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.