If you do not know who he is, Kevin Swanson is the wildly popular host of a daily online broadcast called Generations. He is the newest and brightest star in the homeschooling guru circuit, bringing his “wisdom” into literally millions of homes worldwide each week. A few weeks ago we discussed his interview with the Botkin sisters regarding their book on being a “visionary daughter” called “So Much More.” It appears that he received enough not-so-positive responses to that program that he has aired another one this week, entitled “Should We Kick our 18-Year-Old Daughters Out of the House – Living Alone in a Post-Modern Barren Land.”
I think, especially those of you who are single, will find this episode interesting. If you are not living in a family, you, according to Kevin Swanson, are a “vagabond,” have no calling of your own, are outside of God’s will, and are disobedient to the Word of God. Kevin goes on to say that your only role is to be married at a young age and have as many babies as you can and that your father is responsible to see that this happens. If you are not doing this, you are non-normative.
I thought that you all might like to listen to this broadcast and perhaps let Kevin know your opinion of it. Find it here and scroll down to July 16, 2007. As this discussion progresses, I would be very interested in reading how you came to embrace your individual callings based upon the Word of God, both as single and married women who are seeking to glorify God in your lives.
July 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Oh, my, where to start!
I am taking notes.
Here is one of my first thoughts:
A vagabond is a person who travels from place to place without a job or a home. Hello????? (Kevin likes to use this word after making a point.) Does he know the meaning of the word? A woman who has her own home and a job is NOT a vagabond!!! Hello???? Lydia anyone??? ☺
Negative feedback? Oh, can’t be the way YOU are presenting it. Or the false information that is hyperbolized to make your “point”??? The drama???
The world has said that father/daughter relationships are evil??? Huh??? I don’t think so.
What is a Marxist worldview? What does that mean?
Basically, a daughter is someone that someone needs to care for. I don’t think that is biblical. Especially if you take into account that Eve was called an ezer. For the most part, in a relationship, both people care for each other and to say otherwise is silly.
Okay, the whole vagabond thing is ridiculous. A person acts like a vagabond when they don’t have true faith and true life.
Well, just by the very definition of that word, the disciples and Christ were vagabonds. They had no place to rest their heads (no home) and they had no job.
Here are some notes:
Normative role for women is to get married and have children and stay home.
Young single woman should be married and bear children and helpmeets for their husbands and manager of their home. 1 Tim. 5
Independent lifestyles does not prepare our daughters for this goal that God has for our daughters.
Calling is an interesting word that the letter writer uses here. Where do we get our calling from? The Bible. Bible verses…”HELLO??” Not from dreams. The heart is deceitfully wicked and if our calling is coming from our own wants and desires then it is deceitful.
Exception for singleness. It is not the life of a vagabond. (????????)
Where is this woman’s father? Is her father really going out to find a good husband for her? The elders? Are they trying to find a husband for her?
People despise family. They hate children because feminists hate children. They think it is crazy to have a lot of children because of existentialism and Gloria Steinem.
A single woman is not able to depict a godly life. She needs to have a husband there or her whole family needs to be together to depict a godly life to the lost.
If we are single, we go out two by two. They are not ministering the kind of gospel life that flows from the gospel itself.
Biblical method is that the older women are to teach the younger women and the letter writer is a younger woman! HA!!! Pot, meet kettle! Hello??? Botkin sisters? They are younger women trying to teach other women! LOL She has to become an older woman by experience in a family base.
The Biblical method didn’t go to the children, the disciples went right to the fathers/heads of households. You go get the dad and you disciple this man. This letter writer is wrong to go to the children and teach them about Christ.
(Hey! Good thing that someone went to my son with the Gospel because through him, I came to know about Christ.)
Lydia is a single mom???? Uh, anyone know where he got that one from?
The church has lost it. We split the family up a 100 different ways (women’s groups, children’s groups) The idea of the covenant family has been lost. The church is following the disaster of the inner cities. We are following a fallen worldview.
“They say that they are preaching some sort of gospel about somebody named Jesus.” They are preaching the wrong thing because they are coming from a fallen worldview.
So, they are the only ones who know how to do it right.
July 19, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I think it is funny that Kevin says that Lydia was a single mom.
No where in the Bible does it say that. It tells us this:
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.”
Come stay at MY house. Hmmm? Are women supposed to have homes of their own? I thougt that women who did this were vagabonds?
And then she talks about the “members of her household”.
That doesn’t mean “children”.
Here is what one commentary says:
“Next come Lydia’s public profession of her faith in baptism, together with her household (compare Acts 16:33; 18:8), and her exercise of hospitality. In ancient Greco-Roman society the household was the basic social, economic and religious unit. The typical household was large, including nuclear and extended family, slaves and economic retainers. “Roman households were united in a common religious cult (the Lares) irrespective of age or personal beliefs” (Green 1970:210). The conversion of this female head of a household, who was either single or a widow, has necessary religious and spiritual implications for the other members. And today we must be ever mindful of the strategic importance of social networks for the rapid spread of the gospel, for multi-individual household conversions can snowball into people movements (see Hulbert 1978; 1979).”
You must understand “household” according to the Roman definition of it. It doesn’t mean father, mother and children.
She was a powerful single woman who had her own household that contained others in it she was RESPONSIBLE for.
Why didn’t Paul do his duty and hook Lydia up with a husband? Isn’t this his job as an elder? She was a young woman. She should be at home, bearing children, managing her house and submitting to a husband. How could she, as a single woman and owner of her own home be representing the gospel to a lost world? Well, according to Kevin and his guest, she can’t.
But, God said she not only could but she did!
July 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Also, if you look at the passage again, it seems that Lydia had considerable power and influence, since Paul says that she “persuaded” them. Where is her father? Where is her brother? Where is her NMR or nearest male relative? Should she be out persuading men to come and stay in her home? Is that something a shamefaced woman who knew her place wold do? It sounds like something a woman influenced by Gloria Steinem and Marxism would do according to Kevin.
July 19, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I honestly shouldn’t listen to this man early in the day!! It just fires me up and I get nothing else accomplished!
I think that only verse he has to back up his ideas is 1Tim 5. I just read it again b/c I don’t remember it saying Young women should get married. I have the NIV version and it says young widows not young women and the command to marry is when the desire to marry overcomes their desire for Christ.
Oh my goodness, he just said that single women can’t show the complete gospel.
I would love to know what version of the Bible this man reads.
July 19, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Corrie, thanks for your info on Lydia. I was starting to reread the verses.
July 19, 2007 at 3:38 pm
While I agree with things like marriage (and often having children) is usually the normative pattern for girls, and that the Church has lost quite a bit on the family being a unit, Kevin Swanson seems to be taking everything to the extreme.
And what’s with, “A single woman is not able to depict a godly life. She needs to have a husband there or her whole family needs to be together to depict a godly life to the lost.” That is absurd! Where on earth did he get this idea? So that means, as I fall into this category of being a single woman living out of home, that I am unable to live a godly life and cannot display godliness to the lost…. I really am offended by this thinking. Especially considering I know it was God’s will for me to move out of home at 18 to study at university, and to stay here in this city now that I have finished.
Oh mercy…. Lord help us!
July 19, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“They think it is crazy to have a lot of children because of existentialism and Gloria Steinem.”
Kevin . . . maybe some of us don’t want lots of kids because we already helped raise our little brothers and sisters. Feminists, nothing.
That aside, who made Kevin the arbiter of salvation and God’s will? He’s extrapolating from isolated texts and making sweeping statements – about college, abortion, vagabonds, and God’s will. That’s irresponsible to say the least.
He doesn’t even appear to understand Steinam, Friedan, or French Existentialism either. He’s simply lobbing those names as bombs to incite others who don’t know better.
I cannot imagine what non-home schoolers think because of this over the top, bizarre rhetoric. The Home School movement needs Kevin Swanson like the Republican Party needs Jack Abramoff or Mark Foley.
July 19, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Kyla said: “I think that only verse he has to back up his ideas is 1Tim 5. I just read it again b/c I don’t remember it saying Young women should get married. I have the NIV version and it says young widows not young women and the command to marry is when the desire to marry overcomes their desire for Christ.”
I was just about to make the exact same point! I was listening to him and thinking, how convenient that he left out the ‘I would have young WIDOWS’ part of the verse – because that is whom Paul is addressing, not young single women. Really, this taking Bible verses out of context really does annoy me – it always has.
July 19, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Kyla,
That is a good distinction to make about young women and widows. Young widows, of course, would already have an appetite for sexual things. He certainly wasn’t speaking about young women who never were married. The whole passage was about widows. Good eye!
Here is what Paul does say about virgins (single, unmarried women):
“Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. ”
Paul is not saying that single young women should marry. In fact, he is trying to spare them from the trouble in the flesh they will have if they DO marry. So, it doesn’t seem to me that Paul is saying that young women are to get married in order to be doing the gospel correctly
“34 There is[a] a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. ”
Okay. Paul is clearly saying that a single woman can serve the Lord without distraction. So, if Kevin’s whole point is that single women can’t serve the Lord and give a proper witness to the lost world, then he is dead wrong. Paul says differently. Paul says that a single woman can serve the Lord without distraction if she stays unmarried! And that means she is not distracted with how she may please any other man (her father), either.
Not that she wouldn’t honor her mother AND father but the Bible does not teach that a single young woman is to serve her father and please him in all things as some surrogate husband until a real husband comes along. It says that a married woman is concerned how she may please her husband and vice versa.
“39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God.”
Paul is saying that a widow will be happier if she remains as she is. Then in 1 Tim. 5 he sees that the young widows are having problems controlling their sexual desires so he tells them to get married in order not to bring shame upon the name of Christ.
It all makes sense to me. It doesn’t seem like scripture backs up what Kevin Swanson is saying at all.
July 19, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Here is another quote from Dorothy Sayers, who was NOT a feminist, by the way:
“Women are not human. They lie when they say they have human needs: warm and decent clothing, comfort in the bus; interests directed immediately to God and His universe, not intermediately through any child or man. They are far above man to inspire him, far beneath him to corrupt him; they have feminine minds and feminine natures, but their mind is not one with their nature like the minds of men; they have no human mind and no human nature. “Blessed by God, says the Jew, “that hath not made me a woman.”
“God, of course, may have His own opinion, but the Church is reluctant to endorse it.”
“I think I have never heard a sermon preached on the story of Martha and Mary that did not attempt, somehow, somewhere, to explain away its text. Mary’s, of course, was the better part- the Lord said so, and we must not precisely contradict Him. But we will be careful not to despise Martha. No doubt, He approved of her too. We could not get on without her, and indeed (having paid lip-service to God’s opinion) we must admit that we greatly prefer her. For Martha was doing a really feminine job, whereas Mary was just behaving like any other disciple, male or female; and that is a hard pill to swallow.”
“Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man- there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature.”
“But we might easily deduce it from His contemporaries, and from His prophets before Him, and from His Church to this day. Women are not human; nobody shall persuade that they are human; let them say what they like, we will not believe it, though One rose from the dead.”
July 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Sarah,
LOL!!!
Well, I think it is clear after just this few posts that Kevin is not presenting the gospel of the Bible and that his gospel is coming from a fallen worldview filled with manmade traditions.
If Kevin thinks that there is a war against men then what does he call all the hundreds and even thousands of years women have had to endure things said about their sex that was obnoxious and false?
When is the last time a man has been called “the gateway of Satan”? Or that men have been said to have less capacity to reason and that education causes them to have nervous breakdowns because their brains are not made to be educated?
How about we all read “Monstrous Women” by Knox and insert man in there, especially the part where he is talking about all women as being less than men?
If they will not understand that the original feminism rose up to correct a very REAL problem, then they will never get it. Yes, there are extreme feminists who want to be just like men and want to do the job of a man just in order to say they can do it. But, most women do not want to be like men. They don’t want to copy men. They revel in their feminity and they want to be women who are allowed to do the job they are most qualified to do. It isn’t about competing at all.
In fact, if this competition would stop, we would see much more harmony in our homes. I believe Kevin’s doctrine and all the others who preach the same doctrine, to be based on a fallen worldview. They are not getting it from the Bible and the way they twist scripture in order to make their point just proves that their doctrine is not biblical.
Just look at how he used the scripture about Lydia to prove his point when it actually proves the point of the vagabond female letter writer. He tells us that Lydia was a single mother as if it were fact. I would think that the scripture would definitely tell us that if it were the case. I have never gotten the idea that Lydia was a single mother from any commentary I have read. She might have been a widow or she might have been someone who was never married. And if she were a widow it does not mean she had children.
July 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm
““Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man- there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature.” ”
Corrie, the first time I read this in Sayer’s book, I nearly cried. Isn’t this a beautiful thought? Thanks for posting it here.
July 19, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“I cannot imagine what non-home schoolers think because of this over the top, bizarre rhetoric.”
Sarah, I am truly embarressed by this as a long time homeschooler. I am also horrified that so many homeschoolers, people who really should want to embrace Biblical truth and train their children to do so, are so quick to believe everything this man says. And why does HSLDA continue to support him? Look at how quickly several thinking women were able to find errors in his teachings. Where are the men who should be doing this?
July 19, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“Look at how quickly several thinking women were able to find errors in his teachings. Where are the men who should be doing this?”
Karen,
And this is to their shame. There is clearly no one holding them accountable in their own movement even though they tell us that they are accountable. No pastor worth his salt would miss how scripture has been twisted in order to make a point in this interview.
Yes, where are the men who SHOULD be doing this?
Stop complaining about the feminists. We have enough problems of our own. Let us start to clean house and then we will be equipped to go out and minister to those who are lost and do not know the truth. But, if it is not even truth that we are giving the lost and all they get is this hyperbolized drama, they are not going to listen.
It seems that we are just to feed from the breasts of these self-proclaimed leaders of the truth. Just take it in like a good little nursling at the breast that is offered to us. Don’t ask questions, don’t check to make sure the food you are really eating is true food. Just nurse.
July 19, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Kevin begins the broadcast by stating that he wants to look to the Bible and not Marxist existentialism and the philosphy of feminism for our answers. He exhorts us to “get it through scriptures” and “check our wants” to make sure they line up. I agree. We must look at scripture objectively not reading into it what is not there. And certainly we must be careful not to elevate personal opinion to the level of “mandate” if Scripture does not support doing so.
Interestly, Paul perceived that this could be the case with the subject of unmarried virigns and wrote a bit about it.
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:25 “Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. ”
Further in Paul’s text he wrote, “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. 35I 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. ”
Clearly, Paul’s preference was toward remaining unmarried and thus enabling a virgin to be undistracted and completely devoted to the Lord. Notice he doesn’t encourage them to marry early or call them “vagabonds” for choosing the Lord over marriage.
In fact, it was the decision to MARRY that Paul thinks could be perceived by the reader as sin and he was quick to make sure that his thoughts on marriage or singleness would not be elevated to mean that the decision to marry as sin.
More importantly, note in verse 25 that Paul does NOT make this into a command or a mandate from the Lord. If someone like Paul, whom the Lord trusted to write much of the new testament refuses to make strong commands about what our unmarried daughters choose to do, then I think I can safely assume that Kevin Swanson cannot either.
July 19, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“Kevin . . . maybe some of us don’t want lots of kids because we already helped raise our little brothers and sisters.”
Oh, Sarah, if only this weren’t so true. ;o(
July 19, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Corrie, well said…
“I believe Kevin’s doctrine and all the others who preach the same doctrine, to be based on a fallen worldview. They are not getting it from the Bible and the way they twist scripture in order to make their point just proves that their doctrine is not biblical.
Just look at how he used the scripture about Lydia to prove his point when it actually proves the point of the vagabond female letter writer. He tells us that Lydia was a single mother as if it were fact. I would think that the scripture would definitely tell us that if it were the case.”
The patriocentric crowd has a “grid” and it says that everything is based on this grid. In order for them to harmonize that Lydia was not an independent woman, they have to invent or assume that she would be a single mom. Rubbish. Let Scripture speak for itself. But no, they have to make the Bible fit their theology rather than accept plainly what it says about Lydia.
It’s sad that people who claim to hold Scripture up are missing the forest for the trees.
July 19, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I recently found out about this site from Kyla-Thanks a million for telling me about it. I love it already. Listening to Kevin Swanson has given me an indigestion today though. All I wanted to say you all have already said. About the exhortation to WIDOWS and not women and the all the other myriad stupidities he keeps spewing. Granted I listened to him only for 2 minutes and I really feel frustrated about that 2 minutes of utter waste which I am never going to get back in my life. His sentence “Get out of house, go to college, get three abortions…” gets me boiling with rage. I am going to shred him to pieces in my blog one of these days.
But for now I would like to raise funds to send him a full Bible and if anyone is interested, they can contact me. Because apparently his has only two verses in it Gen 2:18 and Titus 2:5.
July 19, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“His sentence “Get out of house, go to college, get three abortions…” gets me boiling with rage. I am going to shred him to pieces in my blog one of these days.
But for now I would like to raise funds to send him a full Bible and if anyone is interested, they can contact me. Because apparently his has only two verses in it Gen 2:18 and Titus 2:5.”
Annie,
LOL!! It helps me to power walk at night to get out any residual boiling “yuck”.
Myself? My favorite was the part about a working woman in a pin-striped suit, selling her flesh cheap to a co-worker in a one night stand. All working women are prostitutes, basically.
David,
You are so right about the “grid”. It is amazing! Can’t we just let the Bible say what it says and deal with it from there? Just imagine the freedom that would come from just reading God’s word for what it is without having to mash it through our grids in order for it to line up with our own fallen worldviews.
July 19, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Actually Kevin Swanson reminds me of myself…about 20 years ago. I was a young mother desperate to “do it right” and absorbed the rhetoric of the conservative homeschool movement as the “chosen” path.
I could repeat the cliches and the buzz words to make one think that I knew what I was talking about, but without any of the fruit and the wisdom that comes from walking it out over years. And all while I was parroting the words of others, I was inwardly trying to convince myself that this was right path to follow. (If I could convince others then I had to be right too?!?) Quite honestly, I was too busy and too lazy to do the work and study the Scripture myself. It was just easier to “fake it” and let others do the work and just parrot what they said.
That’s the same impression I get from listening to Kevin Swanson’s broadcast. He’s repeating what he’s been taught using all the same phrases and buzzwords, but without the Biblical research or the life experience to support what he’s saying. Instead, he relies on emotion, hyperbole, cliche, name dropping, along with a heavy dose of fear to make his case.
Thankfully for me (and my family), I was awakened out of my slumber and began to study to see if what I was taught was indeed true. Anyone can be a parrot, but God calls us to be Bereans. I can also definitely say that I’m grateful I didn’t have a blog or a podcast to broadcast my views and don’t have to face my own abusrd assertions twenty years later!
July 19, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Um, I’m having really bad morning sickness, right now, and if I hear the word, “normative” again, it’s not going to help my symptoms.
Could these people please get a new catch word?
If God had wanted girls to stay home and serve their fathers, he would’ve said it clearly…somewhere. This stuff is so extra-biblical. I am realizing how made-up this all is. It is a knee jerk reaction to feminism.
BTW, if it is “normative” for girls to marry, why are so many girls in these communities single? Frankly, it would make more sense if men like Kevin Swanson started bashing young men for not pursuing these single girls and marrying them. Let’s have some consistency.
July 19, 2007 at 8:59 pm
“There is clearly no one holding them accountable in their own movement even though they tell us that they are accountable. No pastor worth his salt would miss how scripture has been twisted in order to make a point in this interview.”
Actually, it is rapidly becoming the case that no reputable pastor wants to waste his time arguing with the people in the movement.
HyperPatriarchy has become the televangelism of the new millenia.
July 19, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Always cracks me up to hear Christians arbitrarily decide what’s normal and everything else is carnal. Tsk-tsk. It’s the same-old, same-old.
July 19, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“I am also horrified that so many homeschoolers, people who really should want to embrace Biblical truth and train their children to do so, are so quick to believe everything this man says.”
Sigh. . . . you’re right. It’s amazing hwo quickly clear-headed good horse sense goes out the window when people are in the grips of an ideology.
July 19, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Spunky: thank you for bolding that part of Paul’s message: “I have no command from the Lord.”
Amen!! Why do we humans try so hard to make God’s grace into a hard-and-fast set of dos and don’ts?? Praise God for grace and love.
July 19, 2007 at 11:40 pm
It’s frustrating how, in the name of advocating free-thinking “out-of-the-box”, we in the homeschooling movement can be so mindless.
What Jesus had to say about women (and the way He treated them) versus what Kevin has to say are two completely different things. What is sad is that many of us, including my own self in previous years, have such a hard time seeing that.
July 19, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Zan said:
“BTW, if it is “normative” for girls to marry, why are so many girls in these communities single? Frankly, it would make more sense if men like Kevin Swanson started bashing young men for not pursuing these single girls and marrying them. Let’s have some consistency.”
AMEN!
Preach it, sister!
July 20, 2007 at 1:46 am
Molly “It’s frustrating how, in the name of advocating free-thinking “out-of-the-box”, we in the homeschooling movement can be so mindless.”
I think it’s the “schoolyard syndrome” taking over. That’s the experiment that was supposedly done on elementary age children where they removed the fence around the playground, thinking that the children would feel more liberated. Exactly the opposite happened, they hovered near they school building. The children wanted boundaries for a feeling of safety, that’s what the fence provided.
I think the same is true here. Homeschoolers see a wide open field to play in, but immediately we look for boundaries to keep us safe.
There is safety in numbers, so we gravitate towards those that promise success and appear to be popular with others. All we have to do is buy their books and they’ll tell us how to raise our children “God’s Way,” give us “advanced training” in character, and at the same time recreate us to be his helpmeet all so he’ll provide a new “vision” for our family.
So we buy the books, tapes, and attend the sessions trying to erect a boundary that keeps us safe from our own mistakes and potential failures. But it doesn’t work. And when we make the inevitable mistakes, we question where we went wrong. We begin to feel totally inadequate. The books made it sound so easy, their families appear so perfect. In actuality what we bought was a small kernal of truth, in a slick package.
It is at this point that we hopefully, turn our minds and hearts back to THE Book and the Perfect Author who will reveal the answers we are looking for all along. It is in Him that true safety is found.
The purpose of doctrine and biblical principles is to lead us in a right relationship with Jesus Christ, but not replace a relationship with Jesus. The minute a doctrine, principle, or person becomes more important than that relationship it becomes an idol no matter how how spiritual it sounds or how Godly they appear.
God will share His glory with no other and every idol will eventually be torn down.
July 20, 2007 at 2:26 am
I can’t stand what I call “stupid theology” — where someone claims a scripture means something because it fits their pet cause. That’s exactly what Kevin does when he claims that Lydia was a “single mom”. Unbelievable stretch of meaning. What this basically would be called is “lying about Scripture”.
- A pastor preaches that Paul’s admonition to Timothy to “take a little wine for your stomach” was actually to be rubbed like Vap-o-rub. As if…
- Someone I know claimed that a prophecy (in Isaiah or Jeremiah, I can’t remember) about chopping down trees and decorating them with gold and silver was proof that we shouldn’t have Christmas trees. Never mind that the scripture talks about carving these trees, which to my knowledge no one ever does with a Christmas tree.
We can’t be inventing meanings to suit our beliefs. I agree with the earlier comment about “normative”. I define “normative” as this: if God’s word doesn’t condemn it, it’s normative. Some women led, taught, and had ministries as single people. That’s normative.
July 20, 2007 at 2:59 am
Spunky (#28),
AMEN. I’m about to celebrate my 10 year marraige anniversary. Eight or nine of those years were spent in the bowels of hyper-patriarchy. Our marriage is alive today by the grace of God and only that (and getting better each month, praise God!).
The idol we made of what we thought was “Biblical,” almost destroyed two well-intentioned people who wanted to honor God above all else. The books/teachers had the answers (and the answers seemed to go along with the verses they claimed to exegete, verses that we also saw to say the same things).
We walked away from grace (and the fearfulness of that spacious liberty in Christ) for the bonds of law, comforted by the promises it made us, the guarantees and the orderly “look” it produced…but it proved to be fruit born of flesh, not born of Spirit…and we paid for it dearly.
Jesus died to set us FREE, not to bring back a “newer/fresher” version of the Old Covenant. But the concept of grace and love will never be popular to humans, including those of us in the fold. Grace and Love are too entirely opposite of everything we know.
It is, sadly, far less frightening for me to settle comfortably under the pale of the Law, where at least I have physical tangible evidence that I’m safe and that I’m right (and you’re wrong).
July 20, 2007 at 3:13 am
Molly,
If you have already shared this, I apologize. There are simply so many people posting, it is hard to keep track. But, could you share what brought you out of patriocentricity?
For us, it was discovering what grace really meant. It took many years and was a slow process. It required much suffering at the hands of foolish, abusive men. But now, on this side of the divide, I can actually thank God for allowing us to be where we were. I wouldn’t trade those experiences for anything because I learned what it means to live in the stillness of His grace.
Can you share?
July 20, 2007 at 5:39 am
For me, if I had to sum it all up, I think it was the same thing you said: discovering grace (what it really meant).
Rambling thoughts of/about my journey out of patriarchy can be found here, the more recent posts being first:
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/tag/on-women/
As for living in the stillness of His grace, I am in the process of learning that.
I confess, the bigger part of me is still wholly afraid—-afraid in that it seems too good to be true, afraid because it makes very little sense to my “tit-for-tat” mind, afraid because it seems SO expansive, SO…good. I catch myself asking, practically daily, including today (after reading Galatians last night, yet again), “Can this *really* be true?”
Meaning what I’m seeing in Scripture and how radically it differs from what I was taught in the hallowed halls of Christendom…(or was it that I was taught of Love, but that I just couldn’t hear)? It is as if I was entering into a whole new religion–a completely different faith almost.
…And perhaps I am also cringing and wanting to hold back because of what grace calls me too, which is, in a weird way, ten million times more demanding than what Law ever wanted from me. Grace asks me to give grace. Love asks me to give love. Obedience to the Law is a million times easier than this.
Love is a much different paradigm than the Christian world I come from taught. I feel like a newborn baby, in that I am starting all over.
July 20, 2007 at 11:28 am
Molly,
Thank you for that!
We went through a terribly difficult time in a church situation. We were in a presbyterian church where the book of church order reigned supreme. I can remember, during those years, referring to that dreadful book too many times. At one point, we both realized that it really didn’t matter what someone did, even if they were forced to do the right thing because of that book. All that matters in the end is what is inside, that is the measure of loving God and loving man. It was liberating. I stopped thinking in terms of following the letter of the law and started thinking about the spirit of the law.
Did you ever know someone who loved the letter of the law to the point that it could be manipulated in order to produce what they wanted? But they were so deluded in believing that it was truth because it didn’t really matter that the spirit of the law taught something else. I have been reading Mark Noll’s book on the theological issues surrounding the Civil War. And now, a third of the way through the book, I have come to the conclusion that just about anything can be supported from Scripture by holding to the letter of the law. “You know, I didn’t sleep with that woman.” “I didn;t murder him.” But Jesus said, in your heart you did both. Slavery is a-ok because the Bible says so….ad nauseum. The real theological difference in that war wasn’t about the Bible, it was about how we view the Bible’s application in our lives, how we view the spirit of the law….much like the issues here.
Molly, thanks again for your testimony…I will read at your blog.
July 20, 2007 at 11:30 am
“The purpose of doctrine and biblical principles is to lead us in a right relationship with Jesus Christ, but not replace a relationship with Jesus. The minute a doctrine, principle, or person becomes more important than that relationship it becomes an idol no matter how how spiritual it sounds or how Godly they appear.
God will share His glory with no other and every idol will eventually be torn down.” (Spunky, #28)
“It is, sadly, far less frightening for me to settle comfortably under the pale of the Law, where at least I have physical tangible evidence that I’m safe and that I’m right (and you’re wrong).” (molleth, #30)
Excellent quotes, ladies. You hit some nails right on the head!
July 20, 2007 at 11:35 am
So, I thought of Kevin Swanson again last night as I watched the movie The Village. I hadn’t seen it for a couple years and even then I only watched it once. So it was quite interesting to go back and watch it again, this time noticing some of the father/daughter themes that ran through it.
First of all, I thought of Kevin because of all the hyperbole. How are his scare tactics any different than the ones used by the elders of the village. Their fears were based on reality, what they had seen or even experienced. So are Kevin’s. But their methodology of protecting and raising future generations was based on creating and feeding fear of life outside of the village.
I also realzied a couple parallels with the father and his daughter. He drew her into his conspiracy because she was blind and, he thought, couldn’t know what was really outside the walls. He was also willing to sacrifice her safety and perhaps even her life in order to keep his vows to the village. Do these things sound familiar? How many dad who want “visionary daugthers” have remained faithful to the paradigm (village) and have ignored the real needs, gifts, desires, and calling of their daughters to the point that if the daughter decides to leave, he writes her off? Sad to say, too many. I know all the analogies aren’t perfect but it sure gives you much to think about.
July 20, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Yah, Sallie,
All these single girls in conservative Christian communities is a pet peeve of mine. It is so ridiculous. The girls are staying home and doing what they are “supposed” to do. Why are they being the ones constantly bashed my these patriarchal guys? The guys are the ones “supposed” to pursue, so what is their problem? What are these girls’ fathers doing? It would be consistent if the fathers were actively looking for husbands for their daughters and if the young men were actively setting themselves up and preparing for marriage.
I think Scott Brown had this fasting episode so that these single girls would get married. How about we start a series of books and sermons highlighting how the men are slacking “big time” in not pursuing these girls?
I have a theory: the reason a lot of girls end up going to college or work outside the home, is because there is no one available to marry. I think the majority of Christian girls out there would love to marry out of highschool, or soon after, but the suitable guys just aren’t there.
July 20, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Zan ~
The real problem is the despair and rejection so many of this single girls feel.
If you are in the home school community, you know at least one who is basically a domestic slave at home or farmed out to another family.
I know more than one who have run away or even tried to end their own life, because they feel that cannot be what God wants them to be. I.E. These girls honestly believe what they are taught about women’s roles and “Biblical” womanhood, but cannot live it in their own life or desire other things (like higher education). This is a tough situation.
I have several lovely brothers, and the older ones have both asked me why home school girls make themselves intentionally unattractive via their dress and old fashioned grooming (or lack thereof completely). Trust me, my brothers have no interest in marrying a homely doormat, which is in all honesty how these girls have been raised to behave.
I really think these girls are between a rock and a hard place. If they did anything at all to make themselves slightly more attractive to males, it would not go over well with parents or their belief system. The reality is most girls in this lifestyle are just not as attractive as the girls they hold up as examples – like Anna Sofia Botkin or Kelly Brown.
Further, most of these families do not have the kind of money to support themselves or invest in grooming or dressing their marriage age daughters.
July 20, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Zan – “I think the majority of Christian girls out there would love to marry out of highschool, or soon after, but the suitable guys just aren’t there.”
Zan, you said “Christian”, but I think a majority of the girls are in the patriarchal camps. With that in mind, have you thought of this?
Maybe it’s because the guys can get out… they see their ticket – “preparing to take on a family by getting set up in life” – and they TAKE IT!!!!! Maybe that’s why none of them are around!!!! Or maybe they don’t want a little puppy dog to follow them around and do whatever he says, or if so, at least one that wears something attractive would be nice!!!!!
But you know what… Maybe this sounds mean of me, but I would rather these girls NOT get married to the only “suitable” young men in their circles. Maybe God is being merciful to them by keeping them from a marriage that demands submission and subservience from them that HE doesn’t, from a husband that cares little for her spirit but cares greatly about his dinner on the table and shirts ironed just so while she must keep the children from disturbing him.
Imagine it… where would you rather be when you’re thirty, when you wake up and read what the Bible REALLY has to say??? Would you like to have 7 children already and a husband you have trouble respecting because he abuses his leadership, or be single and in a position to start your life fresh????? Marriage is for keeps… there’s no sending children back… so say you did wake up in this situation, you’re only option is to pray for a miracle in your husband’s heart!!!! While you gradually become the outcast, because everyone in your circle will eventually catch on to your “rebellion”.
Or, you can grieve for the years that bondage to legalism stole from you, but you can pick yourself up, pray that God would redeem the years that the locusts have eaten, and start living like an ALIVE woman in Christ.
What do you think? Which would be better for them? I’m still praying for them, that not only their eyes, but also their PARENTS eyes will have the scales fall from them… If God can do it with a Christian-killer like Paul, why not them?? Don’t you think that would be the best possible scenario, for them ALL to be set free? No discord, no “rebellion”, no “excommunications”? Lord, please break the chains!!!
July 20, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Regarding the comments about “homely doormats”, etc: I don’t know where you live, but even the most conservative daughters-at-home type families I’m familiar with try to dress nicely with neat hairstyles, makeup, etc. Yes, there are exceptions. But I’m a bit uncomfortable with these broad generalizations and stereotypes.
July 20, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I don’t want anyone living in legalism and slavery. I have been to these types of churches and have seen the exhausted moms with their 6 children and the dad doing nothing. I, actually, live near a “cult” that practices a lot of what these hyper patriarchalist (is that a word?) teach. They are called Apostolic Lutherans. They have as many children as possible (except some of the more liberal ones) and they are everywhere! I think these girls should have stayed single. However, some girls are truly happy…if they marry a nice guy.
I was just pointing out the inconsistencies with these teachings. These leaders go on and on about girls staying home and not going to college, but the “vision” that they pound into men isn’t preparing them for marriage.
I think, in the modern church, that marriage has been downplayed as not as important as church ministries. It seems that patriarchalists are blaming women for seeking their independence. Why don’t they look at themselves to see why women are seeking independence? The men aren’t able to care for them.
Caring for a wife is a lot more than being the family historian or the wife’s theology teacher. It is caring for the wife finacially and physically. Because I have been so sick with this pregnancy, my husband is doing everything, including caring for the children and cooking and cleaning when he gets home from a full day of work (he had a normal 9-5 job which seems to be discouraged in these patriarchal camps). These are the things that church leaders need to be teaching to homeschoolers.
BTW, I don’t think that a woman being independent and educated is always wrong. I went to college and became a nurse. My parents insisted on it. Even though I was homeschooled, they were never caught up with any homeschool guru for too long. I don’t think we ever went to those homeschool conferences, either. I don’t remember any.
My thoughts are a little scattered, so I appologize.
I’m just so tired of women being blamed for society’s ills ALL THE TIME.
July 20, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Erin,
I have seen girls who dress very nicely (like Crystal from Biblical Womanhood blog) and girls who dress in potato sacks (frumpy). I guess it depends on where you live and what church you go to.
July 20, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Erin,
When I was homeschooled, we did the frumpy look for a short time. Of course, we lived in Vermont so we fit in just fine.
I appologize to all Vermonters.
July 20, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Alisa,
In reference to my “Christian” comment.
I think that the majority of young men don’t know how to prepare for marriage in most Christian circles whether that be hyper conservative or liberal. When I say “Christian” I am using that very liberally. Does that make sense?
Even in the church my husband and I were married in, which did not teach patriarchal stuff at all, the guys just weren’t ready for marriage, yet they thought they were.
July 20, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Come to think more on this, I suspect much of this problem (of girls being so isolated as to not have access to any eligible young men) must be partly regional. If a family moves out to the boonies 50 miles from town and the daughters never leave home, they could definitely have a problem. But a family who purposefully involves themselves in the life of a community surely has a better chance in the husband-finding dept.
Most of the girls I know who are still single in their mid-twenties through mid-thirties are working girls with educations. Many of my more conservative homeschooled friends are now married…could this be because I live near a large city rather than in some rural outpost?
July 20, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Zan,
I definitely had my stage as well (as I’ve mentioned before) from about the ages of 12-14. I’d like to blame my mom (or an overbearing father) for it, but she insists I WANTED to shop in the old ladies dept. at Foleys. Who knows;o)
Crystal is a perfect example of the type of dress and grooming I’m used to seeing in my area from these types of more conservative women.
July 20, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Zan, have you ever read Boundless webzine and blog? It’s a site for singles, but I have been reading it since college and still find it very interesting.
They have many articles saying basically the same things you are, that men need to step up. In fact, they challenge the men so much in this area (preparing for a family, purposefully pursuing a young lady, etc.) that they’re sometimes accused of being “out to get the guys” and being to soft on the ladies. In general, however, I think they remain fairly balanced. It’s nice to see Christian men challenging other men in this way, and I hope many of them are listening!
July 20, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Erin,
You are right. The appearance issue varies greatly from area to area. I think it’s a difference between what the conservative Christian camps and the secular/more liberal concensus in the area believe to be the standard of beauty that might prompt the comparisons. But some of the ATI/Gothard camps have the most made up/appearance driven girls I’ve ever seen. Then you have opposite end of the spectrum that wouldn’t go near mascara or earrings or a curling iron if you paid them. All in the name of “femininity”. I’m not faulting personal tastes, mind you…
July 20, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I haven’t heard of “Boundless.” Maybe there is hope.
You are definately right about geography getting in the way of good matches. However, if girls are supposed be nonconformist and stay away from college and work outside the home (generally), how are they going to meet anyone? Don’t a lot of Christians meet at Christian colleges? My parents did.
July 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm
As the girl who wrote the letter that Kevin Swanson read in this episode I just want to say I enjoyed these comments. After seeing the link to Visionary Daughters on here and listening to it I was furious, so I had to tell him what I thought. I just wanted to put in that my favorite part of the episode was where he said you can’t be single for a part of life. You are either single or married. My roomate busted out laughing at that point and responded with “hmmmm I always thought that everyone was single at some point in life. I wish he would tell me how to not be single.” It really is sad that some misuse scripture in this way. The true tragedy here in my opinion is that he has four daughters that are being taught this every day. Well sorry I must go and encourage my father and the elders of my church to find me a husband so I can get married and truly minister to others.
July 20, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Thanks for commenting Hannah. I was so frustrated and appalled after listening to that broadcast, I called HSLDA to inquire as to whether they actually knew what was being spouted since they have their banner on his website. The WOMAN that I spoke with there certainly seemed appalled and promised that they would look into it. To be honest, I guess I just don’t see the point in addressing him directly. He seems to feed off of that as he did with Hannah’s letter. ( And by the way Hannah, I certainly admire you for heeding your calling to the inner city, I wonder what bible verse told Kevin he should be a pastor? We certainly can’t trust our hearts……)Wow, I wouldn’t want to be him when he has to give account to God for discouraging all these girls from following passions that the Holy Spirit Himself planted in their hearts. Yeesh!
July 21, 2007 at 12:53 am
Hannah the Vagabond!
Thank you for introducing yourself. I am so glad that you wrote that letter. It really was revealing to hear his response.
“Well sorry I must go and encourage my father and the elders of my church to find me a husband so I can get married and truly minister to others.”
It is funny how the men want us to stay out of their roles but then want to take everything away from us on top of it all.
Matchmaking has always belonged to women.
July 21, 2007 at 4:04 am
While I don’t think staying at home until marriage is God’s plan for everyone, I can accept that it might be His plan for some girls. As long as it’s a conviction that they and their parents share, and not based upon unscrutinized philosophies by some “expert”.
If that is the plan, however, parents need to make sure that their daughters ARE having sufficient opportunity to interact with other young adults. Church can be a good place. My parents met at church, as did many of their siblings and their spouses. My sister met her husband at the church she was interning at (as a worker with the high school girls.) I, on the other hand, did meet my husband at college:o)
July 21, 2007 at 4:51 am
Hahhan, you famous hobo/vagrant/wanderer, you! Thanks for telling us who you are.
So, now millions, and I mean millions, will now know how homeless you really are!
I so appreciate your letter to Kevin and I even more so appreciate your zeal for sharing Christ! Tell your mama I said she should be proud!!!
July 21, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I tried to listen, but felt a bit sick after about five minutes.
July 21, 2007 at 4:35 pm
…all this talk about the “normative role”…Jesus didn’t seem to feel that women should not be in his presence learning from Him…but then Jesus was pretty radical.
July 21, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I couldn’t stand to listen either. I know what he thinks.
July 22, 2007 at 1:04 am
Just had to put my two cents in:
Zan:
“I have a theory: the reason a lot of girls end up going to college or work outside the home, is because there is no one available to marry. I think the majority of Christian girls out there would love to marry out of highschool, or soon after, but the suitable guys just aren’t there.”
This is exactly why I went to college when I was 25! I had no intention of graduating… it was a time filler and a possible way to meet a husband. When I graduated 3 years later with a degree in creative writing and no potential spouse on the horizon I had NO IDEA what to do. So I asked my best friend to move with me to Chicago, got a job and am in the process of getting settled in a new church (where there is a LARGE population of single men relative to its size) and looking for a more long-term job commitment that will allow me to use my gifts to aid the growth of God’s kingdom (possibly as an adviser to international students at a local Christian college).
You just never know where life will take you, and I think that is the whole point of following the Holy Spirit and the Bible, rather than shaping your life around someone else’s conception of what the Bible says.
July 22, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’ve stayed away from blogs this week due to a crazy schedule. But I had to jump in here.
The only word that seems to fit, to describe my thoughts when listening to that mess is:
Arrogance.
Kevin Swanson comes across as so incredibly, sickeningly arrogant that I couldn’t take him serious EVEN IF I WANTED TO! Even if I was sold to the whole patriocentricity stuff, I couldn’t swollow his arrogant pill.
And, I have to wave hello to Molly. (molleth) Miss seeing you in cyberspace dear friend!
July 22, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Oh and I forgot to add…Zan said:
I’m just so tired of women being blamed for society’s ills ALL THE TIME.
You know, I couldn’t put my finger on how I felt, but you just did it for me. I have lived in a church culture for 5 years that basically fed me this over and over and I was too stupid (parked my brain for fear of retribution) to realize what was going on.
For the longest time I thought it was something wrong with ME and I couldn’t put my feelings into words.
Zan, you just summed up exactly what I was feeling that I didn’t know I was even feeling!!!
I’m so tired of women taking the “non-normative” blame for everything. I’m completely oldfashioned and traditional. I’m okay with women’s roles based on an accurate reading of the Bible. But I never have understood the “its all Eve’s fault!” mentality.
I feel liberated just reading Zan’s comment because it really brought something to light within me. The way I’ve been feeling. Maybe now I can work on making sense of it.
July 22, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Hi, Lindsey!!!
I smiled big when I saw your name in the comments section. It’s nice to “see” you too. 
July 24, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Sarah said, “The Home School movement needs Kevin Swanson like the Republican Party needs Jack Abramoff or Mark Foley.”
My thoughts exactly. Kevin Swanson seems to be a major liability to the Christian home school movement.
Kevin Swanson and RC Sproul Jr Team Up to Offend Home Schoolers
July 25, 2007 at 9:49 pm
[...] going on right now at the True Womanhood in the New Millenium blog about a variety of topics, from patriarchy to New Victorians to what is feminism. Worth checking out for some lively discussions!!! [...]
August 6, 2007 at 5:47 pm
The other day, it came to mind that Jesus was a essentially homeless vagabond throughout his ministry. Literally.
Once again, Swanson fails to double check with his Bible. Or why would he attempt to insult us by comparing us to the Lord?
August 6, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Sarah,
Kevin Swanson is back with this topic again. Last week he had two interviews with Scott Brown and I wrote down what he said in the introduction:
“the VAST MAJORITY of girls have a kid out of wedlock at 32 and get married at 39.”
Where are those who are holding him accountable for these statements. And you are correct, “the Son of Man had no place to lay his head.” (Matthew 18:20)
August 6, 2007 at 9:00 pm
““the VAST MAJORITY of girls have a kid out of wedlock at 32 and get married at 39.”
Where are those who are holding him accountable for these statements. And you are correct, “the Son of Man had no place to lay his head.” (Matthew 18:20)”
Karen,
I am with you. Where are the people who are supposed to be holding men like him accountable?
The “VAST MAJORITY” of girls have a “kid” out of wedlock at 32?
And get married at 39?
Here is a real statistic:
36% of births are attributed to unmarried women 15 to 44 years of age
The average age of women who get married is between 25 and 28 years of age.
Where does he get his statistics? It seems he pulls them out of the air for dramatic flare and the alarmist effect it has on his followers.
I don’t think anyone but those on this site bother to consider whether what he is saying is the truth or not.
August 7, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Kevin Swanson’s disregard for the truth is troubling on many levels. So many people listen to him and revere him. You think he would take care, given the Bible’s specific warnings to false teachers.
I should listen to the Scott Brown interviews. I don’t find Scott as horrifying as I do some of the other hyper-patriarch folks. I don’t know why.
August 7, 2007 at 8:44 pm
My mother in law listens to this man.
She loves him to pieces but doesn’t check on things one bit.
The only positive thing I can say about all of this is that she is very pro-homeschool and I think it is because of what he says. Since she lives a 2 hour drive away, which is the equivalent of us living on Mars, this doesn’t bother me one bit.
Now, if she were to move closer and do to us what she does to my husband’s brothers and their wives… lets just say the distance is okay in this situation.
And I want to go on the record that I have a perfectly nice mother in law, but she isn’t one for the kinds of things we do on this blog…
November 21, 2008 at 12:51 am
[...] my apologetics workshop at an SBC seminary in March was a rant, what does he call the work of Kevin Swanson, a fellow faculty member with Henry Reyenga’s Christian Leaders Institute. (Take a look at [...]
November 21, 2008 at 11:58 am
more on this…
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/why-is-voddie-baucham-being-marginalized-by-the-sbc/
December 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm
To those amoung us who suffer low blood pressure:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=71607102832
Here is the link!
December 27, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Andrea, thanks for the link–I can listen to Kevin Swanson when I need to stay up late sewing and don’t want to fall asleep–and it is a good thing I do have low blood pressure, too…
So far, this quote has stood out to me (in relation to a single woman going into the inner city to reach out to children and then to their families with the love of Christ): “Singleness is not the biblical way–we don’t minister to VAGABONDS as VAGABONDS!” He says this is a “separation of faith and works”, and “not much of the true Gospel happening”.
December 28, 2008 at 2:15 am
I suffer from low blood pressure……
So, women have two paths, according to Kevin Swanson….
The first is the “feminist path” where they will go to college, seek a career, have 3 abortions, discontent with a meaningless life…..
The second is his path where the woman stays at home, serves the Church and the Home.
The normative is to get married but there are exceptions where a woman stays single but that is rare. The biblical concept of singleness is not what we practice.
Kathy, I love the quote about vagabonds.
Too bad he doesn’t seem to really understand the women of the New Testament and how non-normative they really were.
He rarely sees people using God’s word (notice how he enunciates it) to shape their lives. As if he is on the inside track of most people’s lives and has some special gift that allows him to know the heart and mind of the people he is noticing.
Is the father or elders of the church preparing this young woman to be married and find a husband? Where is her father?
This begs the question of where does the mother fit into the picture. After all, she is a wife and she is probably best suited to “prepare” her daughter to be a wife.
I can’t listen to any more right now. I need some sleep.
December 28, 2008 at 2:24 am
Oh, he just stated that it is seen in scripture that women who have been widowed return to their father’s home. That is normative.
Where? Examples?
Some men are putting “thousands of hours” into prospective marriage partners for their daughters? That sounds creepy.
Also, the “world has said that father/daughter relationships are evil”.
That is a ridiculous lie. The fact is that we need billboards that let girls know that there are boundaries and that if we are given “creepy” feelings for a good reason. I, personally, have seen some pretty creepy and boundary-crossing relationships between fathers/daughters in the patriarchal movement. And then I have later found out that there WAS molestation going on.
The drama is almost more than I can bear. And it really causes me not to want to take anything they say seriously, especially when they can’t get their facts straight.
“Everybody wants to be an exception.” So says Kevin Swanson.
Wilderness of the vagabond where you get good and selfish…..
As if selfishness doesn’t abound in the patriarchal movement where many of the teachings boil down to “agree with me and worship me and we will get along just fine”.
December 28, 2008 at 2:24 am
“Get married early and have lots of children.”
Another great quote. The patriarchalists should put up their own billboards.
December 28, 2008 at 2:31 am
“In the biblical method, Paul went right to the fathers not to the children.”
He says Lydia is a “single mom”. “No brainer”.
Where does Kevin get his biblical “facts” from because I don’t see he is getting them from the Bible.
The family has been split up. Singles groups. Women’s groups. Even, “midget groups”?
Families belong to a socialist system in the Church. Wrong way of raising children, wrong perception of the family, wrong view of evangelism.
Okay. These guys really work for Betty Bower and this is a spoof.
December 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“I, personally, have seen some pretty creepy and boundary-crossing relationships between fathers/daughters in the patriarchal movement. And then I have later found out that there WAS molestation going on.” – Corrie.
As sick and disgusting as this is – why doesn’t this surprise me one little bit?
What I want to know is – how long before we see “Christian Polygamy” ? Seriously. Man is “king” and leader. Man has been known to be sorely tempted by the flesh and to sin in this fallen world.. especially sexually. Too many examples to list here. How long before we see polygamy? If women are [b]“SEPERATE”[/b] but [i]“equal”[/i]… How long before they are seen as a commodity to serve man and submit to… well, anything?
I also wonder how long it is before a “major sex scandal” breaks out. I’m talking Ted Haggard proportions here. Thou doth protest too much about “effeminacy” and “homosexuals”… know what I’m saying?
December 28, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Also Corrie – Get well soon with your blood pressure! Will include it in my prayers x.
December 28, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“What I want to know is – how long before we see “Christian Polygamy” ? Seriously. Man is “king” and leader. Man has been known to be sorely tempted by the flesh and to sin in this fallen world.. especially sexually. Too many examples to list here. How long before we see polygamy?”
“Biblical Plural Marriage and Kingdom Building. Thoughts and articles regarding polygamy as a tool of dominion.
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matt 22:14″
http://joshuahshouse.blogspot.com/
http://www.joshuahshouse.com/
December 28, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“What I want to know is – how long before we see “Christian Polygamy” ? Seriously.”
The answer is waiting in the moderation queue….
December 28, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“Singleness is not the biblical way–we don’t minister to VAGABONDS as VAGABONDS!”
WOW…. so it wasn’t Biblical for Jesus and Paul to remain single…
I wonder how these heretics explain passages like 1Cr 7:27, and Matt 19:12?
December 28, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Paul and Jesus may have been the exceptions, but they were male. The VAGABONDS epithet seems to refer particularly to those females who are on their own–the young, single, rebellious ones.
December 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm
OK, it looks like that comment isn’t coming out of moderation… hee goes again, remove the @@@’s:
““What I want to know is – how long before we see “Christian Polygamy” ? Seriously. Man is “king” and leader. Man has been known to be sorely tempted by the flesh and to sin in this fallen world.. especially sexually. Too many examples to list here. How long before we see polygamy?”
“Biblical Plural Marriage and Kingdom Building. Thoughts and articles regarding polygamy as a tool of dominion.
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matt 22:14″
http:@@@//joshuahshouse.blogspot.com/
http:@@@//www.joshuahshouse.com
December 28, 2008 at 8:58 pm
OK, it looks like that comment isn’t coming out of moderation… here goes again, add http:// to each link to make it work:
““What I want to know is – how long before we see “Christian Polygamy” ? Seriously. Man is “king” and leader. Man has been known to be sorely tempted by the flesh and to sin in this fallen world.. especially sexually. Too many examples to list here. How long before we see polygamy?”
“Biblical Plural Marriage and Kingdom Building. Thoughts and articles regarding polygamy as a tool of dominion.
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matt 22:14″
joshuahshouse.blogspot.com/
http://www.joshuahshouse.com
December 28, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Cynthia, I guessed you were going to post that guy’s site. I can only read it for so long, or I start counting down until Armageddon and begin practicing my target shooting.
December 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I hope I’m not being overly optimistic – but I don’t see them people as much of a threat.
If this is where the likes of VF are leading …I’m not concerned (I was about to write “Good”, but then I thought of the women and “surplus” males this situation creates. God help them).
If these people want alienate themselves away from “the world”. Let them! They will become so ridiculous they will be a threat to no-one. The way I see it, although some lives were being destroyed by the FDLS, were they REALLY a threat to everyday Americans? Now, I don’t see all aspects of America as it currently is as something spectacular and worth preserving.. but I think you understand my point here. They were that far on the fringe they were not taken seriously. What I don’t understand about these type of people is that not even people in Jesus’ time lived this way! Jesus spoke with sinners, showed love , compassion ect. He didn’t enforce dress codes or these petty rules. GRACE was stressed, not laws. This is mentioned over and over and over again. Why does this fail to compute with these people?!
I don’t see Joshuah’s House as something to be concerned over however.
What bothers me more is VF. How they are “mainstreaming” themselves. I notice they >sell< (HUGE emphasis on that word) their ideas to homeschoolers…I know the homeschooling demographic is growing and becoming more and more influencial. Not as influencial as I think people tend to exagerate, but still a voice growing louder. It things like people like the hysterical Swanson being seen as “the voice of homeschoolers” which set alarm bells ringing. I am not from America, is K. Swanson really approved of by main stream homeschoolers? I’m inclinded to think he isn’t. Also, VF are getting obssesed with getting “men in the gates”. Having hyper patrialarchal men influencing OUR laws and our justice system and allocation of funding (will they start to hand out leaflets on submission at battered womens shelters?) is more more frightening than some isolated polygamists who live in the middle of nowhere.
Thinking about this further, to get “into the gates”, wouldn’t they have to go more mainstream? Whitewash themselves, as it were. Like how Jennie airbrushed some of their true beliefs in the “Art of Manliness” diatribe she spewed out. Do you think people would vote for Chancey et al if we leafletted some of their quotes to Alabama homes with their feelings on democracy, the south and Lincoln? I don’t. I think if VF campained with their true beliefs they they wouldn’t stand a chance.
To get in the gates – Sorry, IF they got anywhere in the gates (Matthew Chancey FAILS at getting elected. Jimbob Duggar, although not in the same league he is playing the same sport – FAILS to get elected) they would have to soften up and sell out. If this happened, would they still be a threat? Or will their be a sly overthrowing from these types?
Or will VF forever be on the fringe? I’m going to watch their antics with anticipation.
(Apologies if this has gone off on a tangent!)
December 29, 2008 at 12:10 am
Andrea,
After I stopped listening to the radio show, my blood pressure returned to its usual low reading.
Really, I am not surprised by all the ridiculous jargon and silly enunciations. What I am surprised with is that he has a following and people actually take him seriously. Does anyone THINK anymore? Does anyone bother to actually examine his words and see how far out in left field they really are?
Do even half of the college girls end up having three abortions? Do even half of the women who work outside of the home end up having cheap sex in seedy hotel rooms with male co-workers? How about a 1/4 of them?
How long have men been having sexual affairs during or after work hours? Why does he think it is okay for men to work outside of the home? According to his logic, it is non-normative. Normally men worked alongside their wives in a family business in the Bible.
Somehow I think that the the same logic he uses to scare women doesn’t carry over to the men.
December 29, 2008 at 12:16 am
Andrea,
Great points. They are remaking their image and whitewashing themselves in order to appear more mainstream. They are desperate to retain their earnings, especially because patriocentrism is many times their sole source of income.
But, it still walks like a duck and stinks like a rose.
December 29, 2008 at 12:28 am
Andrea, I was referring to another site that Joshuah hosts, which I found when I was googling phrases like “economic apocalypse”. If there is any bad news economically or any threats of terrorism, bird flu, war, or any other possible gloomy, dismal, fear-inducing factoid/hunch/speculation, he is quick to post it with tags like “civil unrest”, “famine”, etc. You can also find out useful things like “Your kitchen is a veritable cache of weaponry.”
IF I were to take it seriously, I would go practice my targetshooting and learn how to clean and dress squirrels or something. The site is www get out of dodge dot net, and the Christian Polygamy site is linked to it in the sidebar.
December 29, 2008 at 1:10 am
Thinking about this further, to get “into the gates”, wouldn’t they have to go more mainstream? Whitewash themselves, as it were. Like how Jennie airbrushed some of their true beliefs in the “Art of Manliness” diatribe she spewed out. Do you think people would vote for Chancey et al if we leafletted some of their quotes to Alabama homes with their feelings on democracy, the south and Lincoln? I don’t. I think if VF campained with their true beliefs they they wouldn’t stand a chance.
My point exactly — that’s what I meant when I pointed out that the hyperpats are no longer a very big threat.
Neither are the polygamists — they are just too far “out there” to gain wide acceptance in this country (and to be fair, I DON’T think that VF, the Chanceys, et al are likely to start practicing polygamy themselves anytime soon, even though McDonald DID support the right of the FLDS to do so.)
The REAL danger, I think, lies in more normal-appearing dominionists, folks like Gary North, the late JR Rushdooney, and Howard Phillips, who have not gone on record as condemning female suffrage and college for women, but who DO wish to see our country scrap the Constitution in favor of a return to OT Biblical law, complete with things like debtor slavery, stoning, and persecution of every denomination of Christianity other than their own.
December 29, 2008 at 1:28 am
“The site is www get out of dodge dot net, and the Christian Polygamy site is linked to it in the sidebar.”
That’s nothing new, though — dominionists have been running hand in hand with gun nuts, secessionists and militias since the 80’s and 90’s, when the Constitution Party, then known as the Taxpayer Party, sold manuals on how to form your own church-based militias at their state convention.
…and, there are independent churches who are still quietly advocating this sort of thing today. At least one such group happen to be located not too far from where I live. These groups are too fringey to gain widespread support right now, but they do bear watching, and they are being watched, believe me.
December 29, 2008 at 3:22 am
Okay, has anybody gone to the JoshuahHouse blog and seen Doug Phillips, Phil Lancaster, RC Sproul, Vision Forum and I think Voddie Bauchum was on there too in their list of topics? They were pointing out a Yahoo Patriarchy group. All I can think is… WOW. The fact that these polygamists LIKE and want you to read this should speak volumes. Now, not to say that that affinity goes both ways, but the point remains.
December 29, 2008 at 10:35 am
Alisa,
Another group that loves to quote the patriocentrists like this is the Moonies. Go to Divine Principle dot com, and there is a book on patriarchy and one called 12 before 40. Phillips and all these folks are quoted heavily. In fact, if you want a good, comprehensive list of the first writings that fall into the genre of Mary Pride, look at these too Moonie books. They LOVE this stuff.
I think Cynthia Gee might have a blog post on these writings, if I’m not mistaken.
December 29, 2008 at 10:36 am
These too Moonie books? These two. My use of small words and prepositions is way off today. Not enough coffee.
February 23, 2009 at 5:56 pm
It’s his type that gives homeschooling a bad name- state conventions need to kick him along with his ideological partners of Doug Phillips and R.C. Sproul, Jr. out. They clearly do not represent the mainstream of homeschooling or the Protestant church.
July 13, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Are we talking about the same Kevin Swanson here??? I’ve listened to his show for a while and I don’t seem to hear a lot of what you folks are discussing here. Have any of you here actually listened to one of his shows all the way through, or at least more than one show? Before you go on knocking down straw-men arguments about his beliefs, maybe you should find out exactly what he believes and what he teaches on the show. And if you think that by listening to one of his shows you can get a full pictures of what he believes and teaches, then you don’t know much about him at all. I hope you don’t read your Bibles this way. At the same time, if you have a disagreement with what he teaches, why don’t you contact him and get it straightened out with him rather than slandering him on this site, which is exactly opposite to what the Bible teaches.
July 14, 2009 at 7:52 am
Hi Andrew and welcome to this blog.
I would like to assure you that many of those who post here have listened to quite a few of Kevin’s broadcasts through the years as well as read his writings and have even heard him speak in person.
While I believe Kevin Swanson has some good things to say, much of them are never heard because of the hyperbole he uses and the acerbic manner in which is disagrees with others. As a long time homeschooler, I am quite concerned by his notions that some Christian homeschoolers aren’t “Christian enough” for him or for his CHEC organization and that he has basically declared war on those of us who don’t hold to his extreme standards.
You can read more about this at my homeschooling blog http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com as well as by listening to my introduction to patriocentricity podcasts at http://www.thatmom.com/podcasts/podcastspatriarchy.htm
Here is one article to start with. http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/1814/
Further articles and comments regarding our documented issues with Kevin can be found by typing in his name on my thatmom blog search.
Andrew, I would also encourage you to read this article that discusses what is and isn’t “gossip” when it comes to public teachers:
http://www.thatmom.com/articles/article-slanderlibelgossipohmy.htm
July 14, 2009 at 10:06 am
Andrew,
You are joking, right?
Kevin’s broadcasts are the stuff that SNL skits are made of.
Honestly. I am embarrassed for Christian homeschoolers everywhere when I have to force myself to listen ALL the way through one of his radio shows. He can’t even get his facts straight and that is the least of the problems I have with the content.
Karen,
Hyperbole is an understatement.