutual trust and admiration. It should never, ever have any of the same outworkings as the husband/wife relationship, ie father-daughter balls, date nights etc. Daughters don’t really want that in the first place. They want to be the daughter.
I was also uncomfortable with the idea that the father would publically wear the heart pin and then publically give it to the new son-in-law at a wedding. It seems like the girls virginity is central to the concept and it up for public display. But there is no mention of a son’s heart or a son’s virginity. Why is this? Doesn’t a maiden of virtue want to marry a young man who is also morally pure?
June 23, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I know this will sound off-topic but bear with me….it really is on topic.
Our family saw the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie last weekend. (Big disappointment!)
In the first movie, Elizabeth Swann is the heroine, demur, ladylike, lovely. But, during the first few minutes of the movie, we learn that she has harbored ideas of being a pirate since she was a little girl.
Now, in the 3rd movie, we see her wishes fulfilled. It is troubling to see her become so bad (it started in the 2nd movie) and at first look, you think she has changed from a sweet, lovely maiden of virtue into this terrorizer of the high seas.
But, in reality, she was a pirate in her heart, from the first scene of the first movie.
All this to say that the heart is where someone is either a maiden of virtue or a pirate. We cannot tell what is going on inside a young woman soley by her clothing. She may be acting a part, she may be trying to avoid the conflict that would come with her parents and family if she outs herself as a pirate.
We need to remember that it is all of God’s grace and we should embrace that grace ourselves and allow it to pour over into our lives as parents. If our children see hypocrisy in us, they will become the most virtuous of hypocrites themselves!
June 23, 2007 at 3:56 pm
That Mom, that is a very powerful point you make about the Pirates movies. I can see my girls and I (we are all Pirates fans) are going to have some interesting discussions about that. I had totally forgotten how enamored she was with pirates even as a child.
Corrie, it’s been a long, long time since I read Maidens of Virtue, and honestly, I do not remember much about it except that I read it at a friends house in one book gulping evening and decided not to buy it. I don’t even remember why I decided that, and it might have been for no other reason but a financial decision, so I don’t want anybody to read too much into that. I simply don’t remember enough to discuss it intelligently.
But I THINK the flowers shedding their petals were Christian girls shedding feminine traits to fit in with the world. That’s my vague impression. However, I could be wrong and I would not only not be willing to die on that hill, I wouldn’t even be willing to stub my toe over it.
June 24, 2007 at 6:35 am
“Dear Damsels Thinking Yourselves to Be in Distress” is the way the Botkin sisters begin their letter on their website which is supposed to be giving advice to a family who wrote to them. Does anyone else cringe at this extremely sarcastic way in which this is phrased? To me this is saying that the thoughts and concerns these girls have about this issue don’t matter. The whole tone of the letter is like that. Hopefully these girls sought out other advice besides that of the Botkin sisters. The article in entitled “Authoritative Parents, Adult Daughters and Power Struggles.” The sisters did not bother to let their readers have a glimpse into the letter that was written to them. They have set themselves up as the authority and unfortunately the reader is not able to discern if the advice the Botkins are giving this family is good advice. Are the daughters that are seeking advice from the Botkins adults, young adults, girls in their late teens? It’s impossible to know. These two girls have simply dispensed their advice with a broad brush, (sorry for mixing my metaphors here it’s late and I never stay up this late) not taking into consideration the situation of these daughters. They are only concerned with promoting their dah/patriarch view. It doesn’t matter if the parents are being unreasonable-and maybe they’re not, but the reader cannot judge for themselves. If these girls are adults or nearing adulthood I feel very sorry for them.
The thing that disturbs me most about this whole patriarchy issue is that I hear very little emphasis on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, you’ll hear the word evangelism tossed around, but what kind of evangelism? In the patriarchy movement they do not preach salvation by grace alone. It’s seems the dominion mandate is more important than leading people to Christ.
In this letter to this family the girls juxtapose two extremes: there’s the dutiful stay at home daughter who seeks ways in which to further her father’s vision, that being the true sign of maturity and then there’s the spoiled girl who is bucking against that situation striving for autonomy from her father’s will. A girl who’s seeking independence is compared to a 2 year old toddler, after all, they say, everybody knows that a toddler knows her own mind. Unfortunately we’re only given two extremes here: Either the girl has to be told what do as a small child does or she is mature and is actively seeking to help her father. There’s no middle ground. Might a girl be intelligent and well educated, a dutiful daughter, but has no desire to live under the narrow patriarcy paradigm that the Botkins are preaching. Of course, we don’t know what these girls’ situation is because the Botkins did not see fit to allow us to read the letter that was sent to them.
Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to become more involved with our families. Most young people become more and more distanced from their families as they get older. Some of that is natural and good, many times older teens are just out doing their own thing. But it’s also natural for young adults to move toward independence. My husband and I have taught our children to be independent and to be ready for adulthood.
I applaud the Botkin family and the children for their accomplishments. They seem to be very talented and educated. They seem to want to glorify the Lord in their lifestyle. However, I don’t believe that they should be teaching their vision of what family life should be like and those of us who do not practice it fall short. If my 17 year old daughter wrote to them and complained about my husband and me that we do not adhere to the patriachy vision would the Botkins encourage her to seek out someone else to lead her. Of course, my daughter wouldn’t do that, but I shutter to think of the possibility of these girls dispensing this kind of advice. Yikes!
“We need to see the liberty inside this grand vision, rather than looking for license outside it. Instead of repining all the things we may have to give up (e.g. “my life,” “my space,” “my time,” “my dreams,” “my schedule,” “my way,” “my friends,” etc.), we should say “good riddance” to useless, selfish, autonomous “adulthood,” and mature into loving the joy, productivity and adventure that is life in a Christian family unit.”
Notice again how anything less than their vision is described as “useless, selfish, autonomous adulthood.” I’ve known single Christian people, who for whatever reason never married. They are useful, productive and yes autonomous. Their lives are not defined by the role they have in their families yet they still have a good relationship with their families. These people might seriously be offended by the strong language in this paragraph.
Notice in the article that the sisters make three observations about daughters communicating with their dads. It’s interesting that the responsibility of communication rests with the daughter. She may need to initiate communication, he may misunderstand and he can’t trust her unless he knows he has her heart. How does one judge whether or not a father can trust his daughter based on whether or not he has her heart? That is such a nebulous idea and so subjective.
They say that daughters are to surrender their hearts to their parents and then ultimately to God. Excuse me?? It is entirely possible for a person to surrender their hearts to God (in fact that should happen first) long before they give their hearts to their parents. My parents had my heart all my life, they still do. I didn’t have to come to a point in my life where I made a conscious decision to “give my heart” to my parents. I did, however, surrender my whole heart to the Lord Jesus at the age of 18.
When your parents have your heart you will truly “delight in their ways.” You will love what they love, hate what they hate, and desire their approval and company and even “think their thoughts after them.”
Aw shucks, does that mean that I have to eat clams, drink buttermilk and watch every sport that comes across the tube (including fishing). Well, sorry, I really failed in that area, because as much as I love my dad he and I have completely opposite tastes in everything. He likes country and I like classical. Now, if the Botkin sisters are referring to hating sin, then that goes without saying. I have to think they’re saying that dutiful daughters must literally like or detest (including foods and music) what their parents like or detest. It might be helpful if they clarified exactly what they mean here.
Sorry to be so lengthy. I just had to put down some thoughts on this article because to be quite honest with I was really bugged when I read it.
If you want a real scare you should read Phil Lancaster’s extremely creepy article about how he envisions the multigenerational family. I know it’s a different topic but these two ideas sort of go hand in hand. I don’t remember the name of the article but he talks about how he has had his sons make committments to stay in the community on some land he has purchased. He wants all of his children to stay close to him and they can all have this little family compound. He has this vision of many generations staying close ( I guess so he can rule over his family as patriarch-I don’t know). Nevermind that he’s playing God and not taking into consideration that his children may marry someone from another state and may feel God calling them to relocate.
As I read all the patriarchy/family multigenerational stuff the term that comes to mind is: gilded cage.
June 24, 2007 at 6:46 am
They say that daughters are to surrender their hearts to their parents and then ultimately to God. Excuse me?? It is entirely possible for a person to surrender their hearts to God (in fact that should happen first) long before they give their hearts to their parents. My parents had my heart all my life, they still do. I didn’t have to come to a point in my life where I made a conscious decision to “give my heart” to my parents. I did, however surrender my heart to the Lord Jesus at age 18.
I know it sounds as if I contradicted myself here. Let me explain. My parents are not Christians so I didn’t hear the gospel until I was 18. However, I think it’s possible for a child to accept Christ (my husband gave his full heart to Christ at an extremely young age)but then give their hearts to his parents later on. That’s why I reject the notion that a child must give her heart to her parents first and then ultimately to God. It’s far more important for a child to give his or her heart to God than to the parents. The second one comes naturally, the first one is a matter of eternal salvation. It’s far better to have a so-so relationship with one’s parents and go to heaven than to have idyllic one and die and go to hell. Well, it is 1:45 a.m. and I have to get up for Sunday School and church (yes, I said S.S. a big no no in patriarchal circles).
June 24, 2007 at 7:04 am
Oh Deb, thank you for your lengthy post! “Gilded cage” could not be more accurate!!!! You made too many good points for me to get to them all.
But this one stuck out at me. If the only way a father can know if he can trust his daughter is by if he has her heart (as opposed to her proven character like anybody else), that scares the bejeebers out of me. Such a subjective, personal-definition deciding factor seems like it would create an atmosphere of constant distrust on the fathers part, while the daughters scramble to prove their “hearts” and devotion to him. What a stressful, unhealthy scenario!!! Those poor girls! Can they never be trusted? Apparently not, since any autonomy/liberty would be too much for them. What must that do to their psyche?
Ugh, the whole thing makes me sick inside.
June 24, 2007 at 7:09 am
“It’s far more important for a child to give his or her heart to God than to the parents. The second one comes naturally, the first one is a matter of eternal salvation.”
It might be more accurate to say that a relationship with your parents SHOULD come naturally. It doesn’t seem to me that these unhealthy situations are conducive to a “natural” affection for one’s parents! They’ve taken all the “natural” out of it!
June 24, 2007 at 11:02 am
Alisa says:
“It might be more accurate to say that a relationship with your parents SHOULD come naturally. It doesn’t seem to me that these unhealthy situations are conducive to a “natural” affection for one’s parents! They’ve taken all the “natural” out of it!”
Now, take that concept and apply it to the relationship with a husband. How sad that these girls are being set up to have such little expectations of a deep and passionate relationship with their own husbands.
June 24, 2007 at 11:06 am
Deb,
You made so many, many good points.
You brought up the concept of automony. This is something that came to my mind a few months ago when I was doing some reading about child development and toddlers. This is an important part of raising a child and their awarenss of who they are as individuals is important for further development in later years.
Hand in hand with it comes the spiritual concept of “priesthood of the believer” where each person recognizes that he must stand, alone, before the judgement seat of God, with no priest other than Jesus, our High Priest.
I believe some of these ideas, such as no autonomy and the father being the priest of the home, are tenets of Covenant Theology taken to unbiblical extremes.
Thanks for all your comments….please keep ‘em coming, Deb!
June 24, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Yes I agree with you, ThatMom, the idea of no autonomy and the father as priest of the home I believe are completely unbiblical. When I became a Christian I learned about the priesthood of all believers. We all have access to God without having to have an earthly “go between.” I went to a Christian college back in the early 80′s and I remember that many of the students had strong Gothard leanings. Our dean of students taught Gothardism in chapel, etc. Fortunately I didn’t fall into that snare. I remember my husband to be (now husband for 22 years) questioned some of Gothard’s teachings and was sternly castigated by a fellow student. All he said was, “Where’s that found in the Bible?” and this other student treated him as if he’d committed some heresy. Many of the students loaded up in buses and were shuttled to the seminars whenever they were in town. I never went, praise God. Anyway, I can remember some of the students talking about the fact that Gothard taught that single people should stay at home even if they never married. Most of us thought that was ridiculous in the extreme. I think that this whole patriarchy movement is the stupid dangerous extrememe that evolved from Gothard’s ideas. I know that Lindvall and Phillips both have been strongly influenced by Gothard.
Alisa, you are so right. The relationship with the parents should come naturally. You said better what I was trying to say at almost 2 in the morning. Giving your heart to your father sounds vaguely to me like having some kind of religious experience like being born again. You are spot on when you say they have taken the “natural” out of the parent/child relationship. Also this whole trust issue really bugs me too. If the girl must constantly prove to her father that he has her heart then she must be on guard at all times not to show any streaks of independence. It sure would take the joy out of a relationship with dad wouldn’t it?
I’m glad that I wasn’t the only one who thought that shaving dad business was kinda creepy.
I just absolutely have to comment on this line from Jenny’s post: The Biblical model may not be the only model, but it is the best. (Funny how these patriarchy advocates boldly state opinions as if they’re ironclad facts). If it were the only option for women I think our culture would be the better for it. This statement really bothers me. Even if I believed in this whole patriarchy business, I would not want to live in a society where there was only one option available to women. If I wanted that I would pack up and move to Saudi Arabia.
I’ve read articles by I believe the same person who made the above absurd comment. She believes that it is o.k. for women to become midwives so that women can avoid male doctors. Midwifery, according to her is the perfect ministry because women are well suited for bringing life into the world. I wonder if she recognizes that women have other medical needs besides childbirth. What about pap smears and breast exams. Apparently she believes that women should avoid male doctors because it’s not right for “a man to uncover the nakedness” of a woman. However, if women’s options are severely limited in her vision of a perfect culture then we would all be seeing male doctors for our most personal needs. Hello? By the way, I am assuming that this person is the same person that wrote the two articles to which I’m referring. If that’s not the case then I apologize.
About 10 years ago we crossed paths with two Gothard/patriarch type families.
The first family had 9 children. They did not believe in using b.c. and much of the responsibilities of running the house fell upon the 3 oldest daughters. I’m all for large families. I have 6 children. I felt extremely sorry for these girls. My children do chores and my 15 year old son keeps my downstairs spotless. He’s wonderful. These 3 girls also had to work on the family’s small farm. These girls became disheartened and frustrated. The oldest girl has been married for a few years now and doesn’t want children – much to the consternation of her patriarchal anti b.c. dad.
The second family were Gothardites to the hilt. They had four daughters and the dad became convicted about having had a vasectomy after the 4th daughter so he went and had a reversal. These girls were extremely wary about talking to boys because their parents had ingrained in them that the only way they could ever have a relationship was if a young approached their father and asked to court the daughter. Unfortunately for these poor girls the guys aren’t exactly breaking their father’s door down to court his daughters. Any young man who attempts to talk to the daughters is directed to the father because the girls aren’t allowed to enter into relationships on their own. The oldest girl is now 27 and I think her chances are pretty slim of finding someone now. I know God can change her situation, but I’m not real hopeful for this girl. This type of system might be o.k. for an extremely attractive girl like Kelly Brown, but what about the plain or homely girls. I’m not saying they should settle for second best, but isn’t it just possible that this girl may have crossed paths with someone acceptable if she’s been allowed to interact with young men in a natural way instead of running like the plague everytime a member of the opposite sex tried to talk to her. I know that’s true because her mother told me of a particular situation when that very thing occurred.
June 25, 2007 at 12:28 am
Oh Deb, I feel so burdened for these young women. Praise God that there are at least some that have enough gumption and identity in Christ to leave and make a life for themselves!
June 25, 2007 at 1:39 am
Wow…this conversation keeps growing and expanding…truly fascinating.
I have read “Maidens of Virtue” by Stacy MacDonald. thatmom brings up so many points that I found troubling that I won’t repeat them. I think what greatly saddens me about this book, is that in theory, it is desperately needed. Yet at the same time, it takes such a “box-ish” view (to borrow a phrase) that it defeats its own purpose. Leaving all the heavier theological question marks aside, some of her “simple” admonitions basically make it sound that if they don’t follow it to a “t” ( I am thinking of parts of Chapter 13-14 here) that they are “worse off”. Considering the age group this is aimed at, I think chapters on personal care are vital. But she almost makes it sound as if these “changes” are “bad”, that they need to be scrubbed away. It seems endemic to the much larger picture in the patriocentric circles. Anything that doesn’t fit “in the box” (as they see it) must be “scrubbed”. Yet what is going on is not inherently bad, or even a sin. It just doesn’t fit in the box.
It really sets one up for disillusionment, I think- nothing will ever quite fit in the patriocentric box. Gracious, I am not even sure Jesus Christ would fit in that box. (Not that I am implying that He should, mind…) But that is the truly troubling fact. I doubt that all those people Jesus ministered to during His time on earth would “measure up” or “fit into” their little box.
June 25, 2007 at 7:04 am
“It really sets one up for disillusionment. . .”
Well put.
June 26, 2007 at 12:22 am
For those who have read “So Much More,” I’d recommend adding a review over at Amazon.
June 26, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Deb,
Great posts!
“If you want a real scare you should read Phil Lancaster’s extremely creepy article about how he envisions the multigenerational family. I know it’s a different topic but these two ideas sort of go hand in hand.”
I think it is “Multigenerational Vision”.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/08/19.html
The above blog is not a Christian blog but this guy does talk about a lot of the patriarchal topics.
I will try and dig up the article. It used to be on Patriarchs Path and that is what it linked to in the Salon article but it is no longer there. Isn’t Patriarchs Path still up and running?
June 26, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Frankly, I haven’t found anything by Lancaster or any of his other article writing friends (John Thompson, etc) that WASN’T creepy. It’s so extra-biblical that it just leaves you wide-eyed as you shake your head in disbelief.
June 26, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I was reading one of the earliest posts where this person was talking about how many of the people who promote a return to patriarchy have a tendency to “whitewash” the past. They talk about a return to patriarchy and beautiful womanhood, etc. etc. They also talk about how people in the past welcomed children and would be appalled at our anti child culture of the day. They are definately romanticizing the past. One of my favorite hobbies is genealogy and I’ve found many of my relatives in the census records. It was not uncommon for children as young as 14 and 15 to be working in factories (especially in the north). My great grandmother and her siblings as well as her father worked in the local cigar factory in their town in Pennsylvania. Before she married my great grandfather she left home at age 18 to work as a hoursekeeper in someone else’s home. My southern relatives all worked in the fields on their family owned farms. Like the previous poster said life was not all rosy and simplistic like these victorian prints these people are so fond of displaying on these beautiful/biblical womanhood websites convey. My great great grandmother died at age 35. An article that was written about her said that she had been extremely ill for over a year. Unfortunately she gave birth to a stillborn baby boy about a month before she died. It was her 10th child including a set of twins. She married when she was 17. I’m sure that with her illness (whatever it was) if she had had the opportunity to give her body a rest and prevent at least that last pregnancy she may have lived past age 35. I could go on and on about the women in my line who had pregnancy after pregnancy and died at young ages. One woman in my family married at age 18 a man 26 years older than she was and she died giving birth to their 7th child. He outlived her by 20 years. I have 6 children. I love large families. I believe that Christians should be willing to be fruitful, but I would never impose that on others and I don’t believe that planning your family is a sin.
I’ve tried to find Phil Lancaster’s article and it seems to have been taken off the website. Actually it used to be on the Patriarch Magazine website and that is no longer running, but there’s a new website that many of the articles have been transferred to. I haven’t checked Patriarchs Path for a while.
I agree with Joy about the issue of their “boxish” view. Anything that doesn’t fit into the box is rejected by them. And Alisa, I also agree with you everything by Thompson and Lancaster is creepy. I feel sorry for Lancaster’s children.
July 10, 2007 at 4:58 am
Does anyone else have the sinking feeling here that the Botkin girls have been used by Doug Phillips and perhaps unwittingly by their father to further this cause? I just get the feeling that these girls could not have come up with this stuff by themselves.I think they are but pawns in the game.
July 10, 2007 at 6:19 am
Mary,
You’re certainly not the only one, and I almost have to wonder if we can be gracious enough think their father is doing it unwittingly.
There is a major undercurrent in this movement that prompts many parents to desire to be the “pioneering poster family”. They want to be recognized for some quality that is so highly esteemed by their peers. And to be honest, from what I’ve seen it seems to be because there are too many reasons that they DON’T receive much esteem from mainstream Christianity; more children than they can care for, unbalanced homeschooling with their own personal emphasis’s, not to mention the types of personalities and sometimes misguided goals that draw them into these circles. They are dying for affirmation fo their fringe choices. So they’ve created an arena that offers them that opportunity.
Sadly, I think these are just a few of many driving forces behind Mr. Botkin’s endorsements. Even their desire to help other’s towards “the Biblical model” is misguided at best.
July 10, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I am concerned about what this is doing to the homeschool community. Here in Colorado, our state org is run by Kevin Swanson, one of the major players now in this patriach movement. His radio show is completely over the top- with sarcasm, setting up strawmen to tear them down with rhetoric etc……I really feel resentful that he has used his position with chec in this way. And I don’t know what to do about it…all the board members seem to be ok with this. Very discouraging to say the least.
July 10, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Does anyone know how involved HSLDA is in this whole thing? They advertise on Kevin Swanson’s website but I don’t know if they are aware of the content. Since we have been members forever I thought I might give them a call and chat about it.
July 10, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Mary, please do call them. When you do, ask about Chris Klicka accepting a Vision Forum award, too.
July 11, 2007 at 4:49 am
“There is a major undercurrent in this movement that prompts many parents to desire to be the “pioneering poster family”. They want to be recognized for some quality that is so highly esteemed by their peers.”
The Bible called this phenomenon “man-pleasing”.
“Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”
As such, it’s pretty close to vanity, and only about two steps removed from “brown-nosing.”
July 11, 2007 at 6:31 am
Cynthia,
This desire for “idolhood” and man’s approval is so bad that people actually talk about (them or their children) writing the next “big” book, when they’ve really learned nothing exceptional, have any great experience to share, even have the talents and capabilities to take on such a task, much less be promted by the Spirit.
Somewhere on some patriarchist’s blog, he was talking about blue-printing his descendent’s “multi-generational vision”. This included when his children would marry, approxiamately how many children they would have, and HOW MANY BOOKS HIS GRANDCHILDREN WOULD WRITE!!!!! There was more, but how is it not possible for them to see how ridiculous it all is???????
July 11, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Thank you, Mary, for writing about the Colorado homeschool group, CHEC. I have been discouraged with how slanted towards patriarchy CHEC has become and the effect this has had overall on the families in Colorado. I am glad to know I am not the only one who feels this way.
It was interesting attending the curriculum fair at the CHEC convention this year. Last year the speakers were Doug Phillips and the “Uniting Church and Home” group to the exclusion of almost everything else. This year because of the Vision Forum event in Jamestown, Doug Phillips was not in attendance. Walking into the curriculum hall, the atmosphere was so different from previous years- I saw many women wearing capri pants, laughing and enjoying themselves instead of the more reserved atmosphere from times past. Perhaps that impression was because of the change in MY perspective or the time I attended, but I was struck by the contrast even from observing things in the parking lot!
While I understand Kevin Swanson’s desire to choose conference speakers that he is in agreement with, I sincerely hope that in the future CHEC will offer a more diverse group of speakers to allow for the theological differences in homeschooling families.
July 14, 2007 at 1:00 am
“Somewhere on some patriarchist’s blog, he was talking about blue-printing his descendent’s “multi-generational vision”. This included when his children would marry, approxiamately how many children they would have, and HOW MANY BOOKS HIS GRANDCHILDREN WOULD WRITE!!!!! There was more, but how is it not possible for them to see how ridiculous it all is???????”
Would that be Geoff Botkin by any chance? It sounds very familiar to Phil Lancaster’s view of family life in his article mentioned earlier. Click on the link in post 267. It’s pretty scary stuff. My question is how is Lancaster going to ensure that his children marry people who will want to stay in his little family compound.
July 14, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Deb,
It wasn’t any of those you mentioned, but it was a dad who had just returned from hearing one of them speak. He was all fired up to be a patriarch.
Frankly, I’ve never heard anything from Phil Lancaster that remotely resembled logic or Biblical truth. He’s probably not any farther out than Doug Phillip’s or Geoff Botkin, but they’ve got enough PR understanding to make it sound just normal enough to the average conservative homeschooler… Pretty scary stuff indeed.
July 14, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Deb,
I went to the article you pointed out. I’ve seen it before, and it’s too sad that a nonChristian has a greater grasp on reality and Truth than some of these patriarchs.
But, I followed the link to what used to be Patriarch Magazine, and is now (ironically?) titled “Let’s Learn Theology”. I did almost laugh… and then cry.
Has anybody else had the feeling that these men aren’t searching the Scriptures to know the heart of God, but just to look for some “theological” argument to make their crazy ideas sound more sane????? Or worse yet, BIBLICAL!?!?!?!?! I’m sure there must be a few men in the crowd that still genuinely love God (though have been genuinely misled), but I have serious doubts about the the motives and veracity of their “theological” pursuits.
Then I found articles by John Thompson, who is a piece of work all by himself. I found a PART NINE to an article on “Scriptural Romance”. I had no clue the Bible talked to much about romance!!!!!! Frankly, the only real guide to romance I’VE been able to find in the Bible is the one between God and us as His children. I wonder where he found his references… he must have the male x-ray vision to see the invisible writing between the lines, vision I will never have given my gender. Haha, vision, get it? Ahhh, bad joke… I fear I am allergic to patriarchal articles; I’m suddenly getting a rash and breaking out in sarcasm. ;o)
July 14, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Alisa,
Your joke was pretty funny, I thought. It’s also apropos given that these patriarchs have all this vision for how the rest of us are supposed to live our lives. I completely agree with you that John Thompson is a piece of work. For the life of me I cannot understand that man.
I also noticed that the Patriarch Magazine was no more and had become “Let’s Learn Theology.” All of the articles on the site (that I’ve seen) just seem to have been transplanted from the p.m. magazine. And speaking of which, have you read Phil Lancaster’s article on birth control? I’d like to know where he gets his authority to make many of the statements that he does. Somebody needs to do a serious expose’ on that article. He doesn’t back anything up with scripture, but yet he makes some pretty audacious claims.
My husband has Gothard pegged. He has always said that Gothard comes up with his theology and beliefs first and then goes to the scripture and twists it to say what he wants it to. Phillips, Lancaster, and Thompson are all guilty of the same thing.
July 15, 2007 at 4:35 am
Deb, do you have the link to the birth control article you mentioned? I haven’t found it on the Let’s Learn Theology site (doesn’t mean it isn’t there, though!).
July 15, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Alisa,
I looked for the birth control article too and it seems to be gone. Lancaster had it on the patriarch magazine website and I seem to remember seeing on the Let’s Learn Theology website. I’m surprised it’s gone because the whole tone of the article was the same attitude toward b.c. that comes across whenever Phillips addresses that issue. I’ll try a google search and see if I can find it.
July 19, 2007 at 4:20 am
I am 15 years young and have read the book, So Much More, with lots of interest, and questioning of course. We all should question when anyone precahes about scripture before being convinced.
Although it is mostly opposite of what i have been taught in school and at church my whole life, i truly belive it was completely inspired by Scripture. I did question many of the things the book said and it came down to the fact that…its the truth. This book does speak of what a godly womens responsibilities are in life. And yes, all said was coming from Scripture. I was just so blind before i didnt really THINK about what a verse or chapter in the bible was saying even though i thought i was. Thus, this book has cleared up much of my confusion as a young girl. Helped me be able to read Gods Word in a new light. And im much more happy now, i know what my duties are in life as a young women.
Sorry ladies but the truth hurts sometimes and obviously some of you cant accept the truth because it hurts you perhaps.But it shouldnt! Remember, as a christian women you must live for what GOD has planned for you not for what YOU have planned for yourself.
July 19, 2007 at 6:44 am
Charlotte,
Thanks for posting here, your comments are very welcome and appreciated.
I’m glad to see that you are eager and willing to do what God has planned for you. I have always loved Jeremiah 29:11… “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans to prosper you and not harm you, to give you a hope and a future.” What a humbling privilege for such an awesome God to care for us so much to have laid out the best possible plans for us… and their the best because they are HIS!!! And who better to make the plans? He knows us inside out and knows what He made us to do and how He wants to use us while we are here. And He gave us a huge love letter with the words “Holy Bible” on the front to lead us closer to Him and His plan!!! Sorry if I get a little carried away… =o)
It’s awesome that you are willing to do what it says in verses 12 and 13 as well… “Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me , and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you…” Isn’t God so good to commune with us like that??? It never ceases to amaze me that He is willing to wait for us to come to Him.
In short, I heartily encourage you to do what God has planned for you, there’s no better place to be than the center of His will. Just be sure to go to HIM and make sure you are getting the blueprint for your life from HIM, because you’re HIS creation, not anybody else’s.
God’s plan for some girls surely includes what So Much More encourages. Maybe you are one of those girls. Just be sure to allow God to be God in other girls lives as well. It may look a little different… Scripture shows girls in all kinds of circumstances, some good and others not so good. And some will look nothing like the good Christian girl we have in mind sometimes… remember, Mary looked like a promiscuous girl, yet she was carrying out God’s most amazing plan.
And always remember to take Jesus’ explicit instructions as Gospel, because He is the only thing that is. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and His blood and resurrection is the ONLY thing that makes us holy. And He left us with specific instructions to take this news to the lost at the ends on the earth. Anything that eclipses this or hinders us from carrying out His instructions must be contended with. Just remember, He did say “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…” (Matt. 28:19-20)
Remember, He COMMANDED us to do this… nowhere in His teachings (or elsewhere in Scripture) are we as daughters COMMANDED to stay at home until marriage, or to follow our early father’s vision over our Heavenly Father’s. Jesus said some pretty radical stuff when He said “Whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matt 12:48), and “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt. 10:37-38) He is warning us that we must be careful to not let ANYTHING, even our family, take the place of doing HIS will, not ANY man’s even if is our father’s. (Just so you don’t get me wrong, remember also that there are great promises for children obeying their parents, which I heartily encourage you to do. But there will come a time when you will answer to God for the choices you make, and sometimes obeying an earthly father is not the same as obeying your Heavenly Father).
And yes, sometimes the truth does hurt. Terribly. Some truths hurt so badly that they pour out on blogs and comment threads. Let me share with you some of the painful truths that force us to post here… Many of us have lived in homes that ascribed to So Much More’s methods, have endorsed them, lived them, and if not ourselves, then people we know and love have or are living them right now. And the common thread in nearly all the cases is the bondage, damage, and hurt in the hearts and lives of God’s children, children He set free but are too weighed down with restrictions put on them either by themselves or their families. There are too many stories of broken hearts and broken families in these homes. PLEASE believe us… we are not making this stuff up.
I say all this out of the sincerest love and care for you as a sister in Christ. My greatest wish for you is God’s best for you, and I have seen too many bruised and broken hearts in these situations; I just don’t want you to become one of them.
Keep seeking Jesus…
Love in Him,
Alisa
July 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Wow… I have lost count of how many hours it took to read through all 285 comments, but am I ever glad I did! Thank you all SO much – particularly Spunky, thatmom, and others who have posted regular comments on this post – for the time, effort, and energy you have put into providing such detailed and thorough examinations of what ‘So Much More’, Vision Forum, Phillips, etc are all teaching against the authority of Scripture. Particularly as the majority of you are mothers! May you all be blessed for contending for the true faith of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Had I not have stumbled upon this and read all your insights, I think I would have continued to mindlessly agree with what the Botkin sisters and Vision Forum advocate as THE Biblical model of the family. I am a 21 year-old single woman from the UK, having lived out of home since I was 18, just graduated from university – and yet, according to VF, I have somehow not been living in God’s will for my life, and am even “sinning” with this way of life.
Let me tell you, I know that moving out of home and coming to university was not only my parents’ wish for me (especially my father’s), but I know it was definitely God’s will. No doubt about it! My spiritual growth would have been stunted and would have stayed in the same place moreoreless if I had’ve stayed at home. Rather, I have grown more in these past 3 years than I ever have in my entire Christian life (which started when I was 5). It’s like God took me out of my home and put me on a spiritual growth acceleration programme! I NEEDED to move out, for the sake of my relationship with Christ and my being transformed more into His likeness. Ironically, my relationship with my family has also improved dramatically since I moved out! Now I truly love spending time with them and really enjoy serving them (ie. helping my mum cook, doing some cleaning if I see a need for it, putting my younger sister to bed, etc) when I am at home.
Just goes to show that we all need to follow what is GOD’S will for our lives, however that may look, and not some “one size fits all” manmade blueprint of Christianity that we are all expected to be conformed to.
I hope I don’t sound too militantly anti-everything-the-Botkins-and-VF-promote. I do not doubt the intentions and desires of the Botkin sisters to serve the Lord, make an impact in this generation for the better, and live by what they believe is right. However, it does sadden and even anger me that their teachings condemn everyone who doesn’t follow their way. It is indeed Pharasiacal (sp?).
OK, well there’s my little contribution! I wish I could write more…. Thank you again everyone. I hope this discussion keeps going! If I may, can I also just remind us kindly to be careful of mocking and joking at the expense of these people? All of you are doing such a wonderful job of keeping this a peaceful, thoughtful, and mature discussion, and I would hate for that to be marred by any disrespectful jabs
. Thank you everyone! Keep it coming….
With love in Christ, Emily
P.S. I so agree with the comment about evangelism (Deb, 256) – the word is so often used in these circles, but how exactly are they doing it? I’d be very interested to know. To me it seems their “evangelism” is just pushing their own agenda of patriocentricity onto other people…. However, I could be completely wrong, and I apologise if I am making any false assumptions. Does anyone know?
July 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Also, something else that bothers me deeply is how getting married and having a family seems to be the very centre and sole purpose of a girl’s life. How about, say… following and becoming more like Jesus? This is sad because it seems to base a girl’s worth, value, and “success” in life on being married and having (lots of) kids. And God may not have that in His will for her at all.
We mustn’t place marriage and family on a pedestal. Nothing is more important and central in life than following Christ – whatever that uniquely means in each person’s life. I love the quotation of the Scripture in which Jesus declares that anyone who loves family more than Him is not worthy of Him (Alisa, 285). Amen
July 19, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Wow, what alot of comments to get through! I am not sure if mine will even get read, but I figured I would post anyhow.
I think the main problem is not with the books really, but the people who read them and treat them like gospel. I have seen this with many books recently like the all infamous “Created to be his Helpmeet” and others.
I would just say, that I have personally met Stacy McDonald, as well as belong to a email group and have gotten to know her. Just think of the person when you are writing to criticize someone or their writing. Have you ever written an email that someone took wrong? Think of how much harder it is to write a book?
Yes, many of these teachings are scary. I was involved in a church that carried the doctrine that sin originated with women and every evil came from them. It did not start out like that! It has led to horrible places though.
Just don’t throw out everything because someone is wrong and think of human kindness even when writing.
July 19, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Emily,
I am SOOO glad to hear that you are a spiritually vital and vivacious young woman, living out God’s plan for YOU!!! Praise God for the freedom in Christ to be who He made you to be, and the body of Christ to help you accomplish it!!! It sounds like you are in a blessedly wonderful place with your family and life!!
July 19, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Martha,
You are right in that it is sometimes hard to refrain from generalizations that by default become personal comments about a person and not the view they espouse… Very hard indeed. And yet we are still called to let ALL our speech be edifiying.
I think nearly all of the comments here have succeeded at doing this. And while many here don’t, some here DO personally know people in these patriarchal camps (leaders or otherwise) and love them for various reasons; they are still God’s creations with some lovely things about them, as you’ve seen with Mrs. McDonald.
Which is one of the things that makes it so hard. Most of these people genuinely love God and are making conscious, thoughtful decisions to follow Him. The frustration comes in trying to reconcile how such intelligent people can follow so blIndly and unquestioningly??? It is the same thing with those who follow the world… they blindly follow what sounds like a good idea, failing to judge the promoters or the arguments against the TOTALITY of Scripture. I hope you can see that, while it may not always appear so, most of us speak out of love and concern for these parents and their children. We genuinely desire them to be free in Christ. For “if the Son has set you free, you are free indeed”.
Almost equally as frustrating, are those that put God in a box, and therefore His children also. I have never read Stacy McDonald’s book in full, but have heard enough of her beliefs to feel that she falls in this category. And yet, I’m sure she loves God tremendously.
But the same can probably be said for Job’s friends, and yet God said to them “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has” (Job 42:7) God then demanded them to sacrifice burnt offerings and said that Job would pray for them, and God would not do to them what their folly accorded. And what was their great crime??? They tried to give Job spiritual advise according to their knowledge of Him, and they were mistaken. They misrepresented Him to His own child.
Apparently, God holds us accountable to how we represent Him even, maybe especially, to HIs own children. Our counsel to them is our responsibility, be it to one in a conversation or email, or to many in a book. You said it is hard to write an email, much less a book, and I’m afraid it SHOULD be, at least is seems that way after reading how God spoke to Job’s friends. Mrs. McDonald SHOULD feel the weight and responsibility of authoring a book, because if anything she writes misrepresents God and His heart to His children, and causes them to stumble (or they don’t even have to stumble, simply be frustrated or accused, in Job’s case!!!), then apparently God takes that very seriously.
And we take it seriously because we love His children too, not to mention God and His truth. I have nothing against Stacy McDonald, except to see those I love take her words as “gospel” and they ARE stumbling because of it. I’m sure she means well, but so did Job’s friends.
July 19, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Alisa,
thanks so much for your reply back to my comment, my mom actually told me someone on here responded to what i said. i never planned to come back to this site. Anyway, i enjoyed reading what you had to say.
I think i agree with what you were saying, you put everything in better words. I did not really make it all so clear as to what i thought. And i do realize that not all women have the same calling, most certainly. Infact, the funny thing is, I AM interested in going to University to study medicine. Im interested in dermetology. However, i still need to think alot about it. God gave us all gifts and i think he wants us all to use them in a godly way. Thus i was wrong in saying the book cleared up my confusin. Overall, it had, but im still confused about this one matter. Im not sure how i would balance it all out if i studied medicine because all that hard work could go to waste after geting married. Thus, thats one thing im not sure about… because i also believe that book is inspired by scripture.
July 19, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Alisa,
Thank you for your encouragement! Indeed, PRAISE GOD for the freedom we have in Christ! It is glorious. And you are right, the Lord has placed me in a blessed and wonderful place with my family and ultimately my life. He is so good! There is such fulfillment in following the path and will that God has set out for us
July 19, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Charlotte,
I can certainly appreciate your thoughts. I can still vividly remember being your age and contemplating all we are talking about. I sincerely wanted to do what God had for me, as it seems you do.
As far as any confusion that might be causing cloudiness about your future, I can only encourage you to go to God and His Word and to learn and grow in what He lays out for us there, both as His children and as women (but in that order!!! We are His child (human) first and a woman secondly). Remember that “in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female”, and unless specified otherwise, all instructions and exhortations to Christians apply to us, including being an active member of the Body. And like you said, that will look different for everone, for some of us are hands and fingers while others of us are knees and feet. =o)
Above all, the Bible tells us to be the best that we can possibly be, and some women’s gifts are geared domestically, and others are scientific/medical. And you know what? They are all needed. God has put your desires in you to help you accomplish what HE put you here to do; only YOU can do it, otherwise He wouldn’t have made you. =o) While there’s always the chance that He may change your desires in the few years before you have to decide, it’s also possible that He’s placed them there for a specific reason that only He knows, whether it makes sense to some for a married woman to have that kind of knowledge or not.
Trust me, any kind of knowledge (but especially medical!) comes in handy as a wife and mother, and you have no idea how God could use your skills to bless both your husband and children, but also the Body of Christ? What if you followed God in this one step, and at the end of it you find that the next step He has for you is married to a medical missionary where knowledge that you already have is vitally needed? Wouldn’t that be just like God??? Or even as an American wife, what if one of the ways your husband asks you to be his helpmeet is to work one or two days a week (easily done as a nurse)? For many husbands, this is huge, and they are thankful to have such a willing and capable wife. So many men take pride in an intelligent wife (no matter how it is is exercised), and respect the accomplished woman they have for a wife.
If you take a good, deep look at the Proverbs 31 woman, she is one accomplished lady. And busy, and intelligent. She buys land on you own, runs several businesses, AND cares for her household, which I do believe (no matter her other callings) is her first priority. But part of that is teaching her kids how to be useful, intelligent, and productive people in the world, and most of the people who are that today will tell you it is because they had that in their parents.
Take you cues from Scripture alone, even ignoring all I am telling you if it contradicts SCRIPTURE; what the verses (in their original context and meanings) actually say, not what others tell you it says. And never put a box around what God can do in you and with you, for “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived the plans God has for those who love Him”!!!!! (1 Cor. 2:9) Take a look also at Ephesians 3:14-21, Jeremiah 29:11-13, and so many more. His Word is full of SOOO many promises… take Him at His Word!!!!!!
July 19, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I think it’s ironic that the common theme of your blog seems to be a paramount emphasis on college education. You also strive to prove opinions through Biblical interpretation. But where is the Biblical basis for sending your children to college?
Your Christianity is in no way enhanced by a paper degree on your wall. In fact, just the opposite, there is no greater synagogue of narcisstic humanism than the modern university. You act as if anyone who agrees with the Botkins are following man instead of the Bible.
After reading this blog I come away with a feeling of feministic elitism. What that has to do with Biblical Christianity I don’t know. I do know that as long as people like the Botkins continue to advance God’s Kingdom through tangible efforts such as they have, they will not have to fear atheistic attacks as much as they will attacks from their own Christian brothers and sisters such as yourselves.
Here’s a pertinent Bible verse: These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination unto him… A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethtren. Proverbs 6:16-19
July 19, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Charlotte,
Also, please read what I wrote in #290 about Job’s friends. I believe Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin in all likelyhood have the best of intentions and motives in writing their book, but that doesn’t guarantee the accuracy of their message. Job’s friends, eager to find a reason for his trials, accused Job of sinning and misrepresented God and his heart to Job, causing him the anguish to have to defend himself against their reasoning amidst all that he was already going through. They were only trying to help their friend Job, and yet God’s wrath was greatly kindled against them because they “did not speak what is right of Me as my servant Job has”. It is possible to be sincere, to even have a few grains of truth about God as Job’s friends did, but to still be greatly mistaken about His ways.
July 19, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Alisa,
You have blessed me so much today as I have thoughtfully read through your comments.
You are a wise woman and have expressed many things that needed to be said. Above all, your references from the book of Job were spot on. Thanks for the time you have taken to encourage us! {{{}}}
July 19, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Kim,
Your verse is right on. There are those who do this, and I have seen and can testify to the damage it causes. It’s horrifying.
I must ask you though… are we telling lies? If we are, please tell us what they are, for I can assure you that none of us wish to be guilty of that.
As far as the college issue goes, it is an issue because the Botkin girls have made one of it, and that is the subject of this thread, hence the discussion on it. I myself do not have a college degree, nor do I think that everyone should have one. I do think many Christians are of more use to God in the positions and opportunities afforded them by one, but certainly that is His will for those specific individuals. But not everyone needs one, and if that is not His will for you, then you are right to embrace that.
However, I do believe that the general education and discipline learned in the aquiring of a degree would be invaluable to nearly all, especially wives and mothers. But true wisdom comes from God, and we will find Him when we are in the center of His will for our lives. In His Word is the best place to start for that.
And while nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to go to college, can you tell me where it commands us not to??? It tells us not to sit in the seat of scoffers, which I believe there to be scoffers in both secular and Christian camps. Is is possible that the Botkin girls are scoffing what God does not condemn? I can think of numerous Scriptures, however, that tell us to gain knowledge (2 Peter 1:5-6, the book of Proverbs, to name a few), and to be ready to give every man an answer. Knowledge is listed as one of the virtues that “renders us neither useless not unfruitful in the true knowledge of Christ, and he who lacks these qualites is blind and short-sighted” (1 Pet. 1:8-9).
I don’t know about you, but it seems that we could use more Christians on the scientific frontier. However, I doubt we could get very far learning nanosphere technology exclusively in our homeschool labs. Don’t you agree that true Christians in real scientific exploration could put a real crimp on the evolutionists agenda???
Again, the Botkin’s may be genuinely seeking God, but when compared to actual Scripture, they appear to be genuinely wrong. Please tell me, who is telling the lies about God’s word? Where it Scripture does it command that girls remain in their fahter’s house, or refuse them the same education as their brothers? Where does is say that those who don’t are in sin? And again I must ask, what DOES it command us to, that these “deciphered” arguments detract from? It seems to me that a big one was to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature”. And frankly, I believe any teaching that contradicts that (which the Botkin’s so boldly DO) is a LIE.
July 19, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Kim,
I don’t know how much of our blog you have read, but I did want to copy our purpose statement here for you in case you missed it.
“The true woman of the new millennium seeks to honor the Lord Jesus Christ with her heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love her neighbor as herself. She is gifted by God with amazing and unique gifts and she is empowered by the Holy Spirit to use those gifts for His glory alone. As this true woman commits herself to the Word of God, she eschews the man-made stereotypes given to her in the past and delights in God’s distinctive calling on her life in her home, in the church, and in the world.”
This blog began under the name “Got Me A College Girl” and the intention was to promote the idea that godly young women can choose to be formally educated and still be in God’s will and even that it is a good idea! There are a plethora of voices saying that that is not true and we wanted to have a response to those voices. Perhaps the fact that that was our initial purpose is confusing to those who don’t realize all the orignial posts from that blog came with us to this new site.
That being said, last summer we decided that we wanted to expand our discussions to address more issues effecting Christian women and the culture besides education. Our readership has grown considerably and we hear from people all the time who are blessed that conservative thinking Christian women are talking about the topics we talk about.
As far as labeling us as “feminist elitists,” I think I speak for all the contributors when I say that that label isn’t going to deter us from examining what we believe, eventhough, for some of us, the journey might take us away from what patriocentrists view as Biblical womanhood. We are women who love God and are committed to His Word.
I hope you will continue reading and will understand that our purpose is not to sow discord among the brethern any more than it is the objective of the Botkin sisters or Kevin Swanson to do so. We are simply offering a differing view and, if you have listened to Kevin’s podcast in question and have read here today, you will see that we are sincerely looking at what the Bible says and holding up their views to it, one verse at a time. I hope you will give us a chance and read through the rest of our blog with your Bible open.
July 20, 2007 at 1:39 am
Wow, this entire website is rebellious to the things of God. Note that I’m not saying that this entire website is wrong (although I think wrong thinking and biblical exegesis is present throughout), but the tone is horrendous.
If you women want to be “all that,” by all means, go for it. But get a life and stop bashing those who choose a quiet, simple, and productive life for God under authority of fathers and husbands. Just stop it. You’re ridiculous and you’re blaspheming the things of God.
This blog owner obviously has a horn to blow. She has something important to do and say, and the world must hear it. In what order would we find her marriage, her home, and her children? One has to wonder…
July 20, 2007 at 2:11 am
Cara said, “Wow, this entire website is rebellious to the things of God.”
Cara, could you please tell us how questioning the teachings of another believer is rebellious to the things of God?
You also said, “But get a life and stop bashing those who choose a quiet, simple, and productive life for God under authority of fathers and husbands. Just stop it. You’re ridiculous and you’re blaspheming the things of God.”
Cara, accusing another Christian of blasphemy is a serious charge. Since I have been one of the commenters on this thread, could you please be specific at exactly how you biblically define blasphemy and where the writing in this blog meets that definition?
July 20, 2007 at 3:09 am
“Cara, could you please tell us how questioning the teachings of another believer is rebellious to the things of God?”
So glad you asked. Your use of the word “questioning” is a stretch. Most of the comments here are not questioning. They are slams. They comment as though they are talking about spiritual dopes who are cultish and freakish. This is not questioning. It is a rebellious spirit that says, “Hey, since you aren’t accepting and condoning us, we’ll just chew you up and spit you out.”
Blasphemy is taking the things of God and portraying them in a bad light. It is profaning what God calls good. You asked, “Where the writing in this blog meets that definition?” Obviously, time and space don’t allow me to reference all of these comments.
The world will know that we are Christians by our love for one another. The uncharitable spirit on this blog does not demonstrate Christian charity.
I believe that Christian women need a superior education. They need a standard of excellence in everything they do. But I see no biblical support, theme, or pattern that says women are to abandon their homes and husbands in order to “use their own talents and gifts.” Satan will certainly trick us into thinking that we have so much to offer, we must get out there and give, give, give. But women who give themselves to causes outside of primarily being a helpmeet and keeper of the home have divided loyalties. I know — I’ve done it.
I have a college degree, am a professional in my field, and have spent much time outside of the home trying to “make the world a better place.” I have received the applause and praise from people. I craved it and loved it. But, it wasn’t until I came home full-time that I realized that the devil does indeed have many schemes to pull us away from the best things that God has for us.
My home is my haven — it is future generations that I will never meet. And I would not trade it for one moment – not one second – for the accolades of the world.
We cannot trust our own hearts because, as the Scripture says, they are deceitful and wicked. Christian feminism cannot exist. The Bible never declares a Christian woman to be a feminist. But, the hearts of men and women will champion this cause because their hearts are deceitful and wicked. They are trusting in themselves and practicing falsehood.
Charitable blessings to each of you.
July 20, 2007 at 3:16 am
Cara,
If you had read much of the comments here, I think you would have seen that we are not bashing those who CHOOSE the life you described. We are calling for accountability for those who wish to FORCE this life on their children and the rest of the body of Christ. Frankly, I have seen virtually no “bashing” until I read your comment.
I think this verse sums up the “tone” of this blog: “Let no unwholesome speech proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will benefit those who hear it” (Eph. 4:29). There are many needs that are being met here. If your’s are not, and what is being discussed here is not beneficial to you, then I’m sure God will provide a forum for you that is what meets you specific needs.
Just in the same way that you don’t wish ill to be spoken of your lifestyle (and I don’t believe anyone here has set out to do so), neither are we able to allow for ill to be spoken of what for us is good. “Therefore, do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil” (Romans 14:16) So please, show us how we are being evil to desire to be what God created us to be and urge others in the Body to as well.
As far as being under the authority of our husbands, I think I speak for nearly all of the married commentors when I say that we have our husband’s approval and hearty encouragement.
And as far as the condition of our homes, marriages, and children… In my case, all three have noticably THRIVED since I have been promted to search the Scriptures, rightly divide the Word of Truth, and receive intellectual challenges. I run a MUCH smoother house since getting to the heart of the Proverbs 31 woman, have my husband’s respect and admiration as I serve God and encourage him, and am and MUCH better parent since observing how God parents us. Please tell me how all this is blaspheming the things of God.
As Spunky said, these are serious charges you accuse us of. Please show us FROM SCRIPTURE how we have offended GOD, not merely some men’s (or women’s) sacred cow.
July 20, 2007 at 3:30 am
Cara said “But I see no biblical support, theme, or pattern that says women are to abandon their homes and husbands in order to “use their own talents and gifts.” ”
Cara, I would encourage you to take a few minutes and read through the contributors’ page. You will find the majority of women on this blog committed to being loving members of the body of Christ. Those of us who are mothers are raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Those of us who are married are commited to God-honoring marriages and homes. Take a few minutes and visit our blogs. You will find no one coming near suggesting abandoning homes and husbands to pursue our own ways. You will probably be surprised that most of us are just like you…we love our homes, we relish trying new recipes to delight our husbands, we embrace Christian education for our children, some of us are even homeschoolers.
Next, I would encourage you to visit the blogs by those who are posting comments with which you do not agree. I very much doubt that you are going to find women who are much different than you are.
If I could state in only one sentence my problem with the Botkin-Phillips-Swanson perspective on biblical relationships it would be this….there is no biblical precedent for patriocentricity, that is, all of family life revolving around the father in the household. I would ask you, in all sincerity, to show me the Scripture that teaches this. Since you believe we have misused Scripture, I trust that you are able to do this. Repeatedly, many have asked this question and have yet to receive an answer. My own godly husband came to these conclusions long before I ever did. Together, we see no biblical mandate for those things that are being taught but we have witnessed much harm and division within the body of Christ because of the standards that are being forced on others. I would ask, again, as has Spunky, for you to clearly show us, using the Bible, how we have “profaned what God has called good?”
July 20, 2007 at 3:33 am
Yes, Alisa, gladly.
James 2:7 asks, “Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.’”
As you probably know, the context in James 2:7 is the topic of personal favoritism; particularly in the church. I encourage you to look upon the phrase, “Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?” This is what I am seeing in the tone, the expressions, and comments on this blog. Women/men are taking the noble things of Christ and dissecting them in order to find fault and ridicule their brethren.
One of the things the Lord says He hates is, “One who sows discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:19
It is not my desire or purpose here to sway or change you those who take the other side. I simply “happened” upon this site through a series of clicks, and am saddened and shocked that there are feminists who claim to love Christ, yet have no problem finding fault with their sisters who live and believe differently. I realize you are couching your differing beliefs in “questioning” and trying to reconcile these things with Scripture, but I give you more credit than that. Since all/most of you are well-educated and intelligent women, surely you can see through your own silliness.
Honestly, I cannot understand how any woman can have the time to sit on these blogs and carry on all of the time. I have jobs to do and already feel guilty over the time I have wasted like the woman in Proverbs who went from house to house. Enough for me!
July 20, 2007 at 3:38 am
Alisa,
once again thanks for your rather wise comments =) I am always searching for answers from scripture, and i plan to from now to pray about my matter of going into medicine. I really only want to pursue what Got has created me for. And your suggestion of how me studying medicine, would infact be very helpful for my furture family was good to read and encouraging. So i guess all the studying wouldnt be a waste maybe…it in some ways would be very helpful for a family.
I come from a family where the father worked outside the home and my mother was at home. I am happy with that, i think my parents have mostly been fullfilling their responsibilities as christian parents. Thus i would like my future family to be the same, for it worked very happily for my parents and siblings. Although i do realize not all families are as fortunate to have this due to unfortinate circumstances.
Well, we should all just pursue what God has planned for us. And i liked how you said, never put a box around what God can do in you and with you, for “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived the plans God has for those who love Him”!!!! That really got to me in a good way. Many of us mistakenly do put God in a box and what he has planned for us all. I think i can sometimes easily do that unfortionately…. but this year has been a huge change for me. I am much more closer to realizing what my God given responsibilities are in life after trying and trying to find answers in the Bible. I use to be very selfish and not think much about what GOD has planned for me and how i should please HIM. Now it has all changed after reading Gods word and christian books. Its all i ever think about often now, like how i should live a godly life and show an example to all of a young christian lady. Im so very thankful that the Lord has opened my eyes to the truth! This is a wonderful blessing, im glad to be coming closer to God.. And im also thankful Alisa, to have come along reading your encouraging comments! =D
Thanks
July 20, 2007 at 3:41 am
Cara,
I guess I have to tell you, since you haven’t figured it out, but these people you say we are “slamming” are people we LOVE, our family and friends who we desire to see FREE from the bondage of legalism. These are people we CARE about, and it grieves us to see so many of them miserable as they strive in vain to attain a level of man-defined holiness. And while we love them so much it hurts, some of them have turned their backs on us, since we don’t fit into their “mold”. WE have “chewed up and spit out” by THEM, and all the while, they break our hearts, both for the injustice and contradictions of their actions, and for our unrequited love. What we are doing is no different than Paul’s purpose in the book of Galatians… He said, “NO, it’s not Jesus PLUS circumcision, PLUS adherence to the Law, PLUS your works that save you – IT’S JESUS”. We are saying, “NO, it’s not homeshooling, plus patriarchy, plus women and daughters at home, plus no college… IT’S JESUS!!!!!”
You said, “The world will know that we are Christians by our love for one another. The uncharitable spirit on this blog does not demonstrate Christian charity.” Frankly, it was the lack of charity from our friends and families that required us to examine their practices. And NOWHERE in Scripture are we condemned for examining both their’s and our practices against God’s Word.
You are certainly right that some Christian’s lack charity, and their priorities give us cause to raise our eyebrows. God is still working on them, as He most certainly still is on us (Eph. 2:10)
If it’s charity you wish to see here, please be an example of it for us since we have obviously failed so far. Show us how to lovingly reprove and disagree. Frankly, I don’t see telling someone “You’re ridiculous, blasphemous, and horrendous” getting off to a good start.
July 20, 2007 at 4:04 am
Charlotte,
You have no idea how much good it does my heart to see your’s turned towards God and His Word! As we spoke of gifts, I’m beginning to realize that mine is encouragement and exhortation (or at least it’s the one that I’m able to exercise during this season in my life!), so you have helped me be an active part of the Body. Thank you for the opportunity! It sounds like you have lovely parents… as you pray for your life and future, pray also for them as parents to have wisdom and a sensitivity to the Spirit in their children’s lives. It’ll make your transition into adulthood so much easier!!! =o)
July 20, 2007 at 4:33 am
“Honestly, I cannot understand how any woman can have the time to sit on these blogs and carry on all of the time. I have jobs to do and already feel guilty over the time I have wasted like the woman in Proverbs who went from house to house. Enough for me!”
Cara,don’t you think that your statement is rather judgmental and uncharitable? You disagree with what is being said here, as is your perfect right, but because you disagree, you imply that we are wasting our time and that our houses are dirty. Rather catty, that.
Still, to answer your question, some women have smaller houses than others, some women’s children are all grown up and on their own (that DOES make a difference, LOL), and, those women who have been homemakers for a number of years tend to get housecleaning down to an art.
My husband and I rent a big ol’ two-story duplex, and the daily cleaning takes about two hours.
Still, I might be inclined to agree with you if this blog were about fashion, or politics, or bungee jumping, but THIS blog is about the Church, and the things going on in the Body of Christ. According to Jesus, His concerns take precedence over housework:
Luk 10:38 ¶ Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
Luk 10:39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. Luk 10:40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
Luk 10:41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: Luk 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
July 20, 2007 at 6:20 am
It hit me rather suddenly, as I reading over at Molleth’s blog, that my life fits the patriarchal model to a T (well, except for my t-shirts, pants, and numerous accessories and purses! =o)
But in all seriousness, my life consists of serving and pleasing my husband, which I am usually pretty successful at. Given my personality, it is natural to submit to him, plus he makes it easy by not abusing his position as “leader”. So that really has NEVER been a problem.
Then there are the kiddo’s that I stay home with. They’re pretty basic right now, though navigating these early years is a real challenge. But I do the good stay-at-home mama role. (Thankfully, I am allowed that privilege!)
And I run my house, and given the exception of paperwork, I’ve actually been rather shocked at how thoroughly and efficiently everything has been going, since “maintenance” isn’t something I’m terribly motivated to. (Ahh, but beauty and creation? THEY are something to savor! So, I create a beautiful place!!)
So I kind of had to laugh, because Cara believed us to be bashing “those who choose a quiet, simple, and productive life for God under authority of… husbands.” But I AM ONE OF THEM!!!! =oD
And to be perfectly honest, I am relishing the simplicity of my life in recent months. God maneuvered circumstances to allow me that, and I am praising and thanking Him for the hiatus.
There will come a day when my plate will be filled with family obligations, when they will require more of me. But that will be a season, followed by another that looks different.
But sometimes I wonder… could I be doing more to reach my potential, i.e. the Proverbs 31 woman? While God’s given me a peace about this current season of simplicity and refreshment, there are times I don’t feel that I’m doing all that I should/could be doing, whether it’s baking more or or reading more or cleaning more or ministering more.
I have to ask, are there any of you out there in a similar situation, where you feel that you could possible be doing MORE to be all that God could have for you? Like you’re wasting moments here and hours there? And before you know it, a year has gone by? Like you know you want to do something, but you just aren’t quite DRIVEN enough?
Maybe not… maybe it’s just me. Wouldn’t be surprised… ! =o)
July 20, 2007 at 7:50 am
I kind of giggled, too, Alisa, as I read Cara’s post chiding us on the probable state of our homes and families. (I don’t mean that with animosity—just that I thought it was kind of funny in that I read it while in one of those wonderful moments where everything in the home is running smoothly).
I’d just fed everyone and then tidied up the kitchen before sitting down to check this site, my five children playing outside happily, the laundry machine humming in the background.
I also, since some may find this of equal interest, happen to like my husband and seek to find ways to make him feel honored. I just don’t think patriarchy is God’s ideal, that’s all. But I love Jesus, love my husband, love my children, and enjoy helping to make our home the best it can be.
That’s not *all* that I do, but it’s certainly a major part of my life right now, and one I feel privelaged to have.
The patriarchy camps often present a false picture to their members, much like Kevin Swanson has illustrated for us, and so it’s not uncommon to encounter it when conversing with their followers. The leaders usually paint in broad brush strokes: “You are either in *our* camp, or you’re a raving lunatic feminatzi bent on destroying the world!!!!!!” Reading enough material like that, it’s easy to start believing it. I can say so especially because that was me, so much so that I actually (privately, thank goodness!) actually questioned the salvation of those who did not agree with patriarchy.
The truth is, there are many MANY brothers and sisters who love Jesus and honor Him greatly with their lives, while not agreeing with patriarchal teachings. Love honors others. When we belong to Jesus and learn to walk in the Spirit, the Spirit produces fruit in us that naturally honors others (and pricks us when we do not). Unless we are fed with teachings that cause us to quench the Spirit in certain areas, we learn that honoring others is a natural outflow of a life governed by the Spirit.
When I was a patriarchalist, I honored my husband because I believed that was my “place,” that was my role as a wife. Now that I am no longer in patriarchy, I still honor my husband.
I do so because God has called me to the Law of Love. I do not honor because I am female and he’s male, as I once did. I now honor because of God. God loves my husband and sees him as worthy of honor. For my part, I want to let God’s love come through me toward my husband (and all others that I meet)—and love respects the other person.
July 20, 2007 at 11:02 am
Molly said:
“The truth is, there are many MANY brothers and sisters who love Jesus and honor Him greatly with their lives, while not agreeing with patriarchal teachings. Love honors others. When we belong to Jesus and learn to walk in the Spirit, the Spirit produces fruit in us that naturally honors others (and pricks us when we do not). Unless we are fed with teachings that cause us to quench the Spirit in certain areas, we learn that honoring others is a natural outflow of a life governed by the Spirit.”
Molly, these are such powerful words. I think it is as we realize how needful we are of God’s grace to accomplish His will and how important relationships are….much more than paradigms….goodness and mercy to others begins to flow in abundance. One anothering is organic and there comes a point when you realize it is the only real option that brings peace and harmony in our homes.
July 20, 2007 at 11:13 am
Alisa, you are not alone! I have the same thoughts every single day.
My husband recently started a new job and we filled out lots of paperwork regarding benefits etc. As I realized that the time between now and retirement is shorter than the time from now to the last time I went through labor and delivery (the standard mom measuring stick) I was taken aback. Time flies.
The last few years, probably since my first child married and the grandbabies started coming, I have been thinking alot about redeeming the time. What more could I be doing ministry wise? What things do I want to write down so my grandchildren and great grandchildren will know about my life? I have even had days when I felt panicked by these thoughts.
Some times those things that on the surface might seem like luxury are really feeding our souls…reading a book, sitting down and leafing through a magazine for ideas, or listening, really listening, to good music….maybe we feel guilty because we could have been cleaning the linen closet or scrubbing behind the toilet. But, in reality, we are being revived and blessed to continue the day.
Think about the many times that Jesus just got away. During those times of rest, which he obviously needed, he often was alone with the disciples and I am sure that is when they let their hair down. It would have been obvious to them that Jesus was available to just listen and talk to them. I think our families need for us to rest so we are available to them, too. I also think it is a good thing that we have thoughts about redeeming the time because if we didn’t, we would really only be in life for ourselves and our own pleasures. When we are constantly aware of the time, whether it invovles 24 hours or 24 years, that tells me that I am being sensitive to the Holy Spirit and his calling on my time.
July 20, 2007 at 11:16 am
Oh, Alisa, on another note. Here is a funny thought I had….I was reading on Emily’s blog and on recent entry she had a video clip of an Olympic skater. I watched the clip and then sighed when I realized that my whole life has gone by and I never learned to skate. At this point my knees could never take it and I could never begin to squeeze into a tutu!
July 20, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Cara said, “Blasphemy is taking the things of God and portraying them in a bad light. It is profaning what God calls good. You asked, “Where the writing in this blog meets that definition?” Obviously, time and space don’t allow me to reference all of these comments.”
That’s the crux of it, Cara. There is disagreement over what are the “the things of God.” Visionary Daughterhood and the book So Much More could have aspects that are of God, but they may also have aspects that not of God. As Christians we are free to examine the work of another, and discern which is which. That’s what a Berean does. That’s actually part of the purpose of a Titus 2 women. The first verse in Titus 2 says, “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.” Calling out the things that are NOT of sound doctrine is one aspect of being a Titus 2 women. It is teaching that which is good and exposing the bad. It is NOT a blasphmeous act of rebellion. If that were the case, then the Botkin girls themselves blaspheme God by specifically naming Mary Slessor and Amy Carmicheal in their book by portraying the work of God and that which is good in a bad light.
What we are doing here is nothing different than what you have done in your comment in this thread. You have looked at what is written decided it was not good and against the things of God and therefore “blasphemous.”
Many here feel the same way about quite some of the ideas found in the Botkin book and the patriarchal teachings. You have called us into account, and we are calling them into account. If we are committing blasphemy Cara by being critical of another’s writing, then indeed it must be said that you are doing so as well.
Cara you also said, ” I simply “happened” upon this site through a series of clicks, and am saddened and shocked that there are feminists who claim to love Christ, yet have no problem finding fault with their sisters who live and believe differently.”
Cara, I don’t think that from one comment thread you can claim anyone here has the beliefs of a feminist. I’d encourage you to read through the blogs of many of the mothers here and you’ll see that many of us are homeschooling mothers of large families who are living very similar lives to your own. But Cara here again, you have found fault with sisters in Christ who believe and live differently than you do. If we are guilty of sowing discord than truly the same must be said of you.
July 20, 2007 at 5:36 pm
“Oh, Alisa, on another note. Here is a funny thought I had….I was reading on Emily’s blog and on recent entry she had a video clip of an Olympic skater. I watched the clip and then sighed when I realized that my whole life has gone by and I never learned to skate. At this point my knees could never take it and I could never begin to squeeze into a tutu!
” (thatmom, #312)
That gave me a chuckle! Glad my blog gave you something to think about
July 20, 2007 at 6:06 pm
This may sound a bit loony, but the label of feminist got me thinking… In a patriarchal society, I WANT to be feminist. Has anyone stopped to think that JESUS was surely thought of as a feminist???? Why, He was practically the first women’s suffrage coordinator!!
Why is it that the word “feminist” conjures up connotations of “pro-choice” and “abortion”… because that’s what the media says they are about?? Well, why should we believe the media any more than the Bible??? In the Gospel’s it looks like Jesus’s idea of a feminist was a woman who sat at His feet and soaked in every word, or washing His feet with her hair and tears in front of a disdainful audience, attending grisly executions, and being the first witnesses of of the Greatest and Final Victory over Sin and Death… they were the first to see the empty tomb AND the Risen Christ!!! I want to cry just thinking about it!!
It looks like a feminist is a woman who doesn’t let what others think she should be and be doing keep her from doing what JESUS thinks she should be and be doing. If that is so, then “Lord, please make me a feminist after Your own Heart!!!!!”
July 21, 2007 at 12:36 am
The actual definition of feminism is simply a person who believes that women should have the same rights and opportunities given to men.
That’s all it means. Just that women should be viewed as equal human beings instead of as owned property, that gender shouldn’t define who has the “right” to go to school and who doesn’t, etc.
So I totally agree with you, Alisa. Under the actual definition of feminism, it seems to me that the church should be the leading feminist on the block.
July 21, 2007 at 4:53 pm
maybe the word feminism does simply mean what molleth said BUT we ared living in different days now. Things have changed and people mostly no longer look at what a word, technically or simply means. But yes i know, just cause the world changes does not mean we should. We should live in the world but NOT be of the world.
I dont want to get too far but the word, gay, does actually mean happy and bright. Of course many of you know that but we dont use it in those terms no longer because people may get the wrong idea, especially my generation.
Thus, feminism is a stong word and does not simply mean this and that anymore (in my opinion). You know whats one silly thing though, some of the first feminists in the 20th century, were so against Jesuss techings. I fond this funny because didnt Jesus preach about women having more freedom and not just being a toy for someone (question mark). I dont know i should probly do more reading to be sure of what im saying.
July 21, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I mostly agree, Charlotte, in that I don’t go around calling myself a feminist, and I especially wouldn’t do that in a conservative Christian crowd. If asked, I would probably say that I believe the Bible teaches that men and women are equally human beings.
There are differences between men and women. But patriarchy says that women were made by God to be ruled (benevolently, in the case of Christian patriarchy). And I would say that Genesis 3 shows us that male rule was something that happened at the Fall of man. Meaning, it’s something we have to deal with on earth, like difficult childbirth and weeds in gardens, but that DOES make it God’s ideal, nor something to celebrate. It just means that male rule is something we will see in culture after culture, age after age (and…whaddya know…we do!).
It appears to me that the word “rule” got turned on its head when Jesus defined leadership. The highest stoops the lowest, for those of us who are Christians.
So if male rule is still in effect for us as Christians, it looks much different than the patriarchal camp espouses.
And this is where I disagree with Christian patriarchy. Women were NOT made to be ruled.
Genesis 2 shows us what woman was made for—Adam couldn’t do it on his own, so God sent a helper (ezer, the same word God uses when He comes to help, so ezer is NOT a word indicating that the helper is a lesser being).
Genesis 1 speaks of rule—of Adam and Eve ruling *together*—indeed, created TO rule together! Ephesians, which will later tell us to mimic this aspect of Christ and the Bride, speaks of Christ and His Bride/Body—ruling *together* (see the end of Ephesians 1–Christ is ruling/dominating over everything…except for her. She’s His Body, and He’s put everything UNDER her feet—just as the Word tells us in that same chapter that He has seated her in heavenly places WITH Him—not a move to maintain full control but a move that shares His position of power WITH her!).
Yet patriarchy sets up a rulership in the home, bases on verses written to men and women in the bowels of a cultural patriarchy that demanded wifely obedience by law. We do not use Christ’s example in Ephesians 1 in order to define Ephesians 5, and we do not take into account the patriarchal culture it was written to, but if we did both of those things, I think we might see that Paul was turning the practiced cultural patriarchy on its head! He told men to love their wives as Christ loved the church…a few chapters earlier, Paul had shown how Christ used His priveledged position to BRING HIS WIFE UP into it!
I believe Ephesians 5 is NOT talking about dividing lines between male and female roles, NOT talking about maintaining the power structure of one sex being “over” the other, but IS talking about men bringing women up into their favored status—actually really loving them as their own selves (which would not involve keeping them down, which would involve not viewing them as people “to be ruled” but as partners).
When Paul wrote his famous words in Ephesians 5, I think we often forget that women *had* to submit, just as slaves had to—it was actually law. But was Paul actually supporting those laws? Or perhaps spoke subversively—by giving instructions to men that had never been spoken before, instructions that planted the seeds of change.
These quickly typed thoughts are a meager example where I’m at right now. It may not agree with others interpretations of the Bible, but it’s no less coming from Scripture. It may disagree with other’s Bible-based thoughts, such as those of patriarchal camps, but my current position is still one born of Scripture (not of twisting it, but of searching it carefully, not taking one verse out of context and making a whole doctrine of it).
And contrary to many claims, I do not believe in “grasping for power,” or seeking to rule over my husband. This is one of the misunderstandings the patriarchal camp has of those who disagree with it—that all dissenters believe in a selfish life, that they do not “die to self,” that they demand their rights and do not honor their husbands. But this simply isn’t accurate.
The New Testament very clearly tells us what a life in the Spirit should look like—the fruit of the Spirit showing us what God desires to be born in us through His life. I want my life to look like that. And as a Jesus-follower, I am called to honor those around me, to treat them with respect, to love them. This would especially include the person I am closest to, my husband.
I work hard at this. I feel strongly that to dishonor my husband would be a sin—not because I am a woman and he is a man, but because dishonoring another person is NOT acceptable behaviour for one who is walking in the Spirit. I believe strongly that the Christian life is about dying to the flesh and obeying the Spirit—-and this can be so difficult at times, but God’s grace carries us through.
Sorry I’m so long-winded…this subject really touches a nerve in me, after the years I spent subjecting my personality, my gifts, my hopes, all in the name of my God. I *am* still subjected, but I am subjected to my Lord, no longer to the “head” (human mediator) I’d put in his place. I can’t even begin tell you how wonderful the difference is.
July 21, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Whoops, what I said in the first couple paragraphs should read:
Meaning, it’s something we have to deal with on earth, like difficult childbirth and weeds in gardens, but that DOES ***NOT*** make it God’s ideal, nor something to celebrate. It just means that male rule is something we will see in culture after culture, age after age (and…whaddya know…we do!).
July 21, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Molleth,
you write so good! You put things clearly and really know what your talking about =)
I have much more reading to do before i go any further discussing these sensitive issues.
Of course, no doubt, men and women are equal. And its not that a mothers or wifes God given responsibilities are lesser than a fathers or husbands. I guess God just gave us each different responsibilities to fulfill, but none are lesser then the other. And i think sometimes the hardcore feminists thought a stay at home mother isnt good enough, or valuable..etc. But thats so wrong, isnt it (question mark). My mum is a stay athome mother and wife. And shes still very busy, many things she aslo has to provide for my siblings and i ofcourse.And she works hard to make a good home for us all, i wonder why those hardcore feminists did not realize these things..
July 21, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Uh oh, Charlotte, did I alarm you with my little rant about being a “feminist”? I assure you, before yesterday, (and you can witness my whole thought process above), accepting or claiming that label had never crossed my mind. I have no intentions of being any more of a feminist than Jesus demonstrated. =o) Which, btw, is pretty much in equal proportion to His promotion of masculinity.
And yes, you are right, how words are taken do change over time. That’s kind of what I was examining… how far it had come from it’s original meaning.
I’ll have to do some looking into the early century feminists as well, because I remember being quite surprised to hear that some/many were Christians… I think it was Susan B. Anthony, but don’t quote me on that! =o)
July 22, 2007 at 4:29 am
I have read some amazing stuff about the early century feminists. Elizabeth Stady Canton, for example—just talking about her father being a judge and she being in the office helping him, when a widow would come in sobbing over her destitution—legally, her husband’s money and estate was handed over to the nearest male relative, NOT to the widow. If her husband’s second cousin FELT like providing for the widow, he could, but if he didn’t… She said it was there, in her father’s office, that she determined to grow up and help change that system.
I remember reading it and wondering, WHY did it take Elizabeth? Why wasn’t the church protesting such injustice!? But instead, far too often it was the church supporting it, the church resisting any change.
When Jesus described the Gospel, he said,
” “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
I realize these verses have a spiritual application, but I wonder—wouldn’t a true spiritual application have earthly results too? Wouldn’t part of being a Christian being working to release the oppressed? Isn’t that part of what we do when we fight against abortion—speaking out on behalf of those who do not have the power to speak for themselves?
It just makes me sad, I guess, how much we’ve missed it sometimes in the American church. Much of the church fought against the abolitionist movement, for example, citing verse after verse in defense of Southern slavery.
Being against slavery, they said, was only something you could believe if you did NOT support Biblical inerrancy. You were denying Christianity if you were pro-abolition—could you even be a Christian if you were an abolitionist? Highly doubtful, they said! (Reading the sermons preached sounds chillingly like some of what you’ll hear from the pro-patriarchy side, interestingly).
The early feminists simply said that women were human beings, just like men were. In a world where women were openly considered of lesser intelligence and worth, some women finally organized, stood up and said, “No.” Is standing up for truth considered ungodly rebellion? I don’t think so.
July 22, 2007 at 5:19 am
“I remember reading it and wondering, WHY did it take Elizabeth? Why wasn’t the church protesting such injustice!? But instead, far too often it was the church supporting it, the church resisting any change.”
Many Christians would say still today that it is because it is the church who is supposed to support the widows. And yes, we are instructed to… but the reason we have to be told to do so is BECAUSE of the INJUSTICE of such systems that refuse to allow women the human right of property holding!!!!
Also, because throughout history women were denied so many avenues to support themselves (learning trades besides those found in homemaking), widows were left without a source of income. This seems rather antithetical to the productive woman we see in Proverbs 31, and it seems to me that since Paul had to instruct some of the first century’s older women not to be “idle gossipers nor to consume much wine”, that those women could have benefited from having a “vineyard” as described in Proverbs 31.
“Is standing up for truth considered ungodly rebellion? I don’t think so.”
Ah, Molly… I love it!!! Does this mean we get to be “godly rebels”??? Sign me up! =o)
July 22, 2007 at 11:03 am
Molly,
Could you share your good resources for pro-slavery sermons? I would be very interested in reading them. Right now I am reading Mark Noll’s book on the theological issues surrounding the Civil War and it is fascinating.
July 26, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Hey Charlotte… if you’re still out there, =o)
The following is a clip from Don Veinot’s most recent blog entry over at Midwest Christian Outreach. I thought you might be interested in it, since is along some of the same lines we were discussing. I would have highlighted the last two lines if I were a little more computer savvy. =o)
“Didn’t Jesus tell us that we should call no man “father?” …Then I realized, however, that the Lord actually said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father,” (Matthew 23:9, NASB; cf. vs. 8-10; emphasis mine). If we take those words with wooden literalness we’ll be forced to conclude that we can’t even refer to our biological fathers as “father” and we’ll end up missing the Lord’s point, which is that we should not put anyone in a place or allow anyone to assume a role that belongs to God alone.”
July 26, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Molleth,
Most patriarchal families do not believe that the woman is inferior or less than her husband. God has created us equal in his eyes. But, in God’s perfect creation, He has created an order and he has given man to be the head of the wife. Why can you not acknowledge this is pure Scripture? There is nothing patriarchal about it — it’s Scripture?
I’m wondering what all the fuss is about. Those of you who are panicking about patriarchy apparently don’t really know what it is.
July 26, 2007 at 11:16 pm
“Those of you who are panicking about patriarchy apparently don’t really know what it is.”
Oh Cara… if you only knew. Trust me I KNOW what patriarchy really is. I was in it. So were so many others here. You only have to go the top of this very thread to read a couple short stories of the damage we have witnessed because of the version of patriarchy we are referring to.
We care for reasons that have nothing to do with ignorance and everything with familiarity. If you were familiar with a certain dog that despite it’s nice appearance you knew to be dangerous dog, you would warn others who desired to go near it. Simple as that.
I believe in a sovereign God, therefore “panicking” is a waste of energy because I know that has everything in His hands and answers prayers, even and I think especially in situations concerning His children in bondage.
In case you missed it earlier, I wrote the following to you above on this thread a few days ago…
I guess I have to tell you, since you haven’t figured it out, but these people you say we are “slamming” are people we LOVE, our family and friends who we desire to see FREE from the bondage of legalism. These are people we CARE about, and it grieves us to see so many of them miserable as they strive in vain to attain a level of man-defined holiness. And while we love them so much it hurts, some of them have turned their backs on us, since we don’t fit into their “mold”. WE have “chewed up and spit out” by THEM, and all the while, they break our hearts, both for the injustice and contradictions of their actions, and for our unrequited love. What we are doing is no different than Paul’s purpose in the book of Galatians… He said, “NO, it’s not Jesus PLUS circumcision, PLUS adherence to the Law, PLUS your works that save you – IT’S JESUS”. We are saying, “NO, it’s not homeshooling, plus patriarchy, plus women and daughters at home, plus no college… IT’S JESUS!!!!!”
However, after writing all that, I have you wonder… are YOU familiar with the form of patriarchy that we are referring to? Perhaps you find your current family dynamics to be quite comfortable, and I am happy for you if that is the case. But are you certain that you have never witnessed a condemnation of those that don’t ascribe to patriarchal beliefs, or express an uncertainty about the necessity of living in them?
July 26, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Thatmom, I did share some resources, yesterday or the day before that, I think—I’m guessing that the spammer caught them, since they had more than 1 link in them. Maybe someone can go into Admin and fish that post out…?
Cara,
I realize you are positive that you are believing pure Scripture. I realize you think we are blind as bats. But, respectfully, I wish that you would respect those who feel they’ve come to their conclusions through Scripture as well.
The issue isn’t who’s reading and believing Scripture. The issue is more one of who’s learning it’s meaning more accurately. Because both sides feel they are being obedient to Scripture.
And, as an aside, I realize that you’re frustrated, but I don’t think it’s fair of you to say that we don’t “understand” patriarchy simply because we disagree with your opinion. Many of us have lived under it for years, read the books, wrote some ourselves (lol)… We disagree with you, that’s all.
In answer to your comment that God has created us equal but with an order, yes, patriarchy teaches that man and woman are equal, but have different “roles.”
The problem is that what patriarchy says is a mere “role” is actually their definition of who the man or woman is…hence, it’s double-speak.
Patriarchy actually doesn’t believe that men and women are equal at ALL with respect to authority, OR ability.
They DO believe men and women can equally be saved, yes. But they believe that there is a heirarchy in place by God, and that women are never to occupy the top—that they are designed by God for a lower place on the hierarchal ladder—they are designed to be a “helper” for the vision of the manm which to them, helper signifies that woman is an assistant to the one with the responsibility.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with occupying a lower rung. It is GOOD to embrace your “place” in creation, you know? And when I thought women were created for the lower hierarchal place, I was happy to be there—for years—even though I’m a double-alpha type personality-LOL—because I was convinced that I was obeying God by being there, and that’s the most important thing, right?
HOWEVER, there *is* something wrong if a heirarchy is set up that IS NOT God’s desire, and yet is promulgated IN God’s name.
Southern slavery is a great example of that—-it was a heirarchy, and emphatically supported by the Bible!
Yet most of us here would quickly agree that Southern slavery was an abomination, not a God-glorifying social construct, and that there are other ways of reading the Bible that emphatically do NOT support Southern slavery.
Back to the patriarchal assertion that men and women are equal, but merely have different roles.
A role, in truth, a job or way of behaving that somebody takes on, but that does not form the essence of who they are.
A person going to work at a police station, for example, is taking on the *role* of a police officer. A person going to work in a classroom is taking on the *role* of a teacher.
In both cases, the *role* is NOT the essence of who they are—it’s simply a part they play, a thing they do, a way they behave during certain times.
However, under patriarchy, a woman’s so-called *role* is not something she does at certain times, but is WHO SHE IS. As a female human being, patriarchy teaches taht she is (designed by God to be) in subjection from her birth to her death.
So technically, her subjection is not actually a “role” she takes on, but rather an essential part of her femaleness. The word “role” is being misused by the patriarchal teachers.
And the patriarchal assertion that, “Oh, we believe men and women are equal,” is also not true, unless that equality is ONLY referring to the ability of both to be saved. In all other ways, men and women are emphatically NOT equal under patriarchy. Patriarchy teaches that men are born to rule, whereas women are born to be ruled. Um…this is not most people’s definition of equality.
John Piper, for example, describes femininity as being something a woman is AT HER CORE, which I tend to agree with somewhat, except that I have a sharp disagreement with his definition of what that femininity is. He teaches that femininity is a submissive attitude towards men—an inner attitude that affirms male leadership. Piper teaches that THAT is what makes her feminine.
So if a godly woman’s essence is the fact that “she affirms the leadership of men over her,” then how can someone honestly say that they believe men and women are equal? Equal only in that they can be saved by Christ, because in all other ways, she’s not an equal—she’s actually VERY different from males (who’s masculinity, according to Piper, is made up of the fact that they assert leadership over women), not at all equals.
That’s not bad, IF that’s what a woman actually is, but let’s at least be honest about it and admit that that’s what we’re actually teaching instead of using words like “roles” improperly and pretending like we’re not actually saying what we’re saying. I think the patriarchal camp needs to be very clear and define what exactly their view of “equal” means, because it sharply differs with the average person’s definition.
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/jesuswomen-equal-worth-unequal-role/
This is a link to a post of mine about this very topic, during the time I was studying it all out, and it links to an EXCELLENT article by Michael Kruse regarding this very concept, weeeeell worth the read.
And towards the end of this article, I talk about Piper’s definition of women with actual quotes (and he’s considered a “soft” patriarch, nothing even close to the stuff from Vision Forum, etc)…
Warmly,
Molly
July 27, 2007 at 12:22 am
Molleth,
Obviously – quite obviously – you were under a dominion type of patriarchy. I am not. The patriarchy of our family is simply this:
1. My husband is my head. (1 Cor. 11:3)
2. I am submissive to my husband. (1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22-23)
I don’t think you are as blind as bats. From what I can read and discern on this blog, I think most of you are simply in rebellion against God’s design. There is something horrible and detestable to you about being under the authority of anyone. It makes me wonder if being under the authority of Christ is difficult for you.
As for roles – God did not create women for a lower rung on the ladder. Again, maybe your patriarchy experience believed this, but mine (and 99% of the patriarchal folks I know) do not ascribe to this. Please do not tell me that we really do believe it, but only say we don’t. I know what we believe and I live it. We are not women who are crouched in a corner waiting on our big bad husbands to tell us what to fix for dinner. We are educated, thinking, industrious, ministering women. We are not backwoods idiots.
Roles give us assignments. Did God not give Eve the assignment of being a helpmeet to Adam? Did God ever once in the Bible tell a man to be under the authority of his wife? Again, I’m baffled. Scripture is clear, and yet you are not willing to acknowledge it.
As for slavery, there was also Northern slavery and, there were also black people who owned slaves during the slavery period. A general overview of American history generally leaves that part out.
July 27, 2007 at 1:39 am
“1. My husband is my head. (1 Cor. 11:3)
2. I am submissive to my husband. (1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22-23)
I don’t think you are as blind as bats. From what I can read and discern on this blog, I think most of you are simply in rebellion against God’s design. There is something horrible and detestable to you about being under the authority of anyone. It makes me wonder if being under the authority of Christ is difficult for you.”
Hi Cara,
I agree with you that my husband is my head and I am to be submissive to my husband. I bet that most of the other ladies on this blog would agree with that, too.
Where the rubber hits the road is how we define this and what this actually means.
Are all men over all women? If they are not, then we would agree that men and women in the church are equals, right? If only the husband is the head of his wife, that means all the other guys are simply my brothers in Christ and we are equal as far as neither has any authority over the other. I am leaving out the elders because they would have authority over all men and women in their church. If a man who is not an elder teaches scripture or speaks about what scripture says does that mean he automatically has authority over those ears he expounding scripture to?
I have been reading a lot of what these ladies have written on the subject and some of them I even know personally and I could never have written what you wrote about them/me/us.
I don’t think anyone finds it horrible or detestable to be under the authority of anyone.
And your last remark……ouch!
I would hate to sit in judgment on others based on my own understanding of some principle. Nothing that I have read would make me think that Molly or anyone on this blog has any more trouble submitting to Christ than every other Christian in this world. Certainly no one, not even you, can claim to be more submissive to Christ based on what you do for Him? It is only because of what He has done for us that we could ever submit to Him. We are all on this road together.
Do you have “Created to Be His Helpmeet” by Debi Pearl? That is being bought by the caseload to be given out to women as the latest and greatest book on how to be a wife.
Do you agree with the book? With its teachings? How it fleshes out the role of a wife and her duty to her husband?
July 27, 2007 at 2:13 am
Cara,
I’m glad you are happy where you are and feel it is God’s best.
I’m not surprised you think that most of us are in rebellion. We disagree with you, and you happen to hold a view that declares that those who disagree with the way you read the Bible are in rebellion to God. *shrugs*
I have felt that way towards SO many people, I can’t even count how many times…and have also openly expressed my shock (and outrage) at their differing opinions, including to some of the people commenting here (*blush*), in the past—and not just about patriarchy, but about parenting styles, etc… URGH!
I wish you knew me, though, before saying something like that. I can do a great job leading when that’s needed, but I can also do a great job of following. I’m the world’s greatest Vice President, or so I’ve been told-lol.
I find nothing horrible or detestable about following, I do it every day in various ways, and I have a feeling that most of the commenters here feel the same.
Authority in and of itself is not what is being disagreed with here.
I really hope you can hear that, because it’s important. Authority is NOT a horrible thing, and commenters here are not saying it is.
What I find horrible is telling someone that God says they MUST obey someone else, when God didn’t actually say that. And that’s really what we’re trying to figure out here in these conversations (and all of us have varying positions on the spectrum)…
I have to say, I think that questioning the way I operate under Christ, simply because I disagree with you, is really out of line, Cara. Can we disagree without saying things like that to eachother?
On your comments about Eve, I would disagree. It is not Scriptural to say that God gave Eve “an assignment to be a helpmeet.” That would be reading something into the passage.
The Bible DOES say that God MADE Eve and declared her to BE a helpmeet. No assignments given, no “roles” laid out— just a pronouncement of who she was.
So Biblically, a helpmeet is not Eve’s “role” or her “assignment,” rather, it is what she is.
So whatever this word “helpmeet” is, it’s important because it tells us a LOT about women.
Helpmeet is a combination of two Hebrew words, “Ezer Kenegdo.” It is very important to realize that neither one of those words intimates that woman was in any sort of subjection.
Ezer, “help,” is used of an equally powerful army coming to help as an ally, or of God coming to help a man in trouble. It is NEVER used in Scripture to denote a subordinate coming to help a superior.
NEVER.
Kenegdo simply means, “facing,” or “as if facing him,” or “standing opposite to him,” all of which suggest a face to face relating (not one of them above or below the other).
So Ezer Kenegdo means something along the lines of a powerful ally coming to aid. To decide to read subjection into it is fine—people can read whatever they want into anything—but a person should know that subjection is NOT actually in the text.
Patriarchy sees helpmeet as meaning one in subjection. Patriarchy says that a woman is a helper to a man’s vision. (He has the vision, and she helps him out however he sees fit).
Egalitarianism says that a woman was made to be a help to GOD’S vision—that God gave Adam and Eve a vision, and that they were to tackle it together, side by side (not one over the other) as the end of Genesis 1 says.
Egalitarianism does not deny at ALL that woman was made as a helpmeet. It just sharply differs with that word being used to show subordination, because that is NOT what the Hebrew means.
You say that “Scripture is clear but that [I'm] not willing to acknowledge it.” I hope this helps explain to you why it is *through* holding firmly to Scripture that I cannot see female subjection in the original creation account.
Thank you, by the way, for the bravery you show by participating in a conversation here, even though you are in the minority. I appreciate your heart for the truth, whether we agree on what that is or not!
Warmly,
Molly
July 27, 2007 at 2:52 am
Molly said:
So Biblically, a helpmeet is not Eve’s “role” or her “assignment,” rather, it is what she is.
Sorry, Molly, your line of reasoning here just doesn’t work. If I am a woman and that is what I am, then I certainly don’t behave as a man. How can you reason that just because someone is given a label, that doesn’t mean that’s what they are? If God said that Eve was a helpmeet, wouldn’t it be sin for her to step out of that “assignment” and be something else. Did she has the right to say, “I don’t want that label even though God Himself made me and gave it to me. I’ll be something else.”
I am reading from your comment about “obeying” that this is something that bothers you. Are you afraid you might have to obey your husband? Do you not obey your ecclesiastical authority placed over you? If not, then why are you under any headship – spiritual or marital? God placed authority over people — men, women, & children — for their own protection and sanctification. This does not mean it’s oppressive. Do you obey the civil magistrates? Do you obey the laws?
I have stated on this blog before (perhaps you did not see it) that the patriarchy that our family believes in (and at least 99% of our friends who believe in it) is not oppressive, domineering, or demanding on the part of our husbands. Our husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and when this happens, a beautiful and fruitful union is the outcome.
While you may believe I am out of line for questioning your life under Christ, I think you believe wrongly. When a person says he/she will not submit to God’s word in simple obedience, calling them out of line is mild.
Finally, Corrie, why do you imply or think that a patriarchal family believes that all men are over women? We do not believe any man has authority over us except for the one we have married. Our pastor/elders have ecclesiastical authority over us, but their authority does not usurp our husbands’ authority. Does the Bible permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man? No.
And no, I do not have Debi Pearl’s book. But if I did, what would that mean?
July 27, 2007 at 3:01 am
Cara, I have to say that I found your comments above to be completely uncharitable and uncalled for. How dare you question the way others operate under the authority of Christ! I wonder if you’ve actually taken the time to read other articles and comments on this blog because most of the women here are complementarians with a few egalitarians thrown in the mix. Most of us have no problem with the idea of husband as head and submitting to that. And even those ladies who hold to a different theological opinion have struggled long and hard with these issues and simply differ.
Its funny because I don’t see most complementarians questioning hyper-patriarchalists relationship to Christ, at least not in the discussions I’ve come across.
And I think its very important to make the distinction between someone like you, who simply holds to a complementarian view of gender roles and hyper-patriarchalists like Vision Forum and the Botkin ladies about whom the original post was about.
Not all patriarchy is the same.
July 27, 2007 at 3:05 am
Cara, the Vision Forum brand of patriarchy does teach that all men are over all women.
Again, THAT BRAND of patriarchy is what many here have a problem with, NOT the kind you’re talking about.
July 27, 2007 at 3:06 am
Cara,
I just tried to explain that the word “helpmeet” does not show subjection in and of itself. It may have a connotation of subjection to us NOW, but it did not in the Hebrew with which it was written.
Um…I honestly feel like you ignored everything I wrote. I wholly believe that woman was created to be a helpmeet. I just define that to mean something differently than you do. But I believe I tried to show that I am forming my definition from Scripture itself, not from rebellion.
I also tried to communicate that this isn’t about authority. We are taught, as Christians, to submit one to another. Submission is a beautiful thing—I have no qualms with the concept of submission. It is something I daily practice and seek to grow in.
I’m not sure what else can be said. I seem to be unable to communicate clearly, and the misunderstandings keep piling up higher. My apologies for my lack of coherance.
Warmly,
Molly
July 27, 2007 at 3:17 am
Cara said, ” The patriarchy of our family is simply this:
1. My husband is my head. (1 Cor. 11:3)
2. I am submissive to my husband. (1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22-23)”
“Roles give us assignments. Did God not give Eve the assignment of being a helpmeet to Adam? Did God ever once in the Bible tell a man to be under the authority of his wife? Again, I’m baffled. Scripture is clear, and yet you are not willing to acknowledge it.”
Cara your family’s definition of patriarchy is my definition of patriarchy. I am very willing to acknowledge that fact. You’ll get no argument from me.
And at first, I erroneously assumed that this was the same definition used by teachers such as Doug Phillips and others when they speak of patriarchy. But as I have outlined numerous times their definition and ideas go beyond those verses into things unsupported by Scripture. These teachers believe that a women was ruled over a man before the fall not as a result of it. They promote ideas like a daughter being owned by her father, where God takes a “back seat.” Where does Scripture say that? And through the writings of men like Dabney they promote the abhorrent idea that blacks are inferior to whites.
Yes, the north owned slaves. It’s not a forgotten fact. But that fact is not what is at issue here. The fact that we’re talking about is white preachers teaching TODAY that southern slavery is the biblical order for a just society. I’m talking about white teachers who promote R.L. Dabney as a great theologian, but don’t renounce the idea that blacks are an inferior race. These are things that I cannot ignore and won’t forget either.
I’m not challenging my role as a wife, Cara. Not at all. Scripture is indeed clear on this point. But patriarchy and the dominion mandate as taught by these teachers go way beyond the idea of a wife being a helpmeet. And this is something that some supporters seem unwilling to acknowledge.
I will not pretend that their definition is my definition. I will not pretend that their beliefs are my beliefs. Others may be able to do so, but as a previous supporter who has spent time and money endorsing their ministry in the past, I cannot. Some may consider this rebellion, but I consider it being a Berean.
July 27, 2007 at 4:37 am
“Finally, Corrie, why do you imply or think that a patriarchal family believes that all men are over women? We do not believe any man has authority over us except for the one we have married. Our pastor/elders have ecclesiastical authority over us, but their authority does not usurp our husbands’ authority. Does the Bible permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man? No.”
Hi Cara,
Because there are many who teach this. I don’t think or imply anything. I am stating fact.
No, I do not believe the Bible allows a woman to teach or have authority over a man IN THE CHURCH. But if a Priscilla wants to teach an Apollos a better way concerning the word on her own time outside of the church, how wonderful! You see, I don’t believe that expounding the Bible means that the person speaking has authority over the person listening.
I am free to listen to whatever person I want to as far as bible teaching but they are NOT my authority merely because they crack open their bible and open their mouth and words come out. There is a difference between authoritative teaching which is done by elders (pastor/teachers) and the believer who is a royal priest unto God instructing someone concerning a passage in scripture.
If the Bible meant that every man that teaches the Bible is my authority, then we are in BIG trouble. Benny Hinn? Jim Jones? Where does it stop?
But, I have no problems with female judges, magistrates, police women (we need them, especially for all the rape and incest victims), etc.
There is one patriarchal pastor that says he would gnash his teeth if a female police officer ever pulled him over because at no time shall any woman ever have authority over any man.
The Bible clearly only talks about the church. And that word “usurp” is a violent seizing of authority and it is the only time the word is used in the whole NT. It is not a common word. A woman is not to seize/take away by force the authority in the church. But, then again, neither should any man do such a thing.
I would like to flesh out the concept that ecclesiastical authority has no bearing on your husband’s authority? You and your husband are EQUALLY under the authority of your elders. You BOTH have an equal duty to submit and obey your elders. That is what the Bible says. It does not say that a husband has less of a duty to submit to and obey the elders.
An elders’ authority extends as far as the Scripture. Once he steps past that, he goes beyond his authority. So, if an elder told a wife to do something that is contrary to the Bible, then she does not have to obey.
What would a case of an elder “usurping” a husband’s authority over his wife look like? I am trying to think of something but I come up blank.
July 27, 2007 at 5:22 am
Not to run this subject off track, but this quote is something I just don’t get:
“No, I do not believe the Bible allows a woman to teach or have authority over a man IN THE CHURCH. But if a Priscilla wants to teach an Apollos a better way concerning the word on her own time outside of the church, how wonderful!”
Why is it okay out of the church gathering, but not okay in the church gathering?
I honestly honestly just don’t get this…this is one of the reasons that “total” patriarchy appealed to me…at least it made SENSE. Women were in subjection, in the church and out of the church, not just in some spots but not in others, you know…?
And that’s probably why egalitarianism appeals to me know—it’s a full paradigm, too, in that it has foundations (women were not made to be ruled) and then applies them across the board.
Hyper-patriarchy was the same way—women were made to be ruled, so let’s apply that across the board, not just here and there.
Both of those approaches make sense to me—I can understand the how’s and why’s of how they make their decision. But the middle-of-the-road female subjection really confuses the heck out of me.
When I sit down to try to map it out theologically and logically, I am quickly lost. Yet I can easily map out the VF version of patriarchy (hey, at least they are consistant! Women are made to be ruled, they believe, so they actually act on it). I can also easily map out egalitarianism (women were not made to be ruled), and appreciate that they are consistant. But this middle-road position has me absolutely LOST when I try to understand it.
To me, I’ve yet to be able to figure out exactly how it is supported foundationally (women are made to be ruled? women aren’t made to be ruled? they’re made to be ruled sometimes, and sometimes not?) and, more importantly, WHY some of the positions are held (why women in church leadership is an abomination, but a woman police officer is NOT, for example)… ?
I don’t understand (said in a humble way, sister-to-sister, just to clarify my tone) at all a sort of ‘half-way’ patriarchy that says that women are to be kept out of leadership in the church, *soley* due to their gender, but then that same gender (that somehow makes them leading be a terrible evil) doesn’t factor into being a problem with leadership in government, business, etc.
*big huge shrug*
Thanks, all, for putting up with me around here, btw. I realize that I’m a lot less conservative than a lot of you are at this point, and I appreciate your kindness with my ramblings.
July 27, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I just reread parts of the Midwest Christian Outreach Journal that just came out and one of the adjectives that Don Veinot used to describe women in the patriocentricity camps is “strangely submissive.” I thought that described it very well and perhaps just those simple words might help Cara understand. Cara, did you happen to read that article?
July 27, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Molleth said: [i]When I sit down to try to map it out theologically and logically, I am quickly lost. Yet I can easily map out the VF version of patriarchy (hey, at least they are consistant! Women are made to be ruled, they believe, so they actually act on it). I can also easily map out egalitarianism (women were not made to be ruled), and appreciate that they are consistant. But this middle-road position has me absolutely LOST when I try to understand it.[/i]
Just wanted to chime in with my agreement here to Molleth’s comments. If women are ontologically created to be responders/submitters (isn’t it Piper who says that?) and men are ontologically created to be initiators/leaders, then the practical outworkings of that design should be in every sphere – home, church, community.
July 27, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Now why didn’t those tags for italics work?
July 27, 2007 at 2:36 pm
You have to use html and not ubb here. , , spaces removed, have worked for me.
July 27, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Personally, I believe that men and women are on completely equal footing in all areas of life, with two exceptions — in marriage and in the ministry.
The husband is the “head” of his wife in much the same way as the President is “over” the VP, though both are to be “in submission” to one another.
Regarding the ministry, as a conservative Anglican, I hold to the idea that only a man may function as a priest in the consecration of the Eucharist, though a woman may serve as a deacon or read the Gospels or the Epistles in the church service,since she does so under the authority of the (male) pastor, and any authority she exercises is his authority, and not her own.
July 27, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Ack! That didn’t show up, even with the spaces removed. Use the “greater than” and “less than” pointy brackets. . .
July 27, 2007 at 3:54 pm
““No, I do not believe the Bible allows a woman to teach or have authority over a man IN THE CHURCH. But if a Priscilla wants to teach an Apollos a better way concerning the word on her own time outside of the church, how wonderful!”
Why is it okay out of the church gathering, but not okay in the church gathering?”
Hi Molleth,
I don’t consider it “middle of the road”.
The reason I see it this was is that reading scripture, expounding scripture and instructing a person in scripture equals “authority”. Every believer is to be doing these things.
The problem in the patriarchal camp is that they can’t understand the difference between positions of authority and simple one Christian to another Christian discussing what scripture says.
If a wife reads scripture to her husband and tells him what a passage means, does that mean she is usurping authority over him? No, I do not think so. I don’t think the Bible supports this at all.
When I read scripture to my dying father and expounded upon the meaning of the gospels and Jesus’ message, was I taking authority over my father or was I ministering the gospel to him?
The Holy Spirit is equally present in all believers. We are all equally able to discern the things of the Lord. We all need help understanding things and we do not know everything there is to know.
That is why I don’t see Sunday School teachers as having authority. I will listen respectfully to what they have to say has my brother/sister in Christ but they have no authority over me just because they open up their bible and their mouth and fascilliatate a group.
So, to me, teaching scripture does not equal positional authority.
Elders have that authority in the church since all believers are told to obey them.
I wonder why we don’t have whole books written to church members on how we are to obey our elders like we have on how women are to submit to their husbands. The language is just as strong for church members if not stronger since it actually uses the word “obey” and not just “submit”.
I haven’t figured this thing out, Molleth. I am still in the process.
I think I can sense the things that don’t line up with scripture more than I can actually discern what some passages are saying.
For example, the one passage in 1 Tim. about a woman learning in silence with all submissiveness.
We are already told that all believers are to obey/submit to their elders’ teachings. So, that is nothing but a reiteration of what is told to all believers in the other letters.
If we are to take the “silence” as literal, then a woman should not be allowed to sing or say “hi” or utter one word in the church.
As Don Venoit pointed out, Jesus told his followers not to call anyone on earth “father”. Well, shouldn’t we take this literally? Or is there some other explanation to this?
There are so many passages that we allow for other explanations but we do not do that when it comes to the ones to females.
Did Paul mean “silent” as in no talky? Or did he mean, as the Greek seems to imply, that it is a state of one’s soul. A calmness and peacefulness while taking in the teaching of the word.
I also think such a wooden definition of husband/wife is damaging. No husband can claim that his wife doesn’t teach him anything. That is just plain silly. He would have to stop his ears up to claim this. (Maybe some do???) Wives teach husbands all the time and when they are brother and sister in the Lord, a wife will be teaching her husband about God and about scripture whether he likes it or not. I have no idea why this bothers some people? My husband and I equally share in discussions about theology. Sometimes he initiates it and sometimes I initiate it.
I don’t know where I stand on the whole “head” thing. I don’t know if it means authority or it is supposed to be a picture of unity.
I do know that the Bible tells wives to submit to their own husbands. That seems to imply some sort of authority.
That is where I am in this whole process.
This lukewarm, wimpy and soft complementarian is open to listening to anything anyone has to say as long as they use scripture.
One thing I can say for the egals is that they do go to scripture and they will debate from scripture. You might not agree with what they see in scripture but at least it is in the ballpark of what a debate should look like. It is a rare thing for a hyper-patriarch to go to scripture. They usually just make a pronouncement about someone’s state with God and that is the end of the discussion. Or they tell them that since they are a man and you are a woman, you should sound submissive to them as is fitting with your sex.
Yes, it seems, all men are over all women according to some people. Even in a conversation.
July 27, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Oh, Deb! That was not me who wrote those articles. Jenny is an incredibly common name. Apology accepted!
July 27, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“The reason I see it this was is that reading scripture, expounding scripture and instructing a person in scripture equals “authority”. Every believer is to be doing these things.”
Huh??? What did I say??
The reason I see it this way is that reading scripture, expounding scripture and instructing a person in scripture does not equal “authority” over that person. Every believer is to be doing these things.
2 Tim. 3:16
July 27, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“I do know that the Bible tells wives to submit to their own husbands. That seems to imply some sort of authority.”
It also could be used to imply that we are to submit to our own husbands, and not to other women’s husbands, or to any men other than our OWN husbands.
July 27, 2007 at 7:59 pm
““I do know that the Bible tells wives to submit to their own husbands. That seems to imply some sort of authority.”
It also could be used to imply that we are to submit to our own husbands, and not to other women’s husbands, or to any men other than our OWN husbands.”
Yes, that could be the emPHAsis. Sometimes, we believers tend to emphasize the wrong part of a verse and skip over the obvious. Or we forget to take the whole of scripture in favor of isolating one verse and lifting it out of its context.
I started having a problem with what people call “patriarchy” because of all the nonsense that was taught under the guise of submission.
Women were told they must make an “appeal” as if their husband was King Asheraharus and she was Esther and her life depended up it. But, when you are married, you are one flesh. You are supposed to be unified. People who live in an intimate relationship don’t have these sorts of power structures and wooden relationships. When a wife has something on her heart or sees something that is wrong, she doesn’t say “May I appeal?”. She approaches him as a lover and a friend not as a subject. She is a Queen to his King. She is not a serf or peasant to his King.
And since the Bible tells us to honor all others as better than our own selves, there is no room for disrespectful conversation. Just because the wife is told to respect her husband does not mean that he is not to respect her. Just because the husband is told to love his wife, it does not mean she is not to love him.
That is why I have a problem with some patriarchalists teaching that since they are men, women are to approach them in a different manner because of their sex. We are to show them deference because we are women and they are men. Or better yet, the whole scenario from CBMW about the guy asking the woman for driving directions! She has to give him the directions in a way that does not insult his maleness and position as a leader.
But, turn this around. Should a man ever order a woman around and command her to take certain directions? Why would the way a woman give directions differ from the way a man does? Shouldn’t they both be helpful, curteous, kind and respectful? Or should any male ever take such a high view of themselves as to think that because they are a man they must be able to know that the woman knows that they are a man and that they view him in all his maleness which translates “leader” or “God’s glory”?
Shouldn’t we just show respect to one another and treat all human beings with dignity and respect and with deference?
And then I read the “Me? Obey Him?” book and I couldn’t believe people were recommending it. There is one chapter where a husband wants his wife to get an abortion (happens a LOT! I see it come across many email lists I am on). She doesn’t want to. So, this writer instructs the women to go ahead and make the appointment and obey her husband all the while praying for God to intervene. She also tells the women that if they were truly submissive, the husband would never tell her to get an abortion or pressure her to do what is wrong or what she doesn’t want to do. Basically, this book tells us that if a man is sinning or being abusive to his wife, it is her fault. She must not be submissive enough.
July 27, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Oh, Corrie,
I am always checking out the books you mention on Amazon and come away amazed. I really had no idea what these patriarchs pushed. I never got into reading these submission books, so I am pretty shocked when I read the reviews of “Me? Obey Him?” What are Christians doing to themselves????
July 27, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Y’all, I’ve said it before and I’m just going to say it again. It seems to oversimplify it, but I just can’t get it out of my head.
The root of my problem with hyper-patriarchy is the ARROGANCE! The egocentricism, really.
It seems to just shout “look at me! I’m a leader! I’m important! I’m it!” (for the man of course)
In these hyper patriarch circles, it comes across as very aggressive, arrogant and NOT at all SERVANT LIKE.
Man, even as the head of his home and the head of the Church must yield to a higher authority, Christ. When we spatter off a bunch of rules about voting, college, and what women should do with their time, it comes across (at least for me) as very unservant like. It seems to ridiculously inflate the man’s position to a level so far superior, I just can’t stand it.
Maybe I am in rebellion…I still don’t know what I think about all of this. It is certainly on the forefront of my mind as I dismantle the false teachings I’ve sat under for many years.
The thing is, I’m all for true and real Biblical submission as it is defined in the Bible. I believe my husband IS the rightful, God-ordained leader of our home. I believe in traditional roles in the church and in the home, I really do.
But as others have said here, just because someone opens their bible and speaks, does that make them an “authority” over me? No!
I could go on, and on, and on, but as you can see, I’m processing! Which for some women, processing is a deadly sin, but for me, it is engaging and helpful in many ways. I’ve never felt closer to God than I do right now as I wander and wonder.
July 28, 2007 at 12:20 am
Zan,
I just went to Amazon and read the reviews. Some of them crack me up!
If you read through the reviews you will see all the ways people twist the scripture.
One of them that I caught was this:
“Is it any wonder that the very first sin ever committed was by a woman who did not want to submit to her husband? Satan is still lying to women today. He convinces them that submission is restrictive, when the truth is that submission is freeing. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” (John 8:32)”
So, Eve didn’t want to submit to her husband and that is why she ate the forbidden fruit? That isn’t true but we hear this often repeated. Or, as Gothard teaches, Eve wanted to be like her husband, so she ate the fruit. The bible says that the serpent told her that if she eats the fruit she can be like GOD knowing good and evil. The bible does not say that she can be like her husband.
I wonder what the version of this book was before it was revised?
July 28, 2007 at 12:20 am
Lindsay said: “I’ve never felt closer to God than I do right now as I wander and wonder.”
Lindsay, this really resonated with me. I am working through it all I keep coming back to asking the question “does this view bring me closer to God’s mercy and grace or to man’s laws.” I am experiencing a new perspective on how grace works itself out through the pages of Scripture and it is truly a blessing.
Thanks for sharing what is going on inside of your head!
July 28, 2007 at 12:24 am
Zan,
I found one person who reviewed the older book and here is what she says about the older version:
“Elizabeth Handford uses God’s Word to present the reasons for a wife’s submission to her husband. She shares all the blessings, joys and privileges that living a life according to God’s plan will bring. A book every woman must read! The older edition is better. Her revised edition squirms on women trusting God if a woman is abused. ”
The revised version “squirms” on women trusting God if a woman is abused.
Ahhh! So, the older version just told a woman to bear up under abuse and consider it all joy when she is abused?
I know that this book was tops on the recommended reading lists of patriarchalists. I think maybe that “Created To Be His Helpmeet” took its place?
What does the Bible say about the pharisees and how their students will be twice the sons of hell as their teachers?
July 28, 2007 at 12:33 am
“The root of my problem with hyper-patriarchy is the ARROGANCE! The egocentricism, really.
It seems to just shout “look at me! I’m a leader! I’m important! I’m it!” (for the man of course)
In these hyper patriarch circles, it comes across as very aggressive, arrogant and NOT at all SERVANT LIKE.”
Lindsey,
I agree.
I also find it highly ironic that the same people who clamor on and on about being the boss turn right around and tell other people that they do not agree with their hyper-patriarchal/patriocentric/patricentric teachings because of their need to be in charge/control! LOL!
Or they will tell you that men have rule and have dominion over women and when a woman disagrees, they will accuse her of being rebellious and not liking the fact that they are to be ruled.
But, if someone came along and forced them into slavery or told them that they must follow the law of the land now that the new regime is in charge, they would feel that they could rightfully rebel because no one is going to rule them! They rule and will not be ruled but all others must like being ruled or else they are rebellious.
July 28, 2007 at 12:42 am
Back in the mid 70′s when I was a young wife and mom and living overseas in a military housing area, one of the older women in our chapel women’s group thought we ought to study Me? Obey Him? It was the older version and back then I was too naive to get alot of what I was hearing. But I do know that the group of women I was with, for the most part, were married to unbelieving, hard-partying military men and their lives were pretty tough. Looking back, I can only imagine how difficult it was for them to follow the teachings, but they purposed to do it.
I was so freshly married and consumed with babies and diapers and learning to do all the things a homemaker needs to do that I really didn’t think through alot of it personally. My husband and I didn’t have the same kinds of issues and we were sort of on an entended honeymoon at that point in our marriage anyway.
I have read John R. Rice’s book called “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers.” Isn’t that a great title for a coffee table book that will prompt conversation?
Elizabeth is either his wife or one of his daughters. Anyway, he wrote this book during the time when there were already many women preachers being sent out to evangelize in churches in small communities. Besides women speaking in churches, he was opposed to a woman cutting her hair. Somehow short, bobbed hair translated into rebellion, too.
July 28, 2007 at 2:06 am
“There is one chapter where a husband wants his wife to get an abortion…… So, this writer instructs the women to go ahead and make the appointment and obey her husband all the while praying for God to intervene.”
I wonder what the writer would advise a woman to do, should her husband instruct her to hold up a bank and kill the teller.
What a crock of nonsense!
July 28, 2007 at 2:59 am
“The root of my problem with hyper-patriarchy is the ARROGANCE! The egocentricism, really.
It seems to just shout “look at me! I’m a leader! I’m important! I’m it!” (for the man of course)
In these hyper patriarch circles, it comes across as very aggressive, arrogant and NOT at all SERVANT LIKE.”
Lindesy,
Here is a quote from a Brian Abshire on the Vision Forum website that demonstrates this quite well.
“Even the worst examples of modern “patriarchy” show more biblical warrant than the unconscious adoption of secular humanism commonly held by many “Christian” families.”
The author doesn’t give any examples of what the “worst examples” are, leaving it to the imagination of the reader. Physical abuse and adultery are the two that have been experienced by families in our area that were following patriarchy very rigorously. But notice that the writer excuses these “worst” examples as being better than adopting secular humanism by a supposed Christian. Sin is sin. And the idea that a “patriarch” in the worst sin is better than a Christian who practices secular humanism is ridiculous and arrogant to the core.
Further into the essay Mr. Abshire writes,
“Others criticize the “patriarchs” for “idolatry” in elevating the family as the “center of life.” However, what IS the center of “life?” Granted, the sovereign Lord has ultimate claim to all our love, worship and service, but this God established the family as the basic element of community; it was not good for the man to be alone, so God created the family.”
The way in which Mr. Abshire wrote his answer about to the question “What is the center of life?” shows exactly where his center is – the family. When one answers this question with anything else but God alone, it is idolatry, pure and simple. God alone is the center of life. Period. No “buts” allowed.
July 28, 2007 at 3:52 am
I agree. In the name of God, a false god is set up. I didn’t see, though, it until I left the camp. SOO much of this has to do with one’s view of delegated authority.
The view I learned came from Bible College, a view that taught that a delegated authority spoke with Gods’ authority and was not to be questioned unless one wanted to be in rebellion, which was one and the same as joining Satan’s camp. It’s a rather popular set of doctrines among certain types of charismatic churches, but also amongst the ultra-conservative patriarchy-type camps like Gothard, etc. (Watchman Nee’s “Spiritual Authority” is a perfect textbook for what I was taught).
It’s no small wonder I so quickly accepted patriarchy, as it went perfectly with the view of authority I’d been taught was Biblical.
Me, Obey Him? is written by the *daughter* of the man who wrote the Bobbed Hair/Bossy Wives book, and, yes, the two are essentially saying the exact same thing…
I bought maaaaaany copies of Me Obey Him and handed them out, I’m sad to say. It was a profound influence on my patriarchal position, seconded only by Reforming Marriage by Wilson.
Me Obey Him teaches women that to a godly woman, a husband’s commands are the commands of God, by using one Scripture after another. Then, I believed it. Now, I would say that a LOT of groups use many many Scriptures… But that, in and of itself, doesn’t mean they use them rightly.
July 28, 2007 at 5:30 am
A direct quote from a popular pro-patriarchy book (that I once believed, and bought extra copies of to hand out):
“First know that a husband has authority to tell his wife what to wear, where to go, whom to talk to, how to spend her time, when to speak or not to, even if he is unreasonable and insensitive.”
–Debi Pearl
July 28, 2007 at 6:41 am
“A direct quote from a popular pro-patriarchy book (that I once believed, and bought extra copies of to hand out):
“First know that a husband has authority to tell his wife what to wear, where to go, whom to talk to, how to spend her time, when to speak or not to, even if he is unreasonable and insensitive.”
–Debi Pearl”
I guess I can better understand Paul’s exhortations to virgins to not get married because they will be happier if they didn’t marry in light of the above teaching.
I wonder how her teachings show the mystery that Paul talks about? How does THAT particular picture of marriage portray the truth of the gospel?
Does Christ treat His Bride like that? Does He use His authority to micromanage His Bride? Or does He allow great freedom in how His Bride expresses herself in many areas? Does He allow His Bride to have Her own tastes, dislikes, personality, clothing/color preferences and freedom to talk to people and to speak when we need to? Didn’t the Proverbs 31 woman speak and on her tongue was wisdom and instruction? I don’t get the impression that Mrs. Proverbs 31 had to wait for her husband to give her the go-ahead in order to speak those words.
It seems like people would get a false picture of Christ and His Bride if they were to study a marriage that was pictured as Debi Pearl teaches. They would definitely not get an accurate representation of Christ and His Bride, that is for sure.
I just can’t seem to eat the meat and spit out the bones like I used to.
July 28, 2007 at 11:55 am
Corrie!
Micromanagement, yes!!!
Ladies, as I read and think and read and think (ad infinitum!) you are just sparking thoughts in my head left and right. The micromanagement thought goes hand in hand with my arrogance issue.
My husband, God bless him, if you knew him is the most QUIET, shy type. He is so gentle, loving and kind. I’m truly, truly blessed. Well, lots of “hyperpatriocentric” circles would call him lame, or lax. They’d say he isn’t strong enough, not a leader enough.
In fifteen years, he has never once told me what to wear or not to wear. He’s never had a problem with a haircut of mine or what I cook for dinner. He genuinely loves me to the core. As much as I serve him, he in turn, serves me. We are very much “complementarian” without being theological about it—just practical.
A few years ago, when *I* (it needs to be noted it was ME) was deep in the patriarchy stuff, reading ALL the books you’ve described enough, I’m saying in my head “this guy is wimpy! He’s not bossy enough! He needs to tell me how to wear my hair and how to dress! Why won’t he do that?”
So I get very dissatisfied with my marriage because I don’t think he’s strong enough.
Blah. I created my own problems because I wanted to model a man-made ideal, not God’s ideal.
Truthfully, my husband IS a beautiful representation of Christ and his bride, the Church. He isn’t perfect, no. I’m not either. But he is gentle, loving, and serving. And I am blessed.
July 28, 2007 at 12:01 pm
To make my long comment above succinct:
I wanted my husband to micromanage MY life (hair, dress, food, school choices, etc) because it seemed so much holier if he did that. If he micromanaged me, somehow he was stronger, and cared more about me than if he was shy and quiet—his God-given personality. I wanted him to defy the way God had made him, just to fit my perfect ideal of “submissive marriage qualities.”
I get so mad at myself now looking back at the way I perceived holiness.
Let me be clear once again, I am still a submissive wife, but not in the context I was before. I no longer kick and scream to have my husband micromanage me, just so he can prove his holiness to me and everyone else in the church.
Maybe that is why we get caught up in this mess—it gives us some form and way to manage holiness amongst ourselves, the saved?
July 28, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“I wanted my husband to micromanage MY life (hair, dress, food, school choices, etc) because it seemed so much holier if he did that. If he micromanaged me, somehow he was stronger, and cared more about me than if he was shy and quiet—his God-given personality. I wanted him to defy the way God had made him, just to fit my perfect ideal of “submissive marriage qualities.””
To me this illustrates just how very much we (as Christians, as a whole) want to have our rules to live by, following them to prove we are worthy–legalism, in a word. (As much as we deny we’re legalistic. . .)
Seeking “standards” and “principles”–it’s so much easier to set up a list “good” things that we can do to “prove” we are righteous.
It’s much harder to live each day leaning into the Holy Spirit, allowing ourselves to see our sin, and turning to God for grace, acknowledging our need for the Gospel every day.
July 28, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Ladies,
In light of all that has been written and discussed here, what are your thoughts on the following scripture:
Gen. 3:16
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
The phrase, “…yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” means that we women will desire to lord it over our husbands, but the husband will rule by God’s design (Eph. 5: 22-25).
July 28, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Trish, I see these verses as DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. You’ll notice that not once ever does God command the man to rule over his wife. There is no indication of man’s ruling woman pre-fall, and there is no command by God to the man to rule over woman post-fall.
Nor does the verse say women desire to rule over their husbands. It says their desire IS for their husband.
When God speaks to the woman in verse 16, he is not commanding her (or her husband) to do anything. He is simply telling her how things are going to be as a natural consequence of sin.
The Fall perverted everything, not the least of which was that most intimate of relationships, the marriage relationship. So woman, who tend to be (a generalization, I know, please bear with me) more relational, will desire that relationship above all, even when it is unhealthy. She will put up with a lot just to stay in relationship. How often do we see that in today’s world?
In the same way, man’s testosterone-driven “let’s get it done, let’s fix it” tendency again gets perverted by the Fall. He (along with his wife) was given dominion over the animals and earth pre-fall, but it is now perverted and he tries to exert dominion over his wife as well – which was never commanded.
Hope that helps.
July 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm
““…yet your desire will be for your husband”…. means that we women will desire to lord it over our husbands, ”
I do not see that that passage teaches that part of the curse is that women want to rule over their husbands. Instead, if you look at the Hebrew word for “desire” it means “a longing or a craving, as in a man for a woman or a woman for a man.”
A pastor’s wife friend of mine once had this insight and I think it is a pretty good one. She said that, after years of counseling women, she came to the conclusion that women desire a greater amount of intimacy in the marriage than a man does. (not always, but typically) and that, in part, explains part of the “chick flick” phenomena. Women desire, long for, crave a closeness and romance with their husbands. And husbands, typically, are not as interested in that aspect of a relationship. I don’t want to paint with a broad brush, but I think the truth in it is that typically, women desire more from their husbands in this area than typically men are able to produce. Where do you see that that passage is saying that women want to rule over their husbands? I don’t see it in the Greek or English.
July 28, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Trish:
I don’t read that passage as saying we will desire to lord it over our husbands at all!
That being said, here is how I’ve understood those passages.
I think it says we will have a strong longing and desire for our husband. A passionate desire to have a loving relationship with our husbands. From personal experience I get a big kick when I can make my husbands day.
I also think the desire is much along the lines of the body of Christ, the church, desiring Christ’s return and the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. The new Creation.
That desire motivates us to fulfil our mandate to reach out and share the Gospel to each person on earth.
In the Ephesians passage, you’ve left out:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church — fore we are members of his body. …” Ephesians 5: verses 21 to 31.
First there is a call to submission to each other. To me that is saying that I must be open to my fellow believers for instruction, pruning and hopefully fruition of my faith.
In the familial relationship I see that God has put in place a sort of “extreme measures clause.”
Essentially if the wife desires her husband, she will do 100 % for his and her benefit. If the husband loves his wife as sacrificially as Christ’s love for the church, well, there should be absolutely no reason for discord.
But God was aware of our sinful nature, and has then put in place that if there is discord the wife should bide by her husbands choice.
In some families that I’ve known, the husband chooses to try the wife’s desire. In others the husband waits and does neither, which is a choice in my opinion. In others the husband seeks the Pastor and Elder’s to help… etc. There is no solid rule of thumb.
Now in talk about submission to one another in the church. I’m talking about the congregation in which I worship, the Pastor and Elders are in submission to the Congregations and visa versa. After all, the Pastor & Elders were one of us or their salary is paid by us of the Congregation.
But in their ordination, we the Congregation agree to be in submission to them.
Now… in regards to the Genesis passage. That is part of the “curse” text. The part where we are cursed because of the Original Sin. [can you tell I'm from a Calvinist background? its the language
]
To me that desire that they talk about is found in the instances where we’ve talked about the blessings of a single woman versus a married woman. A single woman is free from the fetters of a family to choose to worship the Lord. Except that she has a desire for a family and that can be oppressive! I was single once!
For the married woman, her desire to worship the Lord is hampered by her desire to serve her family. In other words, “I’d love to go to that service but who’s going to do the laundry?” Or just how we can let the minutia details detract from our worship. To me that is the difference between Martha and Mary. Martha was not critiqued for her house-habits, but because she let her desires for a nice house and pleasing her guest get in the way of her worship of that GUEST of all guests.
[on a side note, love how we pick on the laundry!]
I believe humans were created first and for most to praise God and honour Him in all that we do. I believe at its best living is to be a constant act of worship. That worshipping together is a good way to keep our living worship on track and grounded in scripture, but Sunday morning fellowship is very shallow compared to what true worship can be.
I think girls like the Botkin sisters are desiring to share their message so much is because they have, in part, found the joy of a living worship. The living act of worship is found in service. But the reason they give for their lives of service are not along Biblical lines.
So even though their actions are right, there are issues with the why. I don’t think that lessens their service to God and each other’s less, but that they will be held accountable for their teachings. After all, those who wish to teach are admonished to be extra careful.
Sorry, rambling now! I’ll stop!
July 28, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Sorry, I made a typo in my scripture quote. I apologize. I tacked a ‘e’ on for. I tried hard to avoid that and normally don’t type in scripture. My apologies!
July 28, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Songbirdy said: “In the familial relationship I see that God has put in place a sort of “extreme measures clause.”
…
But God was aware of our sinful nature, and has then put in place that if there is discord the wife should bide by her husbands choice.”
Songbirdy, I’ve heard this all my life – that headship somehow means the husband gets the “final say” in case of a deadlocked decision. But I just don’t see this supported by scripture. Where, exactly, does it say that?
IMHO, submission and sacrificial loving look almost exactly the same. I don’t see a whole lot of difference. I’ve been on forums where an anecdote was described, and it was called “submission” if a woman did it, but “sacrificial loving” if a man did it. I was even told that it is a sin for a man to submit to his wife (but when I asked if it was a sin for a woman to love her husband sacrificially, I got no answer).
The greatest commandment is love. I see both submission and sacrificial loving as fulfilling that command, and I don’t see it as gender specific. Right there in Eph 5:21 all Christians are told to submit to one another. Elsewhere in scripture we’re all told to love sacrificially.
July 28, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Ladies,
I have been taught that it IS our desire to lord it over our husbands…
From John MacArthur’s web-site ‘Grace to You’, an excerpt from this article: http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=232357
But there is this desire, this seeking to have one’s own way, to get control. That’s why there have been through history always Feminist Movements, always. Even in the time of the Apostle Paul. I read some fascinating things about the time of the Apostle Paul. There was a liberation of women movement going on in the world of the Apostle Paul. Women were shaving their heads and going around bare chested with spears in their hands and trying to prove that they can do everything men did. There have always been that kind of…there’s always been that kind of movement in history because it’s reflective of this curse. The man has to deal with the fact that his wife wants to control him.
Now, the ideal situation, according to 1 Peter 3, is that a woman would manifest a meek and quiet spirit and that she would say to her husband “lord” as Sarah said to Abraham, I submit to you. But that’s not how it is in the world. She wants control. She wants what she wants. Maybe she wants control of the checkbook, the credit card, or whatever.
On the other hand, verse 16, the end, “And he shall rule over you.” Let’s look at the word “rule” for a minute, mashal. It means to dominate, to reign, literally means to install in office. The idea is as the woman seeks to overthrow the rank, as the woman seeks to twist the divine order, as the woman seeks to master her husband, seek control over him, he dominates her. As the woman tends toward rebellion, the man tends toward despotism. And you have the battle of the sexes right here. That’s why there’s conflict in marriage. And there is conflict in marriage, no question about it. Her desire is teshuqah…teshuqah. It doesn’t mean sexual desire, she already had that before the Fall. It’s the desire to get her way. And it even shows up, sad to say, in places where it shouldn’t show up. Paul is writing to Timothy in the church at Ephesus and he says, “I permit not a woman to teach nor to…what?…usurp authority.” Because that’s a tendency.
July 28, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Lindsey, sounds like you and I have similar husbands and similar experiences when we first discovered the VF brand of patriarchy. I cared loads more than my husband did about all these issues and instead of trusting him and submitting to him and his leadership (which was and is there, if only I would open my eyes and heart to see that), I tried to put these things into practice. It wreaked havoc on our marriage.
Oh, if I would only reverence my husband in practice as high as I do in my thoughts and in my heart!
July 28, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Trish,
What of the fact that history shows that man has dominated woman, mostly because of their physical abilities?
What you are saying can be rephrased to say the opposite.
So say women have always been rebelling means you can say men have always been suppressing.
Is that the critical question? What have we wanted to do since the dawn of time? We could argue endlessly on that…
or should we just leave it and say, despite what we’ve interpreted, “What does Scripture say?”
As for history… not all cultures have this war that you describe. I grew up in Bangladesh and have been exposed to many, many cultures. I don’t agree with you that women have been the only ones desiring to lord it over the other gender. I see both genders going on that war.
Typically the men have succeeded in ‘lording’ it over the women.
Light…
hmm, we’ve got a misunderstanding here. I’ve got to think of exactly how I want to say it to avoid this conclusion.
To me as a wife… if my husband and I are butting heads… then I submit like the church does to Christ.
But then I expect my husband to act sacrificially like Christ did to the church too.
How this works out in life is very individual. In my case, I pray that because I am acting as the Bible states, in the manner of the church to Christ, that my husband would then respect my desire to fulfil my role and he will choose right given my desires too.
Now if he desires me to sin, I am then directly responsible to God.
I am struggling for the right words here. That’s what I get for staying up till 3 a.m. to finish a gift for my MIL.
I guess what I was describing is not the “headship” you are describing. I believe scripture mandates a very co-dependant relationship between the husband and wife. A call to unity. But you can’t have unity if the parts are running in two directions.
July 28, 2007 at 4:49 pm
“The phrase, “…yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” means that we women will desire to lord it over our husbands, but the husband will rule by God’s design (Eph. 5: 22-25).”
Hi Trish,
I don’t understand that verse to be meaning that a wife’s desire will be to “lord it over her husband”?
Could you tell me where you are getting that translation from?
It just says that her desire will be for her husband.
The Hebrew word is teshuwqah and simply means desire or longing.
1) desire, longing, craving, turning
a) of man for woman
b) of woman for man
c) of beast to devour
Sgs 7:10 I [am] my beloved’s, and his desire [is] toward me.
Same word. Now, since we are not talking about a beast, then the definition would be letter B. Her desire, her longing will be for her husband. It does make sense that she will desire her husband and long for him even (YET) though her pains and suffering in childbirth will be greatly multiplied. She will still desire and long for him in spite of the fact she will suffer in childbirth. This makes perfect sense. Women, in spite of the fact they know that sexual intimacy could very well end up in giving birth and that it is painful and could involve great suffering in many ways, still turn towards their husbands and desire them.
This is what this verse is saying, imho. It fits with the context of the verse and the word “YET” joins the two thoughts together.
Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Same word.
So you have Eve’s longing.
The Beloved’s longing.
Abel’s longing.
July 28, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Corriejo,
That is what I have been taught from the get go concerning that verse (see my above link to a John MacArthur sermon). He says (better than I ever could) what I have been taught. I know it is long, but if you could read the whole sermon, it is very enlightening.
I thought that a proper understanding of that verse may help some to understand the relationship between husband and wife.
July 28, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“It’s much harder to live each day leaning into the Holy Spirit, allowing ourselves to see our sin, and turning to God for grace, acknowledging our need for the Gospel every day.”
THIS is the heart of the matter right here. I’ve always gotten the feeling from legalists (patriocentrists) that they didn’t quite trust the Holy Spirit… too unpredictable.
And it wasnt’ that they didn’t trust themselves to hear Him correctly, because they had no problem trusting they interpretation of Scriptures and facts and “logic”; the more concrete tangilble stuff.
Oooooohh, bring up the Holy Spirit, though, and well… to be honest, you were usually charged with “rebellion” or trying to be “independent/autonomous” because they felt the insinuation that you could hear the Him differently/better than they could, and that was stepping out of the “God-ordained hierarchy”.
July 28, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“I have been taught that it IS our desire to lord it over our husbands…”
Hi Trish,
But, is that what the SCRIPTURE says?
No. Unless you want to take the other time it is mentioned in Song of Songs and make that into the Beloved’s desire to usurp authority?
It simply means longing. A wife will turn to her husband, she will desire him, she will crave him even though the Fall will have made her pain in childbirth to be multiplied and she will bear children in sorrow.
It says that a wife will still, YET desire her husband in spite of her pain in childbirth.
I will tell you that is the truth, is it not?
It is simply a statement of fact. It does NOT say that a woman will desire to usurp her husband’s authority. It connects pain in childbirth with her desire/longing/craving/turning towards her husband with the word YET.
That is the key.
I like John MacArthur but he couldn’t be more wrong on this. He is committing the error of eisegesis. He is reading INto the text what he wants it to say instead of letting the text speak for itself.
You see, this verse is used in that way in order to prop up how people mistranslate other verses in the NT concerning women.
If this plate falls from the air, so will many other plates. So we have to keep this plate spinning by propogating this mistranslation in order to keep all the other plates spinning.
If you read the text for what it is, it doesn’t make sense to insert something that is not there.
July 28, 2007 at 5:19 pm
“[on a side note, love how we pick on the laundry!]”
Come to think of it, it’s probably the perfect chore to pick on given the discussion… we still wouldn’t need clothes and there would be no laundry of it weren’t for the Fall!!!!! =o)
July 28, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Corriejo,
I guess this is an area we will have to differ on. I agree with my husband, MacArthur and my pastor on this one…we women desire to lord it over our husbands. In all humility, I will admit that I do!
This verse has given me great comfort and quietness of spirit when I have asked myself questions like, “Why am I the only one who empties the trash around here?!?”
I say that a little jokingly, but I can get angry and upset at times with my ‘place’ in life, and this verse helps me to see that God knew I would feel that way. He foretold it, I accept it and I empty the trash (or submit to my husband in whatever it is he asks of me).
July 28, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Trish,
“I thought that a proper understanding of that verse may help some to understand the relationship between husband and wife.”
I agree. I think a proper understanding of that verse will help some to understand the relationship between a husband and wife.
The keyword is proper.
Have you considered what I wrote? Does it make sense? Why or why not?
Go to the verse in Song of Songs. Is that an evil desire? All three times the word is used in the OT it is in a positive sense.
You see, the verse in 4:7 is speaking about Abel’s desire to be Cain’s brother will not go away because Cain’s sacrifice was unacceptable. It is NOT speaking about sin’s desire and Clark, Calvin, Gill, JFB, Henry all agree that it is NOT about sin but about Abel’s desire.
God was reassuring Cain that he has no need to be envious because Abel will still desire and long for a brotherly relationship with him.
What did Cain do next? He killed Abel because he was envious.
“Now, the ideal situation, according to 1 Peter 3, is that a woman would manifest a meek and quiet spirit and that she would say to her husband “lord” as Sarah said to Abraham, I submit to you. But that’s not how it is in the world. She wants control. She wants what she wants. Maybe she wants control of the checkbook, the credit card, or whatever.”
So, you agree with MacArthur that a woman’s desire for her husband must be an evil desire? I really can’t believe he said the above. I am taken aback. Gen 3:16 tells us that when a woman desires her husband it is in order to control him and get what she wants? She wants control of the checkbook and credit cards? Or whatever? I am surprised he left out that she wants control of even the remote for the TV!! LOL God forbid that a wife should even appear to have an interest in any of these things for fear she will be accused of trying to control! Where does it say that a man should have control of the checkbook and the credit cards? Is that an evil desire, too? I would think that a healthy relationship has both people making decisions together!
“But there is this desire, this seeking to have one’s own way, to get control. ”
I would posit that this desire to control and have one’s own way is a sin in both men and women!!! No one should seek to get his/her own way and to desire to control another person. No ONE.
“In her sin Eve took the lead. She acted independently. She spurned her husband’s authority. She was going to go out on her own and call her own shot, as it were, act on her own behalf. She took the lead, she led the man into sin, usurping his role, acting independently of him in the temptation, overturning the divine order. She should have submitted to him, sought his counsel, let him be the leader. By taking control she lost it permanently, just as by seeking the delight of the forbidden fruit, she lost delight. She wanted to take the lead and she lost it for good. And the legacy of this is conflict with her husband. That’s what’s being expressed at the end of the verse. And throughout history, frankly, it is true that women have been degraded. That was even true in Jewish society. The Pharisees used to get up every morning and pray, “I thank God that I’m not a Gentile or a woman.”
This is from the sermon. That is not what Eve did. No where does scripture say that Eve spurned Adam’s authority and she want to go out on her own and call her own shots and act independently of Adam. Scripture does NOT say that.
I cannot believe that people can read into scripture things that are just NOT there?
By taking control she lost it permanently? She should have submitted to Adam?
Well, no where do we find Adam telling her not to take the fruit. After all, we ARE told he was right there with her in the garden. But, we were never told that Eve rebelled against her husband! LOL Eve rebelled against God NOT her husband.
I read that sermon and I really don’t know what I can say. He takes great liberties with scripture. He translates the word for “desire” and tells us it means “to control”.
Where in the world does that come from? Again, this word is only used 3 times in the entire bible. Once in Song of Songs. Can you honestly say that that word means to want to conrol in that verse?
Then it is used in Gen. 4:7 where God tells Cain that Abel will still desire him- will still desire a relationship with him.
We know it is NOT talking about sin because NO man will ever be able to rule over sin! That is totally opposite of the Gospel.
It means that Abel will still desire a relationship with Cain and Cain is told that he will rule over Abel. God is telling Cain that even though He accepted Abel’s sacrifice and not Cain’s, that Cain has no reason to be jealous of Abel because nothing will change between the two of them.
Never was Adam told that he was to rule over Eve. In fact, the Bible never tells us once that man is to rule and/or lead women but we keep on teaching others it does tell us that. We have not one verse that tells a man to rule over and lead his wife.
Not one.
July 28, 2007 at 5:49 pm
We Christian’s misquote that “thank God I was not born a woman” prayer.
It was more in reference that the woman’s life is so much more complicated and that the man’s life is easier.
Kind of along the lines of thank goodness I can sit here and not have to think all those things, etc.
How many times as a woman have you said, “Can’t he just see the work needing to be done?”
So the prayer was more like, “Thank Goodness I haven’t been created to see those things.”
Very tongue in cheek. But we like to misuse that quote too!
July 28, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Songbirdy,
Thank you for your thoughts. I enjoyed reading them and the unique way you have of looking at things. It has helped me bring this all into one package. When you brought in the verses about single women vs. married women, it even made what I see in Gen. 3:16 as more concrete.
And, you are right. Why do we pick on laundry!!
Darn Eve! She was naked and had no clothes! If it weren’t for her, we wouldn’t have this laundry! We wouldn’t have dishes or dusting or vacuuming, come to think of it, either. Kind of makes you think about what God intended for the definition of “helpmeet”. It doesn’t seem like chores were attached to that word. It was about her relationship WITH Adam and not what she would DO for Adam.
Also, I like how you brought in Mary and Martha. It is always good to bring in the full counsel of God’s work when we are speaking about these things. The trouble comes when we isolate one verse to the exclusion of other verses.
July 28, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I’m glad you posted that about John MacArthur, Corriejo and others.
He’s got some VERY strong views about female subjection, and takes some serious liberties with Scripture in order to “prove” those views.
He says that men are like the sun, shining with the direct light of God, whereas women are like the moon, shining the reflected glory through man. He teaches that MALES bear the role of ruler in this world, not females. But even a look at the end of Genesis 1 tells me that MacArthur isn’t being faithful to what Scripture actually *says.* In my opinion, John MacArthur has preconcieved ideas about the way the genders should work, and he’s reading them into the Scripture.
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/only-men-shine-with-the-direct-light-of-god-john-macarthur-on-women/
I couldn’t agree more with the discussion on, “your desire will be for him and he will rule over you.” All my life, I was taught that meant we’d want to usurp male authority. I believed it.
But then I actually studied the passage, looked up the words, studied the context.
And it simply doesn’t mean we’ll want to usurp his authority. It’s simply saying, “We’ll WANT him.” If someone wants to add in “meaning, his authority,” that’s fine, but they need to admit that they’re ADDING that in. It simply isn’t in the text.
For me, a good way to know what the passage means is to look at history. I mean, we can look through history and see pain in childbirth, right? We can look through history and see thorns and thistles, and see men working by the sweat of their brow. So the Fall/Curse is pretty easy to see—-it appears to have a very plain meaning that bears out through history. I’d imagine the same would be true for whatever this is between men and women.
And what I see in history is women wanting men, EVEN if it means wearing a burqa over their body…EVEN if it means undergoing female circumcision (if that’s what it takes to get a man)…EVEN if it means subjecting who they are and what they think…EVEN if, EVEN if, EVEN if…
I don’t see female rebellion through history—-I see female submission. That tells me, the most likely interpretion of, “your desire will be for him,” is simply the plain meaning: you will want him, even if it means losing parts of who you are to get him.
And in turn, the other part of the Fall is true: he indeed DOES rule over her and always has. Man looks at woman, in general, and sees someone to be ruled. I don’t think God was saying this was a good thing—nothing about the Fall was good! It just is the way things are, that’s all, in a FALLEN world.
Before the curse, man looked at woman and saw, “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” He looked at her and his first reaction was ONENESS. But *after* the Fall, check out Genesis and notice the first thing we have Adam saying about his wife post-fall . It’s a pronouncment of how she’s DIFFERENT than he is.
Pretty interesting, I think.
July 28, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Thank you Molleth, you did a better history analysis than I!
That is what I was trying to hint at and I know I came off too abrasive and didn’t know how to fix it.
The want is part of the reason I stayed up all night trying to make a gift for my MIL. Yes, to make her happy and in away to show my husband I care for his mother too.
Corriejo…
You had me giggling about Eve… Okay, laughing out loud. My son really wanted to know why I was laughing so hard.
Thank you for your kind words.
July 28, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Corriejo,
I am on vacation and do not have access to any study materials. If I did, I would do a study on the word ‘desire’. It can mean several different things…sexual desire, sinful desire, desire for control. I need to look it up and cannot!!
I would also look at other commentaries on that verse (Gen. 3:16) and see what I glean.
You wrote:
I read that sermon and I really don’t know what I can say. He takes great liberties with scripture. He translates the word for “desire” and tells us it means “to control”.
Where in the world does that come from? Again, this word is only used 3 times in the entire bible. Once in Song of Songs. Can you honestly say that that word means to want to conrol in that verse?
Then it is used in Gen. 4:7 where God tells Cain that Abel will still desire him- will still desire a relationship with him.
……….
Gen. 4:7…speaks to the conflict man will have with sin as it seeks to rule over him. The word desire here is not ‘where God tells Cain that Abel will still desire him’, it is sin crouching at the door “and its desire is for you”…the same as the woman’s desire is for her husband…sin seeks to rule over Cain just as women seek to rule over men.
I will say again though that I do agree with MacArthur and his sermon and do not think he has taken any liberties with scripture. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, and I mine.
July 28, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Corriejo wrote:
Never was Adam told that he was to rule over Eve. In fact, the Bible never tells us once that man is to rule and/or lead women but we keep on teaching others it does tell us that. We have not one verse that tells a man to rule over and lead his wife.
Not one.
……..
Gen. 3:16
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, AND HE WILL RULE OVER YOU.”
July 28, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Trish, Gen 3:16 does NOT tell the MAN to rule over his wife. The Lord was speaking to Eve, descriptively, about what was going to happen. If it were a command for Adam, he would command Adam. He didn’t. Anywhere. Ever.
July 28, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Hi Trish,
God didn’t tell Adam that he was to rule over Eve.
Gen. 3:16 is to the woman.
I don’t have time, right now, to get into this but I will try to make some time later. Maybe someone else who can explain this better than I can hope to will weigh in. I am still in the process of trying to understand this verse in the light of the whole context of scripture.
Can you show me a verse where a command is given to the man to rule over his wife?
I see that God has told that because Eve listened to the serpent she will not have pain in childbirth. Does that mean that a woman who doesn’t have pain (I know of several) or has pain reliever is going against God’s command for Eve to have pain?
Is this a command to Eve or a consequence? I would argue that it is a consequence.
I also think that when God told EVE that her husband will now rule over her, it was a consequence of sin coming into the world just like childbirth.
Now, is it a command? I don’t think so. It is just a statement of fact. Because of sin, Eve will have pain in childbirth and her husband will rule over her.
I don’t think that is the way it has to be. I don’t think a woman who takes pain reliever is rebelling against a command of God for her to have pain, do you?
In the NT we learn what authority looks like. We learn what sinful authority looks like, too. Sinful authority, is the result of the fall. It is the curse of Gen. 3:16. Where man will now not be satisfied with taking dominion over the earth, he will want to take dominion over human beings, especially the physically and economically weaker.
But, Christ showed us what an godly authority looks like. It is servanthood. It is denying one’s self. It is not rulership but a giving up of one’s so-called “rights” in order to serve others.
That is how one is to “rule”. Taking dominion over another person is a perversion of God’s original command to Adam AND Eve. Dominion was to be taken over the earth and the plants and the beasts on the earth.
Trish, I no longer read the Bible through a manmade grid or through another man’s eyes. I know longer feel it necessary to have to remold bible verses to make them fit into my pet doctrines. I am free to read the Bible and allow IT to speak to me and to allow IT to interpret itself.
If you do not believe that pain in child birth is a command, then the other is certainly not a command. These are both consequences and the NT tells us what true authority looks like.
July 28, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“I see that God has told that because Eve listened to the serpent she will not have pain in childbirth.”
Just so I am not accused of being a heretic! The word should be “now” not “NOT”.
July 28, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Hi Trish,
I hope you are having a wonderful vacation. Someday……..:-)
“I am on vacation and do not have access to any study materials. If I did, I would do a study on the word ‘desire’. It can mean several different things…sexual desire, sinful desire, desire for control. I need to look it up and cannot!!”
Why do you say this? Doesn’t the context determine the intent of the word?
I gave you the only three times that the word is used.
What gives you the thought that Gen. 3:16 is speaking about a desire TO CONTROL when it only says that she will have desire?
Have you thought about what I said about the “YET” linking her desire for her husband back to childbirth? It is a GOOD desire. It is not an evil desire. A woman will still desire her husband even though (YET) it will cause her to have pain and suffering in bearing and raising children.
For anyone to say that this verse is speaking about a desire to control is to read their own bias into the text because they want it to say that.
What does the word mean? It means “desire, longing, turning to”. It does NOT mean control nor does it imply control.
July 28, 2007 at 7:04 pm
A few minutes ago I told my son to pick up his socks off the playroom floor. When you command someone to do something, you speak to them directly. If I had said to his sister, “Benjamin is going to pick up his socks from the playroom floor,” is that a command for Benjamin to obey? No, it is not. It is merely an observation or a prediction.
July 28, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Ladies,
This morning as I searched through the Scriptures concernig what I have read here, I came upon Genesis 3:16. I wrote about my finding in my first post, asking your thoughts. I thought that verse and its meaning would help others here to more clearly see our roles as husband and wife as defined by God.
When disagreed with on the meaning of the verse, being on vacation, I searched a web-site of a prominent teacher of the Bible that I trust, Dr. MacArthur, for his explanation of the verse. I copied that here, and again it was disagreed with.
I have already searched the Word, and having studied this verse before, have given you my interpretation (first I might add) and then John MacArthur’s. My resources here are limited to the web, so I have now searched through the teachings of another man I highly regard and trust to rightly divide the Word of God, John Piper. He states:
Let’s look at Genesis 3:16. Adam and Eve have both sinned against God. They have distrusted his goodness and turned away from him to depend on their own wisdom for how to be happy. So they rejected his word and they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God calls them to account and now describes to them what the curse will be on human life because of sin. In Genesis 3:16 God says to the woman, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, and your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
The Nature of the Ruined Relationship After Sin
This is a description of the curse. It is a description of misery, not a model for marriage. This is the way it’s going to be in history where sin has the upper hand. But what is really being said here? What is the nature of this ruined relationship after sin?
The Key Parallel in Genesis 4:7
The key comes from recognizing the connection between the last words of this verse (3:16b) and the last words of Genesis 4:7. Here God is warning Cain about his resentment and anger against Abel. God tells him that sin is about to get the upper hand in his life. Notice at the end of the verse 7: “Sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it [literally: you shall rule over it].”
The parallel here between 3:16 and 4:7 is amazingly close. The words are virtually the same in Hebrew, but you can see this in the English as well. In 3:16 God says to the woman, “Your desire is for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” In 4:7 God says to Cain, “Sin’s desire is for you, and you shall rule over it.”
Now the reason this is important to see is that it shows us more clearly what is meant by “desire.” When 4:7 says that sin is crouching at the door of Cain’s heart (like a lion, Genesis 49:9) and that its desire is for him, it means that sin wants to overpower him. It wants to defeat him and subdue him and make him the slave of sin.
Now when we go back to 3:16, we should probably see the same meaning in the sinful desire of woman. When it says, “Your desire shall be for your husband,” it means that when sin has the upper hand in woman, she will desire to overpower or subdue or exploit man. And when sin has the upper hand in man, he will respond in like manner and with his strength subdue her, or rule over her.
………
The sermon in its entirety can be found here (again, a very good sermon to read): http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/12/680_Manhood_and_Womanhood_Conflict_and_Confusion_After_the_Fall/
Both men are in agreement with what I have been taught concerning Gen. 3:16.
July 28, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Another wonderful sermon from Piper that addresses these issues: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByTopic/49/683_Husbands_Who_Love_Like_Christ_and_the_Wives_Who_Submit_to_Them/
It has stopped raining, so we are off to the boat!!
July 28, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Trish,
I simply cannot get all of that out of Genesis 3:16, especially how it is set up. When it tells the woman that she will have pain in childbirth, YET her desire will be for her husband, I don’t see it saying that when sin has the upper hand in a woman she will desire to exploit and subdue her husband.
But, I do see that we agree about the last part of this verse.
“And when sin has the upper hand in man, he will respond in like manner and with his strength subdue her, or rule over her.”
So, you are agreeing that this is not a command to the man but a statement of fact as to the consequences of sin? It is not a good thing, then, that God said that “and he will rule over you”.
Concerning what is meant in Gen. 4:7, many commentaries say that this verse is referring back to Abel because it used the pronoun for “he” and “his”. Sin is usually marked with a feminine pronoun. In this case, this verse uses male pronouns and there are learned people who believe that this means it is referring back to Abel and his relationship with Cain. Cain was the older, he had the birthright (premogeniture) and God was telling him that just because Abel, the younger, pleased God with his sacrifice, it does not change their relationship. Abel will still want to be his brother and Cain still retains the birthright. KJV still translates it “his” where others translates it “it”. Either way, I don’t see how this has bearing on Gen. 3:16 any more than the verse in Songs has on Gen. 3:16. It means “desire, longing”. When we start qualifying that long and desire as sinful then we are reading INTO the text.
The bible simply says that she will still/yet desire her husband even though childbirth will now be painful. Just like the Beloved’s desire is not a sinful desire to control, neither is her desire. Gen. 4:7 gives us the context. If it is speaking of sin, then sin is evil and from the devil. Gen 3:16 is speaking about women not sin.
Geneva, Pool, JFB, Calvin, Clarke, Wesley and Gill all teach this. These are no slouches when it comes to complementarian beliefs, either. I don’t see the connection between Gen. 4:7.
If it is referring to sin, then what does that have to do with woman? Sin desires to have its way with us but we must master it. Okay.
So, are you saying that women are like sin who have an evil desire for their husbands but the husbands must master their wives?
July 28, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Trish and Corrie, I would like to take a minute anc compliment you both on your well-mannered discussion, even in the midst of disagreement. It is refreshing to read two articulate presentations on this issue without allowing emotion or frustration to cloud the discussion.
I know many of us are searching for Truth on this issue. While neither of you may convince the other to your position, your thoughts are helping me and many others sort out our own thoughts.
July 28, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I think that the more I look at Gen. 3:16 and Gen 4:7 side by side the more I see of its context and how that affects its meaning.
If Gen. 4:7 is about sin (let us just say it is), then the verse tells us that sin is crouching by the door and is waiting to attack Cain. A crouching animal is one that is ready to attack. So, Sin is waiting to attack Cain but God tells Cain that he must subdue it.
I have no problem with that.
Now, the context of Gen. 3:16 is that Eve is being told by God that she will now, because of her sin, bear children with intense pain and suffering YET her desire will still be for her husband.
God told her that in spite of the pain and suffering that results from getting pregnant, she will still desire her children.
There is NOTHING in that context that says that Eve is crouching at her husband’s door. There is nothing, iow, to imply that Eve is wanting to attack her husband.
Context is King. The context of these two verses are totally different. Gen. 4:7 gives us one context while Gen. 3:16 gives us a different one.
And the one other place that is curiously left out of all these articles that this word is found is SOS 7:10:
10 ¶ Young Woman: “I am my lover’s, the one he desires.
Since we are told by some that the word “desire” means a desire to control and exploit, is that what we are to take away from this verse, too? Why don’t we read into that same meaning into this word? Why would we do it in Gen 3:16?
I think the answer is because it fits with the rest of what we want scripture to say.
Gen. 3:16 tells us of a desire of a wife for her husband. It is a good desire.
Gen 4:7 tells us (if we go with it being sin) about sin’s evil desire. Sin, here is personified. Sin, like the devil, is a crouching predatorial animal on the prowl seeking to devour us. We can hardly lay this over Gen. 3:16 and say that this has anything to do with that verse.
SOS 7:10 tells us about the same desire we find in Gen. 3:16, a desire between husband and wife
July 28, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Trish,
respectfully… I completely don’t read that there and I’ve read your links and taken the time to read the passages in their entirety in every translation of the Bible I posses and I looked at my class notes on Biblical History that I’ve taken on this subject while in University…
And I disagree with you. Completely. I think there are definitely truths in what they say but I do not find that the use of desire in this situation is translated into “rule” over the husband.
Now… that being said… I think the sinful nature of every human being is to seek their will over others. That every individual seeks, to a degree and some more than others, to impose their wills over their surroundings both the animate and inanimate objects.
To me this stems out of the original command God gave us to be fruitful and subdue… However sin has then affected that Godly mandate in every single human and we often mis-interpret it as a desire to make people conform to OUR will not God’s will.
The issue I have is that the way these sermons read is that they are too narrow in scope by leaving out the other half of God’s creation.
That, and as I said, the semantics and hermeneutics of the church of the ages has shown the interpretation of the word desire here not to mean what they are saying.
I guess then you can say my other big issue is that when you look at the church historic, the interpretations presented at the links you have provided do not coincide with the general understanding.
I don’t say that is reason enough to say, lets just forget their article, but I feel then it causes us to be extra careful in accepting a preaching that is different.
I’d like to stress that there is a need to appreciate the power of the Church Universal. I’d love to say that my denomination and its practises are the one true church, but that would be egotistical to say the least.
This afternoon, in my quest to study these passages, I have found myself looking carefully at teachings put forth on these topics by churches from many different backgrounds and denominations. It has been enjoyable. And I have really enjoyed the ‘conversation’ with you on this topic.
I pray that you are able to enjoy your vacation. That this isn’t bringing you anger. I do not want to cause that reaction in you. I believe that if I am causing you anger you need to tell me and I’ll stop.
To me, causing you anger over a subject like the ‘emphases’ of a word or such is contrary to our call to fellowship. If we are both growing and learning, fine that is good.
This is one reason I left off these kinds of studies in University. We were all so passionate and too unwilling to admit we might not be right.
I can tell you, my husband and I have some very strong disagreements of doctrine and can live peaceably side by side.
In response to Light, perhaps this is one of the biggest examples I can give of where I ‘submit’ to my husband. I personally believe that the Bible doesn’t forbid women from serving their church fellowship in the role of Deaconess. I do believe the Bible states that women are not to have the role of Elder or Pastor. My Jewish friends have been pivotal in my ‘fine’ tuning on this subject.
Anyways. In our quest to find a church family, there have been many churches I have been happy in and would have served in willingly. However, my husband was not.
In situations like this, I form my ‘reason’ for being submissive along this passage:
[note: this was not specifically directed to either the male or female gender]
Romans 14 as a whole but in specific starting at 17:
“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righeousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by what they approve. But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”
quoted verses: 17 – 23.
Now I just pulled out one passage, but it is Paul’s answer to those who said, “what do we do about those who think eating idol meat is sinning?”
I have been taught that even though ‘eating idol meat’ wasn’t against scripture preaching the people asking the question were to not cause those who couldn’t see that to sin by forcing them to eat the meat.
So that is my motivation and the reason why we picked a church in which women are prevented from serving as Deaconesses. I did not cause my husband’s to feel like he is sinning because of his belief on this matter.
Likewise, I would never call for those who follow Patriocentric beliefs to be cast aside from my church. I think then it becomes an issue of me respecting their faith and saying, while I think you are wrong I will let this be. And likewise I would expect the same consideration.
Now, the only time I would not be tolerant is if they, of the opposite belief, started targeting my children. But that is an issue for another day!
It seems I am a bit more able to define my understanding of submission this afternoon. On a continum, I would place God over everything. Then I would place my husband’s faith needs over mine, trusting that he would place mine over his if push came to shove…
The difference being that while he has the role of Christ to the church, he is not Christ. Therefore, as much as I love my husband, he is a fallible human and prone to sin as much as I.
It is my understanding then, that God can work through us as a Husband and Wife unit to the greatest glory!
So its not that I am subject in the minute details, but in the spiritual details.
Mind you, if I choose to keep my house to his standards I could be a very lazy bum.
July 28, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Incidentally… I consulted a John Calvin Commentary… I just realized you said Calvin too.
Mind you, I had two undergraduate courses on Calvin and found him a most difficult to understand theologian. I much prefered reading Martin Luther!
July 28, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Songbirdy, that was some good stuff. Thanks.
July 28, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Trish, while I certainly agree that Piper and MacArthur are men who seem to love God with all their hearts, that does not necessarily mean they are infallible.
Both of those men have a strong commitment to female subjection. The CBMW group (that Piper and Grudem help lead) has articles that teach that the original sin wasn’t actually Eve eating the fruit, but was Eve not asking her husband’s permission first! If memory serves me correct, MacArthur believes the same thing.
So they share that they believe the very first sin was a woman not operating under male authority—-even though this is not supported by Scripture. Now, I would agree that their opinion MAY be a possibility, yes. But it is NOT a fact. It is their interpretation, without an actual statement in the Bible stating it as a fact. However, I think their interpretation of the fact definitely clouds their judgement.
Piper believes that what makes a woman feminine is that she affirms male leadership over her, and what makes a man actually masculine is that he takes leadership over women. To Piper, rule and subjection form the basis for who we are as men and women.
Again, he *may* be right in his views, however I think it’s fair to say that it’s ONE possible *interpretation.* We cannot say he *is* right—only that he *might* be right. His view cannot be stated to be a fact, because we do not have that “fact* recorded in Scripture like that.
Nowhere in the original creation account do we have masculinity and femininity defined the way Piper defines them. Yet Piper wrote a book, stating his views to be “Biblical,” teaching that his interpretation of gender is *the* godly view.
So, yes, MacArther and Piper are leaders to respect, but I think when it comes to gender, both have preconcieved ideas about gender and then filter the Scriptures through them.
If they would teach their views as “one possible view”—even saying they feel it to be the *most* probable view—I would respect them so much more! However, it really bothers me that they teach such strong views AS FACT, yet without having firm Biblical foundations for them.
July 28, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Just wanted to back up the “original sin” statements above. AGain, perhaps this was the first original sin…( I don’t think so, but I”m willing to say it MIGHT have been ). I just WISH these teachers would admit that their position is an OPINION, is their INTERPRETATION—-NOT an actual Biblical fact.
Some quotes:
_____________________
Touchstone Magazine contributor and friend of CBMW, scholar Folke T. Olofsson quotes another subordinationalist as he writes,
‘Original sin is understood as “the woman taking over authority from the man, and the man saying and doing nothing to stop it.”’ (Michael Harper, Equal and Different, London, 1994).8
And Old Testament scholar Ray Ortlund Jr. seems to concur, teaching,
‘Satan struck at Adam’s headship. His words had the effect of inviting Eve to assume primary responsibiltiy a the moment of temptation… Eve usurped Adam’s headship and led the way into sin.’ 10
_______________________
These people essentially teach that original sin was a woman acting without male permission. Is it any wonder they believe that “desire” means she’ll want to control him?
They have an already established belief that the first sin was a female not being subjected to a male, so of course they’re going to read “rule/subjection/control” into everything else. Shoot, Piper reads it into the very thing that makes us masculine and feminine!
So it’s not an odd thing that they would assume that “desire” in Gen. 3:16 means “desire to control.” They see maleness and femaleness itself as a battle for control. To them, the ungodly female seeks to control men, whereas the godly female lets herself be controlled by men.
Unfortunately, all they’re doing is proving what God told us would happen to the way men tend to view women after the Fall—”and he will rule over you.”
July 28, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Thought I’d add that the idea (that the first sin was a woman acting without getting male permissino first) has been around for a while. That doesn’t make it godly. Just a sad fact.
______________________
God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex [women] and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God.
It was you who coaxed your way around him who the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: man! Because of the death you merited, the Son of God had to die.
—Tertullian
________________
My, doesn’t that make one delighted to be female? According to fairly typical church teaching, the devil didn’t have the power to attack Adam (because males are stronger, smarter, better), but Eve, acting on her own instead of being in subjection to that wise husband of hers, was then able to *coax* Adam into disobedience and thus the entire Fall of man rests on her shoulders, as does the death of Christ.
If Eve had submitted to her smarter/stronger superior instead of usurping his rule, mankind would be in Eden to this day. The real sin in Eden wasn’t disobeying God’s command about the forbidden fruit, but was female disregard for male authority.
It is easy to say, “Well, that’s what they thought WaaaaaaaY back then. We don’t think like that anymore.”
Oh no?
PIPER and Grudem’s complementarian handbook teaches essentially the same thing!!!
A quote:
______
Eve usurped Adam’s headship and led the way into sin. …Her calling was to help Adam as the second-in-command in world rulership. If the roles had been reversed, if Eve had been created first and then Adam as her helper, the Serpent would doubtless have approached Adam. So Eve was not morally weaker than Adam. But Satan struck at Adam’s headship. His words had the effect of inviting Eve to assume primary responsibiltiy at the moment of temptation: “You decide, Eve. You lead the way. Wouldn’t you rather be excercising headship?
(found on pp 107-108 of my 1991 copy)
______________________
See? Original sin isn’t that Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command. Oh no. Original sin is when a woman made a decision without first getting male permission.
And this is taught to be…Biblical?
July 28, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Here’s some John MacArthur on women and on what happened with Adam and Eve (and original sin). It’s really not all that different from Turtillian.
__________________________
“In the order of the church, women don’t teach, women don’t preach. They sit and listen and learn. That’s not something new. That’s because Adam was first created then Eve, and it was not Adam who was deceived but the woman “being quite deceived fell into transgression.” Both because of (are you ready for this?) created order, and because of vulnerability.
“A woman is not in the place of authority. She needs to be under the protection of her husband, lest she be deceived. That is God’s design originally in creating Adam first, and Eve to be his helper. …
“The conclusion is, she is as Peter said, “the weaker vessel.” She needs covering and protection; she led the race into sin when she abandoned that covering and protection, stepped out from under her husband’s authority, acted independently, led the whole race into sin.”
–God’s Pattern for a Wife
John MacArthur
July 28, 2007 at 10:53 pm
It’s funny how the patriarchal camp likes to think they are amazingly Biblical, a direct constrast to the evil feminism of the modern and postmodern world. However, actually, patriarchy is simply the way the world has always been.
________________________
“The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.”
[Aristotle (384-322 BC)
“Women….are only children of a larger growth.”
[Lord Chesterfield—1748 in a letter to his son---pg 781 “Quotationary”]
“Al the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man.”
[Plato, The Republic, 5.455]
They form the sexus sequior—the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first; their infirmities should be treated with consideration; but to show them great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes.
Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860,
“Studies in Pessimism: On Women,” Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer, tr. T. Baily Saunders, 1851
The man should be strong and active; the woman should be weak and passive; the one must have both the power and the will; it is enough that the other should offer little resistance.
Rousseau (1712-1778). Emile; or Treeatise on Education, 5, 1762, tr. Barbara Foxely, 1911
___________________________
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Church faught against this! But instead, we have an ample abundance of similar quotes, far more than I could ever fill up this comment box with. Here’s just a few samples:
___________________________
“The woman herself alone is not the image of God: whereas the man alone is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman is joined with Him.
—-Augustine on the Trinity 7.7.10 (as quoted in page 476, Discovering Biblical Equality)
“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of women comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition or even from some external influence.
—-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.92.1
I do not accept a woman’s going out to evangelise. I never saw a woman meddle in teaching and church matters, but she brought mischief upon herself and everyone else. If she sits down with a company before her to teach them, she has got out of her place altogether…
—-John Nelson Darby Notes of Readings in 1 Corinthians in Collected Writings, vol.26, p.255
“For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says, even if she says admirable thigns or even saintly things; that is of little consequence since they come from the mouth of a woman.”
—Origen
July 28, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Can you tell I got into my notes today, when I was researching the Biblical view of men and women? LOL… Sorry to bombard with all these quotes!
Just a few more. I wrote this about Genesis 3:16.
_______________________
The complementarian makes much of “your desire will be for your husband,” asserting that it refers to woman’s continual rebellion of what they call God’s established order, yet seems to quickly sweep past, “and he shall rule over you.”
Honestly, the complementarian has a presupposition: that man was made to rule women, that female subjection is inherant design, therefore they are forced to limit the conclusions that one might draw from Genesis 3:16.
Note CBMW’s assertion that there are only two possible conclusions for what “rule” might mean in Genesis 3:16:
_____________
“The ambiguous element in the equation is the interpretation of the words translated in the NIV, “and he will rule over you.” We could draw one of two conclusions. First, God may be saying, “You will have a desire, Eve. You will want to control your husband. But he must not allow you to have your way with him. He must rule over you.
“If this is the exense, then God is rendering the man to act as the head God made him to be, rather than knuckle under to ungodly pressure from his wife…
“Second, God may be saying, “You will have a desire, Eve. You will want to control your husband. But he will not allow you to have your way with him. He will rule over you.”
If this is the true sense, then, in giving the woman up to her insubordinate desire, God is penalizing her with domination by her husband…
—Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, pg. 109
___________________________
Whichever of the two one prefers, there’s no doubt that either way, a wife’s desire to remove herself from male rule is “ungodly,” “wanting to control,” and an “insubordinate desire.”
Let me be the first to add that when it comes to men and women, I DO think the Fall caused a good thing (a unified relationship) to go South. But as for only two possible conclusions to be drawn from Genesis 1:16? Not hardly. Can’t we look at the text for all it’s possible meanings, instead of through eyes that have already determined what the outcome must be?
July 28, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Btw, in the last two paragraphs of my last comment, when I wrote:
“Whichever of the two one prefers, there’s no doubt that either way, a wife’s desire to remove herself from male rule is “ungodly,” “wanting to control,” and an “insubordinate desire.” ”
I meant to say that’s what the *complementarian* camp teaches, NOT what I actually think.
The complementarians have it so set up that a woman not wanting to be ruled by males is ungodly and rebellious. This effectively halts any productive or inquisitive discussion about whether or not male rule (or to what extent male rule) is actually Biblical, because in questioning male rule at all, you put yourself in the camp of being an ungodly female.
Trying to discuss this issue, then, even if all you’re trying to do is dig into the Scriptures about it, can be very frustrating in a climate like that.
July 28, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Songbirdy said to me earlier: “hmm, we’ve got a misunderstanding here. I’ve got to think of exactly how I want to say it to avoid this conclusion.
To me as a wife… if my husband and I are butting heads… then I submit like the church does to Christ.
But then I expect my husband to act sacrificially like Christ did to the church too.”
Me: So Songbirdy, would you say that submitting and sacrificial loving can look pretty much alike? I sure think they do! Awhile back, I listed a bunch of scenarios on a patriarchalist’s blog asking people if they were examples of submission or sacrificial loving. It really was kind of funny to watch the gyrations people went through, because I didn’t list the genders of the people involved. Most of them pretty much couldn’t or wouldn’t answer. One person did come out and say you’d have to know their gender to know which was which.
The thing is, in both submitting and in sacrificial loving, we’re putting the other person first. I think they overlap considerably and in some cases could even be synonymous.
Songbirdy: “How this works out in life is very individual. In my case, I pray that because I am acting as the Bible states, in the manner of the church to Christ, that my husband would then respect my desire to fulfil my role and he will choose right given my desires too.
Now if he desires me to sin, I am then directly responsible to God.”
Me: Okay, I’m reading between the lines here, but I am guessing that you believe your husband has some kind of authority over you that is not reciprocal. Do I have that right?
Songbirdy said: “I believe scripture mandates a very co-dependant relationship between the husband and wife. A call to unity. But you can’t have unity if the parts are running in two directions.”
Me: I think we are 100% in agreement here!
From your earlier post, though where you said this: “But God was aware of our sinful nature, and has then put in place that if there is discord the wife should bide by her husbands choice.” … well, it sounds to me like the ole’ “the husband gets the final say” that I’ve heard so often. Are you saying that the focus is more on the wife voluntarily yielding in such a case vs him having the god-given (literally) “right” to the final say?
July 29, 2007 at 1:06 am
Songbirdy said: I pray that you are able to enjoy your vacation. That this isn’t bringing you anger. I do not want to cause that reaction in you. I believe that if I am causing you anger you need to tell me and I’ll stop.
To me, causing you anger over a subject like the ‘emphases’ of a word or such is contrary to our call to fellowship. If we are both growing and learning, fine that is good.
No anger here! ~smile~ Just tired from boating and swimming!!
………
Molleth wrote (quoting MacArthur):
“In the order of the church, women don’t teach, women don’t preach. They sit and listen and learn. That’s not something new. That’s because Adam was first created then Eve, and it was not Adam who was deceived but the woman “being quite deceived fell into transgression.” Both because of (are you ready for this?) created order, and because of vulnerability.
“A woman is not in the place of authority. She needs to be under the protection of her husband, lest she be deceived. That is God’s design originally in creating Adam first, and Eve to be his helper. …
“The conclusion is, she is as Peter said, “the weaker vessel.” She needs covering and protection; she led the race into sin when she abandoned that covering and protection, stepped out from under her husband’s authority, acted independently, led the whole race into sin.”
–God’s Pattern for a Wife
John MacArthur
Molleth, I agree with everything he says here.
…………
I have just skimmed all of this ladies. I am tired and have to bathe dirty children. I may comment more tomorrow, but it being Sunday, I may not!!
I am not upset or angry with anyone’s comments. I have great peace with where I am in all of this, as I am sure you all do.
Good night Sisters!
Trish
July 29, 2007 at 1:16 am
Light… (since your reply is closest)…
I think at this point I don’t really have a final definitive answer. In a way, yes I do think that the Bible does suggest certain situations where the husband has the last word. Not because we were created that way, but because we live in a sinful world.
We were created whole and equal in different ways. A man is not a woman, and a woman not a man. In God’s eyes they are equal.
But then when you look at the New Testament there are passages where I find that there is the suggestion that there are times where the wife is to respect her husbands choice in times of discord when it follows God’s will for our lives. To me, those texts stem from the imperfect and sinful situation in which we find ourselves.
I’m going to do some more reading and studying. I am simply loving how much this site is feeding my desire for the Word!
Molleth…
Interesting that those definitions make little of the Original Sin?
To me I am full of sarcasm reading those statements. Essentially THE original sin is one committed to a man.
How nice that God would find that sufficient reason to kick us out of His perfect Creation.
Here I was thinking the emphasis should be on the fact that the Original Sin was committed against God, not man. Eve disobeyed God, BEFORE she tempted her husband.
What is more important, that Adam, a man, allowed himself to be tricked by a woman or that he ignored a DIRECT command from God not to eat fruit of the tree of good and evil?
Sorry, I’ll contain myself!
July 29, 2007 at 1:43 am
Heresy alert!
“God told her that in spite of the pain and suffering that results from getting pregnant, she will still desire her children.”
Change children to husband.
July 29, 2007 at 1:55 am
“It was you who coaxed your way around him who the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: man! Because of the death you merited, the Son of God had to die.
—Tertullian”
Molleth,
Well, I certainly do feel honored to be a female after reading that!
Funny thing that Tertullian didn’t mention is that Jesus Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world.
The Son of God was in the plan BEFORE Adam and Eve were created. Jesus coming to this earth to die for our sins was not Plan B. It WAS Plan A.
Woman shattered the image of God- man? I thought that Eve was created in God’s image, too? Maybe like Debi Pearl teaches and others women are just muted images where men are full images?
And Eve coaxed her way around Adam? LOL!! So Adam did protest but Eve used her feminine wiles on him to coax her way around him to get to the Devil? I wonder what verse he gets that from? And how does he know that the Devil didn’t have the force to attack Adam?
July 29, 2007 at 4:54 am
Songbirdy, yes, I agree, except for this statement you made:
“Eve disobeyed God, BEFORE she tempted her husband.”
The idea that Eve tempted Adam is something that we add to Scripture, because it’s not something Scripture says.
Yes, though, I do think it AWFUL INTERESTING that the original sin, according to many subordinationalists, is taught to be a woman making a decision without male permission, instead of the orginal sin being that humans chose to trust Satan’s words over God’s. Yeesh!
Corrie,
Yes, it’s like what Debi says—John MacArthur teaches it too, that men are the full image bearers when it comes to authority, whereas women are not.
Patriarchy makes PERFECT sense if that is indeed true. The conclusion I ended up coming to, in fact, was that if women were indeed inferior image bearers, then it would make PERFECT sense for (benevolent) male rule to be God’s ideal plan. Females, if they are inferior image bearers, would obviously NEED benevolent male rule—it would be a good system for EVERYBODY involved.
And patriarchy does indeed teach that women are inferior image bearers, as do most complementarian teachers. It won’t take you long on any pro-patriarchy site, especially those written by women, to read about how we women are easily decieved (compared to men, who aren’t), overly emotional, needing the protective oversight that only our male superior can provide (else left on our own, who knows what kind of mess we’d be in).
If we, as women, are inferior image bearers, then I want to be a part of patriarchy, and a part of spreading it—because it truly would be a system from God that would benefit both men and women.
As a woman in patriarchy, I truly believed that I was an inferior image bearer (though I didn’t put it that way, and I would have jumped up and down declaring I believed men and women were equal—but that meant equal in “worth” to God, equal in the ability to be saved, NOT equal image bearers). But patriarchy really DOES teach that women are inferior image bearers…it just likes to use terminology that makes it all seem a lot smoother—-you know, the men’s leadership “protects” the women (not “controls” them), etc…
So it really comes down to that. Are women inferior image bearers?
If they are inferior, then patriarchy really makes a lot of sense. If they are not, then we can assume that patriarchy may be more a product of the Fall than anything else, even when its practiced by Christians.
July 29, 2007 at 5:26 am
Molleth,
Thank you for making that distinction. The scripture did not say that Eve tempted her husband. From what I can tell, he was with her and she handed him the fruit and he ate. He sinned with his eyes wide open. Doesn’t sound like a big temptation there at all.
If handing Adam the forbidden fruit is all it takes to tempt him then he was NOT the stronger one. Maybe that is why Satan went after the woman, first, because she was a harder sell? Because, if that is all it took- just a giving over of the forbidden piece of fruit and that was “tempting” to Adam, then I can see why Satan took on the woman first. Satan toppled the stronger one because he knew the weaker one, the one that was so easily tempted and could be tempted without hardly any provocation, would be easy. But, if Satan would have done it in reverse, he may have thought that it wasn’t a sure thing that he could get Eve to sin. So, he did the sure thing and convinced the harder sell and the rest was a piece of cake.
I think this is just as plausible as any other interjection of ideas into scripture?
It is interesting for me to note that when God called them on their behavior, Eve took a stand against Satan and pointed him out as being the tempter. That put emnity between her and her seed and Satan. Adam blamed Eve for his part in it and that act put enmity between him and Eve.
Since the NT already tells us that Eve was much deceived (it doesn’t say that all women are more easily deceived any more than it says that all men more easily sin in a willful manner), she was pointing out fact, not trying to pass the buck. She WAS deceived. Now, Satan has her number since she is the reason why he now has to slither on the ground and eat dust and is cursed above all the other animals.
Adam then basically blames God, which is not confirmed in the NT. Adam willfully sinned. That is what the NT says. He was not deceived and no where do we see that Eve tempted Adam. He ate because he wanted to even though he knew it was wrong. Isn’t that the definition of willful sin?
There is so much that is added to scripture that I think we have lost the true meaning of a lot of it. When I just read the plain word of God, I am not able to interject these made-up things into the middle of some verse.
It would be better to go with the plain meaning of the scripture so we can get as close to doing it “right” as possible.
BTW, I do not think that Eve was the stronger one. That was totally tongue in cheek. I also don’t think Adam was the stronger one. Yes, physically stronger. Spiritually, no.
July 31, 2007 at 3:29 am
Here is a quote from an ancient Christian. I thought it was good because I said something quite similar only tongue in cheek. Here was Iranaeus saying the same thing but being quite serious.
“Why also did it not prefer to make its attack upon the man instead of the woman? And if thou sayest that it attacked her as being the weaker of the two, [I reply that], on the contrary, she was the stronger, since she appears to have been the helper of the man in the transgression of the commandment. For she did by herself alone resist the serpent, and it was after holding out for a while and making opposition that she ate of the tree, being circumvented by craft; whereas Adam, making no fight whatever, nor refusal, partook of the fruit handed to him by the woman, which is an indication of the utmost imbecility and effeminacy of mind. And the woman indeed, having been vanquished in the contest by a demon, is deserving of pardon; but Adam shall deserve none, for he was worsted by a woman,-he who, in his own person, had received the command from God.”
-St. Irenaeus (Asia Minor, Gaul; ca. 140 – 203 AD)
July 31, 2007 at 4:08 am
Wow, that is quite the quote!!! Thanks Corrie!
I had never heard anyone look at it like that before… a lot of insight!
July 31, 2007 at 2:00 pm
So Light,
Last night I sat down and just using the simple topic index in the back of my bible looked up all the texts mentioning husband, wife, marriage, or family in the New Testament. I choose to stay with the New Testament because we are not bound by the laws of the Old Testament.
Yes, I think there is Biblical support to a wife’s submission to her husband. And my interpretation of that text.
Essentially the two texts are the ones in Ephesians and 1 Peter.
Now I am not a student of ancient languages, but the one study text I used (I used the TNIV, the Study NIV, the Living Translation, and the NKJV) mentioned that in Ephesians, the word used for submission is the same word used earlier in that passage for submission to the Government. And says that the word meaning ‘obey’ is not used in reference to wife at all in the New Testament. However, in that same passage the word meaning ‘obey’ is used in front of Children and Slaves… Children obey your parents, and Slaves obey your masters.
And the comments made note that in the 1 Peter text the word submission is used in a way that is also used towards government and suggests that the submission is more to have an orderly household/family life, than it is a Dictatorship.
Both passages say that the Husbands are to reciprocate, and that the wife’s actions are out of worship to God and an act of faith. Insinuating that in the situation where the husband is acting contrary to God’s commands the wife is to simply follow God’s commands and instructions first.
In the 1 Peter passage the word ‘weaker’ is used in front of woman, and it is the one meaning ‘physical weakness.’
So… there you go. That’s what I came up with. I know I really struggled with this early on in our marriage (nearly 10 years now
), and have done some definite damage. But I know my husband also struggles with this issue to, as we as a society have so perverted and mixed up things that we can’t easily understand how the mutual relationship should work. I know we still spend too much time on the “well, I did this and therefore don’t have to do that” issue.
Compounded by the fact that last year my husband worked over 740 hours of overtime and received notice this past June that he has exceeded those hours already.
I’ve tried to ask him his opinions on this debate and he read my one essay and then promptly said it was interesting and walked away. So I can’t tell you what his thoughts are right now!
Anyhow… I’ve got an errand to run!
July 31, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Songbirdy,
Where I kind of struggle is when I started looking into the culture behind the passage. Discovering that patriarchy was THE way of life, no more to be questioned than slavery was, made me take another look at Ephesians and 1 Peter.
For example, were those instructions given to women because male-rule is God’s way, or were those instructions given to women because male-rule was the way *their* world worked? When I went to the Scriptures to see if they supported the second question, something I’d never even considered an option before, I found that the Scriptures supported the second view.
So that’s sort of where I”m at…I can see a case made, Biblically, for both positions. *shrugs*
But probably most important to me, I think it’s imperative that we understand that the cultures being written to were HIGHLY patriarchal.
No one ever talked about that when I was growing up, and I certainly never learned about it in Bible College either. We were just taught that the “women verses” meant exactly what they said—a command for all time and all places.
But is it possible that Paul and Peter were writing to people who lived in REAL TIME…who were living in a culture where patriarchy was an unquestioned norm…who were living in a culture where just being a Christian meant you were going to die once you got caught? Wouldn’t these things be important when it comes to accurately understanding the passages?
Warmly,
Molly
July 31, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Submission is a subject that we think gets complicated because it’s not a popular subject culturally. But I’m beginning to think that Biblically it’s not SUPPOSED to be so cut and dry, black and white; at least not nearly so much as many conservative Christian’s and especially the Pearls, etc. would have us believe.
For instance, I’ve learned recently that I was “submitting” in areas that were not Biblical, that were actually contributing to ongoing issues on my marriage. If any of you have ever read any of the Boundaries books by Henry Cloud and John Townsend, you’ll know what I am talking about. God used some of their material to IMMENSELY improve MANY areas of our relationship. It is an anecdote to the “women completely submit” Christian teaching that is desperately needed. It’s not thoroughly liberal or pop psychology, but gives practical examples of “one anothering” in the ways we truly need it. I highly recommend it.
So while I’ve seen how what so many of us think to be ‘submission’ is actually taking steps backwards, I have also experienced the beauty of “mutual submission”.
My husband is the best at asking my opinion in much of the decision making, something I greatly appreciate in him. However, most of the time, the reply he gets is a variation of “Whatever you think’s best, love.” I’m pretty easy-going, so sometimes he has to pry my true feelings about a subject out of me. Many times I truly don’t have an opinion one way or the other, or it’s an area that I’m inexperienced in while he’s proven gifted in, like financial planning. And if I really have an opinion in the matter, I say so. And sometimes I have feelings about it that don’t need repeating… he’s already familiar with them, and I don’t need to beat a dead horse even though I was asked this time, but he’ll know that he’s free to make while I’d be less than thrilled about it, I’m “okay” with it and I’m not going to begrudge him it.
So, since there seems to be a pattern of where I defer to him (Not always, though!), I think he appreciates it and doesn’t want to take advantage of it, since I leave it his hands as the “leader”. I’m not trying to “get my own way” all the time (something he would never be able to abide). I submit to his desires, and he does the same. At least it works out that way most of the time. =o)
July 31, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Its a good question, and I think its one of those things that I won’t be sure of the answer on this side of heaven.
For me it isn’t really an issue. I figure part of being a Christian is to loose my ‘self’ into God’s will and desires. So to speak as that sounds mystical in a way.
It isn’t easy to practice humility and humbleness. To be the servant of all.
Personally, I would say I don’t think that it is specifically because it was culture related. I think there would be a lot more written about it. You see a lot more in regards to marriage in the New Testament saying “keep the marriage bed pure.”
I see that brought up because there was a lot of immorality in the Greco-Roman world, and indeed in our world today. So that command is for then and now too.
I think I found 15 references to that in the New Testament… I don’t have my notes handy.
It is possible to ask, well, sure we’ve gone too far in our understanding of these verses before but just because of that fact does that mean we need to dump the texts as being ‘historical’ and not applicable any more?
OR should we say, look our understanding and emphasis was off and we need to realize that these texts exist out of a desire to create unity, harmony and yes, equality in the marriage?
(or something else, I’m just thinking and typing
)
July 31, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Err, one thing I forgot but wanted to mention. I see it like our readings of Isaiah. There were parts of that Prophecy that were clearly evident as directed to that day and time. Then there were sections that we, who know of Christ, can read and say clearly that is about Christ. Then there are also sections that leave us still wondering and curious about the future.
July 31, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“whatever you think’s best, love”
Oh my husband has said that so many times too! And before, when I was encamped with the Pearls and VF and all that patriarchy stuff, I would almost cry.
Why couldn’t he tell me exactly what he wanted? Why did he have to make me choose? Wasn’t this a sign of HIS weakness, leaving the decision up to me? Why did I have to “wear the pants!” I would get so angry and my blood would boil, quietly on the inside of course. I was constantly judging my husband’s apparent “lack of concern” for the choice-du-jour…when in all actuality it was his KINDNESS in letting me choose what I wanted!
When I rethink this stuff and look back on how I used to be, I get so mad at myself. I was such a dope on so many levels. I was trying to create my own holiness through clothing choices, food choices, hair choices, what have you. If my husband (who hates talking school stuff) wouldn’t tell me what he thought about the latest spelling curriculum, I thought he was being “weak” when in all actuality, he didn’t know and didn’t care and trusted MY opinion on the matter more than his own. That’s love. I couldn’t see it that way then, but I do now.
July 31, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Oh, Lindsay, I felt like I was reading something I could have written myself!
My husband and I have never had submission issues AT ALL except when I tried to submit to things he had no desire to have me submit to! He is so busy with doing what he does, providing wonderfully for our family, spending time with the boys, faithfully leading our family in Bible study and taking us to church, and even doing some of the teaching in our homeschool. But because I thought that being submissive meant doing all the things we are told we have to do to really be submissive as wives, I felt like I always failed. When I finally realized what a ninny I had been, it freed me up to be the woman he had fallen in love with and married, “sassy as can be,” as Adam Pontapee called it and as my husband has oft quoted to me! What a blessing to enjoy just being husband and wife, with no weird patriocentric trips being placed on you!
So, you were a dope and I was a ninny. I guess this is why I can relate to what you were saying!
July 31, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Oh Lindsey, it is true, it IS love in action.
Just to clarify, I do know there is a balance. Sometimes we can show our love to our spouse by choosing to join them in a part of their lives that really holds very little interest for us, could even be painstakingly tortuous for us.
For instance, schooling holds little interest for your husband, but it would mean a lot to you if he could occasionally join in that part of your world. I’ve learned to listen to many of my husband’s stories about work, although it takes a great conscious effort to pay attention, but he enjoys reliving part of his world with me. It’s crucial for marriages to find this balance; at least it is for ours. =o)
“clothing choices, food choices, hair choices…”
My husband IS one that has preferences in these areas. He likes my hair long, I’d think I’d have more fun with it shorter. He definately prefers that I make an attempt to be attractive in my appearance. And while it can drive me nuts at times (!!!), it makes for less stress and decision making when getting my hair trimmed, and going clothes shopping is actually something my husband encourages me to do!!!
July 31, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Lindsey,l thatmom, and others,
That is exactly what happened to us, except that my husband listened to me (as well as believed the ultra-literalist interpretation himself).
As a result, our marriage turned into one where I asked permission at every turn, where who I was had to be stuffed down so that I could become (or perpetually TRY to become, I should say) the kind of woman he wanted (we both felt that was right—-that a woman’s purpose was to be a helper for her husband, in whatever way he felt that would best work)…it was more like a father and older daughter thing…and as the years went by and he began to experience ministry burn-out, things got worse. For my part, I would feel HORRIBLY guilty even acknowledging that I wasn’t happy in such an arrangement, thinking that would be rebelling against God…so I didn’t acknowledge it, period. Then one day, I just fell on the ground and couldn’t do it anymore.
It was in (later) reading, “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” that I realized what had happened to me, and why that day happened when I literally fell over. As much as I’d love to blame it all on my husband, I have to say that it was just as much my fault. I bought into the lie no less than he did.
I think we’re struggling our way out of the mess we made of our relationship…by God’s grace! Sometimes it all goes great, sometimes it doesn’t…a lot of old patterns to change…learning about what grace means, about what the Gospel means…we’re not on the same page a lot, and that’s hard…if I had to guess, I think he’d rather go back to hyper-patriarchy…and I admit to having a knee-jerk reaction in my gut anytime I think of him being the family leader again (until we have a radically new definition of leading)…I want to ball up and hide in a hole somewhere, or just RUN, before I let that happen…but I know that I’m not necessarily seeing “leadership” right because of what happened to me under it’s guise…and I want to be open to what God actually says, even if that means my husband is supposed to lead (I do agree, it’s one possible interpretation of the verses, particularly if we leave the original culture out of it)…it’s just that I feel like I’m raw and bleeding from the last attempt to be faithful even when it hurts…
July 31, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I hear you Molly.
For me it has more to do with housekeeping and having dug myself out of a depression. The getting my house clean and into a real order [uncluttered and the whole bit] sees me panicking when things start to revert backwards.
There are times when I have to catch myself and say to myself to relax my anxiety because a little mess doesn’t mean that I am falling back into my old trap.
Yes, its a different kind of situation and I would never put it on par with your experience but I can sense some of the emotions you must deal with.
Perhaps it is crucial for both of you to find another word. Kind of like me using Stewardship for frugal.
Call it being Christ Servant to each other. Call it honouring each other. Essentially that is what the verse is calling for. Especially when you keep in mind that the same word in the Ephesians text is used in reference to the Government as well.
I have a really hard time with saying, yes this was directed to a time and place. Now I’m going to just let it go and essentially not include it in my reading of the Bible. I can do that easier with the Old Testament and many of the rules but when something is in the New Testament and clearly written to the new churches I have a much harder time just ignoring passages. Especially when I want to go, “Yeah, BUT!”
For me my anger toward movements like this video by the Botkin Sisters is because they do harm to the true message of the Bible. The tendency to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I hate it and I know I’m guilty too, how we can make such fools of ourselves! I don’t know how many times I’ve had to feel like I needed to apologize because some who was trying to do good for Christ really caused harm.
July 31, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I don’t mind the message of serving others—or of being humble and humbling ourselves. Love one another is a foundational message all through the New Testament. I think that’s incredibly important, and is why I can, with my egalitarian leanings, totally continue to serve and honor my husband. Love has been a life-altering concept for me during my whole paradigm shift…I did not see it before, or only dimly, and now I see it as the fulcrum of the whole thing (with MUCH more, of course, on my part to learn–harhar).
I don’t need to occupy an underling seat to serve or honor someone else, though patriarchy seems to think so. That’s one of the points that Jesus tried to make: the “higher” you are, the more you serve! The more you know God, the “lower” you stoop in love. Those who know their place in God WILL love—the Bible says so. The more we know Him, the more He will love through us.
Stuff like, “women need loved, men need respected,” SO annoys me because of how it assumes that men DON’T need loved and women DON’T need respected. I remember (at a particularly bad time) telling my husband how disrespected I felt under our “godly patriarchy” system, and being scoffed at for wanting what “only a man” should want—my desire for respect was viewed as an unfeminine desire, a product that could only have come from a rebellious heart.
Men and women are both humans. Love repsects others. There is none of this ridiculous dividing it up (as Light said so well in one comment—how, really, do you divide up love and respect, or submission and servant leadership? In SO many situations, they all look the EXACT SAME! Is it really “servant leadership” if it’s a guy giving place to his wife’s opinion, and “submission” if it’s a woman giving place to her husbands opinion? SHEESH! It all gets so foolish)…
I have a serious problem with “ranking,” setting up a heirarchy—what it seems like Jesus was emphatically NOT supporting in His teaching, this vying for position, is what I see the patriarchal movement doing: “I’m in this spot, you’re in this spot,” writing books about our hierarchal spots, our roles in those spots…making our spirituality all about heirarchal positioning–obsessing over positions, “roles” in those positions, who’s out of their position and who needs to get in their position…
From what I can see in the Scriptures, I think that way of thinking comes straight from the Fall, not straight from God.
Songbirdy, thank you for sharing a bit of your story with me. I realize we disagree on how the women Scriptures should be viewed at this point, but I appreciate your heart, nonetheless.
I’m open to being wrong, but I can’t help but read them with the cultural backdrop in mind, just as I read the slave/master verses. We can’t escape the fact that the culture was patriarchal, just as we can’t escape the fact that slavery was considered perfectly normal.
So, after all the Scripture I’ve poured through on this subject, I currently have really strong doubts that Paul was trying to set up a heirarchy. I think he was simply speaking to the heirarchy already in place.
This does NOT mean that we then drop the “wives, submit” verses out of the Bible. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that and I’m sorry if I implied it. We can still learn a TON from what was written—even if there isn’t a cultural application anymore, there still is much to be learned.
Paul’s words about eating food offered to idols is an excellent example. We don’t really deal with that particular issue in our culture, however we still can learn much from what the early Christians went through with regards to that cultural practice, and the way the church leaders handled it.
I think that Paul was being subversive when he was dealing with patriarchy. I think he was dealing it a quiet subversive death blow. He didn’t challenge the “unchallengable” status quo, just as he didn’t challenge slavery openly, of course.
But yet WHILE he said, “wives, keep on submitting,” he ALSO said things like, “husbands, love your wives as your own selves,” and “husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church,” (which type of “love” he’d just described in the first couple chapters of that letter–a love that didn’t pull rank on her, but that BROUGHT HER UP to His level, seating her in heavenly places WITH him—that “bone of my bone” relationship of ruling together, just like we see at the end of Genesis 1 with Adam and Eve)!
He wrote things like there is no male or female in Christ, no slave or free, no Jew or Greek—things that totally divided the people in that culture on EARTH—huge massive barriers that could NEVER be crossed on earth—Paul quietly said DO NOT divide us in Christ.
So PLEASE be very clear that I’m not saying we should ignore anything in the Bible. I’m just saying that maybe it’s not wise to assume the “wives, submit” verses were intended to be read as if Paul was setting up the Christian heirarchy, when we know for a fact that the way those people lived and thought WAS heirarchal, WAS patriarchal.
Maybe Paul was just commenting (to Christians who were already rocking the boat BIG TIME simply by following Jesus)—commenting on the way society was ALREADY set up, explaining how to live in that construct in a Christ-honoring way.
Ramblingly Long, As Usual (sorry!)
Molly
July 31, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I don’t mind the message of serving others—or of being humble and humbling ourselves. Love one another is a foundational message all through the New Testament.
I think that’s incredibly important, and is why I can, with my egalitarian leanings, totally continue to serve and honor my husband. Love has been a life-altering concept for me during my whole paradigm shift…I did not see it before, or only dimly, and now I see it as the fulcrum of the whole thing (with MUCH more, of course, on my part to learn–harhar).
I don’t need to occupy an underling seat to serve or honor someone else, though patriarchy seems to think so. That’s one of the points that Jesus tried to make: the “higher” you are, the more you serve! The more you know God, the “lower” you stoop in love. Those who know their place in God WILL love—the Bible says so. The more we know Him, the more He will love through us.
Stuff like, “women need loved, men need respected,” SO annoys me because of how it assumes that men DON’T need loved and women DON’T need respected. I remember (at a particularly bad time) telling my husband how disrespected I felt under our “godly patriarchy” system, and being scoffed at for wanting what “only a man” should want—my desire for respect was viewed as an unfeminine desire, a product that could only have come from a rebellious heart.
Men and women are both humans. Love repsects others. There is none of this ridiculous dividing it up (as Light said so well in one comment—how, really, do you divide up love and respect, or submission and servant leadership? In SO many situations, they all look the EXACT SAME! Is it really “servant leadership” if it’s a guy giving place to his wife’s opinion, and “submission” if it’s a woman giving place to her husbands opinion? SHEESH! It all gets so foolish)…
I have a serious problem with “ranking,” setting up a heirarchy—what it seems like Jesus was emphatically NOT supporting in His teaching, this vying for position, is what I see the patriarchal movement doing: “I’m in this spot, you’re in this spot,” writing books about our hierarchal spots, our roles in those spots…making our spirituality all about heirarchal positioning–obsessing over positions, “roles” in those positions, who’s out of their position and who needs to get in their position…
From what I can see in the Scriptures, I think that way of thinking comes straight from the Fall, not straight from God.
Songbirdy, thank you for sharing a bit of your story with me. I realize we disagree on how the women Scriptures should be viewed at this point, but I appreciate your heart, nonetheless.
I’m open to being wrong, but I can’t help but read them with the cultural backdrop in mind, just as I read the slave/master verses. We can’t escape the fact that the culture was patriarchal, just as we can’t escape the fact that slavery was considered perfectly normal.
So, after all the Scripture I’ve poured through on this subject, I currently have really strong doubts that Paul was trying to set up a heirarchy. I think he was simply speaking to the heirarchy already in place.
This does NOT mean that we then drop the “wives, submit” verses out of the Bible. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that and I’m sorry if I implied it. We can still learn a TON from what was written—even if there isn’t a cultural application anymore, there still is much to be learned.
Paul’s words about eating food offered to idols is an excellent example. We don’t really deal with that particular issue in our culture, however we still can learn much from what the early Christians went through with regards to that cultural practice, and the way the church leaders handled it.
I think that Paul was being subversive when he was dealing with patriarchy. I think he was dealing it a quiet subversive death blow. He didn’t challenge the “unchallengable” status quo, just as he didn’t challenge slavery openly, of course.
But yet WHILE he said, “wives, keep on submitting,” he ALSO said things like, “husbands, love your wives as your own selves,” and “husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church,” (which type of “love” he’d just described in the first couple chapters of that letter–a love that didn’t pull rank on her, but that BROUGHT HER UP to His level, seating her in heavenly places WITH him—that “bone of my bone” relationship of ruling together, just like we see at the end of Genesis 1 with Adam and Eve)!
He wrote things like there is no male or female in Christ, no slave or free, no Jew or Greek—things that totally divided the people in that culture on EARTH—huge massive barriers that could NEVER be crossed on earth—Paul quietly said DO NOT divide us in Christ.
So PLEASE be very clear that I’m not saying we should ignore anything in the Bible. I’m just saying that maybe it’s not wise to assume the “wives, submit” verses were intended to be read as if Paul was setting up the Christian heirarchy, when we know for a fact that the way those people lived and thought WAS heirarchal, WAS patriarchal.
Maybe Paul was just commenting (to Christians who were already rocking the boat BIG TIME simply by following Jesus)—commenting on the way society was ALREADY set up, explaining how to live in that construct in a Christ-honoring way.
Ramblingly Long, As Usual (sorry!)
Molly
July 31, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Since I can’t pour you a cup of tea and smile and nod and say that I hear what you’ve said.
This is one of those situations that can be fun to talk about and I’ve enjoyed discussing it with you!
I think I understand your view and can respect it too.
August 1, 2007 at 4:16 am
Molly,
I hear you on the respect thing. It annoys me, too.
A woman wants respect and a man wants to be loved.
I think just about everyone wants to be respected and this it is a deep need for most people- male or female.
It is NOT a male desire to be respected. It is a human desire.
August 6, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I am coming out of the fog of patriarchy. Looking back at my comment a few months has me shocked. I showed it to my husband and he was shocked. In following this conversation, I’m seeing many similarities between my situation and that of Lindsey’s. I was leading my husband in this direction!
Since this whole conversation started, I haven’t felt right, but with much prayer, I sincerely feel the fog is lifting. I really think that all along I was subtly and covertly doing the leading. Wow!
I don’t know if this will make sense or mean anything to anyone here, but I just wanted to let Truewomanhood know that this conversation was the spark that set me praying and thinking. I feel so free!! For the first time in two years, I think I see the real me again!
Sincerely, I thank you.
August 6, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Corrie and Molly,
That idea always bothered me, too. We do all need laove and respect. Why else is the Bible full of commands for us to love one another and to treat one another as better than ourselves?
August 6, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Jenny,
Your comment is priceless. A fog is exactly the perfect description. I, too, related to Lindsay’s comments. Thanks for your candor and I will be praying for you and yours. You blessed us all today!
August 6, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Jenny,
I can so relate to feeling like coming out of a fog! I felt much the same when I began stumbling out. Thank you for sharing.
August 6, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Jenny,
I wanted to cry with praise after reading your comment!!!! I think it’s the same across the board of regular commentors here, but I know for myself, that my number one hope is that these discussions are prompting others closer to true freedom in Christ!!!
Thanks so much for sharing this with us… it’s so encouraging. =o)
August 12, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I thought it was a nice idea. I didn’t see anything wrong with it. I grew up in a single parent house, went to college, got a job, then got married. I think it would have been nice to get there the Botkins way.
August 13, 2007 at 1:52 am
Jen,
You’re right, it is a nice idea… IF it is what God is calling you to do in YOUR life.
The main contention is not the idea itself, but the assertion that it is THE BIBLICAL model, and the ONLY godly course of life for a girl goin into adulthood.
I have no problem with the girls that feel led by the Holy Spirit to live at home and pursue other ways to spend that time in their lives. If that is God’s will that He has revealed for them, who am I to say otherwise? I rejoice with them that He is leading them.
But what I DO have problem with are the parents who give this to their grown daughters as their only option, and those who tell the rest of the body of Christ that any other walk of life is ungodly. The reason that this is even a topic of discussion is because both of these are happening more and more often… and both are unbiblical.
There are many posts above that illustrate the damage this teaching is having on the lives of women, and even their families.
God Bless,
Alisa
August 18, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Ummm, I have been enjoying the discussion and I am wondering….honestly….how do you renew your mind to get out from under legalism and patriarchy?
Where do you start if you have been seeped in it….
Where is a good balance?
August 18, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Hi Chrisi,
Wow, you ask a tough question.
I would have to say it should really start with prayer, and expect God to speak to you where you are… because it’s going to look different for everyone. God likes to use different tools and instruments in different peoples lives.
And then what is really mind blowing, at least for me and some others here, is to read the Scriptures WITHOUT any preconceptions. Read Proverbs 31, because that doesn’t take a lot of study in the original contexts and language, but it doesn’t take long to realize that the Ideal Woman is busily engaged in business outside the home to a great degree; it mentions her many enterprises just as much as her home centered ones, if not more.
Then, I would start learning about the passages that Hyper-patriarchy uses to keep women immobile in the kingdom in their original context and definitions, always incorporating the mindset of the people Paul was talking to. And then an appropriate understanding of the Fall helps, and Molleth and Spunky and others have some wonderful posts all over this blog about that. Truly helpful…
And maybe take is slow, and pray that God’s truth and not people’s opinions (even ours) about it are what really sink in, because there are some truly surprising discoveries to be made in God’s Word. I’ve currently taken a break from my word research, to recenter my mind on God and not a soap box, because it can turn into that, at least I have that propensity. I want to build my belief’s with gold and not straw so that my work and building will still be standing and pass the fire test, a la 1 Corinthians 3. For me, that meant taking it slow and making sure that what I am concluding is the result of right motives and pure Scripture, not just swinging from one end of the spectrum fo the other.
One last thing, this may not apply to you, but you mention being “seeped” in it. I haven’t really gone out of my way to be around what caused me to be seeped in it, unless it is to study how their arguments really aren’t Scriptually based. A helpful place to start this might be the examining of the Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy over at Jen’s Gems; there are three threads on this topic. Just their conclusions and the Scriptures they use to support them. It doesn’t take long to realize that their conclusions are nowhere close to matching what the correlating Scriptures were saying.
Lastly, stick around here, and read the other threads on this subject. There are so many wise ladies to glean from, and I know I will be praying for you. =o)
Love in Christ,
Alisa
August 19, 2007 at 1:43 am
Hi Chrisi,
Alisa gave you good counsel. I will share what has been really helpful for me.
Begin reading through the Gospels and take notes on who Jesus talked to, what he taught, who his harshest words for. Notice who he told to do what things. Then read through the book of Acts and observe how believers related to each other. Next, read through the Epistles and make a list of the “one anothers.” When you have done this, you will have a completely different view of what it means to love God with you whole heart, soul, and mind and your neighbor as yourself.
And, I would love to invite you to a series of podcasts I will be doing during September and October regarding patriachy and patriocentricity. You can listen to these at http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com or http://www.thatmompodcast.com.
Chrisi, we will all be praying for you and encouraging you as you sort through all of this! May the Lord richly bless you!
August 21, 2007 at 2:39 am
A quick glance through this long and worn out thread has to make one wonder: does Molleth do anything in her life except post and post and post and post? It looks like a few others are coming in close behind her? What’s happening in the homes of these women? One thing is sure: an awful lot of keyboarding.
August 21, 2007 at 2:56 am
Dear KE,
If any women wishes to spend her free time thinking and problem solving in a collaborative fashion with other women, that is her business.
It is not irresponsible to keyboard or think (or both together).
If you actually cared, you would notice from Moll’s blog that her kids are happy, healthy, and well cared for. I am sure they benefit greatly from having such a bright, intelligent mom with great writing skills.
August 21, 2007 at 4:35 am
Well, you know, its much easier to flame a blog with a catty comment than it is to actually interact with what is being said…
Just more of that “if you do not stand with us, you stand with the feminists,” muck.
August 21, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“…does Molleth do anything in her life except post and post and post and post? It looks like a few others are coming in close behind her? What’s happening in the homes of these women?”
A million years from now, what will matter more — whether we traded peach pie recipes, or whether we discussed the issues of our day as they pertain to the Kingdom of God?
See Luke 10:40.
August 21, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“A million years from now, what will matter more — whether we traded peach pie recipes, or whether we discussed the issues of our day as they pertain to the Kingdom of God?”
Well said, Cindy.
My husband does not appreciate my cooking. Not that I’m awful at it, because I’m not!!!! He just doesn’t want me to spend unnecessary time and energy there, so a peach pie would be a waste of said resources in my home.
But my husband DOES appreciate a wife that attempts to use her brain and this and other forums for personal growth. And tells me so often. =o)
KE,
It’s easy to only be able to grasp a one-dimensional view of matters from a computer monitor, so I understand how you are able to get the impression you did.
It might be helpful to remember that this particular thread is an exception in it’s longevity and length, that it has been added to over a period of several months, and those months occurred in the generally freer months of summer.
Love in Christ,
Alisa
August 21, 2007 at 5:16 pm
KE,
I am sorry you aren’t grasping how important these discussion are to many people. What may seem old and tired to you are fresh and encouraging to many who have been bound in the patriocentric movement. I would encourage you to read back through them and grasp what it is that we are hoping to accomplish here. And, as for Molly, her insights are like a breath of fresh air. We are all so glad she is part of this discussion.
August 21, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Cynthia,
Right on. You nailed it, once again.
August 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm
from personal experience i have found that keeping up with housework early in the day and providing my children with creative projects and activities in the day gives me lots of free time! i’m not sure, KE, exactly what you’re implying about any of these women, molly in particular, but not all households and children need constant maintenance and interaction, for which i am very thankful.
on another note, i’m happy that the women contributing to this blog are able to recognize that thinking and discussing does not come to a standstill when there is a home and a family needing care. as much as i love a clean house and playful parenting, i’m the first to admit that i wouldn’t be so keen on getting these jobs done if my mind had to be dormant in the process.
August 21, 2007 at 5:45 pm
One of the things I love about interacting on this blog is that it keeps sending me back to my Bible. I love pulling it out to seek out the wisdom and direction God meant for us to find there.
Something that seems to accompany the treasuring of women running their households, is the idea or that all the other verses in the Bible don’t apply to her, or at the very least, a glossing over of passages that don’t further the “model” of the Titus 2 recipient. I realize that this is probably largely unintentional, but seems to be happening nonetheless.
For instance, amid all the verses of the Ideal Woman in Proverbs 31 in her busy-ness in both entrepreunurial and domestic enterprises, there IS ONE verse that shows her demonstrating more than just fruitful labor:
“She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue”.
Wow, I’ve read this verse several times recently, but it just keeps pouring out insight. “SHE OPENS HER MOUTH”!!!! If there was ever a verse that contradicted the notion that women are to be silent in abjection, here it is. Granted, there are qualifiers, and mighty good ones; Wisdom and Kindness, and I’m glad for it… I know I have a hard time appreciating comments that lack either or both of these.
Then what of all of Paul’s exhortations to build up the Body, to discern what is sound teaching? Jesus’ words that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”? Or when He said, “You are the salt of the earth, if salt is no longer salty it is useless.. you are the light of the world. A city set on a hill CANNOT BE HIDDEN. Nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a (laundry) basket, but on a lampstand and it gives light to all in the house. LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE…”?
Then there’s Jesus’ final command that, while NOWHERE did He release women from obeying it, there is this belief that He wouldn’t ask that of a WOMAN… “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all the I commanded you…”
Did that grab your attention, or did you gloss over it like I sometimes do when it comes to quotes I think I know??? WE are COMMANDED by our Savior to GO, to MAKE DISCIPLES, to BAPTIZE, to TEACH.
Maybe this was a tangent, but I think a worthy one considering that so many seem to believe that the only instructions we are to obey are the ones that, if they are obeyed to the exclusion of the rest, would isolate us from the world, from becoming eqipped for the harvesting and from those we are commanded to reach. Now isn’t that exactly what Satan would like for us to believe????
August 21, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Alisa,
I had similar thoughts on Sunday as my pastor preached on being salt and light. He pointed out the target audience during the Sermon on the Mount, that it wasn’t just pastors and elders but men, women, and children. That command is for all of us, which means that we certainly must have a firm grounding in Scripture and must be on the path of understanding and learning all the time!
In Carolyn Custis James’ book When Life and Beliefs Collide, she admonishes women to study and understand sound doctrine because, as she points out, it will be the only thing that sustains us during the hard times of life. (I highly recomment that book, btw.)
August 21, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Milleniumwoman,
I’m glad I not the only one thinking about this.
When you mentioned children in the crowd, it made me think of a story of an 11 year old who voluntarily apologized to his class for his misbehavior and not being a good example; his humility and repentance and taking responsibility for himself just absolutely humbled me. I was totally convicted by the obedience and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit by this little boy; I know him well… he’s just a like any other 11 year old boy. And yet he exhibited more courage and maturity than I’m willing to live up to most of the time. So when you mentioned children, that example of how children can be salt and light came to mind.
I fully agree about knowing sound doctrine. I’m not a “theology junkie”; it bugs me when people classify themselves as Calvinists of Baptists and these things seem most important to them than the “pure and undefiled” religion that Karen’s been talking about. But I do love learning more about my God, and just reading the Scriptures lately and some great discussions on it has taught me so much lately, and even explained little mysteries in life. It’s so sweet…. =o)
August 21, 2007 at 11:31 pm
KE,
I wonder the exact same thing about women who have a lot of children and who write books, blogs, email lists, host online conferences, write articles for various other blogs and publications and have time to type away on their keyboards on many other blogs.
Whew! I know that it is hard for me to just contribute the little bit I do here and there but I can’t imagine adding on top of that book writing and going to conferences and writing speeches for those conferences and all the other things that some of these women do all the while trying to homeschool, keep a home and cook meals and keep up with the laundry. And not to mention all the private email discussions that take place between all these women concerning other women!
“What’s happening in the homes of these women? One thing is sure: an awful lot of keyboarding.”
I wonder the same thing! What a great question! What IS happening in the homes of these women?
August 22, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“….so many seem to believe that the only instructions we are to obey are the ones that, if they are obeyed to the exclusion of the rest, would isolate us from the world, from becoming eqipped for the harvesting and from those we are commanded to reach. Now isn’t that exactly what Satan would like for us to believe????”
Well, I’d say so. And as if that’s not enough, in every decade Satan comes up with new “Christian” fads and new screwball takes on theology, so that the unsaved people in the world will think us a bunch of nuts, or a bunch of hypocrites, or worse.
August 22, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“…in every decade Satan comes up with new “Christian” fads and new screwball takes on theology, so that the unsaved people in the world will think us a bunch of nuts, or a bunch of hypocrites, or worse.”
There sure is enough screwball theology out there to last centuries of unteaching.
However, I’ve found a couple “fads” to be very timely and recentering. I had read the original “In His Steps probably a year before the “WWJD” wave hit. Truly a necessary message to wake America from our apathetic complacency. Talk about convicting… sometimes the gap between our faith and how our lives really line up with it is so wide…
And then there was the Jabez fad, and while I was never really into it, did glean a lot from it.
Maybe these aren’t ones you had in mind, and the Lord knows there are too many books and such manufactured into commercial hits. Makes me think of that verse that says somthing about being tossed about by every wind that blows…
August 25, 2007 at 3:01 am
About 303 comments ago, Spunky mentioned Sarah Faith Schlissel’s article, “Daddy’s Girl”, wherein Sarah expresses some of the same ideas taught by the Botkin sisters. Today, Sarah’s husband, Dave Hodges, commented on Jen’s Gems ,wondering why folks were being so hard on his wife.
The comments have been raging ever since, and Sarah has come online and said a few things as well. Seems that they can’t appreciate the difference between the Bible’s teaching that a man is the head of his wife, and their teaching that a man is the head of his daughter, even after she reaches adulthood.
August 29, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I was thinking of KE last night while my allergies left me tossing and sneezing.
Its the same attitude that makes ‘magic’ tricks so much fun to watch the “how do you DO that?” effect.
Especially since our views are always so clouded with, well, us!
Personally I don’t have a concern about other peoples homes. Mine is in great shape. Mind you I have a very SMALL home and it takes very LITTLE work to keep it up. And I can read over 300 pages of a novel an hour. Things a bit more thought inducing I read slower. I type at over 90 wpm with 100% accuracy.
So quite frankly… for me, never crossed my mind. But lets say you read slow. You type slow because you didn’t grow up with a keyboard under your fingers (mind you, I started with a typewriter). You have more children than my 2. You have a bigger house.
Then yes, it would be a wonder!
And from my very personal experience, I find it much easier to get through the day in joy and a Christ like model if I spend my day thinking and pondering. It helps take away from the… 2000 th load of laundry I’ve had to do, or the 3000th time I’m washing dishes. Or sending the kids to their rooms.
And it kind of also helps me from micro-managing my kids. There was a point where my children didn’t know how to play and be by themselves because I was there… all the time.
August 29, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“Seems that they can’t appreciate the difference between the Bible’s teaching that a man is the head of his wife, and their teaching that a man is the head of his daughter, even after she reaches adulthood.”
Hey all… I’d like to announce that I have the honest pleasure of eating a heaping helping of crow regarding that last statement of mine about Sarah(Schlissel) Hodges>\ .
It seems that she’s changed her perspectives some since she wrote the “Daddy’s Girl” article in her teens — and, the Chalcedon Foundation et al are using the article to promote a view of headship that she never fully intended in the first place. Suffice it to say that her present stance on the matter is nothing like that of the Botkin sisters, and she’s really quite a likeable person. Mea culpa, and glad to admit it!
August 29, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Cynthia,
I’m so relieved to hear you say it! I always thought you had such a good head on your shoulders, so I was wondering what I was missing when I saw your reaction to their comments. Glad to know I wasn’t out to lunch…
When it boils down to the essentials, it appears that the Hodges would be in agreement with the majority of what we would. I’m so relieved to find this out, after the amount of quotations I’ve heard from the now imfamous article!
I am a little peeved at how some are still not able to see the crow on the plate before them, however, and are not mature enough to own up to it as you just did. I cannot believe how some of Sarah’s comments are still getting misunderstood and misquoted on that thread. Just another example of how semi-intelligent people can make themselves appear very unintelligent… part of the reason I’ve chosen to remain a lurker as of late… something about a Proverb that says that even a fool is believed to be wise when nothing is coming out of thier mouths!!!! =o)
August 29, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Hey, crow it tasty when it means that someone is better than I originally thought them to be. When they’re MUCH, MUCH better, it’s downright delicious.
I do have to say that Sarah’s husband Dave seemed to waffle back and forth quite a bit concerning the question of a father’s authority over his grown daughters, but Sarah seems like a fine young woman and Dave’s not too bad either.
August 29, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Cynthia,
I’ll add a hearty “Here, here!” to that!!!
August 31, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Thank you all for this blog…..I just found it through my dear friend, Karen (thatmom), and have been steadfastly ignoring my children while I read. Back to homeschooling and homemaking!! I have two dear daughters pursuing college degrees, and have been so happy to see them grow and flourish! My younger daughter also took a year off to work full time to raise money for college and this time was invaluable for her. She learned so much about people and was also a good witness for Christ in her workplace. Anyway, I could say a ton more….this has been so good to think about. God has protected us from following this teaching; something always didn’t seem quite right about it. This is a rambling post….thank you for this blog.
Sincerely, Kim
August 31, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“My younger daughter also took a year off to work full time to raise money for college…”
Not to mention, that FINE collection of forgotten shoes huh?
Seriously, Kim, your daughters stand out to me as shining examples of godly true womanhood. I vote that we place THEIR pictures on the cover of a book!
August 31, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“My younger daughter also took a year off to work full time to raise money for college…”
And for that FINE collection of forgotten shoes, no doubt!
Seriously, Kim, your daughters are wonderful examples of true Godly womanhood in the 21st century and I think THEIR pictures need to be on the cover of a book!
September 1, 2007 at 5:15 pm
All,
I wanted to let you all know that reading these posts has been very instructive for me. I especially have learned from reading Molly’s posts. I myself have come from an extremely patriarchal background (since long before the Botkins sisters were even able to pronounce the word) and am now tending more toward an egalitarian view of the scriptures. The posts I have read here have helped me to understand both sides in a way that reading books on the topic alone could not. I’ve been able to understand the Scriptures I’m reading more readily, too, as I’m taking the advice in these blogs and reading it for myself with no outside influences.
In short, thank you so much for the time you have all put in to sharing your thoughts – it is greatly appreciated from over here!
Blessings,
Deb
September 2, 2007 at 3:42 am
I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but this film is being released at the San Antonio Christian film festival next month.
And again, Mr. Phillips’ “you’re either with us or you’re a rabid feminist” mentality shines through clear as day in this post:
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2007/09/2940.aspx
September 2, 2007 at 6:52 am
re4mdmom,
“And again, Mr. Phillips’ “you’re either with us or you’re a rabid feminist” mentality shines through clear as day in this post”
LOL!! Isn’t that the truth?
The link didn’t work for me but I assume that you are referring to his latest blog post about “The Return of the Daughters”?
I didn’t get the impression that these young girls are being asked what they would like to do?
I know they think that this is a “sacred cow” issue for the “feministas” and that they were cooking up this “sacred cow” for all of the feminists but it looked like SPAM and I don’t think that SPAM is made out of cow?
September 2, 2007 at 9:56 am
Well, as a near vegan, I would have to say that I was pretty grossed out by those pics…
But you know, it doesn’t matter what these girls want. To stay at home and serve their fathers is their GLORY! You know, I have to say that it does look a bit like brainwashing to me. You can get these girls to be compliant and give up their service unto the Lord (1 Cor 7) by serving their fathers if you tell them that they are really living out God’s calling for their lives if they do this. I have yet to see a command in Scripture for girls to serve their fathers as “helpmeets”, but okay. Its frustrating. It really is.
I don’t like to use words like “brainwashing” because I don’t want to give VF/LAF types fodder to use against us, but its difficult to call it anything else. I get what they are saying. I really do! But its just not mandated in Scripture. It just isn’t there. I don’t know how they get around it.
Okay, this has turned into a blog post rather than a comment. Ah well…
September 2, 2007 at 8:57 pm
The ironic thing about 1 Cor. 7 is that it tells women that it is BETTER for them to remain as they are- unmarried. Paul goes on to tell them that he says that because then they are free to devote themselves entirely to the LORD- NOT a husband (and I presume, not a father, either). He tells them that the married woman and the married man are concerned about how they may please their spouse.
(Notice: Both spouses have the same focus; it is just not the wife being concerned about how she may please her husband but BOTH of them have the same concern. This is another thing that the patriarchalists don’t understand. Men were not given the spiritual calling and women given one calling-that of wife, mother or perpetual virgin daughter. Married men and women are given the same calling- their spouse and any children that come out of that union. The patriarchalists would have us believe that scripture teaches that women are the ones who are to be ever concerned with how to please their husband/father (notice, also, how they inject the father in the husband/wife only passages!) but the man is to be about God’s business. Some of them even carry it so far as to say that if the father has no need of the daughter she should go serve a brother as if a brother has any sort of authority over? I know many patriarchalist families who do believe that the boys have authority over their sisters. Where they get this from, I do not know.
But, God seems to say differently. A single woman and a single man have the same concern- the Lord and single-minded devotion to HIM and not to another HUMAN BEING. He doesn’t say that women are to go from nearest male relative to nearest male relative, being concerned about how she may serve her nearest male relative, and in doing that, this is how she serves the Lord.
It just says that she is to devote herself to the Lord.
Now, there is nothing wrong with a single young woman staying in her parents’ home and helping them with their business and learning a trade. I think that is great! But, to say that is the lot of every single, young woman? No. That isn’t what scripture says. A virgin daughter is free to be single-minded in her devotion to the Lord and she is not beholden to being concerned about pleasing another human being if she CHOOSES this path.
Yes, part of her service to the Lord might include helping her parents or her siblings. There is nothing wrong with that. More power to her if she can do that!
But, it seems that these patriarchs are over-stepping their boundaries. It is not up to them to choose that path for their daughter. If she chooses not to marry, she is free to choose the Lord and to be concerned about how she may please the Lord. They are teaching that a young, single woman is to be concerned about how she may please her father and that is counter to what scripture clearly teaches.
Again, single men and women are FREE to serve the Lord with whole-hearted devotion and concern for Him, and Him alone. Paul says it is better because they are not beholden to any one person.
Marriage is great and so is being a mother but let us not elevate it above what scripture allows. Singleness is also great. I do not think that the Bible teaches that the only role for a woman is to be a wife/mother or permanent fixture in her father’s home as his Junior Helpmeet. A helpmeet, by the very definition, is a wife and not a daughter. I think some in the patriocentric camp get very sloppy with the handling of these verses and get confused about how to apply them.
I don’t know about sacred cows but I have Montey Python and Vikings and the Spam Song running through my head right now.
How in the world is the average homeschool family with a lot of children going to afford to keep and house and feed all these “returning daughters”? I think this kind of utopian thinking has a nice ring at first but when you get into the nitty gritty, how is it going to play out in the lives of REAL people?
It seems like everyone involved in the “Return of the Daughters” has the wealth and the big homes and the means in order to live this out. But, what about the family who can only afford a broken down 3 bedroom farmhouse and they have 7 girls? Are you going to have all 7 girls living in a very tight space, at home ALL the time…..doing what?????? “Serving their father”? I don’t know if most fathers want this sort of “service”. I know most men don’t have their own businesses, either.
Daughters are not pets. Fathers, it is not about you. It is about God. Our children are on loan to us from God. They are not put on this earth for our amusement/warm fuzzies, comfort and benefit.
September 3, 2007 at 1:59 am
First off, I’m not sure if this is correct place for this (I don’t know if there’s a separate “introductions” discussion), but I’ve been reading here for about two months now and have been challenged by what I’ve read. I always appreciate when thoughtful individuals are willing to stand up and say “now wait a minute” and sort out the true implications of the newest “trend” or “movement.”
From my earliest comprehension of the concept of “helpmate,” I’ve understood it to have an inherent sexual component. The relationship between spouses is to be unique from all others. The connection that exists between them is to be deep and vibrant, stemming in part from the physical intimacy they share. While the love that exists between a husband and wife and a father and daughter have many similarities, they are also as different as night and day. To say that a daughter should be her father’s helpmate is extremely inappropriate, in my opinion, and also seriously devalues both special kinds of love by suggesting they are interchangeable.
September 3, 2007 at 5:02 am
” To say that a daughter should be her father’s helpmate is extremely inappropriate, in my opinion, and also seriously devalues both special kinds of love by suggesting they are interchangeable.”
Kate,
This is excellent!
YES!! The concept of “helpmate” has a sexual component. The only time the term is used is in regards to a wife’s relationship to her husband. A woman is not a helpmate to her father nor is she a helpmate to any other man. She is only a helpmate to the man she is married to and if she is not married, she is not a helpmate.
This is also why I have a problem with using the term “head” in the wrong way. The bible only refers to the husband as the head of his wife.
ALWAYS, whenever children are told to obey, it is speaking about PARENTS and not just the father. The father is never said to be his daughter’s head. To me, the term “head” also has a sexual connotation because it is a picture of unity, one flesh.
Their theological system breaks down pretty quickly if they don’t misuse these terms.
September 3, 2007 at 5:23 am
Corrie, well said, as usual.
I’m wondering if anyone here has heard of the “double curse principle”- the idea that when a woman works outside of the home, she is acting as another man’s helpmeet. Of course, I disagree with the idea, but considering what Corrie said above about there being a sexual component to the idea of being a helpmeet, would that negate the double-curse principle?
September 3, 2007 at 5:46 am
People!
Let’s not forget, according to Kevin Swanson, your daughters who go to college and work outside the home will have a series of one night stands and abortions. I believe Kevin specifically mentions co-workers and trading cheap flesh with them or something. So, it’s all jives in patriarch theology. Outside work = illicit sexual relations.
So, sex may be part of the helpmeet scheme, but it’s not limited to husband/wife necessarily. If you are sinful enough to work for another man, you are sinful enough to engage in the extra-marital sex.
September 3, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Corrie,
You addressed one of the key problems in this whole picture…daughters not being allowed to choose for themselves. I agree 100% with what you wrote. If a daughter and her parents, together, agree that she can stay at home until marriage, then that is their business. But to say it is the “biblical” way or to make all those choices FOR a daughter is wrong.
Consider this quote I just pulled out of a nifty little online book called The Way of a Man with a Maid by Robin Phillips:
“One father who has written a book defending courtship also wrote some more general books on parenting when his children were young. In these books the father argued that ‘whether you’re a Christian or not, if the principles are applied, the results will be predictable.’ What are these principles? In the father’s own words,
If we want him to turn out a certain way, then we must visualize him that way, believe in that vision, and act so as to bring it to fulfillment…loving our children is not a sufficient goal to yield a workable plan…parents must do the same as a contractor. They must first decide what they want to build and then draw up plans for the actual construction. Once they have visualized the end result, they must map out a plan in order to achieve that result….the maturing of characteristics in our children is predictable according to the extent to which we follow these procedures…they can mold him into any shape they choose”
Robin goes on to say that he has not shared the name of this man because his children, of course, did not turn out as he had planned and when they failed him, he destroyed all his child training manuals.
I thought of the clip by Voddie when I read that. These people are teaching things without experiencing any success or failure in their methods. And people are lapping it up.
September 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Again, Corrie, you are spot on with the commentary about headship. This is one of those biblical truths that is taken so far out of context that it turns a beautiful truth into an ugly, unwise application.
I have head patriocentrists talk about all men being the head of all women. I have heard this word used to describe elders in a church. And of course there is the oft repeated “head of the house” referring to the man. It is such a common phrase I find myself using it without even thinking. But the idea of the “head” being the husband and the body being the wife is what is taught and it does imply becoming one flesh. It also is a picture of Christ and the church, the true picture of one over every other believer.
September 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I hear a lot of people say that the phrase the man is “the head of the house” comes from the Bible. Except it doesn’t. The husband is head of the wife, not head of the house. It is really amazing how many ideas we think come from the Bible really don’t.
September 3, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Like “spare the rod, spoil the child” for example…
September 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“These people are teaching things without experiencing any success or failure in their methods. And people are lapping it up.”
This is what I find 100% scary. No one knows the true, full fruit of these precepts, yet. And lives are being reordered and perhaps irreparably harmed.
September 4, 2007 at 12:44 am
“And lives are being reordered and perhaps irreparably harmed.”
You said it.
Of course, there is always healing in Christ, but there are reasons there are so many admonitions to treat eachother with respect… even children… whether grown or otherwise.
September 4, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“I know many patriarchalist families who do believe that the boys have authority over their sisters. Where they get this from, I do not know.”
Interestingly, this is also a feature of Islam.
September 4, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“If we want him to turn out a certain way, then we must visualize him that way, believe in that vision, and act so as to bring it to fulfillment.”
This idea is not found in the Bible. I don’t know that visualization is bad in and of itself, but I do know that it is a key tenet of several occult belief systems.
September 4, 2007 at 5:51 pm
These two statements may sound fairly similar:
Statement A.
“One must find out for oneself, and make sure beyond doubt, “who” one is, “what” one is, “why” one is…Being thus conscious of the proper course to pursue, the next thing is to understand the conditions necessary to following it out. After that, one must eliminate from oneself every element alien or hostile to success, and develop those parts of oneself which are specially needed to control the aforesaid conditions.”
Statement B.
Casting your Vision
Choosing to cast your vision is your first critical leadership choice. Casting vision is work! In order to cast vision you must:
Verbalize clearly: If you can’t say it clearly, you don’t know it completely. You may think that the vision makes sense, but your mind will fill in the holes of the vision without you being aware. When you verbalize the vision, you’ve taken the important step of examining the holes and resolving them – for yourself and for others.
Incubate carefully: Once your learned how to say it, let it sit. Let it stew. Let it incubate. Incubation happens when you warm the vision. You warm the vision by holding it next to the heat of your values, ideas, other readings, research, etc.
Share conspicuously: Talk to your trusted friends. Internal thoughts allow us to see only so far. We must make use of others’ eyes. This kind of sharing is different than casting the vision so that others buy into it.
Implement cautiously: Look before you leap, but make sure you do some leaping! Casting your vision requires an element of risk, but don’t waste your vision by implementing haphazardly.
Observe carefully: Who and what are around me are available to help me fulfill this vision? Also, who in the organization will oppose the vision and why? Observation helps you think through the strategies for implementation.
Never give up!: If you have cultivated a vision, never, never, never, never give up! The number one strategy for casting vision is to be persistent. Most visions are worthy of manifestation, but many go unrealized because leaders give up too early. Remember, the road is never crowded on the second mile.”
The second statement is from Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox , and the first is a quote from the notorious occultist Aliester Crowley’s “Book of the Law”.
September 5, 2007 at 4:06 am
“I know many patriarchalist families who do believe that the boys have authority over their sisters. Where they get this from, I do not know.”
Interestingly enough, a male friend of mine received an angry email from a sister, out of the blue, criticizing him for not being the “older brother she needed.” Essentially, she expected her brother to function as she expected her father or husband to function. Of course, his response is, “Well, sorry, I was 9 years old!”
Now, there is a lot of back story to this -the family disowned the son because he refused betrothal/arranged marriage, and his younger siblings are taught to blame him for the family misfortunes. His sister’s strange theories about brother/sister relationships are born of patriarchal theology.
September 5, 2007 at 5:00 pm
YES! So many of our homeschool friends who are in deep with the patriocentricity stuff often throw around the phrase “the brothers are protecting their sisters!”
Protecting them from what? From small family homeschoolers like me who don’t go all the way down with patriarchy? I’m not sure WHAT brothers need to protect their sisters from while Dad’s away at work.
I’m all for a boy standing up for a gal, because I’m OLD FASHIONED LIKE THAT. Hold a door open for me and keep the mean bully from throwing rocks at me because I’m a girl. That is fine and dandy, and just plain old good manners as we’d say around here. But is it BIBLICAL? No.
Boys being the protectors of their sisters? I had never thought of it in that context before I read the above comments.
September 6, 2007 at 4:28 am
One time a friend and I were discussing the extent of protection that fathers steeped in patriarchy feels they must exercise over their daughters, particularly in regard to missions and college or just letting them outside of the town they are in. She said something that at the time just seemed so profound; “He has FIVE daughters… he can’t be with every one of them 24 hours a day!!!”
I mean, come on… Mary traveled how far as a young single girl WHILE carrying the Messiah!!!! You’d think if God wanted us to have the idea that girls need to have a circle of bodyguards around them, that would be the time to demonstrate it!!!
September 6, 2007 at 4:40 am
In comment #479, I wrote,
“If we want him to turn out a certain way, then we must visualize him that way, believe in that vision, and act so as to bring it to fulfillment.”
This idea is not found in the Bible. I don’t know that visualization is bad in and of itself, but I do know that it is a key tenet of several occult belief systems.
…and then I made a second comment, comparing the explanation of “Vision Casting” as found at the “Rick Warren’s Toolbox” website, with a very similar explanation of “Casting Vision” as described in a book written by the notoriously nasty occultist, Aliester Crowley (I DO NOT read Crowley or any other occultist author, BTW — I read about the similarity between Crowley’s occultist practices and the practice of “Christian” Vision Casting on a Christian site, and the Crowley quote which I supplied here was from Wikipedia.)
Anyway, my comment was here yesterday and now it’s gone. Sorry if i stepped on any toes by pointing out the similarity.
September 6, 2007 at 11:55 am
Cynthia, its still here, #479…at least I can see it.
September 6, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Cynthia,
I went back and fished your comment out of the “waiting moderation” box, though I haven’t a clue why it was there. And I marked approved and then it disappeared on me….please repost the whole thing if you would like to because it was a good point!
Sorry about that….
September 6, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Yes, #479 is still there; as I said, I was referring to the second comment made immediately after 479, which showed the similarity of “vision casting” material taken from Rick Warren’s site and excerpts from Crowley’s works, taken from Wikipedia.
This comment had a couple of links, and went into the moderation queue; it has since been removed.
September 6, 2007 at 12:06 pm
oops… looks like our posts just crossed in the mail, too, LOL… I’ll try to gather the material again and repost it later this morning.
September 6, 2007 at 12:36 pm
OK, here goes again. Let’s compare these two statements:
Statement A
“One must find out for oneself, and make sure beyond doubt, “who” one is, “what” one is, “why” one is…
Being thus conscious of the proper course to pursue, the next thing is to understand the conditions necessary to following it out. After that, one must eliminate from oneself every element alien or hostile to success, and develop those parts of oneself which are specially needed to control the aforesaid conditions.”
Statement B:
“Your vision is defined by your values. Your values are those ideals that you cling to deeply – your core. The best vision is derived from a core of integrity, where inner values are given expression through the vision.
In order to cast vision you must:
Verbalize clearly: If you can’t say it clearly, you don’t know it completely…..
Incubate carefully:You warm the vision by holding it next to the heat of your values, ideas, other readings, research, etc.
Share conspicuously: Talk to your trusted friends. Internal thoughts allow us to see only so far…..
Implement cautiously: Casting your vision requires an element of risk, but don’t waste your vision by implementing haphazardly.
Observe carefully: Observation helps you think through the strategies for implementation.
Never give up!: If you have cultivated a vision, never, never, never, never give up! The number one strategy for casting vision is to be persistent. Most visions are worthy of manifestation, but many go unrealized because leaders give up too early.
The first statement is from Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox, at pastors.com, and the second is from Wikipedia, and is an excerpt from a how-to book on Thelemic mysticism, written by the notorious occultist, Aleister Crowley.
According to Wikipedia, thelema
“…can be considered a form of religious traditionalism, humanistic positivism, and/or a meritocracy based upon libertarian elitism.
Sound familiar?
Wiki goes on, “Chief among the precepts of Thelema is the sovereignty of Will: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” Crowley’s idea of will, however, is not simply the individual’s desires or wishes, but also incorporates a sense of the person’s destiny or greater purpose: what he termed “True Will”.
The second precept of Thelema, according to Wikipedia, is “Love is the law, love under will” — and Crowley’s meaning of “Love” is as complex as that of “Will”. It is frequently sexual: Crowley’s system, like elements of the Golden Dawn before him, sees the dichotomy and tension between the male and female as fundamental to existence, and sexual “magick” and metaphor form a significant part of Thelemic ritual. However, Love is also discussed as the Union of Opposites, which Crowley thought was the key to enlightenment.
September 6, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Well, I wrote it again and it should show up soon — it’s sitting in the moderation queue.
The html italics are messed up — I only meant to italicize the Rick Warren material and the quotes from Wikipedia, but do note the items in boldface.
The emphasis on personal will, destiny, and purpose, and Crowley’s ideas of ritual, mystical complementarianism stand out clearly, and are chillingly similar to many ideas being presented in Pop-Christianity today.
September 6, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Sheesh.. sorry about the confusion!
September 6, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Just wanted readers here to note that Doug Phillips has now decided that “complementarianism” is a feminist philosophy.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/
Check out to the left of Calvin’s picture.
September 6, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I think there’s a very important distinction that must be made about visualization.
There are things that we CAN control, and then there are things that we CAN’T control.
The things that fall in the first category I think are our responsibility to steward wisely, and sometimes “visulaization”, or more accurately, “knowing where you want to end up and working backwards to know the steps required to get you there” can be a valuable tool for those that aren’t logistically inclined. Things like our children’s education, how we choose to disclipline, how we choose to spend our time, are all things that are more in our control than out of it, things we are called to steward wisely.
Then there are the things that are not in our control, are “out of our jurisdiction” to quote patriarchese, and to try to visualize and manipulate the result is, IMHO, trying to take over what only belongs in God’s hands. Things like “forming” our children’s personalities, their dreams, who they marry, and being their conscience long after they have become the one responsible for it are just a few examples
I think “visualization” can have it’s uses; such as, my vision for my day is to do ALL the laundry (I know, it always seems like I’m harping on laundry!). So, in order to make my vision happen, I have to determine the steps required to get there, then execute them, or it just isn’t going to happen.
When applied to what IS our responsibility, I think we would be good stewards to employ this tool if needed. Outside of what IS our responsibility and jurisdiction, it’s a breach of personal boundaries, and frankly, an attempt to correct God’s deviations from our plans.
September 6, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I looked at the article you linked to Karen, and call I can say is… WOW. The whole thing was riddled with double standards, exaggerations, and just plain untruths for those who know how their “biblical family” actually works. It’s dumbfounding how the rhetoric rarely matches the reality.
September 6, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I’m sorry Karen, but I missed it. He says they stand against, among other things: “the feministic philosophy of the anti-complementarian, pro-egalitarian household leadership”. I don’t see where he says it’s feminist to be complementarian. Maybe I read through it too quickly. Kim
September 7, 2007 at 12:42 am
He changed the wording from earlier today.
It originally said: We at Vision Forum have raised serious objections to: (1) the working-woman philosophy of the late 20th century; (2) the cultural depravity of the modern university; (3) the feministic philosophy of complementarian and egalitarian household leadership; (4) the culture of death and self-gratification, with its emphasis on closing the fruitful womb; and (5) attempts by liberals or vendetta-driven individuals to viciously mock fruitful mothers as baby machines, etc.
September 7, 2007 at 12:53 am
“My criticism goes out to those who pretend to be neither feminist, nor liberals, but who have adopted the premises of both and who resort to the type of disreputable tactics, which Dr. Abshire has rightly censured.”
Pretend to be neither feminist nor liberals? HUH??? Why the pejorative (since he is so against using pejorative terms, right?!) word “pretend”? I think the term “cultic” sounds mild compared to what I have been personally called by these same people.
As far as disreputable tactics, does this include Still Fed Up, Tired of the Crap and Mrs. Binoculars, too? I wonder if Doug applies the 9th commandment to these sites as well?
“These are the half-cocked and sometimes agenda-driven commentators.”
LOL!! No, no agenda-driven commentary coming out of Doug Phillips!
“At this point, more and more people realize that there is a big difference between a sloppy diatribe, on the one hand, and a real argument marshaled by reputable sources who have done their homework, on the other. ”
That is my own personal hope.
September 7, 2007 at 8:16 pm
And there again, why does being a feminist HAVE to be a liberal ideal?
I wrote about it recently on my blog. The older I get, the less I fit in any one neat box. I’m too liberal for the conservatives, and too conservative for the liberals.
While I wouldn’t call myself a feminist in the way that DP and VF and most in their camp would…I will say that yes, I’m for women’s equal rights. I *AM* a Biblical complementarian. That is just who I am. I am also a stay-at-home wife and homeschooler. I’m staunchly pro-life. I believe in the old paths and old ways 99.9% of the time.
But do I tihnk it is abashedly wrong for a woman to earn a paycheck or put food on the table, ever? NO. Do I think women should be treated fairly and equally in pay and rights? Yes. Do I think women should be able to go to college and vote? Yes.
If that makes me a feminist Mr. Phillips, then call me a feminist. For a very long time I was afraid to let anyone in the church at all accuse me of being a feminist. Afterall, those like DP preach that being a feminist in the fashion I am is akin to being a baby-killer. Or a jezebel or other such unsavory words.
I refuse to park my brain.
I just plainly refuse. Sorry, but I can’t do it any longer.
I LOVE THIS BLOG!!!!
September 7, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Lindsey, you go girl!
September 8, 2007 at 1:00 am
Lindsey, I second Karen’s “you go girl!”.
You have also described me to a “T”. Doug Phillips says that women like us are pretending. Well, I will tell you that I don’t know HOW to pretend! I am a bad faker. This is me. This is who I am. What Lindsey has described is what I believe. I am not so sure why that is so hard to understand? This is not white-washed feminism. These are the beliefs of women who care about what the Bible actually teaches and refuse to be yoked again to the bondage of slavery that comes along with following the traditions of men.
September 8, 2007 at 5:00 am
“Doug Phillips says that women like us are pretending.”
Pretending??? Pretending what? I guess in DP logic it must be pretending because any “virtuous” person will certainly agree with him, therefore, we are disreputable play actors? Or is it because in the patriarchal worldview, every woman longs to be barefoot and pregnant (to borrow the term) and never have a life outside her home and children because that is “how she was created”? What was his context?
I’ll also accept Lindsey’s “profile”. I’m not sure where I fit in… the term egalitarian is a bit too liberal and complementarian is a bit too conservative to describe where I currently find myself. Maybe if I rally enough brain cells, I could coin a new term that would do the trick? =op
September 8, 2007 at 8:11 am
“If that makes me a feminist Mr. Phillips, then call me a feminist. For a very long time I was afraid to let anyone in the church at all accuse me of being a feminist. Afterall, those like DP preach that being a feminist in the fashion I am is akin to being a baby-killer. Or a jezebel or other such unsavory words.”
Exactly my feelings. This is why I am not ashamed of calling myself a feminist. I believe that women are not inferior to men. I see too many Christians and Conservatives behave as though women ARE inferior. This is not only unBiblical, it is inhumane. I am proud to believe that women are precious to God and equal in value to men. I call myself egalitarian because I believe in many things complementarians don’t – for example, I do not think it is wrong for women to be pastors or preach. In fact, I presently refuse to attend any denomination that will not ordain women. That’s pretty hard for a person who is probably otherwise considered pretty conservative!
September 8, 2007 at 11:55 am
How bout egaltarian?
Thanks y’all. You know, we don’t have to agree on every single point, but the refreshing thing is that we’re TALKING ABOUT IT and not just glossing a big deal over and instead keeping quiet and swapping recipes to be “holy women.” KWIM?
September 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Speaking of labels. I grew up overseas. I never really got involved in the business of labelling myself. I recently noticed that I was getting concerned with where I fit in.
Finally I decided that I too don’t fit most labels. I lean toward this way of thinking, but sincerely fit here which most would say didn’t fit with the first way of thinking. So on.
I think that the labelling thing is one of the ways that we can be rendered useless, more to the power of Satan. After all, for most the label is used to shut up a person. Then we don’t have to listen or think about their idea’s because they are ‘x.’
I see it all the time.
September 8, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Is complegalitarian a word?
September 8, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Shauna, LOL!
September 8, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Songbirdy said: “I think that the labelling thing is one of the ways that we can be rendered useless, more to the power of Satan. After all, for most the label is used to shut up a person. Then we don’t have to listen or think about their idea’s because they are ‘x.’”
Wow! That is a profound insight, and so very true. (Guilty as charged.) Thank you for that.
September 8, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Labeling can also be an ad hominem logical fallacy.
September 9, 2007 at 4:51 am
Sorry — I haven’t followed all of the comments, but just one thought – (and it is okay if this comes across as sexist, but here it is) — I shudder to think how it would effect the kingdom of God if suddenly there were no Christian women serving as doctors, nurses, social workers, firefighters, police officers, teachers, early interventionists, etc. The way these women serve as the hands and feet of Jesus (and in a way that men are frankly not capable of) to those in the world that have never met Him, I feel is far to great a part of God’s plan for women to be taken away by limiting their educational options and not “allowing” them to work outside the home.
September 9, 2007 at 10:14 am
Thank you Katherine! And thank you to all the wonderful intelligent, insightful women who have commented. We are well represented.
I personally am college educated, and up until a little over two years ago, worked. Now I am a stay at home, homeschool teacher. Do I believe that is my only option? NO. Do I believe that I was sinning until I made that choice? NO. Do I believe that I am inferior to men? NO. I am wonderfully and beautifully made.
I am a helpmate to my husband. If the situation arises where I can be of greater help by again working outside the home, or pursuing additional education, I will do so. I also believe that my experiences outside the home have prepared me to be a better wife, better mother, better educator, and better servent of God.
As the mother of two daughters, I am concerned about the whole patriarchal view. Number one, it is clearly adding to the Word of God! No ifs, ands, or buts about it! Number two, it limits women in their ability to serve their God. Are we not all given DIFFERENT spiritual gifts, that God has specifically chosen for each and every one of us, so that we are equipped to fulfill the purpose that HE has chosen for us?
September 9, 2007 at 11:27 am
Hi Natalie,
I just left a note at your blog, thinking I had seen your link at Lindsay’s… I think I read too many blogs….NOT.
Your comment about the spiritual gifts resonates with me. I am so troubled that women are taught that they are to only have the “quiet” gifts, and the leadership gifts are for the “boys.” God’s ways are so much bigger than our ways.
September 9, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Oh very interesting about the gifts.
There was a book that I read once in high school, so I’m thinking by Janette Oke, about a woman preacher. This was based on a real historical phenomenon.
In the early days of the pioneers they used circuit riding preachers. What isn’t often shared is that there were a number of women riders as well. They were also church planters.
I’ve done a bit of reading into the ‘thinking behind’ these women being ordained, and basically it comes down to the issue of gifts.
I know in our family I tried leaving things like finances to my husband. Especially since I was the most financially irresponsible.
But, time has come to show that this is clearly my strong point, when I make my mind up to it.
Stemming from that is the fact that when it comes to car buying, I’m the one that has to haggle with the salesman.
The question that then comes to my head is, where would my husband be with a wife who is ‘quiet’ ?
September 9, 2007 at 6:50 pm
The sermon at our church today was awesome, and it really touched me in relation to this posting. Our pastor spoke about standing your ground, deeply rooted in your belief system. Not always loudly, mind you. You don’t always need to cross a picket line or something to get your point across. Here is what he said that really hit me though.
People can teach you whatever they want to. They can feed you the information. But they CAN NOT make you believe. Let these people say what they will. Let them speak lies. But take on the full armour of God. The only offensive weapon is the Word. The truth of the Word of God is the only weapon we have in fighting the lies these people are promoting as spiritual truth.
Learn the Word. Study it. Know it. Recognize it as an old familiar friend. Then you will stand deeply rooted in your belief system, and not be swayed by lies that people promote as spiritual truth.
Refuse to believe, and you have stood your ground. I pray that those who are believing the words spoken by those leading the patriarchy ‘movement’ will read for themselves, and study, and in doing so, learn the truth.
September 9, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Natalie,
I nearly got goose bumps when I read that comment. My pastor preached today on Matthew 5:21-26. He talked about how many times Jesus said “You have heard that it has been said.” and the last time in that chapter, the Pharisees were NOT quoting OT law, they were misquoting it. He reminded us of the same thing….people will misquote Scripture and twist it to say whatever they wish and we need to stand firm and confront it.
September 10, 2007 at 11:57 am
Hey Karen! That’s exactly right. And throughout the Bible we are warned against believing the lies false teachers will promote. We are encouraged to compare it against the Word of God. It saddens me to see people fall for this ploy again and again.
I wrote a blog comparing the Biblical translations to the game Telephone. Check it out at my site. It was August 14. It happens through the written translation and the oral translation alike. People don’t realize that there is just no substitution for studying the Word for themselves.
And, by the way, isn’t it awesome to walk into church and receive instruction for the very issues we are dealing with?! Tells me we are right where God wants us to be!
September 10, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Natalie,
I can’t tell you how many times that has happened to me as we have been in the most awesome church for the past several years. Our pastor has no agenda other than preaching Christ and Him crucified. Everything MUST come back to that. So when we open our Bibles, we know it will be the truth of the Word of God preached and there are no weird motives being forced onto the text.
September 10, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Hey Nat—so glad to see you over here in the discussion!!!
(we’re real life friends, I have one or two ya know)
Excellent advice on knowing the Word. It is so practical, so easy, so simple that we often FORGET it is the only way to really know what God expects from us. I know myself, I tend to make it harder than it is by adding in my own rules and regulations. Which is, by the way…why I fell hard for the patriarchy stuff when I began homeschooling. I like to have lots of rules for some reason…err, well I DID like to have it that way. No longer.
September 10, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“People don’t realize that there is just no substitution for studying the Word for themselves.”
And yet women in the patriarchal movement are told to ask their husbands to explain the meaning of various Bible verses to them, and the husbands are being told what to think by their pastors and elders in the Movement.
September 10, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Here is my worst story ever regarding that sort of behavior, Cynthia.
I was once asked by the elders of a church to counsel a woman. I was happy to do so and we through the process, we became friends. (Just an aside, but it was truly an example of what I believe Biblical counseling is supposed to look like in that we were able to one another each other. A couple years after she went through a Bible study with me, my son was in an accident and nearly had one of his fingers cut off. She was the first person who came to the hospital and cried with me and stayed with me all through his surgery. I will never forget the compassion she showed to me that day.) Anyway, when our church elders were making some decisions about the direction of the church, she came to me and asked me to help her understand them. I told her that she needed to go to these men and request that they show her, from Scripture, what they were basing these decisions on. A week or so later she forwarded to me the letter she received from her pastor where he told her to only listen to her pastor and her elders and that she DIDN’T NEED TO READ HER BIBLE, that they would tell her what it said.
Need I tell you how furious I was? She then asked me if I thought she was in a cult and I told her that that sort of response is cultic and I gave her an article to read that discussed the concept of “group think” in churches, an article, which I will say, hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. Of course, under pressure from her husband, she was forced to show him my e-mail, which ended up in the hands of the elders who wanted to bring disciplinary action against me.
The real loser in this whole story was this poor, dear woman who sincerely had the heart of a Berean and made the terrible mistake of asking a man a question.
September 10, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Looks like a cult, alright.
You know, this sort of thing is starting to become notorious. There are a bunch of patriarchal/homeschooling/homechurch groups in this area, and anymore it’s gotten so that if a woman wears a dowdy jumper to Walmart, folks kind of look at her funny, thinking she belongs to such a cult, AND, the worst part of that is, they are often quite right in assuming that she does.
September 10, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Whew! ‘Church folks’ telling people to take their word for it instead of reading the Bible for themselves….sounds like a cult to me too. And directly contrary to what the Bible teaches. And, like I mentioned before, kind of like the game Telephone. The reality of the Word gets more and more distorted from the truth the more people it travels through.
September 11, 2007 at 2:36 am
“….But Grandma, what strange Tenets you have!”
“All the better to CONTROL you with, Little Red Riding Hood….”
September 11, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I am so disappointed to bump into yet another blog with many of the same people “discussing” this!
It’s like a Christian Jerry Springer show. I am daily praying that the Lord will blind His remnant, yet unreached, to all this craziness that sullies His name.
Y’all should be embarrassed. You’ve said your peace; do you not believe that the Lord is perfectly capable of handling it from here? Are there any examples in the Bible of prophets to gave a Word or a warning, and then held court about it?
For the love of Jesus–who commissioned us to tell the good news to all the nations–ask yourselves when was the last time you shared the Gospel with anyone since you started engaging in this shrill debate?
1Thes 4:11-12
September 11, 2007 at 9:16 pm
“You’ve said your peace; do you not believe that the Lord is perfectly capable of handling it from here? Are there any examples in the Bible of prophets to gave a Word or a warning, and then held court about it?”
Moses appealed to Pharoah mutiple times to “let His people go.” (Read Exodus for an exact count.)
For the love of Jesus–who commissioned us to tell the good news to all the nations–ask yourselves when was the last time you shared the Gospel with anyone since you started engaging in this shrill debate?
Today, to the Lebanese Muslim bakery owners that just moved into my area, it wasn’t a long conversation, but enough to let them know I care and that the One True God cares for them. They were grateful and gave me some free baklava(sp?) too! I’m sure I’ll have some more opportunities, I love Middle Eastern food and they’re right around the corner. They even offered my son a job as a delivery boy!
God is alive and He’s moving in our midsts. Praise be His name! Thanks Grafted Branch for the exhortation and the reminder that the reason we live is because of Him!
September 11, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Grafted,
Perhaps you might be interested in the focus of this website.
http://www.boernechristianassembly.org/
I’d encourage you to leave a comment there asking them the same question about whose name is being sullied? Unfortunately they don’t allow comments on their church blog. And they have not left any contact information if someone happens to stop by this CHURCH website and wants ot hear the good news of the gospel.
Matt Chancey might also be interested in hearing your question about sharing the gospel. His website seems to be focus on the same subject as the church website above and nary a mention of the good news of Jesus Christ.
http://www.mrsbinoculars.com/
But unfortunately Mr. Chancey doesn’t allow comments either.
September 11, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Grafted,
I’d like to direct your attention to the particular CHURCH website to ask the elders there who they are focused on.
http://www.boernechristianassembly.org/
This site has one person as its focus and it isn’t Jesus Christ or the Good News of the gospel.
Since we’re both appear very to be evangelistic with a heart for the lost; what do you think would happen if by chance a nonbeliever googled their way to the site, looking for a bible believers in the San Antonio area to help them find Christ or strengthen their walk with the Lord? This site would be of absolutely no use to them. There is no contact information and no email. All they’d find is a website dedicated to a family they excommunicated two years ago. A family they state are “heathen” whom they no longer have juristiction or authority over!
Since they don’t allow comments, you or I are unable to leave a similar comment there asking them to refocus and don’t look for elders or an email address either, you won’t find it. But I’m sure they’re reading here so I’ll join with you in your eloquent exhortation, “Y’all should be embarrassed.”
September 12, 2007 at 12:14 am
Grafted, for some of us who’ve been in it, it is extremely important for us to discuss it, work our ways through it (or out of it, whatever the case may be) and expose false unbiblical theology for what it is.
I can assure you it isn’t just for the sake of the debate. It is for the sake of seeing God’s name exalted, not mans name.
Personally I know what you mean about the debate getting ugly. It has on many blogs. But here at truewomanhood it has been handled quite well I think. We’ve all been civil and most of us have DISCUSSED it kindly, even when we don’t see each other’s side.
Lastly, my personal opinion is that being a Christian isn’t a call to blow sunshine in everyone’s face all the time. Sometimes you need to point out a fallacy and expose it for what it is so that the TRUTH may be exalted.
Sitting back and refusing to analyze or discuss something of grave importance (to some of us, obviously not all) is not being holier or better. It is just being quiet.
I have decided not to be quiet on this issue, even if it means losing some “friends” in the process. I’ve seen my blog traffic go down since I posted my thoughts and feelings on patriarchy, but it is okay. I’d rather be who I really am than be a man-pleaser anyway.
You do pose a good reminder—we shouldn’t debate for the sake of debate itself. I don’t think any of us here are doing that. It is completely because it is IMPORTANT to us.
September 12, 2007 at 1:40 am
Grafted,
Thanks for leaving a comment. I went to your blog and really enjoyed reading there for a bit this evening. You have a great writing style.
I have to admit that I’m a bit puzzled though. In your post And So, We Must Take the Road More Traveled you wrote about your own experiences with patriarchy and your journey out of a family integrated with a strong emphasis on patriarchal teachings church. You wrote:
And then the Lord showed us some other concerns that led us to…
The homechurch movement. Sometimes called family-integrated. Antagonists might even say cultish. We spent two years attending two different congregations where there were no Sunday schools, no children’s chapel–not even a nursery. Children sit with parents and siblings. They color. They groom their dolls. If they’re blessed, the speaker will be gifted and have something to offer on their level so they can hear the Word. Mostly they sit and practice attentiveness, and that’s not a bad thing.
There is a fairly strong emphasis on patriarchy in these circles. And that, too, is not a bad thing. It’s scriptural. It’s orderly. I appreciate that. But, what we’ve come to recognize in this environment is that for some, the family-integration and patriarchal commitment is overbearing. Dare I say: an idol.
How can I say that?
Well, it’s not because the fathers and husbands are making choices for their families that mine wouldn’t make or that I don’t agree with. That’s their business. Not mine.
But when another women’s husband makes choices for their family that inevitably become choices for our family, then it has become my business. And Husband and I have decided that we’re tired of it.
There isn’t really anything to do about it. Ultimately, if others want to make non-essential, unnecessary patriarchal decisions for their families, that’s their prerogative. But when those decisions bleed over and start making choices for our family, it’s our prerogative to cut our losses and invest our time and emotion somewhere else.
It seems from what you wrote here that you have the same issue that so many of us here do: you do not want other people making choices for your family and declaring them the only true biblical option. If you’ve read through this novel of a post and comments you will see that time and time again that is the concern we have. Yes, other topics have been brought up but the key point that drives this whole visionary daughters thread is the teaching that there is only ONE WAY to do things and anyone else is the enemy.
THANK GOD (literally) that people can come here and discuss this or at least read about it if they are too fearful to leave a comment. Oh that this would have existed a few years ago and the great pain many could have been spared!
September 12, 2007 at 2:40 am
I’m afraid you’ve taken my post text out of context; I wrote this months ago, having nothing to do with your controversy here. I never said that anyone’s patriarcal-leaning choices were being held up as the only biblical option. I didn’t even say I was speaking about leadership. Just simply preferences colliding with preferences.
Spunky and others…I hesitate to mention that I don’t need to go to the website for Boerne Christian Assembly. I live here in San Antonio. I know the players–all sides–and not just from the blogosphere.
September 12, 2007 at 2:41 am
“We spent two years attending two different congregations where there were no Sunday schools, no children’s chapel–not even a nursery. Children sit with parents and siblings. They color. They groom their dolls. If they’re blessed, the speaker will be gifted and have something to offer on their level so they can hear the Word.”
…and if they’re not so blessed, are they learning anything from the sermon other that how to practice pretending to listen to something that they don’t understand?
I think not. They would do better spending their time in Sunday School learning about God — they can groom their dolls or color at home.
September 12, 2007 at 4:31 am
Miss Gee, you are a Christian cannibal. I will not return here again to see anything that you write, rebuke or take out of context.
I weakened and answered fools according to their folly here. My bad. I should have stayed invisible.
The Lord forgive me.
September 12, 2007 at 11:13 am
Ok, will someone please tell me if I took her writings and used them out of context? I know she said she won’t come back here again, but I will apologize if I misrepresented her. I thought what she wrote on her blog was very relevant to what we are discussing here. I never said it had anything to do with the controversy; only that based on things she had written on her blog that I didn’t understand why she left the comment here that she did.
This is why I generally do not comment in discussions like this. People are too quick to be offended and/or rudely clever. Neither one moves the discussion along in a profitable manner and just drives me batty.
September 12, 2007 at 12:37 pm
She’ll come back and read the comments, otherwise she’d never have left the FIRST one.
She probably won’t comment again though Sallie.
I find the writing at her blog and then her shaming us here for discussing it an odd paradox, whether written months ago or not.
It is shamefully obvious she didn’t spend the time reading 500+ comments before posting “y’all should be ashamed!” (in the name of Jesus, of course).
Ehh. Just one more reason why I refuse to be silent on subjects many in the church would rather women sit quiet upon.
September 12, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Grafted, you asked when the last time was that I presented the Gospel message to somebody. I hope it was this morning, to someone my stats say visited my websites or downloaded a podcast from the archives. I hope and pray that the truth of trusting in Christ alone for salvation is evident in each and every thing that comes from my pen or keyboard or lips.
On my own personal blog, I have stated repeatedly that my goal is to be an encouragement to homeschooling moms. One aspect of that has been to address the extremes within the patriarchy movement because I have personally seen too many moms discouraged by their teachings, many to the point of wanting to throw in the towel. I have also seen families pulled apart by ridiculous lines being drawn in the sand as young adults make life choices that aren’t the “approved” choices within this movement. If you could see some of the testimonies I have read from young people who are living holy and righteous lives, young ladies who are now homeschooling mothers themselves, but who are estranged from their parents because they chose a different path, it would break your heart. I know it has broken mine.
You asked about ministering to the lost rather than addressing the topic of patriarchy and I contend that BY addressing this very topic, by pointing out the differences between genuine Biblical faith and existing within someone’s paradigm, I am doing just that. There are many young people who have abandoned the Christian faith because of these teachings. But God, in His goodness and grace, is drawing many of them back to Himself and is using the gentle, merciful witness of those who understand the dangers of these teachings to show His love and truth to them.
In the past few months, as I have been reading and researching and interviewing people for my podcasts on this subject, I have seen God working in the lives of those who are casualties of the patriarchy movement, bringing healing and hope. Perhaps you wonder why so many of them aren’t here actually telling their stories? They have told me that their greatest desire is to, one day, be restored to their mothers and fathers and siblings and to honor their fathers and mothers, though many of them have done some pretty dishonorable things to their own children. so they chose to remain anonymous and ask others to tell their stories so they can leave the door open for restoration. Isn’t that awesome?
Those of us who have chosen to hold the teachings of patriarchy up to the light of Scripture and to examine them, asking lots of questions, have been accused of many things. The name-calling alone has really surprised me. As others have pointed out, the tone and attitude of those who have posted here have been gracious and kind, aside from a few who pop in to accuse and then pop out again. And believe me, I would more than welcome anyone who holds to the teachings of patriarchy to join us to discuss them. I would LOVE a real discussion, an open-your-Bibles-and-turn-to-this-passage study together. Many here have asked for that repeatedly and have yet to have a positive response to the suggestion.
I hope you will change your mind and come back and talk with us about the real issues in this movement. Your own words suggest that you do understand this stuff on some level. The tone of your comments suggests to me much pain and I am truly sorry if that is the case. But please know that this is a safe group of ladies and I would even welcome e-mail discussions with you if you are interested.
September 12, 2007 at 12:57 pm
“Miss Gee, you are a Christian cannibal. I will not return here again to see anything that you write, rebuke or take out of context.”
HUH??? what exactly did I DO? I mean, I know I’m over the top sometimes, and I’m sorry if I offended her, but what exactly did I say that offended her so much?
September 12, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I just came across this resource that might be interesting. It is the New Zealand equivalent of the visionary daughters movement. It is called Issacharian Daughters and the archive of the newsletter can be found here:
http://www.hef.org.nz/page/890437
Also, the other branches of their ministry can be found here:
http://www.freewebs.com/issacharian/
September 12, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Actually, if “Grafted” wants, I could just stay away from any discussion in which she wishes to be a part. I’ve seen her blog — she seems like a nice person and an intelligent woman, and would probably fit in pretty well here.
September 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Here are a couple of interesting sites that might add to the discussion of the roles of daughters in the patriocentric circles. The ministry for young ladies 12 and older is called Issacharian Daughters and seems to be a ministry similar to the visionary daughters, though it is based in New Zealand.
http://www.freewebs.com/issacharian/
and
http://www.hef.org.nz/page/890437
September 12, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Here is an interesting resource called Issacharian Daughters and it appears to be modeling after the Visionary Daughters. This is the site that has all the archived newsletters:
http://www.hef.org.nz/page/890437
September 12, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“Spunky and others…I hesitate to mention that I don’t need to go to the website for Boerne Christian Assembly. I live here in San Antonio. I know the players–all sides–and not just from the blogosphere.”
Grafted,
You state that you don’t need to go to the churches website because you know the people, yet you are criticize those you do not know for not using their time to spread the gospel. That website has little about the gospel at all and know way for an unbeliever to know more about Christ should they desire to know the Truth of Jesus Christ. Since you know the people personally, I’d encourage you to look at the site and then give them a call and ask the elders why their site devotes more space to an excommunicated “heathen” than to the Lord Jesus Christ.
And since a few of these players might also be Vision Forum employees ask them the same thing about the numerous undocumented web pages that focus on this same “heathen.”
I actually find it interesting that you would be critical of a website and ladies that you don’t know for examining patriarchy instead of spreading the gospel, but not even look at the church website of those that you know very well to see if they are guilty of the same thing. Like I said, we share a love for evangelism so I do hope you take the time to share with the members of BCA your thoughts about how they use their time and web space as well.
September 12, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Wow! What happened here while I was at the zoo?
I do need to say that this is precisely the volatile type of situation that occurs when scripture is interpreted by people for the purpose of misleading. Not everything they say is a lie. That is how Satan deceives. He puts an itty bitty lie in the midst of truth, so it is difficult to detect. Only be reading the Word for yourself can you see the discreet changes.
I personally love some of the living choices made by the folks involved with the patriarchy movement. I agree wholeheartedly that many of their lifestyle choices would be beneficial to the future of the family.
As a matter of fact, I have made many of the same choices.
My problem is that they say it is THE Biblical model for living. I have checked four translations of the Bible, and referred to Strong’s Concordance, and the definitions of the original Greek and Hebrew for the passages that they reference. It just isn’t there, folks.
I do not mean to attack someone for their personal views. I DO mean to help people see the difference between false teachings and Biblical truth. I believe that is part of my job description as a Christ follower.
Mother Teresa keeps coming to my mind as I contemplate God’s purpose for women. I say this because numerous writings in the patriarchy realm state that women should not be missionaries. And Mother Teresa was very far from tending her home. I just don’t believe that she was in disobedience to God’s purpose for her life. I don’t believe that those people who’s lives she touched would believe so either.
And there are so many women, past and present, who have served Christ well outside the realm of tending to their home. They are all outside the realm of God’s purpose for them, according to patriarchal principals we have been referring to here. I believe many, many people would be lost without their contributions to Christianity.
Finally, I fear that women who are following the directive of men will tune out the whisperings of God. I could be wrong about that, but I know that I would be unable to listen to the directives of men, and still hear God speaking to me. How lonely that would be….to know that He is always with me, but not hear his voice.
I continue to pray for those that are taking a person’s word as truth. People fail to realize that if they are misled, they are Lost. ‘My people are destroyed for lack of knowlege; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me; seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children’ Hosea 4:6 ‘For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge’ Romans 10:2
I am truly saddened when I think of people who will not have access to heaven due to false teachings of man. I know many wonderful, honest, loving people who have tried to live a rightous life will be horrified and shocked to hear Christ say ‘I never knew you; depart from me’. Matthew 7:23
Ladies, don’t give up thinking this through. Don’t be discouraged by some that feel threatened. The truth can be painful. But it will make you free.
September 12, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Considering how quickly discussions like this degenerate into name-calling (i.e. tale-bearer, white-washed feminist, Marxist, feminist, Christian cannibal), I’d say I’m awfully proud of most of the women who have participated her for NOT resorting to such fallacious attacks.
People who stand against this particular form of patriarchy feel just as strongly about warning people against it as these “patriarchs” feel about warning others about feminists, which seem to be anyone who doesn’t agree with their brand of patriarchy. Why is it okay for them and not for us?
September 12, 2007 at 3:29 pm
You know, I went to that Issacharian Daughters site and it somehow just didn’t ring true.
I went to the Home Educators Did It! page and looked around there, and it seemed fishier than ever. Among the list of “home-educated or privately tutored achievers” were the names of Wilbur and Orville Wright, and I KNEW that they had attended public schools, because I remembered reading accounts of their boyhood. Just to be sure, I looked it up, and sure enough, the Wright Brothers went to school just like most other boys did in their day. Both were excellent students and athletes, and Wilbur attended Richmond High School in Richmond, IN, though he didn’t graduate from there because his family moved to Dayton, OH just before graduation.
The list also mentions C.S.Lewis, who wrote extensively about he and his brother hated their years spent attending an English boarding school.
Worst of all, this page mentions Booker T. Washington, who was a slave in his boyhood and whose early school experience was limited to carrying his master’s daughter’s books to and from the schoolhouse, since it was illegal to educate slaves. Washington is quoted as saying, “I had the feeling that to get into a schoolhouse and study would be about the same as getting into paradise.”
After the emancipation Proclamation, Booker’s family soon left to join his stepfather in Malden, West Virginia. Booker took a job in a salt mine that began at 4 a.m. so he could attend school later in the day. At age 16, he walked much of the 500 miles back to Virginia to enroll in Hampton Institute a new school for black students.
Booker T Washington did all of this in order to GO to school, and yet this anti-school group has the affrontery to hold him up as a triumph of home education!
That Home Educators Did It! page pads out their list of home-educated achievers by telling lies, and if a group that claims to be Christian does that, I don’t put much stock in anything else they might have to say.
September 13, 2007 at 12:15 pm
[...] message itself, its non-biblical basis has already been addressed here, and here, here, and here. The bottom line is readily discernible when held up to the illumination of Holy Scripture, and [...]
September 13, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Cynthia, I looked at that list and it originally came from Rainbow Resource, which I certainly would not list as a pro-patriachy site. I don’t even see a single FV resource for sale in their extremely large catalog if that tell you anything.
I also noticed that that list included those who were “privately tutored.” I have read Up from Slavery but don’t remember if Booker T. Washington fell into that category or not. Perhaps that is the source of the confusion.
September 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm
As I walk through the streets here in Ukraine, I often see needs that overwhelm me. Poorly dressed beggars sitting in the cold wind, drunks sprawling on the pavement, stylishly dressed women with long, cold faces, purposeless teenagers with beer bottles in hand. But not only am I unable to reach or minister to all of these people, but I have had to realize that this is not my calling. My job as it is clearly delineated in the Scripture is to build my home, to serve my husband, to keep his castle, fix his meals, and raise his children. To honor and to love him. (Titus 2: 4-5) I fix sandwiches for him when he goes on long road trips to minister in another town. I clean the house so that it is ready for Bible study on Sunday morning with our lost friends. I greet him with a smile when he comes into our house off of the cold, cheerless streets. I write thank-you notes to people who have helped support us so that his time is available for other things. My main purpose is serving my home and my family. (Proverbs 31: 27 “She looketh well to the ways of her household…”)
I am not saying that I am never supposed to hand out a tract, or speak to someone about the Lord and testify of him, or encourage other women in the things of the Lord. Those are and can certainly be part of my work here. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and have a responsibility to identify with him boldly and to shine as a light in the world. But as I look at the Scriptures, I see that the Gospel as a whole was never committed unto women. The great commission was given unto men. It was the 12 disciples who were sent out to preach in pairs and cast out devils. The church of God was begun and spread by men, and we see consistently that men are given the job of preaching, teaching and leading the church.
Not only are women not specifically given the job of spreading the gospel, but they are expressly commanded not to be great leaders and teachers! They are to be silent while church teaching is taking place, they are not to teach or to usurp authority over the man, not to disturb the church service, and are to learn by asking of their husbands at home. (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12) We are told that a meek and quiet spirit in a woman has a power to win “without the word.” (1 Pet. 3:1, 4)
I don’t know how to put this in quote but the above was taken from the Isacharian Daughters website. http://www.hef.org.nz/page/890437 This was written by Kelsie Steele and the article is titled a Word to Women. Kelsie is married to Joshua Steele and he is a missionary in the Ukraine.
This article was so sad to me. It is one thing to have an agreement with her own husband about roles but to say that women are not called to witness is completely wrong! She uses 1 Peter 3:1,4 as an example of women being silent. That verse is speaking to women married to unsaved men. I wonder if they think that all the verses that speak to wives are directed at all women and the verses that say “you” are only directed at men? (Matthew 5:14). How do they explain Paul’s greeting in Romans 16 to the women of the church? Its pretty obvious to me that there were women working in the church.
It seems sad that there are women who may feel God’s leading to go into missions but they are being taught to wait for God to bring them a husband. How sad that they are being told that this this calling must mean that they are going to marry a missionary.
Sorry for the long post I just wanted to share my thoughts.
September 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I’m not sure if that list impresses me or not. Public school is a fairly recent invention and many if not most of the names listed on that lived before public school was even around let alone required.
Kyla, thank you so much for your thoughts. Context often seems to be a problem for folks who believe that a daughter’s sole purpose before marriage is to serve her father. Verses on marriage are used as proof-texts to support this.
It seems clear to me that the Great Commission was given to every believer. And the Holy Spirit came upon both the men AND the women in the Upper Room on Pentacost. It just seems like parts of Scripture or even basic hermeneutics are ignored to favor their agenda.
Ladies, I’m really struggling here. I’m not a VF/LAF supporter in general, but I do find that I don’t disagree with everything they say… not even with most of what they say. Do I throw the baby out with the bath water or do I eat the fruit and spit out the pits? Its tough because its so easy to be drawn in … any advice?
September 13, 2007 at 5:06 pm
r34mdmom—I know what you are saying. Not everything about VF and DP and the “movement” is bad. I’m all for Fathers turning their hearts to home. I’m for purity and young ladies who have a desire to serve their families, if that is what the indeed want to do. I love the “old fashioned” ways and old paths! I truly do!
Where I get down and dirty with the whole thing is when it is being sold as a completely, utterly BIBLICAL model with lots of man made rules thrown in…such as the college issue, no voting, women not interpreting scripture for themselves, etc. It gets a bit wacky for me in those areas.
See, that is what SELLS this to the average Christian believer (esp. homeschooler since VF really caters to our crowd). It looks good…it feels good at first…it seems whole and pure. By all outward appearances, it comes off as very Christian, very much to be desired.
Then, when you get into it, there are all sorts of requirements and expectations you can’t possibly line up with scripture, much less live by (if you’re being HONEST).
September 13, 2007 at 6:35 pm
“I’m not a VF/LAF supporter in general, but I do find that I don’t disagree with everything they say… not even with most of what they say.”
Absolute allegiance is not required except to the Lord Himself and HIS Word alone, the words of any many are fallible and subject to error. There are things from Vision Forum that I do agree with as well.
The decision to purchase materials from a ministry is based on your personal convictions and ability to discern the Truth from the lie; especially when the lie is couched in biblical terms and scripture is given.
A mature believer can find the meat and spit out the bones, while a young believer is at risk of choking on the bones by mistaking it for meat. That’s why the film “Visionary Daughters” is problematic. We have two young women teaching young women how to be visionary. The girls have yet to prove the truth of this teaching in their own children, and the young ladies usually lack discernment.
As a ministry, I also look to the credibility of the leader of the organization. If the leader is credible and accountable, I will support them. If they are not, I will look elsewhere to buy materials or send my donation. That may mean that I will miss out on some materials that might benefit me or my family, but wise stewardship is important to our family.
I’m not sure if that helps or not, but those are the guidelines I use to determine which materials I purchase and where I purchase them.
September 13, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Let me clarify one point in my last comment,
I said, “The girls have yet to prove the truth of this teaching in their own children, and the young ladies usually lack discernment.”
When I said that “the young ladies lack usually lack discernment” I was not referring to the Botkin girls specifically, but the audience of young ladies that their materials are being marketed.
September 13, 2007 at 10:44 pm
“When I said that “the young ladies lack usually lack discernment” I was not referring to the Botkin girls specifically, but the audience of young ladies that their materials are being marketed.”
Then, out of the few that DO have discernment, it would be rare to find one that is able to have the gumption and emotional stamina to outwardly disagree, plus have the skills to fully articulate exactly why they aren’t buying it; especially, because if they are disagreeing, they are probably working from a totally different set of presuppositions than their parents or whoever is promoting it to them, making it near impossible to get them to understand the logic they present.
September 14, 2007 at 3:53 am
“Then, when you get into it, there are all sorts of requirements and expectations you can’t possibly line up with scripture, much less live by (if you’re being HONEST).”
Lindsey,
And this is THE point. People are not being honest. Their system of patriarchy really doesn’t work out in real life, even for their families, like it does on paper.
I hear what they are teaching, I read what they are teaching and it is much different from what they are living.
It is no different than the pharisees that made up rules/burdens that were very heavy for the ones sitting under their teachings and they refused to even lift a finger to help with those burdens. The pharisees were no different. Their teachings sounded nice but they didn’t follow their own teachings because when the rubber hits the road, it isn’t feasible. They follow the letter of the law and not the spirit and they are forever getting around their own teachings by making up special passes for themselves.
For some reason it is different when the women in their group teach men. For some reason it is different when the women in their group have other people caring for their children so they can work.
I like how you say that when you get “down and dirty” with these teachings, they just don’t compute. I am like you- I like the old paths. I like the simplicity of yesteryear.
But, we live in 2007. Things are different. It is not enough to go back to the 1700′s and the days of Pride and Prejudice (I think that many of them are trying to reproduce some fantastical and idealistic life found only among the very few people in the upper-classes) because that isn’t far enough back if you really want to do it the Bible way. Funny how they really don’t want to go all the way back to the day of Jesus and Paul and live JUST like it was then. But, then you would have to decide which culture you would live in because the application of scripture looks different in each culture.
Don’t get me wrong- I own almost every book and DVD from Jane Austin and BBC that deals with this time period. North and South, Wives and Daughters, Pride and Prejudice (3 different versions), Emma, Martin Chuzzlewitt, etc. You name it, I have seen it and I LOVE them all. If I could go back I would but I probably wouldn’t have been born into the upper-class. I would probably be a fish hawker’s daughter living in a tenement and working hard from an early age. It wouldn’t have been the glitz and glamour that we see in those movies.
One thing about Charles Dickens’ books is that they are more realistic and gives one a much better view of what life was like back then.
September 14, 2007 at 5:19 am
From the Issacharian Daughters weblink:
“These emails are put together by Genevieve Smith under the oversight of her parents and include articles, poems, instruction from older women and Genevieve’s own writings on subjects such as helping fathers, assisting mothers, preparing for marriage, learning homemaking skills, strengthening family relationships, building your relationship with God, being Titus 2 women and more.”
Is it just me, or is this yet another young single girl being used as the conduit to “teach” others that are either her age or her senior??? I find nothing wrong with a young woman sharing and exhorting others (that’s just being part of the Body), but don’t do it saying that it’s fulfilling Titus 2 and PLEASE let it be some fresh, orginal material, not what has been reparaphrased from a parent’s agenda!!
September 14, 2007 at 6:26 am
I find the discussion is somewhat polarized because their side insists that what they are teaching is “biblical patriarchy” and they can’t understand why everyone is freaking out about it and still calling themselves complementarian.
The other side (the one I happen to be on) maintains a belief in patriarchy (if what one means by that is male headship in marriage and male leadership in the local church), and can’t understand why the other side keeps calling me a feminist.
How can we even discuss these issues if we keep talking past each other? “Their” side can’t understand what the big deal is and “our” side gets frustrated because we can affirm a lot of the theology behind it (ie headship of husband) but not necessarily the extrabiblical ways in which it works out practically (no voting for women, no college for women).
September 14, 2007 at 10:30 am
Corrie,
You bring up something I would like to discuss…what about the Jane Austen books? Do you consider them to be “romance” books?
One patriarch’s wife states that she doesn’t allow her daughters to read or watch anything that stirs up romantic thoughts. But then they promote the Jane Austen books and movies.
What do you think?
September 14, 2007 at 12:14 pm
re4mdmom,
I understand your confusion. I too am attracted by some the of the value system and simple way of living that the VF folks promote. But there is still the fact that they promote lies that they claim are spiritual truth. And they teach that you should take their word for it, and not check it out scripturally for yourself. That scares me! It reminds me of a wolf in sheep clothing. He can look so innocent and pure on the outside….until he infiltrates the sheep pack.
Another thing to think about. Our teaching pastor used the illustration of rat poison. Did you know that rat poison is 1/10 of 1% poison? The other 99.9 percent contain things that will lure the rat. All the yummy stuff that a rat loves to eat. It is not until they eat it that they learn they have consumed poison.
There are so many wonderful scriptural teachings about false teachings. Here is the one God led me to after reading your post.
1Timothy 1:3-11 KJV As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned; From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murders of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
and NIV
….so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work – which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered awasy from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
I hope this helps.
September 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm
While many “movements” contain elements of good, and it is the mark of a mature mind to be able to study such things take the good and leave the bad, I find myself agreeing with Natalie.
The bad theology in the patriarchy movement is so closely interwoven with the good ideas, and the “SPIN” is so seductive, (especially for folks who are of that particular cast of character which inclines them to be “joiners” and seek affirmation from a group) as to make in very dangerous indeed.
As an aside, check out this link. On the surface this group appears to have some good ideas, many of which line up with ordinary complimentarianism, but I doubt that most of us would touch these guys with a 10-foot pole, because of what else they believe:
http://www.divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_web_all.pdf
September 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Doggone typos… I wish WordPress had a “preview” button.
September 14, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Lynn said, “They follow the letter of the law and not the spirit and they are forever getting around their own teachings by making up special passes for themselves.”
Lynn, that is a glaring issue staring those that teach these principles right in the face. They refuse to admit that they don’t at times follow the very things they teach. Their behavior doesn’t necessarily negate the Truth of the principle, but it calls into question the credibility of those teaching it. Credibility demands that when our own lives don’t meet up with how we say one ought to live we either reexamine the principle and modify it, or modify our behavior. Yet, that requires a great deal of humility and a desire to know THE Truth and not just what we want the Truth to say.
A glaring example is the Botkin girls and the very publishing of their book, So Much More.
In the interview with Kevin Swanson, the Botkin girls fancied themselves as sort of “Titus 2″ women. Yet their book is written to girls exactly their age, 14-24. Titus 2 women were older and the biblical pattern is the older teaching the younger. They were at best qualified for teaching very young girls not their peers.
Further, Titus 2 is a directive to OLDER women who are to teach YOUNGER women how to love their husband, their children, and be keepers of the home. The passage obviously is directed to older teaching younger MARRIED women because UNMARRIED women don’t have a husband or children, and the passage doesn’t speak at all about a young daughter and her father.
So we have the Botkin girls acting as Titus 2 women when they have don’t meet the very basic requirement of age, speaking to an age group that the passage isn’t even directed toward because they are unmarried young women.
Ironically, the girls admit their age is a problem, but do to the urgency of the need they feel they had to go to publish the book.
They state on page 5, “We fully acknowledge that we’re somewhat young to be coming to such strong conclusions. We also understand that we may handle these issues more wisely after our teenage years. But we see a need to go to press with this book now.”
Based on what Scriptural justification or example do they see the need for publishing a book while at the same time admitting they would handle things “more wisely” in a few years?
The Botkins don’t provide one. We are left to believe that their “calling” to meet a “need” is sufficient to publish it.
However, in the book, the Botkin’s dismiss that very sense of urgency and calling in young ladies who desire to go into the mission field because their isn’t Scriptural justification.
After making their case against foreign missions (see comments above) they rhetorically ask on page 263, “Okay, so it’s not purely biblical for women to become overseas missionaries on their own, but I feel God is calling me to the mission field. Doesn’t the revelation God gives me over-rule anything in Scripture?”
No. His revelation is Scripture not the imagination of your heart. Proverbs 28:26 “He that trusten in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.” Our hearts can be desperately selfish and darkly deceitful.”
I agree that our personal revelation shouldn’t over ride Scripture, but there isn’t a clear command against foreign missions, just like there isn’t a clear command against writing a book. But the Botkin’s go ahead anyway and say that there is a “wrong way to do right” and that foreign missions isn’t purely biblical.
But is it “purely biblical” for two teenage girls to write a book? Wouldn’t this also be an example of a “wrong way to do write?” We don’t have any biblical examples of teenage girls writing books to other young unmarried girls, and the Titus 2 instruction directs OLDER women to teach the younger MARRIED women. This causes one to wonder, did their personal revelation and desire to write cause them to over-rule Scipture?
They were unwilling to wait until they move beyond the teen years themselves, when they admit they may handle things “more wisely” yet we’re supposed to believe their “higher calling” to publish makes this book was not done for selfish reasons, that their heart is pure and unselfish unlike a young lady who feels a calling and sees a need in missions?
Perhaps the girls should have stopped at page 5 and humbly put the manuscript away for a while despite the urgency of the perceived “need.” A few more years and some life experience might have helped them see the obvious differences between what they wrote and how they actually live.
It is noble that the girls see the need and want to help, but they repeatedly remind us in the book that we must not compromise God’s biblical pattern. As they write on page 279, “As we stop compromising and start obeying, we will see the transition back to biblical methodology become a reality.” Clearly, the biblical pattern is the older teaching the younger.
If the need for this book was so great, would not their own mother, as a biblically qualified older woman, be the one to write it; and allow the girls the time they admit they need to handle this topic “more wisely” after their teen years are behind them?
September 14, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Spunky, all these points are well taken. And as a result of what you said, I believe, given their age and their expressed standing as women in their home and in Phillips’ church, are not the elders of their church and their father ultimately responsible for their writings?
We already know that Kevin Swanson will take no responsibility for these teachings, though his broadcast was used to promote them, since he stated that only his own congregants, under his authority as elder, are under his shepherding.
September 14, 2007 at 6:17 pm
“All of this, and more, makes me very wary to admit to myself or others that my children are, indeed, a pretty incredible threesome. ”
Wary?
Looks to me like she’s “admitting” it all over the place, and everyone else and their kids come off pretty poorly by comparison.
Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
September 14, 2007 at 7:50 pm
All morning, I have been presented with the reality that we all have filthy rags for holiness.
But we rarely realize that reality, because we tend to think horizontally, where there are always “less holy” people to make us feel like we’re doing okay. If we are to think vertically and compare ourselves to what God’s standards are and Who He is, all of a sudden our “goodness” becomes very pale indeed. Horizontal thinking gets us every time, because with it either comes pride or bondage to standards God doesn’t hold us to; sometimes both.
So while I’ve recently learned that it’s easier to say than do, it really boils down to the fact that none of us have a stone to throw… not even me.
September 14, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Jen, shame on you for publishing ‘Grafted Branch’s’ full name on this blog. That was unnecessary, spiteful and speaks so loudly of your character.
September 15, 2007 at 1:42 am
Trish, which is worse — publishing a person’s real name in a blog comment, or calling someone names, and making catty remarks about other people’s children, while bragging about your own?
When I first glanced at “Grafted Branch”‘s blog the other day, she appeared to be an intelligent, articulate woman, but after reading how she praised her own children while putting down other people’s, she rather reminds me of that Pharisee in Luke 18:11, who prayed, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”
It’s really a shame that she’s so spiteful, too, because if she weren’t, I think it would be a pleasure to debate with her.
September 15, 2007 at 2:46 am
You all should please read the original essay that this excerpt was taken from. She has a link to it on her blog. I like her and think she has been misrepresented here.
September 15, 2007 at 4:22 am
The contributors have decided to remove the comment publishing Grafted Branch’s name and the excerpt from her blog. We believe that this post and some of the subsequent comments have very little to do with the purpose of the True Womanhood blog or with the “Visionary Daughters” post.
September 15, 2007 at 4:33 am
“You bring up something I would like to discuss…what about the Jane Austen books? Do you consider them to be “romance” books?
One patriarch’s wife states that she doesn’t allow her daughters to read or watch anything that stirs up romantic thoughts. But then they promote the Jane Austen books and movies.
What do you think?”
I think that they are akin to romance novels. They certainly are romance books. I am not talking “Fabio” here. The Fabio type of thing makes most thinking women want to hurl. I am not talking about the heaving bosoms type of thing, either. There is a HUGE market of Christian romance fiction out there with a heavy dose of historical overtone that is very similar to the Austin novels.
I don’t do fiction. I rarely read it. If I do, it is a detective novel or some sort of mystery. I like to solve things and I am a realist, not an idealist. But, if I wanted to live in an idealistic world, I would live in a Jane Austen book where everything is clean, crisp, sunny and ROMANTIC and everyone lives happily ever after.
September 15, 2007 at 4:44 am
“If the need for this book was so great, would not their own mother, as a biblically qualified older woman, be the one to write it; and allow the girls the time they admit they need to handle this topic “more wisely” after their teen years are behind them?”
Exactly!
Where is their mother? Did she help write this book? I would think she would have been a major contributor and central focus of the book since it is about women, right?
I am reading about the history of the Mormon church written by women in the 1800′s and it is fascinating.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/Cults/Mormonism/WomenofMormonism/kjcwoma.htm
There is just so much at this link to truly ponder. From not allowing women to be part of government to not allowing the young women contact with the “Gentiles” because they might get rebellious ideas to forming the Relief Society where young women were indoctrinated by other young women and keeping them from education so that they would not think that there was any other way to look at things except through the lens which was impressed upon them since birth.
The women who had it hardest were those who were not born into this life but who were forced into it because their husbands wanted to join the church.
One older Mormon woman once said that it would have been far easier for God to have actually made women intellectually inferior (since that is what the Mormon church teaches) because it would have been far more merciful and less cruel to woman than the reality that she is fully human and has equal intelligence. A husband’s will is his wife’s will. She was there to give birth to his children to further his kingdom.
I have often thought the same thing and wondered why God made women with equal intelligence and gives them an equal measure of the Holy Spirit? Why give her a will and a mind when she is not to have either?
September 15, 2007 at 5:22 am
“Lynn said, “They follow the letter of the law and not the spirit and they are forever getting around their own teachings by making up special passes for themselves.””
Hi Spunky,
I actually said that.
I would hate to get Lynn in any trouble!
“Lynn, that is a glaring issue staring those that teach these principles right in the face. They refuse to admit that they don’t at times follow the very things they teach. Their behavior doesn’t necessarily negate the Truth of the principle, but it calls into question the credibility of those teaching it. Credibility demands that when our own lives don’t meet up with how we say one ought to live we either reexamine the principle and modify it, or modify our behavior. Yet, that requires a great deal of humility and a desire to know THE Truth and not just what we want the Truth to say.”
I totally agree.
September 15, 2007 at 9:21 pm
[...] An interesting discussion of these ideas takes place here . [...]
September 16, 2007 at 4:43 am
Millenium Woman, my apologies. Grafted Branch’s name is well known and not a secret, so I did not consider that a breach. However, I apologize for naming her and for getting off topic by doing so.
September 17, 2007 at 12:19 am
“Grafted Branch” used Proverbs 26:4, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him,” as her parting shot.
I’ve been guilty of this one before. It sounds so sanctified. I mean, you’re quoting Scripture, and it’s a pithy remark. Plus, you get to indirectly call the others in the discussion “fools.”
But…isn’t that a problem? Doesn’t Christ specifically say that if we call our brother (and indeed, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ here) a fool, we’re in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22)?
I’ve recently come under conviction in my own heart for wielding the sword of God’s Word at others in such a way where my goal is to make myself look smart while making others look like fools.
This discussion has for the most part been so gracious. But isn’t it time to retire this “answer not a fool” parting shot?
September 17, 2007 at 5:14 am
” 573.
I’ve recently come under conviction in my own heart for wielding the sword of God’s Word at others in such a way where my goal is to make myself look smart while making others look like fools.
This discussion has for the most part been so gracious. But isn’t it time to retire this “answer not a fool” parting shot?
”
Joan,
Good point.
I would think that when we do this, as is the case with the whole “do not answer a fool” thing, we are taking God’s name in vain. It is no different than using it with a swear word.
I liken it to the old adage where a person thinks that everyone who drives faster is “crazy” and everyone who drives slower is a “moron”.
But, in this case, everyone who disagrees, is a fool and is a waste of time.
The other verse that is often used which makes me absolutely cringe is the one about throwing our pearls to swine.
Again, it carries with it the notion that the person is not worth the other person’s time or breath.
The pharisees used the word of God like this and it is perverted. Titus 3
September 17, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Lynn said, “They follow the letter of the law and not the spirit and they are forever getting around their own teachings by making up special passes for themselves.””
Corrie:
Hi Spunky,
I actually said that.
I would hate to get Lynn in any trouble!”
RATS, I wished I had said that!
September 17, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Re: # 573
Exactly what you said.
In university (Redeemer University in Ancaster Ontario) we’d have these informal debating clubs in our dorms.
I loved them… until this kind of thing happened.
I have seen to many Christians turned off their Bible and faith when the Bible is used as a sword.
And that caused me to refuse to participate in discussions like this until… well until this blog.
So that would be 12 years?
It is too easy to find a verse to say something for you, but very hard to use that verse in the manner in which it was meant. I believe that this is the high standard that the Bible calls teachers to be accountable.
Something I don’t feel comfortable doing and it is rare I will quote scripture for this reason. I don’t feel qualified. I would rather pull out the Bible with the person and look at the passage together for the context.
Anyhow… just wanted to say I agree.
September 17, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Songbirdy –
Just this morning, I was reading Proverbs with my girls. We use the New Living Translation sometimes, alongside the ESV, because the NLT often says things in a manner that is clearer to 7 and 8-year-olds.
So today, we read this verse (Proverbs 16:2), which says (in the NLT), “People may be pure in their own eyes, but the Lord examines their motives.” This basic thought is repeated in many places throughout the Bible (where it will say something like, “God judges the heart”), but I’d never thought of it in terms of God judging our MOTIVES.
And that really is at the heart of our participation in these types of discussions, isn’t it. It’s so easy to get sucked into a blog exchange without ever stopping to think about why we’re making comments. I’ve been guilty of doing that too often!
We make comments, and even as we hide behind our Bible verses, what we’re really trying to do is stand up for ourselves, promoting our own personal point of view on a subject.
The scary thing is, I find that I will even have layers of motives. I’ll THINK that I’m firing off a comment because I genuinely want to “stand up for the Lord,” (like that Proverb says, I’m “pure in my own eyes”), but then if I ask the Holy Spirit to reveal my heart, the reality is that my motives are more about my SELF and demonstrating my “debating skills” than they are about “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.”
Sometimes I even think that a lot of our blogs out there are more about showing off the great job we’re doing as mothers, homemakers, and wives, than they are about truly honoring God. Awhile back, I found myself getting so irritated with all these blogs I was reading, where the authors would dish up advice and tell all the wonderful stuff that their families were doing. Supposedly, the purpose was to “offer encouragement to other moms” or some such thing. But the reality was, these blogs were serving more to showcase these women’s beautiful lives and families and make others admire them.
That’s why I’ve been going through a season where my blog has been silent. I’m re-evaluating WHY I want to write and post articles. It can be a painful thing!
Anyway…I don’t mean to add off-topic comments to this fascinating discussion. But I do think that as women who really do desire to honor the Lord, we’d probably do better to spend more time before Him, asking Him to show us our true motives, than flipping through our concordances to find the exact verse that will support our next “zinger.”
September 17, 2007 at 3:37 pm
And oh – just for the record – I wasn’t disparaging any blog belonging to anyone here!!
Or questioning anybody’s motives!
I do believe there definitely ARE times when we must speak up about certain topics. The New Testament contains many verses commanding us to contend for pure doctrine, for instance. A blog can be a wonderful tool for such contending.
And now I really will quit going on about this.
September 21, 2007 at 2:40 am
This is what patriarchal doctrine can do:
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7074742
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/pilgrims/story/9302438p-9215984c.html
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/pilgrims/story/8514719p-8407713c.html
September 22, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I don’t know really where to put this but I came across this and thought it was interesting especially in light of the discussion concerning books being written to girls.
I had just read this over on Vison Forum’s (Doug Phillips wrote this) website:
“The next time you are in a used bookstore, look through the shelves for ancient volumes on child training and family discipleship. Here is what you will find: If the book was written in the eighteenth century, it was directed to fathers. If it was written in the nineteenth century, it was directed to mothers. What happened? The nineteenth century brought many profound social changes which rocked the family and paved the way for the absentee fathers of the twentieth century. ”
So, I wanted to see what sorts of books were published during those two centuries. Right away I could see through the lack of logic in the above statement. Books, if it was true, were written to men because women were not educated nor was it taught by the leading men that women should trouble their heads with reading things because it is to hard on their brains. I don’t look at the attitude of the 18th century concerning women as a good thing. I am still researching but from what I can ascertain about the books written in the 18th century, I can see that women were held in low esteem and were deemed unfit because they were too feeble to actually understand the things written in books. Books were the stuff of men because men are strong and intelligent.
Also, in the 1940′s, I came across an article where a doctor had written that women were just like savages because they were intellectually inferior. It looks like the attitude towards women survived even through the “pervasive” 19th century where people actually wrote books to women on how to care for their own children.
http://www.users.muohio.edu/mandellc/brenda.htm
Here is a quote:
“Joseph Dorman’s long poem on the virtue and prudence of woman seems an appropriate place to begin this dicussion of eighteenth-century conduct literature, for it suggests a fluidity to the term “virtue” highly applicable to the constructed attributes these books advise. The founding rationale of conduct books automatically assumes change through social mobility, for through them a young woman can learn the requisite codes of sensibility which will make her more attractive (and a commodity of greater value) on the marriage market. As such, books of manners are a fitting and interesting model for not just women’s issues but much of the social change beginning to emerge in the eighteenth century. As England moved from a hierarchical society to one with a thriving middle class, social mobility became a feasible possibility. Women in particular were afforded the possibility of moving themselves (and their families) up in social status in exchange for a rather liberal dowry paid over, most frequently, to a man of aristocratic birth. Conduct books were needed, then, to give women an appropriate sense of how they should behave, deport themselves, think, feel, and respond in a new sphere of social interaction. Or so the story went. What the books addressed on a more covert level was the need to curb women, to keep them from becoming too mobile, too aware of their capacities and abilities. The books, written by both men and women and directed mostly to daughters, were gestures of warning and approbation, texts to keep women quelled and serving the interest of the nation and its patriarchal dictates. They cautioned women about the importance of being chaste and “pure,” sometimes giving advice on dress, toilet, learning, and finances. As much as they attempted to evince a concern for the women they addressed, the texts carried with them a more coercive and disturbing warning about what the “daughters of England” should avoid becoming.”
Here are some other books (there are more listed) that are were written about how to deal with women (read: their “problems”) and how to train up daughters:
“A Physician.” The Pleasures of Conjugal Love Explained. In an Essay Concerning Human Generation, 1740.
This doctor disagrees with a common notion of the time that women are “hotter” because they have a greater quantity of blood and the resulting heat causes them to die earlier and be less bothered by winter weather (it is probably the corsets and petticoats which do that.) Instead he wants to argue that love is not a result of excess of heat but rather of “Inconstancy of their Imagination, or rather to the Providence of Nature, that has made them to seve us for Playtoys after our more serious Occupations.” He contends that men act with more firmness and have greater strength and alacrity when it comes to the conception of children. “In short, she is only to Conceive, to give Suck, and to breed up Children.”
Astell, Mary. A Serious Proposal to the Ladies for the Advancement of their Interest. 4th ed. (1701) New York: Source Books Press, 1970.
Defoe, Daniel. Some Considerations upon Streetwalks with a Proposal for lessening the present Number of them, (1726).
Defoe makes it all too clear that sexuality is the perview of the male. Female sexuality is only deviant sexuality. Defoe’s suggestions are to encourage virtue rather than punish vice through whippings, bridewels and work-houses. As well, he considers inequality in marriage (meaning discrepancy in age) to be a crucial problem. To remedy this he suggests that men should not mary old wives as this will lead to the lewdnes and the ruin of virtue in younger women (for of course, the men will grow weary with their older wives and seek greater satisfaction in younger, innocent women).”
September 22, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Some interesting info you share, Corrie.
I’m wondering… when you mentioned that both men and women wrote books directed to daughters on their behavior… what qualified these women to author books if they wre women. And what is their motivation besides bing steeped in the cultural notions?
But then it kind of hit me, and then hit me again when I realized that it also applies to the women steeped in today’s patriarchal notions: By accepting the “woman’s place” theories and agreeing with their men, it is the closest they can come to BEING like a man, and so end up subjecting their daughters to the same life as the have been relegated to. But they also have more of a knack for “dressing it up” and making it sound pretty and wonderful (not that certain things about being a woman aren’t!), at least more so than the daily reality proves.
September 22, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Corrie- that is very interesting. I have always been very interested about the history of women’s education and women in the publishing world.
The idea that women were intellectually inferior to men did not die out in the 1940s, even. My great aunt, who passed away about 10 years ago in her late 80s, always refused to go to a female doctor because she did not believe women were intelligent enough to practice medicine. I’m not sure how she felt about herself, though, because she never married, never had children, and worked as a secretary her entire adult life.
Not only did people in the past believe women were intellectually inferior to men, it was taught that a woman’s brain and nervous system were inherently too weak and fragile to handle rigorous thought or academic endeavors, and that zealous intellectual pursuits could also harm a woman’s reproductive organs! If a woman tried to learn, say, calculus or physics, she might have a nervous breakdown and become infertile. I have noticed echoes of these sentiments within the patriocentric movement — articles about how taking time to pursue your education will hurt your chances of marriage, and how it’s wasteful to teach girls things that don’t directly equate with being a homemaker. Also, the educational model presented as ideal for daughters precludes most of the same subjects women were thought too weak to study two hundred years ago! It’s pretty hard to study engineering, advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc., if the only learning you’re allowed is at your own kitchen table with books your dad has approved for you.
Also, I would imagine the reason we start to see books written by women directed towards young girls in the 19th century was because, when the publishing arena finally opened up for women, the only appropriate audience for their work was considered other women, particularly young women. In journalism school, we learned that the first female journalists employed by newspapers at the end of the 19th century were called “sob sisters” because they were restricted to writing either fluff stories about high society for the gossip columns, or maudlin essays about love, marriage and motherhood.
September 23, 2007 at 12:25 am
I’m skeptical about making too many broad generalizations about women and publishing. Just off the top of my head, I can think of many, many women writers (many self-published) throughout the history of Christianity. Looking in the secular realm, the so-called “first” women might have been writing fluff stories. But I’ve got a STACK of primary sources on my shelves here that prove otherwise for *Christian* women.
One of my favorite stories to tell is about a group of evangelical women in the northeast who were so moved by the 2nd Great Awakening that they wanted to join the world missions mvt. But they couldn’t; they had families. So they treated their homes as their mission-field and considered their ministry to their families to have world-importance.
And they started self-publishing _The Mother’s Magazine_ in 1832. The articles are all written by women and are far from fluff. They remind me of the stuff we write here or the things I find on my fav blogs.
Things remained the same until around the Civil War when the men took over. And then the fluff started.
Just before the turn of the century, the name changed to _The Family Circle_. 
No kidding!!
So the stories aren’t all the same with women starting out with “fluff.” These believing women started just the opposite!
September 23, 2007 at 4:13 am
Camille, that is intriguing. What happened that caused this change during the Civil War? And how does it relate to the fact that women’s suffrage was becoming such an issue at the same time? Any thoughts on that?
September 27, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Hello ladies,
I am a young mother. However, as Paul exhorted Timothy, I do not count that against my ability to understand God’s word and the world around me properly as it is the role of the Holy Spirit to be my counselor and helper in this area. Also, I glean much wisdom in the manner of older women who have mentored me in how to love my husband and children and be busy at home as the Bible directs in Titus chapter 2.
Therefore, I am not “afraid” that I will wake up five years later and realized that I quickly grabbed hold of radical teaching because my convictions are drawn from careful examination of the word as well as the model of godly women who have raise happy healthy children and are experiencing the joy of becoming grandmothers.
For these reasons, I highly recommend the sound doctrine of these YOUNG girls who have spent many years under the mentorship of their parents.
The practical application of honoring their father has profoundly impacted my life as I finally begin to honor a father I had little respect for in my youth. Young women are not led astray to be mindful of this mandate.
As far as college, working out of the home… all the things that they mark as signs of a fallen feminist culture yet at the same time being under grace the apostle Paul said it well, “yes, all things are acceptable, but not all things are profitable.” Now concerning labeling what is acceptable as “sin” the book of James tells us that “if we know the good we ought to do and do not do it, we sin.”
Families such as the Botkin’s have refused the little beneficial things for greater things. Many of you believe that is my own faulty opinion. Perhaps so, but let us all be like the Bereans who were more noble than the Thessolonicans because they received Paul’s message with eagerness, yet tested against the word diligently.
I challenge, exhort, and plead with all women to seek out godliness. Pray that God lavishes his grace on us as we “take captive every thought” and properly understand how to give honor to those whom God has called us to honor despite how they fail us and to respect and “submit to one another in love out of reverence in Christ”.
The biggest argument I have heard against these sisters is about how they can prescribe God’s plan. Well, they can’t, his word does that and we are responsible for uncovering it. Also, they are too young… well, no, they are too young, they are younger than us, but scripture does not reserve wisdom for the aged (although time gives more opportunity to deepen it). Furthermore, their target audience is towards their own peers which happens.
For all who think that being a wife and mother was simple with nothing more than on the job training, consider yourselves exemplary as Paul considered it worth mentioning that older women ought to take time in instructing younger women on such things, but you did not require the practical, spiritual and philosophical instructions concerning such details other than helpful fellowship with peers.
For those of you who fear the negative impact of this kind of message… well, my closest friends, family and church congregation has only experienced positive impact. Many of which are proud to see the fruit of young people being so productive and seeing their children so encouraged by like-minded teens who have been raised by the same principles.
I have hope for the future because my husband leads our family in this manner. We take God’s word seriously and delight in aligning our hearts as Paul directs in Ephesians for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church (I do wish that every women had the assurance of a husband who was willing to lay down everything for her sake, it is an unexplainable blessing). Wives are instructed to submit to their husbands (yes, I know that that is easier said from a woman who has such love lavished on her from a man- but we each are responsible for our own selves in such manner regardless of the ease of our circumstances). Children are instructed to obey their parents.
Some are concerned about “forced” obedience in adult children, however, this generally simply isn’t something that enters a parents mind in such families as they taught their young children how to obey and they held the hearts of shier teens so older “adult children” generally are pleased to continue to honor their parents in their practical daily life. Obey is for a season, but honor is for a lifetime.
Please, do not train your daughters by any man’s teaching, but rather with the word of God. By this you will know if a man’s teaching rings true.
Scrutinize EVERYTHING for heresy, such things are all around us. But let us also scrutinize our hearts and know that now we all see through the glass dimly, but in the end, when perfection comes we will see clearly. Until that day, let each of us plead to the God who KNOWS us as Psalm 139 models, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; And see if there is any wicked way in me. And lead me in the way everlasting.”
September 28, 2007 at 12:34 am
Nikki,
I wanted to say hello, I looked on your website and I realized that I knew your husband from my very early Texas Tech days where we had several mutual friends. I am not sure that he would remember me but I recongnized both his name and his face.
I have to say that I can’t agree with some of your points simply because of my past expereinces with similar teachings. I have seen selfish men turn their fearful daughters into servants without opinions and thoughts of their own. Those situationas aside, if the Botkins want to stay home and work for their Father because that is what God has called them to do then I have no problem with them writing a book about their convictions. I do have a problem with them saying that it is the Biblical thing to do. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a daugther is to submit to her Father simply because he was born male and she was born female. We are told to submit to our own husbands and children are to honor their parents.
Ok, I have more but I have to run and get dinner going. Please tell Stephen that I said hello.
Kyla
September 28, 2007 at 3:30 am
Hi Nikki,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts here with us.
I fully agree that age is not a sole determiner of wisdom, that it can be found in abundance in a young person and then you can also find a gray haired person fully devoid of it. God has promised it to whomever should ask, and that is the only source I can attribute any wisdom I might have, since I can remember asking Him for a share of it when I was still in my early teens, and that can be the only thing that saved me from following into snares laid out for me.
I am a young wife and mother like you, and I too do not count it against my ability to discern the Word of God, and I couldn’t agree more that the Holy Spirit is our Guide and Counselor in doing so. How I praise and thank Him for it!!! I’m glad you recognize this spiritual reality, and I must share with you that I hold this God-given privilege close to my heart, and I’ll share why in a moment.
I’m very glad that you have only experienced positive effects of patriarchal teachings. Based on what you shared, however, I have a feeling that you haven’t yet fully encountered the type of HYPER-patriarchy that most of us here are referring to, or at least those who carry out the practical application of the doctrines they espouse.
Here’s why: The hyper-patriarchists, or patriocentrists, do not believe that a woman, especially a young one, can hear from the Holy Spirit except through her husband or father. In short, if both are claiming to have a Spirit-led conviction that differs from the other, they hold that it is impossible for the wife or daughter to be the one hearing correctly. Because the husband or father is the “authority”, he must be the one that is “in the know” with God’s will for the entire family, and if a wife or daughter differs in opinion or calling other than his, that it is in reality her independent or rebellious spirit at the source of the discrepency. The same goes for if she interprets Scripture differently than he does.
I hope you can see the kind of family dynamics that can result from this logic and practice. It spills into so many other areas. If an adult daughter has feelings for a young man, even a great, godly young man, if he’s not the parent’s fantasy of Prince Charming, then her feelings are attributed to her wayward, female heart, and she is encouraged to “give her heart to her father for safekeeping”. If the parents are convinced that they’ve stumbled upon the perfect match for their daughter, but she’s not so easily convinced, she is made to feel that she is merely being rebellious, and still strongly nudged towards a life with a man she has no feelings for… so unless she DOES stand her ground and “rebel”, she is in effect coerced into a relationship not of her choosing.
Nikki, I hope you are able to understand that it goes beyond “fearing” a negative impact. It’s gone beyond “seeing” a negative impact. The negative impact HAS and IS happening to many lives… IT’S BEING LIVED. It’s being thrust upon young women who love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, who desperately want to honor and obey their parents, and the result is the suffocation of who He made them to be in deference to the father’s (even well-meaning ones) will. The negative impact is being survived through. I have watched each one of the scenario’s listed above happen to real people with real hearts that required real healing by a real Savior. And these are just examples from ONE spiritual reality that is denied by the patriocentrists. There are numerous more that could be shared. But since these are real people’s lives we are talking about…
I fully agree with you that young people should be encouraged to honor their parents… even imperfect ones, since that is all we will get here on earth. I am always exhorting young people towards this commandment and promise. But we do them a GREAT disservice if we neglect to remind them also that God is a jealous God, and He will have NO OTHER before Him in their heart… because THAT is the definition of idolatry.
You shared, “I have hope for the future because my husband leads our family in this manner.” May I be honest with you??? This sentence greatly troubled me. I have watched and experienced what happens when a woman puts her hope in a husband and what follows when he inevitably stumbles or does not live up to hers or even God’s standards. I’ve watched wives go through spiritual break-downs and depression; ranging from the everyday marital lows to becoming board-the-windows-lock-the-door recluses; all because their spiritual hope hung in the balance with their husbands “job performance”.
That’s the cause-and-effect reason that that statement troubles me when I hear it. But the first, and most important, reason is because NOWEHERE in Scripture are we prompted to receive any hope for the future, save in CHRIST, and the victory won on the CROSS, and GRACE made available to us through it. The ONLY reason Job had cause to hope was that “his redeemer lives”. The ONLY place that ANY wife, whether married to a bum or the godliest man, can validly lay her hope is in her SAVIOR.
When I read the following, though, my heart sang out with a hearty “AMEN!”:
“Please, do not train your daughters by any man’s teaching, but rather with the word of God. By this you will know if a man’s teaching rings true.
Scrutinize EVERYTHING for heresy, such things are all around us. But let us also scrutinize our hearts and know that now we all see through the glass dimly, but in the end, when perfection comes we will see clearly. Until that day, let each of us plead to the God who KNOWS us as Psalm 139 models, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; And see if there is any wicked way in me. And lead me in the way everlasting.””
Nikki, I hope you can trust that I’m being very honest when I say that I pray this verse you mentioned over my interpretation of Scriptures. I’ve watched Scripture be so maligned and misused in the lives of His children, and the last thing I want to do is perpetuate that. The reason this has grieved me so much is that I do care a great deal about it and have a reverent respect for it. I have also experienced the reasons Jesus said that it would be better for a man to be thrown in the ocean with a millstone around his neck than to cause a little one to stumble.
I think you will find that the extent of our concern relating to the Botkin sisters has little to nothing to do with preparation for motherhood and housekeeping; many of us have very high aspirations in those categories, seeking to be true Proverbs 31 women. But as a thorough study of the passage will prove, there are MANY other areas that a woman needs preparation for in a godly, productive life. While I love being the recipient of Titus 2 mentoring, nowhere does Paul indicate that these things are to be taught to the exclusion of growth in all other areas of life.
Again, I am relieved that you are not familiar with negative results of patriarchy. However, please know that that is not indicative of all the practical applications that are reaped from it’s teachings. When administered to even the most normal Christian families (read; not formally dysfunctional), the effect is still felt in areas of eternal consequence. There are broken lives, hearts, and families lying in it’s wake.
September 29, 2007 at 2:29 am
Kyla ,
How neat, what a small world! I will tell Stephen you said “Hello”.
Alisa & Kyla,
I hear your concerns. It is true that throughout human history and very much today there are fallible human being that fall terribly short and twist and malign the word of God.
However, this reality is not to deter us from seeking truth. Any “hyper” version of any doctrine that places sole authority on a human being’s authority, understanding or works is clearly not in line with scripture.
However, the Botkins girls give practical application for families and girls relying on the grace of God while recognizing that there are no perfect father’s or perfect families.
Also, the biblical patriarchy that they speak of does not have a place for the selfish self-indulgent father, although they give advice to women who were born to such, and I must personally admit that there is great healing and repentance for girls who find the grace to forgive such men as it is not an easy thing to do. They are not speaking towards abused daughters, they are speaking to daughters who probably have never thought to so practically honor fathers.
Concerning my hope for the future because I have a husband who is willing to follow Christ in everything he has: this is not a troubling situation, for it is God who is the source of the grace and the author and finisher of our faith. It is not idolatry to recognize such a blessing as to have a husband that you have committed the rest of your life to walking with and taking pleasure in following his lead because you rejoice in the God he has chosen to serve.
Men, women and the people around us whom God has place in our lives to point us to ministry, to sharpen are souls should give us great hope, for we are not alone in this journey as human beings and God is not only aware, but has designed us for our need for such fellowship with other humans as a means of corporate worship. We are sanctified through the processes of encouraging one another, helping one another as well as forgiving one another and seeking forgiveness when necessary. To be willing to follow a man, often doesn’t reflect our faith in the man (no man could hold anyones lifelong trust if it was based on his own goodness). Rather, I can rest in the fact that even in his mistakes and blunders my husband is a man I can follow because I trust in a Holy God for whom all things work together for the good of those who love him.
The wonderful thing about the Botkin family is that they are just now teaching young women to soften their hearts towards their fathers… for years families such as theirs (whom I have had the lovely pleasure of spending time with) focus a great deal of attention on the fathers. Teaching and instructing them to teach their children God’s truth and apply it appropriately; to understand how to cherish the family God has given them instead of neglect it as many in society do. The result of this kind or true biblical teaching is not a “hyper” version of a selfish arrogant father, but rather a surprisingly humble man. A man of prayer and gentleness. A man of strength and boldness.
The women on these videos have spent years with these kinds of husbands and fathers. It is true that this is foreign to most of us. But their devotion came so much more naturally simply because they knew that their daddy’s loved and cherished them and these men taught them to trust not rules and regulations (although they used such tools) but to trust a living Holy, loving God.
Most girls (including myself) did not have such a childhood. The bible does instruct that men are the head of household and it gives them the responsibility of loving as Christ loved, protecting and providing for those under his roof. A father who holds his daughters heart seeks God’s heart for her, knows her and does not disregard her gifts, or her thoughts and judgments. Yes, there are parents who may have in there minds a “perfect” husband that is TERRIBLE… but can we honestly say that they were seeking God if they completely disregard a daughters disgust and then turn her over and expect her to “respect” such a man. No, we cannot.
The truth is, I know some of the people they have used for their movie, I’ve read their book, I’ve met them very briefly. The people connected to this teaching (not some tyrant cultlike that have similiar thoughts) are blessed beyond what I can explain. There homes are a haven, it becomes more evident the more you spend time around their tables and in their living rooms. They spur believers on toward love and good deed. And consequently submission is at the heart of it all. For who are we all submitting to when we lay aside our own wants and desires for someone else’s interest but Christ?
Furthermore, the submissive respectful wives and children who could endure such things under a godless man, well they are far more holy than any women I have met, for these husbands rarely consider a need or want of their own without putting their families first… because leading by example is the ONLY TRUE BIBLICAL way to lead. These men would never look at any of their wives a make a demanding disrespectful command of their wife, because she is their most valuable gift from God and they do not exasperate their children for they are a blessing and a heritage according to God’s Word.
The heart of families are of eternal impact and these teachings restore broken hearts, broken relationships. Any man in fellowship with the Botkin sisters followers would be brought to disgrace in his own heart if he knew he had any part in the heartache of his own family. And for those girls who are exposed to such teaching without such a father, experience great maturity of faith and are often the source of a new heart in her father. To look into a father’s eyes who has been harsh, who she has hated and say, “Daddy, I love you and I want your advice” takes great faith and provides a huge witness.
This is precisely what the Botkin’s teach. And would consider anything else a twisting of thier words, hearts and intention such is this view of tyrant head of household.
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” is in the bible, obedience is about submitting your will to another. A child raised to submit their heart in a GODLY manner will submit to her father. We are all told to submit to one another in love out of reverence for Christ. Practicing to submit to the people around us conditions us to submission to God who IS WORTHY of such devotion. A father, is a biblically respected position of authority. It is to him alone who is responsible to “love thier wives as Christ loved the church” fathers alone are given the task to lay down their lives (this is how Christ loved), women simply are REQUIRED to respect and children to obey. Fathers have the greatest position of responsibility biblically. The position God has ordained is worthy of respect, the man does not gain it or lose it by his character or lack thereof…. however, God will hold the man responsible for his actions, I would imagine that a “hyper-patriarch” father as has been described will likely befall a far greater judgment than a rebellious daughter. But, although the father had the role of holding her heart and protecting her, she will too be held accountable.
September 29, 2007 at 11:36 am
Nikki,
I was wondering if you might be able to give us some Scripture that supports the basic tenets of the applications the Botkins and others within the patriocentric circles make. You have shared your testimony of knowing these families personally and I have no doubt that they are lovely and loving daughters and families. But I was wondering if you could also share the specific Scriptures that teach the things they are teaching, such as girls remaining at home until they are married, girls “giving their hearts” to their fathers, the unimportance of foreign missions, and the scriptural precedence for teenage girls to teach adults.
I was also wondering if you might be able to comment on how the “one another commands” throughout the New Testament apply in these relationships. I have never seen them mentioned and since they are commands, I know that they must take priority over teachings in the Scripture that are not as plainly worded. The Westminster Confession
states it this way:
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Since the patriarchy movement has stated that these teachings are presuppositional and part of the “grand sweep of revelation,” implying that they are necessary for salvation, I am, frankly, left confused as to how they are made of greater importance than other passages of Scripture, such as the one anothers. Any insights you can offer would be appreciated.
Thank you.
September 29, 2007 at 11:38 am
Nikki also stated this:
“We are all told to submit to one another in love out of reverence for Christ. ”
Do you believe that that applies to everyone? Should parents ever submit to their children? Should husbands ever submit to their wives? Should a man ever submit to a woman, either his wife or someone else?
September 29, 2007 at 11:39 am
Nikki also stated this:
“We are all told to submit to one another in love out of reverence for Christ. ”
Do you believe that that applies to everyone? Should parents ever submit to their children? Should husbands ever submit to their wives? Should a man ever submit to a woman, either his wife or someone else?
September 29, 2007 at 4:59 pm
thatmom,
Thank you for your questions. I will try to address all of these as they are all very important. I truly appreciate your desire for scripture as personal anecdotes and experience should never be place on a higher pedestal than the word of God. I hope that I can help clarify some the things that christian patriarchy does and does NOT teach as this seems to be a basis for much confusion here.
1. Girls Remaining at home until marriage:
We see many instances in scripture whereby following God’s principles this would be necessary. Here is just one (my personal favorite) of the many references concerning the specific grace God bestows upon women by giving their fathers the role of protecting them.
Numbers 2:
2 “If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
3 Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, 4 and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5 “But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.
Note how the father serves in the relationship while the daughter is under his roof as a spiritual “buffer”. He has the power to protect her from foolishness. When she is rash or in rebellion against God, there is an extra measure of grace in the father’s power to simply say, “I do not allow that in this house.” We see a vital principle in the father daughter relationship, when under the father’s authority, he is responsible for her sins, when that cover is gone, she will “make the bed she sleeps in” so to speak.
2) Girls giving their hearts to their fathers:
This reference is old testament and quoted again in Luke as the mark as people prepared for the Lord.
Mal. 4:6 “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”
You see, when a father turns his heart to his children, the children turn their hearts to their fathers. Another point, the command to honor your father and mother does not take place in a heart that is not softened towards them. Can we truly honor someone who we despise in our hearts? Perhaps in outward lip service, but not true honor. For what reason should any daughter not give her heart to her father? Even an abusive wicked father haunts a bitter daughter long after his own deathe, but a daughter who seeks the Lord to forgives such a person is freed from such bitterness and pays such persons with gentleness and respect.
3) The unimportance of foreign missions.
Well, there is no scriptural reference to imply an unimportance in this area, and also there is no one practicing TRUE Biblical Patriarchy that would not take offense at this statement! This argument is called a “straw-man” argument in debate or logic. People misconstrue (perhaps unintentionally) a teaching from a group and then begin to tear it down. People practicing Biblical patriarchy place a high value on foreign mission. Specifically, our church is working on developing a partnership in Africa to help have the scripture translated into specific dialects and making more resources available to train pastors for African church plants. We hope to travel to fellowship with the leaders and church planters there next year for a family conference.
As a matter of fact, most foreign missionary families do raise their children under such principles as well. Passing their faith and training their children are vital for fruitful faith and ministry. Often times the conditions abroad (especially places hostile to christianity) make it all the more pressing for families to work together and for more vulnerable members to be under protection.
Now, something they do not promote is Christians blindly partnering with programs and sending young single females out all alone unprotected. To many, this seems sexist, but I guarantee you such chilvary has been appreciated by many young single women who have lived in American cities of high crime rates when escorted by a trusted man to her car in a dark parking lot. Culture says “take a self defense course, girls” scripture on the other hand leads father’s and husbands to step up to the plate and not let these women go unprotected.
4) The reference for teenage girls to teach adults.
Paul does admonish Timothy in this manner:
1Tim. 4:12 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.
This is not specifically to young girls, but as they are not presuming to teach men in a church setting where Paul specifically instructs against, this principle applies. YOUTH is not a scriptural basis for discrimination in the area of ones ability to set an example to believers in speech, conduct, love, and purity.
However, I’m not aware of any teenage girls in such circles trying to teach a specific adult audience. The Botkin sisters have written a book called “SO MUCH MORE” directly and specifically toward their peers. However, many adults have read it. Their video likewise is aimed at a peer audience (with the understanding that most families will watch such a video together.) But they certainly do not presume to teach and instruct older women, rather, they seek and glean their wisdom from older women.
Women are commanded not to teach men, but certainly women teach other women. Titus 2 specifically inistructs that older women teach younger women. But all of us, as part of the community of faith, are instructed throughout the new testament to spur one another on and to exhort and encourage one another. I would have to say that if we are going to bar young adults from quoting scripture and giving testimony that we are attempting to block them from commands that Christ expects us all to follow. I think covering our ears and closing our eyes while teenagers speak about the Lord to make certain that we don’t end up being “taught” by them would have to be a direct result of disregarding the unity of the commands scripture gives us in the one another commands. Which leads us to…
5) The one-another commands.
This is an excellent point as it is vital to such relationships. In fact you cannot apply such principles without them. It is precisely such things that are plainly worded that give us the practical guidelines and specific instructions on how to apply these broader principles. I would have to say that a family who put a higher priority, as you say, on such principles than the one another commands cannot apply them biblically at all. This is where you find the twisted societies that practice such principles without God. For instance mormons and muslims practice such things, and although some may have close knit family, none are godly and many are demeaning and abusive. A twisted version of truth does not make what is good evil. Rather it is the evil doer who cannot make anything truly good, because it is by God’s grace that goodness springs forth.
6) Submit to one another.
There really isn’t any way to get around this, the Christian life is about submission. This submission is out of reverence to Christ. If you want faith without submission, you will have to look elsewhere. A proper reading of Ephesians lays out an undeniable truch; husbands are to love wives as Christ loved the church. Christ loved by laying down his life and it is only the man that is given so high a level of submission, Women are commanded to give respect. I honestly believe that any women who feels so great a burden to submit in comparison to the man’s act of submission is somewhat out of proper perspective. When studying the greek you will discover that men are required to love wives specifically with the unconditional agape love of God. Women however are never given so great a command. Their commands to love are of the phileo version… a “brotherly” love, This kind of love is mutual, has give and take. See the difference? Men are commanded to love with a love that GIVES and GIVES, with the willingness to obey God just as Christ did, even to the point of deathe (see Phil. 2).
However, we ALL are called to submission. Women often have a big problem with “respecting” someone who doesn’t deserve it. But if we honestly look to Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, we have no right to withold such submission. When the King of Kings and Lord of Lords submitted to an underserved death for the joy set before him, how can we as women truly and faithfully follow him while saying, I cannot submit to so and so who is far less than holy. We do not understand our own frailties and the truth that our righteousness comes only from Christ because our own is as filthy rags. These teachings are quite clear when we study the New Testament.
We are given specifics of how in our different roles in Ephesians, but it all fits together in the command to EVERYONE who is in Christ to “submit to one another in love out of reverence for Christ.” In relationship to parents and children, scripture plainly lays out that parents are the authority and have the responsibility to train a child. Any christian parent who takes this role seriously knows quite well the submission of their wills for the sake of the needs of their children. If we were to twist such instructions we would not be providing their needs and well being, but rather feeding them endless bowls of ice-cream and allow them to permanently reside in their favorite filthy dress up clothes. However, anyone who brings home a newborn baby must bring their will under submission to Christ and their responsibility to tend to the needs of their little one every 2-3 hours. How? Why? I submit that we wake up through the middle of the night although physically and mentally exhausted to feed and change our infants although we simultaneously plead to God for a full eight hours of rest for the kind of reason Christ endured the cross (although it is almost a ridiculous comparison of suffering) for the JOY set before us.
Dear ones in Christ, you cannot find a scriptural loophole for christians not to submit. A christian heart is a heart in submission to Christ. The scriptures give numerous examples of how that submission plays out in our roles and daily lives with others. When scripture is so plain to lay out the distinctiveness in such roles, as it does in the Ephesians passage when husbands wives, and children are given their own instructions, it is not wisdom to cry out and say, “that’s not fair, women and children and men all have identical functions!” Scripture as a whole does not promote this kind of “sameness”. Men are not of less value than women, but yet it is always men who are charged with the responsibility in spiritual and physical warfare to lay down their lives in protection of women and children. Women are not scripturally devalued when they are instructed to respect their husbands although they do not have the same authority and overall responsibility as head of household. Children are a blessing and a heritage, there is no passage that belittles their eternal value, yet no where is a child given instructions to make demands of their parents but rather they are to obey and honor. Man will say these contradict, but God’s word has them not only working in harmony, but depending on one another. Submission to Christ is about being willing to take on the specific responsibilities that his word has laid out for us. These are infact the biblical teachings of the christian patriarchal movement.
Christian patriarchy does not teach that adherence to any principle is a source of salvation. Rather it is clearly understood from the scripture in James, “faith without works is dead” that our deeds give evidence to such a salvation (not the same thing – I know many have a problem with the book of James for this reason, but it is included and preserved in the cannon for a reason and as christians we must give equal weight to the whole counsel of God). Our submission to one another is stated as being out of reverence to Christ and logically one can deduce that a Christian will have a submissive spirit. It is likewise that someone with a generally bitter and selfish heart has not been taken hold of by the savior. God alone can see to such depths, but we as humans have little windows into the attitudes. When parents turn their hearts to their children and children turn their hearts to their parents, genuine smiles reflecting the heart often take the places of discontent grimaces from all parties.
It seems that many are irritated that women are specifically being taught about this… the biggest protest I find is women saying “what about men, what do they have to do ?!?” My children make the same complaint if one is singled out for correction, “well, what about so and so !?!” My answer to them is simple “I am discussing YOU with YOU, you are not responsible for so and so right now, you doing right is not based on whether or not so and so has wronged you. These instructions are for you.”
It is interesting to observe that women rarely complain when sermons and teaching address men: the responsibilities God has called them to within their families and the gentleness and understanding they are to employ when living with their wives. From these sermons you can hear hearty female “Amens”, not so when the sermon shifts to “wives, submit to your husbands”. Parents nod their head when the pastor’s talk about obedient children who honor parents, but mother’s protest when someone tells them their father is to be respected and they are to be grateful for his love and protection. There is offense taken, as if a man has a special duty to perform that they were not given access to. And such is the case.
In their books the Botkin girls are careful to state that they are not diminishing the role of the mother daughter relationship, but their book is about fathers and daughters. For good reason, we find countless daughters whose hearts are broken because the relationship with their fathers are broken. Their daddies didn’t take responsibility teaching them the love of Christ, They didn’t protect their hearts and mind from the spiritual, physical and emotional vices that Satan plagues young women with. Through passive neglect or aggressive mishandling girls have been broken. And the Botkin’s encourage these young women that in Christ they are not victims, God’s grace brings freedom and joy. Keepers of the home are warriors for Christ in the Kingdom of God. The do have a powerful role to play. They can be powerful agents of change in the hearts of men (God has designed such things as for people to impact others). If they are willing to take up their cross and follow Christ.
September 29, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Nikki,
In regards Numbers 30 (not 2) this verse speaks of the fact that when a daughter in her youth makes a vow, her father can nullify that vow. But how did you go from a father’s nullification of a vow or commitment his daughter makes, to a biblical requirement that she remain at home?
Can a daughter live physically apart from her father with his blessing, but physically in his house) and still remain under his authority and be within the will of God according to this Scripture?
It is insufficient to say that we have no Scriptural example of such an arranagement. All the living arrangements of the women in the bible are not given. Furhter, if that argument is used, we could easily make the claim that we have no biblical examples of young ladies writing a book to other young ladies. So simply saying that there is no Scriptural example to follow is insufficient to the prove the point.
Yes, a daughter and her father together can choose to have her remain at home, but how is that you use this verse to justify the claim that a daughter MUST remain at home?
As far as young daughters teaching their peers. No one is claiming that these young ladies are void of wisdom. But we also know that “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child.” It is the Botkin girls who admit that they may handle these issues more wisely when they are older and at the same time tell Kevin Swanson that they believe they have a “Titus 2 role.” They are setting themselves up before their peers as an authority with such statements. We are not discounting their youth, however they are promoting themselves in a way that may not be quite accurate.
No one is suggesting that we plug our ears to what they write, but as mothers we have a responsibility to examine what they are teaching to determine of what is “exhorted” by these young ladies is biblical. That’s all we’re doing, and some of the assertions put forth are not supported by the Scriptures they use. They are the ones who desired a “debate” over these issues. It is NOT we who are plugging our ears to them, but it appears that they are unwilling to engage in the very debate that they started.
Please understand, I am not challenging the way the Botkin family has chosen to live or raise their daughters. But to say that the way others like Amy Carmicheal or Mary Slessor have chosen to live is NOT purely biblical is false. There is NO scriptural support for or against a young lady going into missions work. Yet, the girls make the claim that this is outside of “kingdom architecture.”
However, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:25 “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”
If Paul whom our Lord trusted to write much of the New Testament could not offer a command but an opinion, I think it is safe to assume that this is the best you, I, or the Botkin girls can do.
There is no COMMAND from Scripture about waht a young “virgin” should do before she gets married. We can talk about these issues in light of today’s culture and seek to encourage each other to make wise choices, but elevating it to a Scriptural command is not something Paul does, so I’m not going to do it either.
September 29, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Oops typo
I asked “Can a daughter live physically apart from her father with his blessing, but physically in his house) and still remain under his authority and be within the will of God according to this Scripture? ”
It should say, Can a daughter live physically apart from her father with his blessing and still remain under his authority and be within the will of God according to this Scripture?
I forgot to delete a portion after I editted.
September 29, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Nikki,
You also said, “It is interesting to observe that women rarely complain when sermons and teaching address men: the responsibilities God has called them to within their families and the gentleness and understanding they are to employ when living with their wives. From these sermons you can hear hearty female “Amens”, not so when the sermon shifts to “wives, submit to your husbands”. ”
I am fully willing to admit my role as a wife is to submit to my husband. I find great joy and pleasure in meeting the needs of my husband and our six children.
You also said, “Parents nod their head when the pastor’s talk about obedient children who honor parents, but mother’s protest when someone tells them their father is to be respected and they are to be grateful for his love and protection. There is offense taken, as if a man has a special duty to perform that they were not given access to. And such is the case.”
No mother that I am acquainted with has protested the teaching that children need to respect their father and be grateful for his love and protection.
However, do not equate the teaching of children respecting and honoring their fathers with the teachings of the Botkin girls. They are going beyond honor and respect to saying that a young lady is not “purely biblcial” in areas where the Scripture does not make such a statement. They are claiming that a young ladies role prior to marriage is that of being a “helpmeet” to her father. Teaching that a daughter is her father’s helpmeet is not the same thing as asking a daughter to honor and respect her father and being grateful for his protection. Any wife should protest when another women (daughter or otherwise) is elevated to a role she holds alone in the life of her husband. God gave me to be his helpmeet not our daughters. Yes, they can be helpers to his work but that is not a biblical requirement. And the relationship between the father and the daughter is not corrupted nor is his success compromised when the father and daughter mutually determine a path for her that may include things like missions work.
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, “34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”
I am grateful for any teaching that tells my children to respect and honor their father and to be grateful for his love and protection. However, I will not stand silent when a teaching confuses the role of the daughter with that of the wife. My daughter’s heart is to care for the things of the Lord, my role is to care for my husband. That will look different in every family. It could be to remain at home and working for her father, but that is not the ONLY arrangement that is biblical.
September 30, 2007 at 2:17 am
Well, it’s sounds like you are all striving to raise godly families, you just think it’s a terrible idea that the Botkin girls say everyone should remain at home… so I suppose if you want to send your daughters away, obviously it can be done with a father’s blessing and a young woman can still lead a godly life.
I’m sure these families will continue to produce teaching tools and instruct and advise in the manner that they do… however, I seriously doubt you will be threatened with in your face propaganda. So, as mothers protecting your daughters from “heresy”, you simply need not purchase their materials and teach accordingly at home. That’s an easy solution to the “debate”.
I believe you truly are amazingly wise and cunning families that protect and fellowship with daughters who are under your obligation to protect if they live elsewhere. I enjoyed a small Christian University, but my parents certainly where very unaware of my daily life and schedule. I know very godly women who served in foreign missions (they were able to see there family unit little more than twice a year) and were limited communication of internet and telephone calls.
This modern communication is a blessing, but I remained unconvinced that speaking to your family even if on a daily basis is not the same as life together… but that is the nature of our culture and our faith, it is far more about doing what is acceptable than what is best.
You are all absolutely right, everything will probably be just fine if a daughter leaves home as many are. And the Botkin girls aren’t responsible for teaching such things to your daughters… but I really don’t believe that most daughters who aren’t interested in this along with their families will even be exposed… I don’t think you will see this on the Blockbuster New Release shelf, but maybe I’m wrong… maybe it will spread like wildfire through the American Culture and then what will happen? Well, as you said, you think that their lifestyle is one good option just not the only one.
So it doesn’t seem like there is a great deal of problem with more people choosing this option that happens to be a good one, even if they pick it partly because it is the only best option.
September 30, 2007 at 2:40 am
Nikki, staying at home is not a terrible idea. Its just not a biblical one… and it certainly should never be presented as the “only” one or even the best one.
September 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Nikki said, ” it’s sounds like you are all striving to raise godly families, you just think it’s a terrible idea that the Botkin girls say everyone should remain at home”
No I don’t think it is a “terrible” idea that everyone should remain at home it’s their opinion and worthy of discussion based on the cultural conditions. However, they (and you) both use Numbers 30 to say that a young girl MUST remain at home and that Scripture doesn’t support your idea. They also say that a young girl is to be her father’s help meet and Scripture does not support that idea either. So I’m all for new ideas to help raise our daughters, but not a misuse of Scripture. That’s what the Botkin girls have done by using Numbers 30, Proverbs 31, and Titus 2 as a defense of their beliefs and their book.
“So, as mothers protecting your daughters from “heresy”, you simply need not purchase their materials and teach accordingly at home. That’s an easy solution to the “debate”.”
Yes, I agree that I can simply not purchase the materials and that would solve the problem for me personally. And if I were selfish, that is all I would care about is me and my family. But I am a also Christian and a part of the body of Christ within the believing Church. This “debate’ centers around a teaching that affects the body of Christ. To ignore a blatant misuse of Scripture and cacoon myself just because my family is okay and that’s all that matters is not an acceptable option for a believer.
“This modern communication is a blessing, but I remained unconvinced that speaking to your family even if on a daily basis is not the same as life together… but that is the nature of our culture and our faith, it is far more about doing what is acceptable than what is best.”
Since there is NO scriptural command about what a duaghter is to do, what is “best” is determined by the parents and daughter together as they walk with the Lord. There is no ONE prescribed BEST according to God’s Word.
To elevate one option as superior to another is to place your personal standard above the Word of God. Certainly, you are free to have an opinion that one is better than the other and direct your family accordingly, but to teach that there is only one option and all others are not “purely biblical” for a daughter is not true.
September 30, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Nikki,
Would you or your husband care to elaborate on what your husband wrote about patriarchy?
Quote: “My second problem with this (which will not take nearly as long to elaborate) is that there is NO distinction in these arguments between the different “types” of patriarchy. There is “Muslim Patriarchy”, “Mormon Patriarchy”, “Athiestic Patriarchy”, “Nazi Patriarchy”, and the list goes ever on.
When you take something that God has ordained and remove God from it, the result is always debase and ugly. The same is true of “Biblical Patriarchy”. There may be people out there claiming to practice this concept, who do not even KNOW the Father. It is impossible for them to understand the motivation and ideas behind this movement and any attempt to imitate it will be nothing more than legalism and oppression.”
Is that really your view of the discussion on patriocentrism here and elsewhere in the Christian community? That your brand of patriarchy is being misrepresented as no different from other cultural practices of patriarchy?
I find this misleading–strawman, if you were, as you pointed out earlier. The discussion about patriocentric ideologies here at TW and elsewhere in the Christian community is an in-house debate with an understanding and acceptance that we are all Christians who adhere to the Bible and Christ for salvation.
October 1, 2007 at 4:50 am
“We see a vital principle in the father daughter relationship, when under the father’s authority, he is responsible for her sins, when that cover is gone, she will “make the bed she sleeps in” so to speak.”
I don’t find this statement compatible with sound doctrine. Numbers 30 does not teach this nor does any other scripture. A father is not responsible for his daughter’s sins. She is responsible for her own sins and Jesus Christ and His blood are her covering. That is the only “covering” I know that is spoken about in scripture. It seems to me that Jesus and His ministry of reconciliation through His shed blood on the cross takes a backseat in these discussions.
Numbers 30 is talking about VOWS not sins. And even then it isn’t saying that the father is responsible. It just says that within a certain time frame he may nullify such a vow.
I find it interesting that a man OR a woman could take a Nazarite vow. No mention of a parent whatsoever concerning this vow.
Numbers 30 is a terribly misused amongst the hyper-patriarchalists. That verse has a very specific purpose and in order to read into that verse the things I have heard people say it teaches is to commit several hermeneutical errors.
In the NT we find the Bible teaching that a woman who chooses to stay single in order to devote herself FULLY to the Lord chooses a better thing. It doesn’t teach that a woman who chooses to stay single is free to permanently serve her father as his pseudo-wife/help-meet. It says that she is free to totally and completely devote herself to the Lord without having to worry about being encumbered with how she may please her husband.
“It is interesting to observe that women rarely complain when sermons and teaching address men: the responsibilities God has called them to within their families and the gentleness and understanding they are to employ when living with their wives. From these sermons you can hear hearty female “Amens”, not so when the sermon shifts to “wives, submit to your husbands”. Parents nod their head when the pastor’s talk about obedient children who honor parents, but mother’s protest when someone tells them their father is to be respected and they are to be grateful for his love and protection. There is offense taken, as if a man has a special duty to perform that they were not given access to. And such is the case.”
This is simply not true. In all my years as a Christian, I have yet to experience anything of the sort. And I don’t know many women who want to sit there and listen to only one side of the equation when it comes to teachings on the duties of one spouse to the other in marriage. Most women I know are not that shallow and most women I know take the Bible very seriously.
October 1, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Nikki,
Thank you so much for sharing some insight into your experience with patriarchal teachings. It is my opinion that everyone sharing in this discussion has the same goals for their families. We are all striving to live our lives according to Biblical principles, and to raise our families to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ. It fuels my passion for Christ to ‘meet’ so many commited Christian women.
The ‘job’ of wife, mother, and daughter is a complicated one, and we can all benefit from seeking to learn the way Jesus Christ wants us to perform our duties. The problem seems to be that in our desire for knowledge, and our quest for answers, we easily fall prey to false teachings.
The vision that the Botkin sisters, and even the people associated with Vision Forum, promote, is the result that we all seek. We all want stronger family relationships. We all want to be a part of a family whose first and foremost goal is to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ. We all want to be a part of a family that submits to one another, who loves one other, who protects one another, and who bears one anothers victories and burdens. We all want to live in a world where children grow up with a respect for their mothers and fathers, and even strangers. We all want a world where value is placed on maintaining strong family relationships.
Unfortunately, in our desire for this ideal end result, we often blind ourselves to the un-Biblical principles that some false teachers ‘piggy-back’ with these happy images. ‘For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is tranformed into an angel of light.’ 2Corinthians 11:13-14
We are all given the daunting task of exposing and correcting false teachings in 1Timothy 1. This is the task that so many of us have undertaken. The simple fact is that so many personal opinions are being promoted as spiritual truth by the Botkin sisters, Vision Forum, and many others at the forefront of the patriarchy movement. And this is false teaching.
Unfortunately, when people throw in false teachings with truth, it ‘poisons the pot’, and nullifies the validity of even the good ingredients. I praise the people at the forefront of this movement for their goals. They are mine too. But when I see things that conflict with what I read in my Bible, the Holy Spirit that resides within me sets off a warning signal, and forces me to scrutinize what I see and hear, and to sift it against the Word of God. If anything unpure is in the mix, I must throw out the whole mix. If we blind ourselves to these discreptancies, we also numb ourselves from the ability to distinguish truth from lies.
This could become a dangerous situation and really a stumbling block to our witness for Christ. There are so many people out there who are attempting a revolution for Jesus Christ. Their primary goal is to live life according to Biblical principals, and to change themselves, their families, their communities, and the entire world, as we are encouraged to do in the Word of God. My greatest fear is that the false teachings that abound in patriarchal teachings will hinder the work of these true soldiers for Christ.
I pray for wisdom to be able to distinguish the truth from the words of false teachers, and that God will daily place wise Christian men and women on my path to a more Biblical way of life.
October 1, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Corrie,
How refreshing that you have only had the experience of fellowship with such biblical women. Unfortunately, woman who only want to hear one side and proclaim to know Christ are quite abundant and I have had the disappointing experience of being right next to them in several congregations. So I must sadly inform you that it is in fact true, but wonderfully reassuring that it is also avoidable.
As far as father’s being responsible for their daughters sin… well, I’m afraid that is true as well when reading other passages, the bible holds both grown children and their parents responsible for rebellion. I see you think the Numbers passage is a terrible example of this as it doesn’t refer to “sin”, but rather foolish vows, so I suppose we disagree that foolishness is a mark of sin in ones heart. Regardless, a study of Eli in I Samual shows a godly man with rebellious wicked sons who defiles the temple which. Eli was rebuked for not takinig authority in his sons lives, although he did not commit the sins his son did, God held him responsible for their training and his neglect in that duty.
The Timothy passage which lays out the qualifications of an elder likewise disqualifies a man from such a position if he has rebellious and unruly children.
A father’s authority does not remove accountability and responsibility from the child, but the bible makes it clear that God does not give authority without responsibilty.
As far as coverings, the New Testament interprets the proper” recognition of God’s order of authority, and it attributes it to God’s plan, not the fall.
I Corinthians 11:3
“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
I Corinthians 11:8-12
“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”
Now, I must admit that I do not cover my head when I pray as this NT passage suggests… but it is crystal clear that God has an order of authority and women are under men as “head”. Take note of the implication of “rule” you make, for I do not believe it fits well, as it states even Christ has a head of God the Father (we see him submit his will after the prayer on the Garden of Gethsemane as he endures the cross). This sort of “headship” is not negative as many count it.
As I said, you can say, “well, you just shouldn’t say it’s the ONLY biblical way” for a young woman to stay at home. I simply don’t see this as practical application, but as many have said it is one of many “good options” and if such is the case, then there is teaching out there promoting one good option, those who choose it will not fall as a result of the option itself, rather all of us stumble for matters much deeper. Many things look the same on the outside, but God himself judges the heart.
October 1, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Natalie,
This passage states that such peoples “end will be according to their works.” Yet these teachings consistently speak of the work of God’s grace and this “ideal end” although you don’t like their means is NEVER boasted as a result of their OWN righteousness.
I know many Christians, who assert that it is a sin to view R rated movies who humbly commit to abstaining from such actions out of reverence for the holiness Christ calls them to… others I know say that this is a freedom they have under grace. Both are relying on God’s grace, both teach others in the manner they walk. By your definition, is the Christian who labels the action “sin” a false teacher trying to set themselves up as an apostle? I hope not. I believe that this is a parallel comparison as it seems that the largest problem with Botkin’s is they label things “sin”.
Paul has said, “all things are acceptable, but not all things are profitable” and the book of James teaches that “if you know the good you ought to do and do not do it, it is sin.”
Also, you have just aligned me with Satan (as someone who lives by and instructs in this manner according in alignment with the Botkins and Vision Forum)… hmmm… I can’t say that I appreciate that.
October 1, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Tulipgirl,
I appreciate your comment that this is in house and among Christians, but unfortunately christian patriarchy is being aligned in this very site with cults, heresy and false teachings.
I do not believe someone can call a fellow believer a member of a cult or a heretic, to do so expresses that they in fact do NOT accept their proclamation as a disciple as Christ as genuine.
I believe mormonism and Jehovah’s witnesses are cults;, I do not recognize such groups as believers, rather as false teachers.
Biblical patriarchy is not the only evangelical christian teaching that brings out such accusations. Many Armenians and Calvinists have used the “heretic” word and claim that theirs is the only proper biblical “way”. I myself am a Calvinist, yet although I do not believe Armenians preach the gospel from a truly biblical perspective, neither do I claim that they are leading and promoting a cult. As Charles Spurgeon states,every Arminian prays as a Calvinist, because this is the way every true Christian prays, according to God’s grace. The implication here is that although he doesn’t think the theology is lined up properly, he does not deny the man who praises the true God for his grace the title of “true christian”.
Here on this blog and others like it, patriarchy is conveyed as ANTI-CHRISTIAN. Proponents of the teachings are as false teachers teaching a satanic means to a godly end.
Some ladies here speak as you do, as Christians debating about the convictions and teachings of other Christians. I do not believe that this is the overall intent however. The opening post was a remark about the appallinng “heresy” portrayed in the Botkin video.
October 1, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Natalie,
I must also state that although you do not count me a true soldier for Christ (but rather a hindrance), I encourage and echo your prayer for people along the path that will teach and instuct according to sound biblical doctrine.
God bless you, I believe we are likely sisters in Christ (as the tone and content of your post evidences), but I’m afraid you may take offense to that… as you should if you are convinced of the “heresy” in my heart as I would boldly echo such teachings.
As I said before, if a morman calls me sister or brother, I would have to say, no, I am not as I am absolutely CONVINCED they do not share my partnership in the gospel, but rather promote heresy and idolatry to a false god.
October 1, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“I see you think the Numbers passage is a terrible example of this as it doesn’t refer to “sin”, but rather foolish vows, so I suppose we disagree that foolishness is a mark of sin in ones heart.”
Hi Nikki,
This passage says nothing about “foolish vows”. Again, you are reading INto the text something that is not there and using this verse as a prooftext. This verse is very specific and is speaking of a vow. What do you suppose that vow was?
Maybe a word study on “vows” would be in order? The Nazarite vow comes to mind when I read this passage.
The vow was made unto God or an oath that bound one’s soul.
How would this apply to us today? Well, I don’t know. We really don’t make vows and oaths to the Lord any more, do we, unless one considers the priesthood or becoming a nun.
As believers we are NOT to swear but we are to let our yeas by yeas and our nos be nos.
I am admitting that I do not understand everything about the Numbers 30 passage and I really don’t know how we would apply that today since we don’t have the temple system and we don’t make vows like the ones they made in that system.
I will have to do some studying about this passage and even then I don’t know if we will know exactly how to apply it. But, I do think we need to be very careful not to play fast and loose with scripture and make it say things it does not say. Even the reading of “foolish” into that passage changes things. I am not sure why you would read the word “foolish” into it?
“Regardless, a study of Eli in I Samual shows a godly man with rebellious wicked sons who defiles the temple which. Eli was rebuked for not takinig authority in his sons lives, although he did not commit the sins his son did, God held him responsible for their training and his neglect in that duty.”
They were struck dead because they did not obey God in how they handled the ark of the covenant. A careful reading of the OT temple system will show anyone how seriously God considers every jot and tittle of His instructions.
What about Aaron? His two sons were consumed by the fire of God because they offered strange fire and he [Aaron] was not held responsible.
Eli, the High Priest, was responsible for making sure things were carried out according to God’s plan.
You say that Eli was held responsible? Could you please give me chapter and verse? I don’t see anything that says what you say it says. Again, I see a reading INto scripture things that are not there. Scripture tells us that Eli was 98 years old when he heard of the deaths of his sons. But, he didn’t fall off the bench until he heard about how the ark was carried off by their enemies.
Hence, the despair he felt was over the ark because that is where the very presence of the Lord presided. He was an old man and he was heavy and the fall broke his neck. Nothing in that narrative tells me that Eli was “rebuked for not taking authority in his sons’ lives”. And, as I have shown you, Aaron’s two sons offered strange fire before Lord during their ordination and Aaron was not struck dead, rebuked or chastised for not training his sons better.
Ichabod- the glory of the Lord has departed. That would cause any High Priest to have profound grief.
Eli may have not been a good parent and he may have been lax but I am not sure what this has to do with anything?
No one is disputing that PARENTS-both fathers and mothers- are to train up their children in the way they should go. It is a burden placed on every parent.
But, let us consider that God’s children (Adam and Eve for example) go astray every day and He is the perfect parent. He understands that humans are a rebellious lot and even the best of parenting does not guarantee a good outcome.
If what you say is true, why do we hear so little about sons giving their hearts to their fathers and making their desires, hopes, dreams and wishes one with their father’s? Why don’t we hear about keeping sons home to serve their fathers until they marry?
October 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Take note of the implication of “rule” you make, for I do not believe it fits well, as it states even Christ has a head of God the Father (we see him submit his will after the prayer on the Garden of Gethsemane as he endures the cross). This sort of “headship” is not negative as many count it.”
Nikki,
Could you point me to where I made an implication of “rule”. I don’t understand this comment and hot “it does not fit well”.
I never ONCE denied headship. I acknowledge that the husband is head of his wife. A husband is said ONLY to be head of his wife not of his daughters. That is a skewing of the metaphor. Headship deals with the one-flesh relationship a man has with a woman.
Parents, together, are in authority over BOTH sons and daughters.
Thanks.
“Parents nod their head when the pastor’s talk about obedient children who honor parents, but mother’s protest when someone tells them their father is to be respected and they are to be grateful for his love and protection.”
How many mothers do you know that protest when the sermon speaks of children respecting and obeying their father and mother? This is what the Bible teaches- Children obey and honor your father and mother.
You make it sound like a widespread problem? This is something new to me. I did a search and I can’t find one blog that shows a woman protesting the teaching, from God’s word, that children or to respect and obey their parents (father and mother)?
October 1, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I was also wondering if anyone knows where the statement that the father/husband is the “Prophet and Priest” of his home is found in scripture?
I am studying the OT sacrificial system right now and I am fascinated how the OT system was a picture of Christ. We no longer need a priest because Christ’s death has abolished that system. He is our Great High Priest and we are all priests who offer of sacrifices of praise and service to Him. Several times in the NT it states that BELIEVERS are priests or a royal priesthood but I do not see where the husband is ever said to be a priest or a prophet for his home. That seems to be going back to something that Christ did away with in order to bring in something much better. We no longer need a mediator between God and man.
What do they mean by “priest”? How is the husband a priest for his wife and his family? How does the fact that is wife is also a priest fit into the whole picture? How is the husband a prophet to his family? Where does the scripture tell us this? What do they mean by “prophet”?
October 1, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Nikki,
I apoligize if I led you to believe that I am aligning you with Satan. That was not my intent. I believe we are pursuing the same goal. And the only ‘means to an end’ that I am taking offense at with the patriarchal teachings is the promotion of opinions as Biblical truth.
Quote “I know many Christians, who assert that it is a sin to view R rated movies who humbly commit to abstaining from such actions out of reverence for the holiness Christ calls them to… others I know say that this is a freedom they have under grace. Both are relying on God’s grace, both teach others in the manner they walk. By your definition, is the Christian who labels the action “sin” a false teacher trying to set themselves up as an apostle? I hope not. I believe that this is a parallel comparison as it seems that the largest problem with Botkin’s is they label things “sin”.”
Not at all. People all have their own way of showing reverence for Christ. But to assert that it is a Biblical directive, and that it is written in the Bible as such, is a false teaching. One example discussed before was the statement that a daughter is a ‘help meet’ of her father. The Bible does not contain such a statement.
My greatest concern is that first and foremost, people will believe a statement is a Biblical directive, when it is not. It may be sound advice. But that does not make it a directive of God. And secondly, that the exposure of these discreptancies will detract from the goal of trying to positively change the structure of the family. I fear that people exploring patriarchy, once they hear what is being promoted as a Biblical directive, when they fail to find it as such in their Bibles, will abandon the goal of family structure reform. And that would be a sad reality.
October 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm
1 Sam. 1:11
“And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.”
Here is an example of a vow a woman under the OT system could make. Read that whole chapter for a fuller picture of how this vow was carried out.
“21 When the man Elkanah went up with all his family to offer the annual sacrifice to the Lord and to fulfill his vow, 22 Hannah did not go. She said to her husband, “After the boy is weaned, I will take him and present him before the Lord, and he will live there always.”
23 “Do what seems best to you,” Elkanah her husband told her. “Stay here until you have weaned him; only may the Lord make good his [fn4] word.” So the woman stayed at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him.
24 After he was weaned, she took the boy with her, young as he was, along with a three-year-old bull, [fn5] an ephah [fn6] of flour and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the Lord at Shiloh. 25 When they had slaughtered the bull, they brought the boy to Eli, 26 and she said to him, “As surely as you live, my lord, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the Lord. 27 I prayed for this child, and the Lord has granted me what I asked of him. 28 So now I give him to the Lord. For his whole life he will be given over to the Lord.” And he worshiped the Lord there.”
Notice how she went and offered a burnt offering before the Lord. Her husband didn’t serve as her priest. Women, in the OT system, brought their own sin, guilt, burnt and peace offerings before the Lord. The husband wasn’t responsible for her relationship with the Lord.
I am getting a picture that Numbers 30 was put in place because a woman making a vow can truly take her away from her responsibilities at home. For example, in Numbers 6 where it talks about the Nazarite vow. Also, in Hannah’s case. Vows were part of the OT system but they are NOT part of the New Covenant.
Numbers 6:2
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate [themselves] to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate [themselves] unto the LORD:
I have a strong inclination to believe that Numbers 30 points back to such a vow. Also, there were extra-biblical practices brought into this system where vows were used but not taught by God.
So, is there a principle that remains here for all to follow? I am having a hard time seeing it since we no longer offer up vows unto the Lord which bind our very souls to His service and could disrupt our families and take us away from our responsibilities.
Does it say that the husband/father is the “covering” for the daughter/wife? No. He is not because she was still to go and bring her offerings to God on her own accord.
I see Numbers 30 as a protection for both the woman and the man and not just for the woman.
So, does Numbers 30 teach us that women are to remain in their father’s house until they are married? No.
The Bible also teaches that a father can sell his daughter into slavery to pay for his debts. What does this teach us? I don’t see anyone using this for the basis of their teachings.
Also, what about the test that is given to the woman when her husband is overcome by a spirit of jealousy? What does this verse teach us?
The NT tells us that unless we hate our mother and father, we cannot be His disciple.
The NT tells us-
James 5:12
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
So, it would seem that Numbers 30 is now a moot point.
Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about vows/oaths in Matthew 23. These were people still under the OT system.
As I look at the vast amount of other instructions in the book of the Law, I am struck with how some seem to just pick and choose what we should be following but ignore other teachings.
How do we decide which ones we choose to follow? How do we rightly divide the scripture in a consistent manner?
October 1, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Corrie, I really appreciate your careful handling of Scripture. Thanks…this has been helpful to me.
October 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Kim,
Thank you. I am unclear as to how to truly view these verse in Numbers 30 and I am searching to know how (or if) we are to apply them today.
I am reading at some sites of Jewish scholars and it would seem that they do not encourage vows at all, either. It really is interesting. If I find anything more about the Jewish practice concerning Numbers 30, I will let you all know.
One more wrench to throw in is the passage concerning Jephtah and his daughter.
Here is an example of a vow a person had no authority to make and that was not grounded in God’s word but in the pagan world around him.
October 1, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Corrie,
I suppose I consider it possibly foolish by the full context… further along in verse 11 (while dealing with the same subject) in refers to the woman who takes a husband while bound by her “vows or rash utterance”.. I just don’t see any evidenc of “rash” wisdom anywhere. I believe it is a vow that does as the scripture says, “binds her”.
She is committed to what she vows and as her circumstances change, although she may regrat it… she is BOUND to her commitment, unless of course her father or husband practices his authority and nullifies that binding vow… which yes, I logically deduce is foolish when it falls under the umbrella of “vow or rash utterance”. No, it does not state that it is necessarily a rash vow, but if it is not rash and it is made in wisdom, why release her? Further, it states that a widow or divorced woman does not have this hedge of protection or if you prefer, “way out” of her binding vow.
This is not a “prooftext” it is ONE passage that is in unity (as God’s word does not contradict itself) with principles God lays out elsewhere.
Concerning Eli – I Samuel 3:11-14
“Then the LORD said to Samuel: ‘Behold, I will do something in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In the day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concening his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he di not restrain them.”
God said pretty plainly that Eli’s house will be judged for iniquity that Eli was aware of, his sons made themselves vile and he did not restrain this…
I plugged in “responsible” on my dictionary widget… one of the definitions state, “having and obligation to do something or being the primary cause of and so be able to be blamed or credited for it.”
Do you disagree that Eli was not blamed for his failure to restrain his sons in this passage?
Why do we not hear about sons staying at home? Well, perhaps we might wonder why we DO hear about men in the OT at the age of 20 (regardless of marriage) being recruited for war as in Joshua. We likewise never hear of instructions for a woman to lay down her life for a man. Nor do we hear of a man referred to as a “weaker vessel”… apparently sons are not considered as delicately precious and in need of protection.
Also, sons are to become the head of household, daughters are not, it is not ridiculous to understand that distinct roles and functions LOOK distinct and function differently at all stages… how can men and women who are distinct to the LORD be trained and treated in the admonition of the LORD in an identical fashion?
This is logic guided by biblical principles for God does NOT give us step by step instructions for every aspect of each of our lives, but we must not deny the principles by which we are guided in his word.
However, the passages about hearts and fathers are concerning children, this clearly includes sons. These families teach a multi-generational view of faithfulness. This is gleaned from passages concerning teaching children and grandchildren the “praiseworthy deeds of the Lord”.
There are books and materials concerning raising “modern day nights” and men of godly character. It IS taught that sons extend their father’s vision for ministry in the gospel (as also is the reference for the daughters being one with their father’s “dreams”) for these families revolve around a heart for evangelism and making the world a better place (as salt and light does) as they represent the kingdom of God.
We can read the whole scripture and make logical conclusions without being heretics “adding to the word”. If we understand the role of women to be precious and protected and we understand that men are charged with the responsibility of guarding such a blessing as the woman which God made out of Adam, then it is logical that fathers and daughters seeking to line themselves with Christ’s view of thier roles and responsibilities would naturally not distance themselves from each other.
It is true, if women are not vulnerable and God has not made woman for man, and if God has not given husbands and fathers responsibilities over their households, then these teachings are out of place. However, I do not believe that proper exposition of the scriptures can deny these truths and therefore validates the principles that are consequently derived.
Note that these teachings don’t teach rules and lawas, but principles. The warn against putting too much stock in a degree earned by government accredited institutions, but education is simultaneously of great importance teaching young girls higher math, latin and things that many public cirles consider worthless if you don’t intend to pursue a high dollar career.
They teach the importance of young women submitting to authority, staying in close proximity to protection and not becoming arrogant, yet they empower young women to use their unique gifts and talents to publish books, create documentaries and even schedule public speaking engagements. Obviously not everyone likes their subject matter, but they nevertheless have been given the powere and platform to articulate their thoughts and ideas.
They teach modesty, but they never say, “only dresses” or “cover your face”… no, these girls don’t generally drees according to the latest magazine, but they don’t look frumpy and homely.
The teachings highest priorities revolve around such things as “guarding our hearts”, recognizing and respecting authority, submitting to Christ and MOST importantly living under grace… you don’t need to “Read into” scripture or find “proof texts” for such guidelines, the make themselves quite bold on their own in God’s word.
There are a great many things that we can do in this world because grace abounds and it is acceptable due to our freedom in Christ… but we don’t do them simply because we can when we seek to please God.
God’s commands us also to “take every thought captive”… oh yes, I SIN a great deal here… because I know God commands it, it is not a basis of my salvation – that is through faith alone by grace alone.
Similarly, a woman seeking modesty “knows the good she ought to do” and naturally labels a lowcut blouse revealing cleavage “sinful” attire. Is she a heretic? Does the scripture ever make a reference to “NO CLEAVAGE” is she “reading into” the passages concerning modesty? I think she is setting standards based on very biblical principles… so if a WHOLE church has a “NO CLEAVAGE” understanding of modesty, is it a cult? If a book and a movie is produced stating that showing cleavage is a sin is there a “red flag” for legalism? Do we consequently assume that because a woman where’s a lower cut blouse than another that she is less godly? No, but she is certainly less intentional about pleasing God the father in the area of selecting blouses.
These girls are very intentional about their roles of respect towards thier fathers, yet they do not claim “perfection” or that their actions make them more favorable for salvation. THis is a work of God’s grace.
However, they are teaching what a logical practical application of biblical principles looks like… call it being over particular and logically flawed (we can disagree on that), but not heresy and in line with Satan.
October 1, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Nikki,
A father can nullify a “wise” vow according to this scripture as much as a “foolish” one. The Scripture appears to give full discretion to the father to nullify the vow.
However, the reason for this discussion began was in part because you cited Numbers 30 as the text supporting your assertion that a daughter remain at home. No where in your subsequent commentary have you supported this assertion with the text you cited.
Further, you use of 1 Samuel and Eli does not support the assertion that a father was responsible for the sin of his son as you stated here,
You asked, “Do you disagree that Eli was not blamed for his failure to restrain his sons in this passage?”
Yes, Eli was blamed for his failure to restrain, but that is not the same point you made earlier in another comment and your use of Eli in that comment. You said,
““We see a vital principle in the father daughter relationship, when under the father’s authority, he is responsible for her sins, when that cover is gone, she will “make the bed she sleeps in” so to speak.”
A father is NOT responsible for her sins, but his own failure to restrain his children. The account of Eli supports the fact that a father is responsible for his failure to restrain his children, but NOT responsible for their sins. Further where in Scripture do you deduce the idea that an earthly father is a “covering” for his daughter’s sin?
I am very willing to accept any principle or idea as “biblical” if it can be supported by Scripture, however you have made two assertions
1. A daughter must remain at home.
2. A father is responsible for his daughter’s sin.
Neither one has been Scripturally supported.
You said, “This is logic guided by biblical principles for God does NOT give us step by step instructions for every aspect of each of our lives, but we must not deny the principles by which we are guided in his word.”
I am very willing to accept your assertions as biblical principles if they can be supported, please support both of the above points so I can better understand your position and further understand exactly the role of father in a daughter’s life.
W
October 1, 2007 at 7:14 pm
“I suppose I consider it possibly foolish by the full context… further along in verse 11 (while dealing with the same subject) in refers to the woman who takes a husband while bound by her “vows or rash utterance”.. I just don’t see any evidenc of “rash” wisdom anywhere. I believe it is a vow that does as the scripture says, “binds her”.”
Nikki,
I was reading this text in the KJV and it doesn’t contain the word “rash”. Again, my original point was that this is not referring to “foolish” vows, as you said it did. It is referring to BOTH vows (neder) and hasty statments “mibta” and a hasty vow doesn’t necessarily mean “foolish” at all. It could simply just mean that the vow was made in that moment during an extreme moment of devotion. How you automatically go right to “foolish” and “sinful” is beyond me.
” I see you think the Numbers passage is a terrible example of this as it doesn’t refer to “sin”, but rather foolish vows, so I suppose we disagree that foolishness is a mark of sin in ones heart. .”
The above is what I was taking issue. You somehow infer something from Numbers 30 that is not there. The vow could be something made that was very good and completely holy and in line with God’s word, like Hannah’s vow. There is NOTHING there that says that a husband or father is a covering for the sin of the women in his house. Nothing. The covering for sin was in the hopeful expectation of the Messiah.
We don’t disagree that foolishness is a mark of sin in one’s heart. That is a logical fallacy but I don’t know which one it would be? Begging the question? Strawman? Both? You are arguing with something I did NOT say.
And this was in response to my disagreement with your original statement:
““We see a vital principle in the father daughter relationship, when under the father’s authority, he is responsible for her sins, when that cover is gone, she will “make the bed she sleeps in” so to speak.””
Again, my original point stands. Numbers 30 does not talk about sin nor does it refer to foolishness.
“She is committed to what she vows and as her circumstances change, although she may regrat it… she is BOUND to her commitment, unless of course her father or husband practices his authority and nullifies that binding vow… which yes, I logically deduce is foolish when it falls under the umbrella of “vow or rash utterance”. ”
Her husband, on the day he hears of it, *can* nullify the vow. If he doesn’t speak up when he hears about it, he can’t do anything about it after that day.
Another interesting thing that I read was that a husband wasn’t supposed to willy-nilly nullify a woman’s vow just because he CAN or because he wants to “practice his authority”. He was not to use this as some self-serving tool to prevent his life from being inconvenienced by his wife’s or daughter’s vow. Because, very likely, she could have been doing it out of obedience to God and sometimes obedience brings sacrifice for ALL those around us.
BTW, you would also be interested that under that system a woman was not recognized by the law of the land. This was a protection given a woman by God. Whereas a man had protection under the laws of the land to get out from under a vow or hasty utterance, a woman was given none. This was given to her by God for her protection.
” No, it does not state that it is necessarily a rash vow, but if it is not rash and it is made in wisdom, why release her? ”
Exactly. Why release her? I do not know. Hannah’s husband didn’t over-ride his wife’s hasty vow unto the Lord when she vowed to give back her firstborn son to the service of the temple.
Are you saying that Numbers 30 is only speaking about foolish vows because if you are, you are going against the Hebrew words of this text.
“Further, it states that a widow or divorced woman does not have this hedge of protection or if you prefer, “way out” of her binding vow.”
It is not what I prefer but what the LORD prefers.
That is an oft misused phrase. The Lord is our hedge. The widow and divorced woman is not without a way out or a hedge of protection that would not be consistent with the God I know. The OT system was set up with ways to sacrifice for unintentional sins. A hasty vow would most certainly fit under this. A widow or divorced woman can get out of her hasty vow just like a man can get out of his vow.
BTW, the vow was automatically nullified if it was not in accordance with God’s ways. Meaning, that if one hastily vowed to sacrifice the first thing that walks out of his door as a burnt offering to the Lord, he couldn’t offer up his daughter or a dog or any other unclean animal or offering that the Lord has not prescribed. A burnt offering was very specifically laid out in Leviticus.
October 1, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“Do you disagree that Eli was not blamed for his failure to restrain his sons in this passage?”
Nikki,
Then what about Aaron and his two sons who offered up strange fire before the Lord?
Spunky explained my disagreement with your *original* statement. You cannot change my argument by rephrasing the question. The above was NOT what I was taking issue with.
Eli is responsible for his sin. His sons were responsible for their sins.
And Aaron’s example proves this to be true. It is basically the same story, is it not? The only difference is the father.
If your original statement is true, that would mean that Aaron would have been judged for what his sons did.
October 1, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Nikki,
I need some time to be able to answer your post. I will say that you make a lot of assertions/arguments that are not being argued. No one is decrying a family working together and showing the light of the Gospel together. No one is saying that daughters need to be independent entities. As you have already quoted, men and women are dependent upon each other. Yes, Eve was made for Adam but since then every man has received life from a woman.
I am sure that was a bitter irony for those immature Corinthians who only had half of the argument (“woman was made for man”) correct. Paul is a master at presenting the true part of an argument first and then quickly showing how that argument is faulty because it doesn’t go all the way.
“They teach modesty, but they never say, “only dresses” or “cover your face”… no, these girls don’t generally drees according to the latest magazine, but they don’t look frumpy and homely.”
Are you sure about this? The Botkins do not teach “dresses only”? How about others?
My experience proves to me that many in the hyperpatriarchal movement teach “dresses only” for women. I have the battle wounds to prove it!
October 1, 2007 at 7:28 pm
p.s.
You are right that they don’t look frumpy and homely. They are gorgeous girls and dress very nicely.
I hardly think anyone here is advocating dressing according to the latest magazine styles! If they are, then I am not one of them. I would disagree with that philosophy.
October 1, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Corrie,
I understood your original statement was that father’s are NOT responsible for their children’s sin. Please forgive my improper phrasing, I may just not be on the same page with you at all… sometimes the blogs all run together.
The scripture states that Eli was responsible for not restraining his sons… pointing out that it doesn’t make such specifications for Aaron and our sons (for whatever reason God chose not to) does not invalidate the scripture reference to Eli… I really do not follow you?
We see from studying all of these that each one is held responsible for their own sin, and we also see the example of a responsible authority blamed for NOT exercising his authority to restrain his own grown sons in their sin.
This is not about MY statement… what God says is TRUE. He doesn’t have to provide written account in details according to my standards, if the bible says Eli was judged for not restraining his sons, I believe it. It really is that simple… so I guess that makes me simple minded.
Therefore, I can assume that although it doesn’t state it Aaron was judged at some point for his sons sin OR although Eli served God and God used him to raise Samuel, God just didn’t like him and was looking for something to blame on him and was unfair in making such a judgment on Eli because it was “okay for Aaron”… what makes us think it was okay for Aaron to train up sons that sinned in this manner… what makes us think that Aaron “got off the hook” for the whole golden calf deal because the text focuses on Moses anger and disobedience.. if this is the measure we use to determine what God passes judgement on or what he condones we are in for some serious trouble.
B
October 1, 2007 at 7:57 pm
“Therefore, I can assume that although it doesn’t state it Aaron was judged at some point for his sons sin ”
Really? What if he didn’t know that his sons were going to offer up strange fire to God? If he did know about it and didn’t stop it, then I would have believed he would have been judged because God takes seriously the role of High Priest.
“OR although Eli served God and God used him to raise Samuel, God just didn’t like him and was looking for something to blame on him and was unfair in making such a judgment on Eli because it was “okay for Aaron”… ”
ROFLOL!!!
“what makes us think it was okay for Aaron to train up sons that sinned in this manner… ”
So, even if you train up your children in the way they should go and they go the opposite way, the parent is going to get judged for that child’s rebellion? Do you have a verse for that? Maybe from the NT? What does your train of thought say about God and His fatherhood?
“what makes us think that Aaron “got off the hook” for the whole golden calf deal because the text focuses on Moses anger and disobedience.. ”
He didn’t get off the hook, Nikki, who said he did? God has a great sense of humor. For Aaron’s ordination he had to offer up a….get this….CALF as a sin offering!! LOL
Can you imagine the picture? Can you imagine the lesson Aaron learned that day?
“if this is the measure we use to determine what God passes judgement on or what he condones we are in for some serious trouble.”
Yes we are but thankfully this is NOT what ANYONE is saying.
Did you read Leviticus 10 yet? Can you see the difference? Aaron wasn’t held responsible for his sons’ disobedience because he is not responsible for every sin they commit. But, if he had known about it and sat back and didn’t try and correct them, he would have been like Eli. But, he obviously did NOT know abut it.
I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.
“This is not about MY statement… what God says is TRUE. He doesn’t have to provide written account in details according to my standards, if the bible says Eli was judged for not restraining his sons, I believe it. It really is that simple… so I guess that makes me simple minded.”
I will be glad to discuss the scriptures with you and work through these hard to understand verses. My goal is to continue to turn these over and over all the while praying for God’s wisdom.
But, I can no longer spend time arguing with strawmen. You are setting up arguments that no one is making and then knocking down these same arguments. The problem is that I agree with you. I never said that Eli wasn’t judged for NOT restraining his sons. His lack of action was sin on his part. He was no restrained for his sons’ sins but for his own sins.
Do you think that parents, especially fathers, are going to be held accountable for every sin their child commits even though that parent doesn’t know a thing about a particular sin and even though that parent has done everything in his/her power to correct, rebuke and train that child in the ways that are right?
That sounds like a yoke that Christ never meant anyone but Himself to bear.
October 1, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“Grace and Peace to those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Main point and problem with the tone of many of these blogs – not all, but many … we who practice christian patriarchy for biblical reasons have been labeled heretics because we are told that we are misinterpreting the bible.
There it is. That’s my BIG problem. No one has taught that these things are necessary for salvation, yet we are told that to teach that they are biblical or that something else is “sin” makes us heretical.
By definition of the word HERESY, a heretic cannot be a Christian – a heretic misuses God’s word at the point of knowledge and understanding of saving faith and grace….
So what has happened here is that a group of people who teach from the bible (not the Koran, or the book of mormon, but the Bible, not teaching philosophy from Plato or confuscious, but principles from the Bible) have been deemed heretics. You say we teach improperly… well I promise we don’t do it intentionally as we are all VERY diligent in our studies however misguided you consider them. origianl, Greek, Hebrew, church history are all very important… so the “unbiblicalness” does not result from lack of effort or lack of prayers for grace and wisdom.. although it may be said we lack both.
If I am a practicing the beliefs of a cult which I have derived from such a drastic mishandling of God’s word then I will be sentenced to eternity in hell (of which I am not concerned for I am confident in my salvation which is by God’s grace and not conditional upon my lack of failures in my walk with Christ).
OR
This site endorses and promotes vicious slander… (and believe me I don’t mind those who are interested in just the debate… it’s those crying HERESY that deeply concern me.
One group is trying to spur on love and good deeds and yet someone cries, “heresy! you can’t use the bible to say that’s the way to love and practice good deeds, even if they’re good and it’s loving… you can’t say it’s the “ONLY WAY” There are many ways!”
Jehovah’s Winess – CUlT
Mormons – CULT
Islam – CULT
Word of caution, not to those who are testing what is said with the true doctrine of the scriptures, for Christians are called to such diligence as thoes like Corrie have paid, but to those who add Biblical Patriarchy to the list of “cults”…. beware the SLANDER.
It is no small thing to make such an accusation against God’s children and it is NOT the same as holding them biblically accountable for proper teaching and handling of the word. And though we all who trust in Jesus have security in our salvation, God does and will hold us accountable for our deeds. I believe the bible teaches that too…
I really must go… I apologize if I have left unanswered questions… If you are truly interested in picking apart such teachings, I highly recommend the book “Family Driven Faith” by Dr. Voddie Baucham.
For now, I must concede… I’m about to go train my sons to be protectors of women and children and my daughters to be helpers to their father and even their brothers until they are married. I am going to go teach them all thet they must learn and practice submitting their wills To Christ… they are memorizing Phillippians chapter 2…pray that it does not become distorted in our home as I still “see throught the glass dimly”.
Nikki Bratton
October 2, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Ladies, you may want to check out this link to address the question raised about daughters being a helpmeet to their fathers.
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/the-blessing-of-daughters/
October 2, 2007 at 5:37 pm
James MacDonald has written a post about the Botkin’s book, however for reasons I do not understand he has chosen not to approve my comment. He said he would forward the comment on to the Botkins’ but I thought I’d post them here where my thoughts can be evaluated and discussed by others.
Here is a link to his original post.
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/the-blessing-of-daughters/
Here is my reply
Thank you James for addressing this issue of a daughter being a helpmeet.
I am glad to know that quote will be edited in future editions.
To state upfront, I emailed my initial concerns to the Botkin girls in June, without a response so it is heartening to know they are examining what they have writtten and have clarified this point in an email to you.
However, the source of the confusion is not in just that single quote.
Chapter Four begins with a discussion of the word submission. And rightly a daughter is to submit to her father. But the Scripture the girls chose to help explain submission found on page 33 is Ephesians 5:22 “Wives submit yourselves to your husbands…” There are many verses in the Bible talking about submission as well some dedicated to the role of children in obedience to parents, why choose a verse specifically directed to wives? This specific text, while not directly calling a daughter a helpmeet, helps set the tone for the rest of the chapter relating the role of the daughter with the wife.
There was also another quote different from the one you noted above where that the girls encourage a role of “helpmeet” for a daughter.
One page 42 the girls state, “You may not immediately see how much your father needs your help and just how much you can help him, because the very importance of a “helpmeet” has been long forgotten.”
Speaking directly to daughters the Botkins seek to establish a correlation between the daughter and a “helpmeet.” If they had stopped after they state how much their father needs their help, it would be fine but they didn’t. This text creates a very different emphasis than the the quote which you have above which states, “You can help your father by helping his helpmeet (your mother), leaving her more free to help her husband in other ways.”
Perhaps this sentence is just another lapse in editting, but the underlying message conveyed to a young daughter reading this book is that the Botkin girls portray the daughter as a helpmeet through the heavy use of the word and their reliance on Scriptures directed at wives.
Another example is found on page 45 where the Botkin girls rhetorically ask,
“What does being a good helpmeet involve?”
“The most beautiful and complete illustration of a perfect helpomeet is the Proverbs 31 woman. Thought there are differences between how a daughter helps her father and a wife helps her husband, this illustration show us just how much a good helpmeet can do.”
By using the word “helpmeet” instead of “daughter” when asking the rhetorical question they blur the distinction by interchanging them. They cite differences in the role of a daughter as a helper to her father, but do nothing to remove the idea that the daughter is not a helpmeet just that she helps “differently.” I am not disputing that a daughter learn what it means to be a good helpmeet, but remember the context of this chapter is the role daughters and their duty to their father not a general teaching on being a “helpmeet.”
They then further bolser this role on page 46 the Botkin’s by hinging the very success of a man on “their women.”
“No wonder our society is so short of real men! If our men aren’t successful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”
It is true that fathers need the help of daughters and should value them and their worth. But is it accurate or biblical to say that if the father is not successful largely because of the women in his life? A foolish woman can tear her house down to be sure, however, a wise woman or devoted daughter can be the best helper to her husband or father and he may still experience disappointing failure. The burden of her father’s success is a heavy one to place upon a daughter, and one I don’t see being placed upon her by our Lord.
James I am not challenging the word submission or the role a daughter plays in a father’s life through joyful submission. I am blessed that I have enjoyed a life long strong vibrant relationship with my father. I have sought his counsel for as long as I can remember. I have joyfully worked beside him in his work as a stock broker, helping him with his computer work. It is a cherished memory for me. Today, we still enjoy each others company and a close relationship of honor and respect where both my husband and I seek his counsel on our family’s decisions.
Further, my own adult daughter lives with us and shares in the joy of helping her father. She seeks his counsel and cherishes her time at home until she can be a wife and make a home of her own. (By the way, she also shares the love of the flute and teaches piano and flute to students in our area.)
However, we both experienced the same confusion and lack of clarity about the role of daughters while reading the Botkin book . They are at some times clear to make a distinction between the way a wife “helps” and a daughter helps, but at other times use they use the term helpmeet in such a way as to project that very role upon the daughter.
In fact, it is curious in this chapter the Botkins have a chance to clarify the distinction between a wife and a daughter, that they leave out the words of Paul in the New Testament book of Corinthians where he wrote,
“There is difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please husband.”
Certainly, this is the Botkin’s book and they can write as they wish, but this Scripture helps to clarify the roles very well. And because it is preserved for us by the Lord through His Word it is obviously an important message for our daughters from the Lord.
Instead, quoting again from page 42 the girls rhetorically ask, “Can you imagine a man more desrving of your devotion and assistance, some whom you love and trust more than your own father?”
The answer Paul seems to be giving is a daughter to their question is the Lord Himself is worthy of that devotion not an earthly man otherwise he would have said so, as he did with the wife. Paul makes the distinction the Botkin girls fail to recognize in that caring for a man is a worldly distraction. Yes, it is the sacred calling of the wife, but Paul doesn’t place that burden upon the daughter in her relationship with her father.
We can all discuss our opinions about the role of daughters, but we must be careful not to elevate our opinion to that of a biblical command from the Lord.
Paul said in the same chapter a few verses above,
“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”
If Paul could not muster a command for daughters, it is a safe bet that you, I or the Botkin girls will do no better.
Please understand, it is not the “explosive” nature of this topic that has me concerned. I don’t mind challenging ideas and thoughts (I once debated a lesbian on television
My concern is over how they convey the message and confusing that which is a biblical command from their own choices and opinions.
There is a lack of clarity, your example was one but there are others as I have cited. It is not that my daughter or I are seeking to get around what Scripture commands, but we want to make sure that what is taught is truly biblical. Women, especially young women, must be careful not to fall for the temptation to believe something just because a writer asserts that the Bible says it is true. That was the very way Eve was tempted and thus we must make sure that which we place before our daughters is indeed portraying a clear and biblically accurate message.
It is wrong to assume that the challenge is because I don’t like the ideas, not at all, but when someone asserts something and cites the Bible as the source of the assertion, the two must match. And when they don’t, we must do dilligently the work of the Berean and make sure that what is taught is true.
I appreciate knowing that the girls have clarified their beliefs to you, but the book and current editions are already written and unlike a blog entry, they cannot be editted.
The Botkin girls need not feel personally threatened by the questions asked by others. We all desire to know the Truth. When one man sharpens another, we all will be strenegthened as we each grow closer to Christ and His Truth. That is what they have attempted to do by writing this book, and that is what others are doing by asking hard questions about what they have written. So Much More is a meant to stir public debate.
One page 5 the girls write, “We also believe the ideas in this book will stimulate further scholarly examination of topics that should not be neglected by the adults. We introduce many topics with the aim of getting them into the public debate.”
Christian women both in the blogosphere and in their homes are now engaging in the very debate they encouraged through writing their book. They should feel encouraged that the Christian community has taken their writing seriously and stirred mothers and daughter to further consider their roles in light of God’s word.
James, like you, I am a blessed woman. I still have my father alive to build many more memories. And as a true “patriarch” to our family, he shares in raising our daugthers (and sons) for the glory of our Lord.
Thank you for taking the time to engage in a conversation with the Botkins and gaining needed clarification for their thoughts. Your efforts have helped me greatly.
October 2, 2007 at 6:07 pm
“Do you think that parents, especially fathers, are going to be held accountable for every sin their child commits even though that parent doesn’t know a thing about a particular sin and even though that parent has done everything in his/her power to correct, rebuke and train that child in the ways that are right? That sounds like a yoke that Christ never meant anyone but Himself to bear.”
Corrie, you are correct.
God Himself repudiated the idea that fathers are somehow responsible for the sins of their grown children, way back in the OLD Testament:
Ezekiel – Chapter 18
Eze 18:1 ¶ The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?
Eze 18:3 [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have [occasion] any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die…………… Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
October 2, 2007 at 6:28 pm
[...] some of where Spunky and I are coming from, I would like to suggest that you check out the True Womanhood in the New Millennium visionary daughters blog thread where this has been discussed in great detail over the last 4 months or so. The thread is long, 620 [...]
October 2, 2007 at 6:39 pm
““A father is most fruitful when he has the help of his children (in addition to his wife, his primary helpmeet), and a daughter is most fruitful when she is making her father successful in this way.”
Quite simply, the word “primary” should be stricken from the paragraph (and I am told will be, in future print runs). The Botkin girls never intended for anyone to glean that a daughter was a helpmeet to her father. It was simply an editorial mistake of one word.”
That can’t be true since the book appears to use “helpmeet” in other places, too. I have heard the term “helmpeet” used in conjuntion with a daughter’s role in regard to her father in other patriarchal writings, too.
” Imagine that – a mistake in a 350 page book. ”
Yes, imagine that but taken with the rest of what is said in the book, it hardly looks like a simple editing error.
“Sadly, rather than clarify the meaning of this phrase with the authors, and obviously ignoring the context of the statement, someone chose to ungraciously “take and run” with this phrase and cry “foul!” One would have thought clarification was in order since the rest of the book clearly contradicts such a teaching.”
It looks like someone DID try and clarify the meaning of that phrase but didn’t get an answer as is the case in most of these discussions.
In fact, I have seen numerous times where people have tried to clarify a particular teaching and all they have gotten was idle threats and intimidation and evasion.
“Pernicious”? Exactly.
““I’m wary of being another man’s helpmeet and desire first and foremost to work to make my father or my husband successful rather than putting my efforts into making some other man successful.””
The above quote was taken off of Visionary Daughters’ website.
Is it my imagination or do these people confuse the term helpmeet with bosses, too? If they confuse it with bosses (I just read this same thing in the comment section at YourSacred blog, too) How can a woman be a helpmeet to another man in the workforce? And, if this girl is wary about being another man’s helpmeet and her desire is first and foremost to work to make her husband and father successful, doesn’t this imply that she is her husband and/or father’s helpmeet instead of another man in the workforce??
It seems they falsely or mistakenly confuse the term service with helpmeet. We are all servants. Does that make us all helpmeets? Helpmeet doesn’t mean “secretary” and it doesn’t mean “junior assistant”. It means one who corresponds. It doesn’t mean someone who does stuff for another person. Yes, a helpmeet does stuff for her husband but that is not what the term helpmeet means.
I don’t think it is people who question these teachings that are confused.
October 2, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Basically, I see people defining helpmeet as a worker. A helpmeet is someone, a female, who does work for a man.
But, if the Bible meant that by that term, then it would have used the word “servant”.
God is our ezer. He is our help in times of trouble. That means that He is our strength.
Obviously, God is not our ezer in order to do whatever we want Him to do and to make us successful in all that we do.
I think we need to define the term accurately and precisely before we start using it.
What does the term “helpmeet” mean?
October 2, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Another area where the Botkin girls confusingly use Scripture not directed toward daughters is on page 108. The girls assert that a woman is called to be the misstress of a functional home. To defend their assertion they quote the apostle Paul’s in Titus 2. The girls write (emphasis in original),
“The apostle Paul rarely gave instruction to young women, but one of the instnaces wher ehe does so is in Titus 2:4,5: “…that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
This is a Scripture to MARRIED women who have husbands and children, NOT unmarried women. Certainly, there are things unmarried women can learn from this passage, but this passage is not written to daughters.
Further in the text they quote William Einwechter, “In paul’s charge ot the younger women, he exhorts to the “marry, bear children, guide the house…” (1 Timothy 5:12). A study of the text in context shows that this text is directed as an instruction to WIDOWS not daughters.
Again it is curious that the actual Scripture from Paul regarding “virgins” is once again omitted from the Botkin’s discourse on the role of a daughter. Instead, they select text directed at young married women and widows.
Later on page 115 they state, “Women, regardless of whether or not hey are busy full-time taking care of children, are too precious to the body of Christ to be squandered by worldly pursuits.”
If “worldly pursuits” it is meant the things that distract us from the Lord, let us not forget what Paul identified in 1 Corinthians, “a married woman who cares for the things of her husband.” The Botkins have completely reversed the teaching of Paul by taking verses directed to married women and applying it to daughters and ignoring the teaching Paul specifically wrote to “virgins.”
Please understand, a daughter and her father can choose to devote herself to the care of her home and father, but this is a choice she has placed upon herself following the Lord’s direction, it is not a command from the Lord to be followed. There exists no such command in Scripture.
October 2, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I don’t think that I am reading anything into this description over on Amazon.com.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1017552&item_no=526383
“Sisters Anna and Elizabeth Botkin have had quite enough of the feminist movement in the west today. Sounding a call not only for women to be keepers at home once married, they elaborate upon the intricacies of the father-daughter bond, and the need for a biblically defined relationship. Perhaps the most influential time in a girl’s life, a daughter has the ideal situation to fulfull her current, and train for her future, role as a helpmeet, for both father and husband. Writing for all the young girls today who are struggling against an overwhelmingly critical culture, the sisters provide encouragement to continue in the paths of godly daughterhood and biblical womanhood.”
I don’t think that there are only one or two people who have purposely taken a word out of context. I don’t know who writes these descriptions of the book but it seems that everyone is pretty much getting the same basic gist (and it is NOT because of one word).
One thing that is interesting to me is that Carolyn Custis James would define a woman’s role as a “helpmeet” as she doesn’t just confine it to the husband/wife relationship. She would probably agree with the statement that a daughter can be a helpmeet to her father.
But, the curious thing is that Carolyn Custis James has been lambasted for her thoughts on this by no other than the hyper-patriarchalists themselves. Do a Google search. Time after time you will see the Bayly blog come up. They don’t much care for Carolyn Custis James’ opinion of a helpmeet.
October 2, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“Perhaps the most influential time in a girl’s life, a daughter has the ideal situation to fulfull her current, and train for her future, role as a helpmeet, for both father and husband.”
Interesting. I inquired of CBD and asked them who writes the product descriptions for their website, the customer service representative said they have a specialist trained for that task. So apparently a specialist trained to concisely write a description of a book feels that the Botkin daughters intended “helpmeet” to be a “current” role of a daughter to her father.
That leads to the obvious questions, is CBD part of the “pernicous” rumor spreading with some hidden hatred for Biblcial Truth or the Botkins? Or are they an objective reader of the text assigned to write a description that accurately reflects the intent of the author? For me, I’ll assume the latter.
October 2, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I tried to respond to the blog that was mentioned in the above link and my response was rejected.
I will post my response and the blog owner’s reason why he did not post my response:
James Mcdonald:
“Because of your comments on other blogs, your thoughts will not be posted here. However, we will consider responding to your thoughts in another post in the future.
Grace and peace,”
I don’t quite understand but here are my “thoughts”:
“To explain his detractors, one must look no further than the scripture where Jesus declares,
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
(Joh 15:18)”
Mike,
That is a gross misuse of God’s word. There are a lot of pernicious implications in what you have stated. One of them being that the “someone” from James’ article is an unbeliever who hates Jesus.
What I would like to see is an honest discussion about the biblical meaning of helpmeet and how we are to apply it.
If you have any thoughts on the subject, I would love to hear them. But, I am confused when I see people using the term helpmeet to describe a boss’s secretary or to describe a daughter. I would love to know exactly what a helpmeet is and what exactly that term means. It sometimes sounds like people define helpmeet as “worker” or someone who is a personal assistant for another person.
And, if that all a helpmeet is is a person who works for another person, then why don’t we call male personal assistants “helpmeets” and why don’t we refer to all men under authority of another man a “helpmeet”?
From my study the term ezer kenegdo means to “rescue, save” and “to be strong/strength”. Basically it means that God said that He will make a power that corresponds to man. She was created to be a match for him, to be his equal.
If you do a study on the word “ezer” you will see it is used of God Himself (16 times). You will also see that the Holy Spirit is called the “Helper”.
This isn’t about one little mistakenly placed word. It is about a whole system of teaching and belief that has taken this word and has used it in a way that scripture does not use it.
October 3, 2007 at 2:39 am
James Mcdonald:
“Because of your comments on other blogs, your thoughts will not be posted here. However, we will consider responding to your thoughts in another post in the future.
Corrie Jo:
“I don’t quite understand but here are my “thoughts”:
I think I understand it, Corrie.
McDonald has read enough of your postings here and on other sites to know that you are likely to disagree with him, and to a Patriarch, that is not acceptable. Moreover, if he has been reading your postings, he is also well aware that you have the intellectual ability to hold your own in a discussion and defend your views, and he probably doesn’t like that much either. Plus, your views are well grounded in both Holy Scripture and orthodox Christian thought, something which the Patriocentrists new fangled religion is decidedly not.
Next to meeting the prophetess Deborah when he gets to heaven, discussing theology with an intelligent, orthodox-believing Christian woman who is unafraid of debate is a HyperP’s worst nightmare — the last thing a Patriarch like McDonald wants to do is risk be bearded by a woman in his own den… er, blog.
October 3, 2007 at 4:36 am
It seems to me that Pastor McDonald is feeding the idea that hyper-patriarchal types don’t want to discuss the issues with people who are bringing honest questions to the table. It is so discouraging to me. How do you ladies stay in the game and stay so gracious? I just want to pull my hair out!!
October 3, 2007 at 9:44 am
Cally, the answer is duct tape….just wrap it around your head when it feels like it might explode.
October 3, 2007 at 9:48 am
Seriously, Cally, as obnoxious as it is for to us to be called names, the worst part is knowing how these people handle the Scriptures. It is truly sad.
October 3, 2007 at 9:54 am
Cynthia, you are correct about Corrie. She is a student of the Word and isn’t afraid to have a challenge. I have seen her admit when she doesn’t know something and then she studies it and before you know it, she is back with her research. It is a sight to behold.
I think we have to remember, too, that many of the leaders within the patriocentric movement, while they come across as learned men and believe they are “able to teach,” don’t have any more formal training in theology than many of the women who read and comment on this blog. In fact, many of them probably have less. So, none of us should feel intimidated when we study, as Bereans, and then challenge things we KNOW are not absolutes in the Word of God.
October 3, 2007 at 9:56 am
Spunky says:
“Interesting. I inquired of CBD and asked them who writes the product descriptions for their website, the customer service representative said they have a specialist trained for that task. So apparently a specialist trained to concisely write a description of a book feels that the Botkin daughters intended “helpmeet” to be a “current” role of a daughter to her father.
That leads to the obvious questions, is CBD part of the “pernicous” rumor spreading with some hidden hatred for Biblcial Truth or the Botkins? Or are they an objective reader of the text assigned to write a description that accurately reflects the intent of the author? For me, I’ll assume the latter.”
Spunky, you have asked the $64,000 question. I hope it is answered.
October 3, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“How do you ladies stay in the game and stay so gracious? I just want to pull my hair out!!”
LOL… I’m not particularly gracious, at least not as gracious as the rest of you here — and I really ought to try harder, too.
Thatmom said,
“…we have to remember, too, that many of the leaders within the patriocentric movement, while they come across as learned men and believe they are “able to teach,” don’t have any more formal training in theology than many of the women who read and comment on this blog. In fact, many of them probably have less.”
Not to mention the fact that some are not even ordained ministers, and several who were ordained in mainstream denominations were booted out onto their ecclesiastical ears and started up their own denominations where they COULD call the shots.
I guess it’s better to be the Patriarch of a small denomination than submit to one’s elders in a regular one.
October 3, 2007 at 12:44 pm
” It is so discouraging to me. How do you ladies stay in the game and stay so gracious? I just want to pull my hair out!!”
My first rule of the internet is to assume that ALL that is said to is said in a spirit of love for Christ and His Truth and me. That assumption keeps me from taking anything personally and allows me to respond appropriately.
A corollary to that rule is to assume that those who challenge what I write are doing so because they are genuinely seeking to understand my position and have a desire for the Truth.
My next rule is never to let someone else discourage me into giving up a quest for the Truth.
These discussions are not discouraging at all to me. In fact just the opposite is true. We have a large group of women who are seeking God’s Word and desiring to know the Truth for their daughters. How can I get discouraged by that?
I admit that I truly don’t understand the use of terminology used by people such as Stacey MacDonald who said in her recent blog entry, “[T]here has been a marked attack on the beauty and loveliness of true, biblical femininity. Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, as well as others, have caught a lot of flack over their courageous stand on the role of daughters in the home. ”
Who is attacking TRUE biblical femininity? That certainly is not true of the ladies who have commented here. We’re examining the term and role as the Botkin’s define it, to see it if is indeed TRUE. Do those that write a book have a special revelation of the Scriptural Truth that the rest of us lack and so we must blindly trust their defintions and apply it to our lives? I think not.
It is hard to see a book that you have invested months or years of work to produce scrutinzed. But if the authors are seeking the Truth, they would welcome such examiniation and discussions not shut their ears and call them attacks. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
What the Christian mothers and daughters are doing here and in their homes is exactly what the Botkin’s exhorted us to do in the first chapter of their book. They said, “If you decide to read this book, read it like a Berean. Check what we say against Scripture.”
Having a discussion online is no different than Stacey MacDonald or I having a book discussion in our home. A good book discussion allows honest dialogue about its content. This book is not the gospel. We can disagree with one another without feeling attacked. I didn’t feel attacked when Mr. Southerland explained that I am a “detractor” with a “hatred” for Christ. I accepted his thoughts as his own and wrote why it wasn’t true based on the Truth of God’s Word. James MacDonald obvious agreed and admonished Mr. Southerland in a subsequent comment. Honest communication and dialogue is fruitful.
I’m not discouraged by all of this or even fatigued. Motherhood is a journey of many ups and downs. I am thankful for the Body of Christ that helps me naviagate through those ups and downs and gives me encouragement to continue and advice along the way. Books like So Much More and discussions about them are tools that God uses in our lives to refine us. He uses them to draw us closer to Himself and the Truth of His Word.
If others want to perceive this as an attack or cover their ears and say that books like So Much More are the absolute truth on biblical femininity, so be it, but obviously there are enough Bereans who want to know His Truth to spur all of us forward in our quest for TRUE Womanhood as God’s Word defines it. For me, I want to be with the Bereans.
October 3, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Spunky,
Thanks for that admonition. I am inspired by it this morning.
October 3, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“the idea that hyper-patriarchal types don’t want to discuss the issues with people who are bringing honest questions to the table.”
It is a control of information. It is ironic to me because they are the first ones to use the labels “Marxist” or “Communist” in these discussions but they do not see that the control of information flowing only one way from the TOP down to the masses is exactly what these “isms” are all about. The Bayly blog had a recent post about this sort of thing and now people are following their lead.
It is a new thing on many blogs that subscribe to the hyperP paradigm. They are following the lead of the Bayly Bros. who are heavy-handed in their moderation and who strictly control the flow and direction of information.
October 3, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Honest dialogue is what Christ himself engaged in with those round him.
On James MacDonald’s blog a commenter named Trish said, “Those leading the fight most viciously against the Botkin sisters and indeed against the Lord’s beautiful plan for women in His church are WOMEN!”
Is it supposed to be scandalous that we are women examining the words of two WOMEN to see if they teach according to sound doctrine? Are only men allowed to be critical of a book written by and for woman? Why are two young women allowed to write it, but it is somehow a problem that other women examine it?
Further, why does Trish feel that our examination is against the Lord’s plan? Is the Botkin’s plan the Lord’s plan? Funny I didn’t see their name in my study of Scripture, perhaps someone can point out to me where it is.
This cry of “attack” is ironic in a way.
In the book So Much More, the Botkin girls were critical of the life choices of missionaries, Amy Carmicheal and Mary Slessor. The girls write 261, “We need to be very cautious in the way we treat real-life examples; careful that we don’t hold up real, fallible people as the infallible standard. We should give godly people honor for the worthy things that they did and learn from their examples. But we should recognize that these godly women do no in fact feature in the Bible, and their examples cannot be used as a scriptural precept.”
In light of their words, I must ask, why are the Botkin’s allowed to publically criticize two dead Godly women who cannot defend themselves in their book and Stacey MacDonald and others do not see it as an attack against the missionaries and instead praise the book, but we cannot critically examine the work of the Botkin girls without it being seen as an attack against them and spreading of a “pernicious” rumor?
Atleast the Botkins are still alive to defend themselves! Are we only allowed to be critical of the work of dead people?
In applying what they wrote to this situation with their book, we cannot hold up the Botkin’s book as the infallible standard for a Godly daughter or the Botkin family as our scriptural precept.
The Botkin girls explain their criticism of the missionaries this way, “We do not mean to criticize any well-meaning missionary woman Our purpose in writing this is to stress that we must study Scripture, trusting only Scripture, to tell us exactly how God wants us to live. Are we willing to follow Him, instead of our human heros and heroines? Or will we insted stubbornly follow our own ideas of what is “right” and “spiritual”?”
So to those that view my participation in this discussion as an attack against the Botkin’s, allow me to explain by borrowing the Botkin’s words with a slight modification and apply it to today’s discussion,
“I do not mean to criticize any well-meaning author or visionary daughter. My purpose in writing is to stress that we must study Scripture, trust only Scripture,to tell us exactly how God wants us to live. Are we willing to follow Him, instead of our human heros, authors, or conference speaker? Or will we blindly follow their ideas of what is “right” and “spiritual”?
I stand with the Botkin girls and publically state we have no hero but Christ alone. As they seek to follow Christ alone, so do I.
October 3, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Thanks Spunky for putting things so plainly and with such grace. I had a thought this morning, that I am put off by some of these popular patriarchal writers/speakers because they keep using such big, fancy, and many times overdone adjectives and descriptions. Why not just speak plain English, if one wants to convey- carefully- God’s Truth? Then I thought, before the Reformation, the Roman church used lots of big words and insisted the Scriptures & services be read and conducted in Latin- the “high” language. For the most part, I think these patriarchal leaders are reformed… do they realize they are using a similar tactic of the pre-reformed church in using the big, fancy vocabulary? Do they not want people/readers/listeners to understand the Truth or to examine the Scriptures for themselves?
October 3, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Spunky, thank you THANK YOU for your words of encouragement and admonition. I can only hope to strive to the maturity you have shown here and elsewhere on the blogosphere. I think the perspective that you have on the big picture here is so important and it definitely shines through in what you write.
This may not be the time or place to add this in to the discussion, but as Susan T brought it up above, I’d like to address it. Vision Forum is NOT NOT NOT Reformed. I know they like to say that they ascribe to the Westminster Standards, but they only pick and choose what they want from those standards and leave the rest by the wayside.
Being a Calvinist doesn’t make you Reformed- not by a longshot.
That being said, some of these folks are Reformed and it deeply saddens me, as a Reformed believer, to see the reputation we seem to be acquiring because of these well-meaning folks. We are not all Reconstructionists or theonomists. In fact, the vast majority of Reformed folks do not hold to either of these perspectives.
October 3, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“s it supposed to be scandalous that we are women examining the words of two WOMEN to see if they teach according to sound doctrine? Are only men allowed to be critical of a book written by and for woman? Why are two young women allowed to write it, but it is somehow a problem that other women examine it?”
Spunky,
Good point. I am not sure why it would be scandalous. It makes perfect sense that women are examining the teachings of younger women in the church.
In fact, Titus 2 tells us that the OLDER women are to be teaching the YOUNGER women. As a mother of 6 young ladies/women, I want to make sure that anyone who presumes to teach my daughters will be teaching them the things that are consistent with sound doctrine.
I think it would have been appropriate for their mother to be the main author with them as assistant authors.
The people in the HyperP camp are very vigilant about making sure we stay in line with *their* teachings on women. Why are they not that vigilant with the Titus 2 verse? Why do some get a pass? Why can we be lax and sloppy in how we apply certain verses but not others?
For Trish to use the word “vicious” to describe the “attack” (questioning something is attacking something?????), really says more about her than anything else. Loaded language is a well-known tactic in politics and it is also a logical fallacy.
Really, it is just more ad hominem, the stuff that James McDonald condemned just a few blog posts back. Using the words “pernicious”, “white-washed”, “vicious”, “Christian” (ie. so-called), etc are just ways to paint a mendacious picture and to ascribe false motives. And using these terms all the while chastising others for violating the 9th commandment and rebuking others for “gossip” and “slander” is laughable and it makes a mockery of the very Word, God’s HOLY Word, they are misusing.
It shows me that they are really not concerned about what God’s word truly says because they engage in these sorts of things.
I am not interested in “nice”. I have known too many “nice” people whose words sound “nice” but drip with some of the worst hatred and sarcasm. I just want an HONEST discussion/dialogue. It seems impossible to find.
It is highly uncalled for to speak in this fashion merely because people question a teaching in a BOOK.
I promise I will stay with only what the Bible teaches if ever a discussion can be found.
October 3, 2007 at 5:25 pm
“Further, why does Trish feel that our examination is against the Lord’s plan? Is the Botkin’s plan the Lord’s plan? Funny I didn’t see their name in my study of Scripture, perhaps someone can point out to me where it is.”
This reminds me of Tim Bayly’s apparent belief that he speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit, to the point where any who disagree with him and his brother’s personal version of complementarianism are disagreeing with “God’s doctrine of sexuality”. Get a load of this, written last spring when they banned Light from their blog:
“Last night, prior to your latest post, I decided to prohibit you from posting on our blog any more. You consistently oppose the plain teaching of Scripture and David and I have no obligation to provide you a forum for your rebellion against God. The blog is an electronic publication and we are responsible for what we publish, answering to God for it.
To allow you to continue to attack the Holy Spirit’s doctrine of sexuality there is contrary to our ordination vows and destructive of the church of Jesus Christ.
Please honor this request and do not write anything on our blog from this point on, under any name at all. If the Lord grants you repentance and you come to have faith concerning the Bible’s teaching on father-rule, we will be happy to welcome you back.”
October 3, 2007 at 5:27 pm
ugh.. should read ” any who disagree with he and his brother’s”…. I are educated, folks, I really are…
October 3, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“Using the words “pernicious”, “white-washed”, “vicious”, “Christian” (ie. so-called), etc are just ways to paint a mendacious picture and to ascribe false motives.”
Yep… but let’s call a spade a spade here. “Painting a mendacious picture” is LYING. I don’t care whether we call it loaded language, spin, Rahab’s lie or “talking points, it’s still DECEPTION.
Let’s say it together now… McDonald and the other HyperPs who do this are TELLING LIES, plain and simple…. They who talk about the importance of fathers, had better take care to practice honesty…..we know who the Father of Lies is.
October 3, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Trish (perhaps the same Trish as from James MacDonald’s blog left this comment on Stacey’s blog,
“So many detractors of the biblical roles of women are themselves women, and we know nothing about their husbands. Do their husbands support what they are writing? Do their husbands even know what they are writing? We never hear from the husbands, whether they support their wives, whether they care about what their wives are doing with their time, and how they themselves stand on these issues.
These women all write profusely about the biblical roles of women, submission, daughters remaining at home under their father’s protection, etc. with not one word of support or affirmation from their husband.
This one seemingly little observation reveals so very much about these women.”
Perhaps Trish is unaware, but Karen (thatmom) produces all her podcasts with the help of her husband Clay. They listen and edit them together.
For myself, if anyone is interested, my husband Steve supports all that I have written. We have talked about this book. Further, if anyone is interested in more information about him and his beliefs you can read his website
http://www.civilwardads.com
(As an aside, if you have time story click the archives and read the truly miraculous story of how ebay found his great grandfather’s civil war Bible and how the hand of God brought it into our lives.)
And since Trish brought up the subject of family members and spouses, I do have a question about the Botkin family, where is their mother? The Titus 2 model clearly outlines the “older women” teaching the younger so where is Mrs. Botkin instruction to the younger women? I understand that his is book written by daughters about fathers and daughters, but in the trailer to the movie Geoff Botkin says that this is a family effort and he highlights his sons work along with his daughters efforts, we also see him, but yet she is noticably absent.
I’m not intending any malice toward Mrs. Botkin and perhaps she only wants a backseat role in all of this, but it is odd to me that Scripture defines a Titus 2 role for women and yet we see everyone else in the family eager to teach younger women and exhort them to a godly visionary daughterhood except their mother.
October 3, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Corrie said:
It shows me that they are really not concerned about what God’s word truly says because they engage in these sorts of things.
I am not interested in “nice”. I have known too many “nice” people whose words sound “nice” but drip with some of the worst hatred and sarcasm. I just want an HONEST discussion/dialogue. It seems impossible to find.
CORRIE! You read my mind. I feel the same way.
So much of this seems juvenile to me. I won’t publish your comments unless you say what I like is sort of like saying I won’t be your friend unless you sit with me at lunch. It just baffles me that CHRISTIANS as most of us are, though on different sides of an issue, can’t talk about it rationally and honesty. The honesty is hard to find. The constant throwing of words like white-washed feminist and jezebel and so on maddens me. It is seemingly like the radical Islamists who call everyone who doesn’t think like them infedels.
I love this blog and this specific post because we’ve all carried ourselves well and spoken honestly without being catty or combative.
October 3, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Spunky shared the fact that my husband records and edits my podcasts. An even more interesting fact is this story….Last fall I had listened to a patriarchal podcast that was absolutely maddening. That night when my husband came home from work, I told him about what I had heard and asked him how difficult it would be to have a podcast. He said it would be “a piece of cake.” I never mentioned it again. On Christmas morning, a couple months later, I opened packages to find a special gift from him…my own professional-quality microphone and along with it the promise of tech support for a podcast. He has been much of the inspiration for me in deciding what topics to address, based mostly on many of the things he and I have seen through the years of homeschooling. He reads what I write, he and I edit together, and his voice is heard doing the intro to the podcast because he and I both agreed that the message should be sent that his stamp of approval is on it.
Spunky and I both know that not all men who lead their families have these weird ideas. I am so grateful for a husband who places the Word of God before any new-fangled idea that comes along under the banner of “male leadership.”
October 3, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I don’t know if anyone is even still reading this, but you really need to read my post today: http://thoughtsaftergod.blogspot.com/2007/10/exposing-truth.html.
October 3, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Brandy, Your link isn’t working properly but I got to your article by clicking on your name and boy oh boy everyone ought read what you wrote. I cannot tell you how much I respect you for writing what you did. Your gracious attitude and your desire to seek the truth has blessed me today beyond measure. And I certainly agree with you, that editing a controversial statement without comment IS a cover-up and anyone who doesn’t fess up is promoting “pernicious lies.”
October 3, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Brandy, by the way, I would welcome your posting your entire blog entry here if you would like to do so.
October 3, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“This one seemingly little observation reveals so very much about these women.”
I could say the same thing to Trish. I recognize Trish from another blog. I think she has a ministry and is involved with Doug Phillips.
Where is her husband? What does he think? I know a LOT of women who post on line FOR the hyper-patriarchal teachings but I know NOTHING about their husbands.
Do they support it? Are they just going along with it to keep their wife happy? Are they on board with the whole hyper-patriarchal line of teaching? Do they even know what they are writing? I know many husbands who don’t want to have anything to do with this.
What does this say about the dozens and dozens and dozens of women who have blogs but we know nothing of their husbands?
What does it reveal about Trish and the many other women who write about this issues?
I don’t think Trish wants to know what my husband thinks. Or, should I say, she wouldn’t like what he has to say about these issues. Let us just say that he feels much more strongly about some of these things than I do and he is much more blunt about it than I am.
He thinks a lot of this stuff is weird. He also used the “C” word last night when we were discussing some of this.
My husband doesn’t see a lot of these teachings as being grounded in scripture. One thing is that my husband thinks it is a waste of time to try and have any sort of discussion with these people because they already have their minds made up and no amount of truth will make a difference. I am the optimist of the family!
Also, Trish keeps on repeating a lie. We are not detractors of biblical womanhood. We are trying to figure out just what the definition of Biblical Womanhood really is. Whose definition are we supposed to go with? How much does scripture figure into that definition? Has God given us liberty and freedom for differing expressions of that womanhood if kept within His parameters?
I want to be obedient to the call that God has placed on MY life. It won’t look the same for every woman. I am totally open for someone to use the word of God to show me what a Biblical Woman looks like. But, if Mary Slessor and Amy Carmichael are not one of the many examples of Biblical Womanhood and what women can do for the Lord, then I am lost.
“Spunky and I both know that not all men who lead their families have these weird ideas. I am so grateful for a husband who places the Word of God before any new-fangled idea that comes along under the banner of “male leadership”
Karen, I would go so far and say that MOST men do not have these extra-biblical ideas. I would also venture to say that the real leaders in the hyper-patriarchal movement are the women since, from my vast experience, it is the women who are pushing this movement and it is the women who bring these teachings into their homes and put them into practice and the husbands just go along with it.
My husband once told me that he was tired of me trying to submit to some other man. He told me that he doesn’t expect any of this stuff out of me. He told me to go put on a pair of pants and go for a jog (something I like to do but gave up because I thought that God had forbidden pants for women- something I learned from the hyper-patriarchalists). He wanted me to go back and be the woman he had met and stop being someone else’s idea of what a woman is supposed to be. He married me because of my love for God’s word and because I was the only woman he had ever met that put God first and His word first. All the other girls could only think about marriage and getting married and that was a turn off for him. When he met me, I could care less about getting married. I was hungry for God and I would talk about His word with anyone I could get!
And, I would go so far as telling Trish that she could get a hold of me and talk to my husband for herself if she really wanted to know the truth.
“This one seemingly little observation reveals so very much about these women.”
Yes, indeed. Does it now? I think that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones because if this is her litmus test, then there goes about 95% of the hyperP blogs out there.
October 3, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Thank you Brandy for you good memory and your willingness to post,
I think it definitely bears repeating here because the current discussion centers around the idea of a daughter being a helpmeet to her father and the thoughts of some that this is just a “pernicious rumor”. James MacDonald says that the girls do not believe this and their current email to him indicates that, but as I have shown from their book and you have found on their website their words are confusing and it appears that the reader could definitely come to the erroneous conclusion that the biblical role for a daughter is to be her father’s helpmeet.
In that regard, on October 31, 2006 Anna Sofia posted an article by Genevieve Smith where she wrote the following in an essay called “How My Heart Was Turned To My Father, Family and Home.”
“Each of these things led to a change of heart and priorities. Though I was raised to be independent, my desire grew strong to be under the roof and protection of my father, to submit to his day-to-day direction and guidance of my life and to work to make his life and ministry a success. And though I had been raised to be career oriented, my desire to work outside of my home dwindled. I became cautious of becoming an employer’s helpmate and instead wanted to become my father’s helpmate and prepare for marriage. My relationships with my family became all important, as did my desire to learn how to be a Godly and skillful wife, mother and homemaker.” (emphasis added)
The article are Visionary Daugthers now reads,
“Each of these things led to a change of heart and priorities. Though I was raised to be independent, my desire grew strong to be under the roof and protection of my father, to submit to his day-to-day direction and guidance of my life and to work to make his life and ministry a success. And though I had been raised to be career oriented, my desire to work outside of my home dwindled. I became cautious of becoming an employer’s helper and instead wanted to become my father’s helper and prepare for marriage. My relationships with my family became all important, as did my desire to learn how to be a Godly and skillful wife, mother and homemaker.” (emphasis added)
This troubling because there is no indication by Anna Sophia that the article was editted from the original author’s words nor permission indicated to make the change.
Further the fact that the original was approved by the Botkin girls and allowed to be published means that they at some point may have felt that this was an accurate portrayal and role for a visionary daughter.
I am glad to hear that the Botkins are examining what they wrote previously to see where else they may have left the impression that a daughter is her father’s helpmeet. And thanks to Brandy’s help they found another place. But can anyone fault the reader for coming to that conclusion now that there are several examples where the Botkin girls correlated the role of a daughter to a helpmeet?
I do hope that others who believe that I and others were engaged in this “attack” of “pernicious” rumors” intending to discredit true biblical femininity will also make the necessary corrections to their blogs and be honest enough to admit that the writings of the Botkins have left that impression on the minds of many readers and this is not an “attack” at all but a desire to know exactly what is the biblical role of a daughter. For if such were not the case, the Botkins would have not felt the need to quietly make this edit without noting the change.
Thankfully, with the permission or noting the change this blog entry can be changed. But what about the current versions of the book where their words are set and unchangeable. How many young ladies are going to now believe the false notion given by the Botkins that a daughter is supposed to be a helpmeet to her father? Perhaps instead of promoting A Return of the Daughters, the Botkins will dedicated their time and resources to correcting this false impression in their book for the sake of all who have the current editions.
October 3, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Moderator,
Comments 655 and 656 can be deleted they are duplicates of 654, I posted them again without the links because the other went to moderation but 654 is sufficient with the links included.
Thanks
October 3, 2007 at 9:28 pm
““I’m wary of being another man’s helpmeet and desire first and foremost to work to make my father or my husband successful rather than putting my efforts into making some other man successful.””
Here is another quote that surely seems to give the impression that a female is to be her father or her husband’s helpmeet instead of “another man’s helpmeet”.
http://visionarydaughters.com/2007/03/answering-the-question
October 3, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“He also clarifies a rumor that has been circulating, over whether or not daughters are to be “helpmeets” to their fathers. Read the Botkins’ own words and catch a glimpse of the truth – that our adult daughters play an important part in the well-orchestrated song of home.”
Brandy,
Thought you would like to know that Stacey revised her original statement and took out the word “pernicious”. Now it is just a plain old rumor.
I am not sure if this addresses your concerns or not.
October 4, 2007 at 12:00 am
Stacey wrote in her explanation,
“Like Grandma always said, “Folks are gonna hear what they wanna hear.” Not that there isn’t a time to correct our words and refine our thoughts, but we should extend grace to our brothers and sisters in the Lord, hoping they meant the best and privately asking when it seems they didn’t. When a “matter is repeated” publicly on the Internet it typically causes me to wonder at the motive of the writer.”
I accept with great relief the Botkins statement on James blog that the girls do not hold this view. However, it seems that Stacey doesn’t understand that there was at least one person that attempted to give the Botkin girls the benefit of the doubt, extend grace, and contact them privately.
I contacted the Botkin girls in June seeking clarification on the idea that a daughter is a helpmeet. There was no response. The Botkin girls had at least one chance to dispell this “rumor” back in June with a simple reply as they did with James MacDonald, however they didn’t do so. They have their reasons, but this “rumor” persisted not because someone failed to extend grace and seek clarification privately, but because the Botkin girls did not in any way acknowledge or dispell the idea.
Here is my exact correspondence for anyone who cares to read it.
Dear Anna and Elizabeth,
Both my daughter and I have read your book, So Much More. I think you bring up many points which are worthy of consideration as a young lady approaches her life adult life as a woman in Christ. Thank you for your desire to pursue holiness and encouraging daughters to do so as well. I do have a few questions in regards to some of the biblical ideas set forth in the book.
First, your father in his interview says that God commands daughters to give their heart to their father? On page 264 he states, “Fathers must represent God to daughters, because daughters are commanded to give hearts to fathers.”
Where in scripture is this command recorded? I have found in Proverbs 26 where sons are exhorted to give their hearts to fathers, but that is specific to sons. Perhaps he is extrapolating that verse to daughters as well? If so, are we allowed to take liberty with other verses that address sons and transfer those instructions to daughters as well? Don’t misunderstand, I think this is a noble idea, but I cannot justify calling it a command from God to daughters without knowing where He commands it.
In your book, you make a strong attempt to claim that an unmarried daughter is to be a “help meet’ to her father. You state on Page 46, “If our men aren’t successful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”
What do you offer as biblical support for such a strong burden to be placed on daughter for her father’s success or failure? I have no problem seeing the scriptural support for wives, but where is the biblical foundation for daughters?
In 1 Corinthians 7 the bible states, ““An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.”
Clearly, if the Lord felt a unmarried woman or virgin were to be concerned solely with the affairs of her father and his success, it would be indicated here. But it isn’t. God makes a distinction between a unmarried or virgin being devoted solely to the Lord in body and spirit, and a wife which is concerned about the affairs of the world – and pleasing her husband.
How do you justify placing the daughter under the same “worldly” restriction as the wife where scripture obviously gives her a distinctly different concern than a wife?
Also, I recently saw that you are producing a video and are soliciting funds through an organization called the Western Conservatory of Arts and Science. From their website they state, ““We stay focused on the main challenge of the Great Commission and remain accountable to the Word of God and the counsel of wise men, financial auditors and qualified attorneys.””
This is a 501(c)3 organization that operates as an independent organization outside of the authority of the local church which focuses on the Great Commission. This is an independent missions organization. How do young ladies who have written, ““Independent missionaries and modern missions organizations that operate outside church authority appear to be outside Kingdom architecture.” (P. 263)
Western Conservatory operates as a Christian organization outside the accountability structure of a local church. No local assembly is named on the website. It would appear based on what you believe that Western Conservatory is operating “outside Kingdom architecture?” Yet, you are using an independent missions organization to solicit funds for your video? Why isn’t the local assembly or church to which you and your sister belong, producing this video? Isn’t the local assembly the place for such work to take place?
You state that such independent missions organizations would be unnecessary if the church were doing its job. Is your church unwilling to help in this effort, such that you feel going outside their sphere of authority is necessary?
I realize these may be difficult questions. But as iron sharpens iron, your words have challenged me to look at Scripture to see what is Truth. I thank you both for that. In that same light, I hope my email will serve a similar purpose.
Stacey said in closing, “The spirit in which we listen to others will show whether or not we are hoping for good or straining out gnats (Matthew 23:24).”
When I sent the Botkins my email, I was very willing to listen to their explanation and hoping for a good outcome.
Now I must ask, did the Botkin girls attempt to contact Amy Carmicheal or Mary Slessor and seek clarification for their beliefs. Obviously not. Then perhaps it would have been better to extend grace and honor the legacy of these Christian women and use a different examples to prove the point that foreign missions service is not “purely biblical” for a young unmarried women. I look forward to Stacey’s public admonishment for the “rumor” So Much More has n about these two fine Godly women.
But then again, “Folks are gonna hear what they wanna hear.”
October 4, 2007 at 12:37 am
Obviously the 9th commandment only applies to those you like.
The benefit of the doubt is not given to those who don’t deserve it.
She still believes/insists that there is some purposeful spreading of rumors.
Has she contacted anyone personally about this to admonish them before making public accusations? Does she believe it when the same people she accuses tells her that they weren’t purposefully spreading rumors?
It would have been just as easy to approve Brandy’s post and then when she had time, look into the matter. It would have been just as easy to email Brandy and let her know that she was checking into it.
Instead, she spent the time contacting Visionary Daughters so they could alter the original statement so she could keep on insisting that people are purposefully spreading rumors.
Did they change that article before Genevieve was contacted? Why isn’t there any not that it was edited?
In this day and age of computer savvy people do they really think people are too stupid to know how to take a screen shot or to look at cached pages?
Color me unconvinced.
What other clear cut statements are going to be explained away?
“Secondly, I heard four separate speakers in the space of a short time give a vision for family ministries. In particular, one speaker, Doug Phillips, on his tape entitled, “What’s a Girl To Do?,” revealed the beauty of family ministries by explaining that girls, prior to marriage, could practice being a helpmate to their husbands by assisting their fathers in their ministries. I was taken by the representation of family unity and strength he described. And it struck me, “My father has a ministry. I could work for him.””
This was from the same article that Brandy referenced.
They even subtly changed the wording in the above paragraph, too. In the new and improved version, they put the word “for” in front of “being a helpmeet”.
Not sure how it changes anything but obviously they thought it somehow lessened the impression Genevieve got from Doug’s message on daughters practicing being a helpmeet on their fathers.
“Doug Phillips, on his tape entitled, “What’s a Girl To Do?,” revealed the beauty of family ministries by explaining that girls, prior to marriage, could practice for being a helpmate to their husbands by assisting their fathers in their ministries. I was taken by the representation of family unity and strength he described. And it struck me, “My father has a ministry. I could work for him.””
All in all, there is no rumor. It is clear cut fact. This is what has been taught. And, if there was some more time for digging and listening to tapes, I am sure I could find more references to daughters as helpmeets. I have heard this teaching for YEARS. This is nothing new and it did NOT orginate in Something More.
October 4, 2007 at 1:37 am
James McDonald just put up a new article entitled “My Helpmeet- Your Red Herring”.
It is obvious that this discussion is going no where and my husband is right.
It is also obvious that he has not been trained in Hebrew. Ezer means “helper”????? What? No root word? No original Hebrew meaning? Just the English translation for the Hebrew word? My 4 year old could have told me that just by reading her children’s Bible.
I was looking for a bit more depth, I guess.
Also, it is obvious he doesn’t understand the issues. No one has a problem with daughters who desire to stay home and serve their parents in their home until they marry.
“But, here’s the rub. Say my daughter is an adult daughter who has made the decision to stay home until marriage, following examples outlined in Scripture. Is this fine with me? Of course! But not so with some in the Christian world. There are those who would say that such a decision is unnatural, outdated, ill-advised, even though there is a biblical case to be made for the decision. And in swims the red herring. Since there is a biblical case to be made for this decision, those in opposition may look for an angle – a diversion. And such, sadly, has happened.”
Talk about a red herring. No, make that a straw man with a side of red herring.
And, does he really want to introduce the Father-Daughter teas where daughters shave and dress and groom their fathers in order to teach them how to serve their fathers?
He addressed the corrections made but he didn’t address the deception that went into making those corrections.
This conversation has been going on for a long while. Spunky even contacted the Botkins months ago. Why weren’t these things addressed back then?
It is obvious to me that they are not interested in the truth. I wish no more to participate in their folly.
October 4, 2007 at 1:58 am
Stacy’s “explanation” didn’t address the review by CBD. I would like to hear about that.
October 4, 2007 at 2:01 am
Spunky, in reading through your original letter to the Botkins, once again, I am struck by the fact that there is no room for discussion on the meat of our concerns. Why is that? I would like to see a REAL response to your questions either from the Botkin girls themselves or their staunch supporters and promoters.
October 4, 2007 at 2:11 am
CS Lewis’ words about his ezer-
“For a good wife contains so many persons in herself. What was [she] not to me? She was my daughter and my mother, my pupil and my teacher, my subject and my sovereign; and always, holding all these in solution, my trusty comrade, friend, shipmate, fellow-soldier. My mistress, but at the same time all that any man friend (and I have good ones) has ever been to me. Perhaps more….Did you ever know, dear, how much you took away with you when you left?”
Caroylyn Custis James says this:
“Ezer appears twenty-one times in the Old Testament. Twice, in Genesis, it describes the woman (Gen. 2:18, 20). But the majority of references (sixteen to be exact) refer to God, or Yahweh, as the helper of his people. The remaining three references appear in the books of the prophets, who use it to refer to military aid. If language means anything, the ezer, in ever case, is not a flunky or a junior assistant but a very STRONG helper.”
emphasis hers
Again, Carolyn says this:
“The greatest asset a woman brings to her marriage is not her beauty, her charm her feminine wiles, or even her ability to bear a child. It is her theology.”
And, Proverbs 31 backs her up:
Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain but a woman who fears the Lord shall be praised.
These quotes were taken out of “When Life and Beliefs Collide”
October 4, 2007 at 2:20 am
oooooohhhhh, Corrie, it must be a sign. The oh-most-hated-and-feared CCJ is quoted on comment number 666.
October 4, 2007 at 2:25 am
BTW, I am currently reading her book The Lost Women of the Bible….a must read for thinking women. Her books amaze me. She continually
brings us back to the Word of God, the standard for all life and practice. And she reminds us that women NEED theology because when the tough times come, and they will come, our relationship with Jesus and what we know about Him and who He is will be all that we have! Kings and kingdoms, powers and principalities, patriarchs and patriocentrists will all pass away, but the Lord reigns.
“Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.” Psalm 73:25
October 4, 2007 at 6:09 am
Corrie, again, you have taken the words right out of my mouth.
I so wish we could all get together in a big room with lots of robust coffee and talk all night about this. You all have been true Titus 2 women to me. I am grateful and encouraged by all of you, however disheartened I might be at the way this discussion is turning.
I noticed Trish’s comment on Stacy’s blog and I had the exact same thought- how many hyperpatriarchal blogs have I come across that are written by WOMEN? Certainly more than I’ve seen written by men and I’ve often wondered where their husbands are? Do they believe any of this or is it just their wives doing the teaching “in the spirit of Titus 2″? I’ve seen families make major life changes because of the wife’s conviction when the husband could care less about any of this.
I’d have no problem with the change the Botkin girls made on their website if they’d been forthright about the need for “clarification”. There is nothing wrong with clarifying your views or even changing your mind. Just be honest about it! It really does look dishonest on their part I’m afraid.
I read So Much More and I certainly got the impression that they believed that daughters were meant to serve as helpmeets to their fathers. That’s part of what disturbed me so much about the book- they used the term to refer to daughters more than once and they used Scriptures clearly meant for wives and applied them to daughters.
How does stating what I believe they are saying in their book make me guilty of spreading a rumor?
October 4, 2007 at 12:24 pm
“How does stating what I believe they are saying in their book make me guilty of spreading a rumor?”
To begin with, disagreement is not allowed, from the patriocentrist point of view. Patriocentrism is, to quote the Baylys, ” the Bible’s teaching on father-rule,” and to question the teachings of any in the patriocentrist camp is to attack and deny “the Holy Spirit’s doctrine of sexuality.”
Remember, too, that Patriocentrism grew out of Reconstructionism. Classic reconstructionist thought, ala’ Gary North, envisions what is essentially a theocracy, where ALL dissent against the teachings of the state-church becomes tantamount with dissenting against God himself.
October 4, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“…how many hyperpatriarchal blogs have I come across that are written by WOMEN? Certainly more than I’ve seen written by men and I’ve often wondered where their husbands are? Do they believe any of this or is it just their wives doing the teaching “in the spirit of Titus 2″? I’ve seen families make major life changes because of the wife’s conviction when the husband could care less about any of this.”
I’ve wondered the same thing. And, the hyperpatriarchal leaders seem to aim their teachings at women first, and attempt to get their message to the husbands and into the home via way of the wives.
Does this all sort of remind you of those fellows of the “last days” mentioned in 2 Timothy,3:5 as “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts…” ?
October 4, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Stacey McDonald said in her comment, “I still believe there is a purposeful rumor that is being spread by those who know better – this is the first I’ve even heard of Genevieve’s interview, so I hardly believe it’s at the core of the rumor.”
A rumor is spreading unverifiable information of uncertain origin. So to Stacey McDonald I must ask, on what basis do you have this belief that there is a purposeful spreading of unverifiable information or rumor by those who should know better? And what evidence do you have to support such an assertion? Anyone can purchase the book and determine if what is being said here is true. The core of this “rumor” is the Botkin’s book which the Botkin’s now admit is not what they believe and that they “understand more fully the need to be very, very careful in introducing potentially explosive concepts, ensuring that our wording is theologically precise and unmistakably clear.”
So why persist in spreading the idea that this is just a rumor? It’s not. The Botkins willingly acknowledged they could have been more theologically precise, so let’s take them at their word and dispense with the notion that this is just a “rumor” by those who have a motive other than the knowledge of Truth. Unless you can demonstrate a hidden motive, it is best not to persist in suggest that those who are examining the teachings of the Botkins have anything but a desire for the Truth as their motive.
My concern is NOT the “explosive” nature of this book, or that I think a daughter who chooses to stay home is wrong, out-dated, or it is unnatural. Hardly, my own adult daughter has made the choice to remain home. If I thought this was wrong, I’d certainly be encouraging her to do somethng different. I’m not.
Nor do I have some hidden motive to do harm to the Botkins.
None of those are True.
To state it plainly so there is no dispute over why I am concerned about this book it is because they make claims about the role of the daughter that are NOT biblically supported or, to use the words of the Botkins, “theologically precise.”
Their lack of precision has caused a lot of confusion in the minds and hearts of many young Christian women. Because the McDonald’s clearly did not come away with that impression is great, but they have the benefit of knowing the girls, their voice, and their testimony. Most who read this book will not have that to help guide their thoughts. Clarity is essential when writing books like this.
The Botkin girls felt the need to go to print now with this book now, and acknowledge early in the book that they may handle these issues more wisely after their teen years have passed. It appears that their words are indeed proving true at least as far as the use of the word helpmeet.
It is easy to excuse the Botkins errors as those of the young. Perhaps that is one reason why Scripture gives this role to older women. And it is the older women in their lives who might have considered tempering their enthusiasm to go to print with a suggestion that they take their own advice and wait until after the teen years have passed before seeking to instruct young daughters.
October 4, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Cynthia,
I, too, believe that the driving force behind patriocentricity is women rather than men. This is most likely for a variety of reasons, some of them being:
1. The maternal instinct to nurture and protect their children causes them to seek a safe haven within their homes. And having seen how so many women struggle to live as single moms after bad marriages,etc., I think women are often willing to center their lives completely around a husband, believing this is their true security for themselves and their children.
2. Women are much more apt to read books and articles and even blog entries than men are. I would also bet that research would show that women spend more time in actual Bible study…not church work, but Bible study. As someone recently said to me, “My husband goes to work. He doesn’t have the same time I have, between schooling and changing diapers, to read and study like I do.” And besides, I don’t think men usually like to read about relationships. Even published authors admit that their primary market is women.
3. The idyllic world depicted by those in the patriocentric groups is largely a fantasy and is often based on lifestyles from the past, as Archie Bunker said “When girls were girls and men were men.”
Concentrating on a stereotypical scenario of what is “feminine” appeals to the carnal nature of women (and men). How much easier is it to put on make-up and long, flowing dresses than to explore what the Bible says godly womanhood REALLY is? Oh the lesson we could learn from truly Godly women like Gladys Alyward and Amy Carmichael!
4. Most Christian husbands are willing to lay down their lives for their wives. In fact, most of them are pretty much willing to accommodate most of what a woman wants in life…a family, a nice home, real relationships with their children, etc.
Did you ever read what anthropologist George Gilder has to say about the influence women have over men? He believes that getting married is the way men are turned away from their natural, predatory desires into becoming decent, upright, legacy-leaving guys. Women have a calming, civilizing influence on men, thus suggestions they have for raising children are usually embraced by husbands and fathers. I would venture to guess that 80-90% of homeschooling families would tell you that the idea first came from the wife.
5. And one more thought for this morning…I believe the primary need for a man, in sociological terms, is to leave a legacy. He wants to be remembered for centuries. For some men, this means building the Empire State Building or the Brooklyn Bridge. For others is means beginning and leaving a business empire, as Milton Hershey did. Still others leave a legacy within the church, heading up huge building programs and donating the money for stained-glass windows where their names are written for future generations to see. Some men spend hundreds of hours searching their family roots so they can know what sort of family legacy they can pass along to their children. None of these things are bad, in and of themselves. But I think women instinctively know that this is a man’s deepest desire and are well able to use it to their advantage in order to “make the trade” for a house full of babies and being able to live out their chosen “role” as homemaker.
Any thoughts?
October 4, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Spunky, what do you think constitutes an older woman?
And another thought I had….the passage in Titus 2 is actually written to a young pastor, timothy, who is to, in turn, instruct the older women in the church how they are to teach and what they are to teach the young, married women. These are not instructions for the younger women themselves.
Included in that list is “sound doctrine” so there is the assumption that these older women would have to spend much time in personal Bible study, research, and preparation in order to teach correct theology to their charges.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the emphasis on preparation for marriage that the patriocentrists stress is being prepared to run a household, one of the biggest reasons daughters are given for staying at home.
It seems to me that the older women are to teach things that are spiritual in nature to the younger women, loving husbands, loving children, being self-controlled, etc. The fruit of these things are spiritual and have little to do with the actual physical running of a household.
What do you all think?
October 4, 2007 at 1:49 pm
As soon as I hit the “submit comment” button I knew that there are those who will contest the idea that cleaning dirty diapers out in the toilet is a physical rather than a spiritual act.
Of course, I know that ALL we do is spiritual…in fact, many a time I PRAYED when I was cleaning out those diapers…”Lord, please help this child to be potty trained and soon!”
October 4, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“Sisters Anna and Elizabeth Botkin have had quite enough of the feminist movement in the west today. Sounding a call not only for women to be keepers at home once married, they elaborate upon the intricacies of the father-daughter bond, and the need for a biblically defined relationship. Perhaps the most influential time in a girl’s life, a daughter has the ideal situation to fulfull her current, and train for her future, role as a helpmeet, for both father and husband. Writing for all the young girls today who are struggling against an overwhelmingly critical culture, the sisters provide encouragement to continue in the paths of godly daughterhood and biblical womanhood.”
Spunky,
Who is going to tell CBD to stop purposely spreading pernicious rumors and to stop throwing a red herring into the conversation?
Somone ought to hold CBD accountable for their rumor mongering and their vicious attack.
And, as you said, this issue is NOT about daughters staying at home [cough...red herring...cough], it is about dogmatic extrabiblical statements concerning what a daughter can and cannot do.
Also, I am disturbed on their stance of Amy Carmichael and Mary Slessor. Not only disturbed but offended.
In order to make the system work, one must trash those shining examples of female godliness and service rendered unto the Lord. Just like people trash Abigail and Tamar even when the Bible praises them; even when people have to downplay Deborah’s position as a leader over Israel.
A woman was born for the same reason a man was born: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I do not find warrant to support the statement that a female’s life must always revolve around a particular male- either father or husband. If that is true, then 1 Corinthians 7 is a lie.
October 4, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Cynthia,
I sure have thought about 1 Tim 3:5-6 whenever I think of this issue.
Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof….? You bet.
I think Karen also makes many supportive points concerning the great influence a woman has over her home. I think it makes CS Lewis’ comment about his own wife even come more alive.
Again, that is why I wanted a scholarly response concerning the term “ezer kenegdo”. If we truly understood that term, we would realize that our English word “helper” does not convey what those words mean. Talk about so much more!
It is interesting to me that people will downplay the militaristic uses of that word and the use of that term to describe God’s role in the life of a human being when it comes to it being used of the first woman.
But, when it comes to things said about a husband or things said to the wife and not even to the husband, people will eek every bit they can get out of a word, even if that “eek” is not there.
Husbands are said to be prophets and priests of their home but there is nothing in the Bible that says this. But, the Bible does say we are ALL priests and that we are all to use the word to exhort, rebuke, teach, train and correct and instruct in righteousness.
October 4, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“I’d have no problem with the change the Botkin girls made on their website if they’d been forthright about the need for “clarification”. There is nothing wrong with clarifying your views or even changing your mind. Just be honest about it! It really does look dishonest on their part I’m afraid.”
Carol,
Exactly. We all have to clarify and even correct erroneous and misleading things we say. There is NOTHING wrong with doing that.
“I read So Much More and I certainly got the impression that they believed that daughters were meant to serve as helpmeets to their fathers. That’s part of what disturbed me so much about the book- they used the term to refer to daughters more than once and they used Scriptures clearly meant for wives and applied them to daughters.”
This is an important point. They do use the scriptures specifically for a wife for the daughter. Which scripture is that again? I think it was more than just the Titus 2 verse if I remember correctly because I remember being a bit shocked that they used a verse that specifically was for the wife in regard to her husband.
There are many, even those who LOVE the book, who came away with the idea that the daughter is to be a helpmeet to their father.
This isn’t the first time I have heard this teaching. This has been around for many years. This thought did not originate with them. The language of “helpmeet” has been thrown around in regard to a daughter to her father and that is where people are picking this up.
And, I really don’t want to get into all the father/daughter purity balls (romantic, sexy evening gowns, vows, words that describe emotions that are usually associated with lovers’ feelings, etc) and exercises of dressing,shaving and grooming daddy in order to train girls how to SERVE their fathers, but how much do these things play into the thought that girls are a helpmeet to their father?
One can understand why it may be confusing, especially to people who are unfamiliar with such terminology. I wouldn’t have known what a helpmeet was before I started going to a bible-believing church.
October 4, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Corrie asked, “Who is going to tell CBD to stop purposely spreading pernicious rumors and to stop throwing a red herring into the conversation?”
It isn’t just CBD, Old Paths sells their book and their description matches CBD’s exactly. I’m not sure who wrote it first, but clearly Old Paths didn’t have a problem spreading this “rumor.”
“So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God By Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin
Sisters Anna and Elizabeth Botkin have had quite enough of the feminist movement in the west today. Sounding a call not only for women to be keepers at home once married, they elaborate upon the intricacies of the father-daughter bond, and the need for a biblically defined relationship. Perhaps the most influential time in a girl’s life, a daughter has the ideal situation to fulfull her current, and train for her future, role as a helpmeet, for both father and husband. Writing for all the young girls today who are struggling against an overwhelmingly critical culture, the sisters provide encouragement to continue in the paths of godly daughterhood and biblical womanhood. Highly Recommended!”
So I would like to ask Stacy what motive someone at Old Paths would have for spreading the “rumor” that the Botkin’s book encourages a daughter to “fulfull her current, and train for her future, role as a helpmeet, for both father and husband?”
Clearly, this is not a rumor at all, but dare I say “so much more” than that. And characterizing this discussion as rumor is an unfortunate distraction from the topic that truly need to be discussed.
The substance of the book is what we are addressing. If Old Paths, CBD, Genevieve Smith (before the Botkin’s edit), and many others independently felt comfortable using the word “helpmeet” in regards to the Botkin book then clearly the fault is not the rumor, but the text itself.
Further, the idea that a daughter is a “helpmeet” is just one of many ideas that are presented that are not biblically supported. Even James McDonald in his current post said that his daughter’s decision to remain home was based on “examples outlined in Scripture.” This is not the same thing as what the Botkin’s teach. They girls go beyond an adult daughter deciding based on examples of Scripture to saying this is part of the Dominion Mandate and likening those that do no remain at home to a “harlot.” On page 172 they write,
“Proverbs 7:11 describes one of the wiles of the harlot: “She is boisterous and rebellious, her feet do not remain at home.” This description could match many of the Christian girls we know. They woul be outraged and insulted to be likened to harlots, but they are unwittingly acting like them. The godly woman loves to be in her home.”
Where is the Scriptural justification for equating a daughter who does not live at home with the sins of a “harlot?” There is no Scriptural command that a daughter must live at home.
Would someone like to tell Valerie Elliot Shepard that her adult daughter is a “harlot” because she is living apart from her parents while they are missionaries in Africa? But I suppose Valerie Shepard and her daughter are just another one of those examples of godly women who are not “purely biblical” and we shouldn’t look to them as our example. If such is the case, then why is Valerie Shepard one of the woman Stacy McDonald permitted to endorse her upcoming book?
No, the sad reality is that this book teaches things that go beyond what is taught in Scripture. It’s one thing to say that a daughter has made a decision to choose to stay at home because of a biblical example, but quite another to say that those who choose differently are “harlots.” We can look to Scripture and allow the lives of those woman to be our example, but it is false to equate those that choose to live apart from their father with his blessing as a “harlots.”
I encourage all who are part of this discussion to address the substance of what is written and determine of the Botkins teach is biblical and true.
October 4, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Here is the link to Old Paths for anyone interested,
http://www.old-paths.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=16
October 4, 2007 at 3:21 pm
“Just like people trash Abigail and Tamar even when the Bible praises them;”
Slight correction-
Abigail was praised for her intelligence and her beauty. And she was rewarded for her godly behavior, too. (ie., God providentially ended her awful marriage to a drunken, contentious fool)
Tamar was raped by her brother in a wicked and vile plot hatched by her brother and his adviser. Some have blamed her for not protecting herself and for putting herself in a situation where she could be raped. (Remember: she was told by her father to serve her brother food and she did so).
October 4, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“Tamar was raped by her brother in a wicked and vile plot hatched by her brother and his adviser. Some have blamed her for not protecting herself and for putting herself in a situation where she could be raped. (Remember: she was told by her father to serve her brother food and she did so).”
Corrie, you silly woman!
Don’t you know that sexual assault is always the woman’s fault? That’s Rule #1. Rule #2 is that if a sexual assault is ever a man’s fault, refer back to Rule #1.
October 4, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“The substance of the book is what we are addressing. If Old Paths, CBD, Genevieve Smith (before the Botkin’s edit), and many others independently felt comfortable using the word “helpmeet” in regards to the Botkin book then clearly the fault is not the rumor, but the text itself.”
It would be interesting to know where this write-up of the book came from?
It is obvious to me that this is no “rumor” (that is a preposterous assertion and has been proven so over and over again; how much more evidence does one need that this assertion is utterly and completely false?) and that people who read this book are all coming to the same conclusion.
The only difference is that some of the people like the statement that a daughter is a helpmeet because they agree with it and some do not like it because it is not a biblically accurate statement.
The “corrections” that have been done were not done because the original reviewers of the book had an objection to this term being used in this way. They “corrections” were done because of people who are allegedly spreading “rumors” because they don’t want the option of daughters staying home, or at least that is what has been ascribed to others.
Spunky, I am aghast at the quote on daughters who do not live at home as being like harlots. That is truly disturbing. Talk about rumors! Now, that fits the classic definition of a rumor.
If you look up at #102 by Re4mdmom (don’t know if I got that right), you will some very good points on this issue.
“Quoting from page 62, “You may not immediately see how much your father needs your help and just how much you can help him, because the very importance of being a “helpmeet” has been forgotten.”
Here is a quote from the book that certainly infers that daughters are a helpmeet for their fathers. No rumor there. (Definitions are important. Dictionaries are helpful when throwing around such terms.)
Page 46, “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”
And that is why people can trash Abigail. Her husband was a drunken fool. It was HER fault he wasn’t sitting in the city gates. In fact, I have heard it taught that if she would have been more submissive, she would have won him over and he would have been a godly man.
Yes, the godliness of a man is dependent on a woman. Who is leading whom? Who is the spiritual leader? It would seem that the woman is the spiritual leader since she has the responsibility for whether or not her husband is godly and respected or not.
So, I can thoroughly understand why Abigail is considered as a villain in the hyperP system. She is a stick thrown in the cogs of their machine. But, that malfunction is only a temporary hiccup. All they have to do is take away from and add to scripture in order to make it fit.
October 4, 2007 at 4:52 pm
This one caught my eye:
Page 46, “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”
Like this?
1Ki 21:5 ¶ But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread?
1Ki 21:6 And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee [another] vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard.
1Ki 21:7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, [and] eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.
October 4, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Corrie asked: “It would be interesting to know where this write-up of the book came from?”
Usually the PR department of the publishing house will do these write-ups. However, if it’s a very small publisher, that responsibility could fall to either the author or to the catalog that promotes the book.
October 4, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Quoted from above: This one caught my eye:
Page 46, “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”
Now this sounds like Glenn Close in that remake of the Stepford Wives!
I don’t mean to say that this concept is not completely without value. The old saying that “behind every successful man is a good woman.” That phrase acknowledged and honored a woman’s contribution to her husband’s success. But things change when one is aware of all the other statement that are made by the people who make such comments. Those who are familiar with the whole body of this doctrine understand what goes unwritten in context of the rest. Women who do not perform per the conceived standard do great harm to their husbands. Ah, here is the only concept of “the two shall become one flesh” that I’ve seen (communicated practically) in my reading of the in the patriocentric literature, and it is cloaked in shame, blame and performance.
And again, I read this into the statement from an understanding of the larger message. I thank God that despite my performance and lack thereof (as it ebbs and flows over the course of my marriage), God orders my husband’s steps and holds his times in His hands. I may make his job easier, but I am not responsible for my husband’s success. My husband really isn’t either. That glory does not belong to family but to God. Not by might or power…
October 4, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“Concentrating on a stereotypical scenario of what is “feminine” appeals to the carnal nature of women (and men). How much easier is it to put on make-up and long, flowing dresses than to explore what the Bible says godly womanhood REALLY is? Oh the lesson we could learn from truly Godly women like Gladys Alyward and Amy Carmichael!”
Oh thatmom, this one hit home for me!!! I’ve recently been disappointed in myself to realize that I am thoroughly willing to shop and spend time and money to make myself and our home the way my husband likes it, but not nearly so eager to roll up my sleeves and do the uncomfortable work of disciplining and interceding and tackling the real-life needs and issues of broken people and scary situations. It’s so much easier to remain apathetic and complacent in my nice little American life… far from the battleground that Mary Slessor and Amy Carmichael willingly were obedient to. I’m praying that God would strengthen these muscles in me!!! Complacency is one of the Enemy’s most effective weapons…
October 4, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I have read through quite a few of the comments, with great interest – thank you. I am reading through the book by the Botkin sisters at present. The young women have achieved quite a bit at their young ages, but not, in my opinion, for the good of the church. The women argue by assertion; “…young women are facing a lot more problems than they did a century ago”(p 15); generalizing (the argument about daughters being helpmeets; and selective use of scripture. Although this is a book length piece of writing, I see it more as a term paper on steriods.
The young women have the benefit of scriptural knowledge but lack wisdom, which is knowledge applied.
The part of the book that bothers me the most is the way scripture is used to convey a daughter’s position as helpmeet (helper fit for) to her father. It is downright creepy. We cannot take scripture that is directed specifically to one person and make it normative for another. That is playing fast and loose with the Word of God.
Secondly, the authors seem to be directing their comments to a middle class, western world, but not everyone in the US or the West is middle class, or has a western world view and history. Life in the past was not easy, with less problems for the believing slave woman in the US. It was not easy for the women on the prairie, who worked the “family business” from dawn to dark. These women had many problems (will my child be sold by the slave master; will the crops feed us all winter; will my baby live).
Third, the enemy is not Karl Marx. Our world has always had and always will have people who do not believe God or His Words. Marx was just one in a long line of people used by the enemy to lead us all astray. Eve was the first feminist (and Adam was the first fool.) We have all got the sin gene. So in order to recover our purpose and true identity, we are directed to look to our older Brother, Jesus. This book does not seem to be doing this, as far as I have read. It is not visionary. It is the same old arguments wrapped up in a different dress. “Here is how to be “godly” and if you follow the formula, all will be well and you will be successful and so will your husband.” ( BTW My husband is more vehement in his dislike of the book)
October 4, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Barbara,
In the event you/others may not know, the Botkin girls have clarified the issue of a daughter being a helpmeet in a statement on James McDonalds blog.
The post is here.
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/
Also, it should be noted that Old Paths has changed the wording for the book So Much More and removed the reference to a daughter being a current helpmeet to her father.
This is a welcome change to the description.
So for those who endured the allegation that this was just a “rumor” generated by those who are against true biblical femininity seeking ot attack the Botkins, you can take some solace in that this “rumor” was actually verified as having merit. This error was acknowledged by the Botkins and corrections are being made in various places and in future editions.
However, Barbara’s comment does present an interesting dilemma for those read the book but are unaware of the Botkin’s acknowledged error. I doubt most will know to look at James McDonalds blog for a statement of clarification. In that regard, I do pray that the Botkins consider some sort of permanent clarification so that daughters who are reading the current edition understand that the errror has been recognized and corrected.
And in that regard, I do hope that the Botkins also consider removing the names of Amy Carmichael and Mary Slessor from their text. If they believe that a daughter is forbidden to go into foreign missions so be it, but please make the case so on the truth of Scripture not by diminishing the life and legacy of two women who have devoted their life to the Lord’s service and are no longer alive to defend themselves.
October 5, 2007 at 12:54 am
I followed the link but I didn’t see the clarification. Where is it?
And since the “rumor” had merit and corrections were made, I wonder if an apology will be made to all of us “rumor-mongering” whiteashed feminists?
October 5, 2007 at 1:40 am
Thank you Spunky for the link to the clarification. Having read it, and read in the book by the Botkin sisters, correcting the term helpmeet only goes so far. The role described by the authors is that of a wife without the sexual intimacy. I suspect the description of the role of a godly daughter still stands as written. My husband and I have raised two daughters and they are walking with the Lord, and married to believing men, but our girls were not junior wives to their father. The role of wife is to be intimate with her husband in all areas, emotional, physical, spiritual; in hopes, dreams, ministry. The role of a child does not include the degree of intimacy I have seen advocated in the book. I, too, found it odd that Mrs. Botkin seems not to be much in the thoughts of the girls. This may be only because the book is about girls and fathers, but I still find a lack of balance here disconcerting. Well, life is full of unusual ideas and promotions, but God is faithful to direct.
October 5, 2007 at 1:43 am
Will an apology be made to the white-washed feminists? No, because the Lord’s appointed best take no counsel with fools….
I find it all this all or nothing thought just ridiculous. If you’re not on board with the Botkins, you hate children and you think it perverse that a daughter might enjoy helping her father while under his care. I don’t think anyone objects to this as a balanced concept, but the idea that the central focus of a young woman’s life is her father as her cosmic central point is quite objectionable. I praise God that He blessed me with a father that desired the best for me. His highest aspirations for me were centered on my welfare (for which he labored hard to provide) and not his own vocation and interests. I imagine that I might still be in the basement loading shells and tying flies, had his interests been central. I certainly would not have read many books.
October 5, 2007 at 4:22 am
I’m wondering how much really changes with the “clarification”, if that’s what the Red Herring article is supposed to do, concerning the intent of the Botkin girls in So Much More.
While the word “helper” is slightly less offensive than the word “helpmeet”, does that change the fact that the verses they use to “Biblically” support the idea of a daughter as a “helper” are still those concerning wives? If you take away these verses specifically directed to those already married that they use to support this “biblical” lifestyle, what verses can be used to continue to hold up what they wish to promote???
It seems to me that Numbers 30 would be the wrong text to draw on to support the “Biblical model” of the SAHD. For one, it wasn’t taken for granted that the daughter WOULD even be living “in her father’s house”! It had to be specified that this was a condition, not assumed that she would be living there – that it was normative. Secondly, it is often overlooked that this young woman’s word was legally and spiritually BINDING. Her word was taken very seriously, and she was not required to inquire help or approval from anyone (even her father) to even MAKE such a VOW to Almighty GOD!!! Thirdly, her word and decision is considered so serious and binding that it can only be altered by one person, and even her father is SEVERLY limited; there are several limiting conditions placed on him. If the daughter is not living in his house, then he is limited by GOD. If she is not “in her youth” (which in Hebrew tradition at the time ended at a VERY young age – early teens), then he is limited by the word of GOD.
So, while I have heard all the rhetoric, I have not read the book in it’s entirety, so please remind me; what other Scripture’s are they using to support the “Biblical model” for the single SAHD??? If they are not married, then we cannot apply the verses reserved for wives. The Law of Moses doesn’t require or even assume that daughters will live with their father while IN their youth (much less into adulthood). So what’s left???
As Spunky and others have pointed out several times, Paul didn’t have a command from the Lord concerning virgins and never-married women, besides saying that they SHOULD be devoted to the Lord and not hindered by earthly/domestic concerns. It requires a LOT of imagination to jump from being solely devoted to the Lord, to “Biblically” solely devoted to a father. While close family ties are promoted in Scripture, NOWHERE is this “job/role description” to be found.
And finally, I was surprised to find the following Scripture this last week… (and yes, the English translation uses the words “young man”, but if the Botkin girls find it allowable to interchange verses to sons and daughters, and wives and daughters, is it any less of a stretch to to assume that in this verse the use of “young man” is used as a generality towards “young people”???)
“Young man, it wonderful to be young! Enjoy every minute of it! Do everything you want to do; take it all in. But remember that you must give an account to God for everything you do”. – Ecclesiastes 11:9 (NLT… the NAS is even more liberal!)
Verse 10 goes on to state how fleeting youth and the prime of life is. If God in His word is promoting responsible freedom during the years of singleness, how can we steal a portion of a woman’s life that she will never receive back???? If a daughter wishes to stay in her parents home during these years while she pursues her heart’s desires (education, perfecting a skill, learning a trade, etc.), there is often many perks to doing so. But to superimpose this on God’s Word and His daughters is to place restictions on God and them that HE never did.
October 5, 2007 at 5:16 am
” I imagine that I might still be in the basement loading shells and tying flies, had his interests been central. I certainly would not have read many books.”
ROFLOL!!!
October 5, 2007 at 5:45 am
““We do not believe that a daughter is to be a ‘help meet’ to her father…””
Spunky,
This was from the Botkins’ email to James McDonald. I would like to know what the rest of that sentence said. I wonder why he cut it off, especially when that particular sentence is at the center of this whole controversy. The do not believe that a daughter is to be a help meet ot her father but????? and????? what??????
Why not just post the whole sentence (email) when he has already posted complete paragraphs from the other parts of their email? Maybe the Botkin girls would consider posting their original email to James McDonald on their site?
IMHO, the McDonalds are perpetuating rumors and fostering the many wrong responses that they are getting to their blog posts.
It is obvious that the responses are from people who are being misled as to what the issues really are and the misleading rhetoric is coming from the Mcdonalds’ blogs.
No one has attacked the family or housewifes or stay at home daughters or daughters who choose not to go to college or women who like to have lots of babies or women who enjoy serving their husbands and children or families who choose to homeschool.
If that is the case, I would be attacking myself as many of you would also be attacking your own selves.
They need to take responsibility for violating the 9th commandment and giving people a false impression of the real argument and for ascribing evil motives when there are none and for not believing a person when and taking their word at face value and for not giving the other person the benefit of the doubt. To insist that people are purposefully spreading rumors after cold, hard evidence to the contrary is something I just cannot understand.
James tells his readers that this whole helpmeet thing is a red herring and his readers just gobble that up even though it is totally false and does not make any sense when one looks at the real issue.
What exactly is this a red herring for? What is it that we are trying to obfuscate with our red herring? A red herring to cover up what? That we don’t think “help meet” is in the Bible? That we don’t think girls should honor and respect their parents? That we think that all women should have careers and dump their kids in daycare instead of wasting their talents in the home? Do you get how ridiculous this all really is?
It truly saddens me to see so many people so willing to line up and drink the latest flavor of koolaid being served. There have been a couple of people that have seen through to the real issues and how many more have had posts denied, we will never know.
But, I am not fooled with the explanation given concerning Brandy and her post. I am not fooled by taking the word “pernicious” out but insisting that people are still spreading rumors when that insistence is totally and completely unfounded. When a blog post is edited, there is almost always a bracketed note explaining that it has been edited. Those who hold themselves up at the forefront of all that is good, honest, upright, and holy should be the ones setting the bar the highest and setting the utmost example of integrity. I have found those who constantly accuse others of gossip and slander are the worst offenders.
Anyone ever watch Cat On a Hot Tin Roof? Big Daddy had a nose for mendaciousness and he wasn’t afraid to speak up when he smelled it.
October 5, 2007 at 5:52 am
“He also clarifies a rumor, that started out as a misunderstanding, over whether or not daughters are to be “helpmeets” to their fathers. Read the Botkins’ own words and catch a glimpse of the truth – that our adult daughters play an important part in the well-orchestrated song of home.”
Another edit…this is the third version. Now, “that started out as a misunderstanding” has been added.
The first version said “he also clarifies a pernicious rumor….” without the “started out as a misunderstanding”…
Then “pernicious” was taken out.
What I am trying to understand is how the “started out as a misunderstanding” was added in there? How does a misunderstanding turn into a rumor and how does this even apply to this situation?
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/10/daughters-at-home.html
What is the proper protocol for editing things like this? If there is no protocol, what would be the right thing to do, especially when the thing that has been edited was not a minor thing?
October 5, 2007 at 10:05 am
I posted the following on a previous post “Online interview with the Botkin sisters (Sallie)” but as yet has not received any answers.
Will you please be so kind as to answer the following questions?
Reading through this it seems as though you ladies are completely against patriarchy? Is my assessment correct?
If not, would you please be so kind as to describe what you believe a biblical view of patriachy is? (Please include scripture ref.)
I have also found the term ‘hyper-patriarchy’ mentioned frequently, but with no proper definition of the term. (searching on Google just brings me back to this and related sites)Can you kindly also define this term?
In view of this I think you ladies could/might maybe have a point but without proper clarification, the discussion seems to lead to gossip and fail to be edifying in any way.
Respectfully yours
Marita
Marita
October 5, 2007 at 11:44 am
Yesterday someone sent me a note, suggesting that I look at this interesting little quote from NCFIC director, Scott Brown. Somehow I missed it when it was posted a couple years ago but I think it gives us tremendous insight into the views of patriocentricity.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2005/10/1294.aspx
Interview with Scott Brown from the South Pacific: Why Christian Sons Should Honor Their Fathers By “Spreading Their Fame.”
“But there are two things that I want for my son…the first is that it will be driven deeply into his heart that my father delights in me, because my father does delight in me, and he expresses it all the time. He’s expressed it many times to me on this trip, and I, and I don’t know how often David has heard those expressions, but I want him to see it demonstrated that a father is delighting in this son, so that he can know what it looks like. So that by example he can see how a father does delight in a son. My father has expressed his delight in me every day that we’ve been together.
The other thing is that he would, my son would see that I do honor my father…that I do love my father and I do want to do his will. And I want my son to see my, his grandfather as he really is. He’s an ordinary man, but his fame should spread. It’s a son’s task in life to spread the fame and the glory of his father in the same way that the Lord Jesus Christ spread the fame and the glory of His Father in heaven.”
Where are we told that “a son’s task is to spread the fame and the glory of his father in the same way that the Lord Jesus Christ spread the fame and the glory of His Father in heaven.” !!!!!!!!!
This is pure idolatry and, in fact, Jesus warns us against such behavior in Luke 14:26 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
Is this not making a grave image? Of course we are not to hate our parents, we are commanded to honor them. But to say that our task in life is to do the will of an earthly father, to spread his fame and glory?
That is outrageous rhetoric and please note who it is coming from…the two leaders of the NCFIC who are paid by private donations for leading this movement. (Spunky, please feel free to enlighten everyone.)
Can anyone tell me if Scott Brown or Doug Phillips have been ordained by any denominational body or, in the spirit of true patriocentricity, did they ordain themselves?
October 5, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Corrie, this has gone from “pernicious rumor” to “rumor” to “a rumor that came from a misunderstanding ?”
In other words, those of us who “understood” the word “helpmeet” to actually mean “helpmeet” simply misunderstood?
In other words, we are the dummies who were so foolish as to actually believe that what these girls wrote was what they meant? Dumb me, I guess I should have realized that when it appears multiple times, even in a large font as section headings in the book, they really didn’t mean helpmeet. After all, their mom and dad, I am sure, probably didn’t even see it, or their editors. Everyone either missed it or “misunderstood:” what they meant, too. And now I find out that those people who sell the books are just as dumb as I am. I mean, can I trust anything they say in the little blurbs they write in their catalogs? Maybe they all are involved in a pernicious rumor conspiracy.
Pardon me, but lets try this scenario with a teenage son:
Mom: “Honey, you told me that you had already cleaned your room but I was just in there and I see the same mess.”
Child: “My room is clean, my sister just started a pernicious rumor that my room wasn’t clean.”
Mom: “Pernicious rumor? But honey I am looking at your room right now, I see the mess myself, and I would like an explanation. And, by the way, are you assigning evil motives to your sister?
Child: “Mom, I still believe there is a purposeful rumor being spread by those who know better. Perhaps “pernicious” was rather strong. Thank you for helping me to contemplate that. It was really just a rumor, though what I really meant to say was “trollery (noun) : an exaggerated condemnation usually made for provocation in an online forum.”* You know how she is, this “pernicious rumor”, oops, I mean, rumor” will probably show up on her Facebook. Actually, Mom, the real problem is that this is all just a misunderstanding. When I said my room was clean, you misunderstood that I meant that my room was clean. How could you be so stupid? And not only that, how could you be so stupid AND pass out exaggerated condemnation meant for provocation on the state of my room?
Mom: “Well son, all the debating over the meaning of what “is” really “is” doesn’t answer the question does it? Your room is still a mess and it needs to be cleaned up, you misled me, and you have made charges against your sister and have yet to make it right.”
Don’t try this at home.
* When you click on the word “rumor” in whichever of the three versions of Stacy McDonald’s blog entry you are reading today, this is what shows up: “trollery (noun) : an exaggerated condemnation usually made for provocation in an online forum.”
October 5, 2007 at 1:47 pm
It disturbs me greatly that the discussion of the issues in the Botkin book is being likened to rumoring and gossiping.
Are they not secure enough in their beliefs that they can not defend them and engage into a debate about them? I have not heard anybody impugning their characters or discussing their personal lives. It is not gossip to question a person’s beliefs..especially when they have written a book and are teaching beliefs that that claim are based on Scripture. The Book of James tells us
My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. James 3:1~
They have stepped out as teachers and as such they have to be accountable for their words..misprints and all.
We had all better study to show ourselves approved and delve into the teachings of others and how they handle the Word. I hope Christians do this with all of the Scriptural teaching they sit under.
I have read the book in question and the theme of being a father’s helpmeet is the impression I came away with.
They use other “wife” Scriptures too and “weave” them into the father/daughter relationship.. Ephesians 5:22 for reverencing and 1Peter 3:1 for turning a Father’s heart…Proverbs 31 as the example of a helper.
Until recent years.. my husband and I were big VF supporters having spent thousands of dollars on materials form them. We believed them to be a company of honor.
We first became disheartened when we e-mailed them a question on a theological belief. They would not answer our question.. They responded with questions and asked us to define terms. We weren’t looking for a debate. After several e-mails back and forth we gave up.
We then learned of the Sharper Iron debacle. Sharper Iron wrote a series of articles on why they disagreed with the Family Integrated Church Movement and VF accused them of gossip. Disagreement =Gossip? My husband and I were floored. We were more troubled by VF’s response. In their rebuttal they did not reply and defend their views in writing the linked to CD’s to buy through them to understand their point of view.
Now this..Why can they not address the issues at hand without crying “gossip?”
They are choosing to be victims rather than victors.
October 5, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Well, I like the example that the link uses to explain what a “trollery” is:
“trollery (noun) : an exaggerated condemnation usually made for provocation in an online forum
An example of Trollery goes something like this, “Liberals don’t support our troops.”
More examples of a trollery would be:
“So many detractors of the biblical roles of women are themselves women, and we know nothing about their husbands. Do their husbands support what they are writing? Do their husbands even know what they are writing? We never hear from the husbands, whether they support their wives, whether they care about what their wives are doing with their time, and how they themselves stand on these issues.”
This is also another good example of the logical fallacy of “poisoning the well”.
“I still believe there is a purposeful rumor that is being spread by those who know better – this is the first I’ve even heard of Genevieve’s interview, so I hardly believe it’s at the core of the rumor. ”
(Especially, when what immediately follows is this:
“Since they have made clear what they believe, if we refuse to accept their word, then we are not obeying the laws of love and charity, since love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:7) ”
From the same person who committed another trollery when she called some “whitewashed feminists” even AFTER they made it clear what they do believe.)
“But, here’s the rub. Say my daughter is an adult daughter who has made the decision to stay home until marriage, following examples outlined in Scripture. Is this fine with me? Of course! But not so with some in the Christian world. There are those who would say that such a decision is unnatural, outdated, ill-advised, a waste of time, even though there is a biblical case to be made for the decision.
And in swims the red herring. Since there is a biblical case to be made for this decision, those in opposition may look for an angle – a diversion. And such, sadly, has happened.”
(Rub indeed! The trollery in the above example is that NO ONE who disagrees with some of the things the Botkin girls write is doing so because they believe it is out-dated or a waste of time or whatever other strawman he uses.)
Also, those who teach that people who disagree with their extrabiblical teachings are feminists which flows out of Marxist teachings are committing a trollery. It would be the same thing if I said that patriocentricity comes out of fascism. That would be a trollery.
I found many such trollery but I am sure that these will suffice.
October 5, 2007 at 1:55 pm
C –
Well said! I think VF and the rest have done far more – FAR MORE – damage to themselves by how they have handled these situations than if they had just dealt with them head-on. Most people are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt for a long time, especially if they have a vested interest ($$$) in the others. But you can only give someone the benefit of the doubt so many times before you have to wonder if you are just being led down the merry path…
Something to remember is that the instinct to save face is very strong and even more so in some personalities than in others. To admit outright that you made a mistake is an absolute no-no because you believe with all your heart it will weaken you in the eyes of others. To admit an error is to give up power in the eyes of some people and that will never do.
October 5, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Karen,
That is an excellent example of what has gone on here. The only way you could improve on it is by having the son start into teaching YOU about the 9th commandment and calling YOU a gossip.
And you are right: don’t try this at home.
That is why, in our home, we start studying logic at a very young age.
October 5, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Karen, thank you for taking the time to reply.
thatmom Says:
“listen to my series of podcasts on patriarchy and patriocentricity.”
We are still living in the dark ages here. I am happy when I can just read anything online.
“As is pointed out in the podcasts, even those who are leaders within the patriocentric movement will tell you that there is no one working definition.”
Then how can anything be debated if there is no basis to work from? I think this is the reason why this post is as clear as mud to me. Is it maybe possible for you to put a working definition on the term hyper-patriarchy?
“The bottom line for me, and for others I know here, is to hold the patriocentric teachings up to the Word of God in the spirit of being Bereans.”
What ARE those teaching(S) exactly.? Where are the other accusations with proper scriptures to refute them? I.o.w. Accusation, source it came from, scripture to refute, application. I am seeing a lot of mud-slinging though, therefor battle to see the point.
If something is difficult to pinpoint, so much the more for a proper definition. Everyone would benefit from it.
If no working definition, all I see is a running around in circles for a loooooong time, this post in point, and what could have been for the benefit of many, completely lost.
Marita
October 5, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Marita,
I will send you a transcript of the first podcast where some of the definitions are addressed. We also address them throughout this thread…have you read all 705 comments? Drop me an e-mail and I will send you a hard copy. If you go to the podcast site or to my blog and click on the icon, it will play right from there and runs about 30 minutes. You can listen while you do dishes and is child friendly.
October 5, 2007 at 2:45 pm
C: “It disturbs me greatly that the discussion of the issues in the Botkin book is being likened to rumoring and gossiping.”
Corrie: “To insist that people are purposefully spreading rumors after cold, hard evidence to the contrary is something I just cannot understand.”
I understand WHAT it is — it’s called dissembling.
As for WHY it’s happening, it’s called the “Big Lie” propaganda technique – just repeat the same lie long enough and people will come to believe it — and in this case, that includes the people spreading the lie.
These guys want to believe that their particular theological viewpoint is correct — indeed, that it is the ONLY correct viewpoint — and they are determined to believe this in spite of all evidence to the contrary, including proof from Scripture.
This belief in their own correctness thus becomes the lens through which all other facts are filtered, and therefore anyone who disagrees with them must necessarily have evil motives; if the plain word of God itself shows them to be wrong, then we must be misreading Holy Scriptures.
By refusing to discuss or even consider the idea that patriocentricity might not be Biblically correct, these fellows are committing the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and chanting, “LA LA LA LA LA — I CANT’ HEAR YOU!”
October 5, 2007 at 3:00 pm
“Also, those who teach that people who disagree with their extrabiblical teachings are feminists which flows out of Marxist teachings are committing a trollery.”
The grand irony here is that the Marxists PERFECTED this technique — this is the same line of “reasoning” used by Vladimir Lenin himself:
“Why should I respond to Kautsky? If I did that, the Kautsky would respond to my response, and then I would have to respond to his response, and so on.
All I have to do is say that Kautsky is an enemy of the people, and everyone will understand everything.”
October 5, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Marita,
You make some good suggestions. But, I disagree that this post has no benefit and is just a running around in circles.
To me, this discussion is all about defining what these terms really are. There has been a LOT of referencing from scriptures and a LOT of teaching of what the Bible does NOT teach and then using scripture to prove one’s point.
For example, the patriocentrists teach that a husband is a prophet and priest of his home. From that teaching they get all sorts of odd and extrabiblical practices. Where does scripture say that a husband is a prophet and priest of his home? Do a word study on priest/priesthood and you will see that we are ALL priests. Also, we are all to follow 2 Timothy 3:16 and speak the truth in love and use it to correct, train, rebuke, etc.
But, a FAQ page is not a bad idea. It is just that within the hyper-patriarchal circle there are so many differing opinions. And, to date, the leaders in that movement are not willing to openly dialogue with those who question their teachings.
In fact, their teachings are splitting churches and causing damage in the lives of people. You know why these splits are happening? Because those under these hyper-patriarchal systems dare to ask questions! They ask questions and then they are accused of gossip and slander. A man of God is to be apt to teach but many of these men have proved they are not apt to teach.
Also, there are many men, for instance Andrew Sandlin, who are very conservative but who have challenged these hyper-patriarchal leaders to define their doctrine but all they get is a face full of mud. Someone else mentioned SharperIron. The same story!
Go to patriarchy.org for more information on this subject. It has many articles that dispel the false and extra-biblical teachings of the hyper-patriarchal movement.
We have been discussing a book that teachings that daughters are not to leave their father’s home until they marry, no exceptions. Daughters who don’t live at home are likened to “harlots”. They lessen the work of women like Amy Carmichael and Marry Slessor and other women who devote their lives to the truly oppressed and poverty-stricken. These women saved countless lives and affected countless lives for eternity. God used them mightily. The book also strongly inferred that daughters are helpmeets to their mother and they used the verses specifically written to wives to shore up their beliefs. It is NOT a red herring as has been proven over and over again.
The Bible does not teach that a child’s job is to bring glory and success to an earthly father. Jesus glorified the Father as an example for us so that we may also glorify the Father. It was not our example to glorify our earthly fathers. Of course we honor our PARENTS but our love for our parents must be like hatred when compared to the love we have for the Lord.
The Bible teaches that a woman who stays single chooses the better thing because then she is beholden to NO man and she is free to whole-heartedly serve the Lord. It does not say that a single woman is free to whole-heartedly serve her earthly father until/if she marries. It says she can devote her life in service to the LORD, just like Slessor and Carmichael did.
But, the patriocentrists totally and completely IGNORE what the Bible teaches on this subject and in turn, the teach something totally OPPOSITE.
To me, the patriocentric movement is idolatry. It is the worship of the creature, the created and not the Creator. How many times do we see Christ and Him crucified taught? What is central in the patriocentric doctrine? It is man, not Christ. People are not taught to look to Christ, they are taught to look to a man for their meaning and purpose in life.
When I worked at the bank, I KNEW the real thing when I felt it. I didn’t even have to see it. I just KNEW it was real. I also knew the counterfeit bill when I saw it. It was just something I knew because I had made myself so familiar with the real thing.
That is how I look at this debate. I know what the scriptures teach and what they do not. I have challenged many teachings for the source of the teaching but all I get back are name-calling, malignant motive ascribing and black-out. I have done just what you are doing, Marita. I have asked the questions but I get no answers and I have always asked these questions respectfully. Having been trained in debate, I know that when someone obfuscates and evades questions, it means they know that their opponent is correct.
When we strictly control the information and it only flows one way, it is just like the Marxists and Communists and Fascists who are terrified that their people will actually find out the truth. There is no iron sharpening iron in these systems.
In fact, my posts don’t even get posted. At least you can come here and freely share your thoughts and your questions and people attempt to answer you. That hasn’t been the same for many of us when it comes to nailing down just what the patriocentrists actually teach.
Actually, it is like nailing Jello to the wall when it comes to really knowing what the patriocentrists believe and what their practice really is.
They will say one thing but then when you question them on it, they say they really didn’t mean what they said but then they refuse to explain what they really mean.
It is smoke and mirrors and I have been trying to get through the smoke and find my way out of this crazy funhouse for years.
The only way for your suggestion to work is that there needs to be integrity and honesty on the part of those who are teaching such things.
But, I am going to try and draw up a FAQ and I would love input from anyone.
October 5, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hi Marita,
I am sorry I missed your questions….
I would like to encourage you to read through all the posts under this thread and to also listen to my series of podcasts on patriarchy and patriocentricity.
http://www.thatmom.com
On them I have intereviewed several people who share their perspectives on Biblical patriarchy and patriocentricity look like. It is difficult to give you a succinct defintion for one reason alone….those who are pushing these teachings use a definition and then the application of it changes and sometimes even the definition changes. As is pointed out in the podcasts, even those who are leaders within the patriocentric movement will tell you that there is no one working definition.
I have chosen to use the word “patriocentricity” to describe the view that the father and husband of the household are the ones who have been given a calling from the Lord and it is the “role” of the wife and children to further that calling. That is the simple answer from my perspective but I would strongly encourage you to listen to the podcasts.
I can only speak for myself, so I will tell you that I do not oppose men leading their families, in fact, it is the way my household functions on a daily basis. I believe that healthy Christian families will seek to follow the clear, easy to see commands of the Word of God and that the one another passages of Scripture give us the very clear, plain, and main truths we need to live in harmony within the home. (I address this in detail on my blog as well.) If you type in the phrase “one another” into an online concordance, you will find a complete listing.
Marita, as you read through these comments, please keep in mind that no one here is seeking to malign or gossip against anyone else. The bottom line for me, and for others I know here, is to hold the patriocentric teachings up to the Word of God in the spirit of being Bereans.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to e-mail me, too, if you want to talk.
Karen
October 5, 2007 at 3:20 pm
When you go to a magic show, always keep an eye on the person’s hands…….
Blog posts and statements are coming and going like people in Grand Central Station. If one is not careful you would think that we were just all making all this stuff up.
There was a post, this morning from James McDonald about Spunky and her wordy letter (James tells us it is 719 words to be exact, he tells us 3 times, so he must thing this is somehow significant) to the Botkin girls back in Jen asking them to clarify their teachings. The letter to which she never received a response.
Now, that post is gone. Poof!
But, through the magic of cyberspace, I have pulled the rabbit out of the hat or should that be that I have pulled back the curtain?
What I want to know is if he was “unaware of the 719 word email before he posted”, does that mean he is guilty of trollery, pernicious rumors and rumors based on a [purposeful] misunderstanding?
BTW, James’ post was 311 words.
“From James’ blog:
Update – it has been brought to my attention that one woman, in the midst of her 719 word email, posited the following to the Botkin family…
“In your book, you make a strong attempt to claim that an unmarried daughter is to be a ‘help meet’ to her father. You state on Page 46, ‘If our men aren’t successful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.’
Please note, neither Stacy nor I found any support for the statement above – that a daughter is a father’s help meet. We, personally, see no “strong attempt” in the book to make this claim. And the authors are quoted above stating this is not the case. I have also pointed out that such a claim is not consisitent with the book.
At the time the 719 word inquiry was received, the Botkins were not able to respond to the various points in that note. Please remember, authors get much mail and they were also working on their documentary project. However, they did respond to my inquiry, with their answer above, where I specifically asked if they thought that a daughter is her father’s help meet. Their very long and detailed answer can be summed up in one word – NO. Due to the length of their response, I have given you the key points above.
I was unaware of the 719 word email when I wrote the original post.
We (Stacy and I) seek to have accurate blogs and, thus, will change content to reflect new information, should it become available. Our prayer is that our words are true and clear, and that the Lord will be pleased with our posts.
If you are interested in why I believe this argument to be a diversion, please see my post, My Helpmeet – Your Red Herring.”
October 5, 2007 at 3:33 pm
By refusing to discuss or even consider the idea that patriocentricity might not be Biblically correct, these fellows are committing the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and chanting, “LA LA LA LA LA — I CANT’ HEAR YOU!”
EXACTLY Cynthia.. You know it’s funny because they use language like revolutionary and controversial and then run away when confronted on their teachings. They should anticipate the questioning, and boldly defend their stance (which IMO should not equal purchase this CD for our view on this issue). I can respect that even if I disagree. I expect it..running away and tattling to the public, and name calling I have little tolerance for.
October 5, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“When referring to God as a helper to man, I am obviously not implying that the God of the universe is man’s assistant—or second in command. I am referring to the fact that man is lacking something that only God can supply. ”
This is something that James said about the term “ezer”. Of course no one would say that about God! But, they do turn around and use the SAME EXACT word and use those exact same terms when it comes to a woman being called an ezer. And since he will not allow me to comment on his blog and I am the one who asked him to explain to me the meaning of helpmeet, I will post it here.
I think it begs the question. If it doesn’t imply “second in command” or “man’s assistant” then can the same term be used to describe the role of women using those same terms as the definition for ezer?
Because this is precisely how the patriocentrists define ezer- second in command, man’s assistant. The man AND the woman were given the role of taking dominion and subduing the earth. The man was not given that task, alone. God did not then turn to Eve and tell her that she is to assist him in however he wants to pursue his wishes for taking dominion. That is not how it went. Taking dominion was not the man’s task. The woman was not told to be his assistant in taking dominion. They were both given that task- together.
This is yet another example of how the patriocentrists have ignored the clear teachings of the Bible.
The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy used to state that a man was given the task of taking dominion and the woman was given the task of assisting him and the man is the one who gets to define that role for the woman since she really has no purpose other than that of helping a man in his purpose. But, they too have edited that out without stating that there has been a revision. Thus, making anyone who pointed out their erroneous teachings look like they were speaking jibberish.
October 5, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Corrie Said..
The Bible does not teach that a child’s job is to bring glory and success to an earthly father. Jesus glorified the Father as an example for us so that we may also glorify the Father. It was not our example to glorify our earthly fathers. Of course we honor our PARENTS but our love for our parents must be like hatred when compared to the love we have for the Lord.
On page 17 in “So Much More” The Botkins say ..
“They (our fathers) are to be our knights in shining armor, our protectors, our guardians, and they are even supposed to represent God to us.”
This is the language that concerns me. As believers we don’t need mere men to represent a perfect and Holy God to us. We have full access through the shed blood of Jesus.
October 5, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“back in Jen” should be “back in June”.
There was an accident in my kitchen involving a stool, the icemaker, a toddler and a 4 year old and a bloody chin.
So my typing became alphabet soup minus one!
October 5, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Marita, you said, “Then how can anything be debated if there is no basis to work from? I think this is the reason why this post is as clear as mud to me. Is it maybe possible for you to put a working definition on the term hyper-patriarchy?”
and here when you said, “If no working definition, all I see is a running around in circles for a loooooong time, this post in point, and what could have been for the benefit of many, completely lost.”
Let me (hopefully) help you clear up some of the confusions. The debate/discussion is actually over the very defintion of words. That’s why it is so confusing. Some teachers and writers have taught a defintion of “patriarchy” and “visionary daughterhood.” Others have chosen to examine those beliefs and challenge where what is taught is scripturally supported. In doing so, words like “patriocentric” and “hyper-patriarchy” have emerged to encapsulate the those first teachings.
So these secondary words are understandably going to be more difficult to define, because they were based upon a definition that is still be defined.
This paricular discussion centers around what the Botkins girls teach in their book as being the biblical model for a daughter. Their beliefs come from the teachings of their father and others who endorse a particular theology called “dominion theology” often referred to as the “dominion mandate.” Patriarchy and visionary daughter are two terms that are used in conjunction with this teaching.
The problem is that the teachers are not clear themselves about what they believe. And when others seek clarification they are ignored or accused of attacking the teacher/writer or spreading “pernicious rumors.” This is unfortunate and only creates a division where none exits and takes the discussion to an unfortunate place.
This is usually because the writer chooses to take the questions as a personal attack rather than honestly evaluating their teaching in light of the questions. This creates credibility issues for the teacher as it makes them appear unwilling to admit that their words may be confusing or even contain possible biblical errors.
To compound matters, those that ask challenging questions are not always gracious and sometimes rude. Often assetions are made based on emotion rather than concrete facts. This creates a defensive posture that makes answering their inquiries difficult.
Discussions like this are difficult, but they can bear fruit if we are all willing to honestly examine what we write and consider the thoughts of others. Accountability is what refines our thinkiing and allows His Truth to rise up and our false notions to fade away.
My encouragement to you is to study God’s Word and use these discussions as a tool to refine what you believe is the biblical role for a daughter and a family.
The point is not to know who is right and who is wrong, but what is the Truth. I expect when I engage in these discussion that at times I’m going to be proven wrong. It’s challenging discussions like this help refine my thoughts to be in keeping with His Truth. I want my wrong thoughts to be rooted out. Who wants to think something which is scripturally false? I know I don’t. I’m grateful for those who point out my errors.
Phillipians 3:13-14 says,
Brethren,I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
The prize isn’t winning an online debate, but the perfecting that comes when we challenge and refine our own thoughts and become more like Christ. It is for that prize that I will continue to examine what I am taught and publically share my thoughts.
October 5, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“On page 172 they write,
“Proverbs 7:11 describes one of the wiles of the harlot: “She is boisterous and rebellious, her feet do not remain at home.” This description could match many of the Christian girls we know. They woul be outraged and insulted to be likened to harlots, but they are unwittingly acting like them. The godly woman loves to be in her home.”
Where is the Scriptural justification for equating a daughter who does not live at home with the sins of a “harlot?” There is no Scriptural command that a daughter must live at home. ”
I have been mulling over this comment for a day or so now and the more I think about it, the more outrageous it is. Anyone who supports this idea has got to understand how offense it is to the thousands of lovely young women who are committed to the Lord AND live and work outside their homes. My heart grieves for the many lovely daughters who are lumped into this category. Outrageous.
October 5, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Another scripture to consider about the priesthood of the husband:
1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
It looks like both the husband AND the wife serve as a sort of priest for the other. The whole idea of sanctification and setting one apart in order to make them holy was a concept originated in the Old Testament priesthood.
The wife sanctifies her [unbelieving] husband and the husband sanctifies his [unbelieving] wife.
It doesn’t mean that the saved spouses saves the unsaved one. That is Christ’s job. But, if we look at the OT sacrificial system we will see how a priest will sanctify, or set apart, a certain item for use in the service of the temple. We, believers, are the temple of the Living God. We are set apart for His use. So, as priests, we are in service to the Lord Most High and we are commissioned by Him to be Holy as He is Holy.
I have yet to find a verse where the Bible teaches that the husband is a priest to his wife in a way that a wife is not also a priest to her husband.
Ephesians 5:25 tells husbands that they are to love their wives sacrifically.
Ephesians 5:26-27 describes what Christ did for the Church, it is NOT something a husband can do for his wife. Christ is the one who sanctifies, cleanses and perfects His Church and He is the only One who can make His Church holy.
Paul even tells us that he is not talking about marriage but about Christ and His church.
This is the part where a good word study on sanctification would be in order!
October 5, 2007 at 4:53 pm
The Botkins said on page 172,
“Proverbs 7:11 describes one of the wiles of the harlot: “She is boisterous and rebellious, her feet do not remain at home.” This description could match many of the Christian girls we know. They woul be outraged and insulted to be likened to harlots, but they are unwittingly acting like them. The godly woman loves to be in her home.”
ThatMom said, “Anyone who supports this idea has got to understand how offense it is”
The Botkins do understand how insulting this and acknowledge it as such and the possible resulting outrage. But they make it anyway. Why? Because this is exactly what they have been taught to believe and see no problem repeating it in their book.
Let’s break their text up logically and examine it to see if their conclusion is true.
A. The bible says a harlot doesn’t live at home.
B Jane Doe does not live at home.
C. Therefore Jane Doe is a harlot.
Statement C cannot be truthfully said based on statements A and B. The Bible doesn’t say that ALL women who live away from home are harlots, just that the harlot lives away from home.
Here’s another anology to make the point.
A. Ann Arbor is west of Detroit.
B. Spunky lives west of Detroit.
C. Spunky lives in Ann Arbor.
I don’t live in Ann Arbor and to say that I do is false even though statements A and B are both true. That is the leap of logic that the girls make by equating a girl that does not live at home with a harlot. Using the Proverb in this way is unacceptable.
What is sad is not that the girls made this illogical leap, my children do it all the time. But what is sad is that those who editted and endorsed this book allowed such statements to stand uncorrected.
A Christian daughter who lives in a home apart from her father with his blessing, is NOT a harlot. For the girls to make such a claim is worse than insulting it is scripturally unsupported.
Jesus said many insulting things, but they were TRUE. So it is not that their statement was insulting that troubled me it is that it is logically and theologically false based on the scripture they chose. If the girls would like to argue that a daughter should remain at home fine, but to misuse scripture to make a daughter who choose not to inot a harlot is unacceptable.
Must a daughter only travel with her family? And if not, how many days is she allowed to be away before she turns from a godly women into a harlot? The girls don’t say. These are the sorts of problems that result from a theology that seeks to create a new law for a daughter binding her to ideas not biblically required.
October 5, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“What is sad is not that the girls made this illogical leap, my children do it all the time. But what is sad is that those who editted and endorsed this book allowed such statements to stand uncorrected.”
I would venture to say that those who edited and endorsed the book had an agenda.
This isn’t really the Botkin girls’ fault –they’re KIDS, and they should be commended for their initiative, if nothing else. They had an idea which they believed in and they ran with it, which is more than a lot of people do their whole life long.
But their elders should have proofread the book to make sure that everything in it lines up with Scripture and reason… unless, of course, the theological errors that the girls made were the very ones their elders are trying to propagate themselves.
October 5, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“A Christian daughter who lives in a home apart from her father with his blessing, is NOT a harlot. For the girls to make such a claim is worse than insulting it is scripturally unsupported.”
Dare I even say that there are good reasons why all daughters cannot stay at home with their fathers and that if a daughter moves out of her childhood home without the blessing of her father or mother, it still might be the wisest thing she could do.
Also, Proverbs 7 does not say that the harlot *lives* away from home.
It is a Proverb about the adulteress- the wayward wife.
“He was going down the street near her corner,
walking along in the direction of her house
9 at twilight, as the day was fading,
as the dark of night set in.
10 Then out came a woman to meet him,
dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent.”
Her home is actually her nest from whence she emerges to do her “business”.
“(She is loud and defiant,
her feet never stay at home;
12 now in the street, now in the squares,
at every corner she lurks.)”
The verse talks about INTENT not that the woman leaves her home to go out into the street or in the squares. Legitimate business will rightly bring a woman out of her home and into the street and the squares. For an example see the Proverbs 31 woman. See Lydia. See Phoebe. See Mary and Martha. See all the women, some married, who traveled with Christ and His disciples.
“I have covered my bed
with colored linens from Egypt.
17 I have perfumed my bed
with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.
18 Come, let’s drink deep of love till morning;
let’s enjoy ourselves with love!
19 My husband is not at home;
he has gone on a long journey.”
This woman who is loud and who has evil intents which bring her OUT of her home finds a naive man and brings him back to her HOME, to her bed, while her husband is gone.
This Proverb is talking specifically about a married woman who lives AT HOME WITH HER HUSBAND and who specificaly leaves her home to shag a man. When she finds such a man, she brings him BACK to her home, to her bed, and there she seduces him.
It is like a spider in her nest. The spider’s nest is the hub of her activity. She waits right around her nest for her next victim and then reels that victim in back to her nest/home.
So, they are even wrongly applying this verse.
“Her house is a highway to the grave, [d]
leading down to the chambers of death.”
It is actually her HOME which is the problem if one is going to read this correctly. It is not at all about a young, unmarried woman not living at home. It is all about a wife who lives at home. She is a housewife.
We might as well say that a husband who travels is sinning because it allows his wife to grow bored and in want of male companionship. That would make more sense than what they have said this verse means.
A girl who leaves her home (Amy Carmichael) in order to pursue her God-given dominion task and to live the life God has called her to, is not a harlot.
A harlot, from Proverbs 7, is one who lives at her home and uses her home as her nest for reeling in simpletons in order that she may have sex with them.
Where they get that this verse talks about moving away from home is beyond me!
The Proverbs 31 is frequently found to leave her home. She trades in the square. She is like a merchant ship that brings food from afar. She goes out to select fine wool and flax. She goes out to look at property and she buys it. That doesn’t make her a harlot, either.
The mishandling of God’s word is frightening. Thank you for yet another good opportunity to show exactly why so many are concerned about the teachings within this movement. I am of the opinion that most of these people are not taught to accurately handle scripture thus disqualifying them from being named as an approved workman who needs not be ashamed.
This is the problem- adding to scripture, subtracting from scripture and making it say something it does not say.
My question is this: Why do they do this?
October 5, 2007 at 5:44 pm
“I have perfumed my bed
with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.”
What if I would tell you that any woman who uses fragrance in her home, on her linens or on her person is a harlot? What if I told you that harlots use these scents in order to entice men, not their husbands, to go to bed with them? What if I told you that a daughter who uses scented bubble bath is a harlot?
Would you believe me? Would you challenge me? Would it be out of bounds for someone to have concern with such a statement?
I see no difference between saying this and between saying that daughters who move away from home are harlots. In fact, my statement makes more sense and is more consistent with the fact that the harlot in Prov 7 is a female who lives AT HOME.
October 5, 2007 at 5:46 pm
“Must a daughter only travel with her family? And if not, how many days is she allowed to be away before she turns from a godly women into a harlot? The girls don’t say. These are the sorts of problems that result from a theology that seeks to create a new law for a daughter binding her to ideas not biblically required.”
This reminds me of the Pharisees. Once you start down this silly road, there is no turning back except to confess that what you taught was wrong,unbiblical,unwise, and insulting to those Godly young women who choose to live differently than the Botkins, etc.
October 5, 2007 at 6:00 pm
“It is a Proverb about the adulteress- the wayward wife.
“He was going down the street near her corner,
walking along in the direction of her house
9 at twilight, as the day was fading,
as the dark of night set in.
10 Then out came a woman to meet him,
dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent.”
You’re right — the verse is talking about MARRIED women who leave their homes to go out and find a partner for adultery.
Apparently the situation was different for single women: even leaving the house to meet a man was excusable, if they were going forth to meet their beloved.
This is a verse from the Song of Songs:
“Sgs 3:1 ¶ By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not. Sgs 3:2 I will rise now, and go about the city in the streets, and in the broad ways I will seek him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not. Sgs 3:3 The watchmen that go about the city found me: [to whom I said], Saw ye him whom my soul loveth? Sgs 3:4 [It was] but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.”
October 5, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Okay, I don’t get it. First, MacDonald claims that no one contacted the Botkins for clarification on this issue and rebukes those of us who disagree with them for not contacting them directly… and then, when he finds out that Spunky contacted them but never received even an acknowledgment of her correspondence, he makes excuses for them by saying that they’re too busy to respond. What gives?
October 5, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Where I come from, it’s called, “lying and making up excuses.”
October 5, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Here is another woman whose feet don’t stay at home ALL the time and who is loud:
“1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 beside the gates leading into the city,
at the entrances, she cries aloud:
4 “To you, O men, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.”
Here we see Lady Wisdom, as contrasted to the Adulteress Woman in Proverbs 7, out in the streets and at the city gate, crying ALOUD and RAISING her voice.
There is a difference between the boisterousness of the Adulteress woman and the crying aloud and raised voice of the Wise woman. There is a difference in the intent of both of these women for why they went out of their homes.
Is there anyone who can defend the use of Proverbs 7 to say it posits that women who leave their homes for any other reason except marriage are just like a harlot who lives at home and has men come back to her home for sex?
Cynthia, great verse from Song of Solomon. Here we see a woman who leaves her home in order to track down her lover so they can be intimate. Not only that but we see a woman who is the PURSUER.
It all boils down to intent- the motives of one’s heart and the situation.
October 5, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“What gives?”
Cally,
Good question.
Trollery? Rumors? Red Herrings? Strawmen? Begging the Question? Propaganda? Obsfucation?
Somehow I got the impression that the 719 words in Spunky’s email was significant and it somehow disqualified her attempt to contact the authors of the book in question and invalidated it.
October 5, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Proverbs 9:
This is a redux of the adulteress woman in Proverbs 7.
For an explanation of what this all means, go back to Proverbs 7. The woman Folly is one in the same with the woman in Proverbs 7.
“The woman Folly is loud;
she is undisciplined and without knowledge.
14 She sits at the door of her house,
on a seat at the highest point of the city,
15 calling out to those who pass by,
who go straight on their way.
16 “Let all who are simple come in here!”
she says to those who lack judgment.
17 “Stolen water is sweet;
food eaten in secret is delicious!”
18 But little do they know that the dead are there,
that her guests are in the depths of the grave.”
Proverbs 7
“25 Do not let your heart turn to her ways
or stray into her paths.
26 Many are the victims she has brought down;
her slain are a mighty throng.
27 Her house is a highway to the grave, [d]
leading down to the chambers of death.”
October 5, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“Why should I respond to Kautsky? If I did that, the Kautsky would respond to my response, and then I would have to respond to his response, and so on.
All I have to do is say that Kautsky is an enemy of the people, and everyone will understand everything.”
Cynthia, this is awesome; it’s exactly the mode of operation that we’ve been witnessing.
“Dare I even say that there are good reasons why all daughters cannot stay at home with their fathers and that if a daughter moves out of her childhood home without the blessing of her father or mother, it still might be the wisest thing she could do”
Corrie, thank you for pointing out this out. I pray for the girls who God is trying to relay this truth to, that His Spirit would break through all the propaganda they bombarded with to reveal that He has a healthier place for them. I am not advocating that all Patriarchal daughters leave home, but those that are exasperated and being spiritually and emotionally manipulated and abused need to find peace and healing in a place where they are not isolated from sound Biblical doctrine.
Oh, and Corrie, the LOUD and TRAVELING woman that is WISDOM in #726 is priceless!!! ;o)
October 5, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Thanks, Alisa. I remember seeing that quote in a number of places, most notably on Lynn’s blog, Indelible Grace, where a logic teacher, Mike, used it to describe this very same csort of thing.. I believe that this is called a Bulverism.
October 5, 2007 at 9:52 pm
“Okay, I don’t get it. First, MacDonald claims that no one contacted the Botkins for clarification on this issue and rebukes those of us who disagree with them for not contacting them directly… and then, when he finds out that Spunky contacted them but never received even an acknowledgment of her correspondence, he makes excuses for them by saying that they’re too busy to respond. What gives?”
I’d encourage anyone to ask James McDonald directly to defend his actions and his statements.
But what is obvious is that this “rumor” is about more than just one quote in a 350 page book and the failure of a few people to contact the Botkins for clarification as James asserts.
Contacting the Botkins before critiquing their book is unncessary. One could argue that it is a courtesy to do so but it is not an obligation. For anyone to insist that this is necessary before discussing their book is simply mistaken. Public works are open for public discussion.
What is clearly emerging from this discussion is an attempt by some to distract the attention of the reader from considering the merits of what is written about the book and instead concentrate on the character of the writer so as to discredit the argument. Clearly, its not working out the way they had hoped. Instead, just the opposite is happening. They are bringing more focus upon the argument and their own credibility is being called into question.
Depending on when you read James McDonald’s blog you would have seen differing versions of comments about my email to the Botkins and his explanation. This would be fine if he noted the changes, but he didn’t.
Similarly, at differing times on Stacey’s blog the reader would have come away thinking this was a “pernicious rumor” or a “rumor rooted in a misunderstanding” or a “rumor” redefined as a trollery. Will the real Stacey McDonald please stand up! If the word rumor no longer applies admit it, change it, and move on.
The way the edits are currently done on both blogs leaves the reader to wonder exactly what James and Stacey think. This causes confusion and if not sufficiently explained a potential loss of credibility for them. Readers who read their blogs at different times come away with very different impressions about what the authors think depending on when they read the article. And going back to reread it doesn’t help because the article is changed from when they first read it.
A credible writer understands that he is not just selling his thoughts, but his credibility. An author can have great thoughts, but if his credibility is shattered it doesn’t matter, no one will believe him. Once credibility is gone, a writer can say the most profound things but few will take them seriously. Just ask Dan Rather.
October 5, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I should note that normally, I would post a comment like this directly on James blog but he will not permit my comments to go through at this time, so I’ve chosen to respond to them here. My original comment to him that he refused to post is comment #624 if anyone would like to read it.
October 5, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Marita,
You wrote: “If not, would you please be so kind as to describe what you believe a biblical view of patriachy is? (Please include scripture ref.)”
Although I think that an apologetic countering the Vision Forum style interpretation of so-called “Biblical patriarchy” can be explained and well justified, your question reminded me of a bonus question on an exam in quantum mechanics in engineering school: “Define the universe. Give examples.”
I don’t think that one Christian woman posting here would take issue with the understanding of patriarchy as a concept and that our society and most all societies throughtout history have been patriarchal. From the outset, the movement redefines even this concept of its name which I believe is very misleading. It is more of a packaged idea of pagan Roman culture, antebellum/neoconfederate systematic theology, a highly (overly) idealized interpretation of America as a theocracy at its inception, revivalism/fundamentalism of the Second Great Awakening, all combined with the veneer of the post-war idealism of the 1950s. There are many Christian concepts woven into it, but it is largely Americana as well.
What many like me find objectionable is the standard set by many groups and individuals which many believe is not open for individual discrepencies. Those who do cannot meet the standards are considered sub-Christian and sinful without any grace for those with limited resources and/or abilites. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 14, provided for a Christian to choose to eat meat sacrificed to idols, provided that he is not offending anyone. I believe that this new concept of patriarchy discriminates against certain peoples and groups who are unable to meet the standards or maintain strong compliance with the standards of the movement’s preference. Some can only afford the meat sacrificed to idols, shall we say. Those that cannot afford or manage the alternative are labeled and targeted, often discriminated against unfairly.
Andrew Sandlin describes this well in his article, “Hegemonic Patriarchy.” http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=340958 It’s a mouse click away and is brief. It summarizes some of the practical problems with the fruit of this movement.
My other huge beef with the movement is the near-total abandonment of the lost in secular culture. We are commanded to go forth into the world and preach the Gospel, making disciples. We are not told to retreat in fear, focus on survival and breed out the competition. The Word is not sufficient to make us potent forces in secular culture nor is it sufficient to keep even our grown children safe from harm. Some NCFIC churches (on local levels) may particiapte in missions, but the primary endeavors focus on those who are already Christian. Jesus came to save the lost. I hope that you will consider all the comments on thatmom.wordpress.com concerning the podcasts on patriarchy which started in September, the Sandlin article and the many comments under this thread as a start.
I would site hundreds of Scriptures here, but I believe that the presuppostions and interpretations of those Scriptures underlies the problems with patriarchy. This doctrine is man centered and not Christ centered, which colors the interpretation of every Scripture that I could offer. The presuppositions that the gender debate is not an intramural issue but actually involves concepts of the Trinity, the nature of the ontological subordination of woman and the interpretation of the Genesis account of the fall of man makes “debate” difficult. I think that the epistemiological validation and justification of truth must be considered as well. There are also denominational issues to consider also, as it encompasses groups from within several fundamentally different denominations. By the fruit, ye shall know them comes strongly into play. I’ve listed some of the fruit. The displacement of Christ as Lord (vs man as an interviening agent in his and others’ sanctification) slips in as a subtle factor and is what I really view as the source of the problem. It’s a subtle shift back to legalsism and earning or gaining justification and benefit from the law rather than trusting God and His Spirit’s guidance.
October 6, 2007 at 2:11 am
“The displacement of Christ as Lord (vs man as an interviening agent in his and others’ sanctification) slips in as a subtle factor and is what I really view as the source of the problem. It’s a subtle shift back to legalsism and earning or gaining justification and benefit from the law rather than trusting God and His Spirit’s guidance.”
I agree, and would add this:
Hyperpatriarchy, by its very nature, undermines the Fatherhood of God Himself. HyperPs teach that a son should glorify his earthly father and that sons and daughters have a duty to help their fathers realize their “vision”, but Jesus said the opposite:
Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
AND
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
PLEASE NOTE that while Jesus called His disciples his mother, sisters and brothers, He did not call them His Father: that title is reserved for God alone, His Father and our Father, in Heaven.
Jesus underscored this when He said:
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for ONE is your Father, which is in heaven.
When we reach adulthood, our earthly fathers, if they are Christians, become our brothers in Christ, and we all have one Father, God Who is in Heaven, and we are to give Him glory, and Him alone.
October 6, 2007 at 3:30 am
Cynthia Gee wrote: “When we reach adulthood, our earthly fathers, if they are Christians, become our brothers in Christ, and we all have one Father, God Who is in Heaven, and we are to give Him glory, and Him alone.”
Amen and amen!
October 6, 2007 at 4:20 am
It seems to me that Jesus would have been busy spreading the fame of His earthly father, Joseph, if He wished to set that precedent and example for the rest of us to follow. Since HE didn’t elevate His earthly father, but His Heavenly Father, it seems that THAT is the example we should follow.
October 6, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“Where are we told that “a son’s task is to spread the fame and the glory of his father in the same way that the Lord Jesus Christ spread the fame and the glory of His Father in heaven.” !!!!!!!!!”
Karen,
We are never told that.
You are right about this being idolatry.
They have put the created into the creator’s place.
It is our job to glorify GOD and enjoy HIM forever.
We are not told to glorify anyone but GOD. We are to honor and respect our parents but it is NOT the son’s task to spread his earthly father’s fame and glory.
After reading those quotes, I really don’t know what to say. These teachings are not even found in the Bible and these very same people dare to call others “white-washed feminists” for simply disagreeing with them?
They twist scripture into something unrecognizable.
Cynthia quoted some great scriptures concerning the proper place of earthly relationships.
A son who makes it his task to spread the fame and glory of his earthly father will NOT be able to follow the Lord Jesus and be His disciple.
Just picture this scenario:
Jesus comes to a 21 year old young man. This young man’s whole life is in front of him. This young man is mending his nets while his father and brothers pull the boat ashore. Jesus tells him to drop his nets and follow Him and He will make him fishers of men. And the young man replies, “I cannot do that. It is my task to spread the glory and fame of my earthly father.”
Are these the stories we see in the Bible? Absolutely NOT. We see the OPPOSITE. Sons leaving their fathers to spread the fame and glory of God the Father.
I am really getting distressed at the lack of godly leadership among my fellow Christians. Where are all the men who will hold these errant teachers accountable? Does Scott Brown have elders that can hold him accountable for his unbiblical teaching?
The good ol’ boy network has got to stop! People are writing a new gospel. They are adding to scripture and taking away from it and they have perverted the Word of God. They are white-washed sepulchres (this is the proper use of that term and Jesus applied it to the PHARISEES who were using the word of God for their own gain and teaching extra-biblical teachings that put people into bondage) teaching things they ought not to teach. They are loading up burdens on the backs of those who sit under their teachings but refuse to lift a finger to help with those burdens. I have met many a young man who has been harmed by these teachings and it has got to stop. Where is the accountability for these teachers of God’s word?
“It seems to me that Jesus would have been busy spreading the fame of His earthly father, Joseph, if He wished to set that precedent and example for the rest of us to follow. Since HE didn’t elevate His earthly father, but His Heavenly Father, it seems that THAT is the example we should follow.”
Alisa, exactly!!! How many times did Jesus speak of Joseph?
This IS idolatry. They have supplanted God and have put themselves (man) on the throne and are teaching others to worship and glorify THEM! When are we ever told to glorify any other created thing but God?
October 6, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I was ruminating over this topic this morning while cleaning my parents house. There are a lot of things about this thread that bother. What struck me today as I cleaned is that when I talk about going to clean my parents house, I always say, “I’m going to go and clean my parents house ‘for my mother.’”
To me this whole way of thinking does such a great DISrespect to the mother.
It seems like an extreme continuance of the Reformation movement. The Roman Catholic church has a large component of ‘mother-worship’ in the person of Mary.
I know many Roman Catholic friends who can’t understand this patriarchal idea as Biblical because their childhood in their denomination does talk about and honour mothers and wives and daughters. Note: THERE are always exceptions!
It was like a light bulb for me… kneeling and cleaning a toilet and thinking, am I doing this to honour my father? Really? NO!
In fact my father would not notice!
I clean the house for my mother because she is so busy and no one knows exactly how she wants it done… In fact until today I never thought of my father while cleaning the house.
Now… there are things I do for my father, 9 times of 10 they are computer related and for his ‘work’ on Stewardship.
The motivation for both is out of love and respect for my parents. But neither of them is responsible to God for my behaviour. Not any more! And not while I was in college either!
Anyhow… back to regular programing!
October 6, 2007 at 6:21 pm
“A son who makes it his task to spread the fame and glory of his earthly father will NOT be able to follow the Lord Jesus and be His disciple.”
Exactly. When we follow Jesus, we all have the same Father and thus are pursuing the same “vision” — God’s vision.
When everyone glorifies thier OWN father, they are scattered to the four winds — everyone is pursuing a different goal, and you get into divisions and “party spirit”– “our father is better that yours”, or at least, “we can’t serve YOUR father’s interests because we’re serving OUR OWN father, and the two might conflict”.
And this, in a nutshell, is the essence of Kinism, folks — selfishness, once removed.
October 6, 2007 at 6:48 pm
“And this, in a nutshell, is the essence of Kinism, folks — selfishness, once removed.”
Well, I certainly think this philosophy leads to a LOT of “ism”.
Also, how do you further your own father’s vision and success and glory when he is in prison for molesting his own children or he is a drunkard or he goes through women like toilet paper or is basically a man who is so far from God’s standards in conduct that to go around glorifying him and making him successful would be a sure sign of foolishness.
I think that sometimes we are better off just covering up our father’s “nakedness”; something Ham exposed. Sometimes it is better to leave home without looking back. Sometimes it is just better to send a card once in a while and quietly pray for him.
All one has to do is turn on the channel to see that there are many children who cannot carry out the task of spreading their father’s fame and glorifying his name throughout the earth. To say nothing at all and to look forward towards the goal that calls them heavenward is a MUCH better idea.
October 6, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I was reading through some of the posts at the top of this thread (back in June/July), and was reminded of the fact that they promote that if our earlthy father that God gave us is not a “visionary” father, that we need to go find a surrogate that will allow a young person to join his patriarchal vision and lifestyle and be a new covering. I think it was Deb that said it would make an interesting book title… “Shopping for Daddy”.
The following I posted way up the thread (#219):
“If you don’t want to obey the father God gave you (or he hasn’t caught the “vision”), then go find a surrogate. I’m not kidding.
I knew a case where a man befriended two younger men and thought he had found some new disciples into patriarchy. Having some respect for this man and being just plain curious, the younger guys listened. The more they listened, they realized that he wasn’t encouraging them to turn their hearts towards the godly father they already had, but wanted them to start looking to this man as their new spiritual father! The great, supportive father they already had didn’t have the “vision” of being a patriarch, so go find some other guy whose “patriarchal vision” you can help bring into reality!”
You know, not only that, but these first-generational patriarchal dads often must ignore and discredit their own earthly fathers (definately doesn’t fall into the honor and obey category they promote even for adults) in order to live their “vision”. There are many grandfathers out there who are grieved over the lifestyle that their grandchildren are being brought into, and all the while (sometimes godly, but not always) advice and concern is totally disregarded because it is UNvisionary and these older men are left feeling completely disrespected… because it doesn’t take much logic to see the obvious selective nature of the patriarchal mindset.
So really, it’s “go out and spread the fame of our earthly father… but only if you agree with him!”
October 6, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I appreciate that James McDonald was able to get a clarification from the Botkins about a daughter being a helpmeet to her father. However, in his clarification he said
“In their joy to say, “We are our daddy’s helpers!” some well meaning young ladies have used the incorrect term “helpmeet” rather than helper.”
He seems willing to excuse their error as just their zealous joy in being their daddy’s helper and attributes their mistake to a single quote in the book that doesn’t accurately reflect their beliefs. I truly accept that the girls do not believe that a daughter is to be their father’s helpmeet and hope that they will sufficiently edit their book to be more theologically precise.
However, I am not as convinced that others do hold to the view that a daughter is to be her father’s helpmeet until marriage.
Enter Nathaniel Darnell. I was googling some information on Patrick Henry College a while back and come across his blog entry on the college. I remembered he also referenced So Much More and so I went back today and reread his thoughts. His article is generally postive about Patrick Henry but he does offer this criticism (emphasis added),
“Moreover, the college errs by welcoming young ladies to an environment where they will be trained to “stand in the gates” as should men (Proverbs 31:23) rather than encouraging them to prepare for serving the Lord as faithful helpmeets in the ministries of their fathers or husbands (I Corinthians 11:8-9; I Timothy 5:18).
Leaving aside the issue of whether women should be in college and the fact that neither scripture he uses supports his assertion, here is a man who obviously believes that daughters are to be a “helpmeets” in the ministries of their fathers or husbands.
Is Nathaniel just another joyous youth excited about encouraging daughters to be their daddy’s helpers? I hardly think so. He’s currently a law student. This thinking and terminology comes from somewhere and given that Nathaniel Darnell was a Vision Forum intern class of 2003, it is obvious exactly where it is.
Try as some may like, the term helpmeet as it applies to a daughter is obviously more than just a single editting error of some over zealous young girls in a book. Genevieve Smith and Nathaniel Darnell both felt very comfortable used the term “helpmeet” in regards to the role of a daughter and her father. How many more editting errors do we need to see that there is more to this than what some assert?
Scrubbing the word from a book or a website is easy, but scrubbing it out of the minds and hearts of young people who have obviously grown up believing this is the role of a daughter is a much more difficult assignment.
October 6, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Here’s the blog link to Nathaniels blog if you would like to read the whole post.
http://persevero.blogspot.com/2007/09/newsweek-magazine-gives-poor-critique.html
October 6, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Also from Nathaniel’s blog:
“But how is a college setting going to prepare a young woman in the skills, mindset, and character needed to be a helpmeet, disciple-maker, and home-builder?”
For the life of me, I will never understand why this has to be an either/or and they cannot understand why it can be a both/and. I went to a secular university but in the midst of it I never lost my desire to be married and have a family. And I am a much better person on many levels because of my time at the university.
Just another example that it’s their way or the highway. Or maybe I should say it’s their way or the wide road of destruction. I think that’s what they believe anyway.
October 6, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Do you all know where Nathaniel is a law student? I was talking to my son about this and he says that any law school will require women to attend in order to be able to practice legally. Duh. But seriously, I hope he understands that he will have to work with real women attorneys at some point and even real women paralegals so he had better get a new perspective.
October 6, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Call me crazy, but I think I saw the term “helpmeet” applied to daughters in more than one place in So Much More… or maybe I just got that impression through the use of numerous Scripture references written to wives and applied to daughters.
Does anyone know?
Sallie, I am with you on your thoughts. My husband would not have married me if I had dropped out of college. I can barely keep up with him intellectually as it is (cuz he’s so brilliant
), so I can’t imagine not having been through the discipline of a university.
Some people are self-learners. I am NOT one of them. Higher education at home, for me, would not have been a good option.
October 7, 2007 at 12:32 am
Cally said, “Call me crazy, but I think I saw the term “helpmeet” applied to daughters in more than one place in So Much More… or maybe I just got that impression through the use of numerous Scripture references written to wives and applied to daughters.
Does anyone know?”
Cally, yes you are correct, the daughters did apply it to daughters in more than one instance.
In the chapter “Daughters, Fathers, and Duty”
Page 42 says, “You may not immediately see how much your father needs your help and just how much you can help him, because the very importance of a “helpmeet” has been long forgotten.”
Page 43 includes the testimony of Sarah who says, “As I began to understand that my calling was not somewhere out there waiting for me to “find it,” but my calling was to help my dad fulfill his calling, it gave me a whole new perspective on life and my purpose as a duaghter.”
Directly beneath Sarah’s “purpose as a daughter” the Botkin girls rhetorically ask, “Why is being a good helpmeet so important that we have to devote so much time to it?”
Here Sarah’s purpose is related to a “helpmeet.”
Another example is found on page 45 where the Botkin girls rhetorically ask,
“What does being a good helpmeet involve?”
“The most beautiful and complete illustration of a perfect helpomeet is the Proverbs 31 woman. Though there are differences between how a daughter helps her father and a wife helps her husband, this illustration show us just how much a good helpmeet can do.”
By using the word “helpmeet” instead of “daughter” when asking the rhetorical questions they blur the distinction by interchanging them and link it to the purpose of the daughter.
Again, I take the Botkins at their word that they do not believe that a daughter is to be her father’s helpmeet, but it just plain wrong to state that this idea came from one error of editting in their book as James McDonald would like us to believe. It didn’t and the proof of that is in the fact that Old Paths, CBD, Nathaniel Darnell, and others have independently come to the same conclusion.
Add to that the many scriptures that apply to wives that the girls misapply to daughters and you have a book that I believe is not “theologically precise.”
James McDonald used the term “well meaning” when he excused the Botkin young ladies. That’s an interesting choice of words.
The girls used this term “well meaning” as well in regards to foreign missions and a “wrong way to do right.”
On page 262 the girls write, “A well-meaning young man named Uzzah put out his hand to steady the Ark, espite God’s command that it never be touched. Did God reward Uzzah’s zeal? No. Uzzah had tried to do “right” in his own way instead God’s way, God struck him dead.
Well-meaning Sarah wanted to see God’s promise to her Abraham fulfilled. She decided to make it happen her way instead of waiting for God to do it His way (Genesis 16). She trusted in her own understanding of how Abraham shoul father a son, instead of trusting that God’s way and God’s timing are always best. Blessings did not ensue.”
Clearly the Botkins frown upon “well-meaning” efforts done by human effort no matter how noble they appear.
The girls admit that early in the book that they may handle these things more wisely after their teen years have passed. Perhaps the controversy surrounding their book is an example of what happenes when two daughter attempt to circumvent God’s order for the older women to teach the younger women, and their book, however well-meaning, is a “wrong way to do right.”
If the Botkins believe it can happen to Amy Carmichael or Mary Slessor, is it so far fetched that it could also happen to them?
October 7, 2007 at 12:42 am
“My husband would not have married me if I had dropped out of college. I can barely keep up with him intellectually as it is (cuz he’s so brilliant)”
And there’s another good point.
What man wants a wife who is less educated that himself? (don’t tell me, let me guess… the men whp live in Stepford!:D)
But seriously….a helpmeet is supposed to be a counterpart — salt to his pepper, peanut butter to his jelly. Generally speaking, a person is happier when married to someone who is their intellectual equal.
October 7, 2007 at 12:52 am
“I knew a case where a man befriended two younger men and thought he had found some new disciples into patriarchy….they realized that he wasn’t encouraging them to turn their hearts towards the godly father they already had, but wanted them to start looking to this man as their new spiritual father! The great, supportive father they already had didn’t have the “vision” of being a patriarch, so go find some other guy whose “patriarchal vision” you can help bring into reality!”
Now THIS is scary. What man who claims to respect fatherhood would insinuate himself between fathers and sons in this way?
I really do think that this paragraph is the single creepiest thing I have read about the hyperPatriarchal movement so far — I can’t put my finger on WHAT to call it, but something about what that guy tried to do just makes me want to shudder.
The closest I can come to say that it striikes me as a sort of spiritual pedophilia, but that’s not quite right either, as the young men involved were adults.
October 7, 2007 at 1:25 am
I have tried very hard to catch up on this wonderful thread, and am blown away by the examples of intelligent and thoughtful Christian women discussing an issue with truth as the goal and the Holy Spirit as their guide.
I am not torn on Patriocentrism. I find the extra-biblical commands troublesome and will not be practicing it in my home. My husband is at our head, and I will work every day to be his helpmeet as we raise our children together and help them find their callings.
There is so much I’d like to say about my feelings where VFM and Doug Phillips are concerned, but the quiet voice within me keeps reminding me that he is my brother in Christ, and that whatever I perceive his motives to be, or whatever I interpret his actions to mean, I do not know his heart.
I do, however, wish a reasonable discourse could be had. One in which I am not labeled a “marxist” because I disagree, or a “feminist” because I work outside of the home. I work because I truly believe God has called me to do so (I’m a nurse caring for the elderly. I also work because in doing so, I help my husband. One of us is always home with our children, and this is what we need to be doing right now. Isn’t that being a helpmeet?
I truly believe that the names being thrown at those who disagree with VFM, Doug Phillips, and others, is essentially doing what they are accusing others of doing. They attack faith and character instead of interacting with the ideas being presented. How very sad for all of us who should be working together as brothers and sisters in the search of right.
Thank you, everyone, for this incredible discussion. May we continue to discuss these issues with love and compassion for one another in an effort to follow God’s path for us in all we do.
Peace.
October 7, 2007 at 4:20 am
“Now THIS is scary. What man who claims to respect fatherhood would insinuate himself between fathers and sons in this way?”
Cynthia, what it boiled down to was pride, pure and simple. He was just so flattered to have an audience that hung on his “visionary” words. To be honest, I don’t think he gave much thought to the men’s father, and certainly didn’t encourage them to DIShonor him, but he did feel that since he was on the more “Biblical” path, that they would be better served to seek him out for wisdom than their real father.
October 7, 2007 at 5:12 am
“Generally speaking, a person is happier when married to someone who is their intellectual equal.”
Cynthia,
Everyone knows what happens when women get too much education!
(premature aging, beard growth, insanity, uppityness, etc)
““But how is a college setting going to prepare a young woman in the skills, mindset, and character needed to be a helpmeet, disciple-maker, and home-builder?””
We could turn around Nathaneal’s statement and ask how college is going to prepare a man in the skills, mindset and character needed to be a husband, disciple-maker and home-builder?
Husband and Wife are only one of MANY roles a man or woman can take on during their lifetime. I don’t understand why they think that a woman is defined by one role- that of wife and mother, but a man is not defined by one role, that of husband and father? It is illogical.
Again, we are woefully short on scriptures for backing for such ideas.
Of course college prepares both a man and a woman for many things that life will bring their way and I am sure many homemakers are very thankful for their college educations because it has made them the person they are today.
I did not have the opportunity to go to college. I had to “scrap” my way across the wrong side of the tracks and I worked my way up the corporate ladder by determination and common sense. I am a self-learner so that has helped me immensely.
I would LOVE to go to college someday. I am thinking about doing that when my “baby” is a bit older. I would just take a few classes at a time (I did take night courses while I worked way back when….).
My hope is that someday I can practice law.
And for anyone who is wondering, my husband thinks it is a great idea.
I love being a homemaker, housefrau, housewife, domestic engineer, stay at home mom, homeschooling mom….whatever you want to call me but the Lord has given me other talents and aspirations that may be used to help others and for His glory. BTW, I can’t find any of this so-called persecution of housewives? I have Googled extensively and I can’t find anything that comes close to an assault/attack/persecution on those of us who stay home?
A woman doesn’t stop being a wife or a mother because she has other interests or even a career. I am a big believer that a woman should do everything in her power to be home to raise her own children but that doesn’t mean she can’t also work (as Anne as noted above!). And, the Lord just may lead her to the public sphere after her children are grown. Just look at Phyllis Schlafley and Elizabeth Elliot who both have thriving ministries in their own namesake.
I was a single parent for many years and I had to work, so I know that things are not black and white. I also worked for the first 4 or 5 years of our marriage. I worked nights (3-4 nights a week) and my husband cared for our children after he got off work.
There are many possibilities and this is something that the patriocentrists just do not understand. They can’t understand it because they have God neatly confined to a nice, little box in the corner and anyone who verves off of their patriarchally pronounced path is less godly than they are.
October 8, 2007 at 5:27 am
Back in March, I participated in a “Christian Homemaking Conference” where the Botkin girls were speakers. I was listening to their talk again this evening and I thought I’d post some choice quotes:
“One of the most important
things we will ever do with our
lives is help our fathers and
brothers in their vision and
manliness. This is what women
were created to do.”
“Here is another specific duty of daughters to their fathers: helping your father become a better man and a better leader will require this kind of attitude that Elizabeth just spoke of (a deep inner reverence). And we know that this is what women were created to do- to help the men in our families. to help our husbands when we’re married and help fathers before we are married.”
“It is your duty as his daughter to find his vision.”
It doesn’t sound like they differentiate between the role of a married woman to her husband or a daughter to her father.
I have no problem with daughters helping their fathers in their vision. What an amazing gift! The mandate to do so is just not scripturally supportable.
October 8, 2007 at 5:32 am
Having listened to them this week/weekend, I highly recommend the podcast series Karen/ThatMom is doing on patriocentrism. (And, how fun it is to hear Karen/Spunky’s physical voice, after knowing her writing voice for so long!)
You can download the podcasts here:
http://www.thatmom.com/?page_id=2659
Or read more about the series here:
http://thatmom.com
Those of you who have persevered through this loooooong thread are well familiar with the themes of concern in relation to patriocentricity and the “players” involved. I really appreciated the tone and the perspectives brought to the podcasts, and think y’all would benefit from them as well.
(Oh–and a side bonus to listening to the podcasts? Amazingly, I’m more caught up on laundry than I’ve been in months! Not that Karen came over and did it for me, but it’s so much easier to get done with interesting discussion!)
October 8, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Before we go any further, could someone PLEASE define just what this “vision” is, that men are supposed to have?
Is it a vision of spreading the Gospel, or transforming the world through corporate venues, or what?
Do they believe that every man has a “vision”, and upon what scripture do they base this?
October 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I’ve always interpreted “vision” to mean “dream” or “plan”. But that’s a really good question, Cynthia, and perhaps another reason that patriocentrism or visionary daughterhood is so difficult to follow. The terms are vague and interpreted differently by each person who hears it.
October 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Yes… I’ve interpreted vision in that way too. But I’m wondering if the patriocentrists mean a man’s career vision, or generational vision, or spiritual vision, or some combination of the three. I can see how a daughter might work for her father’s company or farm or ministry, and help it succeed, but most fathers do not own companies or farms or have ministries. How would the daughter of, say, a bus driver or a sewer worker or a janitor help her father achieve his vision, and what might that vision be, other than saving enough money to retire someday?
October 8, 2007 at 4:07 pm
The “vision” or motivation for this teaching rests in Reconstructionist theology and the Dominion Mandate. Postmilleniallists believe their will be a “Golden Age” which will precede the Second Coming of Christ. This mandate means that Reconstructionists must work hard to “reconstruct” or occupy and rule over every sphere of society applying Mosaic Law to each sphere. The family is one of those spheres. And in that, a daughter’s “destiny” is to be helpmeets to their fathers until they can marry and assist Dominion men following Old Testament Mosaic law. But the underlying premise for much of their teaching is rooted in Reconstructionist or Dominionist doctrine.
That is why Scott Brown, Pastor and director of National Center for Family Integrated Churches, the following in his concluding paragraph of an essay titled, Living in Sodom: A Case Study, Part II Behavior Patterns of Fathers who Withdraw Protection from Daughters
“Communication of the biblical vision to a daughter needs to be from birth and continue every day of her life thereafter.
A father should be calling her to a rich life as a helpmeet(Genesis 2:18), a keeper at home (Titus 2:4), a trainer of the next generation (Ephesians 6:4), a demonstration of unfading beauty (I Peter 3:4), and a domestic entrepreneur (Proverbs 31). My view is that every daughter needs to have these passages of scripture memorized, so that she is equipped to detect influences which would divert her from her creation-order calling.
Without a careful delivery of “thus saith the Lord,” a daughter is unprotected and is denied the glorious hope of her calling as a woman in Christ.” (emphasis added)
Scott Brown likens the calling of a daughter to a “helpmeet” as her creation-order calling. That means an infant girl’s calling from birth is a “helpmeet.” Not just when she is married but from birth on throughout her life. Scott Brown did not say a father should prepare her daughter for her future calling, but likened the daughter to a helpmeet as her calling regardless of marital status or age.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/living_in_sodom_a_case_study_p_1.aspx
The Botkins write about this in their book on page 44, “The Dominion Mandate and the Great Commission were given to men and women equally, but the way we both fulfill our task is different according to the roles we were given at the beginning.”
To understand “Visionary Daughterhood” requires an understanding of that prescribed mandate and the obligations it contains. The role of daughters is just one many spheres that must be brought back into “biblical order” according to the Mosaic Law. That’s why Scriptures where Paul wrote that he could find “no command” are ignored. Because it just doesn’t fit with the mandate. But rather than change the mandate, they ignore the Truth of God’s word. And when the error is brought to their attention by others, they mischaracterize the questions as “rumors” and cite “editing errors.”
They presupposes that this theology is true and to use Scott Brown’s words their interpretations or opinions are elevated to, “thus saith the Lord.” The problem is that in many cases he Lord didn’t “saith” at all. And the dominion mandate is really a list of laws created by men to rule over the lives of other men. This is readily apparent in the area of daughters and their their views of southern slavery and the black man.
The vagueness and difference in interpretation is a direct result of the lack of scriptural foundation to support the claims they make.
October 8, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Please forgive my ignorance, since I haven’t yet read anything about this “Reconstructionist Theology”, but why would we need to apply Mosaic Law now? Christ has fulfilled the law.
October 8, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Hmm… these people really HAVE created a new religion, haven’t they? It’s Christian flavored, but it centers on marriage and life in this world rather than on salvation and eternal life in the next. In short, it’s a sort of carnal pseudo-Christianity, which deemphasizes Christ and Heaven.
It’s almost as if they are saying, “OK, Jesus came, died and rose, and saved us, so that we can go to heaven someday. That’s nice, but now let’s get back to business as usual — has anybody seen my phylacteries lying around here anywhere?”
Seriously though — it’s no wonder that they place so much emphasis on following the Law — prior to Jesus, this carnal, in-this-world sort of religion was all people had, and by all appearances, these guys have pretty much returned to it.
October 8, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Below are a few links that biblical refute Reconstructionism/Dominion Theology a.k.a. Theonomy. I think they’re a good primer for anyone wishing to learn more on the subject.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/notes_on.htm
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/dominion.htm
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/general.htm
Spunky has hit the nail right on the head. If the underlying theology is erroneous the resulting teachings on marriage, daughters, etc. will contain error too.
October 8, 2007 at 5:07 pm
That should be ‘biblically refute’ in my above post.
October 8, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I’ve gotten into this conversation late, but yes, Sarah (from a comments aways back) I find these teachings (by the sisters and and other “visionaries”) as SPOOKY. The readings remind me of an 18th Century gothic novel. . . .No, gothic novels have the underlying theme of the corruption of power, and there’s nothing of that warning here.
Thank you, ladies for commenting on the Biblical and logical problems with this overly patriarchal view. The comments here have been lively and thought provoking.
October 8, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Oops, I got cut off . . . oh, well, as I was saying.
I want to comment on my own experiences in an extremely patriarchal and non-Biblical group when I was a young Bible college student. . .and more importantly, what drove me (and I believe drives these ladies) to such a group.
I remember the identity and belonging provided me at a time when I was very much alone. I remember the recognition and approval; I remember and still sometimes long for the simplistic and utopian views, how the group promised that everything in this chaotic world would fit together, if only I did and prayed the right things. I’d love to go back to “a golden age” “when women were happy” such as these girls believe in (and such as I once believed in.) But I know such a time and place never existed, and cannot exist today. “In this world you will have trouble. But I have overcome the world,” Jesus says to us.
We are imperfect people in a highly imperfect world, struggling to “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling.”
I have to think that the Bodkin sisters and others like them will mature and return to the truth of the life of Christ, as I and countless of others have done (via a detour along the way.)
I refer to my own wanderings in the words of Dostoevsky in “Crime and Punishment,” where Razumihim says, “Though we are speaking rot . . . yet in our error, we shall come to the truth.”
October 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“I refer to my own wanderings in the words of Dostoevsky in “Crime and Punishment,” where Razumihim says, “Though we are speaking rot . . . yet in our error, we shall come to the truth.””
Ruthie,
What an amazing quote! I can totally identify with it.
“The readings remind me of an 18th Century gothic novel. . . .No, gothic novels have the underlying theme of the corruption of power, and there’s nothing of that warning here.”
Exactly.
“It’s Christian flavored, but it centers on marriage and life in this world rather than on salvation and eternal life in the next. In short, it’s a sort of carnal pseudo-Christianity, which deemphasizes Christ and Heaven.”
Cynthia,
As usual, you cut right to the chase. Where is Christ?????? These same women who put a very HUGE emphasis on spending time alone with one’s husband, do not even come close to putting that emphasis on spending time alone with God. One of them went so far as to say that having a quiet time alone with God is impossible because her her calling as wife and mother. Basically, God will have to get what He gets.
But, if they can make the time to spend intimate time with their husband without being interrupted by children, then they can surely make the time for God, no?
I am not legalistic about a quiet time but Jesus did set an example for us. We need to get alone with Him and it is for our benefit.
I do wonder how much prayer figures into the hyper-patriarchal system? I mean, besides imprecatory prayer against their so-called “enemies” (aka- people, also called gossips and internet assassins, who dare to examine their very public teachings).
When Christ is not at the very center and when He is not loved more than an earthly relation, you will have idolatry.
I was just reading on another blog about a man who claims that Psalms and Proverbs were written by men FOR men by a manly God. No kidding. But, this man forgets that God’s word is written to his BRIDE, not for men but for His BRIDE, the CHURCH, His elect.
I wonder how identify so readily to the Psalms and why it has comforted me so often if it was written for men? And did he also forget about Proverbs 31, the whole chapter were the words of King Lemuel’s mother.
Beyond all this, I wonder why? Why make such a silly statement? What is behind such a statement? Shall we women just rip Psalms and Proverbs and the Sermon on the Mount out of our Bibles? Shall we just forget the Bible and wait for men to tell us what we need to know?
This same man said that men understand and can relate to God better because Christ was a man and so are they. Huh? Then why is it that the only ones that really got it when Christ was on this earth were the females?
It is all so idolatrous. They worship the male gender and not the Creator of the universe who is not a man but a spirit.
It is no different than worshiping a golden calf. If we do not worship God in spirit and in truth, then we are worshiping an idol made of our own hands.
BTW, someone needs to remind these hyperpatriarchalists that the Holy Spirit is the only One who allows any human being to understand and relate to the word of God.
A mere man will never understand the things of God on account of his own manliness.
October 8, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Anne asked, “Please forgive my ignorance, since I haven’t yet read anything about this “Reconstructionist Theology”, but why would we need to apply Mosaic Law now? Christ has fulfilled the law.”
Andrew Sandlin handles this objection in his booklet, “A Christian Reconstructionist Primer” Under the section entitled Ten Common Objections in the chapter called, “The Law, Like God, Cannot Change” Objection 1 says,
“But the Bible says Christians “are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14)
This means the law no longer condemns us as it does the unsaved. We are no longer bound to it as a sentence of death (Romans 7:1-6)but it still must govern our lives.”
Obviously applying all of Mosaic law leads to some harsh treatments on those who commit adultery, homosexuality, and blasphemy. To this objection Sandlin says, “Are you accusing God of being too harsh?
The booklet supplies many answers to other objections. In the last chapter, “Tying it all together” Sandlin says on page 42, “You should live your life accordidng to God’s law as taught in the Bible. Away with living according to “how I feel!” God’s law is his instruction for how his people should live. But not only his people as individuals. It is also his rule for how families should live. Husbands and fathers, you are called by God to lead your family to live according to God’s word, his whole word – including Mosaic law – in the Bible.
And a page later he writes, “You must exert godly dominion in the family and church; each of these institutions must be brought more and more under the authority of God’s word. Then we reconstructionists must exert dominion in the wider society, including the state.”
That is a small sliver of explanation about reconstructionism. I first heard about it in 1981 through a friend. I’ve been reading and learning about it off and on ever since. The ideas put forth by the Botkins in their book are not new or “explosive” in nature. They are just the latest in an long line of writers who are trying to capitalize on a theology that’s been around for many decades.
October 8, 2007 at 8:48 pm
The way I understand “reconstructionists” (for I too only recently heard the term) it seems they are similar to certain Puritan groups who hoped to make an Eden out of the American wilderness. Or perhaps they are even like some of my ancestors who followed a Mennonite man from Russia to Afganistan because he believed the righteous would be raptured there.
Evidently, nothing new under the sun.
October 8, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Scott Brown – “My view is that every daughter needs to have these passages of scripture memorized, so that she is equipped to detect influences which would divert her from her creation-order calling.”
It seems that the rest of their writings and their actions would indicate that this would include the rest of the Bible besides these few passages.
Corrie – “I do wonder how much prayer figures into the hyper-patriarchal system? I mean, besides imprecatory prayer against their so-called “enemies””.
Corrie, in my experience, prayer for a patriarchal household is mostly requests for a sovereign, all-powerful God to provide the needs for a full quiver that they aren’t equipped to care for. It’s less of a means for a relationship, and more of a “Look, God, I offered up my womb and lifestyle to you, now you do your part to provide for it”. God will provide for us, yes, but the expectation and application of this attribute has always troubles me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not coming down on all people who have lots of children, but I think there are a lot fewer people that God has given the gift and ability to care for these children’s physical and emotional needs than the patriocentrists would like to admit.
October 8, 2007 at 9:00 pm
One look at the Botkin girls website, and it doesn’t take long to see several uses of the word “dominion”. Yes, definately a Reconstructionist mentality, but I think the word “vision” is the titillating, vague word used to capture the attention of the listener, because everyone has a “vision” of what they would like their life to be. As they’re reeled in, then they assimilate the newbies into the “only Biblical” vision they meant in the first place. Sort of an excusable bait-and-switch tactic.
October 8, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Alisa,
Great thoughts!
Prayer is a means of communing with the Living God and fellowshipping with Him. He uses prayer to conform us to His image and to make His will our will. Prayer is vital.
From what I can gather, having an intimate relationship with God is basically a non-existent teaching in these groups.
A popular hyper-patriarchal author and blogger recently wrote about quiet times (“The Highly Revered (and impossible) Quite Time”). I was rather taken aback.
Basically, many of these women are under the impression that their time with the Lord is learning through their husbands or reading their children a bible story. Those are necessary and very good but a person needs to come before the Lord as an individual and seek refreshing in His presence. Just as we corporately worship together, we must also worship Him in our own time.
I have a lot of little ones and I know how hard it is but it is possible if we truly see God as a priority. If we are writing books and taking upon ourselves the position of being a leader, then we had better make sure that we have a thriving and intimate relationship with the Lord. There is a big difference between locking one’s self up in one’s bedroom to write a book for hours and finding 15 minutes alone with the Lord.
If we can find hours to devote to other things, where we shut out the world and make sure we have no interruptions, then isn’t it possible to do that with the Lord? Some think not.
And I mostly blame it on their excessive and obsessive view of the family.
I am reminded of Christ’s words where He tells us that we our love for Him should so far outstrip our love for our family members that it could be compared to the difference between love and hate. Our love for Him should be so much more than our love for anyone else, even our husband and children. When Christ told us that we should hate our family members, he wasn’t telling us to hate them but that our love and devotion to Him should PALE in comparison. The gulf between love and hate is huge; the gulf between our love for God and our family members should be just as huge.
If we make time to be alone, uninterrupted, with our husbands, how much MORE should we make time for our Lord and Savior?! Surely no one is claiming that they can’t find time for having sex with their husbands because of interruptions and that it is just frustrating to try because every time they try and find time with their husband, they are interrupted, so our husband will just basically have to take what he can get. They would be aghast if someone taught something like that.
Well, I am aghast that anyone would teach that a quiet time with the Lord in order to be alone with Him to seek His face and His will for our life is something that is not attainable because we have too many children.
Poppycock. Christ set the example and if He could get away, so can we.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss wrote a great book about the importance of a daily quiet time. I am NOT a morning person, so I have my time in the wee hours of the morning- after midnight. It works for me right now at this season in my life. That way no one interrupts me because everyone is fast asleep. I am not talking about a legalistic relationship with God, either. I am talking about seeking His face in stillness and quietness.
How can you even attempt love others and know God’s will if you can’t even make time for God a few minutes every day?
We hardly need another book written by another author who is writing from the flesh and not from the outflowing of the Holy Spirit. Our market is flooded with such books and it is a distraction to the REAL THING.
October 8, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I made a comment earlier that apparently didn’t go through, thereby making my later comment in regard to a typo I made (#759) completely irrevelant and out of context.
My comment was in regard to those wishing to better understand Reconstructionism/Dominion Theology a.k.a. Theonomy. There are a few good links that biblically refute the above mentioned theology and I have found them to be a good, basic starting point on the subject.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/notes_on.htm
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/dominion.htm
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/general.htm
I think Spunky hit on the heart of the matter. If the underlying theology of a book or movement is erroneous – in this case Reconstructionism/Dominionism – then the teachings on marriage, daughters, etc. that flow from them are bound to contain error.
October 8, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Reconstructionists like to believe that the Dominion Mandate and the Great Commission are equal in weight as a charge given to them by God.
If you look again the Botkin girls quote,
“The Dominion Mandate and the Great Commission were given to men and women equally, but the way we both fulfill our task is different according to the roles we were given at the beginning.”
The Scriptural justifcation for the Great Commission is obvious in the words of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations. However, the dominion mandate is not so clear and the commands ascribed to it are even more vague. The dominion mandate is “presupposed” by the reconstructionist to be true based on Genesis 1:26-28 because not clear mandate can be seen and applied in the way in which they seek to apply it.
This mandate does not apply to humans because it was spoken to them about the “fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
This mandate does not allow one man to subjugate another man or woman under his rule, nor does it give man a mandate to take over cultures and states, for a culture or a state by their very nature do not “creep about the earth” like a worm. Unless you assume that God is speaking “metaphorically” but that is a presupposition that cannot be proven by the text itself.
I agree that Christians should take their faith and practice it in every way possible throughout their life. But the reason for doing so is not found in the Dominion Mandate nor is it about taking over those institutions. We are called to seek and save the lost, not film making, the arts, the media, etc. Jesus came to change the hearts of men, not institutions.
As we make disciples in Christ these institutions will no doubt be transformed. But the reconstructionist seeks to transform the institutions through the elect to bring about a Golden Age and usher in the second coming of Jesus Christ. And what of the lost? Well they’re predestined to hell anyway so why worry about reaching them.
Reconstructionist theology is ultimately self-centered. The focus is on the ability of the elect to bring about this institutional transformation here on earth. That’s why the Botkin girls will produce a book or a movie encouraging a daughter to return to her physical home and to her earthly father, but scant attention her heart returning to Jesus Christ or nurturing her faith in Him. That’s why Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 7:25 about a “virgin” focusing on the Lord are ignored. To them it appears the chief end of a woman is to help an earthly man for the glory of God. Not a restored relationship with Christ alone.
The Botkins write, “Every womens life is built around men and men’s role and leadership in some way.” (page 21) That may be true in her theology and the way it works in her family. But my life is NOT built around any earthly man, but Christ alone. My life doesn’t revolve around my husband for he may die some day, and then what becomes of my man-centered life?
No. I will order my life around ONE God who became a man, the Savior Christ the Lord, and serve my husband because my life revolves around HIM. My motivation is not because of the creation-order or a mandate , but out of a love for God and His redemptive work in my life and heart. I serve because HE served me and demonstrated HIS love for me. “Greater love has no man than this, then he lay down his life for his friend.”
And perhaps to the dismay or possibly the disgust of some, my husband serves me in the very same way.
October 8, 2007 at 10:58 pm
To Spunky’s post (#768) my reply is a hearty Amen! Particularly, your second last paragraph says it all. We love because He first loved us. It’s all about grace!
Reconstuctionism/Dominionism takes our eyes off of our Lord and His finished work. But when we get our focus back where it belongs – on our great Lord and Saviour – our hearts fill with gratitude and we desire to serve out of love for HIM! Hence, we become more like our Savior, and our love for others, including our love for our husbands and fathers, becomes a reflection of His love for us!
October 8, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Spunky,
Thank you for that post.
The “dominion mandate” allegedly comes from Genesis 1. That is when God told both Adam and Eve to take dominion and subdue the fish, birds and beasts. No where does it make a distinction for how one is to take dominion over the fish, birds and beasts based on what “role” a person is give “at the beginning”.
A man and woman takes dominion over a fish, bird or beast in the same way. When a person dresses a deer, they do not do it according to their “role” given to them at the beginning. When a person catches a fish, they do not filet it according to their role given at the beginning. When a person captures a wild turkey, they do not do it according to the role they were given. A man and woman take dominion over the chickens’ eggs in the same way- they collect the eggs. A man and woman will take dominion over the animals that they care for and use to plow their fields in the same way.
There is not a manly way to feed a cow and a feminine way to feed a cow.
This is how I understand the dominion mandate. We are to care for the animals of the earth and be good stewards of them and they were given to us for our benefit. There is no female and male way to do the dominion mandate.
Unlike people, who were not given to us for our own needs. It is we who were given to people in order to meet THEIR needs. It works totally different when you are talking about human beings. When people start looking at other human beings as objects of dominion and thinking that they have the task of subjugating them, then we have slavery.
I am NOT saying that there is no distinction between the sexes. What I am saying is that the scripture does not teach that a man is to take dominion and subdue the earth and the woman is just his junior assistant in the whole process. That is adding to scripture in order to arrive at that place.
Because I do hold to male elders, I would say that men and women make disciples using the word of God (ie., the same ways and methods) but that women are limited in just how far they may go to make disciples. For instance, a woman, imho, couldn’t be a pastor or an elder. As we see with Priscilla, she is heavily involved in making a disciple out of Appollos. But, that is privately. When we go and make disciples out of people, it doesn’t not mean we are in authority over them. This also needs to be a distinction because many believe that if they are making disciples, then they are in authority over others.
October 8, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Spunky,
I was going to say “as you stated so eloquently” but I didn’t. Please add that into the beginning of my post! I really shouldn’t try and do more than 10 things at once.
October 9, 2007 at 12:58 am
I made a post earlier that has not gone through after two attempts, thereby making my later post (#759), in reference to a typo in the first post, irrelevant and out of context.
I’m guessing that maybe the links I included caused the problem. ??
Anyway, I think Spunky hit on the heart of the matter earlier when she pointed out the underlying theology of the book “So Much More” and much of the patriarchal teaching. If the underlying theology (in this case Reconstructionism – Dominionism) is erroneous, then it will naturally follow that the teachings that flow from them on marriage and daughters will include error.
I think one of the most disheartening things associated with Reconstructionism is that it becomes an ‘us versus them’ mentality. In the case of ‘biblical womanhood’, the feminists become our enemies instead of our mission field.
October 9, 2007 at 1:55 am
Sometimes it gets very confusing truly understanding the hyperpatriarchal movement because it is really quite hard to nail down what it is they actually believe.
For example in “Raising Maidens of Virtue”, by Stacey McDonald, it instructs one on how to make a “Virtuous Women of the Past” scrapbook and/or party. I think this is an excellent idea! I would love for my daughters to study the lives of heroines from history.
Of course, we know that “virtue” is the same exact word for “valor”. Valor means “great courage in the face of danger”. The Hebrew word is “chayil” and it means “strength, might- especially warlike, wealth, force, army.
The confusing part comes into play with the list of suggested women.
Amy Carmichael, Clara Barton, Gladys Aylward, and Florence Nightingale are some women suggested on the list. (pg. 202)
All of these women never married and they left home to pursue things other than giving birth or being a “help” to a husband or a father. Now, I think these women belong on that list of “virtuous women”, do not get me wrong. These are some great women to study!
Clara organized the American Red Cross. She was an abolitionist. Union General Benjamin Butler appointed her “lady in charge” of the hospitals. Pres. Lincoln placed her in charge of locating the missing men of the Union army. She traced the fate of 30,000 men (the first female CSI???). She delivered lectures on the war that were well received. She became acquainted with Frederick Douglass and became an activist for black civil rights. She had a long association with the suffrage movement and was a friend to Susan B. Anthony.
Florence Nightingale was a nurse, a writer and a statistician. She had an immense gift for math. While better known for her gift to the fields of math and medicine, she is also an important link in the study of English feminism. She believed that Jesus was not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the oppressed (liberation theology). Florence’s grandfather was the abolitionist Will Smith. She became a nurse because of what she considered “Christian divine calling”. She rebelled against her high social status and the expected role for a woman to become a wife and mother. She took care of the poor and became a leading advocate for improved medical care. She led an active role in the “Poor Laws”. A baron courted her but she rejected him because she was convinced that marriage would interfere with her calling to be a nurse. She became a very good and lifelong friend to Sidney Herbert and was his key advisor in his political career. She also had “strong and intimate” (think friendship) relations with Benjamin Jowett. She was most famous for her contribution to the Crimean War. She was tireless in her care for the wounded. I found this letter written in her hand on the importance of scripture:
http://clendening.kumc.edu/dc/fn/6burton1.html.
Amy Carmichael never married and heeded the call on her life to be a missionary. She saved many children out of the clutches of prostitution and her life is an example to us all. I have read her poetry and her writings and they are inspiring!
Gladys Aylward has a wonderful story of how she wanted so badly to go into missions but the China Inland Mission turned her down because they said her academic background was insufficient. Her determination caused her to save up money and go to China all on her own where she established the Inn of Sixth Happiness. The Chinese people knew her as the “Virtuous One”.
Anne Boleyn was another one on Stacey’s recommended list. She was beheaded on the charges of adultery, witchcraft, high treason and incest (with her brother, George). She wielded great political influence and she is known as one of the “most influential and important queen consort England has ever had”. The account of her beheading truly takes your breath away. There are many theories as to her guilt or innocence.
Another woman (girl) was Lady Jane Grey. She was one of the “finest female minds of the century” and one of the most learned women of her day. She was a devout Protestant. She was a political pawn and it cost her life. Those who were supposed to protect her used her to advance their own purposes and stations in life.
Dolley Madison was also recommended as a woman of virtue. “During her husband’s political life, Dolley Madison was noted as a gracious hostess, whose sassy, ebullient personality, love of feathered turbans, and passion for snuff (tobacco) seemed at odds with her Quaker upbringing.” She was a great hostess and dressed like a queen, in the latest fashions. “Although she eschewed taking public stands on controversial issues, Dolley had a shrewd political sense and cultivated her husband’s enemies as carefully as his friends. When President Madison dismissed his secretary of state, Robert Smith, she invited him to dinner; when he failed to accept she went to call on him personally. In the election of 1812, when many Americans complained that Madison had led them into an unnecessary war, she used her invitation lists to win him favour and a second term, according to some historians.” It appears she was much like an Abigail when it came to “interfering” in her husband’s affairs. She was his political advisor and ally. Her son from her first marriage (her first husband died of yellow fever) spent her money and caused her financial hardship. Congress came to her aid financially a couple of times. After his second term, Dolley and James returned to their tobacco plantation in Virginia where they owned slaves. Madison was known as a good and gentle master:
“”Mr. Madison, I think, was one of the best men that ever lived. I never saw him in a passion, and never knew him to strike a slave, although he had over one hundred; neither would he allow an overseer to do it. Whenever any slaves were reported to him as stealing or “cutting up” badly, he would send for them and admonish them privately, and never mortify them by doing it before others.”” Paul Jennings, once a slave of Madison
The other women suggested are Katie Luther, Elisabeth Elliot, Monica (St. Augustine’s mother), Susannah Wesley, Anne of Bohemia, and Anne Bradstreet.
Like I said, the suggestions are great but they are confusing to me.
October 9, 2007 at 2:00 am
“I think one of the most disheartening things associated with Reconstructionism is that it becomes an ‘us versus them’ mentality. In the case of ‘biblical womanhood’, the feminists become our enemies instead of our mission field.”
Denise,
This is such a good point. Should we not be motivated to reach the feminists with the gospel of Christ? After all, that is the only way their hearts will be changed. I wonder how the new book, Passionate Housewives Desperate for God, will help reach the lost with the gospel of Christ or will it further alienate a lost world from the only source of hope and salvation?
I truly appreciate Spunky’s contribution, especially since she is so well-read and she has the utmost concern for truth and integrity.
October 9, 2007 at 2:29 am
Amen to Spunky’s last comment.
Corrie,
I am reading a bio of Clara Barton. All I can say is, WOW!
I am so surprised that Mrs. McDonald would recommend Anne Boleyn. Though, I don’t think she was executed justly, I do think it should be stated she was no saint! She was an adulterer and very power hungry. Henry’s first wife is the one who should be admired for not admitting their marriage was invalid and bravely standing by her convictions. I don’t know why Christian rally behind Anne all the time. She was brave during her beheading, to be sure, but so was her cousin, Katherine Howard (wife number 6) who probably **was** guilty of adultery.
When I think of a virtuous woman, Anne Boleyn is the last person I think of.
Sorry to get off the subject. Probably the reason Mrs. McDonald admires her is because she had a big part the Reformation.
October 9, 2007 at 2:37 am
Another troubling aspect to dominion theology is the appeal to a better time in order to help persuade us of its truth.
The Botkin girls write, “The lifestyle and worldview we present is not merely theoretical. It was lived before, when women were much happier.”
And to many in the Reconstructionist movement, that time would include life in the Antebellum south where the white man rightly asserted his just position as ruler over the black man and his family.
Never mind that this black man was forbidden to be the protector of his own honor and the well being of his wife and children. Tragically, he watched as his offspring were sold like cattle at auction and his women were used for sordid pleasures. Mothers watched as the children they nursed were shipped off for the benefit of God’s ordered economy. Daughters were sold off without even the ability to know their father let alone give their heart to him. Yes, this is the day many Reconstructionist believe was a happier time. I’m sure a book like So Much More would not have even been necessary for these happy women of this hallowed bygone era.
The slave trade was man stealing and if we are going to follow Mosaic law, those that participated worthy of death. Exodus 21:16 says, “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”
However, that didn’t stop theolgians like R. L. Dabney from speaking about how God’s created order made the black man inferior to the white man and divinely ordained he be the white man’s slave. Dabney also defended southern slavery because of the wonderful care these slaves were given by their masters and that they were able to reach the black man for Christ all the while denying him the very freedom for which Christ died.
Doug Phillips praises Dabney and exclaims, ““Hail Dabney, wise apologist, Defender of the South!” Phillips reveres him so much that he wanted to name one of his children after him.
Other men like Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have picked up where Dabney left off with books like, “Southern Slavery as It Was.”
“Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.” (page 24)”
I’m sorry, but a theology that elevates the white man as supreme over another man for his own profit is a theology I want no part of. Nor do I want to support any current organziations or authors who still believe this to be true.
I emailed Vision Forum specifically on the issue of Dabney and his views and they did not reply. I am therefore forced to assume until shown otherwise that Dabney’s views on the African and slavery accurately reflect those of the men within Vision Forum.
So while the Botkins would like us to believe that this theology is rooted in a by-gone-era when women were happier, that was only true for SOME women whose color was not black.
I should note for those who may not know, the Botkins currently attend Doug Phillips church and Vision Forum, Inc. is the publisher of their book.
October 9, 2007 at 3:35 am
“Reconstructionist theology is ultimately self-centered. The focus is on the ability of the elect to bring about this institutional transformation here on earth. That’s why the Botkin girls will produce a book or a movie encouraging a daughter to return to her physical home and to her earthly father, but scant attention her heart returning to Jesus Christ or nurturing her faith in Him.”
Basically, these people seem to be worshipping their own seed. They revere their fathers, and seek a world transformed by their own godly offspring, while shrugging their shoulders at the idea of evangelization — in their view, as Spunky points out, the lost are “… predestined to hell anyway so why worry about reaching them.” So, why evangelize, or feed the hungry, or visit people in prison — if they’re predestined to salvation, it’ll happen, and if not, there’s nothing you can do to help them anyway. Might as well work on filling your quiver instead.
Basically, this IS all about self — THEIR fathers, THEIR vision, and THEIR seed, and to h*ll with the hindmost — who cares if someone in Ethiopia is dying of hunger, without ever having heard the gospel? God has obviously “passed over” these people in favor of good theonomist reconstructionist families here in America: as Andrew Sandlin says, “God elected some people to salvation and passed over (or condemned) all others”; reconsructionists teach that either a person, family, culture, nation come to
obedience in Christ, or each will cease to exist.
This is supremely ironic, considering that reconstructionists claim to oppose anything faintly resembling secular humanism. The irony lies in the fact that in the earlier part of the 20th century, secular humanists were busy promoting a very similar idea, called social Darwinism. This theory states that natural selection is gradually improving the human species, and maintains that that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change ) through “survival of the fittest”, competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.
And speaking of the worship of seed, C.S. Lewis, in his book, “Out of the Silent Planet”, explores and attacks this idea in an exchange between an Oysara (angel) and his arch-villian, Weston:
“I may fall,” said Weston.” But while I live I will not, with such a key in my hand, consent to close the gates of the future on my race. What lies in that future, beyond our present ken, passes imagination to conceive: it is enough for me that there is a Beyond.” “He is saying,” Ransom translates, that he will not stop trying to do all this unless you kill him. And he says that though he doesn’t know what will happen to the creatures sprung from us, he wants it to happen very much.”
When Weston protests his love for mankind, Oyarsa says “What you really love is no completed creature but the very seed itself: for that is all that is left.”
………….”Out of the Silent Planet”
For more, see this article.
October 9, 2007 at 3:46 am
“Another troubling aspect to dominion theology is the appeal to a better time in order to help persuade us of its truth.”
Funny thing is, there is no nostalgia in scriptures (except for the Israelites who longed for the “land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots”) — God is the God of the Living, not the dead.
October 9, 2007 at 4:19 am
“The Botkin girls write, “The lifestyle and worldview we present is not merely theoretical. It was lived before, when women were much happier.””
And we know they were happier because???? Is there a gauge that measures a woman’s happiness?
Happiness is dependent upon HAPPenstances and circumstances; joy comes the Lord and is not dependent on circumstances or happenstances.
What is happy? Leah and Rachel sharing the same husband? Hannah and Penninah? Naomi?
Esther being seized from her home and made a pagan king’s conquest along with hundreds of other fresh, young virgins seized from their homes? Tamar who was raped by her own brother in her father’s home while obeying her father’s request and then having the double injustice of being viewed as “damaged goods”, thus nullifying any chance at marriage? “So Tamar dwelt, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom’s house.” Or, the happiness of Lot’s daughters when their father offered to throw them out to the crowd of perverts so they could have their way with them? Or the happiness of Concubine who was actually thrown out to the crowd of perverts?
The happiness of women who had the privilege of having a husband with more than one wife?
Or how about further along in history? The happiness of the females sold into prostitution and slavery in civilizations throughout this world? The happiness found in novels like the “Good Earth” or “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”?
A little further along? The happiness of the women who had to work at the mills for 16 hours a day with their little children at their side also doing exhausting work? The happiness of those same women who get to come home to a filthy tenement and try and figure out a way to feed their 6 starving children? The happiness of Lady Jane Grey and the wives of King Henry who were beheaded so he could find a new wife? The happiness of all the women who were bought and sold into marriage so that the patriarch of the family could benefit both socially and economically?
I am an optimist but I am also a realist. This happy time exists in paintings and fiction. This perpetual happiness is found in “Leave it to Beaver” and other 1950′s type dramas.
There have been the same troubles throughout history. To say that women used to be happy in a different age? I would like to see some data to back that up. I would like to see the materials that are being used to make this point. It sounds like propaganda.
Jesus is the only one who can bring true joy. Happiness is an elusive thing and it is based on feelings and dependent on what is going on around us. The pursuit of happiness is a trap that causes unhappiness.
True joy is found in any age and in any believer who has his/her mind fixed on the Lord Jesus.
Don’t forget what God said to Elijah. There is a remnant that God has set apart just for Himself.
“Never mind that this black man was forbidden to be the protector of his own honor and the well being of his wife and children. Tragically, he watched as his offspring were sold like cattle at auction and his women were used for sordid pleasures. Mothers watched as the children they nursed were shipped off for the benefit of God’s ordered economy. Daughters were sold off without even the ability to know their father let alone give their heart to him. Yes, this is the day many Reconstructionist believe was a happier time. I’m sure a book like So Much More would not have even been necessary for these happy women of this hallowed bygone era.”
Spunky, we need to be reminded of this very thing so we do not lose focus. Thank you!
October 9, 2007 at 4:29 am
“I am reading a bio of Clara Barton. All I can say is, WOW!”
Zan,
Then you can tell us all about Clara and how she was one of the first feminists who ushered in voting rights for women. I wonder how she fulfilled her purpose as a female when she never married and didn’t stay home to serve her father but seemed to have a calling all of her own? Not to mention that she was an “evil abolitionist” and that President Lincoln put her in charge of something.
“When I think of a virtuous woman, Anne Boleyn is the last person I think of.
Sorry to get off the subject. Probably the reason Mrs. McDonald admires her is because she had a big part the Reformation.”
That is what I thought when I read through that list. It must be that Anne Boleyn was an admirer of Wycliffe and tried to get his teachings noticed. She also was the one to get Henry to drop the Catholic church and start his own church under the auspices of Cranmer. But, in the end, it looks like Cranmer may have played a role in removing her because she lost her usefulness.
Oh the politics of the Reformed players!
Her statement at her beheading concerning the kindness and gentleness of Henry is beyond my comprehension. As I study the beheadings of these women, I am struck with how commonplace this was for them and everyone involved. It was like a natural, everyday part of life. Can you imagine if we hauled Laura Bush to the chopping block? It just shows you a glimpse of their views on life. There was just no sanctity of life, imho. It is hard for me to comprehend.
October 9, 2007 at 5:07 am
I’m surprised that no one mentioned Katherine Parr over Anne Boleyn. Henry VIII’s last wife was a pretty outspoken Reformer and played a bigger part in bringing Reformation to England than did Anne Boleyn. And Katherine had the character to recommend her as a woman to be admired and emulated.
Ah well…
October 9, 2007 at 6:34 am
Gosh, ladies, I go to work and miss out on all the good conversation!
Ruthie ~ I think you’re absolutely right about what draws women to this movement. If I’m honest, it’s one of the reasons I’m intrigued. But the truth is that life is messy, and that I believe that God wants me to be set apart from that mess, but not removed from it. I worry that the more we Christians remove ourselves from the culture, the easier it will be for it to move farther and farther away from right. And I believe that the people we most need to minister to are the ones out there, not the ones inside the fold, so to speak.
Spunky ~ Thank you for explaining that a bit more. I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to be a part of this discussion. I have been blessed by it.
Cally ~ Come on, you knew I’d have to step in and agree with you about Katherine Parr.
Cally is my oldest and dearest friend in real life and we both share a passion for History, especially the Tudor Period in England. Katherine Parr was a real voice for the Reformation in England. First with Henry (who was happy to be a Catholic without the Pope) and then after his death through her writings. She was corresponding with some of the greatest Protestant theologians of the time!
I’m a Roman Catholic, and I think Katherine Parr is a great Christian mind and a great Christian woman.
Corrie ~ You’re right on in regards to Henry. He really didn’t want to be Protestant. He wanted to be Catholic, but the Pope was troublesome. He had little patience for anyone who wanted to make the country Protestant, and little patience for anyone who wanted to restore the Kingdom to Rome. Ultimately he was a man who created a Court of fear. Anyone who could send his wives, and even his best friend to the tower was a man to be truly feared. And to think, he started out as their golden Prince.
October 9, 2007 at 11:05 am
Wow1 I am 1000 miles from homw, playing with 5 of the grandbabies and anxiouxly waiting the birth of a new little one today. I just got caught up with this discussion and am so happy you all are sharing all this great information.
I have a couple things to add…
As you have pointed out, the hypocrisy is alive and well within the patriocentric camps. The list of admirable women is interesting. Not only did these women do amazing things but many of them did so at the consternation of their parents. Florence Nightengale, for example, pursued her calling without the blessing of parents and even at their warnings against all she did. They were concerned that she would become ill if she took care of people with disease.
Other women who are highly revered, as we have pointed out many times on this blog, women such as Elizabeth Elliot amd Phyllis Schaftly, are actually modern day “feminists” by their own patriocentric definitions.
Then, lets talk about Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This godly mother of many chlidren was inspired to write Uncle Tom’s Cabin because of the stories of suffering among slave women as she heard about them. She didn’t hate God’s word, as theee people would lead you to believe. She loved the Lord and loved her own precious children amd after losing some of them she knew how slave mothers felt at being separated from their little ones. And not only did Harriet write and publish her moving stories, her own husband encouraged her and supported her efforts.
Many times I have heard Uncle Tom’s Cabin mocked and even distained but I wonder how many of the patriarch wives have ever even read it or how much they even understand of how women lived during that day.
If you were a white woman living on a plantation and didn’t agree with owning slaves, you had little say in the matter because all property belonged to your husband or your father. You were forbidden by law to teach your slaves to read. Your own children were mostly raised by your slaves and often the children’s hearts were turned toward the house slave who raised them. You were admired for your physical beauty and you certainly were not considered to be an intellectual equal because the ruling thought of the day was that the brains of women and blacks were smaller than the brain of white man and thus unable to think rationally, making white men the obvious leaders and rulers.
Doesn’t this all sound like a happier time? Perhaps it was a happier time for white men.
October 9, 2007 at 11:14 am
Here is another interesting thing I learned while reading about Robert E. Lee. He had several sons and daughters. The boys were killed in action during the Civil War and none of the girls ever married. They all stated that they loved their father so much that they couldn’t bare the thought of marrying.
Perhaps some of these men fancy themselves in the same position. They so love being admired that they purposely win the hearts of their daughters and don’t really care if they marry or not. I am, in no way, suggesting inappropriate sexualy bahavior. Much I would think that men would love to see their daughters in their own happy marriages and families and wonder why so many girls do not marry until past 30 years of age within these patriocentric camps.
October 9, 2007 at 11:23 am
And one more thing to add…
One day I heard about a woman who is a vendor of patriarch wives’ merchandise. She said that if she writes about any item, her customers always want more than she can sell them. She readily admitted that she is selling a paradigm. (Her very own words.)
This is what I have long thought. I really think many of these people see a great market for this sort of stuff and so they continue to market and sell pro-patriarchy products….like the boxer shorts that say “Patriarch” on the front or the “Patriarch in Training” boxers for little boys. Or how about the endless supply of items etc. that sell these romantic revisionist views of history? All of them are ways to keep the money coming in, but without any accountability to the public, as Spunky has repeatedly proven, and without any cncern about the real families who are harmed. Where are all Doug Phillips’ intern law students when it comes to product liability?
October 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“like the boxer shorts that say “Patriarch” on the front”
Now that’s just crass.
October 9, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Referring to Harriet Beecher Stowe, ThatMom said, “This godly mother of many children was inspired to write Uncle Tom’s Cabin because of the stories of suffering among slave women as she heard about them.”
I’m currently reading the book, “What this cruel war was over” by Chandra Manning. I thought this excerpt was revealing as to exactly how Southern men in the Civil War perceived the actions of women of the North like Harriet Beecher Stowe. From page 35
“To white Southerners, the way to safeguard the family was to preserve a strictly hierarchical household structure within which women played circumscribed roles, subordinate to men and confined to the private sphere. Among abolitionism’s many faults according to numerous pro-slavery idealogues, was its tolerance of activism among women who figured prominently among the abolitionist rank and file. As William Drayton explained in an influential pamphlet, women’s “interference with subjects of this character, if sufficiently important to have any influence must have an evil one,” because female participation in a public question interfered with women’s proper roles, and therefore threatened the family structure.
Disturb slavery, in other words and even the family fell apart…The loss of slavery would call white men’s right to rule over blacks into question, and once right to rule in any sphere was weakened,its legitimacy became suspect in every sphere.”
So for a women to write a book speaking out against the sufferings of families and women in slavery was an act of feminism and wrong because it threatened the authority of the white Southern male and his creation-ordered sphere of authority over his family and the family of the black man? I hardly think so. Remember, “man-stealing” was against Mosaic law and punishable by death. A book critical of their actions seems tame by comparison don’t you think?
Harriet Beecher Stowe’s writing threatened a treacherous institution that the white Southern male had taken on as part of his masculine identity despite the lack of biblical foundation. His manhood rested in his perceived inherent superiority due to the color of his skin.
So is it any wonder today that many Southern white Reconstructionist men seek to rebuild society based on those same ideas and any examination of those ideas is met with cries of “feminist”?
However, as the Botkin girls write, “If the word “feminist” meant “a defender of women” or “someone who believes men and women are of equal worth” then every Christian women should be a feminist.” (page 68)
If this definition is the operative definition, then I gladly stand with the Botkins in calling myself a feminist. All men and women are of equal worth, and that includes the black man despite what Dabney and those who “hail him” would like us to think.
October 9, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Stacy McDonald has annouced that she will be interviewing the Botkin sisters. She is asking for people to submit their questions and has the requirements for doing so on her blog.
I would encourage everyone here to submit their questons and comments so they can be addressed. Go to http://www.yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com
October 9, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“One day I heard about a woman who is a vendor of patriarch wives’ merchandise. She said that if she writes about any item, her customers always want more than she can sell them. She readily admitted that she is selling a paradigm.”
This reminds me of a fellow I used to work for many years ago, back when I was a young bride and new mother, and still very Roman Catholic.
This guy was a preacher who moved into our town and opened up a Christian bookstore bookstore in the early 80′s. He and I were sitting around the store talking one day, and I asked him why he decided to open up a Christian bookstore. I guess I was expecting to hear something profound, but he said, “Because religion’s hot right now.”
At that time I had never hear of the idea that women ought to forgo makeup and pants, and he tried to talk me out of both — quite literally, in the case of the pants — my husband had just enlisted in the Army National Guard, and two days after he left, this guy tried to seduce me. I told him that that would be a sin, and what about his wife, didn’t he love her, and he replied something to the effect that since he was saved God would forgive him, and since I wasn’t saved (I actually was), it didn’t really matter if I sinned. As for his wife, he said that they were not and had never been in love, and explained that Christian marriage isn’t about being in love, but about a couple agreeing to live together as man and wife and further God’s work.
I didn’t give in to him, and soon after that I was fired for refusing to help him cheat on his income taxes; very soon after that, Preston Vaughn left town (without paying his other employee or his rent on the store) and started a church about 30 miles away.
I ran into a member of his congregation a couple of years later, and tried to warn her about him, and was told that I had “a lying spirit”, and needed to repent.
Sigh… go figure.
October 9, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“I would encourage everyone here to submit their questons and comments so they can be addressed.”
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!! Like she’s going to print our questions! LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 9, 2007 at 12:58 pm
If you happened to sumbit a comment that contained any web addresses in the past 24 hours, pleas submit them again. I pulled them out of spam and approved them but they flew off into the abyss. And I was intriqued by some sites I had never seen before so this is pretty frstrating!
BTW, please pray for Mollie this mornng. She is having her baby via C-section. I am at her house, trying to understand her computer! I will post new of the baby where the little one arrives.
Karen
October 9, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Here are the sites that I submitted that may have flown off into the abyss.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/notes_on.htm
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/dominion.htm
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/general.htm
They are a biblical refutation of Reconstructionism/Dominion Theology/Theonomy, and a good, succinct starting point, in my opinion, for anyone wishing to learn a little more about the theology.
I believe they were written before Doug Phillips and Vision Forum became household names among homeschoolers; however, you will probably recognize the names of many people they (Vision Forum) vigorously promote.
October 9, 2007 at 1:49 pm
““like the boxer shorts that say “Patriarch” on the front”
Now that’s just crass.”
Cynthia,
You think that’s crass?
How about the boxer shorts with “Militant Fecundity” written on the front?
Or “helpmeet” written across your breasts in neon pink?
Or “be fruitful and multiply” written across the belly of a maternity shirt?
http://www.cafepress.com/bigfamilyshirts
October 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm
In reply to the link Corrie put up; why is it that the American church is always three steps behind the world? It’s really sad. The church is so much like the world these days it’s becoming harder and harder to tell who’s who. Instead of setting the bar high and leading by example, the church follows the world in all it’s latest fads.
We need to take a long hard look at Romans 12:2 – “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…”
October 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm
““I would encourage everyone here to submit their questons and comments so they can be addressed.”
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!! Like she’s going to print our questions! LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!”
Now, Cynthia, the 9th Commandment constrains us to take another person at their word andto believe the best.
I would think they would WELCOME the chance to clear up any misunderstands that have lead to widespread trollery.
I think people that have posted have some very good questions concerning this book. There is the issue of a daughter living away from home being called a “harlot” that would make a very interesting question.
Is this going to be in a podcast? or just a written interview?
October 9, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I like the idea brought up a few comments ago about a gauge for women’s happiness. Maybe their family lacks the stories of women in past generations with what appears to be undiagnosed depression, but they exist in my family. Maybe they have never read the accounts of suicide amongst lonely pioneer women, but I have.
If women were so happy without the vote and with allowing men to do all the heavy thinking and vision making, why did they work so hard to change it?
It seems to me that even in cultures where women were thought to be inferior, there were ways of using one’s influence over men. Like the mother in “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” saying “men are the head of the house, but women are the neck. We turn the head any way we want.” I accept that my place within the family is as my husband’s helpmeet. I just don’t see it as the powerless role it’s being sold as. And I doubt I’d be blissfully happy if it were. My husband is the head of the household and I his helpmeet, partner, and best friend. I can’t think of any major decision we have not made together.
Spunky ~ If feminist means believing that men and women are equal in the sight of God and deserving of equal rights and protections, then I too am a feminist and will accept that label.
October 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“How about the boxer shorts with “Militant Fecundity” written on the front?”
Or maybe, “Big Daddy”?
“Or “helpmeet” written across your breasts in neon pink?
Or “be fruitful and multiply” written across the belly of a maternity shirt?”
Now, that would be Mae….
October 9, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Corrie and CG:
There you go. Another cottage business. Graphic underwear (to rival the magic Mormon underpants). For a higher price, you can purchase an embroidered version of whatever phrase that you want, all hand worked by an authentic “daddy’s little helpmeet.”
They could branch off into natural supplement sales with Yohimbine and Pygeum for men. What could that be, “Patriarch’s Pal”? A probiotic and anti-candida mix for women called “Fecundity’s Friend.”
A few years ago, I was in a bookstore, frustrated at the number of spinoffs of a Christian bestseller. It wasn’t busy, so when the second employee asked me if I wanted help, I asked if he could find the “Purpose Driven Life” shotglass for me. God help us.
October 9, 2007 at 3:14 pm
” It wasn’t busy, so when the second employee asked me if I wanted help, I asked if he could find the “Purpose Driven Life” shotglass for me. God help us.”
ROFLOL!!! Magic mormon underpants! And the herbal mixe- Patriarch’s Pal and Fecundity’s Friend! Oh MY!!! You certainly have a mind for marketing! You missed your calling.
I wonder if they make embroidered Depends for times when a militantly fecundant person laughs too hard?
But, seriously, your post really shows the absurdity of it all, doesn’t it? There might be something wrong with me, but I have never felt the urge to brag about my fecundity, especially by way of a t-shirt or underpants. In fact, I have met several people making statements that bragged about their ability to reproduce and I felt ashamed. I certainly don’t feel any more special or holier than the woman who “only” has two children.
But, that is another post for another time. Militant Fecundity? Where did that term come from?
October 9, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Some of those t-shirts are OK, but most of them were in bad taste. I don’t think that Christians should be wearing those. Why not a simple Bible verse about salvation?
I was going to mention Catherine Parr, but couldn’t remember her last name. Correction: Catherine Howard was Henry’s 5th wife, not his 6th. Catherine Parr was a very submissive woman, too, to all three of her husbands. Her last husband (supposedly the love of her life) broke her heart when he was trying to seduce Princess Elizabeth. I guess Catherine wasn’t submissive enough or maybe she dressed to homely. ????
I have got to read “So Much More.” This conversation has really peaked my interest.
Question: If daughters who live away from home are prostitutes, than are their father’s their pimps?
October 9, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“ROFLOL!!! Magic mormon underpants! And the herbal mixe- Patriarch’s Pal and Fecundity’s Friend! Oh MY!!! You certainly have a mind for marketing! You missed your calling.”
Don’t be silly, CorrieJo, she can’t have a calling!
“In fact, I have met several people making statements that bragged about their ability to reproduce and I felt ashamed. I certainly don’t feel any more special or holier than the woman who “only” has two children.”
Thank you. Why should I feel more special or blessed than someone with fewer children?
October 9, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The comment about women being happier. I don’t think they were. We are talking about a time when it was normal to bury a good percentage of your children before they were grown. I don’t think the moms were happy about that. This was considered normal. Just walk through and old graveyard and count the graves. This didn’t happen long ago. My 80 something yr old FIL remembers these times very well. They weren’t happier. Burying children is the most horrible part of living in a sin filled world.
October 9, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Speaking of a bygone era when women were “truly strong” the Botkins cite as their example, Nannie T. Alderson a young women from West Virigina who overcame much and survived on the Western Frontier. Quoting from the Botkin book,
“Nannie T. Alderson writes in her autobiography, A Bride Goes West, the story of how, in the 1880′s, she left her wealthy, upper-class West Virginia family in her early twenties to go with her husband to live in a one-room cabin in the barren, uncivilized cattle lands of Montana, with the threat of Indians massacring and scalping never far away, not other women to talk to, and none of the luxuries she was brought up with….she admits, “I saw that I was beginning to feel sorry for myself – the lowest state to which a woman’s mind can fall. And I made up my mind to stop it. Many times in the years that followed I forgot this worthy resolve, but I always came back to it sooner or later. I still think it the most important lesson that any wife can learn, whether she lives in a house of cottonwood logs or in a palace.” (p. 100)
What the Botkins don’t mention in the book, is that Nannie grew up on a Southern plantation and was ill-equipped to handle her role of “helpmeet.”
From Nannie’s book, “I went with romantic ideas of being a helpmeet to a man in a new country, but I was sadly ill-equipped when it came to carrying them out….Hot rolls, plus a vague understanding that petticoats ought to be plain, were my whole equipment for conquering the West.”(page 19)
Like the Botkins, I admire Nannie for her resolve and can-do spirit to do what needed to be done in the old west. But her work was made more difficult not easier because she grew up very lonely in the home of her grandmother with romantic notions of what it meant to be a “helpmeet.” Her hardships were in part compounded because of the poor training she received. Her mother and step-father failed to prepare her for the role God had planned for her.
Her idea of a helpmeet was built around life on a plantation and having “servants” do her bidding. Perhaps if this antebellum lass had learned earlier a variety of skills rooted in reality rather than the fantasy life on a plantation and the luxury of “servants’ to do her bidding, she may have been better prepared for the Western frontier.
In the first chapter of her book she recounts her mother’s wedding day when she was only four years old being carried by her “colored nurse” to see her mother. This was her mother’s second marriage, her father had died in the early days of the Civil War. After the wedding, she did not live with her new family but her grandmother and visited her mother in the summer. Her step-father was a Confederate politician. She doesn’t remember her mother fondly and believed that her mom thought her a “disappointment.” She attended seminary for a small period of time, but at fifteen her step-father thought her “boy crazy” and that further education was a waste of time. She admits her own ignorance at “housekeeping” and had never done “washing in her life.” Her own husband was frequently gone for long stretches of time and left her to tend to the ranch. Years later when she had to support herself she admits all she knew to do was take in boarders. Through it all she learned to pull herself up and survive.
I agree with the Botkins that Nannie Alderson is a true hero to women, not just because she survived the Old West, but perhaps what is even more inspiring to me is that she overcame the false trappings of southern-style patriarchy.
October 9, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Zan said, “Burying children is the most horrible part of living in a sin filled world.”
I can personally attest to that.
October 9, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Happy, happy birthday, Karen!(thatmom)
I am praying for that sweet baby and Mollie…hope all is going well. Kim
October 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I have been following this thread for quite a while now and agree with most of you. I have not read the book myself except for the excerpts that have been provided. It never made sense to me, but I started getting a very clear picture after Spunky explained the theology. I was not aware of it before.
I read the links that Denise provided on Dominion Theology and it makes perfect sense now. I wonder what they have to say about verses about law and grace in the NT? There are 100s of them. ‘If righteousness comes by law, then Christ died needlessly’ (Gal 2:21)
In my opinion, you cannot ADD to grace. Grace is SUFFICIENT. if a theology says that you need to obey law for sanctification, they are in essence saying that the work of Christ in the cross is not finished.
I actually got closure
If the basic underlying theology is flawed, (ok, I may sound judgmental here, but I believe that if you add anything to Christ’s finished work, there is a serious problem) then any world view that comes out of it, however nice and pretty it may sound is NOT acceptable.
October 9, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Wonderful, wonderful comments! You all are my heroes!
October 9, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Spunky wrote: “I agree with the Botkins that Nannie Alderson is a true hero to women, not just because she survived the Old West, but perhaps what is even more inspiring to me is that she overcame the false trappings of southern-style patriarchy.”
Annie wrote: “In my opinion, you cannot ADD to grace. Grace is SUFFICIENT. if a theology says that you need to obey law for sanctification, they are in essence saying that the work of Christ in the cross is not finished.”
Amen and amen!
A good book on the wonderful past that never existed is “This Rebellious House” by Keillor. An aquaintence that I greatly respect and a former (cultic) church of mine recommended going all the way back to the 1st -3rd century for the good old days and a model for how to put society back together. I’m not sure that I agree (or perhaps I misunderstand). Certainly we can learn wisdom from the past by looking to how our forefathers in the faith coped and overcame, but personally, I don’t even like looking to the early church (once the canon was closed). There’s a great deal of potential trappings in the tradition of men by looking to anything other than Scriptural principles and narratives. Although that approach has its trappings, too. Nostalgia is a human process that can heal or harm.
I’m hoping for much, much better outcomes than those the early church experienced and definitely much better ones than the idealized antebellum period.
Not only were many dear children buried (and not all that many years ago) in this wonderful period of patriarchal grace, but many dear children were ripped from the arms of their loving parents to be sold as slaves and keep their parents subservient. Can you imagine advocating that? And the slaves loved this life? (Or were they all children hating feminists, too, so it made it okay?) Kevin Giles describes this very disturbing, overlooked aspect of slavery quite well in “The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate.”
October 9, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Just wanted to let you all know that Mollie has a new baby girl…Viola Grace. She is beautiful and looks so much like Mollie did at birth. Sh weighed 8lbs 5oz and is 20 inches long. I will post pictures on my thatmom blog as soon as I can.
October 9, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Congrats Karen and Mollie! Can’t wait to see the pictures.
October 10, 2007 at 12:38 am
One: congrats Mollie!
Two: Women most likely were not happier “way back when.” We have no way to really know, but as stated much more eloquently before me, unless you were a rich white woman you probably weren’t living the dream in those days. Further more…does it really MATTER if women were happier way back when? We are living in today. God fitted us for THIS generation (or so the Bible says). We can glamorize the past all we want and sound the call to return to the glory days, but try as we might, it isn’t going to happen. All we have is today. We need to be preaching the saving grace of Christ, not the “old family way.”
I’m a sucker for old fashioned-ness. I really truly am. I like the old paths. Most of the ideas in the patriocentric camp appeal to me on various levels (thus how I got sucked in once upon a time). But good ideas are NOT the gospel.
Third: It *IS* about money folks. I’ve posted negative things on my blog about VF. I’ve unsubscribed to their emails about a dozen times. I still get the “buy $100 and get a $50 coupon!” emails from them ALL THE TIME. Doug Phillips is, to me, nothing more than a peddler selling his wares.
October 10, 2007 at 4:56 am
Congratulations Karen and Mollie!
I, too, can attest to the grief surrounding the loss of a child. I, at least, can take comfort that I’m not likely to lose another one, and am certainly not likely to lose one due to poor sanitation or lack of medical care.
October 10, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Yay Mollie and Karen! Congratulations!!
Has anyone submitted questions for Stacey McDonald’s interview with the Botkins? Care to share?
October 10, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Congratulations, Karen! I hope and pray that everyone is having a wonderful visit now that the baby has arrived. I wish your visit could be longer. Newborns are so wonderful, especially when you’re the grandma.
More about the good old days. I can’t believe that I’ve never ordered this book, but I finally did. Thanks for jogging my memory. I heard about it in a lecture about mass hypnosis, and I wonder if anyone here has read it: “Old Time Religion is a Cult” by Marlene Younger?
Old Time Religion Is a Cult
October 10, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Why would we want to move our lively and very informative discussion to a blog where comments are moderated and questions will be edited by someone else?
I understand why the Botkins or Stacey McDonald would like to see this discussion shut down or move to a different blog, but what is to be gained by submitting questions to Stacey for editting in order to ask questions and express our thoughts to the Botkins?
I derive immense benefit from all the questions that have been asked and the free exchange of ideas, not just the ones that meet their approval.
We know that they’re reading them here anyway, so why duplicate our efforts with they hope that they’ll be read and published when we can just post them here and accomplish the same thing and have a lively unmoderated discussion about them. The only difference is that the Botkins haven’t participated. But we have their book and so their thoughts are already known to us.
In my estimation, this “interview” is a very clever plan for information/damage control by attempting to move the discussion to another blog and free publicity for their book and video.
October 10, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Here’s a funny satire post on a perfect world, via Vision Forum, Botkins, etc…. http://ingridgraceandaudrey.blogspot.com/
October 10, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Susan T,
That satirical piece is hysterical. Everybody must read it.
October 10, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I think Spunky has a great idea. Let’s post our questions we haven’t already asked the Botkin sisters right here. That way, we will know that they have not been censored and that everyone’s questions will be considered. Since we do know that this blog is being read by the Botkins fans, we can be certain that our questions will be read and we can sit back and see if we get any real answers. And that way we can also continue our uncensored discussion right here.
October 10, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Karen,
We don’t have to just sit back and see if we’ll get any real answers. The answers come not just the author who writes the book, but from all of us who are studying to show ourselves approved unto God. The Botkins wrote a book which they believed to be the the Scriptural duty for a daugther to her father.
The debate is not with them, nor does it center around them, but over the ideas themselves. That is why we don’t have to sit back and wait for real answers, we already have them in the Word of God. They are not experts, but women like the rest of us. True discussion and accountability for “new” ideas will give us the Truth, and that’s better than any answer the Botkins might come up with in a staged interview.
A book contract doesn’t determine expertise in an area. Dr. Laura wrote a book about the proper care and feeding of a husband, but is a divorced woman the best place to go for advice on marriage? Probably not. In my opinion that should be left to those who have the fruit to go along with their advice. But that didn’t stop her from writing it and claiming expert status.
Honestly, this book, could have been slightly revised and retitled “The proper care and feeding of your daddy” and sold to the general public like Dr. Laura did. But two teenage girls without the fruit of the teachings in their own offspring is not the best place for my daughter to go for advice on biblical womanhoond. But that didn’t stop them from writing it. But unlike Dr. Laura because the Botkins claim the foundation for their book is biblical truth, the church has an obligation to examine its teaching to see if it is true.
I’m thankful for this uncensored discussion and the true accountability it provides for all who choose to participate.
October 10, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Ladies! You provide a great deal of thought-provoking conversation for me out here in my corner of the land. Thank you. I believe that this latest idea of how to live in a truly biblical way is, like the rest I have seen in my 30+ years as a believer, empty of true truth and destined, by God’s good grace to fail ultimately. The very bad part is that some young women, old women and men and boys will buy it. The flesh is still so very strong in us all, and this “new” philosophy of life appeals to that. To rule, under Christ-of course, and to have the power to implement Eden again is a seductive temptation. However, Eden will never be ours, BUT we are promised a new heaven and a new earth. We cannot look to the past with longing, because there is only sin back there, except we look back to the cross. There and there alone is our hope. Not in families run along a certain pattern, nor girls shunning academic education, nor in men and their visions. The only vision for the believer is the one given us by the Lord: Go therefore and make disciples….
GO means get out-move- therefore: because Jesus was alive and had all authority- make disciples- meet people, teach them about Jesus as you live and work and rest….
I think a truly good example of a family that did just this is Frances and Edith Schaeffer. No talk of dominion theology etc, just truth and obedience.
The Botkin girls are girls, and perhaps still largely influenced by their dad. I am happy for them that they have a father who loves them. But his view of the world is also colored by his past of Marxism. There is not a communist/feminist under every rock. It is time for him to get a clue and begin believing what the bible says, not what he wants it to say.
These girls are being used as far as I can tell. They do believe what they say, but they have not lived long yet and seen the world outside of their enclave of ideas.
I think it is pretty clear that none of us will sway these people, but the Spirit of God is so much more powerful that we will ever be. Prayer, for their eyes to see and minds to understand the will of God, is needed. And, live lives that give no Biblical cause for them to argue with. Believe me, they will dwindle and become a footnote. Pray it happens soon.
Keep up the good work.
October 10, 2007 at 11:47 pm
And in response to Barbara all the ladies shouted, “AMEN”!
Well put!
October 10, 2007 at 11:59 pm
This has probably been said above, but since when has being happy- as “It was lived before, when women were happier”,(p. 7 So Much More) been a sign of godliness or holiness? I am thinking that perhaps Jeremiah was really out to lunch with that book of his – Lamentations.
October 11, 2007 at 1:01 am
Here is are a couple of my questions:
Why are young women who live away from home said to be harlots when Proverbs 7 is speaking directly about a married woman who lives IN HER HOME and is bringing men back to HER HOME for adulterous sex? Especially, why do you say this when Lady Wisdom, in the very next chapter, is also in the town square and in the city gate crying aloud and raising her voice? Could it be the intent of what takes a woman outside of her home and not the mere fact her feet went outside of the home that makes her a harlot?
Why do you [Botkin girls] say that Amy Carmichael and Mary Slessor were not in the will of God and doing what they were called to do- to be a help[meet] to their own father in his home, furthering his vision but Stacey McDonald recommends Carmichael, Barton, Nightingale, Aylward, Boleyn, to name a few, as women of “virtue” to be studied and even suggested making a scrapbook with a page or two for each woman?
Barton was one of the first suffragettes. Nightingale was a frontrunner in the English feminist movement. Both of them never married and they forged powerful pathways through their own landscapes and had very powerful political influence over some who held office. Aylward and Carmichael never married and were leaders on the mission filed. Do you not see that this is confusing and it sends mixed messages to those of us trying to understand both of your teachings?
So, which is it? Women who serve God away from home are harlots? Or they are women to be lauded and scrapbooked?
October 11, 2007 at 1:46 am
And I would ask the Botkin girls this simple question: How are the daughters of a poor man — an uneducated laborer, for instance, who earns $6.00 an hour — to help him in fufilling his “vision” by staying home? How would your ideas work for starving believers in famine stricken areas of Ethiopia? A true theological principle works for everyone, especially for the poor, because the loving-care of the poor is God’s own forte.
October 11, 2007 at 5:47 am
THANK YOU Cynthia! I’ve often wondered this myself. If this is God’s paradigm for families, then it crosses all cultures and all countries for all time… and yet, the picture they paint is straight out of white, upper-middle class Victorian America. How is this supposed to look in the jungles of South America or in the middle of the desert?
October 11, 2007 at 12:13 pm
JHR is right. The Botkin girls reference an ideal of Christianity that is thoroughly American, white, upper class and over 100 years in the past. Again, we cannot look back to a “better” time. There is no Eden here on earth and we cannot create one. We are told to look to Jesus and to the home He is making us in Heaven. While here, we are as ambassadors-living and enjoying what God has given us, but always remembering that we are aliens. We have a different culture, different customs, and these are what we follow. We are not hoping to make this place heaven, only trying to convince others that heaven is the place to be.
October 11, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“We are not hoping to make this place heaven, only trying to convince others that heaven is the place to be.”
Exactly, and that is the difference between the heresy of Reconsructionism and orthodox Christianity.
Reconstructionism wants to establish God’s kingdom here on earth FOR Him, BEFORE Jesus comes back to do it, and indeed seeks to force His hand in the matter, since they believe that Jesus will not return until they fufill Adam’s dominion mission and reconstruct the earth according to the model given in the Old Testament Law (this kind of reminds me of Judas, who, according to one theory, was trying to force Jesus’s hand and make Him reveal Himself as the Messiah by betraying Him.)
Of course, Jesus did NOT tell us to reconstruct the earth before His return — rather, He told us to preach the Gospel to everyone. The dominion mandate was of the flesh and according to the flesh, and the Great Commission has superceded it, but the ReCon heretics do not see it that way — they are stuck in carnalism.
October 11, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I was reminded of a little entry on Doug’s blog about “Return of the Daughters” which speaks volumes. For some reason the permalink doesn’t work, but go to September 2007 and scroll down to September 8.
This is the idealized vision. The girl is obviously young and portrayed to be blond, slim and stylish. What kind of home is she going to? A large, lovely home in the midst of fields.
The truth is that this is not the reality for many, if not most, of the young women who are living under these teachings. And it certainly isn’t even within the realm of possibility for the vast majority of our sisters in Christ throughout the world.
And BTW… how is she going to get in the house when she arrives? There is no walkway and no driveway. Can you say Photoshop me to a new reality?
October 11, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Sorry! Here is the link…
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2007/09/
October 11, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Sallie,
Thanks for that link.
I just read his comment about dolls and it show me that he doesn’t understand feminism at all. Feminists do not let their children play with Bratz dolls! Feminists are not “boy toys”. I don’t know who manufactures Bratz dolls but I wager to say they are not feminists. Why would a feminist make a Bratz doll in order for a girl to learn that her role in life is be sexy for men? ROFLOL! That is like saying that feminists are behind PlayBoy Magazine!
Who was behind the pin-up girls of the 40′s? Who was behind the dumb blone bimbos portrayed in the films of the 50′s???? Feminists? LOL
I think not.
Think again because what Phillips says makes no sense. This sort of thing is anti-feminist. This is grooming for those who would benefit from a girl who is sleezy and has loose morals. WHO would benefit from sleezy girls with loose morals? Not femiists.
Stupid, ditzy, sleezy, wanton do not exactly describe the feminist movement. I can think of other words.
If a feminist was going to make a doll, it would be a doll who was a doctor or a lawyer who lived on her own and was not at all about the business of turning the heads of guys with her sleezy dress and her slutty ways.
I think it would be good if they would at least get the picture of a feminist right.
Phillips:
“The second approach is what I call the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” strategy. The idea is to recognize that girls are always going to want dolls. Instead of trying to reprogram girls to disdain dolls, cultural feminists want to let them play with dolls—just not dolls which they believe reinforce the patriarchal stereotypes of Christianity, with its emphasis on certain role differentiation between boys and girls. Instead of taking dolls away from girls, or forcing girls to think in terms of toys traditionally associated with boys, the new approach will be to let the girls play with dolls—politically correct dolls that reflect the values of a post-modern, feminist culture. These dolls will be tools of propaganda—playthings designed to alter societal norms, and subtly advance the feminist agenda.”
This is propaganda alright but not from the feminists. They are from the exploitive males that have always benefited from breaking down a woman’s inhibitions and making her think her whole life revolves around turning on the men around them by how they dress and how well they put out.
That is what happened with Esther and all the other women awaiting their fate in the King’s stables. They were groomed and prepped and trained for a year on the fine arts of seduction and sex appeal. Were feminists behind that, too? I mean, were feminists behind the concept of sexually exploiting women and training them to be sex slaves to men?
October 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm
As I read further along in his entry on the importance of dolls, he talked about some goddess line of dolls and self empowerment. Also there are some feng shui principles and just plain superstition thrown in with the description of these dolls by their manufacturers. Who do these dolls appeal to? Well, imho, Wiccans.
Does everything bad just get lumped into the feminist movement? I mean, what he describes is paganism and idolatry. Is that feminism, too? Or didn’t men create the worship of Aphrodite and Athena and Demeter? Isn’t this just the same ol’ stuff that has been going on in the world since its beginning? Worship of something else besides God? Is that feminism? I thought it was idolatry?
Maybe that would be another question I would ask the Botkins/McDonald: What exactly falls under the umbrella of feminism?
If the Athena dolls are feministic, then wouldn’t Aaron’s golden calf be feministic also?
When a man talks about self-empowerment and being self-made and education and inspiration , is he a feminist? What about the books written to men about finding themselves and being empowered by their masculinity? Is that feminism, too?
Or is it just plain wrong and unbiblical?
I know there are different types of feminists but in order to have a fair debate, we must define the usage of the word.
“According to Nea Matia, this doll line is “focused on expanding the definitions of beauty for women and girls…to recognize and honor the different sizes, shapes, and attributes of women, paving the way to greater self-esteem and empowerment.” They further explain:
For thousands of years, fairy tales and folklore have continually told stories of the princess, empress or queen. These tales have been the role model of little girls. Each of these role models is a woman in power over others. Each of them demand respect out of fear. As a company dedicated to the teaching of self-esteem, we could not use any reference to a princess, queen or empress. Our goal is to promote empowerment of self, not power over others. In order to accomplish this mission in a visual way, we went back to one of the greatest pieces of literature in histroy, Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey…The assistance to overcome massive obstacles came from Greek gods/goddesses and the experiences were a joint venture between the human and mythological powers. Many modern pyschologists use the names of these goddesses in labeling inherent patterns of human behavior. To us, this type of labeling sounded like a great way to stimulate the imagination and to have fun, while teaching empowerment.”
It sounds like Phillips doesn’t have a problem with self empowerment when it comes to being in power over others? This was the point of the manufacturer. Not that I agree with them but it would be great if they can at least get the argument straight before they attack it.
October 11, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I wonder when we will be able to purchase Anna Sophia and Elizabeth dolls? They would be the perfect dolls for the Beautiful Girlhood collection and would be the counterpoint doll to the American Girl Julie doll that no one can relate to because her parents are divorced. There could be a little book that is all about their brave father who fights the big bad feminists and several chapters on how they fulfill his calling, using only VF tea sets.
Isn’t it just amazing how VF has so many products in their line that are useful for fighting the feminist wars?
I read the article on dolls and wondered if Doug Phillips even knows anyone outside of his own paradigm?
October 11, 2007 at 9:11 pm
“Isn’t it just amazing how VF has so many products in their line that are useful for fighting the feminist wars?”
Yes, it is.
And, if they want to be taken seriously by the very feminists they want to fight (shouldn’t that be “reach with the saving Truth of Christ?), then they should at least get up to snuff concerning what a feminist really is.
October 11, 2007 at 9:14 pm
{{insert facetious tone here}}
But corriejo, don’t you know that ALL the world’s troubles can be traced back to female rebellion against her God-ordained head? I have heard it said several times that the first sin was NOT Adam’s disobedience against God’s command not to eat of the tree, but actually Eve’s rebellion against her husband’s authority. Adam failed to lead and protect his wife and that’s why the world is going to hell.
October 11, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Just as many try and play the “race card” when something happens in politics or life, Doug Phillips reverts to playing the “feminism card.” Cally is right without the facetious tone. In their eyes, it all boils down to the wretched desire of women to go and do something or be something besides “daddy’s little helpmeet.”
Oh and just for the record, I got yet another VF email today after unsubbing at least 10 times. He must REALLY need to sell some dolls to whitewashed, red-herring, feminists like myself.
October 12, 2007 at 12:48 am
“I just read his comment about dolls and it show me that he doesn’t understand feminism at all. Feminists do not let their children play with Bratz dolls! Feminists are not “boy toys”………Think again because what Phillips says makes no sense. This sort of thing is anti-feminist……….
WHO would benefit from sleezy girls with loose morals? Not feminists.”
I think that Phillips understands the meaning of feminism just fine.
The reason that his comments make no sense in relation to traditional feminism is that the people in the hyperPatriarchal camp are trying to give a NEW definition to the word, “feminist”.
Truth doesn’t matter here — the people in the Patriarchal Movement want to create a new perception, so that whenever people hear the word, “feminist”, they will automatically associate it in their minds with a brainless “boy toy” who has had at least three abortions in college while moonlighting as a strident, man-and-baby-hating lesbian CEO.
Never mind the dissimiltude — people juggle disparate ideas in their heads all the time. If you simply repeat the same lie until it becomes part of the collective mentality, and people will believe it, however preposterous it may sound. In fact, the bigger and more illogical the lie, the more successful it will be: derived from Hitler’s propaganda techniques, the “Big Lie” theory maintains that people will believe a big lie more readily than a little one; and also maintains if you repeat any lie frequently enough, people will sooner or later come to believe it.
This is also known in political circles as using a “talking point”.
As stated by Wikipedia, “a political think tank will strategize the most effective informational attack on a target topic and launch talking points from media personalities to saturate discourse in order to frame a debate in their favor, standardizing the responses of sympathizers to their unique cause while simultaneously co-opting the language used by those discussing the specific subject. When used politically in this way, the typical purpose of a talking point is to propagandize, specifically using the technique of argumentum ad nauseam, i.e. continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.”
Whether it’s concerning Feminist-BoyToy-Lesbian-CEOs or the Final Solution, this use of talking points boils down to “spin”, and spin is most definitely not about truth or logic — it’s all about deception, manipulation, and LIES, and we know who the Father of Lies is…..
October 12, 2007 at 4:00 am
I know you are all going to be green with envy but I am, right now, sitting down to watch “The Monstrous Regiment of Women” by the Gunn Bros.
Write all of your questions for me!
October 12, 2007 at 5:42 am
Here are my initial, very brief notes from the movie. I will say that it wasn’t a terribly bad movie. I was expecting much worse. There is a lot that I agree with but I am not sure what they were trying to say about issue of women voting. I guess, when you truly read what Knox wrote about women in his Blast of the Trumpet, you come away with the feeling he doesn’t have much regard for them and their intelllectual capabilities and spiritual standing. But, the two *female* *scholars* from Scotland that were interviewed were very good at explaining some things (they didn’t really touch on his letter at all) and that Knox actually wrote a lot of wonderful things about women.
The one thing that shocked me is that they put a parking lot over John Knox’s grave and he is now in parking space #23 at the church!!! How can they do this???
Molly Gunn did a very good job at narrating the whole movie and her family is precious.
I will have to watch it again to really be able to closely examine each segment. My notes are sketchy and I typed as we watched. We, as in me and my older daughters.
Egalitariansim is the fuel of feminism
19th amendment is when the father ceased to sit in the city gates as a representative as his family’s interest; individualism and self-interest were now what mattered
Because there are more women that vote (1,800,000- the number they gave) than men, that means that:
O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. Isaiah 3:12
The abortion segment was trulyhard to watch. I am very much pro-life. They showed a baby being born. It was dead and looked about 7 months along. I don’t know if it was an actual abortion or if it was a stillborn. The baby was born intact and didn’t look like it was a saline induced abortion (no chemical burns). The baby was born dead and there was no explanation as to how it happened or what we were watching. The nurse ended up just wrapping the baby up in a paper cloth like she was getting ready to throw it away. I had a stillborn so I know that they do NOT do that but carefully care for the baby and give the baby to the mom to hold. So, it must have been an abortion. How in the world they got that footage, I have no idea but it was hard to watch. How people still think that abortion is okay is beyond me.
The whole Planned Parenthood segment was shocking concerning what they are teaching our children.
Feminist sexual revolution led to the undressing of women. Mary Pride on Barbies and Bratz dolls. Barbie was modeled after a sex toy. Immodesty: Teachers call it “fighting the whore wars”. Phyllis Schlafley says that girls tell the teachers that they have just learned this from the feminists and they just want to be like, act like the guys, as raunchy as the boys. This is the worst thing that the feminists did to convince women that what guys do, we do.
Are we conforming to the pattern of this world?
Bonus materials:
Looks like film that had to be cut from the various interviews.
Kathleen Smith: head covering worn as a sign of headship
Don’t know name of commentator: college is unnecessary for a Christian woman
Carolyn Graglia: lesbians in the feminist movement
Sharon Adams from Scotland (female professor): high level of child mortality, at least a 1/4 of all live births would not make it to the age of 5, some of the most poignant letters of the 17th century minister of Samuel Rutherford are written to women who have suffered a bereavement of a child, Rutherford even suffered such a loss, this was a common part of life back then, child mortality was the obvious consequence of living in the 16th century, if you have children you expect to lose some of them, and this affects a person’s outlook on such things, many women died in childbirth, if a woman survives childbearing years, she could expect to outlive her husband, marriage, remarriage and multiple marriages was common because of the high mortality; so you find very different patterns
Stacey Mcdonald polls women at her retreats, not a lot of women felt comfortable and confident with their first baby; most women knew how to drive a car, run a cash register or how to get around their local mall, they knew those things but they didn’t feel confident about baking bread or running a home.
Carmon Friedrich: if the bible tells married women to be a homemaker, keeper at home, to raise her children, why does she have to be trained for a career? she is an auto-didact, has lots of books (loved her library!!!!) and she loves to learn, bad experiences told to her by college girls, girls are sexually abused and raped in those settings, if they are home under their father’s protection they wouldn’t be exposed to those temptations
Jennie Chancey- feminism started back in the 1840′s, affects the way social policy is drawn up, it affects our culture, schools, corporations and banks
Mary Pride- public schools harms boys, ritalin, activities are being cancelled, kids are supposed to be unisex, all the same, kind of person who likes to sit still, follow directions, check off the list, boys have to act like girls to succeed
Phyllis Schlafely- deal with life circumstances the way they come up to you, her mother had to support the family, but the feminists make us feel that our real satisfaction comes outside of the house, feminists are now bitter and unhappy now that they see life has passed them by, most of the women she deals with are happy and most of the women she debates are not
October 12, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“Barbie was modeled after a sex toy.”
Sheesh… the least these folks could do is check their facts so as to keep their lies straight. One look at Wikipedia will tell you that Barbie was inspired by a German “fashion” doll, Bild Lilli .
Bild Lilli was modelled after the Lilli cartoon character, who WAS a rather salty lady, rather like Betty Boop, and the doll was sold in tobacco shops and bars to grownups as a gag item, not as a sex toy — (Bild Lilli WAS styled as a “sex doll” by Ariel Levy in her 2005 book, Female Chauvinist Pigs , but even in her rush to redefine “feminism”, Levy never claimed that Lilli was actually marketed as sex toy or marital aid!!!)
And, Lilli served only to give Barbie creator Ruth Handler the idea that an 11-inch fashion doll might be a marketable item. At the time, most children’s toy dolls were representations of infants, but
Mrs Handler had watched her daughter Barbara at play with paper dolls, and noticed that she often enjoyed giving them adult roles. She had seen the Lilli dols during a trip to Europe,and observed that although Lilli had been initially sold to adults, it was popular with children who enjoyed dressing her up in outfits that were available separately.
Upon her return to the United States, Handler reworked the design of the doll (with help from engineer Jack Ryan) and the doll was given a new name, Barbie, after Handler’s daughter Barbara.
So you could say that Barbie is Bild Lilli, RECONSTRUCTED !
October 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“Phyllis Schlafley says that girls tell the teachers that they have just learned this from the feminists and they just want to be like, act like the guys, as raunchy as the boys. This is the worst thing that the feminists did to convince women that what guys do, we do.”
Actually the original feminists were adamantly against anyone, male or female, being seen as a “sex object.”
Men like Hugh Hefner had been promoting the concept of women as sex objects for decades, and feminists OPPOSED him and all he stood for, but in the 70′s, women like Helen Gurley Brown of Cosmopolitan began promoting the idea of MEN as sex objects, claiming that women, to be equal, ought to be free to misbehave sexually just like men, without social censure.
THAT’S where this idea came from. Call it what you want, but it’s NOT classic feminism, AT ALL.
And, try as I might, I just can’t quite picture a little girl telling her teacher that she wants to act like a guy because “the Feminists told me to.”
October 12, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I have a question and I hope this doesn’t come out as disrespectful—but here goes anyway:
What authority does Jennie Chancey have on this subject? Seriously? I’ve been in the patriarch/LAF camp before and I’ve seen her name plastered here and there for various conferences, etc related to the movement. I am just curious how her “position of power” or “voice for the women” came to be.
Does she have some sort of credentials to speak on the feminism movement? Did SHE ever go to college and study any of this? Where did she get her information as an expert?
Genuinely curious.
October 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Jennie Chancey did got to college and earned a degree. She went to a “Christian” college which taught that you can’t take the Bible literally and that its just a bunch of stories and stuff like that. She came out of college a full-on card-carrying feminist. She wanted a career outside the home and didn’t want to get married. She changed after meeting the Phillips’. Anyway, she tells her story in a speech called JennieB and the Pilot that she gave at a VF father/daughter retreat.
She’s right about feminism starting back in the 1840′s. It grew out of the abolitionist movement.
October 12, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“THAT’S where this idea came from. Call it what you want, but it’s NOT classic feminism, AT ALL.”
Cynthia,
Right! And what you said about Cosmo is very good. I had never thought of that but I do wonder why they are always going after the feminists for the sex and sleeze when it seems they are barking up the wrong tree? What about the chauvenists (ie., Hefner) who have been peddling the exploitation of women?
“And, try as I might, I just can’t quite picture a little girl telling her teacher that she wants to act like a guy because “the Feminists told me to.”
No, that seemed to me to be far-fetched. Even my daughters crinkled up their faces and said “what???”.
They get the crinkle from their mother.
We also found it hard to understand how a girl who dresses like a sleaze is doing it in order to act like a guy???? Aren’t they doing it in order to attract a guy and get attention from the guys???
Also, I think I wrongly attributed those thoughts to Schlafly when it was Carolyn Graglia who was relaying that information about teachers and conversations with their female students.
I do wonder why the patriarchalists don’t talk about the double standard concerning purity that was existent for so long and how that fed the problem we see today? Maybe if this would have been addressed, there would be no need for Bratz Dolls and hootchie clothing for our little girls? I can’t imagine the feminists are behind this because it seems to go against what they stand for. Maybe I need to post this on a feminist board somewhere and get their input? Nothing better than going right to the source and I know my questions will be posted and welcomed on their boards, even though I disagree with many things they believe.
October 12, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“I can’t imagine the feminists are behind this because it seems to go against what they stand for. Maybe I need to post this on a feminist board somewhere and get their input? Nothing better than going right to the source and I know my questions will be posted and welcomed on their boards, even though I disagree with many things they believe.”
I think that this is a very good idea. Personally, I think that feminism is an example of a movement that started out trying to do a very GOOD thing, and was suceeding, until they started trying to do it do it without God. That’s how it got so off track — most of the early “feminists” were Christian women, who were trying to correct the very real abuses of women and children that went on back in Victorian times. Feminism lost its way and its soul when atheism and secular humanism came into vogue, and such women as Margaret Sanger started promoting abortion, etc, proving the proverb that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”
October 12, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Oh, FYI, the Bratz dolls were created by a MAN.
“BRATZ was created by toy designer Carter Bryant. In 2000 he met with Isaac Larian the CEO of Micro-Games America Entertainment (MGA Entertainment).[1] There, Mr. Bryant presented his pictures to Mr. Larian, who found that the concept sketches enthralled his daughter, Jasmin, who was visiting the office at the time.”
Men are defending the dolls:
“The spokesman quoted Dr Bryan Young of Exeter University as saying “parents may feel awkward but I don’t think children see the dolls as sexy. They just think they’re pretty”.[15] Isaac Larian, in comments given to the BBC, voiced the opinion that the report was a “bunch of garbage” and that the people who wrote it were acting irresponsibly.”
And a psychological group is against these dolls:
“Fresh concerns over the body image and lifestyle the Bratz dolls allegedly promote were raised by the American Psychological Association when they established their “Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls” in February, 2007. In the report that was published in accompaniment to the Task Force’s founding they cited concern over sexuality the Bratz dolls allegedly portray.[14]
Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality
– APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls”
Funny, no Christians? No movies made concerning the sexualization of young girls and going after the ACTUAL people who do these things instead of constantly railing against the big, bad, evil feminists as if they are behing EVERYTHING wicked.
Has any of these people actually written the creator of Bratz (a man) and confronted him concerning his sleazy dolls?
http://badladies.blogspot.com/2007/08/desperate-feminist-housewife-moms-rule.html
Here is a blog entry written by a feminist about Bratz dolls.
It took me under 5 minutes to learn this stuff. It seems that some people have no desire to actually know the truth. The feminists are their punching bag for every evil in society in spite of the facts.
She makes some good points even though you might not agree with all she says, you can still get the basic gist- true feminist loathe Bratz Dolls, Britney Spears, Paris and general skank found anywhere.
http://thehomesickhome.blogspot.com/2006/02/better-bratz-than-boyz-or-why-this.html
Another feminist mom who hates Bratz dolls.
I could keep on going. But, at least I have provided some proof unlike Doug Phillips who just makes statements of “fact”.
October 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“I do wonder why the patriarchalists don’t talk about the double standard concerning purity that was existent for so long and how that fed the problem we see today? Maybe if this would have been addressed, there would be no need for Bratz Dolls and hootchie clothing for our little girls?”
Good question, isn’t it? And they don’t seem to have a problem with their SONS going to college, and facing worldly “temptations”.
Also, they make a big deal about GIRLS who are impure before marriage, but are curiously silent when it comes to boys.
Why is that, I wonder? Isn’t fornication fornication, no matter who’s doing it? Or is a son somehow seen as being less “damaged” (as in the case of “damaged goods”?) by such an experience?
Then again, you don’t get a bride price for a son, whether he’s “been “damaged” or not.
Hmmmmm…………..
October 12, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“What authority does Jennie Chancey have on this subject? Seriously? I’ve been in the patriarch/LAF camp before and I’ve seen her name plastered here and there for various conferences, etc related to the movement. I am just curious how her “position of power” or “voice for the women” came to be.
Does she have some sort of credentials to speak on the feminism movement? Did SHE ever go to college and study any of this? Where did she get her information as an expert?”
Lindsey,
Doug Phillips.
October 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“Lindsey,
Doug Phillips.”
Remember, marketability is a pretty powerful credential.
October 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Jennie Chancey is a Christian who loves the Lord and has a passion for the things she believes God has shown her. His a bit of her history.
The Botkin book records part of the testimony of Jennie Chancey. She did go to college, but did so under protest. She didn’t want to go and would have rather had her dad teach her to write. She blames college for making her a “bitter, cynical, “Christian feminist.” She finished college “bitter towards my parents and certain the Proverbs 31 model was just not for me. I had lived in a false “real world” for four years – a world that divorced me from my family, alienated me from the Chruch and (after seeing serial dating in practice) convinced me that men live only for paychecks and trophy wives and are not to be trusted.” (p. 143)
What’s interesting is that on their family website she paints a VERY different attitude than she wrote for the book. She wrote,
“I went to college with my head in the clouds. Because my parents had met at college, I was sure I would find my future mate there. I had promised Mom and Dad that if anyone asked me out, I would tell him he had to talk with my dad first. I had committed my college time to the Lord and was prepared to follow his leading. I had a lot of friends at school, both guys and gals. The guys treated me like a sister and protected me from any “creeps.” After my freshman year, my brother joined me at the same college. He also had lots of friends, and we spent all the time together we could. My second year was fabulous, with even more friends than before. And, yes, there were a lot of neat guys at school that I liked, but I kept my promise to remain focused on God and not go looking around for “The One.”
By the time my junior year rolled around, I was beginning to wonder where this guy could be! I had never been asked out by any of the nice guys, and, even though I didn’t want to date, I began to wonder if there was something wrong with me. Lots of my friends got asked out. But guys treated me like I was a relative or something. Don’t get me wrong – this was all very nice! I just wondered if there ever would be anyone for me.
Finally, I asked my brother if he knew why no one asked me out. He said, “You’re intimidating.” I was shocked. ME? Intimidating? I thought that was the craziest thing I’d ever heard! I asked a close girl friend what David meant, and she told me that guys would never dream of treating me the way they treated other girls, because they knew I had standards I wouldn’t let down. ”
In one testimony her “head” was in the clouds thinking she’d meet her man and in the other she went under protest. She wasn’t quite divorced from her family either. Her own brother was at the college and she spent quite a bit of time with him. And it surely sounds as though the men were treating her in a very biblical manner as a “sister.” Her testimony reveals a determined girl with high standards. No trace of blaming the college for “bitterness” towards her parents.
Because she hadn’t met “Mr. Right” in college she was wisely learned to be content where God had her. She asserts college had made her “cynical” towards guys believing them ALL (except the ones she was related to) to be “jerks.” Remember these are the same men who treated her “like a sister.” So is a “jerk” someone who treats Christian young ladies away a college like “sisters” and protects them from “creeps.” Why be “cynical” about being treated biblically unless you were hoping to be treated differently.
After college, she lived away from home and took a job at HSLDA. Soon after Matt Chancey applied for a job as an intern and she noticed his love for the South and the Civil War and she thought he’d fit right into the office. He got the job and the girl.
She records her housemates having a party and young single interns of HSLDA to join them. Her dad was “invited” to the event, clearly she was not “under her father’s roof” but they obviously enjoyed a good enough relationship to invite him to her gathering.
She later courted Matt and they were married. Their time at HSLDA is also when Doug Phillips worked there as an attorney. Obviously more than one relationship was kindled by HSLDA that would serve both Matt and Chancey very well.
In reality her life wasn’t that much different than my own. Except that I grew up in a moral home (not Christian) and went to a secular college (U of Michigan) very independent minded and came out a believer in Christ with a husband and a heart for marriage and children. She grew up a Christian, in a believing home, went to Christian college, and came out still single and cynical.
Did college make her a “Christian feminist?”
If we use that logic then “secular college” must have changed me from a “feminist” into a “Bible believing Christian.” (Go Blue! Hail to the Victors!)
So I’m not sure if her college years made her “bitter” or if Jennie had built up an idealistic notion of what her life would be like and slightly disappointed that it didn’t work out that way. It’s easy to blame a “movement” or external factors like “college” for a bitter heart. But in reality, she had the Scriptures and God’s Truth there all the time. If she became bitter it was because SHE allowed it to happen.
Her “credentials” come from the fact that she’s an excellent writer with a passion for God and the things she believes. Her credentials are the same as the rest of us. Which is why blogs are so frustrating to those that think discussions like this are “attacks” or “rumors”. It allows ALL people to have a voice in the discussion, not just those that write a book.
Think about it, the Botkins are allowed to challenge the life of Amy Carmicheal and Mary Slessor in their book but somehow we’re not allowed to challenge the writings of the Botkins on a blog? Why is one considered scholarly by McDonald and Chancey and the other a “rumor” by “White washed feminists” who violate the Ninth Commandment?
But Jennie Chancey’s life represents what can happen when a girl gets idealistic “head in the clouds” notions of what life is supposed to be like. And that is exactly what So Much More seeks to create in the minds of many young undiscerning young ladies today. Thankfully, because of discussions like this many are wisely searching the Scriptures to see if what is taught is indeed true, and will be able to guard against the disappointment that Jennie faced when she was their age.
October 12, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“Good question, isn’t it? And they don’t seem to have a problem with their SONS going to college, and facing worldly “temptations”.”
Cynthia,
That was another thing in the video that I would have liked to see addressed in a deeper fashion.
It was said that college was a dangerous place for girls (Carmon Friedrich, for example) because of the unbiblical teachings and tempations and worldly thinking (these are my words, not her exact words, but the basic gist). Basically, college is unnecessary because marriage is normative for a Christian girl.
My thought was concerning the boys? Wouldn’t those same dangers and wordly thinking and temptations be just as bad for them? I wonder how much the erroneous and unbiblical teaching that women are more easily deceived plays into this? Since the Bible does NOT say this and since the Bible does tell all believers that they are susceptible to temptation and false teachings, I see no difference between what a boy faces at college and what a girl faces at college concerning the dangers to their outlook on God.
I am not FOR college; it is not mandatory for anyone of my children. I will encourage my children according to their talents and natural bents and if I see that college would be good for them, I will encourage them in that way. I am all for boys AND girls staying at home and doing college if at all possible. I just don’t see this “one size fits all” mode for all women? Surely they recognize that every woman is very different, don’t they? A college degree can be a GREAT asset to a particular husband and family and children. What about the man who wants his wife to be college educated?
I do agree with Carmon concerning self-teaching. I, too, am an “autodidact”. That said, I can see my self going to college and taking some classes in the next decade. But, not every person is capable of learning on their own.
The apostles knew how to interact with their culture. They found areas of commonality and focused on those and then used other cultural things as a springboard for teaching the lost about the gospel. For example, the monument to the unknown god. The apostles saw that this was a GOOD thing because these people were aware of a Creator and wanted to honor Him. Paul used this to teach them about Christ.
Where do we see patriarchalists finding the areas of commonality with the feminists in order to reach them with the gospel? All I see is a lashing out and absolutely no interest in the person.
There is no one size fits all box for each and every woman. The patriarchalists would like to think so but it is not so. College may be harmful to one person but may be very good for another. It is the difference between which loud woman you want to follow? The wicked woman who is loud and who leads people down to the grave in her very own home? Or Lady Wisdom who is found in the city gate and in the town square raising her voice and crying out loud for the simple to follow her in the way of Truth.
October 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“Also, they make a big deal about GIRLS who are impure before marriage, but are curiously silent when it comes to boys.
Why is that, I wonder? Isn’t fornication fornication, no matter who’s doing it? Or is a son somehow seen as being less “damaged” (as in the case of “damaged goods”?) by such an experience?
Then again, you don’t get a bride price for a son, whether he’s “been “damaged” or not.
Hmmmmm…………..”
Cynthia,
That begs the question, doesn’t it? Even if the boys aren’t as “damaged” or aren’t deemed “used goods” if they have had sex before marriage, how about the person they had sex with? I would think that if they held female purity so high, they would look at any male as a fiend and a villain if they had sex before marriage with another female.
I was recently reading somewhere and the person used the definition of “unused” to describe a virgin.
Does that mean married women are used?
I am so thankful that Christ makes all things new!! Reading some of these books, a girl who had my history might think there is no hope and that they are just damaged goods and they should take what they can get. It is NOT so! Christ makes ALL things new. I am so thankful for his love and forgiveness and grace in my life because I have been forgiven for so much, I love much and I truly understand and can have compassion on the lost who are held in bondage.
That is why I look at feminism in a MUCH different way. I think that God looks at this issue much differently than the hyperPs do, too.
October 12, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Spunky,
I really don’t know what to do with those two very different stories. Thank you for putting that together. It is really confusing. It is hard to see how those two stories can ever be reconciled because they seem so antithetical to each other.
” I had lived in a false “real world” for four years – a world that divorced me from my family, alienated me from the Chruch and (after seeing serial dating in practice) convinced me that men live only for paychecks and trophy wives and are not to be trusted.” (p. 143)”
This doesn’t seem to ring true if you take into account the other information you posted. She was not divorced from her family, as you stated, and the world did NOT alienate her from her church. If she was alienated, it was her fault. I know many college kids who go to church and have rich, satisfying spiritual lives and who are involved in many on-campus ministries that reach out to the lost. My husband was heavily involved in church and in other church groups while in college and so were his large group of friends. In fact, I met them right after I became a believer and they were an impressive bunch! And all of these people did NOT grow up in a Christian home!!!
Who convinced her that men only lived for paychecks and a trophy wife? Sure, there are many men who do that but there are many men who do not.
Imho, she can’t blame the world on her attitude especially since she knows the truth and has the Holy Spirit living inside of her.
October 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Oh, FYI, the Bratz dolls were created by a MAN.
“BRATZ was created by toy designer Carter Bryant. In 2000 he met with Isaac Larian the CEO of Micro-Games America Entertainment (MGA Entertainment).[1] There, Mr. Bryant presented his pictures to Mr. Larian, who found that the concept sketches enthralled his daughter, Jasmin, who was visiting the office at the time.”
Men are defending the dolls:
“The spokesman quoted Dr Bryan Young of Exeter University as saying “parents may feel awkward but I don’t think children see the dolls as sexy. They just think they’re pretty”.[15] Isaac Larian, in comments given to the BBC, voiced the opinion that the report was a “bunch of garbage” and that the people who wrote it were acting irresponsibly.”
And a psychological group is against these dolls:
“Fresh concerns over the body image and lifestyle the Bratz dolls allegedly promote were raised by the American Psychological Association when they established their “Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls” in February, 2007. In the report that was published in accompaniment to the Task Force’s founding they cited concern over sexuality the Bratz dolls allegedly portray.[14]
Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality
– APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls”
Funny, no Christians? No movies made concerning the sexualization of young girls and going after the ACTUAL people who do these things instead of constantly railing against the big, bad, evil feminists as if they are behing EVERYTHING wicked.
Has any of these people actually written the creator of Bratz (a man) and confronted him concerning his sleazy dolls?
http://badladies.blogspot.com/2007/08/desperate-feminist-housewife-moms-rule.html
Here is a blog entry written by a feminist about Bratz dolls.
It took me under 5 minutes to learn this stuff. It seems that some people have no desire to actually know the truth. The feminists are their punching bag for every evil in society in spite of the facts.
She makes some good points even though you might not agree with all she says, you can still get the basic gist- true feminist loathe Bratz Dolls, Britney Spears, Paris and general skank found anywhere.
I could keep on going. But, at least I have provided some proof unlike Doug Phillips who just makes statements of “fact”.
October 12, 2007 at 4:22 pm
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
Here is the actual report from the task force on the sexualization of girls. It looks like all 7 members of this task force are women (many with PHD’s). So, it looks like the “feminists” are the only ones who are truly concerned about getting rid of the Bratz dolls and their sexualization of young girls. At least they are doing something about it instead of falsely accusing others for being responsible for it.
Here is some of their common sense advice (something that seems to be lacking amidst the propaganda and over zealous uninformed statments):
“The proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harming girls’ self-image and healthy development. This report explores the cognitive and emotional consequences, consequences for mental and physical health, and impact on development of a healthy sexual self-image.
What Parents Can Do
Parents can teach girls to value themselves for who they are, rather than how they look. Parents can teach boys to value girls as friends, sisters, and girlfriends, rather than as sexual objects. Here are some conversation starters for parents, as well as other adults and caregivers.
Empowering Girls: Media Literacy Resources
With the help of the adults in their lives, girls and boys can gain media literacy skills, can learn to resist the message that how girls look is what matters, and can learn how to advocate for themselves. Here are some resources that can help.”
Here we can see how they use the word empower- to train a girl how to resist the worldly message. Well, it would seem we have something in common, don’t we? Some people shouldn’t get all hung up on a word [empower], especially when those same people use words like “casting a vision”.
October 12, 2007 at 4:38 pm
One more thought and then I had BETTER do the last of my laundry!
What I see missing is honesty in these books for women. Where is all the talk about real life experiences that these authors have gone through? Where are the chapters about divorce and remarriage? Where are the discussions and blog posts on how to cope with a blended family when some of these bloggers/authors have not only divorced and remarried but they also have married men with more than a few children and they brought in a children of their own and now they have children together. I am sure that has to pose some logistical problems, especially when their children are now marrying. How did they handle the mother of the child who gets married coming to the wedding? How do they handle the visitation of ex-spouses? How do they honor the patriarchy of the ex-husband over his own child?
These kinds of things are not being talked about and it is giving an illusion of families being something they are not.
We need to get real about our lives so that people have hope and they can know that obstacles that are common to the human experience can be overcome when we are in Christ.
October 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Spunky, if, as you say, “Jennie Chancey is a Christian who loves the Lord and has a passion for the things she believes God has shown her”, then why is her life history different depending on to whom she’s telling it? God forgive me, because it’s a sin for me to say this, but from here, she looks like a lying hypocrite.
October 12, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I apologize, I forgot to inlcude the link to Jennie’s testimony.
http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/cc/MatJennieCourtship.html
As far as an explanation of the differing attitudes, I cannot answer that. I am only reading what she wrote and left wondering myself.
October 12, 2007 at 6:18 pm
The “live as I say, not not as I live” attitude is evident throughout many in patriarchy. The talk of honor, duty, courage, and men leading as true Patriarchs can be, at times, inspiring but do they live that way? Now, I admit its hard to live up to an ideal and no one expects pefection of one who preaches a princple, but when their public behavior conflicts with the teachings do they acknowledge it and correct their behavior?
Since we’re on the subject of the Chanceys I’ll use them as an example. While Jennie has a passion for being the helpmeet to a “true” patriarch, her noble husband spends his time engaged in various interests, one of them politics.
The Washington Post picked up on a story a few years ago that has always left me a bit disturbed. The URL for Virginia Governor, http://www.timkaine.com doesn’t go to a website about him, but Republican rival Lt. Governor Bill Bolling. Who played this political dirty trick and stole one man’s name for the political gain of another man? None other than, Mr. Matt Chancey
WhoIs confirms that the website is owned by Matt Chancey. From their website,
“Please note: the owner of the domain name is specified in the “registrant” field.
In most cases, the Registrar is not the owner of domain names listed in this database.”
Domain Name: TIMKAINE.COM
Created on: 18-Apr-01
Expires on: 18-Apr-08
Last Updated on: 18-Apr-07
Administrative Contact:
Chancey, Matt
For sure, Tim Kaine’s advisors made a mistake by not snatching his name when it was available and in politics it seems that most will do anything to tear down their opponent. But should we ignore such behavior from a Christian who steals another man’s name for personal gain?
Is there anything more important to a man than his name and reputation?
Why would Matt Chancey steal the name of a his Christian brother, Tim Kaine, and use it for political gain? They may represent different political parties, but they both profess to serve the same God. Stealing is stealing, even if it is politically expedient and technically “legal.”
Is this how a man of “vision” treats his political “enemy?”
Even the secular Washington Post sees the problem and almost mocking highlights the fact that Matt Chancey is a Christian. “Matt Chancey, a self-described conservative Christian activist…”
Yet the fact that this website is still up two years after its discovery by the secular press tells me that Matt Chancey doesn’t see a conflict at all and neither do those who hold him accountable.
Can there be a more telling example of what biblical patriarchy means to the Chancey?
October 12, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Here’s the Washington Post article where I first read about this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090100803.html
October 12, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Here is the website to WhoIs
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=timkaine.com
And in this case it is obvious that the registrant and adminsitrative contact are the same “MC” from Richmond.
October 12, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Spunky,
My seventeen year old daughter just read your post (#851). Her reaction when she was finished was, “Wow! She’s good, and she’s right about the idealistic, ‘head in the cloud’ notions. When I read the book I thought, ‘life just isn’t like that’.”
I had to smile. You see, I too, grew up in an unbelieving, moral household. But shortly before my eighteenth birthday, my mother moved out of our home to live with a man with whom she was having an adulterous affair. It rocked our world. My brother and I were left living with our devastated, ‘visionless’ father. Out of necessity, I worked and took a few college courses. My life was far from idealistic and yet in the midst of this, the Lord stooped down and saved me. Mature older women were not in abundance at that time in my life either. And yet my heart’s desire was for marriage and family.
I’ve now been a stay-at-home wife and homeschooling mother for more than nineteen years. We have four beautiful children. Three of them girls! Our oldest is seventeen, and if I may say so, one of the sweetest young ladies I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. She is a very modest, self-respecting young woman who serves her Lord and family in a myriad of ways on a daily basis. She is my ‘Girl Friday’ and I love spending our days together. She is extremely bright and articulate and talented in ways I can only dream about. She even enjoys Jennie Chancey’s website, ‘Sense & Sensibility’ and has also, with our blessing, chosen to forego college and continue her studies at home and by unconventional means. She desires one day to be a full-time wife and mother. Thankfully, her life is very different from mine at her age. And yet I ended up with the same heart’s desires that my daughter has now. How did it happen when I didn’t have the latest manual on how to be a good daughter or wife? It happened because of what the Lord did in my heart. It was His word alone that gave me a correct view of men and women. His Holy Spirit worked, and continues to work, in my heart to make me the woman He desires for me to be. He set my feet on a clear path.
Do I think that everyone should have my same life experience in order to come to the same point? Of course not. But I’m evidence that life is not a ‘one size fits all’. Can you imagine if I had read a book like ‘So Much More’ as a young woman, still a girl really, and just a babe in Christ?
Through the years I have known fine Christian ladies who were married to unbelieving men who insisted that they work outside the home, who insisted that they send their children to public school. These women lived less than idealistic lives and yet they served their Lord with a sweet spirit. Books like ‘So Much More’ do a disservice to young girls and women whose lives just don’t fit the mold. When the scriptures are not handled accurately and verses are used completely out of context, harm is done – especially to younger believers.
I can look back at my experience and give all the glory to my Lord. He wants us to look to Him for our help and our guidance. In whatever situation we find ourselves, He is able to work far more than we could ever imagine! I praise Him for the life He has given me. Every now and again we need to look at our lives and think, “Where would I be right now without Christ.” It is humbling and amazing to look back and see what the Lord has done. Both my father and brother eventually came to the Lord. I didn’t end up a feminist. I have a relationship with my mother and hope for her salvation. My children are being raised in an imperfect Christian home with imperfect parents who sometimes lose their way, and yet God still blesses!
I found this article one day while doing some research on this whole patriarchal movement and I thought it had some good points. I’m not familiar with the author or the site itself but I think it speaks well to this whole discussion.
Here’s a quote:
“…I am particularly grieved when I see people who are so fervent in their pursuit of a “set apart” lifestyle without the understanding of the big picture of doing all things in love, for the glory of God and not our own. They end up causing weaker ones to stumble due to their misguided idolatry. Bring on the millstones!
“Let’s keep our eyes on the true goal, which is to glorify God and reflect the character of Christ. Let all of our efforts be subservient to that end alone. Only then will God truly bless us. Otherwise, we will become like the Pharisees, who missed the coming of the King when He was standing right in front of them. Their judgment was soon to be upon them. I pray we do not fall under that same type of judgment.”
Worshipping Idols, Family Style
http://www.lesriley.net/worshipping_idols_family_style.htm
October 12, 2007 at 7:04 pm
There is a real problem with integrity among many of the popular names in the patriarchy movement, and it is one reason why we no longer support them in any way. We too, have purchased hundreds of dollars from Vision Forum in the past. The interesting thing is, it was their own blogs and such that put us on the path to searching out much of the controversy surrounding them now. And more than anything it was their own response that turned us off completely. Regardless of the issues, their responses, or often times lack of response, leave one questioning their integrity enough to say, “no more for us”!
Spunky just sights one more example.
October 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I just want to say I really like Anne Boleyn- standing up to Henry for years- that’s one gutsy woman! I like all of Henry’s wives, actually! (although Anne Boleyn and Anne of Cleves are my faves)
As a woman who’s barren from an eating disorder- at age 20- the Botkins book really hurt me. What am I supposed to do? Stay with my dad my whole life? My dad wouldn’t want that! And I have a talent for writing fiction- am I supposed to keep that gift to myself?
It also hurt me because my mom’s the breadwinner for my family- I mean, was she wrong to do that? Apparently so. My mom was an OB-Gyn. Sorry, Botkin girls, but I think most women would like to see a female gynocolist(sp?) sorry- for their Pap Smears! I know I would.
This book to me was just 400 pages of rubbing salt in my wounds.
October 12, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Lady Helen,
Your point about most women preferring a female OB GYN is well taken. And it reminds me of another hypocritical situation. Many of those who are promoting their views that women should not attend college or work outside the home also have female midwives who leave their own children and families to minister to their needs during labor and delivery. How can you explain this?
October 12, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Lady Helen,
I just wanted to encourage you that God’s purpose for your life is so much greater than any paradigm that might be established as “the one true biblical way” by those in the patriocentric camps. We all must remember that God gives us each different callings and being a wife and mother is NOT the calling for everyone woman, contrary to what any nondesperate housewife might tell you. Please know that there are many of us who feel your pain and do not in any way see you as second class. Thank you so much for being willing to share your grief with us.
October 13, 2007 at 3:34 am
“Many of those who are promoting their views that women should not attend college or work outside the home also have female midwives who leave their own children and families to minister to their needs during labor and delivery. How can you explain this?”
You explain it in the same way that you explain the fact that in the time periods that these women idealize — the Victorian era and the antebellum South — women such as themselves would not only have had midwives to attend them, they would have also had servant women or slaves to work for them.
What about the husbands and children of the servant women… and if the servants were single girls, shouldn’t they have been in their father’s house, contributing to his “vision”?
As JRH said earlier, “if this is God’s paradigm for families, then it crosses all cultures and all countries for all time”… and, it doesn’t.
It never has, and the HyperPs know it as well as we do.
October 13, 2007 at 5:25 am
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-homemaking11oct11,0,6958746,full.story?coll=la-home-nation
Interesting article on the homemaking degree at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
I got the link off of LAF.
I suppose going to college to learn how to remove stains, bake cookies, darn socks and make dinner is okay?
October 13, 2007 at 5:27 am
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-homemaking11oct11,0,6958746,full.story?coll=la-home-nation
Interesting article on the homemaking degree at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
I got the link from LAF site.
October 13, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Thanks for clarifying on Jennie Chancey. I have always seen her name and quotes used for many VF things and of course over at LAF (where I used to be a voracious reader, btw). I had never heard the full story. I’ve heard PLENTY about Matt Chancey, but just never cared to get too deep into that controversy.
I mean the woman no disrespect at all. In fact, like I’ve said before I like many of the idealistic old ways myself. But selling them as the ONLY way, THE Biblical way, and no other way is where I drop my support.
My heart aches for young women, girls, and single mothers who get into this stuff. How does it make a divorced woman (not by her own choice) feel? How is a fatherless daughter supposed to feel? If you buy into their stuff, you are without a vision if you don’t have a Doug Phillips kind of dad. Without a vision, we perish, right?
Thanks be to God that HE is my HEAVENLY FATHER and I don’t need a visonary Dad as some sort of on-earth stand-in. It took me a very long time to realize that. Unfortunately, there are lots of girls out there, like me, who buy into HyperPa. because it sounds too good to be true…too perfect! And we know what happens with things that are too good to be true.
October 13, 2007 at 2:49 pm
About Andrew Sandlin, Theonomy and Dominionism:
Some of what was mentioned earlier on this thread was quoted by some earlier works of Sandlin, I believe while he still officially affiliated with Chalcedon (an organization that I hold as synonymous with theonomy and dominionism). He has since left and now operates his own ministry, the Center for Cultural Leadership (CCL). I have asked him to comment on the quotes that Spunky placed here, but have not heard a response. I can say that as I understand things that the late Rousas J Rushdooney (Chalcedon’s founder) was not a legalist in any sense. He did not argue for America to become a theocracy, nor do I believe that he would agree that the antebellum South was an example of a desirable theocracy.
I know for a fact that Sandlin vehemently opposes patriocentricity and legalism. In one of CCL’s publications entitled “Radical Christians” (2002), he states:
“Admittedly, we do need to change in facing new issues and situations.”
“Revolutionaries will sacrifice a generation to invent Utopia: radicals work where God has placed them and with the people with whom God has placed them in order to change things over the long haul. Eric Hoffer once said, ‘Those who would sacrifice a generation to realize an ideal are the enemies of mankind.’ …This is why revolutionaries tend to despise middle-aged and older people. They carry a baggage of the ancient regime. Their lives are bent in a way that cannot be straightened. They are useless, therefore, to those whose goal is Utopia in the next few years; therefore, they must be destroyed. At root, revolutionaries hate human nature. They want to change man as he is made in the image of God. Those who are resistant to change are simply thrown in the ash heap.”
“These little ecclesiastical Utopias are subject to revolutionary experiementation by tyrannical ‘apostles,’ pastors, elders and others. They are dangerous and destructive. The Jesus Christ of the Bible is a Shepherd who patiently cares for His sheep. He bears with great longsuffering. His under-shepherds, today’s pastors, should do the same thing.”
“Ecclesiastical radicals (by contrast) do not destroy a generation, they shepherd a generation….. All of the saints, and especially the weak ones, are entitled to tender care. This does not mean that we capitulate to their sins; it does mean, however, that we are patient with them as God’s children.”
“But revolutionaries cannot afford to be patient…. They want Utopia by noon tomorrow…. We who see a glorious, earthly future for the church believe differently. As Matthew 13 tells us, the Kingdom of God grows slowly, almost imperceptibly… Radicals are hard workers, and they are willing to wait. Revolutionaries are never willing to wait.”
Also, a few months ago, I noticed that someone had placed a very vilifying and inaccurate bio of him on Wikipedia. I brought this to Andrew’s attention, and the entry was changed, but I do not know if it is currently his own entry or accurate. It reads:
P. Andrew Sandlin is a Christian Reconstructionist and one of several pastors of the Church of the King in California. He is the founder of The Center for Cultural Leadership and a notable Reformed Evangelical Calvinist. He believes that the Enlightenment mitigated the intentions of the Protestant Reformation, and he favors a postmodern view of Protestant Christianity. He had also participated with the theonomic Chalcedon Foundation until the passing of its founder R. J. Rushdoony in 2001, after which he reconsidered his position on theonomy and moved away from it.
October 13, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Hey,
I forgot (perhaps) the best part of his statement. It should go without mention that I view the patriocentrists as the revolutionaries:
“I urge you, your entire lifetime through, to commit to being a radical, but to never succumb to being a revolutionary. The temptation to revolution is seductive. To seize immediate change, though it destroys lives and institutions is alluring. Resist the temptation of all costs. Remember the example of our Lord, who tured His back on those who wanted to make Him an immeidate political King (Jn 6:15). His was not a political Kingdom, and had He succumbed, there would never have been (humanly speaking) the work of redemption, Christ’s death on the cross. He was willing to endure the pain of the corss because of the joy that was set before Him (Heb 12:2).
October 13, 2007 at 9:17 pm
“We need to get real about our lives so that people have hope and they can know that obstacles that are common to the human experience can be overcome when we are in Christ.”
I would have to say, “Amen!” to that. Life’s messy; let Jesus clean it up (not man-made rules that come and go with the tides).
Some people shouldn’t get all hung up on a word [empower], especially when those same people use words like “casting a vision”.
Another “Amen!” to that, Corrie.
I don’t like the “marketing” of “vision casting” or “casting a vision”. I think that sounds kind of New-Agey to me. This blog entry http://herescope.blogspot.com/2005/10/rick-warren-vision-casting.html gives a little business insight into “vision casting”. I’d like to just not have christian marketeers try to sell something to me as a believer. “Buy the truth and sell it not.” (Prov. 23:23) Spurgeon even shows a parable in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress about Vanity Fair as the world trying to sell trinkets to us:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/spurgeon/web/ss-0037.html
“Some sell the truth for a livelihood. I pity these far more. “I must have a situation; therefore, I must do what I am told there; I must break this law of God and that, for I must keep my family.” Ah! poor soul, I pity thine unfortunate position, but I pray that thou mayest have grace even now to play the man, and never sell the truth, even for bread.” – Spurgeon
The problem is everybody has a book to sell or some new way we’re going to usher in a new reformation by changing institutions, political or social, by the will of man. But the fact is that unless the Good News of Jesus Christ living and dying in His flesh for sinful mankind isn’t enough to change people to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul and mind and strength, and love their neighbors as themselves, then nothing can change their dead pharisaical hearts. It’s the Spirit that gives life – even in a post-modern world!
October 13, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Again, the idea of an ideal time in the recent past, to which we look longingly is WRONG! There was no time in the past, save Eden, which is ideal or exemplary. Each era has its own good points and bad ones. Because women in the civil war era worked from home (oh, except for the slave women in the South who worked wherever the master wanted) and were protected ( that is,except for the women in the factories up north, whose men had gone off to war) ruling over their homes as co-regent with husbands (wait, except for those whose husbands left them to find gold out west) having babies and caring for them (except for the ones whose babies died) it does not make it and ideal to which we hearken. There will never be heaven on earth until Jesus brings it. We will never cause it to happen. It is out of our hands. We are not in control. No matter how good the “good old days” seem, wee are not called to identify with them. We are called to identify with our Father’s home – heaven – and live here as aliens and strangers. Influencing the people and culture around us, but not trying to turn time back. Utopia is the idea of lost people hoping to create a new world. Only God creates, and in Christ, recreates.
The focus is on God, His will, His glory, His desire to reach all people.
This kind of patriarchy stuff simply uses up time and effort that could better be used reaching the lost. The man who rules his home as instructed by God doesn’t need to keep telling me he rules his home, nor does he need to use his daughters to tell me how well he runs his home; he simply does it as part of his walk with God.
I am tired of people wasting the precious time we have here for what amounts to hobby horses. All of us must be careful not to get caught up in anything that will keep us from that which builds up the kingdom of God and gives Him glory.
October 14, 2007 at 1:49 pm
thatmom, thank you. Your encouragement was needed, as this has been a tough week for my family and me. And Barbara, you are exactly right. As someone very interested in writing historical fiction you’re right- there will be no perfect time on Earth until Christ brings it back.
The medieval and Victorian eras are often romanticised, but in reality, in medieval Europe, half of the children did not live to be five, women were seen as tools of Satan(it was even debated whether or not we had souls in some churches :@) the only cures for rampant diseases were supersticion, and ‘justice’ for criminals was torture and often a cruel, lingering execution. Barbara, you’ve done your homework on the Victorian era, so I do not need to fill in
One thing that these women miss- the original 19th century feminists were Christian! Having the vote, a right to follow a career, and not having to be your husband’s property(until the last century once married, everything- including your clothe- belonged to your husband)- why is that unChristian? I don’t think so. The only person we belong to is Christ. Submission is one thing, being owned in all but name is another.
October 15, 2007 at 2:55 am
“How does it make a divorced woman (not by her own choice) feel? How is a fatherless daughter supposed to feel?”
Lindsey, this is one of the issues that made me have reservations about even the basic complementarian view. I’ve watched women who were not even close to DP style patriarchy, but when their husbands left them and they lost their “head”, they didn’t even know where they stood spiritually anymore. Because their identity had been wrapped up in being a helpmeet and a neck/body to their husband’s head, they had not developed their identity as a child and daughter of God. So beyond the given pain of rejection, they felt like they were a nobody as a person and as part of the body because they had lost their “context”. God’s just recently brought me to the healthy place of knowing that even if I had to go through the pain of losing my identity of wife, that I wouldn’t also have the pain of not having my security and identity as His daughter.
October 15, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hi! I think in haste we need to be careful we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! Please understand why I write. Sometimes Satan will have us fall for the same blind spots the people we criticize have fallen for. I need to stay in constant prayer, be open to admonition, and be teachable (not contentious) enough to have my eyes opened to my own blindspots.
Just because someone’s mom was an OB doesn’t mean God’s word about women being a worker at home is laid aside in an effort to prove others wrong. I just want to make sure before I get involved in a lengthy conversation we aren’t trying to use circumstances to dictate protocol over scripture. I do believe if a woman has children in her home she should be home and available as many hours of the day as possible. I will say one of my heroes was the woman doctor who decided to homeschool her children. Her doctor husband had divorced her and left her penniless. What did she do? Return to work to pay the rent? No! Her conviction was so strong to stay home with her children she went to a warm climate during the winter and they lived in a campground and continued to car school! They spent their days at the library reading books. Because the TV was out of the picture the kids turned out really well and very smart. She has now raised her kids (this story came to national attention when her son got a perfect SAT score and everyone wanted to know how a poverty-stricken youth could attain this goal without tutors, etc.) and is back at work. I believe she did the right thing. She gave it all up and gained immeasurably because the kids turned out really well. Good Christians. Her son with the perfect SAT score was offered scholarships to any dream college and he chose a conservative Christian one. I think careers are fine before you have children, or after they are able to care for themselves. The good thing was the lady who posted about the OB mother had a father at home?? This is rare, because the typically American family has two incomes, and that usually means two parents out of the home. This is a huge problem that is wrecking havoc on the family (hence, this ties in with the Patriarch’s stern answers).
I realize this opens the door on the hard luck stories of women not as strong as this lady doctor, but I believe I would imitate what she did if I could just to be there for my kids every hour of the day. I, also, realize this post may put me on the chopping block! LOL That’s okay, if you voice an opinion you should be prepared to hear back. The only thing I ask is that you understand when I keep it on a scriptural level, because it’s great to hear other’s opinions, but we all know if God speaks on a matter then our opinion should match His (to the best of our human ability).
I don’t see a problem with a woman being an OB. There will always be plenty of women OB’s even if all the Christian women were to stay home. But then again, there would single Christian OB’s. My older daughter finally went to college and will soon be a nurse, hopefully an RN specializing in midwifery.
You see I believe some of what the Patriarchal movement teaches is well and good to a point. But it’s good to compare it to scripture, because God is never wrong. I mean a mom staying home is a good thing, courtship can be a good thing, a submissive wife is a good thing. Blogs are a good thing! We can work through the teachings of those who have injected their own brand of lifestyle choices. Iron sharpens iron, so it’s great we can do that here.
About the midwife point. It’s true many midwives do leave their homes to help ladies birth, but it’s not a 9-5 job for many of them. The ones I know are often single or older, or have kids in their teens. And most don’t take on that many cases. The ladies around here travel to Amish country to see their midwife (about an hour-and-a-half drive). I am sure there are midwives who are negligent and leave their children, but I believe that’s the exception rather than the rule. I would think midwives put in less time that these women book writers and sellers. We can be an absentee mom even while in the same house at the same time as our children.
Hmmm………..I better get offline!
October 16, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Anonymous wrote: “Just because someone’s mom was an OB doesn’t mean God’s word about women being a worker at home is laid aside in an effort to prove others wrong.
Anonymous,
I don’t think that anyone here would argue for anyone being an absentee mom. The problem arises when the patriocentrists make blanket statements for all women and apply them to all circumstances. My husband was not in a position to marry when we first met, and we had a very long engagement. I worked outside the home (caring for the ill) until we did marry and worked full time for the first few years thereafter, then worked about 2 days or nights per week. The patriocentrist plan would not have permitted any of this. (Actually, I would have never met my husband at a summer job…) And I’ve never met anyone else that I would even consider as a suitable spouse.
When I attended nursing school in the early eighties, just under 50% of the class was over the age of 40. They were mostly mature women (and a few men) who had raised their children and wanted to work, caring for others. One classmate and friend, 50 yrs old, chose to become a nurse after burying her mother who had died with cancer. She was so moved by the care that her mother recieved, she wanted to help others in the manner that her family had been to make a difference in the world.
So I find the trouble with so much of the patriocentrist ideology that pits fecundity and homeschooling against any other means of ministry, particularly for women. It’s better, more meaningful, all comprehensive and anyone who does not agree or comply or fit the model is a feminist (or a white-washed one), and all sorts of other manner of less holy and definitely less pious Christian. Per Scripture, I believe that this violates Romans 14. I John says that if our heart condemns us not, then we have confidence towards God. It goes on in chapter 4 to say that we have the ability to try the spirits and discern truth and error. It does not say that we have a priest (outside of the husband’s role in marriage) that has been appointed to discern our works for us. I agree with you that we should walk in constant prayer and open to admonition, but so much of this movement requires that individuals abandon their own walk of fear and trembling, both abdicating their responsibility and reasonable decision making over to an intermediary.
2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. 13 We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere which God appointed us—a sphere which especially includes you.
Perhaps the patriocentrists find themselves free of duty to verse 12 in favor of viewing themselves on the level of Paul, interpreting verse 13 to mean that they are appointed to compare everyone and intervene?
I disagree. We are all fellow believers and submit to one another in love. If this is their stance, then I find that they are boasting beyond their measure, noted in the earlier portion of verse 13. Comparison is very, very unwise and the source of disappointment, jealously, judgement and prejudice.
You mention that the OB represents the exception rather than the rule. Patriocentricity hates exceptions and loves the rules, as if only those capable of already in compliance with the rules and the perfect need apply. No damaged goods wanted or welcome… What of those who are the exceptions? There is no grace for them, just as there is no grace extended to the exceptions of the lost. That puts me in mind of Anne Coulter who said over the weekend that the Republican Party is mostly Christian, should be entirely Christian and that Jews just need to convert, as if it is as simple and logical as changing your brand of toilet paper. There’s a huge element missing… Consideration for the human element, I think.
October 16, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would agree they deal in absolutes, and I do pray that somehow they can see that ambition and money is clouding the issue (and their vision).
I am struggling to find time to read all of the posts here, but I wondered if anyone has brought up the situation at CCC-forum? They are into a different sort of Patriarchalism. They allow their wives to work, their kids are educated in the public school system by egalitarians (they claim they can’t stand them). They kick women off the list if you complain why your posts don’t go through, they can’t bear if you talk about them anywhere. I believe one lady here was banned by the Bayley’s blog, and the CCC-forum (the website that they branched off of is The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), and The PatriarchsWives at yahoo even though she is against feminism, homeschools and has a quiverful of children.
The guys running the show (everything is heavily moderated) seemed to like everything said in the patriarchal circles while living lives completely against it. They believe by being overbearing on women it will equal the score. It’s great to beat your chest and call yourself a Patriarch, but what if Jane doesn’t want caged? We can’t fight feminism with overbearing men (don’t they see that was part of the cause?).
So they come in all sorts of flavors, and yet it still comes down to selfish ambition, and often money.
October 17, 2007 at 3:31 am
I don’t think that anyone here would argue for anyone being an absentee mom. The problem arises when the patriocentrists make blanket statements for all women and apply them to all circumstances.
My mother was not an absentee mom in any sense of the word! She always made certain that there was someone around for me- whether it was her when she was not on call, my dad, or my nanny! Did we get as much time together as I’d have had if she’d been an SAHM? No, but I NEVER felt abandoned by her in any means! She would bake cookies with me, help me pass high school math, read me stories, took me to piano lessons(this lasted about a year)sometimes even played video games with me!
She’s not an OB now, she has a new position that permits us more time together, but she still has a high paying job. We like to travel together, just her and me, and she loves to read the things I write. So I do not feel as though she neglected me at all.
October 17, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Corrie can speak to the CCC forum and the Baylys… Corrie sent me this link last week about certain books of the Bible as written “By Men, For Men…” http://faithandgender.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/the-dangerous-book-for-men/ Father Bill outdid himself on this one.
CBMW, at least a strong contingent, espouses the heretical concept of the ETERNAL subordination of Jesus, the Son (claiming that Jesus has less authority and essence than the Father). The big players in pushing this concept are also on faculty at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I just can’t get over the fact that any Baptist would buy into such a concept. This doctrine of God parallel’s Doug Wilsons ideas that man is the Father, the wife is like the Son (eternally subordinate ontologically) and argues in some cases that children are like the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, without a Biblical concept of God, I don’t feel all that compelled to consider their opinions with any degree of seriousness. Vision Forum, at least on paper, has not professed these ideas about woman being the derivative image of God or Christ being eternally subordinate and ontologically less than the Father.
Again, as thatmom stated in her podcasts on patriarchy several times, this movement is made up of a variety of denominations and is definitely not monolithic. The central point, no matter how often each contingent protests or states what they mean and do not mean, the centrality of Christ is displaced by the idolatry of family with the patriarch as the center of Christian life. In my Christian environment of origin, Jesus was central as related to personal Christian living, and then came the great commission. I know many homeschooling families who live out this concept today. These large families minister to those in need, and often encorporate their work into their homeschooling endeavors. So it’s not an impossible thing.
October 17, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“There will always be plenty of women OB’s even if all the Christian women were to stay home. But then again, there would single Christian OB’s. My older daughter finally went to college and will soon be a nurse, hopefully an RN specializing in midwifery.”
That isn’t entirely true. My hospital is in desperate need of another OB and they can’t get one. More OBs are leaving the profession because they can’t afford the malpractice insurance. IMO, we need more Christian OBs. That would be awesome.
October 18, 2007 at 12:18 am
My hospital is in desperate need of another OB and they can’t get one. More OBs are leaving the profession because they can’t afford the malpractice insurance. >>>>>>..
That does happen, but at this point there are still enough around to deliver the babies. That’s a whole other discussion about lawsuits and insurance. I used a Catholic pro-life doctor and the state I live in has the highest OB departure, and I still found one and it wasn’t that long a drive. My girlfriend is a Christian OB, but she wasn’t practicing then.
The problem is OB’s are at the low end of the grading system. If you don’t get good grades you become a pediatrician or OB. It’s simply the way it is. Our best and brightest are dermatologists who have to be in the top 2% of their class to become one. They will earn twice as much as an OB when they graduate.
So, our best and brightest are curing pimples. Why? Because they don’t get calls to the ER (like surgeons or OB’s, etc.), and can work four days a week and make over half-a-million the first year out of their internship. OB’s on the other hand are usually the worst students. They are a cut above the ones who would only be a regular MD. My friend showed me the list. She said because of her grades she had to choose between OB or Ped. A pediatrician earned less than an OB, so she went for the OB. She got terrible hours her first few years in practice and really didn’t make as much as some think. I think she made about $300,000 her first year. Which is A LOT, but if she had better grades she could have made twice that and never had to leave home in the middle of the night.
What I really believe is that God is Sovereign and if I need a doctor He will provide one. I just don’t think we need to go against His word to get one. But I do believe many of my friends are going into nursing, etc. and after the kids are older there is still time for women to persue their dreams (although, I would hope those dreams include serving a dying world).
October 18, 2007 at 2:05 am
Such a great discussion! So many points to make! I’ll try to fit them in without taking up too much space.
1. Girls vs. Boys & Purity: Being a woman with a “past” I really take this to heart. Shouldn’t we be rejoicing in the fact that God takes our sin as far as the East is from the West, and can make us new? I would rather spend time thanking the Lord for taking my greatest errors and using them for His own glory. I would rather thank Him for a wonderful husband who accepted my son as his own (he reminds me of Joseph that way) than lament the fact that I allowed myself to be “used”.
2. Fatherless daughters: One of my good friends has no father, and her mother has passed away. Thank heaven that she has a college education that allows her to make a living for herself. And, seeing as how she is a Christian, I’m troubled that they don’t take into consideration situations like hers. This visionary daughter stuff is dependent upon being from a home where there is a mother and a father who both follow it. It just isn’t always that way!
Women midwives: One of these visionary daughter midwives practices in my area, and frankly, I wouldn’t use her. If the mother and father have a different idea during birth she will defer to the father and do it his way. In fact, she doesn’t ask the mother what to do, she asks the father. Midwife means “with woman” and I don’t see her as doing that. I don’t think it’s a huge issue with my husband and I (who are very good at working together) but we’re both uncomfortable delivering our baby with someone who believes her job is to follow his directions instead of being there for me (the one in LABOR).
Jenny Chancey: I believe that she is a woman of conviction and faith. I can’t reconcile her two biographies, but I don’t doubt her faith. I do wonder, however, why having a bad experience, or thinking that you had a bad experience, must translate into “no one should do that”. What about the many women who’ve gone to college and done just fine?
I know so many people who came to know the Lord in college, and were shared with by Christian men and women who were there. I fear that if we as Christians withdraw so completely from the world, there will no longer be anything to hold the world back. We are God’s body. We are His hands and feet in the world. We are His voice, sharing the Good News. We can’t we be in the world, doing His work, serving His children, and sharing His Word?
Sorry, it wasn’t as short as I’d hoped.
October 18, 2007 at 2:28 am
Anne wrote: One of these visionary daughter midwives practices in my area, and frankly, I wouldn’t use her. If the mother and father have a different idea during birth she will defer to the father and do it his way. In fact, she doesn’t ask the mother what to do, she asks the father.
What??????!!!!!
October 18, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“Father Bill outdid himself on this one.”
Cindy, I try as best I can. Your accolade encourages me more than you can know.
Thanks, till sparrows weigh a ton.
October 18, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Ann:”I know so many people who came to know the Lord in college, and were shared with by Christian men and women who were there. I fear that if we as Christians withdraw so completely from the world, there will no longer be anything to hold the world back. We are God’s body. We are His hands and feet in the world. We are His voice, sharing the Good News. We can’t we be in the world, doing His work, serving His children, and sharing His Word?”
Its all about having more Christian babies, not sharing with the lost.This is all so sad, a warped perspective of Christianity that I believe grieves the heart of Jesus.
October 18, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“Cindy, I try as best I can. Your accolade encourages me more than you can know.
Thanks, till sparrows weigh a ton.”
Hi Fr. Bill,
I think I understand where Cindy is coming from. The Bible, as I understand it, was written to God’s people (male and female) and specifically to His BRIDE in order to prepare Herself for the coming of Her King so She may be glorious and perfected when it comes time for the MARRIAGE Supper of the Lamb.
It seems that the Bible was written BY GOD FOR HIS BRIDE? The Bible was not written by men! If that is true, then the Bible is not the very word of God.
Proverbs is a book written to both men and women, I am quite sure of it.
I have found great comfort in the psalms as I identified with David’s many prayers to the Lord and when he cries out to Him for relief in times of trouble. I can totally relate to many of the psalms, even though I am a woman.
The Bible was written to be read through the eyes of a male.
I guess I struggle with why anyone would make such a statement? What does it really mean?
Especially when we all know that NO ONE will ever understand the Bible, neither male or female, unless they are filled with the Holy Spirit. It is God who helps all of us understand and apply His word. It is not our gender. A male can no more relate to God than a female. We are only able to relate to and understand Him because of Him.
I do not think you are doing any favors to the people of God when you make such statements. I believe it is harmful to say such things. If the Bible is written by men FOR men and it is a “dangerous book for men”, then why would women read it? Why should women read it? No wonder that wiccanism is so popular if the Christian religion is for men and women are mere “accessories” of men and experience God’s word second-hand.
I bought the “Dangerous Book for Boys” for my son and he made it clear to his sisters and I that it was not written for girls.
We play along with him because the book, written only for him, makes him feel special.
Is that the kind of thing you are getting at here?
October 18, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“I just don’t think we need to go against His word to get one.”
What does this mean? If there are enough nonChristians out there than we should let them do the work that Christians “can’t.” I had a pastor tell me (I’m a nurse) that it was better to let the nonChristians work on Sunday instead of me (nurses don’t have an option to not work Sundays). Sorry, but that sounds like “How to be a Pharisee 101.”
If Christians believe that it is sin for a woman to be a doctor because she is neglecting her family (whether she is a Christian or not), than they should be consistent in not accepting their services.
Maybe I’m not understanding your point.
BTW, I know pleny of smart OBs and Ped who chose their field because they wanted to. Not everyone is in it for the paycheck all the time.
October 18, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Cindy, scary isn’t it? Christian though she may be, neither my dh nor I feel comfortable using her. Neither does my Christian homebirthing friend who also lives in my area.
Mary ~ How sad that, in order to fulfill this idea that I can’t find biblically mandated, they are ignoring the Great Commission.
October 18, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“The Bible was written to be read through the eyes of a male.”
That should have a question mark instead of a period.
October 18, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“The Bible was written to be read through the eyes of a male?”
Well, sure. Remember, edumacating us wimmen folk only leads to rebellion and the jezebel spirit! Birthing babies and obeying our menfolk doesn’t require literacy. Those men will tell us what we’re supposed to be thinking. And if they want our opinion, they’ll give it to us.
October 18, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Light,
LOL!
Bill Gothard teaches that the Sermon on the Mount was written for men because Jesus was speaking to His disciples.
I was talking to someone about this whole teaching that the Bible was written by men for men and she said that this idea sounds very Mormon.
These teachings make me all the more eager to get to heaven.
Speaking of that, does anyone know if those who teach that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father also believe that women are eternally subordinate to men? After all, if you take their logic to the its conclusion, that is what they are saying.
I don’t know where I fall in the argument of eternal subordination but it seems that this has become a hot issue because the hyperpatriarchalists think it helps their cause in some way. I don’t at all see it that way. Warfield, Calvin and many other biblical scholars have understood Jesus’ subordination to be temporal and not eternal. That also makes sense if one is going to compare Jesus to a woman. A woman’s subordination is only temporal and not eternal.
If a woman’s subordination is eternal, that means the Bible was written to only men, especially where it speaks of believers being the royal priesthood and reigning with Christ for all eternity. That would mean that male believers are to reign with Christ and female believers are the helpers of the male believers who are reigning with Chris.
That sounds very much like Mormon theology.
If someone could point me to any writings that talk about a woman’s subordination AFTER this life, I would appreciate it.
October 18, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Corrie, I thought we were joint heirs with Jesus.
October 18, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Thatmom, that’s what I was always taught. Joint heirs with Christ, adopted sons and daughters. I know that the idea of male headship can be understood without devaluing women, but once we start saying that the Bible was written for men or that we women are not image bearers of Christ, I believe that we have begun down that slippery slope of women as lesser creatures, which I find insulting at best.
October 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Speaking of that, does anyone know if those who teach that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father also believe that women are eternally subordinate to men? After all, if you take their logic to the its conclusion, that is what they are saying.
Corrie, I recall seeing that in fact some comps do believe this. I think it was Piper & Grudem, but I’m not sure.
October 18, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Aha! Found it as a footnote in an article in the Priscilla Papers. The footnote says:
According to research done by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, some traditionalists do argue for women’s eternal subordination. For example, Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology P. 940, and Robert Letham, in an article in Westminster Journal Vol. 52 (cited in Good News for Women, Chapter 2).
October 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Light, any idea which edition that citation from Grudem’s Systematic Theology comes from?
October 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Perhaps this is what she’s citing:
…there will be no eternal modeling of equal roles for men and women at all levels of authority in the church.
Grudem is discussing church government in this chapter and in this specific section, he’s talking about how the example of the apostles is one piece of evidence detailing male leadership in the church. Jesus appointed twelve male apostles and these twelve men will sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. I’m not sure what his point is and I think the statement that I quoted above is rather confusing.
October 18, 2007 at 5:50 pm
So, does this also apply to the other types of hierarchy? For example, is a slave always a slave and a master always a master, even in the kingdom of heaven? What about church elders? Are they eternal elders?
It all reminds me of the argument over who was going to be first in the kingdom and who was going to sit at the right hand of Christ. As I recall the answer was “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.”
October 18, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I don’t have any of Grudem’s books (pitched ‘em years ago) nor Letham’s. But here is what Rebecca Groothius is saying in Chapter 2, pp. 57, 58, 59 of Good News for Women.
Aware of the disanalogy between female subordination and a temporary, functional subordination of the Son to the Father, traditionalists typically maintain that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father-but also eternally equal. This is then employed as an illustration-even a justification-for how men and women can be essentially equal, yet functionally unequal. Wayne Grudem goes so far as to claim that the doctrine of an eternally hierarchical structure of the Godhead is a “truth” that is “clearly” and “essential” element of orthodox Trinitarian theology, and he professes surprise that not all evangelical scholars see it this way.
The doctrine of an eternal hierarchy within the Trinity is a necessary corollary to the doctrine of gender hierarchy. If being the “head” of woman is to be understood as man’s permanent position of authority over woman, then God being the head of Christ must be understood as the eternal subordination of the Son to the authority of the Father. Otherwise, 1 Corinthians 11:3 cannot be used as the proof text for the “chain of command,” and “head” cannot be said to refer to the husband’s authority over the wife.
To invoke an eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in an attempt to demonstrate the legitimacy of male authority is a questionable strategy for at least three reasons. First, it is by no means clear from Scripture that the members of the Godhead are related to one another in terms of an eternal structure of rule and submission. This is a debatable point of theology on which conservative scholars disagree. Second, as Stanley Grenz observes, Christ’s obedience and submission to the Father during his time on earth is presented in the Bible as an example of how believers in Christ ought to relate to the Father; it is not intended to illustrate the subordination of one group of persons (women) to another group of persons (men). Third, if the coexistence of equality in being and subordination in function is not logically possible with respect to the permanent and comprehensive subordination of woman to man, then neither would it seem to be viable with respect to an eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.
…
In Robert Letham’s attempt to ground the permanent subordination of woman to man in an eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, he begins by stating the necessity of recognizing “full equality in terms of essence” between Christ and God. Two paragraphs later, however, he asserts that the subordination of the Son to the Father is not merely economic but ontological. “The revelation of the economic Trinity truly indicates the ontological Trinity,” he declares, apparently unaware that ontological equality and ontological subordination are mutually exclusive. It is significant that an ontological aspect to Christ’s subordination enters Letham’s discussion at the point where he attempts to establish that the son is eternally subordinate to the Father, and not merely subordinate in the capacity of his work as Redeemer.
Similarly, if a woman is under a man’s authority for the length and breadth of her life, she is not merely functionally subordinate but ontologically subordinate. It is the nature of femininity to be subordinate, and the nature of masculinity to be in authority. In fact, it is precisely these terms that traditionalists tend to define the meaning of manhood and womanhood, and on these grounds that they reject gender equality. And when this gender equality is grounded in and justified by a supposed eternal hierarchy of authority and subordination within the Trinity, it easily becomes cosmic, universal, and eternal in its scope. Letham, in fact, is enthusiastic about the idea of gender hierarchy continuing in the afterlife as an eternal imaging of the hierarchy at the heart of the Godhead.
October 18, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Well, rats, for some reason my italics didn’t take. That’s a looong quote from Groothius beginning with “Aware of”
October 18, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Women are eternally subordinate????
That is pure, damnable heresy. In Christ there is no male or female, and Mat 22:30 “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
These heretics — for that is what they are — should read their Bibles.
They are walking around blind and they don’t even know it.
October 18, 2007 at 7:31 pm
FWIW, Grudem denies that women are ontologically subordinate to men.
October 18, 2007 at 9:04 pm
More OBs are leaving the profession because they can’t afford the malpractice insurance. >>>>>>..
that’s exactly what happened to my mom :@
October 18, 2007 at 9:56 pm
FWIW, Grudem denies that women are ontologically subordinate to men.
He may deny it, but he holds a position that’s logically inconsistent. Groothius deals with this extensively in her book, and is far more eloquent than I. Basically, though, if you are by very design supposed to be subordinate simply because of your gender, i.e., based on an immutable, unchangeable quality (e.g., femaleness), then you’re not functionally subordinate, you’re really ontologically subordinate. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …
October 19, 2007 at 3:27 am
Kevin Giles (Jesus and the Father) also makes the point that the term “subordinate” is not synonymous with “equal” in the English usage of the terms. Subordinates are not, by definition, equal to one another.
The language about “what God does” started to change in the 19th century with Turretin and Hodges, using some sloppy language when describing the doctrine of God. From that, the eternal subordination doctrine developed (all this is per Giles). Berkof and Hammond changed the use of the term “works” by describing things as God’s “functions.” From there, Giles cites George Knight III (NT Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women, 1977) and Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1994) as those who changed the then commonly used term “function,” abandoning it for the term “roles.” From there, it all progresses into the modern CBMW promoted concept through Bruce Ware and Russell Moore to name two. Although many patriocentrists do not hold strictly to this doctrine, many do draw upon their insights to support the cause. To that I agree: if it walks like a duck… Also, “any port in a storm applies” well. CBMWs means justify their ends, so why not use their arguments?
Oh, Father Bill. I’m glad to see that you’re enjoying your true womanhood. Although I’ve read recently that quiet times and studies can be forgone when duties at home make study difficult, I’m hanging on to the Word that teaches us to hide it in our hearts. I find that preferable to throwing out my Bible, choosing rather to memorize the Westminster Catechism. Until we bump elbows together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb…
October 19, 2007 at 4:27 am
“Corrie, I thought we were joint heirs with Jesus.”
I did too.
Light,
Thank you for posting that information. I really appreciate it and I think she makes some very good points. Even before reading this, I see the illogic of some of these teachings. The three points she makes are excellent.
Anne,
I agree with you- it is a slippery slope for many reasons. If the Bible was written “by men”, that leaves an opening for a Mack truck to drive through. For instance, if it was written by men then the Bible is fallible.
But, we know it was NOT written by mere men but it was written by God who is NOT a man. God is a spirit. And it was not written to men to be disseminated to non-men. It was written to God’s BRIDE, to be read as a personal letter straight from the heart of God to that very person.
I am so glad that there is only one mediator between God and man [as in, human being]- Christ Jesus. I am so glad that I don’t have to wait for someone else to read God’s word and digest it for me before I can eat of it on my own. We are human beings, not baby birds who can only eat pre-chewed food. God gives each of us the Holy Spirit, who leads and guides and teaches us. The Holy Spirit is what enables both a man and a woman to fully know God and to understand His word.
Cynthia,
Yes, we are to be like the angels in heaven. I know some hyperPs who teach that angels are male/masculine. Maybe that means we will all be male when we get to heaven? Maybe that is the only way that we [defective males] can rule with Christ for all eternity? Especially since it is so monstrous for a female to bear any sort of rule, maybe somehow we will all become like the angels who are masculine (in order to make us fit their interpretation of God’s word)?
Cindy,
I am with you on keeping my Bible and memorizing actual scripture rather than memorizing a catechism. Catechisms are helpful but I would much rather hide the living word of God in my heart. We only have so much time and we must make sure we have our priorities straight. I do wonder where God fits in all of this.
What a day it will be when we will all be bumping elbows at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb!
October 19, 2007 at 4:29 am
The discussion on angels and how we shall be like them reminded me of C.S. Lewis’ quote from “Till We Have Faces”
“Nothing is yet in its true form.”
How true!
October 19, 2007 at 11:17 am
Corrie, you mentioned a few posts back that you had seen the Monstrous Regiment of Women movie. I haven’t seen it yet but there are a couple things I am wondering about it.
First of all, how many of the people featured on the film are personally associated with Vision Forum in some way? (employed by them or have books with them etc.)
Secondly, who are the women on the movie who are the “experts” on Knox?
And I have read that there is a fairly graphic abortion clip in the film. I am certain that that will elicit a strong reaction from viewers and am wondering, as I have since the first trailer came out, what that has to do with women working outside the home or women voting. How are those all lumped together?
October 19, 2007 at 11:24 am
The midwife is to acquiesce to the father?
This reminds me of Bill Gothard’s admonition to fathers that my husband once heard. Gothard went through this long list of things a dad is supposed to do during pregnancy and childbirth, concluding by telling the dads that they needed to simply face the fact that their wives could die in childbirth. My husband walked out of that workshop thinking that Gothard had crossed so far over the line it wasn’t funny.
I would like to know more about this teaching. I would be highly uncomfortable if my son-in-law were making the calls for my daughter. Childbirth is a woman thing. The one giving birth ought to be the one who has made her childbirth plan and should be working with the midwife or OB. The dad is there for encouragement, to rub your back, and to give you the ice chips. How many fathers actually know much about the delivery process, enough to make these sorts of calls? Scary stuff.
October 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm
About the word subordinate-
it means “lower in rank or position; of less or secondary importance”
Others have used the word “subservient” to describe Christ’s position to the Father.
subservient means- prepared to obey others unquestioningly
October 19, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“How many fathers actually know much about the delivery process, enough to make these sorts of calls? Scary stuff.”
Karen,
It IS scary. I have heard stories from people who would make you ill. I know of a person whose husband forbid the midwives to call #911 when his wife was bleeding to death after a delivery. He instructed them to just pray. It was obvious that the life was draining out of her. Thankfully a [sassy and rebellious] friend came to see her and saw that she was dying and picked up the phone, in defiance to the husband’s ignorant and wreckless instructions and called #911. I know of many more stories like this one all coming out of the “husband as covering” teaching.
I KNOW how fast a woman can die in childbirth from bleeding to death. I have had that happen to me and I was very near to death and thankfully my husband doesn’t pretend to play doctor when he is NOT one. He allowed the doctors and nurses to do THEIR job.
My son used to work on a dairy farm. If a calf was breech, he would just tie a metal chain around its foot and they would pull the calf out, sometimes using the aid of a tractor. Also, if a calf was being slow to be born, they would just cut the cow in order to expedite the birth of the calf.
The guy at the dairy farm used to joke about how he had delivered so many calves that he would feel comfortable delivering human babies and using the same methods. Now, he was JOKING. He knew that delivering a calf and the methods used in births that were not so easy for the cow were NOTHING compared to a woman giving birth.
There is a lot of arrogance and cockiness associated with someone who would presume to think they knew all about childbirth and delivery just because they happened to be the father of the baby or because they had watched a movie or because they had helped an animal deliver. Not to mention that if they are performing any medical procedures, they are practicing medicine without a license.
As you have said, childbirth has always been the realm of women. In fact, Jewish men were not allowed, because of the Law, to even touch their wives during the process because of the blood involved. The woman was unclean as soon as she had her bloody show. Midwives were always women.
Most men are comfortable taking a backseat in the whole process and just being there to support and serve their wives and to make sure that their wife receives the best care available. Some men are not content with that position. They want to call the shots and act like a hotshot.
October 19, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“I am so glad that there is only one mediator between God and man [as in, human being]- Christ Jesus. I am so glad that I don’t have to wait for someone else to read God’s word and digest it for me before I can eat of it on my own.”
I am, too, Corrie! This thread reminded me of something I stumbled upon an article a while ago but haven’t been able to find again. Essentially, the author was using an illustration of the proper hierarchy in the home. He said that if Jesus came to visit your home, he would only speak to the husband, who would then relay whatever Jesus told him to the wife. The mere suggestion that if my Lord himself came to visit in person that he wouldn’t have anything to do with me personally or directly made me want to weep!
October 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Doug Wilson’s son-in-law, Ben Merkle, pontificates in an article about women and childbirth that would be amusing if it weren’t so offensive. He writes as if he somehow knows better than the other half of the population exactly what is going on inside a woman’s heart during labor. Here is an excerpt:
“There are plenty of stories of women in labor losing their tempers, shrieking and cursing, and generally doing things that they wouldn’t dream of doing at any other time. And most of these stories are true. When a woman is in child labor, somewhere inside, someone turns the volume on her heart all the way up and plugs in four amps. What may have been just a murmur of discontent under ordinary circumstances turns into a deafening shriek in the delivery room. Put another way, the pregnant woman is about to have a number of people come and visit her heart; and this company is going to see how well she has kept her heart in order.
We also have plenty of stories of the horrified husband who is shocked and amazed at the kinds of things that are coming out of his sweet little wife. Here we must stop and remember, that as the convenantal head, nothing is coming out of his wife that he isn’t responsible for. This time of preparation is as much for him as it is for her. He is in charge of making sure that the house is cleaned, and anything that should come out during the trial is as much his responsibility as it is her’s.”
That’s right, ladies. Express pain during childbirth with some unwisely chosen words, and the whole world will see how well you have “kept your heart in order.” Hey, I have a great idea. Why don’t we deprive Ben Merkle of sleep for weeks beforehand, then pummel his body for 12 hours, make him throw up a few times, and then pull his lower lip up over his forehead (to borrow an analogy from Carol Burnett) and see what words come out of his mouth? Then we can all sit in judgment about what’s in his heart.
There’s so much more wrong in just these two paragraphs, I don’t know where to start. Full link is here:
http://www.christkirk.com/greyfriars/positionpapers/benmerkle/childbirth.htm
October 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“This thread reminded me of something I stumbled upon an article a while ago but haven’t been able to find again. Essentially, the author was using an illustration of the proper hierarchy in the home. He said that if Jesus came to visit your home, he would only speak to the husband, who would then relay whatever Jesus told him to the wife. The mere suggestion that if my Lord himself came to visit in person that he wouldn’t have anything to do with me personally or directly made me want to weep!”
This is lunacy! I hope you do find that article.
I wonder if this author read the story about Mary and Martha? I wonder if he read the story of the virgin Mary where the angel came and told her that she would conceive of the Holy Spirit and she accepted that honor? I wonder if the author read the story about Mary annointing Jesus’ feet with her tears and her life’s savings while the apostles grumbled, complained and condemned her? I do wonder if these people read their bibles at all?
This is just more of the “Jesus/God takes a backseat to the husband/father” kind of stuff. I hate to be the one to tell them that God takes a backseat to NO ONE. When God takes a backseat to a sinful man, it is called IDOLATRY.
October 19, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Karen, I, too, share your concerns about the husband making inappropriate decisions regarding childbirth. I know of a recent home birth in which the first-time mother needed an episiotomy. The mid-wife was unavailable and her assistant didn’t know how to perform one. The husband, however, had birthed calves before, so he said he could do one, and he did. She tore anyway and bled heavily for 24 hours before her husband finally took her to the hospital.
If this won’t wake her up to what kind of a lifestyle she has married into, I don’t know what will. This is definitely patriarchy on steroids and I feel very sorry for her because she is stuck in an extremely HYPER-patriarchal situation.
You have every right to be concerned, Karen.
October 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“Hey, I have a great idea. Why don’t we deprive Ben Merkle of sleep for weeks beforehand, then pummel his body for 12 hours, make him throw up a few times, and then pull his lower lip up over his forehead (to borrow an analogy from Carol Burnett) and see what words come out of his mouth? Then we can all sit in judgment about what’s in his heart.”
LOL!!!
Light, sounds like a great teaching tool.
Ben is wrong. Just plain wrong. When I am in labor, I become very apologetic and in all my births not one swear word or nasty utterance was issued forth from my lips. I would NEVER think to complain or give my care givers any trouble. Labor has a different affect for each and every woman.
Normally I am much like this in real life except for one area……
And, since I have uttered a naughty word when stubbing my toe or smashing my thumb with a hammer or at other times in my life, I would think that those words would readily come out of my mouth when I was experiencing intense pain in childbirth. I was raised in a non-Christian home and swearing was just a way of life. Those are deeply ingrained habits that take some time to get rid of and even then it is something I always have to guard against.
But, when my guard is down during childbirth and I am not even trying, not one swear word has ever issued from my mouth.
So, for those sweet little wives who say a naughty word during labor, don’t worry, that is NOT a reflection of what is in your heart. That is a bunch of &%$#.
October 19, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Jen,
That is just absolutely HORRIBLE!!! That husband could be charged with practicing medicine without a license. When I told my story about my son and his boss at the dairy farm, it was a JOKE. For someone to seriously think that delivering a human baby is the same as delivering a cow baby is beyond me. It is arrogant. It is wreckless. It is a violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith under the heading “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. The WCF states that wreckless conduct that could endanger the life of another violates the spirit of that commandment.
Also, midwives know how to apply oils and do perineal massages in order for episiotomies to be unnecessary. Truthfully, a tear heals much better than a cut. That tissue is so sensitive and the pressure so great in that area that a small cut could turn into a HUGE cut in no time at all.
I am sickened.
Here is a link to a story where a husband gave his wife an episiotomy and she died. Warning- there are a couple of swear words used in conjunction with this man’s feelings about what this husband did to his wife. IMHO, they are appropriate considering the stupidity.
http://hipsubwg.blogspot.com/2007/08/misty-horner-bump.html
This is a good link because it highlights how religious beliefs not based on God’s word.
October 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Try not to look around on that site but DO watch the newsclip that is included with this story.
October 19, 2007 at 3:59 pm
In regards to a woman in the transition phase of labor:
As a nurse, I have cared for several patients who have suffered damage in the area of the brain that controls speech, causing the patient to utter repetitive, “automatic” words. I cared for a minister who was otherwise cognizant and appropriate, but he kept cursing. He, his family and his visitors were mortified. This was all so contrary to everything in his life per his lamentation and the distress of his family. Not one person on our nursing staff considered that this was a true revelation of his true character. I was honored to encourage both him and his family that the weight of abundant fruit of his life far outweighed this physiologic symptom. It was both humiliating but also humbling for him, but I saw the Lord at work in the situation. Man looks to the outward things, but God looks to the intent of the heart.
So for those who have such things to say about women in the transition phase of labor or the stroke patient in distress, I hope and pray that they are never in such a situation so that they suffer a similar pain. This is the kind of example that demonstrates how simplistic and sometimes ignorant legalistic people can become.
October 19, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The thing about the Misty Horner story that stands out is that her husband was the one denying her medical treatment and care. Her baby was breech and because he refused to allow her to get treatment in the hospital, the baby died. He then performed the episiotomy on her and she contracted sepsis and died a little while later. Misty told friends and family that she was trying to be a “submissive wife”
Maybe Ben Merkel is right after all. If my husband came at me with a knife or a pair of scissors when I was delivering a baby and in his delusions of grandeur thought he knew how to make an incision on my perineum involving VERY delicate tissue, I would probably swear at him. I would also grab the scissors out of his hand and tell him to leave. He is dangerous and should not be around a birthing mother.
What about the midwife in all of this? Did she tell him not to do that? If a MIDWIFE didn’t feel comfortable enough to do an episiotomy, how in the world would a first-time (let along multiple time) husband feel confident????
I know of women who suffer with pain during intercourse and scar tissue and all sorts of problems because of bad episiotomies.
Jen, I sure hope the father and mother of this woman came down hard on their daughter’s husband. I know that if that was my son, I would have been tempted to spank him. I certainly would have been very upfront about my extreme displeasure in his careless and wreckless actions not to mention his unfathomable arrogant attitude. If it was my daughter, I would have been sorely tempted to pack her bags and get her out of there where she was safe.
I watched a medical show once where a vasectomy was being performed. I am confident that I could make the small incision necessary to cut the vas deferens. I think I will volunteer my services but first I have to sharpen my knives. Any takers? After all, how hard could it be? I have watched many circumcisions and I have cleaned fish and dressed deer. I am pretty handy with a knife and I have a steady hand.
My son also had to castrate the male calves. I could ask him since he is now an expert on the subject of vasectomies on human males.
October 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Men do not belong in the delivery room or have anything to do with the process. I am SO irritated with any men in the delivery room. They don’t have a clue about labor and never will! THey belong in the waiting room with a cup of coffee. I am having a baby in Feb and I told my husband that I don’t even want him there. He is more than happy to oblige.
BTW, the only person I swear at and hit when in labor is my husband. I just am very mad at him during the whole process. I don’t know why. I think it is because he seems so ignorant about my pain. He’s tired of getting hit, so he will be out for this one. I think it is unfair how women have forced men into the delivery room. It is almost as if it is expected to have them there.
There was a story out of FL about 2 women acting as midwives who delivered their SIL’s baby. The woman bled to death and they didn’t call anyone. They tried to give her herbs. By the time they did call the ambulance, it was too late. She had so little blood in her when she arrived at the ER that the staff had to stand her on her head to get a jugular line in. She died. Her husband stood around acting stupid and watched his wife bleed to death. The 2 unlicensed midwives were sentenced to a few years in prison for practicing without a license. The arrongance of some of these people is just astounding. I watched the trial on Court TV and they were so defiant. They were part of some religious cult thing.
October 19, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Zan,
I did some reading a while ago on some Jewish websites about women and labor and the issue of men being in the delivery room. Because a woman is unclean during childbirth, it makes it a very difficult situation for the Jewish man to be in the delivery room. The Jewish men are okay with waiting in the waiting room but they are made to feel guilty by our modern society in many ways.
I thought they had some good thoughts on the whole thing. I don’t think we should be forced into doing anything that makes us feel uncomfortable during the labor process. I know many men who are forced into participating when they don’t feel adequate. I also know many men who act like a hotshot in the delivery room and they annoy their wife and all the medical staff and actually cause the wife to get very bad medical care because no one wants to deal with the husband.
I have helped many of my friends who did not want their husbands to be their direct support person. They wanted a female there because a female *listens* to them and does what helps THEM. A female doesn’t complain about how tired they are or about how hungry they are or how much their back hurts to the laboring while they are laboring for hours without food, sleep and experiencing back pain.
They had said that their husbands wanted to help them in ways that were not helpful at all and then refused to do the things that were helpful. Their husbands were only too happy to have me there so they could watch the football game and freely go to the cafeteria for food and nap in the comfy recliners.
When I am in labor, I like quiet, low lights and not a lot of talking. I also don’t like to be touched when I am in labor, it causes me to lose my focus. I also don’t want someone breathing in my face with coffee breath telling me to “BREATHE”!
No, YOU breathe and NOT in my face, thank you! When labor gets intense, I want my back massaged like one would massage a linebacker’s back. I don’t want this light, butterfly touching going on.
My husband knows that during early and mid labor, I like to find that “happy place” and listen to my iPod and be left alone. He honors that and doesn’t feel he needs to be doing something or to be foisting himself upon the process in some way just to prove he is the head-honcho.
The most distracting thing for me while in labor is to let go and actually allow myself to be taken care of instead of being the one who takes care of everyone else. My labor has actually slowed to a nonexistent halt because I was worrying about whether or not my husband ate or took his insulin or took too much insulin or whatever. When I checked in, I would just tell the nurse that my husband is a diabetic and they made sure he ate and took his blood sugars. That helped me a lot.
The reason why homebirth has become so popular because it puts the WOMAN in control of her own birth and it allows her to be free from unnecessary medical procedures like episiotomies.
I never had a homebirth but I have had wonderful hospital births. The best nurses and doctors realize that it is the WOMAN who is giving birth and they are merely there to assist and serve HER.
I think playing doctor is okay, between a husband and wife, as long as it doesn’t include sharp objects and actual medical procedures!
October 19, 2007 at 5:48 pm
That story has left me physically sick…
Strikes me of witch doctors and stuff like that!
October 19, 2007 at 5:55 pm
“I know of a recent home birth in which the first-time mother needed an episiotomy. The mid-wife was unavailable and her assistant didn’t know how to perform one.”
Jen,
Do you know anything about the midwife that was there? Did she try to stop it? Was she trained in Gothard’s midwifery “school”?
I would think that a midwife would know her place and would stop anyone from performing nonsense like this. A midwife is there for the laboring woman and to protect the life of the laboring woman and her unborn child. She is there to do everything she can to make it a pleasant birth experience and to make sure the laboring woman gets the best medical care.
If I was that midwife, I would have put my body in front of the laboring woman and would have told the scissors-wielding-over-zealous husband to back off. That, imho, is the job of the midwife. She KNOWS that this is practicing medicine without a license. She knows the inherent risks of infection and horrible tearing that can happen from a botched and too-large episiotomy. Just the fact that this young mom had a lot of bleeding and had to be taken to the hospital is alarming. I wonder if the medical professionals know that the husband performed a medical procedure on his wife? If they did, I would think that they would have to report this to the authorities.
I am quite sure that the medical staff would have been horrified to learn that some young buck decided to take a scissors or a knife to his wife’s body. They would have been disgusted and outraged.
Even a male OB does not deliver his own babies! Even surgeons do not do surgeries on their own relatives. There is a reason for this.
I do hope that the hyperpatriarchalists speak to this issue and issue a statement that this is NOT acceptable behavior. They have a duty to say something. If they remain silent, they could very well have blood on their hands someday.
Of course saying that birth belongs to the realm of womanhood might insult their patriocentric sensitivities.
It just goes to show you that a little knowledge without any wisdom is very dangerous.
October 19, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I always think it is so weird that a lot of patriachal people and their wives encourage the man to be there. Isn’t the man in the delivery room a new idea? Isn’t it a result of feminism?
My husband is a gentle patient man, but he is a man. Men don’t know what labor is like. I would rather have women who have had children and know how to massage you the right way. My mom is a nurse, too, and she is my coach. My last labor was pretty fast 1’45″ so I didn’t have time to yell that much at my husband. With this one, I want him out, but he can come to see the baby born if he wants to.
October 19, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I have to say I am really saddened at the words of women on here calling themselves “Christian”. Not because they have disagreed with the message of patricarchy or feminism but because of the slander and gossip that has gone on. 1,000 comments!! Maybe we do need to spend more time caring for our children, families, and the needy.
…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. (1 Tim 5:13)
October 19, 2007 at 8:43 pm
It IS scary. I have heard stories from people who would make you ill. I know of a person whose husband forbid the midwives to call #911 when his wife was bleeding to death after a delivery. He instructed them to just pray. It was obvious that the life was draining out of her. Thankfully a [sassy and rebellious] friend came to see her and saw that she was dying and picked up the phone, in defiance to the husband’s ignorant and wreckless instructions and called #911. I know of many more stories like this one all coming out of the “husband as covering” teaching.
-What century am I living in, the 11th, or the 21st? I know God never changes, but he DOES provide us with medical knowledge, and last time I checked, it is NOT a sin to use it! Yes, prayer is ALWAYS a good idea, but to let a woman die when help is only a phone call away? That is murder, IMO.
BTW, historical fact- during the MIddle Ages and Renaissance, C-Sections were considered murder, since they killed the woman. They were only permitted if it was absolutely CERTAIN the baby would live.
My dad was present at my birth, and he would NEVER have done anything like this- although he DOES claim my mom threw a stuffed animal at him
October 19, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Amanda, I have no children, and I live alone.
October 19, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I am really thankful that my dear husband was present for 5 our my 6 deliveries. I needed his back rubs and his words of encouragement. He is also the very best story teller and music picker outer and our doctor and nurses all remarked at the peaceful environment where our little ones were born.
However, if he decided to perform a medical procedure on me, unless it was an emergency and there was NO other option, I would have real issues with that.
Where does this thinking come from? I know there is such an negative attitude against formal education among the patriocentrics, perhaps they believe they can do everything. I remember we were once at a homeschooling conference where a keynote speaker talked about how he and his son had rewired a house. They didn’t have any experience and didn’t use any book, it was all hit and miss. My husband who provides for this household with his electrical engineering know-how was horrified. The man told us all that he just prayed before he connected each and every wire. Why is there such disdain for any formal training? This push to not have daughters college educated is also with sons as well. I just don’t understand it. What sort of Christian influence can we have on the world we we behave so irresponsibly?
October 19, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I do think that there is a huge movement in conservative circles to have nothing to do with any kind of authority or accountability.
There has to be some kind of balance in this independent thinking. Yes, we shouldn’t just blindly say, “yes” to anyone with a degree, but we should have the humility to know that we don’t have the answers for everything. I think we should just have some common sense. Everyone should check out, “It Takes A Parent,” by Betsy Hart.
I don’t think that all men should be banned from the labor and delivery, it should just be…ahem…”non-normative.”
October 19, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“Can’t you just picture a midwife trying to stop a hyper-patriarch, especially one who is so full of himself that he insists on performing medical procedures on his own wife? ”
A good punch to the solar plexus will stop just about anybody…
October 20, 2007 at 12:06 am
My husband was with me the whole time for all six deliveries, and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. He is a family practice doctor who used to deliver babies until medical malpractice had them practically paying to deliver babies, so he quit. I am confident that he had the training to cover any problems we would have. I preferred having him close to talk to me rather than dealing with the birth, and each time the doctor would offer to let him cut the cord, his response was “that is what I am paying you to do.”
Anyway, I guess there could be a few exceptions to husbands practicing medicine on their wives.
October 20, 2007 at 1:28 am
“Not because they have disagreed with the message of patricarchy or feminism but because of the slander and gossip that has gone on. 1,000 comments!! Maybe we do need to spend more time caring for our children, families, and the needy.”
Hi Amanda,
Could you give me an example of this slander and gossip? It would help us to know exactly what you are talking about.
Also, if you have any specific questions for any of us concerning whether or not we are taking care of our families and helping the needy, please ask. I am totally willing to be accountable to you for the use of my time.
Zan,
You are absolutely correct about the need for a balance. The hyperpatriarchal movement IS out of balance because those in authority are not accountable to anyone and when they are called to submit to an authority, they circumvent, leave and start their own churches or just ignore the laws because they feel like it.
“Anyway, I guess there could be a few exceptions to husbands practicing medicine on their wives.”
Keebler,
For the most part, doctors do not treat their own family members. My husband has cut the cord several times. That, imho, isn’t practicing medicine. Giving an episiotomy IS considered a surgical procedure and I would think that any doctor would agree one needs a bit of training in order to do it right.
I know many doctors and they do not treat their own families. It is not that they can’t, it is just they won’t. It is much harder to remain objective when it is your own family member.
October 20, 2007 at 2:06 am
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_7190582
It looks like Warren Jeffs performed crude episiotomies on his wives, too.
October 20, 2007 at 4:35 am
It looks like Warren Jeffs performed crude episiotomies on his wives, too.
I’m shocked. I really thought this midwife in my area was a hyper-patriachy fluke. She’s an unmarried woman living with her parents and working with her father’s permission.
I’m another mom who is grateful to have my husband close by. He is the head of our home, yes. But he is also my lover, my best friend, and the one who makes me feel safe and loved. He knows what to say to me. He knows when to let me be. He knows how to touch me or rub my back in the way that will feel best. I am grateful that he has been there for the births of our children. And for the record, I’ve cut the cord for all but one. My mother cut my first child’s cord, as it was the only birth she’d ever been to where she wasn’t the one laboring.
The stories I’m hearing here are disturbing. If a husband’s job is to protect and care for his wife, the choices these men are making are not witnessing that. I deeply distrust the idea of taking submission to the point where I submit to my husband’s allowing me to die needlessly or be subject to his attempts at surgical procedures that he has no business performing.
October 20, 2007 at 8:19 am
Amanda, my family is very well taken care of. Thanks so much for your care and concern.
As to your very serious charges of slander and gossip- Would be so kind as to point out some examples for us? Just give the comment number. That way, we can avoid any such acts in the future. I know I can speak for many if not all of the ladies here when I say that we are not trying to defame anyone- we are simply trying to tests these teachings in light of Scripture and understand our own roles as wives and mothers. We are not perfect and sometimes, discussions such as these can degenerate quickly. I think this one has, for the most part.
I, for one, would appreciate any specific feedback you can give. General charges of gossip and slander are just not helpful in discussions as large as this one.
October 20, 2007 at 5:52 pm
“I have to say I am really saddened at the words of women on here calling themselves “Christian”. Not because they have disagreed with the message of patricarchy or feminism but because of the slander and gossip that has gone on.”
Amanda’s drive-by shooting with a Scripture verse tacked on is predictable in its vagueness.
All of you asking her for specifics know very well she can’t lay out an argument as to which comments constitute slander and gossip. By the way, isn’t it called “libel” if it’s printed and “slander” if it’s spoken?
The honorable way to deal with this is for Amanda to not post any more here until she deals with what she accused your blog thread of being — either by putting up the evidence for her claim, or else by retracting it.
If I see her name again in these threads, I might remind her that she made serious accusations and did not provide evidence. A long thread does not mean that slander and gossip have gone on, nor does it mean that all women who post here are necessarily neglecting their homes. That’s something only the Lord can determine, and Amanda isn’t the Lord.
October 20, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Lynn, in spite of what I wrote above, I totally agree with you. Thank you for saying it.
It seems pretty clear to me that Amanda’s comment was just meant to flame this thread. Its pretty sad, really.
October 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm
regarding the men that were performing those procedures on their wives- isn’t that practicing medicine w/o a license? From the knowledge of medicine I know that has trickled down to me from word of mouth from my mother, that’s illegal.
October 21, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Perhaps it would help if we had a biblical explanation of what gossip and slander are.
*Gossip (Greek = diablos) to accuse or to give false information.
*Slander (Greek = blasphemia) means evil speaking or vilification (to malign or disparage).
I agree with Amanda that quite a bit of gossip and slander have taken place here on this blog.
What has been said here may be true, or a lie, or a mixture of both. Even if it is true, the gossip or slanderer is telling the wrong person. The only person they should be telling is the person himself (or herself)!
To this end, perhaps the Botkin girls and others slandered and gossiped about here might be better served simply by being addressed of these issues privately, not in a public forum. If that attempt is made and not responded to, it is not right to then come here for all the world to read and slander these people publicly.
Christian women are told to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips (Titus 2:3). I think many people would attest to the fact that this blog contains gossip and slander.
*Some text above is taken from Damsels in Distress by Martha Peace
October 21, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“*Gossip (Greek = diablos) to accuse or to give false information.
*Slander (Greek = blasphemia) means evil speaking or vilification (to malign or disparage).”
Trish,
You are not accurately defining these words and if you are accurately defining these words then you are playing the hypocrite.
Exposing false teaching is not slander and gossip.
If critiquing a book is slander and gossip then Amazon.com and anyone else who does a book review should be condemned as a gossip and slanderer.
You had better write World Magazine and tell them to stop slandering and gossiping, too. I assume you have already done this since you seem to be very sensitive to slander and gossip. The fact is, according to YOU, Trish, World Magazine is FILLED with slander and gossip.
WorldnetDaily should be shut down because it is filled with gossip and slander.
And cult watch organization or apologetic group needs to be warned to stop their slander and gossip.
Then you need to throw your Bible out because it is filled with slander and gossip.
BTW, someone was correct, this is not slander, it is libel because it is in written form. It is best that if you are going to make these sorts of allegations you at least understand the terms. I, personally, have a problem with sloppy accusations. If you are going to make an accusation it had better be accurate and true or you are guilty of bearing false witness.
Also, anyone or website or book that writes about feminists and what they have written in book form (ie., Betty Friedan, Hillary Clinton, the directors of NOW, etc) are guilty of slander, gossip and libel. That would shut down various anti-feminist websites, wouldn’t it?
Trish, you seem to be applying this very inconsistently and it looks like it only goes one way. If your favorites are being critiqued it is “gossip and slander” but if those you do not like are being critiqued, then it is “sound teaching” and “just rebuke”.
Can’t have it both ways, Trish. Either you apply your terms across the board or you withdraw your false accusations. Your bias is showing and the scripture clearly warns us that we are not show preference. We are to judge justly.
I am still waiting for you or Amanda to show an example of this so-called gossip. You would think you could do that, especially if you had the time to accuse.
I would also like you to examine your OWN life and your OWN writings to make sure you are setting an example and practicing what you preach. Oh, and that goes for PRIVATE EMAIL, too.
Also, by your very own definition [given above] you are GUILTY of gossip (to accuse/false accusation) and slander (malign, disparage) on this very list.
You already know that there are several who have contacted some of these ministries to get have questions answered only never to get a response. What then? Who do we go to in order to get these false teachings corrected when the “authorities” are those who teach the very same things?
I hope you can see that you aren’t defining these words correctly and you are unjustly using these terms.
October 21, 2007 at 7:35 pm
“To this end, perhaps the Botkin girls and others slandered and gossiped about here might be better served simply by being addressed of these issues privately, not in a public forum. If that attempt is made and not responded to, it is not right to then come here for all the world to read and slander these people publicly.”
Let me restate that:
“Jennie Chancey and the Botkin sisters can say whatever they want and produce whatever kind of materials they want, but if you discuss and disagree with what their public speaking and writing in a public forum without first contacting them privately you are guilty of sin.”
Which is hogwash, of course.
October 21, 2007 at 7:36 pm
An example of gossip and slander:
Having just spent a delightful two plus weeks with my charming, college educated daughter and her little boys, I got up this morning to be introduced to this link and I am appalled. I am just about to begin reading the Botkin girls’ book entitled So Much More for a project I am working on, but this documentary by them is truly over the top. Please watch it and think about the heresy that is being passed off as “biblical womanhood.”
As already stated:
What has been said here may be true, or a lie, or a mixture of both. Even if it is true, the gossip or slanderer is telling the wrong person. The only person they should be telling is the person himself (or herself)!
October 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I think the explanation as to the severe unbiblical legalism in So Much More was covered very well in the first several explanations in this thread:
“I see it as a dangerous heresy and here is why. These people are adding to the Word of God, are imposing a legalistic standard on the body of Christ, to the detriment of all of us, and are taking more than half the body of Christ and telling them that they cannot use the unique gifts that the Lord has given to them. And all of it is based on man’s paradigm rather than on what the Scripture teaches.
You say that God’s values are more important than any college degree. I completely agree. I also believe that God’s Word is higher than man’s ways.
In case you are interested, Midwest Christian Outreach, a well-respected cult awareness group, is about to publish their Summer 2007 journal which discusses the cultic nature of the patriarchal movement. They have spent months researching these teachings about women and have held them up to the truths of Scripture. I think when it is published, it will be eye-opening for many people.”
Well, MCO’s Journal was eye-opening for me and many others. It was crazy-making reading Brian Abshire’s Vision Forum piece where he out and outright declared that God Almighty Himself does not allow women to vote in government elections, citing a Scripture that in no way proves his point, and then reading some lame explanations as to what he really meant after that.
Don did a good job dealing with the over the top heretical legalism w/respect to Vision Forum, and Karen here, and on her other site is doing a great job dealing with the extremes of Patriarchy in general.
Karen, keep up the good work.
By the way, some time ago on my blog, I noted Jennie Chancey says the same thing Trish is saying. Jennie said if you have problems with what we write, talk to us first.
Well, that’s nice, but it isn’t necessary, if what is being discussed is public already. But what especially interested me is Jennie’s and her husband’s hypocrisy.
When Matt Chancey did his guilt by association smear job against the Epsteins, he didn’t first go to Mark and Jen.
When Jennie Chancey wrote a piece on Vision Forum taking Andrew Sandlin to task for some of his remarks, she didn’t go to him first. I know, because I checked.
I guess if you ascribe to Patriarchy, you don’t have to go to others first before doing political hatchet jobs against them, or else stridently disagreeing with what they write.
But if you see problems with Patriarchal teachings, and discuss it, you are guilty of slander and gossip.
For the record, I think Matt Chancey’s mrsbinoculars site is just a bunch of unsubstantiated political smearing.
I think Jennie had every right to criticize Sandlin publicly for public remarks he made, without needing to go to him first. I disagree with what Jennie said about Sandlin, though. I discussed this in great length here:
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/06/jennie-chancey-on-sandlin-3.html
October 21, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I am reading and partipating on this blog thread because I lead a homeschool support group. The families involved in our support group are hearing teachings promoted by phillips , botkins and others via radio broadcasts, state conferences and other worshops promoted by our state group. I MUST understand these teachings and be prepared to discuss the issues that are brought up here. I have not felt subjected to gossip here. I feel for the most part it has been an intelligent conversation among Christian believers who seek to understand teachings that are wrong and dangerous. The Botkins have written a book….reviews and discussions of a book and its ideas are not only acceptable but mandatory.We have a duty as Christian to expose wrong teaching. And this is what I see this thread as doing. I see no lies. I see no vilification. Just a discussion of the issues laid out in the book. The accusations I see have only occurred in the last couple of comments. I wonder why you are reading this “gossip” if thats what you feel it is. A thousand comments certainly is a lot to read.
October 21, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Trish, sorry, what you gave as an example just doesn’t qualify. What you said above about us is much worse than that.
Care to try again?
October 21, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I have stated nothing about you, but have agreed with what God says. God’s Word is clear: gossip and slander are sinful afflictions. Many of the posts in this thread contain gossip and slander. They make public those issues that should be kept private (between the offender and the offended). Both gossip and slander involve passing on a bad report about someone else, and no, one doesn’t have to read all 1000 posts to find that here…one just has to read what started it all.
The Bible has specific commands dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ who sin against us (Matthew 18) or who lead unruly, undisciplined lives (2 Thess. 3). None of those commands involve public gossip and slander on a blog.
The Bible says those who gossip and slander are fools (Prov. 10:18-19) and should not be associated with (Prov. 29:19).
Perhaps that is why those who admonish here write their admonishment and do not comment again. They read the responses to their admonishment and then follow God’s command not to associate further.
October 21, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I just don’t understand where you’re coming from, Trish. We are discussing PUBLIC works- words and ideas that are published and available either for purchase or free. I agree with Corriejo- by your definition, even a negative or critical of any work posted on Amazon.com would be considered libel. (Slander does not apply here, as these are written words). Another example- Doug Phillips has written several pieces criticizing the Harry Potter series of books and those who read and enjoy them. By your definition, he is guilty of libel against those who disagree.
You’ve not at all made your case that one piece of gossip or libel has occurred here. There may be some- I’m not disputing that, but you haven’t demonstrated the existence of gossip or libel here at all yet.
I, for one, would appreciate it if you would give some more examples. We would all agree with God’s Word on this issue. You mentioned the Proverb which states that we should not associate ourselves with fools. If you really think we are just a bunch of gossips, why are you leaving public comments here and thus, associating yourself with us?
October 21, 2007 at 11:43 pm
“I have stated nothing about you, but have agreed with what God says. God’s Word is clear: gossip and slander are sinful afflictions.”
This is false to the point of being ridiculous. “I’ve statend nothing about you” is false. You’ve stated that people in here are slanderers and gossipers and that those who associate with such are breaking the law of God. So you’ve done both talk about people here, and the Word of God. You haven’t made sense, but you have talked about people in here.
“Both gossip and slander involve passing on a bad report about someone else, and no, one doesn’t have to read all 1000 posts to find that here…one just has to read what started it all.”
And the person who started this post explained herself, as I quoted above, but of course, you couldn’t deal with that intellectually, so you are just continuing to attack.
Paul the apostle passed on a “bad report” about people — about Hymenaeus and Alexander, and about Demas. Regarding Alexander, Paul warned Timothy about him. And if that guy in Acts hadn’t have been a high priest, Paul wouldn’t have apologized for calling him a “whitewashed tomb,” more than likely. He called the Judaizers “dogs,” too, and told the Philippians to beware of them.
Trish would probably find fault with Paul. And when she gets to heaven, with the way angels wings are fastened on, and the direction the river of life flows. (I read that somewhere once as a child said about someone who was always finding fault with others for no good reason.)
I am wodering, btw, if “Trish” is has the same IPS as “Amanda.” Just curious.
October 21, 2007 at 11:56 pm
“To this end, perhaps the Botkin girls and others slandered and gossiped about here might be better served simply by being addressed of these issues privately, not in a public forum. If that attempt is made and not responded to, it is not right to then come here for all the world to read and slander these people publicly.”
I have never seen anything here that is libeling (as Cally pointed out, slander is the spoken word, and thus not applicable here)the Bodkin girls or anyone else. What I’ve seen done here is critiquing and disagreeing with the teachings being promoted by these young women. To disagree with a teaching is to have an opinion, not to slander, libel, or gossip. If I disagree with a teaching, it is not personal.
I appreciate, very much, your desire to bring these things to our attention if you truly believe they are occurring. We, as sisters in Christ, absolutely should approach one another if we believe our sister is guilty of sin. But, may I ask, have you approached this idea in a Matthew 18 fashion? If you believe that some of us have sinned here, have you attempted to win your sister over by contacting her privately and laying out what you believe may be an action worthy of repentance? I’m not sure that throwing out that many of us are guilty of sin is any more righteous or biblical than what you are accusing us of.
I think that some of the teachings being shared by the Bodkin girls, Vision Forum Ministries, the Pearl’s, and others are dangerous teachings, and believe that it is my duty to speak out against them (the teachings of course, not the people). I genuinely believe that all of those who share these teachings are trying to live out the will of God, and I feel no need to approach them about a personal sin. I don’t know of their personal sins. I don’t know them at all! What I can do is address their public teachings. They put them out there, and I’m responding. I truly believe that is fair.
Peace to you and all of us who are trying to seek out the will of God and live our lives to His glory.
October 22, 2007 at 12:01 am
BTW, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m finding this thread hard to run on my computer as it’s become so long.
If anyone is interested, I’ve set up a message board at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Christian_Womanhood/ if anyone is interested in taking the discussion to a slightly more user friendly format.
If the ladies at TrueWomanhood would prefer I take it down, I can do that as well.
In Him,
Anne
October 22, 2007 at 12:17 am
Okay, well, I’m trying to set up the board anyway. It might take me a few more minutes. I created Forums, but they’re not showing up.
October 22, 2007 at 12:28 am
Trish,
Are you by chance “Mrs. H” who posted on “Jen’s Gems” this past summer?
If you are, I would like to bring up the point that you never addressed me in several questions that I directed to you several months ago. Several snippets of my own comments were included in a long littany of quotes which “Mrs. H” found highly offensive. At that time, I stated that I could support any comment or inference that I made with documentation from the literature on the subject. I also stated that I would be happy to correspond on or offline to clarify any statement that I made. However, Mrs. H never addressed me but did agree to correspond with Spunky. I am still willing to support all of my comments made here and there, BTW.
We are commanded to examine teachings that we not be lead astray and tossed about by every wind of doctrine. On this and other websites, we are doing just that. If you believe this is gossip or that it is improper to discuss such things, then we are operating from different presuppostitions. Without changing those basic assumptions (which I am not willing to negotiate, personally), we will never agree about the nature of the discussion. I would then ask, in accordance to Romans chapter 14, that you would respect our liberty here and pray for us rather than accuse us of sin. Personally, I respect your opinion as a fellow believer, but I disagree with you and am not pursuaded by your argument presented here. But know that I’ve faithfully considered what you’ve written, just as I considered Mrs. H’s comments on another website.
May you prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers until the day that God brings us together in true unity of the faith and understanding. Until that day, I am not willing to exchange silence and the covering of doctrine that I believe to be false and dangerous for the illusion of peace and pretense.
October 22, 2007 at 12:50 am
The board is created now, complete with forums for discussion.
October 22, 2007 at 1:17 am
Yay Anne! I’ve joined up and I think it would be brilliant to see all the other amazing ladies from this thread over there…
October 22, 2007 at 1:23 am
From what I have seen in the past this means you have not only got Bill’s attention, but his ire up. He used to get so upset he will ban members from his list if you hurt one of the guys on the list (they have fragile egos apparently).
It’s just such ashame they think they can use their power in a manner to ban women, or ban women’s posts not realizing the very internet that gave them that power will also lead to justice. We reap what we sow fella’s.
Once a lady here made a complementarian/egalitarian list. We didn’t know the deck was stacked with egals, who had been hurt by the list Bill used to run (along with some other guys who don’t act much like gentlemen). The very moderators who banned the ladies comments would come over and join and get so infuriated they would have to quit because they couldn’t play on our playground anymore because they were on the egals turf.
I bring this up to show men like Bill that we do reap what we sow and if you are a comp act like one and stop beating your chests and treating women in a manner that anyone who doesn’t bow down and accept the moderating, or ill treatment privately is a supposed feminist.
Be very careful with your words because if we call a brother a sister something they are not then it could be considered a lie.
I hope and pray those who are upset will do more than just defend themselves, but understand why like-minded brothers and sisters are owed apologies. I have tried to publicly apologize for things in the past I have typed that could hurt someone. Ultimately, we hurt the whole body of Christ when men act immature and take on a cause over doing the right thing. Remember if we lack love we are put banging cymbals. Who wants to open their mouth and just hear clamoring come out?
Please fella’s listen and remain teachable and treat women with kindness. We may be the weaker sex, and that’s all the more reason you should go the second mile. I pray the contentiousness stops and you stop and listen for but a moment and understand that a Patriarch was not Tarzan with a robe.
October 22, 2007 at 1:58 am
Anonymous… huh?
October 22, 2007 at 2:22 am
I’m almost positive I know what anonymous is speaking of, Cally.
The reference is to Bill Mouser, who gave Cindy Kunsmann a “thanks” some hundreds of comments back when she said “Father Bill outdid himself on this one.” Cindy linked to a blog entry of Mouser where he made a point that Proverbs was a book written by men for men (ghee-hee).
Anonymous also referred to the complementarian-egalitiarin list, where there are many members who were kicked off (with an ugly flourish) of the Complementarian Christian Coalition (CCC) Yahoo board.
I was kicked off the CCC list as well. I currently read it occasionally. Sometimes there are good articles there, but most of it lately is inside ranting about how terribly some of them (one in particular) are being treated by egalitarian feminists.
Anyhoo, Bill Mouser is one of the moderators on the CCC list, and I think anonymous was venting (as I’ve done a long time ago after I watched someone else savaged on that list).
I’d love to see all the moderators of that forum singing “Guitarzan” in unison. I’d pay 10 bucks to see something like that.
October 22, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Lynn,
The funny thing was that those kicked off were complementarians that happened to agree with their extreme interpretations of scripture. It seems they believe that they, alone, hold the keys to proper biblical interpretation. Anyone can go read that list and see how you or I behaved. We did nothing to deserve to be kicked off. We simply disagreed with our “authorities”. Yes, they claimed that they were our authority and that we had better submit because they are all elders in their local churches! I wonder if they would expect me to submit if Benny Hinn emailed me and told me to submit since he was an elder in a church? Where does the nonsense stop?
I am proud of the fact that I gave one of them something to talk about for all eternity- pole dancing.
If you ever get accused of promoting pole dancing, you can thank me. The funny thing about it is that this person didn’t get it at all. Some of the guys on that list wrote me and told me that they totally agreed with me concerning the pole dancing. At least we could agree on something.
October 22, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“I have stated nothing about you, but have agreed with what God says. God’s Word is clear: gossip and slander are sinful afflictions. Many of the posts in this thread contain gossip and slander. They make public those issues that should be kept private (between the offender and the offended).”
Trish/Mrs. Handry/Mrs. H,
Come on now! Really? You think that you and God are in agreement on this and everyone else be damned or at least labeled a “fool”?
What private issues were made public? PUBLIC TEACHINGS??????? Or are we talking about the color and kind of underwear someone wears and whether or not they make bad lasagna?
We are discussing PUBLIC teachings, Trish. I see you haven’t even addressed the points I made. You just glossed right over them. Any ministry that discusses the public teachings of anyone is guilty of gossip and slander according to your definition. Have you contacted World Magazine yet?
Please try and see how illogical your accusations are.
October 22, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“The Bible has specific commands dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ who sin against us (Matthew 18) or who lead unruly, undisciplined lives (2 Thess. 3). None of those commands involve public gossip and slander on a blog.”
Trish,
This isn’t a matter of someone sinning against us. Surely you can see that? Please take your comments and print them out and show them to your pastor and/or elders. You need some sound teaching about the difference between personal offense and discussing errant doctrines.
“Perhaps that is why those who admonish here write their admonishment and do not comment again. They read the responses to their admonishment and then follow God’s command not to associate further.”
I hope you will take my admonishment and correction and set a good example of all the stubborn [your words] “fools” on this list. You are not handling the word of God accurately and you are making false and unsupported and illogical accusations.
I will NOT return like for like and call you a fool. I believe that is very, very wrong.
This will be my last response to you. One, you seem to have put yourself in a place where you are above others and you are the only one fit to deliver admonishment and if people don’t agree with that admonishment that proves they are fools and should not be associated with.
That is a nice little neat tidy system you have going on there, Trish. Claim a position of superiority, throw around illogical and inaccurate accusations and then claim that those who disagree with you are fools. Wow!
I am being serious here when I say that my conscience wouldn’t allow me to treat another person in this manner.
October 22, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“Having just spent a delightful two plus weeks with my charming, college educated daughter and her little boys, I got up this morning to be introduced to this link and I am appalled. I am just about to begin reading the Botkin girls’ book entitled So Much More for a project I am working on, but this documentary by them is truly over the top. Please watch it and think about the heresy that is being passed off as “biblical womanhood.””
I don’t think Karen’s daughter minds her mom talking about her and her little boys?
You see, the first part of this statement is a good example of positive “gossip”. True gossip would be if Karen wrote about her crabby daughter who had no charm and her two beasts she called children. That is personal and not something one should write publicly. (Of course, I am NOT saying this is true!)
For Karen’s comments on a book? Well, those are her opinions. It is not slander. It is not gossip. It is NOT personal. If you disagree with her opinions please take issue with them. Ask her to prove what she has said about a BOOK or to explain the words she used to describe a BOOK. Ask her to explain what she meant about the DOCUMENTARY that is being produced.
If I said that Harry Potter is heretical and filled with appalling things. Would you take me to task for gossip and slander? No, you would probably agree with me. But, I hope you would correct me because I can’t stand it when people are not consistent.
If I warned others not to go to see the Harry Potter movies because they are “over the top”, would you accuse me of gossip and slander? I don’t think so but you should.
Anyone can have an opinion on a book, a movie or a documentary and it doesn’t make them a slanderer and a gossip. I hope Trish will take our teaching and correction and learn and agree with God concerning these things.
Truly, this will be my last post to Trish. If she doesn’t see, by now, that she is very confused about this issue, more words are not going to help her.
October 22, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I just want to clarify that my statements concerning the Harry Potter books and movies are not consistent with what I actually believe. Those thoughts are purely for example only.
October 22, 2007 at 3:59 pm
The system keeps crashing when I comment. This is just a test to see if my comment will go through.
October 22, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Let me try again with my actual comment about slander and gossip.
Trish said, “To this end, perhaps the Botkin girls and others slandered and gossiped about here might be better served simply by being addressed of these issues privately, not in a public forum. If that attempt is made and not responded to, it is not right to then come here for all the world to read and slander these people publicly.”
Trish, It would appear that you seem totally willing to openly criticize those that write here, but we are somehow scripturally forbidden to openly talk about a published work of two young girls that have questionable teachings. How does that work? Further, contacting the girls is not necessary, but it is a step I did take, have you done the same to those that you openly criticize here? Somehow I must have missed the email.
In fact, we’re actually in pretty good company in what we’re attempting to do here. Others biblicial teachers and authors have engaged in the very same critical review themselves. I’ll cite just one example.
Stacey McDonald critically reviewed a book Finally Feminist by Stackhouse on her blog.
She said, “”There are some “strange winds of doctrine” flying around these days that are bewildering some and leading others astray. One book that may be helping to confuse a few (hopefully not many) is the book, Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. You would think the name alone would turn away those faithful to the Scriptures.”
Her words and stronger and much more pointed than what Karen used in her original post about the Botkins here. Clearly, she doesn’t see it as gossip, rumor, or slander to talk about the written work of another.
To his credit, the author John Stackhouse actually commented on her blog and very politely asked her to read the book and asked for time to answer her many questions. He said, “I am sick with the ‘flu and we are currently readying Son Number Two to begin college in Chicago, and we leave on Tuesday to drive him there. He’s our first to leave home, so we’re both more busy than usual and a little more emotionally distracted than usual! I’m sure every parent reading this will understand.”
Did Stacey understand? Not exactly, she shut temporarily shut down comments to let the men handle the discussion, but then reopened them and left this zinger, “No – we never heard from Proffesor Stackhouse again. It seems Gorgie Porgie ran away when the boys came out to play.” A bit unfair and ungracious to a man who asked for some time as a busy father to tend to family matters, don’t you think? (Remember these are the same McDonalds that defended the Botkins girls as “busy writers” who cannot answer my private email with concerns about their book.)
Again to his credit, Stackhouse was undeterred and did contact her again privately within a few weeks, leading her to amend her post, but she still let the above comment remain.
Gossip? Slander? Clearly, a published author like Stacey McDonald doesn’t think so, she admits she never even read his whole book because she was so offended but that didn’t stop her from writing about it, nor did she contact him first. Further, Stacey does not think calling another Christian “Gorgie Porgie” is off-base either, even though he very respectfully asked for time to answer due to illness and an unusually busy and emotional time for his family. Stackhouse at least responded. And for that he is called “Gorgie Porgie.” No one here has called the Botkin girls derogatory names for their failure to respond to our concerns.
I’m not using Stacey’s comment to validate what is specically written here, just to demonstrate that most Christians, some even authors themselves, do not believe critically reviewing the work of a published author is “gossip” or “slander.”
Or perhaps to some, it is only gossip or slander or rumor when Christians review Vision Forum approved books or people?
Thanks Trish for your thoughts, but I think that as long as authors keep writing books, there will be people who will write about what they teach. Holding one another accountable for what we write is not slander or gossip. Stacey McDonald doesn’t think so and neither do I.
October 22, 2007 at 4:10 pm
My apologies of the lack of spacing in the last comment, but atleast it went through.
Here’s the link to Stacey’s blog post.
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/08/egalitarian-error-and-various-other.html
October 22, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Accusations of “gossip” and “slander” are oft-used tools of hyperpatriarchs to quash any dissent and shut down the discussion. We can see right here how this operates in the blogosphere, but it’s been seen on other blogs as well owned by hyperpatriarchs. (Of course, they’ll just ban you, too.) I’ve also seen it first hand, when my children attended a classical Christian school modeled after Doug Wilson’s Logos School. Unfortunately, the school’s board and founders made an idol of Doug Wilson, and any vocalized concern or even question, on the smallest of matters (like, was it necessary to give dress code demerits to a child who wore a red pony-tail elastic instead of a blue one?) was immediately squelched with such accusations.
It takes a great deal of humility to admit, even to oneself, that one might not be right all the time, and to extend grace to those who disagree with us. This blog is, for the most part, an absolute delight. As one of the few egalitarians here, I can tell you how refreshing it is not to be called a tool of Satan or any such moniker, but for people to thoughtfully hear what I have to say.
I hope that Stacy, Trish, and others will learn to understand the difference between disagreeing with an idea, which is what most commenters here do, versus attacking a person.
October 22, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I said:
“I guess if you ascribe to Patriarchy, you don’t have to go to others first before . . . stridently disagreeing with what they write.
But if you see problems with Patriarchal teachings, and discuss it, you are guilty of slander and gossip.”
Spunky, I just read that link you provided, and thanks for yet another confirmation that Patriarchal people criticize all the time without first contacting the person whose teachings or activities they are critiquing.
However, when we do the same thing, we are just guilty of slander and gossip. Nice try, Trish, Amanda, whoever you are, but put up with hard evidence of personal information that is false, or else personal information that is meant to be shared to harm, or else stop the false accusations.
Especially in light of the fact that Patriarchal people feel free to comment away on whatever public materials they want to. Stacey’s opening remarks about Stackhouse were on the exact same level as Karen’s only more so. And Karen has not resorted to name-calling, as we have seen Stacey do in the comment section of that blog entry.
Btw, did anybody notice that Spunky didn’t agree with Stackhouse’s book? It might have made for a good conversation if Spunky and Stackhouse could have talked, but not when the blog-owner says insulting names such as what Stacey said.
October 22, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’m on hi-speed connection, but this thread is taking some time to upload whenever I look at it, now. I could not take the time with 28.8 or 56.whatever speed to open it.
October 22, 2007 at 5:32 pm
“Did Stacey understand? Not exactly, she shut temporarily shut down comments to let the men handle the discussion, but then reopened them and left this zinger, “No – we never heard from Proffesor Stackhouse again. It seems Gorgie Porgie ran away when the boys came out to play.” A bit unfair and ungracious to a man who asked for some time as a busy father to tend to family matters, don’t you think? (Remember these are the same McDonalds that defended the Botkins girls as “busy writers” who cannot answer my private email with concerns about their book.)”
This is sickening. And this just absolutely shows the extreme cronyism in the patriocentric movement.
It is okay for the Botkins to never answer private email sent to them (they do answer, immediately, Stacey’s email to them warning them of the breach in the wall that Brandy wrote about and having that breached erased/changed in the middle of the night making it look as if the statement was never stated) but John Stackhouse is mocked because he doesn’t come back to “play”? I am sure that if she had emailed him back, he would have responded.
They want it both ways. They want to be able to use illness in their family and the business of writing a book or other committments as excuses to why they cannot get into something but when it comes to extending that same courtesy to those they disagree with, it is not allowed.
I am still surprised the whole situation that Brandy pointed out was just swept under the rug. Obviously, there was enough time to email back and forth with the Botkin girls in order to get their website changed so as to cover up the point that Brandy was making in order to still be able to label those that disagree as pernicious rumor mongers.
But, the fact is that there was NO rumor and there was NO mistake and when people pointed it out to Stacey, the evidence that this was no rumor was obsfucated and obliterated. And then we were treated to a flimsy explanation that was expected to be swallowed by the sheep.
October 22, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Okay, I just went back and read that whole Stackhouse discussion on Stacey’s blog and I must say that I am impressed that he was able to at least attempt to give an answer in the midst of having the flu and sending his son off to college! That is more than I can say for those who teach the hyperpatriarchal doctrine. I have asked questions and all I get are insults and name-calling in return. Oh, and a boot in the rearend when I ask too many questions.
FYI, one caution about Stacey’s blog, you must keep a careful eye on things because pertinent information is changed, especially when it is pointed out on another blog, and there is no note made of it on her blog.
October 22, 2007 at 6:26 pm
There’s another bit of irony concerning Stacey’s blog and Mr. Stackhouse.
When he attempted to engage her in dialogue about her misrepresentation of his book, (she called it heresy) what did this biblical woman do? Directed him and her readers to Bayly’s blog.
“So, I encourage all my readers to visit the Bayly Brothers to finish this conversation. It’s time for the men to step in. Thank you, Pastor Bayly…”
She made the accusation of heresy isn’t it the responsiblity of her own husband to defend her words and “finish the conversation”? I have no problem with the Bayly’s entering the conversation, but they are not her spiritual head in this matter. Their explanation is meaningless. Stacey made the accusation of heresy and when John Stackhouse delayed in responded to HER, she called him “Gorgie Porgie.”
Is this how a “passionate housewives, desperate for God” is supposed to respond when challenged to defend an personal accusation of heresy against another Christian – by running to the house of another man willing to defend her? As a biblical woman, why didn’t she direct the reader to her own spiritual head and pastor, James McDonald for a clarification?
October 22, 2007 at 9:11 pm
FYI,
I am going to open a thread #2 on this topic so it will help with the download time.
October 24, 2007 at 3:34 am
I don’t know where to find the new thread! HELP!
We are not gossiping. The early church met to discuss these very issues. They didn’t have the one pastor model we have today. They had elders (which is really what the pastor is) and deacons (servants, but they don’t teach), and they would meet to discuss and break bread. I realize the Patriarchal people tend to like meeting to break bread together, but I really do wonder if they would believe this way if the money was taken away. Why turn a teaching into a business? I realize how radical this will sound, but I tend to ask if using your position in a church or “leader” in a Christian movement to make more money isn’t the same as the money changers in the church (this is why Spurgeon gave away his newsletter. He desperately wanted to help others, not make himself in self-proclaimed leader). Think about it. It’s not the same as an author selling a book online or through a Christian bookstore. These people literally use their position (which in some cases they don’t even reverence scripture enough just be a bookseller. No, they want complete control over their little micro-managed empire they want to build. But remember……..lest the Lord build the house they labor in vain, and I believe they are laboring in vain).
If we want to discuss sin how about whoever accused this board of sinning look at the very people who are both remarried Christians rewriting scripture. That should be a Matthew 18 because they refuse to obey scripture and step down. Using God’s house for money making is another sinful offense. Why would this woman support people who aren’t supposed to be in this position of leadership? Isn’t she concerned? Isn’t she concerned that by trying to squelch conversation she allows them to continue on in their sin? Or does she think ripping a few pages out of the Bible is alright? Isn’t she concerned about self-proclaimed pastors?
October 24, 2007 at 3:48 am
I, too, am struggling to read the threads and gave up. The fonts are so large, and the blog is only allowing skinny posting! What I did was go to Stacy’s blog and read with discouragement. I understand why you are concerned, and hope I can read your comments someday. I tried to copy and paste but it took forever. I feel like I am jumping in a debate without reading what anyone has said, and for that I apologize.
I read this on Stacy’s blog:
“We properly revere the early church fathers for bequeathing us much classic wisdom. But their general misogyny is a scandal: Most of them, as far as we know, really did see women as not only spiritually and intellectually inferior to men, but also positively dangerous to men’s godliness.”
Stacy McDonald says: Stackhouse seems to believe that one must be an intellectual to understand these long-concealed mysteries of Scripture. Hutchens says it well when he contemplates Stackhouse’s logic:>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Me: What ashame Stacy takes offense and rebukes and corrects a man who was talking about the early church fathers, not his own opinion. Stacy should get on her knees and thank God she didn’t live during that time. Christians were being martyred so she (and all of us) could even have a church. Throughout almost all of mankind women have been thought of as inferior (we even see Christian cults doing it today). Does she think that just because people became Christians women were suddenly elevated in status? Eventually, they were, but even new Christians don’t act like mature Christians. They need the milk of the word. All Stackhouse did was share what the early church fathers thought. In her eagerness to show his error, she made her own errors and instead of posting names about him she should be apologizing for her own rush to judgement and error. And she went public, so did Trish write to her to?
October 24, 2007 at 3:55 am
Stacy:
I admit, I don’t know the secret handshake needed to understand these “enlightened” ideas (Praise God!). I’m just a homeschooling mom (who is married to a big-bad-patriarchal husband) trying to live my life to the glory of God. I believe Finally Feminist is a heretical book and if it’s teachings are embraced it is a danger to women and their families – and to the Church. Heresy always seems to begin with “Hath God truly said?” So, I encourage all my readers to visit the Bayly Brothers to finish this conversation. It’s time for the men to step in. Thank you, Pastor Bayly…
Me: Does Stacy has proof Mr. Stackhouse is a Mason because she certainly seems to be accusing him of that (the secret handshake). Why couldn’t she just address what he said? I think she is just plum out of ideas, and that’s odd considering on the same blog she says she is giving up sleep (up in the early hours, when she doesn’t even seem to be at home much! ) doing writing, researching, and other blah, blah, blah’s she wrote about!
I mean surely someone who is doing research on feminism should be able to give a public answer without pulling the Scarlett O’Hara act? I am starting to feel like Rhett Butler did towards the end of that book and frankly. ………………..LOL
October 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Here is the new thread.
http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/visionary-daughters-discussion-thread-2-karen/
Karen, you might consider putting a link to the new post in the above original text. As well as including a link to this thread in post #2. That will help readers find both posts and understand what this conversation is about.
October 26, 2007 at 7:57 am
[...] that has already caused so much controversy before its release that there is one blog that has 983 comments on one article about “The Return of the Daughters” and had to start a second thread which already has [...]
October 29, 2007 at 2:54 am
[...] of this topic is occurring here. It is a continuation of the first thread which can be found here. I would encourage anyone who wants to know as much as possible about the visionary daughters [...]
November 12, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Throughout almost all of mankind women have been thought of as inferior (we even see Christian cults doing it today). Does she think that just because people became Christians women were suddenly elevated in status? Eventually, they were, but even new Christians don’t act like mature Christians.
-This is a ludicrous idea. Many of the early church fathers were extremely misogynistic. In fact- if I’m not misatken(please correct me if I’m wrong, my fellow Catholics in the faith) didn’t Augustine say that a woman who didn’t give birth to as many children as she could was guilty of murder and would go to Hell? WHAT? By that logic, a woman would have to marry and get pregnant as soon as she started her first period and have kids until she went through menopause!
Women in the middle ages up until very recently were blamed for miscarriages, and sometimes, even murdered for such an act as witches. This done by men claiming to be followers of Christ. It was even preached that women had no souls- BY THE CHURCH! The very church that canonised the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene,Clare of Assisi, etc.
Women who dared question this- such as Eleanor of Aquitiane- were thought to be instruments of Satan. Wife beating was thought to be ‘for her own good.’
I regret to say the Reformation fathers thought no differently. John Knox, Calvin and Luther had very similar views- in some ways worse- I’m sorry to say. Luther boasted he hit his wife to correct her. I think we know about Knox. I can’t quote Calvin. Only in the Enlightenment did things start to change, and even then, things were very slow in coming. *Sighs* People still blame women for rape and domestic violence (have these people ever even SPOKEN to rape and battered women?) ok, if women dressed ‘like whores’ are ‘asking for it’ then- why are little girls raped? why are old women raped? why are women in burkas raped? Why were medieval women- who were covered from head to toe- raped? Why were Victorian women raped? Rape is about power- not sex. And why do women rape men?(Very, very rare, but occasionally it DOES HAPPEN.)Why do men rape other men? Rape is about power and NOT SEX.
November 12, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I also want to add- how DARE people say that God was ‘judging’ Israel by allowing Deborah to be a woman judge. Did anyone fail to notice that, first of all, Isaiah 3:12 was written to ONE SPECIFIC VILLAGE(I’m not flaming anyone on here, I’m trying to point out the ludicrous errors that these people make.)
Also, Deborah was the only judge that did not test God’s power. She gave all the glory to God(Judges chapter 5), she didn’t bask in her glory when her prophecy turned out to be true, she shared credit with Jael and Barak, and she judged Israel for 40 years. If women ruling is a curse- why would God bless Israel for 40 years. As someone else said ,”well she must have been one lucky phony.”
Knox- and many others- have compared all women rulers to Jezebel. To compare someone like Deborah to Jezebel is not only ludicrous, it is a slap in the face to Deborah. Jezebel is considered one of the most evil figures in history. While I wouldn’t go THAT far, and I think Ahab should share more blame than he gets, she and Deborah are polar opposites.
Deborah sure had power, but she didn’t abuse it. She shared it with Barak, even though she was in charge. She ruled Israel wisely, and gave God- not herself- the credit.
Jezebel was the exact opposite. She hated God and wanted all Israel to turn against him. I don’t believe she even ‘loved’ Baal- she just wanted an excuse to usurp her position as queen consort and be Israel’s de facto ruler.
Jezebel’s cold ambition did not serve her in the end- we all know what happened to her.
We can learn a lot from both women. First, that women ruling is not a curse- God judges not by our genitalia, but how well we fulfill the task he appoints to us. Secondly, we are given warnings. Will we be wise enough to heed them? Third- Deborah’s willingness not to let power corrupt her is a powerful, humbling example- to all of us.
Fourth, Jezebel proves that power does INDEED corrupt. We need to be more like Deborah. We have great gifts. Certainly I’m proud of my creativity. But God is the source of these gifts- and the credit ultimately goes to him, and him alone.
Finally- all human beings have a choice. We can choose to follow God- or to allow sin to control us.
Why not admit that Deborah was a woman after God’s own heart- and not insult such a great heroine of the faith like that?
November 12, 2007 at 5:35 pm
“I also want to add- how DARE people say that God was ‘judging’ Israel by allowing Deborah to be a woman judge. Did anyone fail to notice that, first of all, Isaiah 3:12 was written to ONE SPECIFIC VILLAGE(I’m not flaming anyone on here, I’m trying to point out the ludicrous errors that these people make.)”
Lady Helen,
Flame away. I am appalled that people pervert the word of God in such ways. There IS no evidence that Deborah was God’s judgment to Israel. In fact, just the opposite. It looks like God decided to BLESS Israel with Deborah and her rule over the nation for a time. She was a blessing to Israel not a curse.
When was God unable to find a godly man in the history of our world before? He chose Gideon in spite of the fact he was hiding in fear in order to thresh grain. He chose many men who had great difficulties in order to accomplish His purpose. He told Elijah that there was a remnant of faithful men when Elijah was despairing that he was the only one left.
What they teach is obviously not in line with what the Bible teaches. Deborah was put into power because God chose to do so. He could have raised up any man to do that job. It is not that Deborah was His last choice. She was His first choice. If He can take a coward like Gideon and raise him up to be a victor, then God could have found any man.
Deborah throws a wrench in the cog of their system. They must reduce her and denigrate her rule in order to make her fit. Just like they do with Abigail.
Also, under Queen Elizabeth, England thrived. She brought in the “Golden Age”. She was one of England’s greatest rulers. Funny, that. She was absolutely NO judgment on England.
Now, let us compare the multitude of male leaders throughout history that were most certainly God’s judgment on people!
And shall we talk about Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan? Is there a dearth of men that I don’t know about in that Muslim country? I don’t think so.
“Fourth, Jezebel proves that power does INDEED corrupt.”
Exactly. I think this also begs the question as to all the male leaders throughout history that were corrupt. I think our hyper-patriarchal friends forget that if they use the Jezebel as proof that women are bad rulers argument then I can use the Ahab-Hitler-Mussolini-Clinton-Stalin-Mao Tse Tung, etc argument to prove that men are bad leaders and this proves that they should not lead.
Jezebel proves nothing about the competence of female rulers. She only proves that evil comes in both male and female.
Deborah proves that women can rule well and this causes major dissociative episodes in some people who refuse to admit this fact. Also, add to this the fact that God, Himself, put Deborah into her position and this causes major cognitive disonance with those who are so sure that their god fits in their manmade box.
You see, Deborah doesn’t fit so they make her fit by changing history.
But, if one stands back and looks at the whole of scripture and seeks to understand the intent behind some verses, one will see the BIGGER picture. Their myopic condition will be corrected when they step back and look at God through His word instead of looking at God through their own preconceived notions about what they want scripture to say.
It must be very empowering to consider one’s self so worthy of being a ruler and at the same time making sure an entire gender knows that if there is any good in a woman who is used of God it is because she is being used as a tool of judgment.
Talk about a fatalistic view of women. Women are out to get them and her desire is to overthrow them and usurp them. Women who are in positions of authority are God’s judgment and they are not a blessing.
Can you imagine looking at women through these glasses? The fruit of such thinking is rotten and it is evidence of the curse.
“Why not admit that Deborah was a woman after God’s own heart- and not insult such a great heroine of the faith like that?”
Exactly! Maybe they think that the earth would open up and swallow them if they dared to entertain such notions. I am sure it is a scary thought because when you allow yourself to think such a thing, the rest of the house of cards comes toppling down.
I thought the response to NorthCountryGirl to be quite telling. I see this attitude that seems to say, “Don’t you know who I am? Don’t you know how to address those who rule over you? You are a woman, therefore, you owe me an extra measure of submission and reverence when you address me” when there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the “tone” of her statements.
I have seen this same attitude displayed towards women on the Bayly blog and when people praise the Baylys for teaching them all they need to know about women and feminists, one doesn’t have to wonder where this attitude comes from.
I see a lot of aping going on.
November 12, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Lady Helen,
Do you have a quote from Martin Luther concerning your statement that he would hit her to correct her?
Thanks!
November 12, 2007 at 6:54 pm
http://www.truthforlife.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=qmw6a8cp83.app14a&abbr=lst&page=NewsArticle&id=6206&news_iv_ctrl=1102
If you want to hear an encouraging and timely message, listen to Alistair Begg’s sermon today. It is EXCELLENT! And it covers so many of the things that we are discussing here. Actually, it really doesn’t but it does, if you know what I mean. The beginning of the message especially nails home the crux of these issues.
November 12, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Lady Helen,
Do you have a quote from Martin Luther concerning your statement that he would hit her to correct her?
Thanks!
I’m not certain exactly where I read it, but I DO have some other quotes with me right now
“Woman must neither begin nor complete anything withou man: where his is, there she must be, and bend before him as before a master, whom she shall fear and to whom she shall be subject and obedient.”
“If women get tired and die of [child]bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die as long as they bear, they are made for that!”
“Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women ought to stay at home; th way they were created indicateds, this, for they have broad hips and a wide fundament to sit upon, keep house, and bear and raise children.
Both were quoted in Daughters of the Church
November 21, 2007 at 3:30 am
[...] For thread #1 on this topic, go here. [...]
December 4, 2007 at 2:50 am
[...] referring to, then feel free to read through the 3,000 plus comments at this site, though (here, here and here), for more information on this particular [...]
December 12, 2007 at 7:45 pm
[...] This is thread #1 [...]
January 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm
[...] This is thread #1 [...]
January 26, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Regarding the Return of the Daughters documentary, Christians need to be very careful to point out the speck in someone else’s eye when they have a log in their own eye. The Botkin girls and their father repeatedly stated that these families were doing what they felt they should do according to Biblical principle not commands. I’ve seen the dvd many times and found nothing offense at all. The only thing that I found offense with was that it caused me to look in the mirror of my own heart and look at how I measured up as a wife and mother. I have a Bachlor’s degree and spent many years following “my way”, and what do I do with it all? Not much. But what I have been doing is spending the last 15 years of marriage and motherhood trying to learn how to care for our home and cook and do laundry for my husband and six children. Wait I take that back the first eight years I fought against it and tried to do just about everything else under the sun besides being a “keeper at home”. Which lead to disorder, lack of peace and a whole lot of discontentment.
My way of looking at peoples “doctines” of living is to look at the fruit of that which they speak. A peaceful happy home where everyone has a place of importance and they all work together as a unit is truly a grand picture of the model of the Church body. Rather than striving to attain individualistic goals and an “I don’t give a care” attitude to the rest of you really is an anti-Biblical model.
I would like to ask a question to those who choose to criticize the Botkins and the families represented, What is the fruit of the way You are following? Is there peace and harmony in your home? Are sisters living for themselves or are they seeking to build up there brothers as the future godly leadership of our nation? Are meals ready and is laundry done? Are the wives of this website doers of the Word as well as hearers?
I, used to be a hearer and a doer wanna be. Until! God challenged me to look in the mirror and take a bite of the fruit “my way” was producing. I humbly ask you to do the same. I am not perfect by any means but I know the road I want to travel on, one that leads to unity and togetherness. I loved the picture of joy on the Return of the Daughters dvd.
January 26, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I’m just wondering… why aren’t you a Mormon? I mean, if the fruit born of doctrine bears evidence to its truthfulness, than you should be a Latter Day Saint because they have wonderful, large, harmonious families where everyone works together and everything is just peachy.
Fruit can’t be the only test of doctrine. We have to ask if it can be biblically supported in God’s Word. One of the biggest problems I have with Return of the Daughters is that they don’t even bother to defend their views from Scripture or even support them within the body of the film. They admit that this is controversial and countercultural, but they don’t even provide a theological basis for what they are saying. And when they do provide a “theological” basis, their father and Doug Phillips do the talking and the Scriptures they use to prove their position are sorely and embarrassingly lacking. I’m thinking specifically of Numbers 30 here.
I’m sure there are many women on this blog who can testify to the destruction they have witnessed as a result of families following the Botkins’ legalistic paradigm. I’ve seen it in my own marriage.
We are commanded to test everything in light of the Word of God. And this is where the Botkins are the weakest.
There’s my two cents for the day…
January 27, 2008 at 6:27 am
Exactly. And really… why all this emphasis on being “controversial and countercultural”?
What I am about to say might offend some, but it’s time to call a spade a spade.
I am almost 50 years old, and when I was growing up, “feminism” had not taken hold in the Midwestern states. Most women stayed home and raised their kids, though some did work, and nobody thought less of them for it; everyone went to public or parochial schools and got a good education there; Both girls and boys who were so inclined pursued higher education just as they had had for generations, and no harm came of it; and while homemaking and motherhood were esteemed, NOBODY made a religion out of marriage and child-birth.
We went to NORMAL, MAINSTREAM CHURCHES, and if anyone had started pushing this quasi-Gothardite patriarchal CRAP in the churches back then, it would have been tagged as the heresy that it is, and reprimanded.
And you know what? We all did just fine. It wasn’t until people started tinkering around with religion at the end of the seventies that things REALLY started getting screwed up, with new-fangled non-denominational churches sporting self-styled, self-ordained preachers teaching who-knows-what sort of pop-theology, and promising to make everyone’s troubles go away if they would just follow the words of the guru.
Patriarchy is just one more religious fad, which promises to cure our societal ills and usher in a golden age by recreating a past that never existed in the first place. I watched it begin and spread, and I believe I am watching the beginnings of its decline — but like most pop-religious fads, as it declines it is leaving a path of broken lives and broken marriages in its wake, the inevitable wreckage inherent in trusting a new-fangled religious “system” rather than trusting God Himself.
God save us all from “new-fangled” religion!
January 27, 2008 at 11:08 am
Cynthia Gee,
Could you repost this comment on the current thread? Too good to leave it buried at the end of a thread many people can no longer download very quickly!
And lets continue this conversation there, too.
Thanks!
January 27, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Hey all,
I copied the pertinent posts under the new thread.
January 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Hey all,
I copied the pertinent posts under the new thread.
Thread #5, that is.
January 27, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Thanks Cndy…why didn’t I think of that?!?!?!?!
March 2, 2008 at 10:23 pm
[...] was an interesting discussion at this blog, and I found myself really considering what each side had to say. Frankly, there’s so much to [...]