****This thread has been indexed. Please download the PDF file here: visionary-daughters-thread-2
Due to the fact that the first thread on the visionary daughters discussion is nearly 1000 comments in length and is harder to download, with every visit, I am continuing the discussion here.
I expect more visits to this discussion, too, because we will soon be discussing the release of the movie The Return of the Daughters by the “visionary daughters” Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin as well as the upcoming interview they are doing with Stacy McDonald.
I also want to extend an invitation again to the series of podcasts I am currently doing on patriarchy and patriocentricity. The October 19 and 26 podcasts are interviews with Spunky Homeschool Mom, Karen Braun, and are a review of the Botkin book, So Much More, and the topic of “visionary daughters.” You can download them at either www.thatmompodcast.com or www.thatmom.wordpress.com.
October 22, 2007 at 11:15 pm
In reading the end comments (somewhere between #950-1000) on the other thread, lol, I checked out the conversation between Stacey McDonald and John Stackhouse and…WOW.
He was VERY (very) polite and I gained an immense amount of respect for him. When he gave her an answer, he was not responded to in any sort of personal way, however his argument was instantly responded to by Carmon of Buried Treasure by way of warning the ladies who would read his heretical words, etc, that they were reading heresy.
I was really astounded at the marked contrast shown. Both sides have very strong views, yes. But Stackhouse presented his respectfully and treated his “opposers” with respect. McDonald, Carmon, et all, however, did not respond in a similar way at all.
I can somewhat understand. When I was in that camp, I was the same way. In my mind, our theological views were God’s, and all opposing views were Satanic in origen.
Because of that, I was able to shut off my brain (from considering the opposing views) and was very quick to pull out my sword and use it. In my mind, I was fighting for God, and fighting against something that was terribly destructive and would cause irreperable damage to many people. In other words, I meant well.
I think it is probably fair to assume that Stacey and Carmon mean well, that they feel they are “saving” readers from Satan, etc. I wish, though, just as I wish I would have done earlier, that they would remember that Christians aren’t supposed to be known for sword fighting, but for Love.
When God brought truth into our world, He didn’t do it by yelling the loudest, accusing the brethren, or banging on a pulpit. When God shed light into darkness, He did so by sending a frail Babe. Love wins many more searching ears to an argument than quick tongues ever will.
I remember (when I was a full-blown patriarchalist) when I reacted to Spunky’s negative review of Debi Pearl’s book. I was shocked and outraged, and the main reason was because I felt that Debi was speaking the truth and that Spunky’s words would cause women to fall from truth and into Satan’s lies.
My heart literally broke for all the women I pictured being led astray. My logic was set aside and my sword was instantly unsheathed and ready to fight—to fight for others–and I used my website to do just that.
I was unable to listen to the actual argument at hand, because I was already convinced of what the argument was. It didn’t matter what Spunky said—-to me, the argument was God’s Way (patriarchy) versus what Spunky was saying. And since Spunky was coming against a book that I felt was 99.9% Truth, I was deaf to her arguments. I literally could not even hear what she was saying. All I could hear was that God’s Way (as I’d already concluded patriarchy was God’s Way and all arguments to the contrary were the enemy’s) was being attacked.
I guess I’m just sharing this to help those who are frustrated with the lack of respectful dialogue between McDonald and Stackhouse, etc, maybe just to help it make more sense. What finally broke into my heart was an act of love, not word-filled diatribes. I was loved through someone who I passionately disagreed with about the whole Pearl issue…she sent me flowers, actually, in the middle of a big argument…and I started crying (which surprised me to no end!) and in that moment, all my defenses came down. For the first time, I was able to listen—to TRULY listen. My ears were opened, not by a shrill argument, but by an act of grace.
ANYways… Yes, a respectful thoughtful conversation between Stackhouse and Stacy/Carmon would have been something wonderful to behold. I would have gained SO much respect for Mrs. McDonald through something like that. As it is, I only found myself frustrated, wishing things could be different than they are (meaning, that we could still all have our strong views, but that we could at least be mature enough to dialogue graciously in the midst of our disagreements).
There is so much fear in the patriarchal camps—fear of any views other than their own, a fear of listening to the viewpoints of others, a fear of thoughtful dialogue, a fear of extending grace to anyone outside the camp…
I think it’s very important for us to remember that words are of great import (and conversations like these are powerful), but that the heart of our Gospel was a Living Word—One who came and gave of Himself so that others might live. And that’s the thing that is truly going to change hearts, break down walls of defense, and make any headway in conversations like these.
Warmly,
Molly
(PS. I linked to the original conversation on visionary daughtesr over on a shared blog I’m a (new) part of:
http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com ,a group of comps and egals who are blogging together conversing about these very things, in case any of you would like to participate in discussions over there).
October 23, 2007 at 12:02 am
Hi Molly,
I haven’t read Stackhouse’s books and what I have read has been snippets posted in discussions and reviews but I, too, was struck by the marked difference in both attitude and deed in the thread on McDonald’s blog. Stackhouse even described Stacey’s questions as “good” and he went the extra mile to answer ALL of her questions without being flippant and without calling her names (two things that are absent in many of these dialogues- just check out the Bayly blog for some great examples of what happens to a person who asks a question).
I probably do not agree with some of the conclusions he draws but I know I could disagree with him and engage him concerning the things I thought he was in error about without being called a pernicious, white-washed something or another.
October 23, 2007 at 1:56 am
As I’ve grown in the Lord, I’ve learned I need to hold lightly to think that I think that I know. . . And that is what I hear said with much grace in humility from Mollie.
I can see more clearly now that I am not always seeing clearly. . . In saying this, I am not denying God’s immutable character or His revealed truth. I am saying, though, that my perception of things that are true, right, best, whatever–that my perception can be flawed, no matter how much I study, no matter how good my intentions, no matter how much I’ve experienced.
That I why I keep coming back to conversations such as these, keep tossing around ideas with my Hubby, keep studying the Word and theology. And most of all, keep leaning into the Lord. . .
October 23, 2007 at 3:50 am
Very true about what you say about not seeing clearly TulipGirl.
Especially when you are just starting to look into new ideas.
I’m thinking this is where the wisdom of age can come along and I see this as perhaps being part of the reason the older women of the New Testament believers were instructed to counsel the younger women.
I think part of the beauty of being a woman is the fact that we are able to relate emotionally to so many different things.
For me, there is nothing so exciting as a new idea or way to look at my world. Almost on par with Swiss Chocolate.
And to reach farther back in the previous thread, there is an issue of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. Again, perhaps the wisdom of time is better at judging which is the baby and which is the bath water.
Or perhaps age just gives some a more humble heart in that they know that they perhaps ‘don’t know?’
Like you said, studying the word, the history of the church and its teachings, and yes, leaning into the Lord.
And then too, a willingness to place the whole situation into His hand.
October 23, 2007 at 5:45 am
I went through something similar to Mollie after discovering the Pearl’s To Train Up a Child book. Their way was truth! It had to be. They spoke with such authority. And I so wanted to be a good mother to my children. I was afraid of failing them, and the Pearl’s spoke to that fear.
What I find interesting is how much I hear them (and others like them) saying how we shouldn’t fear! Follow God’s ways, do what’s right, and there is nothing to fear. You can’t parent in fear. Parent in joy! And yet, at the same time, the materials promote fear. If you don’t do it their way, your children will suffer. They won’t know right from wrong. They’ll be “little terrorists”.
The Patriarchy movement seems to be doing the same thing. Don’t do it their way and you’ll let down your husband, your children, family values, the country, and God Himself. No pressure, huh? Failing to do things their way has dire consequences and that, all by itself, is fear provoking to anyone seeking to be a good wife and mother.
I remember thinking that Tulipgirl’s warnings to me when I discovered the Pearl’s, was just silly. It was God’s way, after all. She just didn’t understand. I disregarded much of what was said without really listening to it, because I was convinced of the rightness of what we were doing. Thankfully, she’s a graceful lady and stuck around to see me eat crow when I realized that not only had the Pearls methods not worked for me, but I realized that there were theological issues surrounding what they wrote.
Oh, and even though I’d failed to exact obedience 100% of the time while using their methods as written, the world didn’t end. That was a real load off my mind, let me tell you.
It’s been cathartic for me to read of other women who have come through these teachings with humility and grace. I certainly have learned over the past few years that anyone who says they have God’s ways all figured out, deserves skepticism. And just because I think I have things all figured out, doesn’t mean I do. For me, it’s worth listening to what the other side has to say. After all, I don’t just want to have an opinion, I want to have the truth.
October 23, 2007 at 11:15 am
Hi!
I have been reading the blog for a few months now and have a question. I want to see the Visionary Daughters “documentary” because I feel that in order to be an informed opponent of the extreme-patriarchy movement it would be good to see it. BUT I don’t want to support the project financially.
Does anyone think it will be in libraries or for rent anywhere soon?
October 23, 2007 at 11:25 am
RW,
This is a dilemma, I know. I would also like to know an alternative solution. I was in the same boat regarding the “Passionate Housewives” book and balked at paying $16.00 to Vision Forum. I did finally find it on Amazon for $10.88. Money still goes into the coffers of those I do not support, but not as much. Even used copies of some of these sort of books are really expensive. Does anyone know why?
October 23, 2007 at 11:44 am
Somehow I missed all that Georgie Porgie exchange on Stacy’s blog and went back last night and read it. Pretty amazing stuff, really, and you make such an excellent point in regards to seeking cover with the Baylys, Spunky.
Another example of pure venom coming from these groups has been the Bayly blog and their attitude toward Carolyn Custis James. I have been appalled at the things they have said about her and I would be certain they have never contacted her personally.
Nothing I have read from them has been an evaluation of her writings either. Everything has been personal, down to a mocking personal lifestyle (she doesn’t like to cook!) and has assigned motives to her that I have yet to see proven. Her book When Life and Beliefs Collide has received wide acclaim by quite honorable leaders in the church, including quite conservative theologians. It is an excellent book and the theme is that women MUST know theology…radical and feminist, huh?
October 23, 2007 at 11:46 am
A couple weeks ago someone left a comment on my “thatmom” blog that I felt had stepped over into a personal area that I did not want to bring into the discussion at this time. Though I agreed with the comment and though I loathe removing or editing comments, I did delete the personal information because I try to keep the conversation on the level of discussing ideas rather than resorting to personal attacks.
I think we have done a terrific job of doing that here as well. In my opinion public writings, especially things published and used for monetary gain, are subject to review from anyone and everyone. I cannot imagine thinking that you can write a book or produce a film and no one is allowed to have an opinion about it! To me, that is pure arrogance.
October 23, 2007 at 11:46 am
Recently I read something from a patriarch that was interesting. He was talking about a consensus within the homeschooling leadership around the country (whoever they are) that homeschoolers are losing the homeschooling vision (whatever that is). To me, this is can be interpreted that these patriocentric leaders are frustrated that “their” vision is loosing its grasp on the general populace of homeschoolers. My response is that more and more people who have been effected by these patriocentric teachings are, like Molly, holding them up to the light of the Word of God and are finding them wanting. I continue to pray that, as we examine every teaching by the light of Scripture, that others will begin to get a grasp of the graceless nature of this movement and will turn to trusting Christ alone for the lives of their families.
October 23, 2007 at 11:57 am
Another aspect of all of this movement that we have touched on but I think deserves more research and input is that of the racist connections that seem to be interwoven into these teachings. I know they hold to the belief that slavery is biblical but how is that applied to today? If they are applying these views of women within the church and home, then they certainly must apply it to today to be consistent. This is where the arguments in both Stackhouse’s book and Webb’s book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals come in. Any thoughts on that?
Geoffrey Botkin, the father of Anna Sophia and Elizabeth, used to be a Marxist and as such seems to assign the label of “Marxist” to any and every egalitarian application.
One of the things that first made me step back at look at the folly of the patriocentric movement was their views of the Old Dominion and the longing for that pre-Civil War era. Putting those two things together, what do any of you make of this perspective? In the patricentrists’ perfect world, is there any such thing as egalitarian principles whatsoever? How does feudalism work in their reconstructed world? Who decides who gets to be in charge?
October 23, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Molly, I, too, appreciate the grace that is interwoven through all that you write.
I, too, have learned many lessons and cringe at all those lessons still to come!
One thing that helps me as I sort through what I believe and what others write is Paul’s admonition that “now we see as through a dim glass, but then we will see face to face.” Won’t it be wonderful when we are given ALL understanding? In the meantime, Jesus is the example. They said of him, “Is this Joseph’s son? And they marveled at His graciousness.”
October 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Here is one more interesting thought for the day; actually,it came from my husband.
We hear a lot about Titus 2 ministry and how important it is and how Biblical it is. I agree.
But then here is something that I don’t get. So many of those patriarch wives who are promoting the Titus 2 model and who are also promoting the visionary daughters teachings are moms who either have smaller children and no adult children or their adult children are, for the most part, still at home. And there are many, many women who have raised godly daughters and sons and did so without the visionary daughter method but they are being set aside as older women in lieu of the younger women. I have seen this happen. Sometimes a woman even takes a job after her children are grown and the younger women cry “How can you leave us all and go back to work? We need you and your sage advice as an older woman.” And then they ignore the example and advise of the women who didn’t do things the “Botkin way.”
What do you make of that?
I have seen the paradigm override the personal examples that didn’t fit the agenda far too many times. My prediction is that older women will be available where they are appreciated and will take their gifts and encouragement elsewhere, thus so much of the body of Christ will suffer for the sake of the paradigm. I see it already and it breaks my heart.
October 23, 2007 at 1:38 pm
“Another example of pure venom coming from these groups has been the Bayly blog and their attitude toward Carolyn Custis James. I have been appalled at the things they have said about her and I would be certain they have never contacted her personally.”
I sent a brief email to Carolyn about the reaction of the Baylys. Her briefer response to me said, in essence, that she is doing what she thinks the Lord wants her to do, and she is ignoring them. IOW — she takes the high road by not getting involved in tit for tat.
On the other side of the coin, her bio is somewhat offensive to many. She tells us she is not a “kitchen wife.” She is her husband’s “favorite theologian.” I can see where her bio comes across as insulting and demeaning, whether she intended it to do so or not. Women can serve in the home and excel in the kitchen and study theology, but that remark seems to make the two incompatible.
I liked her thoughts on the word “ezer” which I read off her Whitby Forum site.
I remember Light once said on the Bayly blog that the term “ezer” does not imply a subordinate role, and Tim disagreed with her. I think that is wrong. Every other time the term is used in Scripture it never refers to a subordinate. If you are going to make a case for complementarianism, you can’t use that term to do it.
October 23, 2007 at 1:48 pm
“I know they hold to the belief that slavery is biblical but how is that applied to today? If they are applying these views of women within the church and home, then they certainly must apply it to today to be consistent. This is where the arguments in both Stackhouse’s book and Webb’s book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals come in. Any thoughts on that?
The New Testament clearly says that believing slaves are to serve their masters as to the Lord, it implies that slavery is not a desirable estate, and if freedom can be obtained, to go for it. It tells masters to treat slaves well. It does not demand sudden release of all slaves.
The Great Commandment would cause one to understand that to be enslaved is not a desirable estate, and it seems to me would prompt believers to seek ways to help slaves gain freedom. “Do to others what you would have them do to you” means that just as if you were enslaved, and would greatly desire to be free, that if you have slaves that you would think of ways to help them gain their freedom. That would be the loving thing to do. That would be treating your neighbor as you would want to be treated.
The Bible in very certain terms always condemns homosexuality, however. And however you interpret it, the NT speaks to roles for men and women in the home and church. So slavery is in a separate class already from homosexuality and what the NT says to men and women in the home and church. Any extrapolation which says just as slavery has been abolished around the world in many places, that the same thing goes for claims that homosexuality is immoral, and that sex distinctions were meant to be abolished as well, is an illogical extrapolation when based on Scripture. You just can’t make that kind of case and link the other two issues to slavery like that, when the NT clearly says that homosex is wrong, but that it is perfectly OK to gain freedom from slavery, for example.
Another belief still at large today in the United States is that the curse on Ham applies to Blacks. I have read a lot of Dabney’s Defense of Virginia book, which is online. Although he didn’t make much of the curse on Ham w/respect to Blacks, many Christians still do. I don’t know if Bob Jones held to this view, but his university held to strict racial separation views. So even if Christians may not agree with slavery, they may still hold to racial separation views, and I think this idea is bolstered by their understanding of what the curse on Ham means. I read a good link by Tony Evans on this subject once — it is brief, well-reasoned, and passionate, for obvious reasons:
http://www.epm.org/articles/ham.html
Anyway, the curse on Ham (or Canaan) is also something which must be considered when thinking of racial attitudes in our day, for it is (sadly) still a belief among some Christians that this applies to Black people.
October 23, 2007 at 2:07 pm
“Another example of pure venom coming from these groups has been the Bayly blog and their attitude toward Carolyn Custis James. I have been appalled at the things they have said about her and I would be certain they have never contacted her personally.”
Karen,
I have been very disappointed in their attitude towards James, too.
The Baylys not only taunt and disparage Carolyn Custis James but they also taunt and mock and disparage her husband.
Once they accused/taunted Frank James of hiding behind Carolyn’s skirts.
Don’t believe me? Doesn’t sound like what a mature man of God would do? Sounds just like when Stacey McDonald taunted Stackhouse with Gorgi Porgi? (You wonder just how much these people respect men with attitudes like this. It doesn’t sound like they are practicing what they are preaching.)
http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/022673.html
Oh, read this and the irony will cause you to swoon faster than Marie Osmond on Dancing with the Stars.
“Come Out from Behind Those Skirts: An open letter to Frank James…
February 16, 2006
Dr. Frank A. James III
President and Professor of Historical Theology
Reformed Theological Seminary–Orlando
Dear Mr. James,
I suspect Tim and I have both considered asking our wives to answer the egalitarian arguments of your wife, Carolyn, on these pages. It would appear more seemly and, let me assure you, they could do so competently.
But here’s the rub: we don’t believe in godly wives serving as their husbands’ warriors. Over the eighteen years my wife and I have been in pastoral ministry we have mutually sought to keep Cheryl free from the bruising fray of intrachurch disputes and doctrinal battles. At times, this could lead to surprising incongruities… for instance, Cheryl might be taking dinner to a family where the wife was hospitalized and the husband was seeking to have me fired from my job.
Yet God has blessed this division of labor. Cheryl is loved by many who won’t give me the time of day. And that’s the way it should be. She’s not ignorant of the battles, nor is she uncommitted to truth. But she is above the battle and beyond it: she’s not a warrior, she’s a woman, a mother, a wife.
The Bible does not declare wolves to be of a singular sex. Wolves can be male or female. And, as a shepherd, I must respond to wolves without regard to sex.
But I would rather deal with the male of the pack. Are you that in your home? I trust you are, that Mrs. James is not fighting these battles against your wishes, that you are indeed man of your house with Mrs. James in submission to you as a worthy daughter of Sarah. After all, you call her your “favorite theologian.” Surely this implies your support and approval of her teaching.
If this is so, then do us both the favor of taking up the sword (or pen) from her hand. Come into the open and boldly proclaim as a leader within the PCA the teachings now primarily associated with your wife. Neither Tim nor I–nor any other committed biblicist in the area of manhood and womanhood–have the slightest desire to engage Mrs. James when we could and should be facing you.
Further, we know from personal experience how deeply stressful theological battle can be and we would not wish such strain on any woman or any marriage where a man is willing to fight on behalf of his wife.
Perhaps you fear the implications for your job or status within the PCA of taking your wife’s place in this debate. Brother, may I gently say, that’s the price both of us risk in taking a stand as men.
Finally, if Mrs. James is not in submission to you in these areas, simply say the word and we will leave her to you and speak no more.
Sincerely in Christ,
David Bayly”
October 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“On the other side of the coin, her bio is somewhat offensive to many. She tells us she is not a “kitchen wife.” She is her husband’s “favorite theologian.” ”
Hi Lynn,
I am glad to see you participating here!
I agree that this may be offensive. I just don’t know what a “kitchen wife” is! LOL What does that term mean? I can’t be offended until I know what something means.
I do spend most of my life in the kitchen at this time. I guess you could say I was a “kitchen theologian”, not to be confused with an armchair quarterback!
October 23, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“I remember Light once said on the Bayly blog that the term “ezer” does not imply a subordinate role, and Tim disagreed with her. I think that is wrong. Every other time the term is used in Scripture it never refers to a subordinate. If you are going to make a case for complementarianism, you can’t use that term to do it.”
And that simple disagreement earned Light all sorts of vile name calling. It was disgusting to watch. Instead of proving his prowess as a male theologian, he goes after Light’s jugular and calls her “that woman” and an “agent of Satan” among some other unChristlike mud slinging.
I thought it was a good point. I am not sure how they can defend that the term does imply subordination and that is probably why they have to resort to name-calling instead of discussion.
Bayly insisted that when a woman does something for her husband, it is out of submission to her but when a husband does something for his wife it is out of his love for her.
Well, we all know that is ridiculous. When I do things for my husband, I am doing it because I love him. But, Bayly decided to be dogmatic and say that submission is always a woman’s motive for why she does something.
Light gave 3 very good genderless scenarios and asked them if it was love or submission that motivated the person to do what they did.
It drove them crazy. They were gnashing their teeth at the thought of not knowing who was the wife and who was the husband in each situation.
I thought she made a very good point. She was always respectful to them even when they were treating her in a wicked fashion.
So, I agreed with her that she made a good point.
Simply for agreeing with her, I was kicked off of the blog after being maligned and falsely accused.
And these are the people that makes Gorgi Porgi run away? I don’t think so.
October 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Can someone explain to me why a woman shouldn’t know theology? If my life is to glorify God, shouldn’t I spend as much time possible learning about Him?
Racism: John 3:16 tells me all I need to know. I grew up in Southern California and had a heated argument with a Black Supremist at Venice Beach once. He was certain that Jesus was black and came to save black people and that white people were the devil. I told him that God loved the world and all those whom He created to live in it. I still believe that.
Frankly, I’ve always seen racism as showing a deep lack of imagination (I can find a better reason to not like someone) and I don’t see racism as biblically justified at all. The slavery in the bible wasn’t justified, either. It wasn’t something that God wanted us to do. But it was happening, so God gave us standards to meet.
Titus 2: I long for a real life Titus 2 mentor. In the meantime I have Thatmom!
Honestly, for me, such a woman I have yet to meet. I’m sad to say, but I think finding a Titus 2 mentor is pretty difficult for many women. If you’re into Patriarchy I would imagine it’s even more difficult. So, they’re sticking together. I’m don’t think it can really be considered a Titus 2 relationship, however.
October 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Aren’t Mrs. Freidrich and Mrs. McDonald supposed to be reformed? Why are they so afraid of people being deceived by a book? God will protect his children. Don’t these people believe in eternal security? It doesn’t seem that way when they show so much fear for a book. Mrs. McDonald even said that she didn’t read that book, even though she had a copy (atleast in the thread that was linked to).
I don’t understand why Christians are so afraid to study a conflicting veiwpoint. Do you believe that God is sovereign or not?
I have wanted to buy, “So Much More,” but was astonished by how much it cost and decided against it, for now. Is it true that it is only in hardback? That is all I could find.
BTW, I am not a “kitchen wife.” I hate the kitchen, but I cook because my boys need to eat. I would much rather be doing something else in another part of the house.
October 23, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Reformed, perhaps, but not very good representatives of the way I think most of us are. Classically, the Reformed are BIG on Christian liberty and there doesn’t seem to be much of that extended to anyone by these people except for folks in their own camp.
No Christian should be afraid of the world. Christ has overcome the world.
October 23, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I’d also like to thank Thatmom for what you’ve come to mean to me. I started listening to your podcasts with the whole patriarchy thing. Now, I’ve listened to all of them. I’ve been so blessed, strengthened and ENCOURAGED. I can’t even begin to describe it.
Before finding Karen, I really doubted that Titus 2 mentoring could take place over the internet. For the most part, I still feel that way. However, Karen has changed my mind and here’s why- she is about relationships. Her podcasts are not about what you do all day. They aren’t about housewifery. They ARE about being busy at home, but not in the same respect as so many other “Titus 2″ blogs out there. She is about cultivating relationships with our loved ones, one-anothering, and doing the next thing.
So much of what I find on these “Titus 2″ blogs is just mean and disrespectful to others- not at all the kind of mentoring that I’d like to have. Titus 2 has become the excuse of women who have opinions and darnitall if they shouldn’t express them… in the “spirit of Titus 2″ of course.
October 23, 2007 at 3:19 pm
http://commongroundsonline.typepad.com/photos/contributors/james_carolyn_cropped.html
“Carolyn is her husband’s favorite theologian. She is not a kitchen wife. She does not keep house, cook, clean or sew, but she reads an awful lot and often talks to women (and sometimes men) from all over the world about women’s struggles within the evangelical church.”
I think it is pretty clear what Carolyn meant by this, and after the first flurry of internet discussion about her bio, I came to also think these comments are over the top, unnecessary, and potentially offensive. And it isn’t just that Carolyn wants to do something in another part of the house, either.
I don’t care for her bio for a couple of reasons. In the first place, it does come across to me that she is saying she has more important things to do with her time than manage a home. If the bio had stopped with her husband saying she was his favorite theologian, and that this is what her ministry is, that is fine – and good. She didn’t have to make a flip comment aimed at all the other women out there with very young children who, for the foreseeable future, are kitchen (and diaper and housework and homeschooling) wives, in order to tell us what her real passion was. Or all the other mothers who serve the Lord by being kitchen wives out of love for their families.
The approach in Carolyn’s bio is radically different from Karen’s approach on her thatmom site, as a study in contrasts. Karen encourages women to think, and she encourages women who are busy wives and mothers at home without making comments like what Carolyn made. I could not imagine Karen, who has a ministry to women for sure, saying something like that about the home. Not with that picture at the top of her website.
The second reason I’m leery of those kinds of comments is I have personally known stay at home moms who give lip service to their role, all the while looking to be involved at church or on the internet. There does exist a temptation for many women to not see the role of homemaking, and acts of service such as cooking and cleaning and sewing as something precious in God’s sight, something valuable. I believe it is comments like this that might lead a woman whose vocation it is to serve in the home to feel “ungood” about it all.
Thankfully, in my church, there seems to be a great growth in numbers of young, stable families where both husband and wife value the role of homemaker. This has been very encouraging for me to see.
October 23, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I grew up in the church which Carolyn Custis attended and had the opportunity to have her as a high school Bible study teacher. It was very instructive to be challenged to that level as a high school student, and I am thankful for the amount of time that she put into about 8 high school girls over a period of time. We just didn’t realize how fortunate we were to have her working with us, and I am sad to say that I struggled to stay awake sometimes.
When she was preparing for marriage (at a later age), she gave the class a lot of very useful information about “love and marriage” that she was learning herself. The thing I have hung onto the most was when she said that she had chosen to love Frank, even when there were things about him that she didn’t like, or small irritations. “Love is a choice”. That has been a piece of advice I have handed out to many, as well. It makes a difference to know that you can choose to love and that you have made a commitment to love your husband, no matter how frustrating he can be at times.
I did at one point make a comment on the Bayly blog when he compared her to Hillary Clinton. That was such a low blow and clearly indicated that he had no personal knowledge of her or her life. Carolyn was not blessed with many biological children ( I suppose that could have been seen as a judgment by some), but was able to adopt a child to raise. But what was she supposed to do while waiting? She occupied her time in studying God’s word and working in various jobs. And now that her daughter is older, she is back to the position of not needing to raise her children. What is the proper thing to do? Continue studying and encouraging as she has always done. I admit that I never went back to the Bayly blog because it was clear to me that he really didn’t want to be confronted with anything other than his own opinion, but I was so furious with the way a man would treat his own Christian sister- no respect at all. Especially frustrating to me was that Carolyn was one of the influences on me that made me want to study God’s word and to be a good wife and mother. The feminists wouldn’t have liked the messages she gave her high school class of girls at all.
October 23, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“Reformed, perhaps, but not very good representatives of the way I think most of us are. Classically, the Reformed are BIG on Christian liberty and there doesn’t seem to be much of that extended to anyone by these people except for folks in their own camp.
Cally, I agree. I don’t go to a Reformed church, but I know plenty of Reformed women who don’t have this kind of legalism in their lives. They mother their young children, and feel free to pursue activites outside the home when they are older, for example.
I met a delightful older woman once. I “met” her on the Gothard list and found out she and her husband only lived an hour away, and we met half-way for lunch once upon a time. She would say, in her own words, that Reformed theology teaches that all aspects of life can be impacted by the redeeming work of Christ, and we don’t need to isolate ourselves from the culture around us, that this world is full of gifts God has given for us to enjoy and use, in wisdom. Although I don’t agree with every aspect of Reformed theology, for years I have found this, almost sacramental, way of seeing every aspect of life refreshing, and not a perspective I had found among Dispensational groups.
Therefore, when I first heard of the legalism Doug Phillips teaches (thanks to the Epsteins and to Midwest Christian Outreach, for example), and the severe extra-biblical restrictions they place on women, I was very surprised, because Phillips is Reformed Baptist.
Or RC Sproul Jr. in his thoughts on women on the internet, or women working. More legalism.
Sproul Jr. and Phillips in what they have said goes waaaayyyyy against what I have typically heard from most Reformed people I know.
October 23, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Keebler, I’m glad you have a real life story about Carolyn. And I’ve been impressed with some of what I’ve read off her website. I continue to think the wording of her bio is very ill-advised, though.
October 23, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Anne and Cally, I “amen” your comment numbers 18 and 21.
Thatmom, I have thoroughly enjoyed the podcasts you have up on your site about Patriarchy. And I appreciate your gracious tone when speaking about people with whom you disagree, and I appreciate your concern for the young wives and moms out there who “want to do it right” and are suceptible to teachers who seem to offer them a fool-proof game plan, but their theology is off, or the basis for their particular teaching is not in the Bible.
October 23, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Zan wrote: “Aren’t Mrs. Freidrich and Mrs. McDonald supposed to be reformed? Why are they so afraid of people being deceived by a book? God will protect his children.”
I’ve been asking this question over and over again concerning this movement. Molly, TulipGirl and thatmom have noted and described this well. Underneath it all is a heavy layer of unmanagable fear. There is also this compulsion to intervene in every endeavor. The lack of balance between might, power and God’s Spirit breeds this need to perform and take responsibility. I see it even in the Bodkins with the earlier mentioned comment about men not being all they can be because of the helpmeet’s intervention.
So much of this boils down to presuppositions about truth and what evidence one may entertain as reliable truth. (For those familiar with the disagreements between Clark and VanTil, this is what undergirds their disagreements, too, I believe.)
The patriocentrists seem to all keep to a foundationalist view of the justification of truth. They believe that a certain number of axioms or basic truths do not require any support or outside proof. Scripture or anything that they would put into the catagory with Scripture is not challengable, and for those who operate in fear, it is unthinkable to challenge basic beliefs. To challenge Scripture is blasphemous. The problem that I find with this way of making sense of the world is that you have no way of validating truths that you may have mistakenly believed to be true but are not. It requires a great deal of energy, often becoming arrogance, in the protection of those basic beliefs.
Personally, I ascribe to coherentism, wherein any truth can and should be challenged. If it is true, it will stand up to any scrutiny, however I am willing to consider and validate truth from sources that are not necessarily true. Foundationalists believe that this approach is liberal, and we all know that liberal is a bad word. (Foundationalists contend that empirical or objective data CONSIDERED by the coherentist will threaten faith and is liberal because it does not completely find it’s data in Scripture only.) I put my faith in the truth, whatever it is, and believe that the truth will transcend falsehood. I do not put my faith in basic beliefs, because if those beliefs prove to be false, I have not misplaced my faith. I’m still open to deception, but unlike the foundationalist, I am not in a predetermined, closed system. This approach is not as inherently arrogant and is open to everyone but allows me my own, working mind to discern truth rather than assigning truth to a catagory. It is more dynamic.
So what does all that mean? When the foundationalist is challenged, they fight for their basic beliefs. It becomes a very personal experience because they’ve invested in the beliefs. When I am challenged, I defend truth and defend against the misrepresentation of truth in faith that the truth will transcend any and all challenges. I’m invested in truth and not my own beliefs. That is to say that I put Scripture in the truth catagory, but I am not locked into a particular interpretation of it. Truth will take care of itself, and it will prove me right or wrong. If I’m wrong, I repent and move into truth. My faith is in truth which I weigh by Scripture.
Certain personalities and brain types and such are drawn to one way of validating truth or the other. I’m very right brained, (my aptitudes and personality uses primarily sites in the Right side of the brain to function), so I am more comfortable looking at the big picture and function. For those who are primarily Left brained (more gifted and who use more Left brain structures to make sense of and function in the world), they will be more drawn to foundationalism. Also, people who come from chaotic or emotionally chaotic backgrounds may also seek the apparent stability offered by foundationalism.
October 23, 2007 at 5:12 pm
So there’s a quick run down of justification of truth. This is very brief and perhaps overly simple, but it makes the point.
Let me qualify that I am very conservative regarding interpretation of Scripture. The Word is paramount, and I trust God that He leads and guides me into all truth by His Spirit as I progress with fear and trembling through the process of sanctification. I do not ascribe to any type of relative truth, but I do submit to scientific principles and method to validate truth in the objective world. I also am very interested in “pinning down” subjective concepts with objective evidence to validate it.
I think that when the foundationalist reads about coherentist concepts, they believe that without a “basic beliefs” catagory, that the coherentist can not adhere to real truth. I do, I just go about it from a more objective means. It’s interesting though, that neither way of looking at the world sheilds against deception any better than the other– they just do it at different endpoints.
October 23, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Lynn,
I agree that her comment about not being a kitchen wife could be offensive, especially when you explain them and what you see them to be saying.
I just took it a different way. I saw it was more of a statement about manmade rules and strictly defined roles than it was a slam against women who spend most of their time in the kitchen. I saw her saying that a woman’s place is not in the kitchen. I did not see her saying that being in the kitchen is demeaning. I saw her saying that the kitchen doesn’t define her. But, she does go on and say that she doesn’t cook, clean or sew.
It would be good if she explained that comment to clear up any confusion. I will write her and ask her to clear that up.
This whole concept could make for an interesting discussion. Is the kitchen the domain of the woman or is it the tradition of men to say that is her place in the home? Yes, Sarah prepared food for her visitors but Jacob and Esau cooked dinner for their father. Jesus fried up fish for the disciples even though there were women who were present and traveled with them supporting His earthly ministry form their own means. The Levites’ families ate the food that the Levites cooked.
I am certainly not saying that women should burn their aprons and go on strike! Cooking is one of the things I do and I do love serving up delicious food for my family and guests and friends. It brings ME a great amount of pleasure and satisfaction. But, the kitchen doesn’t define me nor does it make me who I am. It is not my biblically defined role, imho. When God created Eve there were no kitchens. Ezer is so much more than someone who does domestic chores. I am all for a division of labor, especially when the wife stays home and the husband goes out to work. In our home, my husband does no housework. That is how it works out for us. But, I wouldn’t call myself a kitchen wife any more than I would call myself a bedroom wife although they both figure into what I do in my home.
There are many men who like to cook for the very reasons I do and they are made to feel like less of men because they do enjoy cooking. As if a man cooking dinner for his family is not manly and it is a clear sign that the woman doesn’t understand her place in the home.
I was raised by two fathers (a step-father, parents were divorced) and they both loved to cook. On the weekends, that is where you would find them- in the kitchen whipping up some yummy creation. My step-father’s father was a head chef at a very nice restaurant for decades. I learned how to cook and improvise from them. I learned how to make bread from my father. My father was a powerful VP for a large corporation and my step-father is a Vietnam vet and a supervisor for a large bridge building outfit. They were very manly is what I am trying to say.
So, I do wonder how much of these things are biblical, traditions of men or just plain common sense.
October 23, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Keebler,
I don’t know if you have read this but the Baylys published your comment about Carolyn Custis James and turned it into a blog post of its own.
http://www.baylyblog.com/2006/10/carolyn_custis__1.html
October 23, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Since we’re talking about thatmom…comment #21, I thought I would share with you all what she has meant to me as a friend/mentor/sister. I met Karen when I was young mom with my first baby. She had me over for coffee and was so encourageing to me in my role as wife and mother, while breast feeding,having more babies, etc. She has inspired me to homeschool and learn new things and think about things that I might not have otherwise. Sitting around her table with her family for a meal is a delight. Really, I wish you all could experience it! She is hospitable and gracious and fun!! We have lived away from them for almost 17 years(wow, could it be that long?) and I still consider her a dear friend and someone I call for advice..and just to talk. Sometimes people can present a false appearance on the internet, but Karen is the real thing. Thanks, Karen!!!! Kim
October 23, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I am going to post some of Rebecca Prewitt’s comments she left on Dan Phillip’s blog (bibchr.blogspot.com) back in 4/2006.
Her comments are very good and they pretty much sum up a lot of what I see concerning this issue. I could care less what someone calls me- kitchen wife, housewife, stay at home mom/wife, domestic goddess, hausfrau, benevolent despot, laundress, homeschooler. Those are things I do, they are not what I am. The bible tells me who I am- I am a royal priesthood, a child of the King and I have been sanctified and commissioned to offer up sacrifices of praise and to serve those around me in my office of priest.
Rebecca:
“I’ve followed some of the links posted and, frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the ire raised by someone saying they are not a “kitchen wife”. I know men who say, “I’m not a handy guy”, “I don’t really help out much with my kids”, “I make my wife mow the lawn” — and no one gets their knickers in a twist. On the one hand, we have men upset that a theologian is being supposedly arrogant for wanting to teach beyond the confines of the children’s ministry, but on the other hand, it is common knowledge in every church that it is nigh impossible to get any man to embrace the “high calling” of teaching young children. If a man has a gift for teaching, or theological training, it is assumed that his gifts would be wasted on the children.
The truth of the matter is that most men don’t really think decorating tables, teaching children, teaching women, kitchen work, and anything in the domestic sphere is truly important. Oh, they might think it should be important FOR WOMEN, but that it is not really important work or ministry. Men certainly enjoy a good meal and appreciate that there is a Sunday School available for their children; however, until we begin to value this work as being as glorifying to God as “real ministry”, women will be feeling a need to point out that they are not “kitchen wives”.
Frankly, although I spend hours in the kitchen, I am not a kitchen wife. It’s not my highest calling. I cook to feed my family. It is my duty. Sometimes I even enjoy it. But it does not form my identity. I would embrace this role even less if I were told that it was the only identity I should have — and that seems to be the message that I am getting on many of the blogs I’ve read about this brouhaha. How dare a woman NOT be a kitchen wife?!
April 12, 2006 7:14:00 AM PDT
Rebecca:
About Bayly’s comment:
“The flap is all about a woman listing her credentials in such a way that prominence is given to her evident disdain for, and denial of, domesticity–cooking, cleaning, and being what is called a housewife–when the world is filled with other godly women who pray each day that God will give them the holiness not to despise such menial tasks despite their high IQs, their deep biblical knowledge and understanding, and their yearning to play the man on the stage of the wider world outside the home and family confines.”
As a woman who has made some lifestyle choices that are socially unacceptable (family size, for starters) and who has struggled with the job description of “housewife” (if I were to pick the job for which I am most unsuited, it would be this one in which I am stuck either until death or physical collapse) I am tired of people whining about someone supposedly denigrating menial household chores by choosing not to center their lives and identities around them.
Many women like me have absolutely no desire to “play the man”. ICK. Neither do we want to be restricted by some outmoded fantasy idea that we should be pretending to be June Cleaver clones or some ridiculously shallow housewife in a commercial who goes into raptures of delight over new toilet cleaning supplies.
Menial tasks are just that — menial. They do bring some people a certain amount of satisfaction and joy. I knew a man who thought that the best way he could possibly spend his life was pulling weeds and planting and transplanting stuff in his garden. (On a vacation, he once joyfully pulled weeds in someone else’s yard — just for fun.) Unfortunately, his high tech career limited his hours to do the “important stuff”. But most people are not like that.
If we truly believe that household drudgery is so wonderful, we should not complain about those who suggest otherwise. When people mock me for having so many children, I just smile. It doesn’t make me question my choices or feel denigrated. These poor people don’t have my kids — or they probably would be taking extraordinary measures to have even more children than I do. I wouldn’t trade my children for all the riches in the world.
I think the reason that so many women are reacting so strongly to James’ comments is that they strike a chord; they express a longing that so many women do not even wish to articulate. Hence the struggle of godly women to pray daily not to despise menial tasks, but to embrace them.
Years ago, I tried that approach. I prayed desperately that God would help me to love cleaning toilets and changing diapers. Instead, with each child, my stomach grew weaker and diaper changing became even more unpleasant. There is no way to “pretty up” this task — which is why most husbands I know refuse to change diapers unless nagged to death by their wives. It’s worse than menial. Now that my children are out of diapers and I am thankfully retired from this task, I have let it be known that I WILL NOT CHANGE DIAPERS. Does this mean I am denigrating those who do? Not at all. But let’s be honest — no one is “called” to diaper changing. It’s not some wonderful thing that women everywhere need to embrace and wax eloquent over. It’s another one of those awful tasks that need to get done; another one of those trials we endure, hopefully with cheerfulness, out of love for our families.
Even if every other woman in the world would proclaim, “I AM NOT A KITCHEN WIFE”, I’d still cook dinner tonight. I’d probably say, “I hear you, ladies!” But it would not make my menial tasks any more or less menial, any more or less pleasant. It is just something that has to get done. I don’t need applause; I don’t need the women of the world joining me in solidarity; I don’t need a sense of “finding meaning in the pots and pans”; I don’t need to flatter myself by pretending I am embracing some “high calling”; I just need to get in the kitchen, stop being a whiny baby, and cook dinner. Do I view this as my calling in life? No. But my family is hungry and I’m usually the one with kitchen duty. Whatever my hand finds to do, I should do it heartily unto the Lord. But I shouldn’t let this make me arrogant and disdainful towards those who choose to let their hands find other tasks.
I am not a kitchen wife, either. I’m neither married to kitchen nor house, no matter how much my life is filled with those menial tasks. If I define myself by household chores, I am indeed to be pitied.
April 12, 2006 7:50:00 AM PDT”
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2006/04/christian-womanhood-two-different.html
October 23, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Kim,
Thank you for that wonderful testimony of Karen. She is truly a Titus 2 woman who has been proven by her own life.
October 23, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Thank you all for your kind words. Cally, I would adopt you in a minute!
Lynn, I am so glad you noticed the awesome picture on the top of my blog! A couple falls ago, we drove several hours to Cedar Rapids to the Museum of Art because they were featuring several Grant Wood paintings, including American Gothic that had been returned to the museum for the first time in 60 years. I love Grant Wood’s works; they remind me of my grandma because Wood depicted women as hard working and their beauty was in their wrinkled hands and weather-worn faces. Wood’s mural,Adoration of the Home, depicting the value of the home and the mother as the one who nurtures all of society with God’s word as the support, was also on display and I was mesmerized by its loveliness and its message. Grant Wood’s father died when he was a child and his mother raised him and, in turn, he cared for her all of her life. Though I didn’t get the impression that he was ever a Christian after I read his biography, I do believe that he greatly revered women and the role they have in the lives of their families.
October 23, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Keebler,
What a blessed woman you are to have studied with CCJ. I, too, had a high school Sunday School teacher who was also a mentor. she is now in her 80’s and we still exchange Christmas cards. She offered much sound advice to the girls in our class and I have always been so grateful.
I didn’t remember that Carolyn’s daughter was adopted. I recently learned that D. James Kennedy’s daughter also was. I, too, was adopted and know the great blessing it is to have been chosen by God to be placed into the home of Christian parents. Thanks for sharing that aspect of her life.
October 23, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Karen, just so you know, Cally may be in CA and I may be in MN, but we’ve been best friends since Jr. High. We come as a set, just ask either of our moms.
lol
October 23, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Kim, had the Lord blessed me with a real life sister, you would be her! XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO
October 23, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I consider myself to be Reformed. Our church is conservative Baptist, our pastor preaches the doctrines of grace, but I have also been a member of Presbyterian churches. I have no hard and fast belief on baptism but I have strong opinions about grace and am continually in awe of how those whose professed doctrine have grace as a central tenet so infrequently administer it to others.
October 23, 2007 at 6:05 pm
And for the record, I am not a laundry wife. I loathe laundry more than any other chore. But I do it, lots of it, and even enjoy placing clean folded clothes in drawers, making every recipient very happy.
What is the Bayly’s problem….Jesus even told Mary and Martha that Mary had chosen the better path.
October 23, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Karen, I had a feeling you had Reformed leanings… we can spot each other a mile away! LOL
October 23, 2007 at 7:38 pm
“What is the Bayly’s problem….Jesus even told Mary and Martha that Mary had chosen the better path.”
Karen,
This is a good point. Mary was not a kitchen wife, either. She was a theologian who chose the better thing. It appears that some would have us think that Martha chose the better thing and that Mary was a woman who didn’t know her place [in the kitchen, behind the scenes] and who dared to sit up front and learn theology all the while eschewing her role as a kitchen woman. Who would make the food if all the women followed Mary’s example? How would those hungry theologians eat if Martha wasn’t slaving away in the kitchen where she belonged? I am sure the men were just itching when Jesus broke all their dearly held traditions. “There goes another sacred cow! Now Bertha is not going to make steak tartar on Sundays anymore because she will be too busy learning doctrine. I guess it is ham sandwiches for me!”
Would those male theologians have to [gasp] fend for themselves and actually prepare their own food! May it never be!
I am very surprised that Jesus didn’t shoo Mary into the kitchen since theology is the stuff of men and women were created to make food for the men while the men studied theology.
It seems that Jesus was not at all worried about a woman’s role. It seems He kind of set things straight for everyone. It seems He was saying that women were not to be in the kitchen while men were learning. It seems He was saying that sitting at His feet was where ALL belonged.
Maybe Mary was infected with the Marxist philosophy? She was one of the first feminists?
Truthfully, the story of Mary and Martha kind of puts a damper in this manmade doctrine. Why do some churches still insist that men sit around and discuss the sermon/theology while the women prepare the food? Why don’t they have the men AND the women discussing the sermon and when they are done, everyone can go and get out their food?
I am also not saying that one can neglect the needs of one’s family in order to pursue theology. I don’t believe this is an either/or deal.
I think Jesus showed us that a woman’s rightful place is at His feet, alongside the men, listening to His teachings and that her place was no in the kitchen making food so it would be ready when the menfolk were done with their important duties.
That is why I like the crockpot. I chop everything up, dump it in, and it cooks while I get to be involved in the life of the church and in learning God’s word.
I used to lived in a Dutch Reformed community where NOTHING was open on Sundays and NO ONE did work. It didn’t matter if you went to church or not- you did no work. If you mowed your lawn on a Sunday you would never hear the end of it. Also, the men who dared to grill out on a Sunday were chastised for working. This was the Lord’s Day and they were not to be doing any work. But, NEVER did you hear a woman who was found in the kitchen ALL DAY LONG on a Sunday being chastised for doing all of her work. That was never an issue. The women, every Sunday, were in the kitchen all day long, cooking, preparing and cleaning up just in time for the next meal and that wasn’t considered work. But, the man who slapped a burger on a grill and sprinkled a bit of salt and pepper on it and turned it once was considered to have been violating the Sabbath.
I ask you: which one was truly guilty of working? The one who grilled for a few minutes or the one who worked in the kitchen for hours?
October 23, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Karen,
I have a love/hate relationship with the laundry. I love the satisfaction of getting it all done, put away and ironed. I hate the hours and hours of time it takes away from the things my heart longs to do. This is an area I submit to the Lord. Laundry is my Goliath and I sometimes feel like I am going to fall down and weep in the face of this Giant. I do listen to podcasts and watch bible teaching on TV/DVDs while I iron and fold laundry. I also indulge myself in a movie just for pleasure. I have found ways to redeem that time and to make that time set apart unto the Lord.
I ways I have found an amazing ability to be both Mary and Martha! And I owe all praise to God for this technology that makes it possible!
October 23, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I imagine that Curtis James was just trying to be funny, as well as let people know right up front who she is. Having been in the church world as a “pastor’s wife,” there are a LOT of expectations usually dished out for women in ministry, namely fitting into the “kitchen wife” catagory. I have a feeling that Curtis James was just letting folks know right away who she is and what she does, getting it over with, so to speak, that she’s not going to fit into their typical expectations for a good Christian woman. I do NOT think she was trying to denegrate women who choose homemaking as a full time career.
If I’m wrong and she was, though, oh well. I think we can be secure in our own callings and don’t need the approval ratings of everyone else in order to walk with our heads raised, whether we are a woman called to homemaking, called to the mission field, called to run a corporation, or to flip burgers at a fast food restaurant.
October 23, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Ok, I’ll adopt Anne, too. This is great…with 5 boys and only one girl, the odds are looking better all the time. Just so you all won’t feel too sad for me, my bedroom is painted pink!
October 23, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Karen, my mother-in-law raised 5 boys and at first, I laughed at her pink towels. I quickly got over that!!
Our daughter is the first girl born to DH’s side of the family in 70 years! Needless to say, MIL LOVES shopping for our daughter.
October 23, 2007 at 9:43 pm
““Like a filthy and unruly stray dog on bath day, feminism has been scrubbed and perfumed and presented to us as biblical,” writes McDonald, the wife of Pastor James McDonald and author of ‘Raising Maidens of Virtue.’ She illustrates the dangers of whitewashed feminism, often responsible for fellow evangelicals stumbling over the Genesis 2 interpretation of women’s roles in marriage. “The biblical directives given to women to be wives, mothers and keepers of the home are minimized or set aside as quaint but unnecessary options.””
Can anyone explain to me what this means?
Just what is this feminism she is referring to? Or is this feminism anything that disagrees with her private interpretation of womanhood?
And what is the Gen. 2 interpretation that we are all stumbling over concerning a woman’s role in marriage?
“20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”
Is that the “role” she is talking about? What exactly does this passage tell us about her “role”? I don’t see any defined role.
I am quite sure that I am that unruly filthy dog on bath day because I just do not see that passage telling us much about a woman’s role at all!
In Genesis 1 it tells us that both the man and woman were given the task of taking dominion and subduing the EARTH (not other human beings).
Then it tells us that God made a “ezer” for Adam. That word does NOT imply subordination at all unless she also thinks that God and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to us? It means “one who stands opposite”. It implies strenght. Eve was like Adam. She wasn’t created to serve him but to be a companion to him. Marriage involves serving each other. Helper doesn’t mean “junior assistant” or “go-for” or “food maker” or “laundress”.
It actually implies more about Adam than it does about Eve. It actually says more about the man’s state than it does about the woman’s state. The word “helper” being used as a definition of a support role instead of a co-equal role in the dominion mandate is a cultural anachronism.
In fact there are some who say that a woman was created to be a help to man so that means if the man says that all the lawn care is her job, it is her job, since she was created for him, to serve him. And then the same people tell the woman that the man was not created to help her so don’t look to your husband to help you with the kids, house maintenance, lawn care, automobile care, etc. The woman is told it is her job since she was created to help man and man was not created to help woman.
Can we get any more insane than that? A man isn’t supposed to help a woman as if helping someone lowers that person? LOL! I guess that God, our ezer, is lower, then, too! A woman is to do everything unless the man wants to do it? A man is helping his wife when he changes a diaper or cares for his own children? Where does all this come from?
1 Corinthians 11: 8-12 “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man… Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.”
If you will notice the patriarchalists always quote the first part of this verse but stop before you get to the “nevertheless” part. Interesting because this part of speech really MEANS something in grammar. It is a transition. It is a contrast. Paul was actually refuting the traditions of men. The Corinthians, an immature group of believers, were only going half way. They wanted to hang onto their traditions and the gospel was making it hard for them to do. They were contentious.
Paul told them that they were right that the woman was created for the man NEVERTHELESS neither is the man without the woman…..for as the woman is of the man EVEN SO the man is also by the woman.
Doesn’t sound like Paul was stressing heirarchy at all, does it? It sounds like he was arguing against the notion that women were created for men.
And then Pauls says this: but ALL things originate from God.
Why would Paul say “nevertheless” and “even so” if he weren’t trying to tell them something? The Corinthians had it wrong and Paul was correcting them as he did throughout that whole letter.
The Bible tells us that a husband AND a wife will be concerned about how they may please their spouse.
We, as Christians, are all called to serve one another.
It seems to me that the marriage relationship is one of mutual respect, love, admiration, honor, concern and the desire to serve, help and please. Most of all, it is the proving ground of all the “one another” commands that are issued in the Bible.
Psalm 146:5
Happy [is he] that [hath] the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope [is] in the LORD his God:
God is our “helper”.
October 23, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Corrie, I would gladly pay full price if you wrote the book.
Great thoughts here. I didn’t understand that quote either. I have never stumbled over Genesis 2. In fact, if you read it for what it is and don’t try to superimpose it onto some bizarre patriocentric paradigm, it is quite simple to understand. It seems like that can be said for most passages of Scripture that are used to make patriocentric points, when they use Scripture. Look at what was done with the “helpmeet” references in the Botkin book.
October 23, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Corriejo (#46), that was some good stuff. My Bible study has brought me to many of the same thoughts—verse after verse after verse.
I also find it extremely interesting that the consequences of the Fall given to us in Genesis 3 are usually left out of patriarchalist (and usually comp) arguments.
Ignoring that section is something we cannot afford to do. Plain and simple, in the middle of a lot of *bad* things that were now going to be a human reality, God says that man will rule over woman.
The word “rule” there does not mean, “as an evil dictator,” as most complementarian books try to explain it to mean, but simply that in general, man will see woman as someone needing to be ruled and therefore will rule her.
And we have an entire world history of patriarchal practices to prove that what God said was indeed true.
Before the Fall, we have every indication that Adam saw Eve as his own self (“bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.”) No one thinks of himself as something that needs ruled over (except by Yahweh), right, but as someone to cherish, to nurture, to help to live fully. (shades of Ephesians 5 here, no?)…
Yet after the Fall (and that is imperative to note: **AFTER*** the Fall), our human nature was CHANGED.
We all agree that human nature was changed (for the worse) and yet patriarchalists ignore the fact that male/female relationships were a specifically mentioned aspect of that change.
After the Fall, the Bible makes it very clear (just through it’s stories alone) that we were no longer were able to see Others as our full equals, but only able to see them through the lens of our own fallen self-focused view. Hence humans began killing others (Cain and Abel) if the other person made them feel bad or somehow impeded their personal desires/needs. Humans began to enslave eachother, to fight wars, to inflict pain on eachother. These are all things that were NOT God’s desire for us, yet were things that happened due to our choice to leave Him and the changed nature that resulted in our own hearts.
All of these things happened because of the Fall. But one specific change was **specifically** catalogued in Genesis 3, and that was that males would rule over females.
Patriarchy seems to be saying that this one aspect of the Fall (male rule) is God’s ultimate design, His ultimate desire. But that would be like saying thorns and thistles were God’s original design, or that pain in childbirth is God’s heart desire for us.
I think this is a HUGE and fatal flaw in the patriarchal argument, one that certainly had a great part in sweeping my feet from under me and making me lose my “firm foundation” in patriarchal teachings. Again, it did not come from a desire to rebel, but from a desire to understand truth, to study Scripture thoroughly and let the whole of the Book instruct me instead of a few verses taken from the whole.
I do not feel that people *must* agree with my reading of Genesis 3 (we all need to have the freedom to study and conclude for ourselves, thank God!), but I think it’s fair to ask whether or not it may be plausible to suggest that Genesis 1-3 shows male-rule to be a sad result of the Fall, versus a product of God’s original design.
October 24, 2007 at 2:18 am
I know it’s been forever since I’ve been here…I had quite a few complications with the pregnancy and ended up being on full bed rest for a while, and haven’t been near a computer in nearly three months. So I was shocked to see how long the thread has gotten! And what controversy it has generated.
And I must say, I appreciate the graciousness of the women on this blog, even when there are disagreements. I have learned so much just reading through these “conversations”: not only about some finer points of theology, but also how to listen and respond in a kind way to a vastly different view point then my own. It has been just as important a lesson I think.
What I consistently come back to, regardless of the finer points, and as Molly just mentioned:
“I think this is a HUGE and fatal flaw in the patriarchal argument, one that certainly had a great part in sweeping my feet from under me and making me lose my “firm foundation” in patriarchal teachings. Again, it did not come from a desire to rebel, but from a desire to understand truth, to study Scripture thoroughly and let the whole of the Book instruct me instead of a few verses taken from the whole.”
The idea coming from the patriarchal camps that examining their teachings against Scripture is only acceptable so long as you interpret the Scripture “their way” seems to say as much as the actual examination. Their very vehemence in denying anyone the “right” to test it against Scripture, and thus “hiding in the dark” contrasts with what those same Scriptures state. If their way is “true” then they should be able to stand in the light without trying to “direct” that same light.
I am so excited to be back- I can’t wait to start listening to the podcasts and reading the previous threads more in depth. I did a quick comprehension read of the original Visionary Daughters thread…now I want to go back and get the meat.
October 24, 2007 at 3:10 am
Welcome back, Joy!
October 24, 2007 at 4:51 am
Ok, I’ll adopt Anne, too. This is great…with 5 boys and only one girl, the odds are looking better all the time. Just so you all won’t feel too sad for me, my bedroom is painted pink!
Thanks, Karen.
Joy ~ I think the desire to understand truth can take us places that surprise us. I know it has me, and I’m still journeying. Go get the meat, and I hope all is well with you and your baby.
October 24, 2007 at 5:39 am
“Doesn’t sound like Paul was stressing heirarchy at all, does it? It sounds like he was arguing against the notion that women were created for men.”
I need to correct myself.
I didn’t go far enough in my statement. Paul was stating that they were correct but only half correct. The way that patriocentrics translate this verse to mean is far from what this verse actually says. Yes, Eve *was* created for Adam but since then, every man has come from a woman.
” 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ”
Here we see Paul stating the fact that Eve came from Adam and that Eve was created for Adam [because it was not good that Adam was alone]. Eve was NOT created for Adam to be used by him however he sees fit and to help him in whatever way he prescribes while he alone takes dominion and subdues the earth. That is NOT what the Bible means when it says that woman was created for man. This is where the patriocentrics go South. Pun intended.
The Bible, back in Genesis, already tells us why Eve was created.
“11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.”
Then we see Paul turn the tables. He corrects their incomplete understanding. He tells them they are wrong to stop there. Paul tells them that since Adam and Eve, every man has come from woman and that man isn’t independent of woman nor is woman independent of man.
What makes me curious is the fact that the patriocentrics most always stop where the Corinthians stopped. What makes me curious is that their half-way doctrine begs for Paul’s correction.
So, my original statement is not exactly accurate as it stands. Paul wasn’t so much arguing against the fact that the first woman was created for the first man as he was arguing against the people who forgot to mention that ever since then, men have come from a woman and that men and women are both dependent upon the other.
What really needs to be defined is what the patriarchalists think it means when Paul states that woman was created for the man. What do they think that involves and how does that play itself out in the marriage relationship? Obviously not all women were created for a man since Paul praises those virgins who stay single in order to devote themselves solely to the Lord so that they are not distracted by how they may please a man. The single woman’s job is to fully devote themselves to the Lord and to be concerned about how they may please Him.
We are created to serve God and to enjoy fellowship with Him. We, both male and female, were created to serve one another. If we are married, both the husband and wife are intended to serve one another and be concerned about pleasing their spouse.
October 24, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I read this comment on Doug Phillips’ blog this morning, in regards to the film festival he is currently hosting.
“I have no illusions that the Walt Disney Co. is motivated out of love or even deference to Christians in America in their filmmaking decisions,” Phillips said. “They follow the dollar, and they play different sides against each other.”
I couldn’t help but think that this describes much of what is done in the patriocentric circles, including by Vision Forum. They use pretty slick marketing tools to entice buyers, especially homeschooling moms, and are continually selling their paradigm, creating faux crises and then offering products that will fight the crisis from your living room.
They also claim to target feminism or at least their definition of feminism, but at the same time laud women like Phyllis Schaftly and Elizabeth Elliott whose lives do not fit their definition of godly womanhood.
The film Monstrous Regiment of Women contains a graphic abortion scene but I believe it is gratuitous because there is no need for the scene other than to implant an image in the minds of viewers that they can associate with anyone who doesn’t fit into their agenda, such as women who are in favor of women’s suffrage or who work outside the home or who wear modest clothing that is not just like the clothing promoted by the interviewees.
Isn’t that the same as playing these sides against each other?
October 24, 2007 at 3:32 pm
You all might want to go back and read for a couple days. I rescued some good comments out of spam this morning.
Also, there were several new comments at the end of the first thread that someone might have missed so I am pointing you that direction, too.
October 24, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I’ve been following this thread ever since it started. I’d tell myself that 1000 comments was way too much discussion on one topic, but I always came back to read more. My husband is just grateful that I have somewhere else to direct my energies so don’t try to engage HIM in this topic all the time. My husband’s my best friend, but he’s a rotten girl friend.
In response to Anne’s mention of the Pearls and their One Right Way: put your hand to the screen and you’ll feel sympathy flowing out of it. Below is a link to my blog where I described my experiences with Pearl:
http://thebookbeast.blogspot.com/2006/09/exorcism-of-pearl.html
And, only tangentially (sp?) related but still part and parcel with the patriarchy movement, is a short discussion (read: my husband’s and my opinions based on our experiences and observations) of “traditional courtship.” The address (sorry it’s not a link — they give me fits) takes you to one post; if you click on the “courtship” label at the end, you can read the others:
http://thebookbeast.blogspot.com/2007/09/your-questions-answered.html
– SJ
October 24, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I have to confess that I am in tears this morning over all this stuff. Its not just what’s being talked about on this thread- there’s stuff going on in my personal life too which some folks from my church. It is really starting to divide us and I’m not sure what to do. I want to reach out to the few who swallow these teachings, but I don’t want to cause more contention. My main concern is about these teachings spreading throughout our church- not that they already exist there. I feel like I’ve dug myself into a hole with my particular situation that I’m not sure I can get out of without some hurt feelings.
Is my problem that I just want to be liked by everyone? If so, then I’m very disappointed in myself. I used to stand much stronger for truth.
And then, I read James McDonald’s blog this morning about ripping Scripture out of context to support one’s pragmatic view and I’m thinking WHAT? Is he joking? How about when the Botkins use Ephesians 5 or Genesis 1 and 2 to “prove” that daughters are to be helpmeets, er, helpers to their fathers? What about Numbers 30 and how that is somehow supposed to prove that daughters aren’t supposed to go to college? He mentioned 1 Corinthians 7 and how “some” take it “out of context” to prove that single women should be about the LORD’S work. Whatever.
I thought I had a thicker skin than this. I’ve just become a softy, I guess. I think I’m going to block myself from those sites. Seriously.
The discussion here is the only thing that is keeping me sane on this issue. So, thank you, DEAREST LADIES, for being charitable and encouraging and for standing strong in the truth! You keep me going!!!
October 24, 2007 at 5:02 pm
And Karen, I totally agree with you about the abortion scene in that film. What purpose could is possibly serve except to shock the viewer? I think its inclusion is entirely inappropriate considering that the majority of their viewership is going to be people who already believe that abortion is evil (as it is!!). Obviously, there was an ulterior motive there as you stated so well:
“The film Monstrous Regiment of Women contains a graphic abortion scene but I believe it is gratuitous because there is no need for the scene other than to implant an image in the minds of viewers that they can associate with anyone who doesn’t fit into their agenda, such as women who are in favor of women’s suffrage or who work outside the home or who wear modest clothing that is not just like the clothing promoted by the interviewees.”
October 24, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Cally, I can relate to how you feel, believe me! While I have yet to receive a single negative comment or e-mail regarding the patriocentricity podcasts, I knew going into this, and my husband and I accessed the consequences ahead of time, that there would be some people I know personally who would be quite upset with me.
It has provebn to be true.
I have one person who has been a friend for many years who felt forced to choose between our friendship and her church family. (It has to be either or, remember.) While I grieve over that, I also have never been more confident in my life that the path of questioning the patriocentrists has been the right one to take.
Just yesterday someone told me that there are now many people discussing this topic and asking questions, people who before were afraid to open their mouths, though they knew something wasn’t right. I am more than happy to have been part of that. Shoot, I even got kudos for giving a microphone to Spunky, which we all know is a good thing!!!
Those who have secretly contacted me to tell me of the relief and personal freedom they have experienced as a result of the podcasts has been worth every single penny spent on sound equipment! There have been several who have shared that these teachings haven’t even been the convictions of their husbands, that they have been the ones who have embraced these teachings, to the detriment of their families. These women have repented of “tearing down their houses with their own hands” and God is blessing them greatly.
The most humbling note I received was from a sweet homeschooling mom whose family had suffered so greatly at the hands of patriocentrists that she listened to the first podcast with her children all gathered around a white board, taking notes. Even her littlest child wrote in his little notebook and was able to relate to what I was sharing because he, too, had experienced the pain in his own short life. I wept when I read that letter.
And I also received a letter from a dear woman I know personally who was completely shocked by my position, since she had “thought that I was a good Christian homeschool mom” (since we all know that a patriocentric lifestyle is equal to good Christian homeschooling mom) and she accused me of joining the side of the enemy. She went on to tell me that I couldn’t possibly know what I was talking about because she had been in the home of patriocentrists and they have lovely families! She forgot that she has also been in my home and that I, too, have a lovely family!
I must say I was stunned at her letter but was not hurt or even angry. But I was extremely sad that her life is so small and her bubble so thick that she has no awareness of the convictions and lifestyles of other believers, especially inside the already-small homeschooling culture. And I place the blame on those teachers who have painted for her a picture of what an evil white-washed feminist I am because I do not embrace their teachings. Promoting such lies and violating the 9th commandment in that way will only reap rotten fruit in the end. As Abraham Lincoln once said “You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
Cally, the Lord will bless you as you and your husband make decisions for your own family. No one can fault you for that, though some may try. And when you are asked about your convictions, you can boldly share the Scripture and ask others to do the same. Just keep pointing people to the Word of God and trust that the Holy Spirit is going to convict their hearts to do what is right and good for their own families.
You asked if it is ok to want to be liked. How can we not want to be loved and accepted by others? It is part of human nature. I don’t see where it is a sin. But it could become a sin when what others think is so much more important that what you know is right. It doesn’t mean that you have to make a placard saying “Death to Patriocentricity” and march around the church parking lot. (Suddenly the picture that painted in my mind was really funny!) But you can share your own convictions when the time is appropriate.
And though I haven’t yet given up reading the patriocentric blogs and writings, it does help me to keep things in perspective by reading the Word and diving into the writings of great thinkers, like Francis Schaeffer as often as I can!
I hope that helps!
October 24, 2007 at 6:55 pm
“You asked if it is ok to want to be liked. How can we not want to be loved and accepted by others? It is part of human nature. I don’t see where it is a sin. But it could become a sin when what others think is so much more important that what you know is right. It doesn’t mean that you have to make a placard saying “Death to Patriocentricity” and march around the church parking lot. (Suddenly the picture that painted in my mind was really funny!) But you can share your own convictions when the time is appropriate.”
Karen,
This is wise advice.
The internet is my outlet. I do NOT go out seeking people to discuss my concerns about the patriocentric movement. In fact, when the issue does come up, especially in a public setting, I do not chime in. There is always a time and a place and I usually know it is time when someone comes to me, privately, and asks me directly about their concerns without knowing that I, too, have the same concerns. Most people are shocked when they hear that I have the same concerns because they would have thought I was totally in line with the patriocentrics.
We have even been treated with suspicion (and rightly so, since so many of their doctrines have split churches and caused havoc in personal relationships amongst the body of Christ and it has wounded so many pastors and their ministry) when we do visit a church. Until they get to know me and know that we are not going to cause a ruckus over family-integrated Sunday School and what-not, they hold me at arm’s length. I know, personally, church bodies that have been torn apart by these divisive teachings.
It is because we do have a large family, we ARE conservative, we dress conservatively (yes, I know, capris and skorts are not on the Patriarchal Wive’s approved list but I am talking in general) and we have the “look”.
Most often people are so surprised that I am not like what they thought I would be.
I am tired of the body of Christ being torn apart for the sake of traditions of men. Stick with the Bible, don’t go any farther and don’t go any less.
We have already seen how the patriocentrics read INTO the Genesis 2 passage things that are not there. If they do not do that, their whole manmade doctrine comes tumbling down. There is no role prescribed for every woman in Genesis 2. First thing needed is to rightly define the term ezer. Second thing to understand is that ezer is assigned to Eve in terms of her relationship with her HUSBAND. But, being an ezer is only one of many roles a woman can have. Just like being a husband is one of many roles a man can have.
I am doing some studying on the word “mystery”. In Ephesians it is use twice. Once in Eph. 3 and once in Eph 5. We all know (except for the patriocentrics) that Paul was speaking of the mystery of the church and not marriage in Eph. 5. The patriocentrics blur that line and actually make the husband doing ALL the things Christ did when all he was told to do was LOVE his wife. It is Christ’s job to cleanse, wash, sanctify and present HIS Bride without spot or wrinkle. It is BOTH a husband and wife’s job to spur each other on in their walk with the Lord by using God’s word (2 Tim 3:16) which is useful for correcting, rebuking, training, etc. We are all priests. The bible does NOT say that husbands are the priests and prophets of their family. That is a fanciful invention of someone who thinks too highly of themself. In 1 Cor 7 it tells us that a wife sanctifies her husband and a husband sanctifies his wife. Also, the wife has authority over her husband’s body and the husband has authority over his wife’s body. But, the patriocentrists usually only present half of that verse.
Eph 3:6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
In Eph 5 it tells us that we all become one flesh, Christ’s body and that is the mystery. In marriage, man and woman become one flesh. We are members TOGETHER of one body.
Galatians 3:28
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Again, oneness, unity, mutuality. We are of one body, we all have the same holy spirit and we are all made up of the same frail sinful flesh. Because of the Holy Spirit we are one and we are all priests in service to Christ, our High Priest.
Acts 2 says this:
6No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17″ ‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants[slaves], both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[c]
Again we see the same theme- men and women, slaves and free, Jews and Greeks.
In Leviticus 23, we see the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost where the priest was to wave 2 leavened loaves of bread before the Lord.
1 loaf for the Jews, 1 loaf for the Gentiles
1 loaf for the slave, 1 loaf for the free
1 loaf for the man , 1 loaf for the woman
Marriage, imho, represents the mystery of the body of Christ. Where two become one. What does that mean? One? Well, it means the same thing as Jews and Gentiles becoming one. It means the same thing as the slave and the free becoming one. That is the mystery Paul is referring to and God has pictured in a shadow for us in the Old Testament.
Why would God give the woman the gift of prophecy if she is always to be led through a man?
I am not saying that there is no wifely submission. I am saying that the patriocentrics have really messed up the beauty of those verses and added so many of their own laws (think Talmud) that the original intent is totally lost. In the patriocentric realm, it is all about them. In God’s world, it is about the mystery, about unity and mutual service to one another. In the patriocentric world is all about rigid definitions and role distinctions and SAMENESS. They should be the last one picking up that rock to throw at egalitarians when they, themselves, are guilty of the same thing.
And, remember, this isn’t about everyone being the same, either. Of course we are not the same. None of us. No two women are the same, either. Men and women are different in some areas but the same in many areas. No two men are the same. One size does not fit all.
Lastly, I cannot call myself an egalitarian because I still see that the office of elder needs to be filled by a male. But, women have a voice in the church and they are to be regarded as full fledged members of the church.
If we are against segregating families in Sunday school why are we FOR segregating men and women during the discussion time after the service? Doesn’t make sense. As Peter Leithart says, it is like tying one hand behind the church’s back when we leave out females from the theological development of the church. We are half of the body of Christ. We are not to play Martha at the church service.
Here are some of my ramblings. I hope to firm them up when I have more time to dig.
October 24, 2007 at 6:56 pm
“Is my problem that I just want to be liked by everyone? If so, then I’m very disappointed in myself. I used to stand much stronger for truth.”
Carol,
This is my number 1 weakness. It is my achilles heel. Think of these times of turmoil as God breaking you of that and making you stronger. They are surely painful but you will come out stronger in the end if you keep your eye on the prize!
October 24, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I started listening to the podcasts…thank you for providing that resource!
It helped me get through quite a mountain of laundry.
I have one question- there is a few terms that keep getting tossed around that I am not really familiar with….”complimentarian” “Egalitarian”. Could someone give me a quick and dirty definition of these terms?
And amen to Shauna’s quote(#917):
““I am so glad that there is only one mediator between God and man [as in, human being]- Christ Jesus. I am so glad that I don’t have to wait for someone else to read God’s word and digest it for me before I can eat of it on my own.”
I am, too, Corrie! This thread reminded me of something I stumbled upon an article a while ago but haven’t been able to find again. Essentially, the author was using an illustration of the proper hierarchy in the home. He said that if Jesus came to visit your home, he would only speak to the husband, who would then relay whatever Jesus told him to the wife. The mere suggestion that if my Lord himself came to visit in person that he wouldn’t have anything to do with me personally or directly made me want to weep!”
October 24, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Cally, can I just say, having known you for close to 20 years, that you have not stopped standing for truth. You have learned to temper truth with love and kindness. Some people will not like that and thus will not like you, or any of us. And that is not your burden to bear, though I do get that it hurts deeply.
October 24, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“This thread reminded me of something I stumbled upon an article a while ago but haven’t been able to find again. Essentially, the author was using an illustration of the proper hierarchy in the home. He said that if Jesus came to visit your home, he would only speak to the husband, who would then relay whatever Jesus told him to the wife. The mere suggestion that if my Lord himself came to visit in person that he wouldn’t have anything to do with me personally or directly made me want to weep!””
Joy,
If your memory ever lets loose and gives up where that article is located, please make sure to post it here. I would REALLY like to read it.
Of course this stuff makes you want to weep. Because it is a lie of the devil. It is the enmity between Satan and woman again. Gen. 3:15
Has anyone ever studied that passage? Satan is at war with women. Do we have to look very far to see proof of that? When we are being told that God only works through men and that Christ would only talk to the husband [cough::::woman at the well::::cough::::Mary Magdalen::::cough:::::Martha:::::cough::::]?
Does Christ tell us what color dress to wear? What color we should die our hair? That we should get a breast augmentation? Does He dictate to us where we can go and when?
But, this IS the patriarchal message. Our husbands have the right to dictate these things to us. It seems they believe themselves to be above Christ since they more strictly limit a woman’s freedom than our very Lord and Savior.
Yes, Genesis 3:15 is every clear and evident.
October 24, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I had another cough….the women at the well? What in the world was Christ thinking talking to the women BEFORE the men?????? I am sure that some patriarchalist will take issue with Him for breaking the rules. I just don’t want to be anywhere in the near vicinity when it does happen.
October 24, 2007 at 10:10 pm
That should have been the women at the TOMB not the well!
In a hurry to get my children to three different places at once!
October 24, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I have been mulling over for some time now this notion about Eve being the first feminist and the tendency to attribute all social and moral ills to feminist influence, and other such ideas.
This quote, from an article linked from Ladies Against Feminism, made it much clearer to me: “Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator. The feminist is not some abstract “out there” woman. She is staring right at us every morning when we put on our make-up.” (Courtney Tarter, “Confessions of a Recovering Feminist”)
Sin is ultimately rebellious, and feminism is rebellious, so sin is feminism. Everything in society that is attributable to sin is therefore attributable to feminism, and it would all be fixed if women would just keep to their place (sarcastic, sorry!). I’m not up on my logic vocabulary but this doesn’t seem right.
It’s also like the people, whom I vaguely heard criticized in my Gothard days, who try to say that since God is love, therefore love is God, and whatever they want to define as love is also God. The anti-feminists start with “feminism is a sin” (debatable enough, given the diversity of feminism and its motivations) and move to “sin is feminism” and then to “whatever I view as a sin is feminism.” This kind of equivocation, or of defining the prior term by the subsequent term, doesn’t seem to help the discussion.
If God is the source of love, love has to be defined by who God is. If sin is the source of feminism, feminism has to be defined by what sin is, not the other way around. Or rather, if sin is the source of SOME aspects of feminism, in either motivation or outward embodiment, you can’t just call the issue in question feminist and expect that to define its sinfulness.
Just because all sins may be based in a common attitude toward God, others, and self, doesn’t mean that all sins are interchangeable in argument. (I am not talking about equal responsibility before God for any sin.) But that “slippage” of terms does seem to explain why going to college equals having three abortions and so on.
I’m still working this out in my head so I’m not sure it all makes sense!
October 24, 2007 at 10:37 pm
thatmom wrote: “She went on to tell me that I couldn’t possibly know what I was talking about because she had been in the home of patriocentrists and they have lovely families! She forgot that she has also been in my home and that I, too, have a lovely family!”
Here we go again with the lovely family thing… And put on a good spread for lunch and fuss over guests, and everyone rubber stamps your beliefs. Is this the litmus test for sound, orthodox doctrine in the 21st century?
Have the “lovely family” people considered that this is Christian, Politically Correctness in action, derived from the very culture that they resist? (I know plenty of unsaved with lovely families…) The kids are well behaved and look good, so the doctrine must be sound?
October 24, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“In reading the end comments (somewhere between #950-1000) on the other thread, lol, I checked out the conversation between Stacey McDonald and John Stackhouse and…WOW.”
Okay, I must not be very good at finding things on blogs, could you give the link for this conversation? I couldn’t find it. I have been wanting to read some of the conversations first hand, but have wasted so much time trying to find them! : )
Thanks!
October 24, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Hi Kimi
I linked to the original post by Stacey due to the accusation of slander and gossip leveled against many of the women here who participate in this discussion.
Here’s the link to Stacey’s blog post that I referred to in that comment.
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/08/egalitarian-error-and-various-other.html
October 24, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I referenced Stacey McDonald’s blog post in regards to an accusation of slander and gossip by Trish. I’ll respost my comment here to provide the context for the link.
Trish said, “To this end, perhaps the Botkin girls and others slandered and gossiped about here might be better served simply by being addressed of these issues privately, not in a public forum. If that attempt is made and not responded to, it is not right to then come here for all the world to read and slander these people publicly.”
Trish, It would appear that you seem totally willing to openly criticize those that write here, but we are somehow scripturally forbidden to openly talk about a published work of two young girls that have questionable teachings. How does that work? Further, contacting the girls is not necessary, but it is a step I did take, have you done the same to those that you openly criticize here? Somehow I must have missed the email.
In fact, we’re actually in pretty good company in what we’re attempting to do here. Others biblicial teachers and authors have engaged in the very same critical review themselves. I’ll cite just one example.
Stacey McDonald critically reviewed a book Finally Feminist by Stackhouse on her blog.
She said, “”There are some “strange winds of doctrine” flying around these days that are bewildering some and leading others astray. One book that may be helping to confuse a few (hopefully not many) is the book, Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. You would think the name alone would turn away those faithful to the Scriptures.”
Her words and stronger and much more pointed than what Karen used in her original post about the Botkins here. Clearly, she doesn’t see it as gossip, rumor, or slander to talk about the written work of another.
To his credit, the author John Stackhouse actually commented on her blog and very politely asked her to read the book and asked for time to answer her many questions. He said, “I am sick with the ‘flu and we are currently readying Son Number Two to begin college in Chicago, and we leave on Tuesday to drive him there. He’s our first to leave home, so we’re both more busy than usual and a little more emotionally distracted than usual! I’m sure every parent reading this will understand.”
Did Stacey understand? Not exactly, she temporarily shut down comments to let the men handle the discussion, but then reopened them and left this zinger, “No – we never heard from Proffesor Stackhouse again. It seems Gorgie Porgie ran away when the boys came out to play.” A bit unfair and ungracious to a man who asked for some time as a busy father to tend to family matters, don’t you think? (Remember these are the same McDonalds that defended the Botkins girls as “busy writers” who cannot answer my private email with concerns about their book.)
Again to his credit, Stackhouse was undeterred and did contact her again privately within a few weeks, leading her to amend her post, but she still let the above comment remain.
Gossip? Slander? Clearly, a published author like Stacey McDonald doesn’t think so, she admits she never even read his whole book because she was so offended but that didn’t stop her from writing about it, nor did she contact him first. Further, Stacey does not think calling another Christian “Gorgie Porgie” is off-base either, even though he very respectfully asked for time to answer due to illness and an unusually busy and emotional time for his family. Stackhouse at least responded. And for that he is called “Gorgie Porgie.” No one here has called the Botkin girls derogatory names for their failure to respond to our concerns.
I’m not using Stacey’s comment to validate what is specically written here, just to demonstrate that most Christians, some even authors themselves, do not believe critically reviewing the work of a published author is “gossip” or “slander.”
Or perhaps to some, it is only gossip or slander or rumor when Christians review Vision Forum approved books or people?
Thanks Trish for your thoughts, but I think that as long as authors keep writing books, there will be people who will write about what they teach. Holding one another accountable for what we write is not slander or gossip. Stacey McDonald doesn’t think so and neither do I.
October 25, 2007 at 12:01 am
This has certainly been a very encouraging, on-going discussion. One could only wish that the Botkin girls, and other ladies who are in agreement with them, would join in and answer the many legitimate questions that have been put forth here. It is heartening to see so many articulate, intelligent Christian women on both sides of the issue. It is especially encouraging to see the Berean spirit displayed by so many here. It is such a disappointment that there has been such resistance on the part of those who align themselves with patriarchy to partake in this dialogue.
I just happened upon this at http://www.gospelthemes.com/mdropenmind.htm and thought (even though the author is addressing another subject) it is so applicable to what is being discussed here, especially when I think of the resistance of the pro-patriarchy people to even consider any other viewpoint. I think it’s worth taking the time to pop over there and read it in full for your own encouragement
The three essays that really apply here are titled ‘A Plea for an Open Mind’, ‘A Plea for Confidence in God’s Word’, and ‘A Plea to Refrain from Maligning Motives’.
It would be so good if those opposed to our discussion would read them too!
Here’s a brief snippet from “A Plea for an Open Mind” by Samuel G. Dawson:
“Any time a controversial question is approached for study, it is good to remind ourselves of the great personal need to attempt to have an open mind as we approach such a study. Some wise person said that in such cases there are four possible attitudes people might have toward such a study. The first attitude is, “I know what I believe and you’re not teaching it.” Of course, this is merely an attitude of prejudice, which renders useless any study of God’s word on this or any other subject. The second attitude is, “I know what I believe and God’s word must fit.” This is merely preconceived morals, and again, if that is the reader’s attitude, he might as well stop reading with this sentence. Another attitude one might have is, “How can I get around this teaching and still be pleasing to God?” This attitude of rebellion also renders all study useless.
“Of course, our hope is that we might all have the attitude of Samuel in I Sam. 3.10, when he said, “Speak Lord, thy servant heareth.” Samuel’s open heart and attitude of humble submission to God’s will was the secret of his being a great servant of God, and it is the secret to our being successful students of God’s will on any controversial topic.
“Many Bible passages bear this out. In Prov. 18.15 we find, “The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” If we’re going to be wise, we must seek the truth regardless of whether or not we presently agree with it, or our behavior is in harmony with it.
“Many Bible students admire the Berean Jews of whom Luke said in Ac. 17.11, “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed.”
“In John 8.32, Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Many preachers, elders, and other Christians are anything but free on controversial subjects. They’re afraid to be questioned on many subjects, afraid to give answers to others or to preach on the issues, and afraid for such matters to come up in private or public discussions. The only thing that will free us from such bondage on any subject is God’s truth on the subject.
“Eugene Britnell, an influential preacher, writer, and debater of the mid-twentieth century, once said:
‘The man who refuses to give honest consideration to teaching on any subject, must (1) believe that he is incapable of learning, or (2) think that he knows all there is to know on the subject, or (3) knows that he is wrong and does not intend to change. In our search for truth, may we be free from: (1) the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, that is, new to us; (2) the laziness that is content with half-truths; and (3) the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth already.’ (The Sower, Jan. 1978, p. 2.) “
Mr. Dawson then goes on in the essay to show what Scripture has to say about these characteristics.
“Of the one who thinks he is incapable of learning…
“Of the one who thinks he knows all there is to know on the subject…
“Of the one who knows that he is wrong and does not intend to change…
“Of the cowardice that shrinks from truth new to him…
“Of the laziness that is content with half-truths…
“Of the arrogance that thinks it knows all the truth already…
He closes with this quote, which, I thought, speaks so eloquently to what I think many of us can relate to in regards to the patriarchy movement.
“We do not start our Christian lives by working out our faith for ourselves; it is mediated to us by Christian tradition, in the form of sermons, books and established patterns of church life and fellowship. We read our Bibles in the light of what we have learned from these sources; we approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world. It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has moulded us. But we are forbidden to become enslaved to human tradition, either secular or Christian, whether it be “catholic” tradition, or “critical” tradition, or “ecumenical” tradition. We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures.” – J. I. Packer
October 25, 2007 at 1:06 am
“Have the “lovely family” people considered that this is Christian, Politically Correctness in action, derived from the very culture that they resist? (I know plenty of unsaved with lovely families…) The kids are well behaved and look good, so the doctrine must be sound?”
Cindy,
Great point. I also know very many lovely Mormon families and I know several Jehovah’s Witness families. Must mean that their doctrine is spot on? Must mean that they are following God and being blessed by Him?
I also know many families who wouldn’t fit the “profile” of the “lovely family” but they are some of the most godly, sincere people I have ever met. They have had children who rebelled but they never took their eyes off of God. I know families that don’t have hardly anything to their names and the women don’t wear only dresses and some of them even work outside of the homes and they are truly the picture of feminine godliness.
That is what first broke the “vision” I had when I was trapped in this system. I knew way too many women who didn’t fit the stereotype. I was being told that women who do x, y , z are wordly and don’t care about the things of God and don’t care for their families but when I looked at their lives, I saw just the opposite.
I am hoping that we get some patriarchalists who are honest about their struggles, their wayward children, their broken marriages. It gets tiring to have to pretend all the time. It gets tiring hoping no one will find out our “dirty little secret”.
October 25, 2007 at 1:12 am
Corrie…that isn’t my words, it’s a full quote of Shauna in the old thread (917). I think she was replying to an earlier statement of yours.
I was agreeing with her, thankful that Jesus is my High Priest and I need no other intercessor! (Heb. 3:1,4:14,6:20)
October 25, 2007 at 1:19 am
That is what first broke the “vision” I had when I was trapped in this system. I knew way too many women who didn’t fit the stereotype. I was being told that women who do x, y , z are wordly and don’t care about the things of God and don’t care for their families but when I looked at their lives, I saw just the opposite.
I am hoping that we get some patriarchalists who are honest about their struggles, their wayward children, their broken marriages. It gets tiring to have to pretend all the time. It gets tiring hoping no one will find out our “dirty little secret”.
I think the interesting thing about this statement is that it is not just endemic of the patriarchalist movement, it’s a symptom across the board in Christian circles…we spend a lot of time ‘beating one another up’ for not measuring up to whatever standards, but very few Christians of any stripe will openly admit to their struggles as a Christian. Yet Paul makes it quite clear that the Christian journey is anything but easy. It’s a pretty sobering thought.
October 25, 2007 at 1:25 am
Thanks Spunky! I appreciate it.
October 25, 2007 at 3:27 am
Comment #74 brought up a question for me. What happens when something is going on in one of these families that doesn’t meet the image, what do they do? What if a child is being abused? What if a wife is being abused? Do they hide it, bury it, try to be better to make the perpetrator better? It scares me a bit. We’ve worked so hard in the last 50 years to finally have a society that has begun to understand domestic violence and sexual abuse. It truly frightens me that this mindset might put it back in the closet (so to speak) and do damage.
October 25, 2007 at 3:27 am
I’m still trying to find the article and remember the exact phrase I was searching for when I stumbled across it; if I do find it again I will definitely post it here. I know that when I found it online, I was involved in a discussion with a woman who claimed that wives should submit to their husbands even if they want them to sin (in which case, the husband and not the wife would be held responsible for that sin), and I was trying to find out how common this view was and where it originated, since I had never heard anyone say this before. I was relieved to find that almost no one that I could find teaches that women must submit to their husbands even into sin.
October 25, 2007 at 3:33 am
I just received my Vision Forum catalog. It’s beautiful and you are taken in by it. I mean who wouldn’t want to have a close-knit family serving God together? Maybe it’s just me, but I couldn’t help but notice a couple of pages devoted to the Botkin sisters and it was either a DVD or book that had the back of a young woman looking down a road. Then I realized the new book about Passionate Housewives (wrote by women who don’t like staying home! tee hee hee Sorry, but I can’t help but think it’s so ironic it’s funny) has a woman with only her back showing. Are women on book covers now faceless entities when Vision Forum is promoting it and doing all the marketing?
I noticed what should be a nice cover. I think it’s a bunch of homeschooled kids dressed in costumes. All with upraised swords. The whole catalog is meant to tug at our emotions, because who doesn’t want brave, and courageous kids? But they were all dressed in the days-of-old costumes. That’s all it was…… costumes and make-believe. I looked at that picture and wondered what battle they were waging or running to? Is it the battle for the family? If so, they don’t need those costumes. If it’s a battle for a Christian worldview, again the costumes should probably be robes! If it’s a battle to help those less fortunate I would appreciate photos of these kids with a soup laddle in their hand, not more of the tea and crumpets stuff with all the lace and dolls I could never afford unless……………I wrote a book and left home to promote it! If it’s the battle to protect women, again the make-believe costumes aren’t going to help. Are these pictures just part of a PR machine, and who over there likes the faceless women on two of their latest releases? And here’s a tip for Vision Forum……..how about a Mother Teresa doll…..oops………she left home to serve. Maybe she was a bit like Gladys Alward who was asked why God didn’t send her a man to help her. She said something to the effect that God did His job and sent the man, but the man wasn’t willing to go where God leads.
October 25, 2007 at 4:30 am
I did not find Carolyn’s bio offensive in the least, but I am not a kitchen wife either.
Carolyn is simply describing the nature of her personal calling and life. Her life and calling being different from most home school moms does not make a statement about these differences demeaning to home school moms.
Must home school moms be so hyper-sensitive, reading a negative twist into any comment or perspective that doesn’t gush over their chosen life or calling?
Honestly, I think that’s why some of this patriarchy-malarkey is popular. They give the moms just a little affirmation and this really draws the moms in because they are so sensitive about having made such a different life choice. Then they put the blinders on to the rotten theology and the grotesque “buy our product/attend our conference or your kids are in jeopardy” marketing.
October 25, 2007 at 4:37 am
Anne said, “Comment #74 brought up a question for me. What happens when something is going on in one of these families that doesn’t meet the image, what do they do? What if a child is being abused? What if a wife is being abused? Do they hide it, bury it, try to be better to make the perpetrator better? It scares me a bit. We’ve worked so hard in the last 50 years to finally have a society that has begun to understand domestic violence and sexual abuse. It truly frightens me that this mindset might put it back in the closet (so to speak) and do damage.”
Anne, many within Vision Forum have adopted the line of the “phantom abuser” and portray this as a “straw man” argument created by “white washed feminists” looking for any excuse to reject the “bibiical model” of the family.
Doug Phillips used that arugment in his blog recently, Referring to homeschooling, but making it analogous to the controversy of cults he said, “Usually, when a case actually made it to court, those hoping to curtail the rights of home school parents would argue their position by employing what came to be described as the “Phantom Abuser Argument.”
This theme has been echoed by his supporters as well.
Blogger and wife of Vision Forum employee, Kim Coughlan of Life In A Shoe, said this in a comment on her blog in response to hyper-patriarchy, “but I really wonder about so-called hyperpatriarchy. We often hear about it, but how many of us have actually known such people within the body of Christ?
Not only is it a straw man argument irrelevent to the subject at hand, but I suspect hyperpatriarchy among Christians is also largely imaginary, due to misconceptions and misunderstandings.”?
In answer to her question, I told her that I knew such man and that the abuse was real. Unfortunately, further dialogue was shut down and my subsequent comments were not allowed to go through.
It’s easy on the internet to read and dismiss someone’s concerns about “hyper-patriarchy” as a straw man and delete comments. But these men are real. They are not made out of straw. These men hear the teachings of patriarchy and apply them as the head of their home believing the mandate allows for complete authority.
Still there are some who acknowledge the possibility of abuse while teaching on patriarchy. Brian Abshire acknowledges that there are men who apply the teaching to the extreme, but in a startling statement excuses it because the alternative has less “biblical warrant.”
In an amazing statement for any biblical teacher to make he said, “Even the worst examples of modern “patriarchy” show more biblical warrant than the unconscious adoption of secular humanism commonly held by many “Christian” families.”
Excusing extreme sin in patriarchy by comparing it to secular humanism is unfortunate. One should never justify a distortion of truth as better than an outright lie. They are both lies and should be declared to be so. Such dissection of theology leads men to justify the most extreme actions in their home. And for most, the worse examples include abuse and adultery.
This is a critical issue within hyper-patriarchy where secrecy and denial do not help the teacher gain credibilty with the intended audience. The men are not “phantom abusers” but real men. Their abuse is real. And the wives and daughters suffer in silence because some refuse to acknowlege what really goes on behind closed doors in order to promote an agenda that excuses the man at her expense.
October 25, 2007 at 5:33 am
Spunky said,
“In an amazing statement for any biblical teacher to make he said, “Even the worst examples of modern “patriarchy” show more biblical warrant than the unconscious adoption of secular humanism commonly held by many “Christian” families.””
My reply:
I used to feel the exact same way. In my mind, the concept of authority (chain of command, etc) was one of the most important principles (if not THE most) that there was. Therefore it superceded almost every other principle—-a wife graciously submitting to abuse was honorable, in that light. To me, 1 Peter 3 seemed to be making a pretty clear statement: “even when he sins (which would include hurting you), obey him.”
Therefore there was Biblical precedent for a wife meekly accepting abuse, whereas there were strong statements made against the sin of rebelliousness. To me, the math added up to say: it’s worse, in God’s eyes, for you to disobey him than it is for him to hurt you—or, at the very least, it’s just as much a sin for you to say “no” to him than it is for him to hurt you.
I just share that to say that I know (at least in part) where they are coming from. It’s all in the lens through which we read our Bible, you know? It’s amazing how I read the same verses today, but *hear* something completely different than I once did.
*shrugs*
I am so glad to be free of that world, I can’t even begin to tell you. My years of personal experience in the folds of hyper-patriarchy wasn’t as horrible as it has been for many, but just thinking about it today makes my body tense up. Women were simply not designed to be treated as “adult children.” That’s not what ezer means.
October 25, 2007 at 5:40 am
“I have been mulling over for some time now this notion about Eve being the first feminist and the tendency to attribute all social and moral ills to feminist influence, and other such ideas.”
Dana,
Great post!
I, too, was just thinking about how everything bad is labeled “feminized” and everything labeled “masculine”.
For example, churches with bad teaching and bad practice and bad worship are said to be “feminized”. The same people say that is is the women who want effeminate pastors and bad teaching, practice and shallow worship, so the pastors, terrified of women, cow-tow to them.
Now, that makes me laugh.
Frankly, I don’t think a church should be feminized or masculized because it isn’t about gender, it is about God. Most women I know want solid Bible teaching and worship that exalts a holy and awesome God with words that are fitting with proper doctrine.
After all, the church is the BRIDE of Christ. I am not sure why those same people who label everything that is bad feminized don’t really get that the church IS feminine?
Now, femininity to me is strong, faithful, courageous, virtuous, unafraid, bold, fearless, kind, gentle, meek, loving, nurturing….
In other words, femininity is NOT weakness but strength.
If the church was more like the faithfulness of the women who surrounded Christ during His ministry on this earth, we would be on the right track. Just think of the women who showed up at the tomb while the disciples were fearfully hiding.
Strength of character knows no gender. There are weak, silly, fearful, shallow humans found equally in both genders.
I really don’t know what a feminized church looks like but I do realize that the people who fling around that term really do not have much respect for women.
October 25, 2007 at 12:08 pm
My husband and I have talked about the “feminized church” idea also, and it’s been enlightening for me. He points out that the church (not just mainstream) is very big on Love and Relationship with God. Most men, however, want a struggle and challenge: they want to FIGHT with God, to SERVE God, to be CONQUERED by God. The language is different.
I saw this difference just the other day when we had a couple of neighbor boys over to play. They’ve just started going to church, and told me, “We made pictures with cross stickers!” They knew who died on the cross, but were stumped when I asked, “Did He stay dead?” Remembering that these were boys, I explained,
“Jesus didn’t stay dead. He’s God. He’s stronger than death. He came alive again so He can crush sin and take us to Heaven if we believe Him and ask His forgiveness.” I deliberately avoided the usual children’s explanation involving love and friendship, because these boys like action.
So that’s the masculine/feminine terminology. Where I part ways with VF, etc. is that obviously the church needs “feminine” terminology as well, or we get Islam.
– SJ
October 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“Feminized church”
Doug Giles wrote about this topic. Here is an excerpt and the link:
“• Put an end to preaching by whiny, over-preened and giddy Nancy Boys . . . like . . . uh . . . now. It freaks out us meat eaters. Get it? If you want to draw men to church, then put a man in the pulpit. It’s pretty simple. You get what you fish for. Duh. If you want a bunch of Nancy’s, then keep your Nancy pastor. If you want some dudes to fill the pews, then get a dude to do the preaching. Good luck finding a non-neutered minister, though, as most seminaries are cranking out puppets and not prophets.
• Ditto regarding the worship/music leader. Also, make sure your new testosterone laden songmeister is outfitted with weighty worship music instead of the saccharine-laced slush we have had to sing ad nauseam et infinitum for the last, oh, 100 years.
• Enough with the Precious Moments prints and figurines—okay? How about decking out the sanctuary with serious transcendent art work that stops us in our tracks, rather than ubiquitous prints of fat baby angels who look like they’ve got a good buzz going from too much Mountain Dew and Robitussin?
• Lose the Church’s “I’m in therapy forever” feel. Yes, yes, I know . . . “we’re all a work in progress,” but the co-dependant, extended womb the Church has wrongfully created has allowed congregants to use the excuse of “going through some bad crap” as a viable reason for not getting a life. Sure, life is hard, Dinky—and the sooner we celebrate the struggle the quicker we will draw men back to our houses of worship.
If the Church wants to recover its losses, we’ve got to draw the knuckle draggers back to church. Masculine men are pretty easy. Toss in reason, competition, initiation, struggle, irreverance and a problem to throttle, and we are there man. Blow off, suppress and emasculate the environment of these holy testicular necessities, and your church, as far as men go, will be more empty than Paris Hilton’s head.
One last word for the young Christian man: Do you want to grow up quickly? Then leave mommy’s familiar, safe haven and venture out into the danger zone. Beware, young man, of parents and pastors who want to “mother” you. Avoid the secure; refuse over-protection; and happily accept the masculine task of the patriarch, the prophet, the warrior and wild man. Go crash and burn for your dream.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_church_and_men_don%E2%80%99t_mix&ns=DougGiles&dt=12/16/2006&page=full&comments=true
October 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Sara,
I pulled your comment out and it is #56. And those links are good, too. Your insights into the Pearl teachings are well worth reading. Thanks for sharing those with us,
BTW, I think maybe my son, Clayton, knows you and your husband. Are you guys Oak Brook grads?
October 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Anne, your comments about losing the awareness of domestic abuse are good ones. Spunky and I discussed this topic on the podcasts addressing the Pearl book and the mixed messages that they send. They advocate a woman suffering in silence until the “bright read line of abuse” is crossed. The problem is that that line isn’t defined and when it is, it is often in the wrong place.
October 25, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“Most men, however, want a struggle and challenge: they want to FIGHT with God, to SERVE God, to be CONQUERED by God. The language is different.”
Sara,
This is an interesting thought.
I do think that the Bible’s main theme to be God’s love for His people and His provision for a relationship with Him, so I can understand why churches *may* focus on that aspect. Also, God, Himself, says He is love and that we can know that we are one of His if we love one another. Just off the top of my head, the Bible seems to be at least 90% about our relationship with Him and our relationship with others.
That is a very good point that if we only have the “fight” we become like Islam. But, even how a Christian fights is much different than the world. God doesn’t say that they will know we our Christians by our “FIGHT” but by our LOVE. Yes, we must be strong, bold, courageous but our “fight” will not at all be like the world’s. Sadly, the masculinized church looks more like brawling barroom boys than anything else.
I don’t see service as masculine language and I think I read somewhere on a website [and it was a masculine church website] that serving comes naturally to women but men don’t want to be stuck doing menial tasks and that it is harder to get men to serve at church than it is to get women to serve. Serving in the church body can be “frightening” to some because it requires sacrifice and a laying aside of one’s own agenda and submission. Service often involves relationship and intimacy and engaging our emotions.
Submission is a popular topic for the masculinized church but only when it comes to someone else’s submission to them. I just read one patriarchalist talk about how many people overlook the “benefits” of one way submission- slave to master, wife to husband. I am pretty sure he was referring to some benefit for the one who always does the submitting, like the slave. But, in a one-way submission relationship, most of the benefits go to the top dog.
As far as men wanting to be “conquered” by God? Is there a picture of that in scriptures? I know our sinful nature doesn’t want to be conquered by anything or anyone. I just don’t know if this is a term that is in line with what the bible teaches. I am trying to think of places where God conquers us? Maybe I am looking at the word too strictly? I do know that in the “Fabio” type novels, the woman with the heaving bosoms is conquered by Fabio but that seems to be a feminine fantasy?
I do agree that Christ conquered sin and death. That God is sovereign over all. All of His attributes come as a package and it is a mystery to know how they all operate at one time since His ways are so much higher than our ways.
““Jesus didn’t stay dead. He’s God. He’s stronger than death. He came alive again so He can crush sin and take us to Heaven if we believe Him and ask His forgiveness.” I deliberately avoided the usual children’s explanation involving love and friendship, because these boys like action.”
I don’t know of the explanation that involves “friendship”. I never heard of that one. I guess I just go with what the Bible says when it comes to explaining Jesus’ death on the cross. But, the above is a very good explanation and is part of what I tell my children, too.
I guess I am against changing the message based on one’s gender. I would never “fluff it up” for girls and “beef it up” for the boys. The church for men types want to gear everything for men. They don’t call their pastor a “pastor” but “coach”. They put sexy cars in the lobby. They have big screen TVs and pipe in football games.
A good church will not genderize the word of God and the happenings in the church. I think it dangerous to either cater to men or cater to women. I don’t want to go to a church that caters to ME because that makes ME the focus and puts ME on the throne. Church is about God.
As a woman, I don’t want fluff and I don’t want weak. I don’t want to be pampered when I go to church, I want to be challenged. One of my favorite hymns is “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”. I am GREATLY encouraged when I sing this hymn. My favorite hymn is “Be Thou My Vision”. I used to work in a Christian bookstore and the manager and I used to fantasize about using the Precious Moments figurines as clay pigeons for the shooting range. I do not like sappy artwork, either. As a woman, I want to uphold God’s word and the struggle/fight that it involves does not scare me away.
Does this make me masculine? Absolutely not.
October 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I get so upset with the argument that the wife is to suffer as Christ suffered when it comes to domestic abuse. Here again, the Scriptures are mishandled.
Remember in Luke 4:28-30 where Jesus escaped the angry mob that wanted to throw him off a cliff? If a wife is to truly follow the example of Christ when it comes to mistreatment then she needs to take notice that even Christ did not just passively submit to abuse. The only time He did was when it served His Father’s eternal purpose to die for mankind’s sin. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where a wife is called to die for the sins of her husband and thereby gain his salvation.
The way the scriptures are mishandled in many of these books and movements can be harmful on a variety of levels, but for someone in a situation of domestic abuse, they can be downright deadly.
October 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Karen,
Is Doug Giles saying that is a description of a feminized church?
“If the Church wants to recover its losses, we’ve got to draw the knuckle draggers back to church. Masculine men are pretty easy. Toss in reason, competition, initiation, struggle, irreverance and a problem to throttle, and we are there man. Blow off, suppress and emasculate the environment of these holy testicular necessities, and your church, as far as men go, will be more empty than Paris Hilton’s head.”
I don’t get this whole “irreverance” thing. Where does that come from? In order to be a masculinzed church do we have to hear “blow off” and “holy testicular” in the same sentence? Is this kind of language necessary?
Also, how do you have competition in the church? Competing against one another? Do the members of our body compete against each other? What kind of deformed and troubled body would we have? Or does he mean large screen tvs that boom in the football game? Or does he mean calling one’s pastor “coach” and making grunting sounds when the pastor says something instead of saying “amen”?
I see this as the opposite extreme of what he was describing. He wants to redo church in his image. Where is God in all of this stuff?
Oh, and I don’t think he has to worry about struggle. If he is submitting himself to Christ and obeying God’s word, he WILL have struggle. It is a guarantee!
October 25, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Denise,
“I get so upset with the argument that the wife is to suffer as Christ suffered when it comes to domestic abuse. Here again, the Scriptures are mishandled.”
I agree. It is upsetting.
There are many who teach this and they base it on 2 Peter 18-25 where it tells how Christ suffered and how slaves are beaten. 2 Peter 3 starts with “wives, in the same way……”.
I do wonder how many men would just sit there and submit to being abused? How many men would submit themselves to a beating or turn the other cheek? Maybe this teaching stems from this masculine/feminized thinking? A man fights and stands up for his honor and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. A woman submits. Slaves submit.
” 18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22″He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”[e] 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”
October 25, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Corrie Jo,
That is a good point you brought up about the wife submitting as a slave submits and it is often an argument used to keep a wife in subjection to sinful abuse. Patsy Rae Dawson in her ‘Challenges in Marriage’ series addresses this very argument in lesson 4 ~ False Concepts and Arguments About Subjection. I quote her here:
“The relationship of the master to his slave was closely regulated in the Old Testament. For example, Ex. 21:7-11 explains the rights of a slave who was also a wife. She had the right to expect three things: (1) food, (2) clothing, and (3) conjugal rights. If a man would not do these three things for her, she was to be granted freedom. The basic difference between a slave who was a wife (known as a concubine) and a free woman who became a wife was that the free woman had a lot more rights and privileges.
“In addition, beatings and mistreatment of slaves was regulated (Ex. 21:20-21, 26-27; Dt. 23:15-16). Leviticus 24:19-20 gave the regulations for injuries to a free person, in that case “just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.” A free wife enjoyed the protection of her family. If her husband mistreated her, then her fathers and brothers had the obligation to treat him exactly the same way. God provided restitution for both the slaves and the wives when they were mistreated.”
So the argument that wives submit like slaves is a straw man’s argument.
October 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I do wonder if many would not recognize Jesus as Lord if He walked on earth today. The descriptions I hear from some men in the masculinized church movement sound almost like they could be talking about Christ in some circumstances.
Yes, Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple, once. I need to get that out of the way before someone reminds me of that.
Other than that? Read through the four gospels. Jesus tells us that He is humble and meek. He doesn’t encourage competition and squashes it when His disciples start competing against one another for who gets the best seat. Instead He tells us that the least of all will be the greatest. Now, that is healthy competition. The least of all would not be the place of glory, honor, privilege, or power. It wouldn’t be a place where one is irreverence could be found. I could go on and on. But, a good read of the Gospels pretty much gives a clear picture of what Jesus expects of us- He wants us to follow THAT example.
But, there are many who don’t like that. It is too “wimpy”. I have even read where people have written that modeling ourselves after the Jesus of the gospels causes a church to be too effeminiate. They want to play Jesus when He comes back in glory on a white horse and makes His enemies a footstool.
Is there one Jesus for women and one for men? I just don’t see it in the Bible. We must not emphasize those things that appeal to our own flesh or gender. And while the patriocentric movement accuses the other side of doing that very thing, they are guilty of doing the same.
They forget one thing. They are not Christ and that is a job reserved for Him. He earned it.
He told us what he wants from us and that is found in the gospels. No white horse. Just a white towel. No squashing enemies like a bug. Just loving our enemies and going the extra mile and turning the other cheek. No glory. Just insults and suffering for the sake of righteousness and not opening His mouth to defend Himself. No houses of gold. Just a lonely hillside or a rock to call His home. No being served. Just being the one who serves.
When we HUMBLE ourselves, He will lift us up. The glory comes in the next life when we throw our crown at His feet and realize that all of it is of Him, through Him and for Him. It is not about us. It is about Him.
This is the Christian life. So many fancy themselves as Jesus in His second coming. They don’t understand that they are NOT Christ and that as He lived on THIS earth, so must we. We cannot go right to dessert. We must eat our beats and brussel sprouts first.
October 25, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“So the argument that wives submit like slaves is a straw man’s argument.”
Denise,
That was great! Thank you for posting that information. I am studying the book of Leviticus and I plan on doing Deuteronomy next. It is AMAZING, when you really study and look at scripture as a whole, what you learn!
October 25, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I posted a question on James MacDonald’s blog under the Pragmatism thread, but he didn’t post the whole thing as he felt it was not germane to the topic. Of course not…
Dear Pastor MacDonald,
I’ve been following your posts here since you established this blog, and there is no doubt in my mind that you hold to sola scriptura. I also hold Scripture as sovereign in my life, and I agree with you about the evils of pragmatism. I do wonder however how you esteem other Christians who also hold Scripture as sovereign but do not interpret those Scriptures in the same manner as you? Are they willful pragmatists, deceived brethren or not really brethren at all? Would all Dispensationalists be pragmatists, for example? Does the process of sanctification play a role in the degree of pragmatism one employs? Or could it just be a different interpretation of certain passages of Scripture based on that person’s training and earnest Bible study, also opposed to pragmatism? There are a great many who call themselves Christian who are very pragmatic, but not all Christians with different interpretations on matters discussed on your blog can be attributed to pragmatism.
What then can be done with the pragmatist? I read on another blog that a woman who disagreed with the modern concept of Christian Patriarchy was called an enemy and a “white washed feminist” by a friend of hers, ending the friendship. If it is her sincere conviction before God that Patriarchy as presented by many today is not orthodox, would you consider her your enemy for voicing her opinion? She’s successfully homeschooled several children and lives a wholesome, fruitful, Christian life – by no means a feminist from anything that I can ascertain. What then is the nature of your relationship with those who oppose your specific interpretations? Do you esteem those professing, fruitful, devout Christians as your brethren or as enemies and pragmatists? How are they to be entreated?
October 25, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Spunky writes: Still there are some who acknowledge the possibility of abuse while teaching on patriarchy. Brian Abshire acknowledges that there are men who apply the teaching to the extreme, but in a startling statement excuses it because the alternative has less “biblical warrant.”
In an amazing statement for any biblical teacher to make he said, “Even the worst examples of modern “patriarchy” show more biblical warrant than the unconscious adoption of secular humanism commonly held by many “Christian” families.”
Excusing extreme sin in patriarchy by comparing it to secular humanism is unfortunate. One should never justify a distortion of truth as better than an outright lie. They are both lies and should be declared to be so. Such dissection of theology leads men to justify the most extreme actions in their home. And for most, the worse examples include abuse and adultery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Um……….new research shows that yes husbands do abuse, but not at the rate of live in mates. It’s EXTREMELY high in live in situations, and even the children have a much higher rate of abuse there. And, yes, women abuse. It’s never right, but let’s be honest……….the patriarchal fight against radical feminism has truth in it, and humanism is wrecking havoc on the church in a huge way. Feminism gave Stacy and Jennie the rights they currently have to travel and be freed from the house, but radical feminism has wrought horrible fruit. Live in boyfriends, divorce, and yes even women working (oh, oh that old knee-jerk conversation. When their are children to be cared for I believe we should do everything possible to be there to care for them daily). I believe women can work and have careers, but I tend to think like Katherine Hepburn who didn’t have children because she put her career into such a high priority.
So, there ya’ go………I threw a monkey wrench into a conversation that was steering in a direction where I fear I may miss my own speck. That’s why I warned many days ago we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sometimes we fall for what we claim the other side is missing.
PASSION ……..that wonderful gift……..it has helped build kingdoms and brought them to their knees. Let us in our passion pray that there is restoration in this patriarchal kingdom to the whole truth, and may we pray that for ourselves. They aren’t completely wrong, and we are not completely right…..and that’s the beauty of the blog……we can sit as iron sharpens iron and work through it all. I pray my heart would be willing to reconcile to these people and that our goals always remain on exemplifying Christ first. That doesn’t mean we don’t point out warts, but that I walk with a fear and wisdom in my posts and I am not so sure I am doing that. I pray I remain teachable to all God desires to teach me, and still believe there is much contention in the patriarchal circles. Anyone read Nancy Campbell’s husbands new book about the 21st Patriarchs?
So it’s time for me to take a break, because honestly in reading the posts I am seeing we have our own blindspots. I think I better break and ask God to help me with my own blindspots for a bit, and I ask that you please pray for me (God knows who I am, and so does Corrie! We have been friends for so long I can’t even remember how many years it’s been. We don’t agree on everything, but we remain friends and I really appreciate that).
October 25, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Is there a more current book than “Be Fruitful and Multiply”?
October 25, 2007 at 4:47 pm
“Um……….new research shows that yes husbands do abuse, but not at the rate of live in mates. It’s EXTREMELY high in live in situations, and even the children have a much higher rate of abuse there. And, yes, women abuse. It’s never right, but let’s be honest……….the patriarchal fight against radical feminism has truth in it, and humanism is wrecking havoc on the church in a huge way.”
The fact that “live ins” abuse at a higher rate or that women abuse exists are not the issues I was addressing. There is also no dispute that “radical feminism” has created serious troubles in our society today. But excusing “radical patriarchy” because “radical feminism” has error will create just as many serious implications. Anne cited one about abuse in her comment.
The question was asked by Anne, how the patriarchial camps handle abusive situations. My comment provided three examples of how this has been handled by some patriarchists within Vision Forum.
Of course, patriarchs in fighting “radical feminism” have some truth. That’s what makes the lie of “radical patrirachy” so easy to miss and believe. As listeners, we hear truth spoken by a teacher on one topic, and we then assume all that they say is therefore Truth.
And because as Cindy Kunsman pointed out in comment #28 radical patriarchs also have an “investment” in their truth, so discussion with the teacher on the aspects that may not be truth becomes difficult. It takes a great deal of maturity to discuss objectively what has become your family’s income and livelihood?)
We all have blindspots, but patriarchy seems to practice (if not teach) that challenging the teacher amounts to rebellion and discourage any discussion about what they teach.
For the most part, the women here are not interested in believing a lie, whether it comes from Betty Friedan and “radical feminism” or the Botkins and “radical patriarchy.” Our discussion here is not to prove anyone wrong, or convince others that we’re right, but to discover our blindspots, discuss the teachings of others, and discern what is True.
October 25, 2007 at 4:55 pm
article on spousal abuse:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9517
October 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“I think I better break and ask God to help me with my own blindspots for a bit, and I ask that you please pray for me (God knows who I am, and so does Corrie! We have been friends for so long I can’t even remember how many years it’s been. We don’t agree on everything, but we remain friends and I really appreciate that).”
Anonymous,
Yes! And thank you for putting up with me!
I know it has been well over a decade.
Is Colin Campbell’s book on patriarchy well-written? I haven’t read it.
I am with you, Anonymous, concerning women being with their children and raising them. I have done whatever it took in order to be able to stay home with them. I worked nights for a few years (my husband cared for them at night while I was working) and that worked out. But, God has allowed me to be able to be at home with them full-time. My husband’s career took off and it was no longer feasible for me to be working at night because it interferred too much with his schedule, meetings, overnights, etc. By that time, his income had gone up and I didn’t need to work for food and clothes for our family. We still went without a LOT during those years. Sometimes it is necessary for a woman with small children to work but there are ways that we can do this, if we are determined, without full-time daycare.
As a single mom for many years, I *had* to work. Now, remember this was in my “before Christ” years, too. I had my first child out of wedlock right after I graduated and I never married. I was raised with a very strong work ethic. Welfare was not even an option for *me*, so I became self-educated and found a good job. The woman who cared for my son eventually led me to the Lord and it was not much longer before I was married and I no longer needed her services.
So, Anonymous, I think we agree in many areas, although we may come at “it” from different angles. But, that is why the body of Christ is important because we all don’t see things the same way.
As for abuse, yes women abuse, too. But, I think a lot of patriarchalists tend to obsfucate that abuse is very real. I grew up with an abusive father. He truly was a misogynist. My stepfather who married my mother when I was 13 was/is a wonderful man and he opened up the fact to me that there were many men who were not abusive. The fact of the matter is, men ARE stronger and there is a reason why God told men to treat their wives in a certain way because they are weaker- physically (not mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc). It is a fact that our sinful nature can take over and we often use our strength, power and wealth to subjugate (slavery) and to oppress the poor and to oppress women.
Gen. 3:16 tells us that there is enmity between Satan and women. That is the truth. It would be not be right to deny that women, throughout history, have been used for another’s gain. Not by all men but there are histories of whole societies that treated women like a product, like chattel, like a comodity. Just the taking of multiple wives is evidence of this sinful nature where physical strength and material wealth (women didn’t hold wealth, for the most part, that is why widows were so dependent in ancient days) are used to oppress the weaker and poor. The story of Esther shows the abuse of women as some wholesale commodity for the pleasure of men.
This is that enmity in action. The bible told us that Satan would go after the woman and He still does. I think that alone is very interesting and would make a good study.
What really troubles me is that many women have gone to their pastors and told them of being battered by their husbands and their pastors instantly say that they must be doing something to provoke it. More evidence of the curse.
My father was provoked the more my mother submitted and cow-towed to him, the more enraged he became. This is very typical of an abuser/bully. When she finally stood up to him and he finally realized that she would no longer allow him to abuse her or me, he stopped his abuse, for a while, in order to try and win her back. By that time it was too late.
My father, praise God, became a Christian on his deathbed in 1995. He died at the age of 50 from alcoholism. God gave me the heart to forgive him and love him and that love ultimately was used of God to bring my father to Himself.
October 25, 2007 at 5:23 pm
That’s a wonderful testimony regarding your father, Carrie Jo.
Domestic abuse among professing Christians is a serious issue and not to be made light of in comparison to radical feminism or secular humanism.
Here’s some more good resources regarding spouse abuse among Christians:
http://www.gospelthemes.com/abuseelders.htm
http://www.gospelthemes.com/abuse.htm
October 25, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Regarding comment #85 on the “feminization” of the church (a term that I, too, can’t stand):
Do you think the reason the church HAS the Precious Moments decor is because this is the only actual “voice” women can have?
I know at the church I grew up in (which was strict about not having women lead anything beyond 6th grade sunday school), there was very little for the women to actually DO, other than work in Children’s Ministry and put up (their idea of) beautiful decor.
Decor was one area that was not closed off for them in a world where most everything else was. (Interesting, too, that the women who always put up the decor were all the “leader” sort). If working with children wasn’t their thing, what else did they have? Well…Wallpaper! And so they threw themselves into it with abandon.
I think the state of church decor is an indictment of patriarchal practices, NOT “proof” that the church needs to work more on leaving women out.
Speaking of which, I think the state of the church today is NOT feminine, but simply white-bread-and-twinkies American consumerism.
Feminine does not mean lovey-dovey in the Bible–check it out. Song of Solomon is masculine as all get out and he’s singing lovey-dovey stuff, so this idea that warm fuzzies is feminine and warrior stuff is masculine is simply NOT a Biblical construct but one we get from our culture.
A mother bear is of feminine gender, but don’t get between her and her cubs! And the Church is called the “mother of us all,” and is told to put on her armor and FIGHT. So being female or male has nothign to do with who fights and who writes sappy poetry. Sheesh!
(Rant is now over—lol)…
October 25, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Karen,
Yes, Clayton and I have many mutual friends, although I’m not an Oak Brookie myself. My husband is, of course.
Corriejo,
The terminology I used was more poetic than scriptural. My husband told me that when he views his relationship with God, it is first that of a king and servant, then father and son. (His point was that it’s not a “love” relationship that emphasizes emotional excitement.) Read, for instance, “Robin Hood,” and you see the recurring idea that men respect other men who can best them in a contest. That’s the “conquer” and “serve” idea I referred to. (Men “serve” in the military, for example.)
You’ve never encountered the “Jesus Is My Friend” approach to children’s theology? Really? Maybe it’s an 80s innovation. “Jesus loves you. He is your best friend. You can talk to Him about anything.” All good and true. But just imagine how boys would perk up if you added, “And He’s stronger than any demon or Satan himself, and can smash any bad guy you can think of.” (My son certainly does.)
– SJ
October 25, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Thank you, Spunky for answering my question. But it seems that what the hyperpatriarchs have stated hasn’t really addressed the issue. I’m not saying that there’s a high liklihood of being abused, but what are the consequences for the families when abuse occurs?
I fear for the women who take it in order to be submissive. Or for those afraid to take action because they’ll no longer be seen as the “lovely family” they’re perceived to be.
I want the patriarchy camp to have a clear statement that such abuse is wrong and will not be tolerated. And that those affected will be embraced and cared for, not blamed, shamed, or ignored.
October 25, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Regarding the multiple comments about submission and the submission of slaves, etc,
I think this is an area that requires us to understand the cultural context of the New Testament world.
Slaves “were.” They just were, period. Slaves were a part of normal daily life— not an “optional” way view of viewing humanity but considered a necessity to any civilized culture. The concept of slavery, in other words, was something that few people in that culture would even be aware of challenging in their own heads. It was as normal as eating and breathing.
The same goes for patriarchy. The concept that women were equal to men intellectually was NOT a viable concept. The majority view was that they were simply NOT. Women’s inferiority was, like slavery, an accepted norm that was as unquestionable as eating and breathing.
Women were viewed as lesser beings who *needed* to be ruled by men, in other words, for their own good, just as slaves *needed* to be ruled. This was the way culture thought at this time (and how most have all through history, actually), with very few exceptions.
The differences in thought regarding women and slaves were primarily found in questions regarding what *kind* of rule was needed for them, what *sort* of inferiority their inferiority was, etc.
Some wanted a sterner rule and some opted for a gentler rule, but no one disputed the need for them to be ruled. The ACTUAL inferiority of women, slaves, and children, was simply not questioned.
SO…
When we look at the Bible’s passages through the backdrop of this foundational cultural belief (and practice), we see the instructions to slaves and women and men as **incredibly** subversive.
Paul was actually saying the unsayable. Paul was teaching that slaves and women and men were all equal in the eyes of God, that their differing status was only a worldly construct, NOT a heavenly one.
This was absolutely mind-blowing news to people living in this culture. This was a paradigm shift of epic proportions.
October 25, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Molly said:
Do you think the reason the church HAS the Precious Moments decor is because this is the only actual “voice” women can have?
I know at the church I grew up in (which was strict about not having women lead anything beyond 6th grade sunday school), there was very little for the women to actually DO, other than work in Children’s Ministry and put up (their idea of) beautiful decor.
Decor was one area that was not closed off for them in a world where most everything else was. (Interesting, too, that the women who always put up the decor were all the “leader” sort). If working with children wasn’t their thing, what else did they have? Well…Wallpaper! And so they threw themselves into it with abandon.
Thank you for this rant. As a woman with spiritual gifts that are generally thought of as more “male”, it is very hard to fit in and find a way to use my gifts. I think that is why I find blogging so appealing and satisfying. It gives me some kind of an outlet for my gifts that I don’t use in the local church body.
I mean really. If you don’t teach children and you don’t like organizing pot lucks (oops! I mean pot PROVIDENCES!), then what is there for you to do? Most church leadership does not really take seriously the fact that there are gifted women who have almost no opportunities to use those gifts. And those same leaders will answer someday for their stewardship of the gifts under their watch and care. But they are too concerned about MAYBE giving women too much freedom and so women do nothing. Very, very sad.
October 25, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I agree that women may end up in charge of the decor because it’s something their allowed to do. But I find the idea that they can’t go deeper than precious moments to be a bit insulting.
If I’m going to decorate the house of the Lord I want it to be inspiring! It comes across as a way of saying that we women can’t go any deeper than “fat baby angels who look like they’ve got a good buzz going from too much Mountain Dew and Robitussin”. And I object to that idea.
October 25, 2007 at 11:17 pm
But, honey, we’re just females. Don’t you know by now, feminine isn’t supposed to be deep. That’s what the masculine is for.
*lol*
Couldn’t help that. Seriously, somebody try and tell me which fruits of the Spirit are for females and which ones are for males—or, for that matter, if gender is of such import, thatn show me the specific gendered ways that one gender is supposed to be kind, versus the other gender’s way of being kind. Where is the Biblical support for the (fairly common patriarchal) practice of encouraging boys to be athletic but discouraging girls from playing sports? Where is the Biblical support for saying that submission is primarily a feminine virtue and not a masculine one? …etc, etc, etc…
I mean, come on, at a certain point, this just gets plain nutty! And that is exactly what happens when we leave the centrality of the Gospel for the doctrines of men.
October 26, 2007 at 12:49 am
Mollie,
One of the things that is very helpful in a discussion of this sort is to document or provide an example of someone who is actually saying or teaching things we assert and not ask for biblical support for something if no one actually said it.
Earlier you said, “The word “rule” there does not mean, “as an evil dictator,” as most complementarian books try to explain it to mean,”
Which complementarian tries to explain “rule”
“as an evil dictator?”
and in comment #107 you said, “Where is the Biblical support for saying that submission is primarily a feminine virtue and not a masculine one?”
Who is saying that submission is primarily a feminine virtue and not a masculine one?
Further, simply because a family has a certain practice does not mean that they must have biblical support for that practice in order for it to be implemented or taught. A family that decides that sports are not appropriate for their girls, but okay for their boys is not a problem for me. I may not agree with their decision and choose differently for my family, but they are not required to prove to anyone that their decision is biblical. That said, if a family asserts that a girl cannot biblically participate in sports, go to college, or must remain at home until marriage, then it is right to ask for biblical support.
That is why documentation is necessary to avoid false assertions and know exactly what is being said.
I’m not saying that those in patriarchy don’t believe what you asserted, but documentation removes all doubt that this is indeed what is being taught or believed.
Taking this step takes a little extra work, but also provides a measure of accountability to the discussion.
October 26, 2007 at 1:01 am
Corriejo said:
What really troubles me is that many women have gone to their pastors and told them of being battered by their husbands and their pastors instantly say that they must be doing something to provoke it. More evidence of the curse.
I recently had experience with this in regards to my parent’s church. My brother is bipolar and in open rebellion against my parent’s authority (he’s 17). Unfortunately for all involved at the moment, my dad is a master chief in the Navy and is out to sea. In the middle of September, my brother violently attacked my mom. Authorities were involved immediately (my sis called 911); charges were filed; the State now has him in custody at a mental health facility. So I was shocked when their church was informed (this is not my church, I live in another state), and their first reaction was that my mother must have done something to provoke him, and that she should apologize for anything she had done. Their church, while deeply conservative, is not a patriarchal-leaning church. This reaction the Carriejo mentioned really took me off guard- I had never heard of such a thing before September.
I guess I am asking you ladies, where does this interpretation come from? And is it a deeply held one in conservative circles and I was just unaware of it?
October 26, 2007 at 2:08 am
Spunky,
I so appreciate this point that you made:
“One of the things that is very helpful in a discussion of this sort is to document or provide an example of someone who is actually saying or teaching things we assert and not ask for biblical support for something if no one actually said it.”
Sometimes we are quick to assume that a certain teaching is a blanket teaching with patriocentric circles and we need to go the extra mile and get exact quotes. I was reminded of this today by a friend and I asked him to hold me accountable to do that.
One of the problems for me in doing this, however, has been the “weasily way” if you will, that some people present their views.
So as not to muddy the waters, I will use this example. They may state that A = B. Then they will say that B = C. So when you read these things and logically conclude that A = C, they jump all over you and swear up and down that they never said such a thing as A = C. I find this to be the most frustrating aspect of evaluating the patriocentric teachings.
October 26, 2007 at 2:32 am
So as not to muddy the waters, I will use this example. They may state that A = B. Then they will say that B = C. So when you read these things and logically conclude that A = C, they jump all over you and swear up and down that they never said such a thing as A = C. I find this to be the most frustrating aspect of evaluating the patriocentric teachings.
Or worse, they will then state that they never said C was C, but actually is C1, but then that A is in fact sub-A. It is a really clever way of deflecting attention away from themselves.
October 26, 2007 at 3:14 am
Spunky (re #108),
I totally agree with you. Documentation is generally a positive addition to conversations like this. Unfortunately, my entire library is in boxes in a storage unit right now! LOL… (Somehow, I’m managing to survive without my books, but only barely)… *grins*
October 26, 2007 at 3:16 am
Btw, for clarity’s sake, it’s ThatMom’s daughter who is Mollie with an -ie ending, and I’m the Molly with the -y ending. Just in case the ie Molly doesn’t agree with what I’m saying, I’d hate for her to get thought of as me. LOL…
October 26, 2007 at 3:16 am
Whoops. I just spelled the other Mollie’s name wrong…that’s funny…
October 26, 2007 at 3:27 am
Corrie was kind enough to alert me to this conversation and invite me to show up (if I had a moment) to explain myself. She caught me at a very busy time, and I realize you’ve moved past the issue of the kitchen wife, so please forgive the interruption. Hopefully, this is better late than never.
I haven’t had time to read all 1000+ comments, but I’ve read enough to be encouraged by your honest, irenic discussion of important questions for women. I’m also a bit astonished that the statement about my not being a kitchen wife has created such a stir (no pun intended).
Like most women, I’m certainly no stranger to the kitchen. But my kitchen doesn’t define me. Early in my marriage, I realized my husband felt as strongly about my gifts and calling as he did about his own. He challenged me to think seriously about what God wants me to do with my life. Home and family are and always will be absolute priorities. And my primary ministry will always be to my family. But God has opened other doors for me—to study, write and speak. These are part of His calling for me too.
The kitchen wife comment was actually intended as a cheeky way of pointing to a deeper question that needs to be discussed. But the comment itself has been misunderstood largely because it has been lifted out of context—both the context of the audience I was addressing and also the context of my writings.
The bio in question appears on a blog that is read by a lot of single women. Some of them are fantastic cooks. They’d love to be fixing meals for a husband and children. Instead they’re cooking for one. The oft heard assertion that God calls women to devote themselves to hearth and home can leave these women out in the cold. God gives women lots of different callings, and one isn’t more “womanly” than another. By telling them I am not a kitchen wife, I hoped to encourage placing greater value on other paths God calls His daughters to travel.
No matter how we talk about the question of God’s calling on women’s lives and where we’ll find our greatest fulfillment, we need to think in large enough terms to encompass every woman, every phase of life, every possible contingency. It helps to think beyond the borders of America.
Step back for a moment to think globally. Countless women in the world don’t have kitchens (or husbands to support them). They live in famine ravaged, war torn countries like Darfur, and scavenge to feed their starving children. How do we include them in this discussion? Closer to home, the homes of hundreds of women in San Diego have burned to the ground. If they think of themselves as kitchen wives, who are they now? What about Joni Eareckson Tada? She can’t do anything in the kitchen? Is God’s calling for women out of reach for her, or is she finding fulfillment as a woman by knowing and serving God in a different arena?
This is why I’m convinced the ezer (Genesis 2) gives us a blueprint that is large enough for all of us (see http://whitbyforum.blogspot.com/2005/12/return-of-ezer.html).
Knowing God (this is what I mean by being a theologian) and living fully for Him in any circumstance is a woman’s first and highest calling. And He gives meaning and purpose to whatever we do—cooking, cleaning, changing diapers, working in the corporate world, writing books, home schooling, leading a Bible study. When our identity is anchored to Christ, it withstands the fierce winds of change, affliction, and disappointment. I want women to hear that message from me. So, no, I am not a kitchen wife.
But second, I would ask you to consider that remark within the context of my writings. In When Life and Beliefs Collide, I devote an entire chapter to Martha—the sister who ministered from the kitchen. In the clash with her sister Mary, Martha’s commitment to the kitchen is put in perspective (Luke 10). But she is also praised by John the apostle who highlights her activity: “Martha served” (John 12).
I write, “. . . theology belongs in the kitchen every bit as much as it belongs in the pulpit or the seminary classroom, perhaps even more. Wherever God’s people live, knowing him deeply is a boon to what they are doing and the truth about him energizes everything they do.”
I have been most gratified by the responses to this perspective.
One woman suspended blogging for some months after reading WLBC to devote more time to her husband and children: http://logoscentric.blogspot.com/
Another young mother wrote me that she had been overwhelmed and frustrated by being “stuck at home” with toddlers, endless diapers, and household chores. After studying another book of mine, Understanding Purpose, her attitude changed completely because she knew she was doing important kingdom work by serving God at home.
Hope this clears things up a little.
Thanks, Corrie, for inviting me to join in.
Carolyn
P.S. I am struck by the fact that there was no kitchen (or need for one) in Eden. The one time Eve served up a little something for her husband to eat, we all wish she hadn’t!
October 26, 2007 at 3:48 am
hmmm, did my last comment get lost in cyperspace!?
October 26, 2007 at 7:58 am
[...] has 983 comments on one article about “The Return of the Daughters” and had to start a second thread which already has another 110 comments as of this posting. Three products by the Botkin girls are [...]
October 26, 2007 at 8:47 am
“My husband told me that when he views his relationship with God, it is first that of a king and servant, then father and son. (His point was that it’s not a “love” relationship that emphasizes emotional excitement.)”
Does your husband believe that you and other women view Him differently? Isn’t God the same to us no matter what gender we are? Shouldn’t we adjust our view of God to match how He reveals Himself to us? Do men think women view God as a romantic relationship that causes emotional excitement?
This is all very foreign to me. So, I hope you don’t mind if I ask you questions. I truly want to understand.
Is this what “Wild at Heart” teaches?
Just so you know, I view God as King and Father, too. And scripture shows women who served Christ as a very natural expression, so I don’t think service is a masculine thing at all.
Also, I wonder if God conquers us or does he woo and draw us? I understand the term “conquer” to infer force and being overpowered?
I didn’t become a Christian until mid 1989 so I am unfamiliar with the “Jesus is your friend” emphasis.
I tell my children the same story of Christ. Maybe I am just weird, but hearing how Christ has defeated death and the evil one is just as exciting to me and my daughters as it is to my sons. When I teach Sunday School the favorite of both girls and boys is to sing “I’m in the Lord’s Army”.
This idea that men think that women view God differently than they do is very new to me. Thank you for helping me understand. I had always thought that God’s word defined the way His people- both male and female- view God.
What do men do with the Bridegroom/Bride aspect of the believer’s relationship with Christ?
October 26, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Corrijo,
I once read a book that explained how to get your ideas across to your audience. The first thing to do, the book said, is to get past the Curse of Knowledge: you know your message so well that you forget what it’s like to hear it for the first time.
I think most of your confusion about what I’ve said is because I’m in the grips of the Curse of Knowledge. I know exactly what I mean and where I’m coming from, forgetting that the rest of the world can’t read my mind. So thank you for your gracious questions. This won’t be a long response, but maybe I can clarify some points.
When I make a distinction between men’s responses and women’s responses, I’m not setting it up as either/or. I’m saying that (in GENERAL) men respond MORE or women respond MORE. But we’re all human, basically the same model with a few different features and programs — something patriarchs miss, incidentally. They seem to think we’re fundamentally different. Anyway, on we go.
Here is my starting point: The church today, in general, presents a softer God than in the past. Not necessarily weaker, but it emphasizes His love and tenderness over His justice and strength. That’s not a judgement call, but a statement. Although males and females all have the capacity for love, tendernes, justice, and strength, some qualities are perceived as more feminine and the others as more masculine because of their differing appeal to women and men.
My husband’s point wasn’t that men see God in a way that women don’t. It’s that the church at large attracts women instead of men because of these softer emphases. (Understand, my husband is not a sexy-car-sports-fanatic guy. He loves to read, study, and is perfectly comfortable talking about childbirth.) Where the patriarchs go manic is their conviction that this softer church is BAD BAD BAD. I think it could use a little swing in the “harder” direction, but you’ll never get perfect balance, and these “feminized” churches do present aspects of God that have been neglected in previous generations. (I hope I’ve answered questions instead of stirring up a nest of new ones.)
“Do men think women view God as a romantic relationship that causes emotional excitement?”
Well, good heavens, haven’t you listened to popular Christian music lately? One older praise song says ‘Your deep, deep love washes over me; How I long to hear Your voice call out my name; It draws me to Your deep, deep love.” If that’s not your church, that’s good. But it’s the church in general.
“Is this what “Wild at Heart” teaches?”
I haven’t read WaH. Ironically, I don’t like how it (seems to) stereotype men as rugged, get-dirty-and-conquer strongmen.
I still think we’re using “serve” in two different ways. I’m using “serve” as “enlisted under a general,” and you seem to read it as “performing the work of a King.” There is a slight difference, although not one I’m willing to create a new church over.
“Also, I wonder if God conquers us or does he woo and draw us? I understand the term “conquer” to infer force and being overpowered?”
That is a very womanly way to see things. I, personally, agree wholeheartedly that wooing is better. My husband would not. Do men really want to be wooed and drawn? Again, understand my background: if you read my courtship story (follow the links at #56), you’ll see how my husband did the conquering and I was the one wooed. And remember, I threw in “conquer” as an artistic use of an idea, not as Scriptural mandate.
“I didn’t become a Christian until mid 1989 so I am unfamiliar with the “Jesus is your friend” emphasis.”
I was a tween in 1989, and I grew up with it!
“I tell my children the same story of Christ. Maybe I am just weird, but hearing how Christ has defeated death and the evil one is just as exciting to me and my daughters as it is to my sons. When I teach Sunday School the favorite of both girls and boys is to sing “I’m in the Lord’s Army”.”
Here again, I wasn’t presenting an either/or. My daughter loves having a strong God who fights for her. I myself spent a whole lot more time as a child fighting off enemies (with a broom handle) than playing with dolls. My son, however, responds MORE enthusiastically to the idea of fighting for God.
“This idea that men think that women view God differently than they do is very new to me.”
Um, well, if I had actually said what I meant, then the idea shouldn’t have come up. That’s not what I meant.
“What do men do with the Bridegroom/Bride aspect of the believer’s relationship with Christ?”
But it’s the CHURCH that’s the Bride, not the individual. Men don’t have to picture themselves as a personal Bride to Christ, merely as part of the ongoing quest to remain faithful and pure — by the mercy of God.
– SJ
October 26, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Mrs. James, Thank you so much for joining us here and sharing your heart with us!!
I have been encouraged today by what you shared. God bless you!
October 26, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“One of the problems for me in doing this, however, has been the “weasily way” if you will, that some people present their views.”
Exactly.
For instance, like those who insist on presenting themselves as mainline complementarians when they are not? Or like those who correct people and insist they are not “patriarchal” but complementarian when at the very same time that patriarch’s wife posts a blog post about the importance of patriarchy? Or like those who claim they are complementarians but have ministries with the name “Patriarch” in them?
It is much like nailing jello to a wall with some people and it is almost impossible to get to the bottom of their teachings because their terms are fluid and they change them them according to who they are talking to.
Or when you ask them if females going to college or off to the mission field is a sin, they respond by saying it is “not wise” when they really believe it is a sin because it goes against a woman’s “design”.
What I would like to see is one of these patriarch/complementarians define what they mean by servant leadership since they seem to use that word a lot. I think it means something different than how others use it.
October 26, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Sara,
Thank you for your answer. It really helped me to see what you are talking about.
““Do men think women view God as a romantic relationship that causes emotional excitement?”
Well, good heavens, haven’t you listened to popular Christian music lately? One older praise song says ‘Your deep, deep love washes over me; How I long to hear Your voice call out my name; It draws me to Your deep, deep love.” If that’s not your church, that’s good. But it’s the church in general.”
Yes, I have heard them but they are almost always sung and written by men and the worship leaders that sing these songs are men.
My husband has a friend who was a pastor for a large mega-church and he gave my husband a music cd. He told my husband that this cd was fantastic and it really brought one into a close worship experience with God.
My husband asked me to listen to it and give him my opinion. I listened to it and I said it sounds almost like the people were in the throes of sexual passion.
Not my thing.
Funny thing is that men, imho, seem to be the ones behind this music.
October 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm
That Mom said, “So as not to muddy the waters, I will use this example. They may state that A = B. Then they will say that B = C. So when you read these things and logically conclude that A = C, they jump all over you and swear up and down that they never said such a thing as A = C. I find this to be the most frustrating aspect of evaluating the patriocentric teachings.”
What’s frustrating? You’re both right in the above case. They didn’t actually verbally say A=C directly so their right. But anyone with a knowledge of elementary math (transitive property) will come to the obvious conclusion that A=C based on their statements, so you’re right too. They are just refusing to admit that A=C.
This is only frustrating if the goal is to convince them or prove them wrong. That’s not my goal and never will be.
If an author or teacher cannot see or refuses to admit the obvious conclusions that are derived from what they say, that tells me a lot about them. And if they deny they said it, edit their words, or mischaracterize the concerns raised about what they say, that tells me even more.
Their response to challenges only serves help me determine if the author or person I allowed to influence me is credible and trustworthy. That’s a good thing. So why get frustrated?
An author or writer who can humbly discuss a situation and admit that the concerns are worth considering gains my respect, even if we disagree on the actual issue. (That’s where John Stackhouse shined in contrast to Stacey McDonald, even though I totally disagree with him.)
If an author or teacher becomes enraged when others challenge what they write, resorts to name calling, or shuts down opposing viewpoints, their actions tell me they have very little confidence in their actual writing. And if they don’t have enough confidence in what they write to defend themselves on its merits, why should I take their thoughts seriously? I don’t.
I move on to those who are humble enough to realize that they don’t know everything and are willing to answer challenging questions about what they believe. Those challenges often comes from those who disagree with us the most strongly. But its when I can defend what I say against the harshest critics that my argument becomes stronger. That’s something many within patriarchy have yet to learn.
October 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm
“Consider a daughter who has a desire to go to the mission field. She has a gift for talking to people and boldly sharing the Gospel. Her parents, concerned, but accommodating, send her to a foreign country for the summer. She returns home with exciting stories of adventure and success. This daughter is ready to sign up for fulltime ministry on the mission field! Her father wonders how he could possibly protect her from such a distance. He had already been anxious about this short mission trip; now she wants to go full time? Her mother notices a deflated attitude in her daughter as she tries to resume her household duties and take her rightful place back in the family. What sort of can of worms have they opened? But doesn’t the end justify the means?”
This is from James McDonald’s blog on the subject of “pragmatism”. I would normally comment on his blog but because of my “comments on other blogs” [this blog] he says he will not let me post to his blog.
What does he mean by “the end justify(ies) the means” concerning a daughter going on the mission field? What does he mean by her “rightful place [back] in the family”? What is an adult daughter’s rightful place in the family? I would like chapter and verse.
Where does scripture tell us that a father is to somehow protect his daughter throughout her entire life and that means she is never to leave his sight until he hands her over to her husband? Scripture would be helpful to make one’s case.
What does he mean that a mother notices her deflated attitude towards household chores? Maybe it is because it is NOT her home and that God has shown her what it is HE wants her to do and that isn’t it? Is this a can of worms or is it actually the fact that the daughter is being prevented from following the Lord because of the traditions of men?
Scripture tells us that a single woman can devote 100% of her attention to pleasing the Lord- not her father and mother and serving them and playing surrogate helpmeet/ezer to her father and surrogate mommy to her mother’s children. If that is what the Lord directs her to- GREAT! Fantastic! This is what she should do with all of her heart but if the Lord is directing her to the mission field, who is anyone to get in His way.
That old “God is in the backseat to the father” is not really stated in the patriarchalist’s teachings but it surely seems that is what they believe.
They can label it “unwise” for a single woman to go out to the mission field but man’s wisdom IS NOT God’s wisdom. God’s uses various things to confound the wisdom of men.
I am thinking Phoebe who traveled 800 miles to deliver the letter to the church at Rome. Mission trip? You bet.
I am thinking Lydia who insisted that the apostles stayed in HER home (protection from strange men anyone???) and who hosted the worship of the church in her home.
I am thinking of all the women who traveled with Christ assisting him financially from their own means.
Did God violate His own law or is it like Jesus who plucked the head of grain on the sabbath in violation of man’s law??
October 26, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I have been mulling over for some time now this notion about Eve being the first feminist and the tendency to attribute all social and moral ills to feminist influence, and other such ideas.
Eve: *giggles* Satan, that tickles!
Satan: SHUT UP! Get a degree!
October 26, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I was so blessed by Mrs. James’ whole response here, especially the comment about looking at the global picture of women. We take our giftedness and calling as women in the body of Christ into every area of life, where the Lord has placed us. I have been thinking along those lines for a while, and I am encouraged by her thoughts (about the kitchen wife comment).
October 26, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Re. Comment #116,
Thank you, Carolyn, for taking time to comment here. Great stuff.
October 26, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“I write, “. . . theology belongs in the kitchen every bit as much as it belongs in the pulpit or the seminary classroom, perhaps even more. Wherever God’s people live, knowing him deeply is a boon to what they are doing and the truth about him energizes everything they do.””
Carolyn,
Thank you SO very much for your response. I am encouraged by the examples you gave concerning how the Lord has used your teachings in the lives of women. I have benefited from your books and I am looking forward to your new book on Ruth coming out in January.
October 26, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Concerning the “Ends justifying the means”, does that explain why women shouldn’t work outside of the home but it is okay for other people’s daughters to work at 1-800 call centers and warehouses in order to sell the books that tell us how wrong it is for young women to work outside of the home?
October 26, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Corrie,
James McDonald’s post about Christians who take a pragmatic approach to life is interesting and your questions are good ones.
Since I’m also not welcome to comment on his blog either, I’d like to add one more hypothetical here, to his list of scenarios where what is true is based on results not on God’s word;
Consider two girls who are at home all day with their family. They dutifully take care of their father’s needs as a helper to him, serving their brothers and mother with gladness. As they enter their teen years, they lament that their life is aimless and that there is not a lot of teaching on the life that they had chosen to live as daughters-at-home. Their father picks up on this aimlessness and with his encouragement, they decide to write a book teaching young girls about how they should live their life according the their standard as the “biblical model” for a daughter. They decide to do so despite the lack of experience raising daughters themselves and despite the scriptural instruction that the older women should teach the younger women. The writings of Paul in Titus 2 are ignored because they see a need and decide they are the ones to meet that need because they have the time. They have a big heart and after all the ends justifies the means, right?
Obviously, my story isn’t hypothetical, it’s true. And the girls are the Botkins who decided to write a book based solely based on a perceived need.
From page 5, “We fully acknowledge that we’re somewhat young to be coming to such strong conclusions. We also understand that we may handle these issues more wisely aftr our teenage years. But we see a need to go to press with this book now.”
A pragmatic decision if there ever was one, just like the ones who desire to go into the mission field.
They did not start from the Scripture and determine WHO should meet this need (older women) and seek out older women to write the book, or wait until they are older themselves, they see the need and go to press now.
Both James and Stacey McDonald have defended the book So Much More and the Botkins. Perhaps to James McDonald, pragmatism is only wrong when you disagree with the conclusions, otherwise it’s allowed and endorsed. After all the ends justify the meansm, right?
October 26, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Re: Comment 125
I have seen the unique niche that women, especially single women, fill in cross-cultural missions. I know that the Lord used our family as a whole, including me and our children, when we were in Ukraine. But there were things that I could not do as a married woman with the responsibilities of home and children, things that the men on our team could not do–in large part because of their gender, but were areas of service and ministry that were best met by the single women on our team. Some were young women, some were widows, some were “short term” and some were long term. They were an integral part of the ministry in Kyiv.
It was not a situation like patriarchalists have portrayed–men not doing their job, and so women stepped in and perverted the order of things. It really was God’s design–God’s calling in these women’s lives, validated both inwardly and by the elders in their home churches. God used them MIGHTILY.
Single women on the mission field are not valued by the North American church as a whole they way they should be. Their ministry and sacrifice is irreplaceable.
*off my soapbox*
October 26, 2007 at 7:55 pm
TulipGirl- spoken like a woman who’s actually BEEN THERE and knows what she’s talking about. Hat’s off to you and your family!!
Spunky- your comment right above is priceless. I laughed out loud at the irony because its so true!
Thatmom- I wanted to thank you, again, for your words of encouragement during my frustration with all this a few days ago. This is a lot to work through, especially because it affects people that I care about so personally. This has been a real test of my ability to choose my words carefully and restrain myself. I have a tendency to go off, so this all is a great exercise in speaking the truth in love.
October 26, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I have no idea how I stumbled upon all of this…but I’ve been reading the Vision Forum site, Jen’s site, and this site for days…just wanted to comment.
First…Carolyn James, I thought your comments were lovely and gracious.
About me…I’m a Christian. I’m also thirty-five, single, never married. I’ve been working full time since I got my undergraduate degree, and will graduate with a masters in Forensic Science this December after going to grad school for 3 years. I plan to be a police officer with the hopes of becoming a homicide detective.
I find all this talk of “visionary daughters” positively ghastly for a number of reasons. For as long as I can remember I have prayed for a husband. I’m still single. What about people like me? Is my life & my singleness some sort of wart on the face of Christianity because my life doesn’t fit into the teensy tiny box of a “truly biblical Christian woman” as presented by the Vision Forum et. al.?
Do these people honestly believe that I am to sit at home and “serve my father?” The thought is both horrifying and giggle-inducing. I am THIRTY-FIVE years old!! What if I never get married? There’s no guarantee that I ever will. In the meantime, I’ve bought two houses, have followed interests in academics, worked full time, and basically done things I wanted to do. Not out of some radical feministic ideology, but because I could, and I wanted to. Was I somehow going against God’s plan for humanity or for myself? I don’t believe so at all. I believe with all of my heart that God has called me into the field of Forensic Science and police work.
The Botkin sisters and the Vision Forum, from my point of view, are so exclusionary. I have never met any of them and I already know I would be judged and excluded out of their tiny Christian circle. How is the way they act going into the world and preaching the Gospel? Why would someone like me be remotely attracted to them since they already despise everything about me (single, married, living in my own house I bought, going into a para-military institution, and did I mention I’m an only child?) How could anyone be attracted to JESUS after coming across people like this?
I don’t know if I’m expressing myself very well–probably not.
Perhaps what I’m trying to say is that didn’t Jesus call us to go into the world and preach the Gospel? Isn’t that the Great Commission?
Instead it’s if their focus, THEIR Great Commission is to sit upon their lofty thrones and sneer and judge at the rest of the world.
Hope this perspective helps. For the record, I still very much want to be married. I think stay at home moms are great. My mother mostly stayed at home with me (she sometimes worked part time) and I am thankful for her being at home with me. I also think working moms are great and have a hard job. I think things like working outside the home and the number of children in a family are between a HUSBAND AND WIFE….and they don’t owe anyone an explanation for their decisions. I also believe God cares much more for what goes on inside a person’s heart than He does for what their family may look like on the outside.
October 26, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Spunky said,
“But its when I can defend what I say against the harshest critics that my argument becomes stronger.”
Exactly. And not only does our argument become stronger, but our understanding of what it is we truly believe, and why, becomes clearer and firmer, and we’re better able to articulate our convictions.
October 26, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Spunky said,
“An author or writer who can humbly discuss a situation and admit that the concerns are worth considering gains my respect, even if we disagree on the actual issue. (That’s where John Stackhouse shined in contrast to Stacey McDonald, even though I totally disagree with him.)”
This reminds me of the quote – “If you cannot answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him…names.” ~ E. Hubbard
Whitewashed feminists and Georgie Porgie instantly come to mind.
October 27, 2007 at 12:02 am
Olivia,
Really appreciated your perspective. Thanks for taking the time to share it.
October 27, 2007 at 12:19 am
by the way my prior comment (the Eve and Satan convo) was just a joke.
I posted on the other thread that their book was 400 pages of rubbing salt in my wounds. Due to a severe eating disorder, I’ve lost my ability to have children. Even if I still COULD, the antidepressants I’m on would probably harm a fetus. Some people just aren’t called to be parents. I like children, but they aren’t for me. I know God’s capable of working a miracle, but I just have the feeling being a SAHM isn’t His plan for my life- I’d make a lousy full time housewife- I don’t mind doing housework- but there’s one chore that would always get me- I have a MORBID and I mean MORBID fear of taking out the trash!
One thing I noticed on Ladies Against Feminism- they tend to twist scripture to say that women can never rule. On their FAQs someone mentions Elizabeth I- citing the fact that she ruled England for 45 years(doing a MUCH better job than her father- and her two MALE successors!) but they didn’t answer the question about whether Elizabeth was wrong to rule England- they just gushed over about how great Victoria was for being against the women’s rights movement. Did anyone else notice/find this odd?
October 27, 2007 at 12:46 am
“On their FAQs someone mentions Elizabeth I- citing the fact that she ruled England for 45 years(doing a MUCH better job than her father- and her two MALE successors!) but they didn’t answer the question about whether Elizabeth was wrong to rule England- they just gushed over about how great Victoria was for being against the women’s rights movement. Did anyone else notice/find this odd?”
Yes, I find it “odd”. I find it convenient, too. It reminds me of the evolutionist that refused to look at the human footprints that intersected dinosaur’s footprints. He refused to look and all the reporters knew that he refused to look. Because looking would mean that he might be wrong about something. It is better to ignore things because then you can still keep on claiming the same old tired argument.
How can a woman, a monstrous woman at that, rule a country AND be against the women’s rights movement? That must cause some cognitive dissidence in our patriocentric friends.
I can see how this can be done but the very essence of their teachings tell me that this canNOT be done.
October 27, 2007 at 12:49 am
“This reminds me of the quote – “If you cannot answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him…names.” ~ E. Hubbard
Whitewashed feminists and Georgie Porgie instantly come to mind.”
Denise,
Great quote!!
Oh, don’t forget “pernicious rumors” about those who refused to ignore the 800 lb gorilla [helpmeet] in the Botkin book and on their website and on the websites of others that are directly influenced by them.
I still have a hard time understanding how someone can claim that these were just rumors if they had actually read the book?
And then there is the situation with Brandy and the disappearing quote in the middle of the night.
Yep, as long as you destroy any evidence to the contrary you can still claim it is a “pernicious rumor”.
October 27, 2007 at 1:00 am
“Perhaps what I’m trying to say is that didn’t Jesus call us to go into the world and preach the Gospel? Isn’t that the Great Commission?
Instead it’s if their focus, THEIR Great Commission is to sit upon their lofty thrones and sneer and judge at the rest of the world.”
Hi Olivia,
I love the name, especially because it is the name of my 11 year old daughter.
I agree with you. The obviously major thing missing from the equation is GOD. Who will protect us? God. Who is in control? God. Who is sovereign? God.
Some of these teachings come dangerously close to excluding Christ/God altogether and inserting the husband/father into His place.
There is no mediator between God and man so they just cut out God.
October 27, 2007 at 2:11 am
Forgive me for taking this in a different direction of sorts…
The more I read, the more comments I read here(great amicable discussion, by the way)and elsewhere keep taking me back to the same thing in my mind, over and over:
Their form of “patriarchy” or whatever you want to call it is so, so….so….EMPTY. For lack of a better word.
Their cause reaches only to those already Christian, trying to perfect them, as it were. Their cause does nothing for the homeless man on the street, the woman who is raising children alone, the previous stripper who is trying to do better and find something to give her hope, the drug addict, the unrelenting perfectionist (I could go on and on and on, but I’ll stop). Their cause is NOT about salvation and exalting the name of Jesus. It is about selling a formula. Buy this doll, this sword, this book, this movie and you’ll have a picture-perfect family with Daddy as the leader, Mommy as the perfect wife/mother/teacher, and all the little helpmeets and strong manchildren to follow.
It is as if they were selling a vitamin to a Christian, yet they do not offer any sort of medicine to a dying man.
I am having a hard time putting my thoughts into words, so forgive me. Their “gospel” so to speak is lacking the TRUE Gospel. It is bankrupt, empty and seeks only to convert the already converted. It is self-centered, self-seeking, and divisive (we’ve seen that!).
I would like to see Doug Philips on the street, serving homeless men and women, washing the feet of those the world would deem unclean. I’d like to see more of that, and less of the flashy catalog.
October 27, 2007 at 3:13 am
I totally agree, Lindsey. Their “vision” is very narrow indeed.
October 27, 2007 at 6:04 am
Lindsey, that is a really thoughtful observation. I’ve had a similar one rolling around in my head, but you put it into the perfect words. Thank you.
The book of Galatians is very appropriate when discussing this topic. And from my own personal experience (when I was in the bonds of patriarchal practices, mutually agreed upon by my husband and I), I have to say the sweetness and simplicity of the Gospel got lost in a long list of do’s and don’ts.
I think we were very well-intentioned and I know that we wanted to glorify God with all our hearts. But I was decieved. There’s just no “nice” way to put it.
October 27, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Totally off topic for a quick minute…
Corriejo,
After scanning back over the comments I realized I spelled your name wrong each time. So sorry.
October 27, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Corriejo,
I dislike the “Jesus is my girlfriend” praise songs for the very reason you mentioned.
Yes, men are the ones who do these songs, and that’s why patriarchs scream about a “feminized” church. It’s not just that women are in charge, but that men are “acting like women,” i.e. producing songs and worship that elevate the emotional as opposed to the objective worship.
Taken to excess, I dislike emotional worship very much. But I also think it’s an important element in worship, so am not trotting along behind the patriarchs denouncing all “feminized” worship. I think the church needs to beef up a little bit — it would be nice if men were attracted to normal, not gimmicky, worship — but I refuse to think that the church is dying because of a feminine emphasis. Take that, patriarchy! (It quakes and trembles in fear.)
– SJ
October 27, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I can’t stand that charge that men don’t go to church because it is feminized. There are just simply not that many churches where women preach the sermons, teach all the adult SS classes, and singing is important, and there is a lot of schmaltz out there, but it’s only a part of the gathered worship, which someone pointed out men are mostly leading, anyway.
October 28, 2007 at 1:58 am
How can a woman, a monstrous woman at that, rule a country AND be against the women’s rights movement? That must cause some cognitive dissidence in our patriocentric friends.
I can see how this can be done but the very essence of their teachings tell me that this canNOT be done.
Correjo, ironically enough, history tells us that Victoria was the boss in her marriage to Albert- something that our patriocentric ‘friends’ would not approve of at all
Also, Albert was the prudish one in the family, not her.
I’ve dealt with this kind of patriocentry- not to the extent of the Botkins, VF, and such, but Ephesians 5 taken out of context. It was enough to almost make me leave the church! Basically, submit was taken to mean to be a slave- with my type of personality- sorry, I’d rather die than be anyone’s slave! Doesn’t the Bible say we’re joint heirs with Christ? Doesn’t Christ call us his friends?
I have nothing against women being homemakers- if that is the woman’s calling, if it is her choice, and if she is valued for it.
But the moment it is promoted as God’s calling for every woman i.e. men= individuals with an individual calling from God, women=robots- that is where I draw the line.
October 28, 2007 at 2:57 am
“Doesn’t the Bible say we’re joint heirs with Christ?”
When you realize that some of these patriarchs, notably Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips also endorse a writer/theologian named R. L. Dabney, who believed that blacks are inferior to whites and that the southern economy prior to the Civil War was a more biblical and just model for a society, you’ll understand this mindset a lot better.
Once you “presuppose” a role based on a gender or skin color, you’ve basically appointed your own gender and skin color the supreme ruler over all the earth. Now all you have to do is take dominion and make all the rest of the culture see things your way and submit to their God given roles and return to their “rightful” place, and Jesus will promptly return to take over from there. (If these these white-washed feminists would just cooperate it would happen a whole lot faster!)
There is a sermon audio available for download by Doug Phillips that talks about Dabney and “Southern Patriarchy” here.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=350512168
I should note that Dabney’s views were commonly held by people in the North and the South at that time. But for a modern day Christian teacher to endorse the man’s writing without distancing himself from those views sends a very confusing message to Christians today. I asked Vision Forum for clarification on this point and they did not reply. Their silence speaks volumes.
October 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I was just thinking about the name that Stacey McDonald uses to refer to women on this blog and elsewhere as “white-washed feminists”. I was thinking that this term really doesn’t make sense.
What she really means is that we are white-washed housewives. We look like housewives, we act like housewives, we live like housewives but inside we are filled with feminist bones. I think that would be the proper name she [and Jennie] would like to use when calling us names.
The reason why I started thinking about this is because I was telling someone that I just started my German Sauerbraten last night (it has to marinate for 4 days) for the women’s missionary dinner on Thursday night at our church. I was also telling this person I love to cook and I love to cook especially for other people. It is fulfilling and God has used it as a missionary tool for me in my neighborhood.
This person told me that I should post recipes to my blog.
I told her this person that I do not want to blow my cover as a feminist.
People might get the wrong idea that this stay at home, housewife, homeschooling, conservative Christian, Bible reading, mother of 10 (17 pregnancies in all), pro-lifer is not a feminist. I wouldn’t want to spoil anyone’s fun.
Anyone with me? Who else will gladly embrace the white-washed housewife label?
I mean if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck it MUST be an elephant, right????
October 28, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Lady Helen,
Good point on Queen Victoria. It seems that people in power can always wax eloquent about how wonderful it is to be subservient and in submission. I think they can do this because they never have to be in that position.
I think of slavery. Slave owners claimed that what they were doing was good for the “negro” and that because this is what the “negro” was made for, this is the best place for them. This is their “role”. Of couse slave owners and other people who look down on blacks are going to say stuff like that. It allows them to justify their prejudices.
But, turn the tables and tell them that they were created to be slaves and that it is good for them that their children are sold out from under them and they are treated as property and they just might whistle another tune.
A little religion is a dangerous thing.
October 28, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Corrie said: “It seems that people in power can always wax eloquent about how wonderful it is to be subservient and in submission. I think they can do this because they never have to be in that position.”
I agree. While I have heard a few complementarian/patriarchalists in the blogosphere say they were once egalitarian, I know far more egalitarians who were first comps/pats. It would be an interesting experiment for those who haven’t tried living the opposite lifestyle (a clumsy way of saying it, but you know what I mean) to live for awhile as if they were the opposite. I think if many of these hyperpatriarchal men, or hyperpat wives with servants, were to live AS subordinates or servants themselves, they would gain a whole new appreciation of what really works and what doesn’t.
October 28, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Spunky,
This is SOOOo long forgotten by now that I almost hate to bring it up, but you asked (in #109) for “proof” for my assertions (in comment #49) about the general complementarian position on Genesis 3 and their interpretation of the male-rule found promised there. I just found some saved essays I wrote that were full of quotes, so in leiu of my bookshelf (which is packed and in storage), I’m happy to have some documentation to offer via these quotes.
My position is that the complementarian has a presupposition: that man was *made* by design to rule/lead women, and therefore that female subjection is in her inherant design. Therefore the complementarian (and patriarch) is 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:
——————————-
“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 (1995 printing)
________________________________
Molly again:
Whichever of the two “possible conclusions” one prefers, there’s no doubt that either way the complementarian stance believes that a wife’s desire to remove herself from male rule is “ungodly,” “wanting to control,” and an “insubordinate desire.”
That, and the passage in Genesis 3 is “ambiguous.”. I would posit that it’s only ambiguous if one is presupposing male rule before the Fall. Otherwise, it’s a pretty straightforward statement, not much different than thorns, thistles, and painful childbirths.
Warmly,
Molly
October 28, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Spunky,
I have read through a few of the links you have given on Christian Reconstructionism and listened to the sermon linked to above and wanted to thank you for the information. Knowing where Doug Phillips and others are coming from is so helpful in understanding why they are teaching what they do. (And why I disagree with them in many areas theologically).
In your comment (#149) you referred to a point I haven’t been able to find the answer to- when the Reconstructionists get everything under Old Testament law, then Jesus returns. What happens if they can’t get everything under the law? Will Jesus not return? Or will God somehow enable them to accomplish this because this must happen before Christ’s return?
Finally, how do we who claim the name of Christ but do not accept Christian Reconstructionism fit in to all of this? If we are not out there forcing Old Testament law on everything, are we then not Christians? Is this teaching so central to their gospel that Christ’s death on the cross is not enough for our salvation? Perhaps I do not understand enough about Calvinism to make the pieces fit (Doug referenced Calvinism in the sermon linked to above).
Thank you!
October 28, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Thanks Molly, I understand that a that a man shall “rule” over a woman is a presupposition that some complementarian believes was operational before the fall, what I was wondering about was the “evil dictator” part of your statement.
You said in comment #49, “The word “rule” there does not mean, “as an evil dictator,” as most complementarian books try to explain it to mean,”
I wanted to know which books define rule to mean “as in an evil dictator” not why they believe that a man should rule over a woman. I understand your books are packed away, but that definition caught my attention and more details about who teaches or believes this would be helpful.
October 28, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I think I meant it in reference to the way I’ve always had it taught to me (growing up in a Baptist/fundy-type church, then later in a charismatic complementarian bible college, and then again later in a complementarian church [that LOVED CBMW’s stuff).
For all of those groups, Genesis 3 was referring to a *cursed* version of already-established male leadership. They taught that males were always intended to lead—created to lead—but in Gen. 3:16, God was telling Eve that the men would now not always be kind (the sinless benevolent ruler has now become sinful evil dictator), *and* that she would also fight/rebel against that male leadership.
Also, when I personally held to patriarchy/complementarianism, I read Genesis 3:16 the same way, interpreting it to mean that men would now try to *harmfully* rule women, as in burqas and other disturbing patriarchal practices, instead of the benevolent rule that God intended.
Hence my “evil dictator” comment, which was an attempt to generalize the basic feel for one of the common patriarchal/comp positions on Gen. 3:16 (the other position being that God was saying women would now rebel against righteous male rule).
John MacArthur, a fairly mainstream complementarian teacher and revered speaker deals with Gen. 3:16 this way:
——————————
“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 or to reign. It literally means to install in office. The idea is is 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 men tends towards 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 “teshuquh, teshuquh.” 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 in Ephesus, and he says: “I permit not a woman to teach nor to” — what? “Usurp authority.” Because that’s a tendency. ”
—————-
And then MacArthur quotes EJ Young (quoting in a positive way), introducing him as follows:
————————
“One of the great scholars, Old Testament scholars, is E. J. Young. In a couple little paragraphs on this particular portion of Genesis, he writes:
“The emancipation of women is an illusion. Woman cannot free herself. She is not the equal of the man. Only before God is she equal. The tragedy is that her husband will now rule over her. She had sought to rule him in giving to him the forbidden fruit. Now, he will rule over her. Although there was an original divinely planned subordination for the woman, this was to be a blessing for her. The man was to be her head in the sense that he loved her with a love in which no sin was mixed. He was to love her as he loved himself and no blot of evil would mar the relationship. All was now changed, for the fall had taken place. Instead of the mild and tender love of Eden, the husband would now domineer over his rebellious wife. Over her he would become a despot.”
(You can read both of these quotes in context by clicking here to see the sermon:
http://www. biblebb.com/files/MAC/gen316curse.htm and part 2 is here:
http:// solochristo.net/proverbs31woman/macarthur/gen316curse2.php
[I broke the links so that the spam catcher wouldn’t nab this post, so please delete the space I added to make the links work)
—————————
Hope that makes sense. Despot is pretty close to “evil dictator,” I think, and I also think the above teaching is pretty basic complementarian position in this area.
What I think, in response to it all, is how it sets up an impossible situation from which to ask questions as a woman.
If a woman asks questions about male rule, wondering if it is indeed God’s original desire for men and women, she is viewed as rebelling. The comp/patriarchal mindset is set up in such a way as making any woman who protests it a rebel against God.
I mean, if you believe complementarian teaching about this, then you will expect protests (from your own brain and from other women) simply because you’ve been taught that women WILL rebelliously protest. You might even expect questions about the theological foundation of this teaching because, “Well, those women will rebel, you know? After all, God said she would in Genesis 3:16…”
In fact, if you are a woman under these teachings and YOU begin to wonder if the foundation of the complementarian argument is sound, you may have a very difficult time trusting your own mind, because you will be nervous that you are merely trying to rebel against “God’s order,” as opposed to actually searching for the truth. (Ask me how I know this…*wry grin*)…
To sum up basic complementarian and patriarchal teachings, women are told that God *designed* them to be under male authority. Women are told that they are being moved by their sinful nature if they don’t *want* to be under male authority. Women are told that they must *subdue* urges to protest male authority or they will be in sin. Women are told that their femininity comes from *accepting* the rule of men (Piper defines femininity that way), therefore if she is not submissive towards men, she isn’t actually feminine any longer (she loses what makes her a woman). Etc, etc, etc…
This is simply NOT a climate that encourages women to ask questions about whether or not the Bible actually supports the above, because the very act of wondering about the validity of male rule is already labeled a rebellious urge.
And so it makes for a *very* difficult climate within which to ask questions and to carefully examine the Biblical basis for said teaching.
My opinionated opinion, as always *grin*,
Molly
(With love to all, whether we agree or not)…
October 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I just responded to Spunky but my comment is awaiting moderation (my attempt to break links didn’t work, I guess). *grin* Can someone please rescue it from Spam Hades?
Thanks.
October 28, 2007 at 9:25 pm
molleth- you broutght up painful childbirth. How many of these groups believe that getting medicine to stop/lessen the pain during childbirth is a sin?
The church I attended to during my childhood claimed that it was a sin to receive epidurrals and still operated under a ‘blame Eve for everything’ motus opperendi.
October 28, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“I think if many of these hyperpatriarchal men, or hyperpat wives with servants, were to live AS subordinates or servants themselves, they would gain a whole new appreciation of what really works and what doesn’t.”
Light,
That would be an interesting experiment.
I think it is curious, to me, that the hyperpatriachal men do not model submission and obedience to church authority and government authority. They want all to obey them but they do not have to obey those God has expressly told them to obey. If it ever comes to having to obey they can always switch churches or ordain themselves and start a new church.
It is kind of a neat little deal they have for themselves.
And then there is nothing worse than a hyperpatriarch who is an elder. They are accountable to no one but they want everyone to be accountable to them and they even think themselves to be an authority to those not even in their churches.
Their favorite question [threat] is: “What is the name of your elder and where do you go to church?” Anytime you confront one of these types, there is a high probability that you will be threatened with this. That or some sort of legal action for simply asking a question and discussing their teachings.
The first shall be last. The first shall be servant of all. It depends on what we want and think is important in this life. If we want to be first in all things we will be last in all things. Christ set the example for His disciples as a servant. That is our example. He did not set the example of Head Honcho or Top Dog for us to follow.
October 28, 2007 at 10:44 pm
“I should note that Dabney’s views were commonly held by people in the North and the South at that time. But for a modern day Christian teacher to endorse the man’s writing without distancing himself from those views sends a very confusing message to Christians today. I asked Vision Forum for clarification on this point and they did not reply. Their silence speaks volumes.”
Spunky,
This concerns me on a number of levels.
You write to them but they do not answer. I would think they would want to answer, especially when it comes to something as serious as this.
All I have heard is glory, laud and honor for Dabney coming from Phillips and others. This doesn’t sit well with many people. He may have had some good things to say but I can think of other theologians I would rather lift up without all the racist garbage.
What does Doug say about Dabney? That he is the greatest theologian? I can’t remember his exact words.
I will have to listen to the sermon audio link later.
I think it would be very telling to see just how often many of us have tried to engage the patriarchal right in discussion and how most of the time it is a black out on their end.
October 28, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Corrie,
Here is a link to Doug Phillip’s blog where he wrote a poem to Dabney as part of a talk he was giving in 2004. The last line reads,
“And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth:
Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!”
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2004/07/793.aspx
October 28, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Gary DeMar of American Vision has done a very nice job of refuting the position and the writing of R. L. Dabney on the issue of slavery,
For those interested in reading more the ariticle is here in two parts.
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/04-27-06.asp
October 29, 2007 at 1:17 am
Speaking of Dabney, I was flipping through the oh-so-slick VF catalog, and noticed a few products from an African-American speaker/leader Voddie Bauchaum…I wonder how that all fits in to the VF paradigm.
October 29, 2007 at 1:33 am
Veering OT. . .
“. . .I just started my German Sauerbraten last night (it has to marinate for 4 days) for the women’s missionary dinner on Thursday night at our church. I was also telling this person I love to cook and I love to cook especially for other people. It is fulfilling and God has used it as a missionary tool for me in my neighborhood.”
Food as a missionary tool? Amen! You know they say, the way to the heart is through the stomach. . .
Seriously, though, opening our home and serving food (the simpler the better!) has been an amazing avenue in which I can see the Lord has used me. And that is humbling, when I remember the horrid, completely flopped “American Thanksgiving” that I assembled for Hubby’s English students once.
Would you mind please posting your recipe for German Sauerbraten on your blog for us? Or, if that is blowing your “image” too much, maybe it can be posted here? *grin*
October 29, 2007 at 1:54 am
I wish I had more time to cook- being a full time college student really stinks
October 29, 2007 at 2:53 am
[...] note that a HUGE discussion of this topic is occurring here. It is a continuation of the first thread which can be found here. I would encourage anyone who [...]
October 29, 2007 at 5:08 am
Spunky,
My comment w/ requested documentation exists now, pulled out of the bowels of Spam prison (lol)—it’s #156.
October 29, 2007 at 5:18 am
On #163, I would surmise that the Vision Forum crowd does not think of themselves as racist. However, they are not sensitive enough to realize that portions of Dabney’s work (or the racism in the Henty the now sell) are very racist and/or offensive.
I find the whole glorify-the-old-south romanticism to be offensive on racial and sexism grounds (not to mention throughly unrealistic – do they think we’d all be living in antebellum mansions or something?). This just
Many people recognize, and usually give a tiny bit of slack to, authors from days gone by who lived in much more racist and sexist times. Perhaps this is what Vision Forum doing? Frankly, I think they are extremely aware of their sexism but not aware of the racism that is implied by their product line and romantic yearnings for the old south.
October 29, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Thanks Molly, the quote you gave MacArthur doesn’t define “rule” to mean “as an evil dictator.” He gave his definition in the beginning of your text,
“” Let’s look at the word “rule” for a minute, “mashal.” It means to dominate or to reign. It literally means to install in office. The idea is is 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 men tends towards despotism. And you have the battle of the sexes right here. That’s why there’s conflict in marriage. ”
He said the word rule meant to “dominate or to reign over. It literally means to install in office.”
MacArthur is not saying what you said he said,
that most complemetarians define “rule” to mean “as an evil dictator.” Yes, he used the word despot, but that was not his definition.
My point is not to get into a discussion of what the rule means, but to make sure that we can support what we are saying. I have never read a complementarian definition of “rule” to mean “as an evil dicatator.” I don’t think MacArthur is saying that either. Yes, some rules can tend toward despotism as MacArthur points out, but we cannot let them define the word itself.
October 29, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Tulipgirl,
I will post the recipe AFTER Thursday night. I am trying a different one than usual and I would like to make sure it is a good recipe before I post it.
I agree with you that entertaining should is better when it is simpler. Generally, people really appreciate any sort of hospitality since it is so rare in this culture. I have learned to relax and not be so perfectionistic. Having people regularly in my home has really helped me to not stress over every little detail and to “punt” when things go wrong.
I had a friend, back in Wisconsin, who was masterful at making you feel welcome. Her house was cluttered and never really ready for company but I never really noticed because the conversation was so meaningful (centered around Christ) and she could whip up a sandwich like nobody’s business. She is one of the most godly women I have ever known but many would not consider her so because her home was not the showplace that is depicted in so many places.
October 29, 2007 at 5:00 pm
” And there is conflict in marriage; no question about it. Her desire is “teshuquh, teshuquh.” 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 in Ephesus, and he says: “I permit not a woman to teach nor to” — what? “Usurp authority.” Because that’s a tendency. ””
I disagree with MacArthur’s interpretation of this word.
Why can’t it mean “sexual desire”, especially when he turns around and basically does the same thing with the term “rule”. He says that men ruled before the Fall. Well, why would God, again, tell men that they would rule if they already did rule before the Fall?
His argument against the meaning of “sexual desire” is the same argument that should be used against his claim that men ruled before the Fall.
Actually, I don’t think it means sexual desire. I think it means that the woman will still desire a relationship with man in spite of the fact that he will try and control and dominate her. That makes much more sense.
It isn’t about sex, as MacArthur mistakenly attributes to the opposing argument, it is about RELATIONSHIP. God is now telling them that because of their sin the man will want to control and dominate but the women will still desire a relationship with the man.
And, we see this ALL the time. People wonder and scratch their heads all the time why women stay with overbearing tyrants. Women who have grown up under tyrannical fathers, being abused in all sorts of horrible ways will go on to (most of the time) desire a relationship with a man, in spite of the fact that her experience with her own father might give her the idea that all men are abusers. All we have to do is look at the Middle East and see this principle to be true. Why would a woman want a relationship with a man who treats her like chattel and a second class citizen? Why would a woman want to be part of a relationship with a man who thinks that women who are raped should be killed to restore honor to their families?
If “desire” does not refer to “sexual” desire because she already had that then “rule” doesn’t refer to authority/headship because he already had that. It makes no sense for MacArthur to try and refute desire on this premise and then to turn around and say that man always, from the beginning of creation, had authority over woman. Most complementarians believe that Adam had authority over Eve before the Fall. MacArthur’s argument against desire basically kills that assertion.
I believe this is an “in spite of” sort of thing. Songs 7:10 shows us this desire.
I find it highly ironic that they use Gen 4:7 to define the word used in Gen. 3:16. In Gen 4:7 we see that God tells Cain that if he does well, he will be accepted, and if he doesn’t do well, sin lies at the door and that sin’s desire is for Cain but Cain should rule over it.
Yes, it is almost the same construct.
Sin’s desire is for Cain but he should rule over it.
Eve’s desire will be for her husband but he will rule over her.
That word only means longing and the context of the three verses in the Bible that use this word gives that word its exact meaning.
Many theologians disagree about the meaning of Gen. 4:7. For one thing, how can anyone master sin? Another thing, the Hebrew word for “sin” is actually “sin offering”. It is a difficult verse to understand for even the most theological minds.
The irony, for me, comes into play when they look at the word ezer and say that it means “helper” as in Junior Assistant, subordinate. That it proves that from the beginning Eve/woman’s role was to be one of subservience, one where her husband told her what HE wanted her to do so that HE could take dominion and subdue the earth.
But, we have so many MORE places this word is used and it is never used to imply in the least that an ezer is a subordinate. It used NUMEROUS times of God. He is our HELP, our EZER.
So if the word desire implies a desire to control Adam based on Gen. 4:7, then ezer does not imply subordinate based on so many MORE verses than just one.
And, if that word “desire” does imply a desire to control, then it means that BOTH her desire to control and his desire to control are equally wrong. Because, the dominion mandate was given to both Adam and Eve to rule over the earth- beasts, birds, fish and not to rule or have dominion over people.
Either way we look at it, the desire to control, dominate, subdue, subjugate another human being is sin. And no amount of positive “spin” is going to spiff it up. The teaching that women were created to be dominated and controlled by men is truly the unruly, filthy dog that is dressed up and perfumed and bathed.
Domination and control no matter where it comes from is sin. It is not more acceptable in male form.
October 29, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“And there is conflict in marriage; no question about it. Her desire is “teshuquh, teshuquh.” Doesn’t mean sexual desire; she already had that before the fall. It’s the desire to get her way. ”
Is the desire to get one’s way only a sin when that person is a female? It kind of opens up a can of worms because the patriarchal teaching is that the husband as the “final say” the “last word” on all things. Basically, in the end, he gets his way.
What we need to figure out is what makes his desire to get his way godly but a woman’s desire to get her way ungodly?
Or do those who teach these things believe that a man’s desire to get his way is directed by God but a woman’s desire is directed by Satan?
The first part of Gen. 3:16 tells us that Eve desires her husband (bad- she wants to control him) but then it goes on to say that her husband WILL control/dominate her (good- that is her role/that is his role).
Isn’t this exactly how the hyperpatriarchalists translate this verse? The first part is bad and the second part is God’s mandate for every husband/father?
But, we miss the first part of this whole verse where God tells the WOMAN the consequences for her sin. He will greatly increase her pain and sorrows in childbirth. Her desire will be for her husband. He shall rule over her.
Here we almost see God defining what he means by desire. He tells her that she will have pain in childbirth YET she will still desire her husband but he will rule over her.
All are consequences of the Fall- Pain and domination BUT her desire for her husband will put all of that on the backburner because she so wants a relationship with him.
I have found that most women WANT to please their husbands. Reams of books are written about this. Women flock to conferences to learn how to do this better. There are not that many book written about how men can please their wives (except sexually). I am talking about relational pleasing here. Women, for the most part, work very hard at pleasing their husbands in all sorts of ways. Their desire of relationship with their husbands drives them. She makes him his favorite foods and dresses in things he likes and keeps the house the way he likes it. She fixes her hair the way he likes. She desires to please him even though he may try and dominate and control her and even though her relationship with him produces children which she bears in sorrow and pain.
1 Cor. 7 tells us that a married woman is concerned about how she may please her husband.
BUT, then it also says that a married man is concerned about how he may please his wife.
That is how it should be but sin perverts this and exploits the natural desire to please and uses it as a tool to dominate and control.
October 29, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Spunky, I’m thinking you may be misunderstanding my point (my fault, probably).
I’m 100% NOT suggesting that comp’s believe the word “rule” means “evil dictator” in a general sense. I was speaking to a specific way of interpreting a specific passage.
I was trying to communicate that the usual comp/patriarchal **interpretation** for rule **in Gen. 3:16** is defined as he will rule over you **as-in-evil-dictator-type-of-rule**, as opposed to the sort of rule comp’s see in Ephesians 5.
So my comment about rule that you are concerned with was in reference ONLY to the rule spoken of in Genesis 3:16 and how comp’s typically *interpret* it. MacArthur did exactly that (interpreting the “rule” in this passage to mean a rule that tends towards despotism, a rule that [because of sin] has a strong tendancy to slide into the rule of an evil dictator and no longer the rule of a benevolent leader).
I hope this helps to clarify.
I want to make sure I clear this up, because while I do disagree with MacArthur and comp’s on HOW they interpret Gen. 3:16, I’m NOT trying to malign or falsely represent their theology.
Rather, I’m sharing what my experience (and study) has shown to be a very mainstream way of reading Genesis 3:16 in complementarian circles.
As both the comp and egal leaders agree, what happened in Genesis has implications for how we view the rest of Scripture’s message about women—it provides a framework for us to interpet the other passages about women. Whether Eve was created subordinate or her subordination came from the Fall of man matters because it tells us how she is made (made to be in submission or made to co-partner).
So verses like Genesis 3:16 are very weighty ones…did male-rule come from the Fall or is male rule something inherant in the creation of humankind?
The whole reason I brought up Genesis 3:16 is that I find it frustrating that the option of interpreting it as the beginning of patriarchy’s existance (male-rule) simply *doesn’t exist* for the complementarian/patriarchal camp, because they’ve already decided that patriarchy already existed (even though Gen. 3:16 is the first time we hear of male rule, and it appears to be an introductory statement, as if it is a new thing, just as new as thorns and thistles).
Hence my frustration with CBMW’s conclusion that there are “only two possible options” in interpreting it, and my frustration wtih the “evil dictator” theory (interpreting rule in Gen. 3:16 to mean domineering rule because it “can’t” mean male rule itself) that is often promoted as fact.
Have I just muddied the waters even more, or am I making any shred of sense here? Aaaahhhh! (LOL!)
Warmly,
Molly
October 29, 2007 at 5:37 pm
You’re making sense and I understand what you mean. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
October 29, 2007 at 6:46 pm
It is interesting to me to read about the place of slavery and subservience in relation to Patriarchy.
Recently on a message board I frequent the issue of homosexuality came up. Also discussed was why Christians don’t still practice slavery since it’s discussed in the bible so much, and doesn’t that make us hypocritical.
To make my argument I really had to delve into God’s word. What an incredible joy it was for me to see that the overwhelming theme of Scripture is freedom with the Holy Spirit allowing us to choose to serve one another in love.
Yes, God tells us how to treat slaves. It was necessary at that time. But over and over we read about how important it is to free them, and to keep ourselves free. Ultimately we find our freedom, the freedom from ourselves, in Christ Jesus.
Those who would use the scriptures as a defense for slavery have a very weak case.
October 29, 2007 at 7:08 pm
“I was trying to communicate that the usual comp/patriarchal **interpretation** for rule **in Gen. 3:16** is defined as he will rule over you **as-in-evil-dictator-type-of-rule**, as opposed to the sort of rule comp’s see in Ephesians 5.”
Molly,
In your reading, have you come across anyone that teaches that Gen. 3:16 is a prescription for husbands to rule their wives. As in, Gen. 3:16 tells husbands to rule their wives.
“So my comment about rule that you are concerned with was in reference ONLY to the rule spoken of in Genesis 3:16 and how comp’s typically *interpret* it. MacArthur did exactly that (interpreting the “rule” in this passage to mean a rule that tends towards despotism, a rule that [because of sin] has a strong tendancy to slide into the rule of an evil dictator and no longer the rule of a benevolent leader).”
Actually, it looks, to me, that MacArthur was saying that it was the wife’s fault that a man slides into the rule of being a controlling, dominating despot:
“The idea is is 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 men tends towards despotism. ”
As a woman….then a man. Twice. It seems he is teaching that a man will seek to dominate a woman when she seeks to control him.
But, that is NOT what I see. I see controlling and domineering men married to cowering, submissive women and I see controlling and domineering women married to cowering and submissive men.
It would seem, experientially speaking, that a controlling and domineering person chooses someone that they can push around.
A controlling man doesn’t WANT to marry a woman who refuses to be pushed around and vice versa.
Truly healthy individuals do not want to control or dominate anyone.
Then when a controlled and dominated spouse has had enough of being treated like a child and a slave, they either have a nervouse breakdown, leave (have an affair) or just plain retreat and divorce their body from their minds and they live as a robot doing whatever it takes to not incur the wrath of their dominating and controlling spouse. I have seen many people who are basically just a “shell” because their spouse is a control freak.
So, what I am saying is that it seems opposite of what MacArthur posits. When a person resists being controlled it should be viewed as a healthy and good response. Instead, it is only healthy when a male does it and sinful when a female does it.
October 29, 2007 at 7:16 pm
“Have I just muddied the waters even more, or am I making any shred of sense here? Aaaahhhh! (LOL!)”
Molly,
I am getting you.
What are the two possible interpretations according to CBMW?
I think the verses in Genesis are VERY important for understanding the rest of the Bible. So much is read INTO those verses that are just not there.
That is why I am trying to get to just the plain vanilla truth with no toppings. We can’t add toppings until we start out with the foundation. I don’t see a real desire for many comps/patriarchalists to get to the bare bones of what scripture teaches. No one will engage the substance of the argument in these discussions and these are the ones who claim to be teachers and pastors and elders.
There is so much obsfucation that it is really hard to identify the base. It is especially difficult when people claim to be something they are not and they even go so far as to remove any trace of their beliefs off of the internet in order to portray themselves as just like everybody else.
October 29, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Corriejo (#176),
Personally, I completely concur.
While we all have the right to choose the theological outlook that we think is best, the thing I don’t like about the above teaching is that it sets up quite a difficult position for comp/pat women—resistance (whether outward or simply inwardly) to being controlled by a male is automatically defined as sinful rebellion.
In one of many examples, I experienced this interesting phenomenon growing up, when our youth group was supposed to be in charge of a church service. That sounded like a lot of fun so I went to the planning meeting very excited.
I quickly discovered that running a church service ACTUALLY meant that the BOYS were going to be in charge of the church service and all of us girls were…well, what exactly were we supposed to do (beyond look admiringly at the boys while they did everything)?
I was legitimately confused, especially as to why they pretended initially like *all* of us were going to do it and then were shocked that I would want to do anything. I mean, they should have just said that the boys were going to run a church service, you know? I was also confused as to why I was supposed to *like* the arrangement (and if I didn’t like it, I was in rebellion, which is as the sin of witchcraft).
However, my honest questioning of the whole thing was treated as female rebellion (even resulted in a few phone calls from leader to leader) and so I quickly learned that there are some things you just don’t question…and so shut up and pretended not to care.
October 29, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Re, #177,
I quoted CBMW’s two possible interpretations over in #153.
Appreciating your comments, here, btw—find myself nodding my head vigorously whenever you write.
October 29, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Anne (#175),
YES.
October 29, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I’m offended by the patriarchs implying that only women desire to ‘get our way.’ Ok, I’ll admit that I have that desire- but what HUMAN being doesn’t? Are they saying MEN never want to manipulate people to get their way? Certainly sounds like it! I know plenty of manipulative men with dark charisma! Wanting to get our way is a very human desire.
This reminds me of medieval theology that taught that women sinned more than men, and of an early church father that said you(women) are the gateway to all evil. Because of you, even the Son of God had to die. I wonder if these people even believe women have souls?
October 29, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I’m kind of late in commenting on this thread, but something thatmom said struck me. She said:
“One of the things that first made me step back at look at the folly of the patriocentric movement was their views of the Old Dominion and the longing for that pre-Civil War era. Putting those two things together, what do any of you make of this perspective? In the patricentrists’ perfect world, is there any such thing as egalitarian principles whatsoever? How does feudalism work in their reconstructed world? Who decides who gets to be in charge?”
What sort of life do these people think they would have had if they actually lived in their idealized time frame? The ideal life that they dream of didn’t exist in that era except for the very wealthy who could afford to have slaves or hired help, depending on what area of the country they lived in. Most ordinary people lived very subsistent lives, it was hard work for men and women, many died before the age of 40, many children died before adulthood. I don’t understand why this era of history is so desireable. I am truly perplexed (and honestly, I am perplexed as to how the entire patriarchy movement has gained such a foothold in the homeschool arena).
Just my observations, for what it’s worth.
Beth
October 30, 2007 at 3:03 am
Cally Tyrol suggested that I leave a link here to a blog post I wrote in response to a VFM article I found about Titus 2 written by Jennie Chancey. Let me know what you think!
http://ourhomeschoolfaith.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/i-am-not-a-cynic/
October 30, 2007 at 10:21 am
Anne, that was a good blog article. I agree that she didn’t prove her point from Scripture. She assumed the point was there, which amounts to begging the question.
I wrote about this this past summer. The first article I wrote without all the information I wanted, then the second article I had information that filled in the blanks for me (the history of why Jennie wrote that article), and the third article is about Jennie saying people should contact her privately about concerns they read on her public venue, and not talk publicly about it first — and she did nothing of the sort with Sandlin.
Here are my links, and I also include Jennie’s quote, and a response from Sandlin that hits the nail on the head, and is a priceless response to her:
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/03/jennie-chancey-on-sandlin.html
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/03/jennie-chancey-on-sandlin-2.html
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/06/jennie-chancey-on-sandlin-3.html
Jennie:
Rev. Sandlin accuses those of us who believe that a woman’s place is at home (serving as her husband’s helpmate) and not in a “full-time” job of “inch[ing] toward…Phariseeism”.
Sandlin:
Actually, I did nothing of the kind, as a cursory glance at my article reveals.
I merely asserted, “[O]nce we define sin in terms of extra-Biblical standards, we inch toward . . . Phariseeism.” Which, of course, is quite different from stating that those who believe moms should stay home inch toward Phariseeism.
In fact, I have nothing but the highest regard for stay-at-home moms, of whom we could use a lot more; but nor can we be guilty of substituting our own regulations for God’s by labeling as sin what God does not label as sin (Mk. 7). It was in fact gratifying that Jennie recognizes that St. Paul did not label women’s working outside the home as sin; rather, she assumes that the blasphemy (of working outside the home?) to which he refers was so obvious to his readers that his audience didn’t need for him to specify it. But hinging an identification of a form of blasphemy on an inference is tenuous exegesis at best.
Indeed, I was more than a little amused that Jennie could so vocally (and creditably) advocate stay-at-home moms while treating somewhat elastically the truth of 1 Timothy 2:11-14, that the woman should not teach or exercise authority over the man but should remain silent. After all, Jennie did exegete Scripture, however briefly, to instruct her audience, including men. I am, however, less concerned with her public exegetical instruction of men than I am perplexed as to how this tack harmonizes with her apparently dogged view that women should stay home and never work and that it is sin if they do not stay home. In my experience, those two views usually don’t go together.
October 30, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Very good, Anne. Thanks for posting the link!
October 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Anne, I sent you a lengthy response to your article, but I think it got eaten up! Good job!
October 30, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“Actually, I don’t think it means sexual desire. I think it means that the woman will still desire a relationship with man in spite of the fact that he will try and control and dominate her. That makes much more sense.”
Corrie, I agree. And I think that God gave women that desire in order that the human race might continue.
Remember Lot’s daughters? Lot was willing to toss them to the town “wolves” in order to protect his guests. Yet throughout history, in spite of such treatment, women have still instinctively continued to desire husbands and relationships with men.
It HAS to be instinct, no sane human being would willingly place themselves in such a position. Yet women the world over have done so and continue to do so, every day.
October 30, 2007 at 3:22 pm
““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… ”
Yikes, Molly! These sound like the exact same thing to me. These are the only 2 possible conclusions someone could come to when defining the word “rule” according to CBMW?
I think you are very correct when you say that these are the only 2 that one can come to if one must make the text fit their own preconceived ideas instead of allowing the text to define our ideas.
I see it saying this:
God tells Eve she is going to have pain and sorrow in childbirth.
Eve will still desire her husband in spite of that pain and sorrow.
And he will want to take dominion (same word here) over her instead of over the beasts, birds and fish. I believe man’s sense of what he must take dominion over is now perverted because of sin.
I laugh when some say that it can’t mean sexual desire because men have a stronger sex drive than women!
Funny, have these men ever been around an ovulating woman whose desire overpowers and overshadows and makes her totally NOT CARE about the possibility of going through another painful childbirth??
The fact of the matter is that a woman will still have a strong LONGING (the meaning of the word “desire”) in spite of the fact that childbirth’s sorrows have been multiplied.
What I do believe the word ‘desire’ to mean is a desire to be in relationship with a man in spite of the fact that sin has now warped and perverted the relationship and she sometimes becomes an object to be controlled and ruled over.
I wonder if Song of Songs, the only other use of this word “desire” besides Gen. 4:7, means that the Lover actually wants to control the Beloved?
“I am my Beloved’s and his desire is towards me.” 7:10
I wish I knew more about Hebrew grammar but it is obvious, to me, that the ones teaching that these are the only two options have an agenda and their mind is made up and they don’t want to be bothered with any facts.
October 30, 2007 at 3:42 pm
[OK, I'm going to try to repost this. I think it got lost because I put three links in it. I left the third link to my third blog article on the subject, and that article has the first two links in it, if anybody is interested.]
Anne, that was a good blog article. I agree that she didn’t prove her point from Scripture. She assumed the point was there, which amounts to begging the question.
I wrote about this this past summer. The first article I wrote without all the information I wanted, then the second article I had information that filled in the blanks for me (the history of why Jennie wrote that article), and the third article is about Jennie saying people should contact her privately about concerns they read on her public venue, and not talk publicly about it first — and she did nothing of the sort with Sandlin.
Here are my links, and I also include Jennie’s quote, and a response from Sandlin that hits the nail on the head, and is a priceless response to her:
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/06/jennie-chancey-on-sandlin-3.html
Jennie:
Rev. Sandlin accuses those of us who believe that a woman’s place is at home (serving as her husband’s helpmate) and not in a “full-time” job of “inch[ing] toward…Phariseeism”.
Sandlin:
Actually, I did nothing of the kind, as a cursory glance at my article reveals.
I merely asserted, “[O]nce we define sin in terms of extra-Biblical standards, we inch toward . . . Phariseeism.” Which, of course, is quite different from stating that those who believe moms should stay home inch toward Phariseeism.
In fact, I have nothing but the highest regard for stay-at-home moms, of whom we could use a lot more; but nor can we be guilty of substituting our own regulations for God’s by labeling as sin what God does not label as sin (Mk. 7). It was in fact gratifying that Jennie recognizes that St. Paul did not label women’s working outside the home as sin; rather, she assumes that the blasphemy (of working outside the home?) to which he refers was so obvious to his readers that his audience didn’t need for him to specify it. But hinging an identification of a form of blasphemy on an inference is tenuous exegesis at best.
Indeed, I was more than a little amused that Jennie could so vocally (and creditably) advocate stay-at-home moms while treating somewhat elastically the truth of 1 Timothy 2:11-14, that the woman should not teach or exercise authority over the man but should remain silent. After all, Jennie did exegete Scripture, however briefly, to instruct her audience, including men. I am, however, less concerned with her public exegetical instruction of men than I am perplexed as to how this tack harmonizes with her apparently dogged view that women should stay home and never work and that it is sin if they do not stay home. In my experience, those two views usually don’t go together.
October 30, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Concerning Gen. 3:16 and Gen 3:17…..
While there are similarities there are also differences.
1. One is literal and the other is figurative.
2. The object of desire in Gen. 3:16 is man but he is not the recipient of that curse. Remember, Gen. 3:16 is meting out the punishment for EVE’s sin not for Adam’s sin. God hadn’t gotten to Adam yet. So, why we bring Adam into this verse is beyond me because it is all about Eve here. She is still going to have an intense longing for a relationship with her husband in spite of the fact that that relationship will involve sorrow in childbirth and his warped desire to dominate her.
Then, God moves on to tell Adam what his curse would be. He would have trouble with the ground. His curse was not that Eve would try and “usurp his authority” because that isn’t what was said to him. Again, we see patriarchalists taking a scripture directed toward the woman and extracting, from nothing, a teaching for them. (Eph. 5 is another good example. Women are told to submit but somehow the patriarchalists get out of it a whole doctrine about how they are the spiritual leader, the prophet, priest and king).
In Gen. 4:7, we see the object of desire being being the recipient of the curse. Opposite of what we see in Gen. 3:16.
For these two to be parallel, we would have to see Gen. 3:16 as a judgment against the man (which it is not, it is against the woman).
So, we really can’t use Gen. 4:7 to define Gen. 3:16 because hermeneutically we should move from the literal to the figurative and not the other way around and because there are marked differences between the two verses. Also, Gen. 4:7 is a very hard verse to translate for many reputable scholars.
A similarity in grammar doesn’t mean anything. In order to say that Gen. 3:16 means that a woman desires to sinfully rule over her husband, one must get that from Gen. 4:17 which is, imho, not logical.
3. The other fact of the matter is that Eve is NOT sin crouching at Adam’s door. That is and should be abhorrent.
What we see in scripture is the natural desire of intimacy, relationship starting with God and man and then being seen between Man and Woman. We are made for relationship. In spite of the curse, women would still desire a relationship with men.
Song of Songs 7:10 doesn’t speak so much to sexual desire as it does to the natural desire to be in an intimate relationship with a woman. That is why I don’t think this is all about sexual intercourse but about RELATIONSHIP. After all, isn’t that why God created man? To have relationship with Him and to have relationship with one another? We all have that longing and to deny that fact is folly.
4. The words preceding the statement about Eve’s desire are key. In the beginning, God told both of them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Context is King here. What is the context of the first 3 books of Genesis?
5. To ASSUME that Eve’s motive in taking that fruit from Satan was to step out from under Adam’s authority and to rebel against him is ridiculous and an affront to a Holy God. Eve, plainly and simply, sinned against ONE and ONE alone- God. There is absolutely NOTHING to speak to this made-up story about Eve being the first feminist who rebelled against her husband’s authority.
We must go with the plain teaching of the text. Satan deceived Eve, Eve ate the fruit, handed it to her husband who was WITH her and he ate it. Eve rebelled against God NOT her husband and to say anything more than that is called eisegesis (a BIG no-no).
I am just surprised that bible scholars have twisted these verse the way they have. There is no evidence that they are attempting handle this in a consistent and thoughtful way. They wouldn’t play footloose with the verses on salvation but here we see them taking great poetical license to change the very meaning of the text.
I see a lot of hypocrisy in this, especially when I read them down-playing other parts of scripture that throw a wet blanket on their theological systems.
October 30, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Thanks, Lynn, I’m off to read your post.
I don’t see why I should have to contact Jennie privately simply because I disagree with her. It’s a public article, why can’t I state a disagreement with the conclusions publicly? It’s not I who believes her occupation to be a sin after all. *shrug*
October 30, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Anne, LOL! That is so true!
October 30, 2007 at 5:00 pm
It’s a public article, why can’t I state a disagreement with the conclusions publicly? It’s not I who believes her occupation to be a sin after all. *shrug*
I agree, good one!
October 30, 2007 at 5:38 pm
John Piper, John MacArthur, all 11 of the commentaries on my Logos Libronix software (Matthew Henry, Warren Wiersbe and others) plus many other esteemed Bible scholars determine the meaning of ‘desire’ in Gen 3:16 as follows:
(From Piper)
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 it’s 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.
…………
Many women here have written, “I think it means this…” or “My interpretation is this…” and they are incorrect.
What we ‘think’ the meaning of Scripture is, or what we ‘believe’ it says can get us into trouble. What does the BIBLE say?
What the Bible clearly states is that the woman’s desire is for her husband, and that desire is to have the upper hand, to overpower her husband.
Can you honestly tell me that each of the commentaries (listed above) I have read are wrong and that you ladies are correct in your interpretation of this verse? Can you list for me the commentaries you have read? Can you refute what Piper has written?
October 30, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Trish, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. I haven’t seen any women here who object to male headship. I disagree with it the way VFM and VD portrays how it should look, but not with the knowledge that my husband is my head, or the head of our family.
Or perhaps you’re just responding to one person and lumping us all together?
October 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Trish, you have provided the interpretation based on Piper and others who presumably have read the text and came to their conclusions. Fine. But the ladies here are doing the exact same thing as them, they are reading the text and sharing what they mean as well.
Piper provided his “I think” the ladies here are stating what they think as well.
It is not necessary for either Piper or the ladies here to claim the other is wrong in stating what their interpretation is. Any disagreement will become obvious based on their own statements. If you as a reader would like to take the commentary of Piper, et al and claim that is THE interpretation, fine. But others are not so certain and this discussion centers around what they believe and why they believe it. They’re doing exactly what you said in your comment and looking to what the Bible says rather than the opinions of men who “think” they know. I’m glad Piper has shared what he thinks, and I’m equally glad the ladies here take the time to share what they think. It is through such discussions that “iron sharpens iron” and we all come to a better knowledge of the Truth.
October 30, 2007 at 6:23 pm
http://ephesians511.wordpress.com/other-notables/
Just looked at this website and this particular page highlights the teachings of Scott Brown when he was elder of Trinity Baptist Church (before he was church-disciplined for abusive authority).
“Some of the statements, teachings, and incidents that led to the concern of “Observable Legalism” in the church:
# “Sunday School is a sin.”
# Scott insisting that a church baptism take place on Super Bowl Sunday (’06) in order to find out who “the truly committed” are.
# Preaching a sermon where a man who allows a daughter to go to college is likened to Lot allowing the rape of his daughters. (Scott)
# A message on abortion is titled, “Planet Patricide” with the focus being on the killing of future fathers. (Scott)
# The use of birth control is wrong (a sin).
# The use of psychological medications (including ones for ADD or depression) is wrong (a sin).
# Women are asked to stop making announcements during the lunch after the service.
# People are asked to stop describing lunch as “pot luck” and instead call it a “pot providence” meal.
# Women should not vote.
# Women should not attend college (however, Scott did allow his daughters to take classes at the local Bible college).
# Women are not to work outside the home, either before or after marriage.”
October 30, 2007 at 6:35 pm
“John Piper, John MacArthur, all 11 of the commentaries on my Logos Libronix software (Matthew Henry, Warren Wiersbe and others) plus many other esteemed Bible scholars determine the meaning of ‘desire’ in Gen 3:16 as follows:”
Trish,
How about taking on what I said? Refute what I said and show me my error. Is what I said out of the realm of sound biblical teaching?
“Many women here have written, “I think it means this…” or “My interpretation is this…” and they are incorrect.
What we ‘think’ the meaning of Scripture is, or what we ‘believe’ it says can get us into trouble. What does the BIBLE say?
What the Bible clearly states is that the woman’s desire is for her husband, and that desire is to have the upper hand, to overpower her husband.”
Trish, the bible does NOT state that the woman’s desire is to have the upper hand and overpower her husband. Could you please show me where it “clearly” says this? Funny, but there are so many godly theologians that don’t see it this way, Trish. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does NOT say this at all.
When I have time I will show you how godly theologians from hundreds of years ago do not interpret that verse this way. It is called eisegesis, Trish. Piper and others are reading INto the text what they would like it to say. It is nothing but their own thinking.
Compare that to my post on the subject. I read NOTHING into scripture. I only taught it in a logical, reasonable fashion.
Desire is linked to childbirth. Gen. 3:16 has to do with the WOMAN’s curse and NOT the man’s; that is the NEXT verse. If desire was linked to the man’s curse then it would be in the NEXT verse. You do not see this?
The scripture isn’t some sort of wax nose that we can form into whatever shape we want it to take.
What I would like is for one person to take on what I said and actually use scripture to refute it instead of telling me something that is clearly NOT clear and just mimicking and parroting the pre-digested pablum being taught as THE truth.
Trish, get out our Hebrew dictionaries, get out our study materials, consult as many sources as you can and THEN come back to me and tell me where the bible clearly says what you and a couple of other MEN say it says.
If push comes to shove, these men, if they are worth their salt, would admit that this is their own conjecture and that it is very possible that my position (which is the position of many other reputable men) is very possible.
You see, Trish, this is all about preserving a man-made system and not about interpreting the Bible and letting the chips fall where they may. There is a LOT of money in this movement and think of all the books that would have to be corrected if people had to admit that their dogmatic assertions are not as dogmatic as they taught them.
Really, this is exactly wrong with the church today. People go to A book and not THE book to find the truth. It takes too much effort. They would rather flock to the latest and greatest for the “truth” and they are not discerning at all because they take everything as taught without studying it to show themselves approved workmen who need not be ashamed.
October 30, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Anne:
These are all direct quotes taken from this discussion (some are from the first thread):
1) I think it means that the woman will still desire a relationship with man in spite of the fact that he will try and control and dominate her. That makes much more sense.
2) 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.”
3) I don’t read that passage as saying we will desire to lord it over our husbands at all! 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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.
October 30, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Trish, so you are lumping us all together then… thanks for clearing that up.
Just wondering if you could address what Spunky brought up… Cheers!
October 30, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Trish,
After consulting many commentaries, I can tell you that YOUR teaching is a new one in the scheme of things.
I am still looking but JFB, Poole, Gill, Clarke, Henry, Wesley, Calvin, Geneva, etc all do NOT take YOUR interpretation. In fact, that idea NEVER even came up in any of the older commentaries I consulted.
Desire was always translated to be her desire to be in relationship with her husband or that her desires would now be subject to her husband’s desire. Meaning, her desire to do things would now be subject, when she was once free, to her husband. So, Trish, it looks there are two very OLD ways of looking at this passage and one of them agrees with how I see it. I actually could go either way because, in the context of things, the curse is about EVE, which it should be.
NO ONE interpreted it the way you are saying it should be interpreted. No one said that desire meant that Eve wanted the upper hand and that desire meant she wanted to control her husband.
This is a NEW way of interpreting the verse. Very new. And you have to wonder why there is this NEW way of interpreting this verse. Just like there is a NEW of defining the Trinity when throughout most of church history the theologians believed that Christ was subordinate to the father, not for eternity, but temporaly.
I will tell you that I think it is an agenda and that is what is driving many people to come up with new interpretations.
I will keep on looking through my resources to try and find other reputable theologians who say that your way is the only way to interpret Gen. 3:16 but I will tell you, it is “funny” that I can only find your interpretation to be a recent invention.
I do have to ask you why your interpretation is the right one? What bearing does it have on the rest of your beliefs that it is so important to hold your opinion? Why do you not see that what I and others have said is completely and totally within the realm of biblical interpretation and proper hermeneutics?
As Anne has said, no one here is denying headship. This isn’t about headship. This is about the curse.
In fact, I will go so far as to say that hyperpatriarchal teachings are EVIDENCE of the curse and proof-positive that men will have a warped desire to control and dominate other human beings when that is NOT biblical and they were not given that right to control or dominate other human beings. Human beings were given dominion over animals and fish and birds and the earth not over other humans.
I don’t care who it is that has a desire to control or dominate, it is sin. A man who wants his own way and uses his wife to get his own way is just as sinful as a woman who does the same.
The desire to control others is a perversion of the Genesis 1 dominion mandate.
October 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Thanks for answering my question, Trish. I guess I just see things differently. I see women with questions going to the Word of God for answers, and being wise enough to know that just because they think it means something doesn’t mean it actually does. I respect their desire to temper their comments with “I think” or “I believe” much more than when I read someone who insists they have God’s ways and God’s Word all figured out.
October 30, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Trish,
Can you just refute what I have said? Just use scripture and show me where I am wrong. How is my interpretation, based on the Hebrew and grammatical constructs of the text, wrong? Is it possible for you to just show me that?
Also, then can you show me where MacArthur’s and Piper’s opinion is anything more than just their opinion? I think you missed the part where I tried to show where their opinion has no grounding in the text or in the meaning of the Hebrew word for “desire”.
If you won’t show me where I went wrong, then how can you correct me?
Are you asserting that John MacArthur and Piper are correct even though what they did was NO DIFFERENT than what I did?
You can’t have two different standards [measuring sticks], Trish.
Show me where scripture says what you and Piper and MacArthur are saying it does and how it is not their opinion/conjecture?
I will say that my interpretation is much more in line with historical thought than their interpretation. Their interpretation is a post-modern one. Their interpretation came about in order to shore up their presuppositions.
My interpretation is just allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible- nothing more and nothing less.
I would be glad for any theologian to show me where I have broken any hermeneutical or interpretational rule. I am quite confident that I haven’t. I am not saying I am right because that would be very arrogant, especially when any theologian worth their salt would never put their opinion as “God’s truth”.
But, that is what YOU are doing with the opinions of MacArthur and Piper without any basis whatsoever.
Refute what I have said using scripture, Trish. That is the only way you will be able to show me that what I have said is wrong. You should at least concede that my interpretation is one that is in line with historical teachings because that is FACT.
You are saying desire has nothing to do with childbirth or a relationship with her husband? You don’t see that it is a curse to HER that even though childbirth will be filled with sorrow, her desire YET will be for her husband as being a very reasonable interpretation? At least I do NOT add or subtract anything from scripture like your interpretation does.
October 30, 2007 at 8:06 pm
The Bible only has one interpretation. It means what God means and it says what God says. Therefore, one of us is correct, and one of us is not.
I have studied the text myself and I have let Scripture interpret Scripture. Since coming to Christ several years ago, I have found through study and have been taught that the woman’s desire in Gen. 3:16 means only one thing: that she desires to lord it over her husband. I have been taught that by the Elders of my church, by the two teaching Elder/Pastors I have been under, by my husband and it has been established in the commentaries I have read. It is not up for debate. The Word of God says what it says, and I believe it.
October 30, 2007 at 8:07 pm
“John Piper, John MacArthur, all 11 of the commentaries on my Logos Libronix software (Matthew Henry, Warren Wiersbe and others) plus many other esteemed Bible scholars determine the meaning of ‘desire’ in Gen 3:16 as follows:”
Trish,
Please provide Henry’s exact quote where he explains what “desire” meant in Gen. 3:16.
Also, provide all the other “11 Commentaries” that teach that “desire” means the desire to control her husband.
I have Henry’s commentary and he doesn’t go into the meaning of the word “desire”. He tells us that Eve’s punishment is now that she is under subjection to her husband. Read what he says very carefully. He does not explain what it meant by “desire”. He talks about the harsh subjection she would now be under as chastisement for listening to Satan but he never tells us that her desire would be now to overpower him. He tells us that her chastisement is to be under the sometimes harsh subjection of her husband.
There are three ways to interpret this passage:
1.) They way I believe makes the most sense out of the text. I am not saying I am right and everyone else is damned or a heretic. I am in good company, btw, with some very reputable theologians.
2.) Eve’s desire, her wants, wishes, desires, longings will now be subject to her husband and he shall rule over those desires.
3.) The new way that says that desire means that Eve’s motive in eating the fruit was to usurp her husband’s authority and to overpower him.
Now, I have a problem with #3 because no where does the Bible even HINT at that motive. Eve was thoroughly and completely deceived. That is what the NT tells us. I don’t believe based on my complete reading of scripture that Eve had the motive to usurp her husband and over power him. There is absolutely NO proof of that in the Biblical account. This is CLEARLY the opinion of man and it is CLEARLY being read into the text.
Do you agree that the Bible says that Eve took the fruit from Satan after being thoroughly deceived and then ate it and then turned to her husband who was WITH her and gave it to him and he ate it.
You see any usurping here? Do you know what usurp means? It means to take by force. Does it look forceful to you? Adam didn’t say a peep and there is no record that Eve did, either.
Turn it around, did Adam have the authority to give the fruit to Eve to eat? Would it be usurping his “authority” if she didn’t eat it?
The only authority that was violated was God’s authority. God made the rule, not Adam, and it was God’s authority that was violated not Adam’s.
Off to get my hair cut! Or shall I say, get my “glory” coiffed!
October 30, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Before I go to study(eat THAT, patriocentrists
) I have my words to say on all of these.
“# Preaching a sermon where a man who allows a daughter to go to college is likened to Lot allowing the rape of his daughters. (Scott)
# A message on abortion is titled, “Planet Patricide” with the focus being on the killing of future fathers. (Scott)
# The use of birth control is wrong (a sin).
# The use of psychological medications (including ones for ADD or depression) is wrong (a sin).
# Women are asked to stop making announcements during the lunch after the service.
# People are asked to stop describing lunch as “pot luck” and instead call it a “pot providence” meal.
# Women should not vote.
# Women should not attend college (however, Scott did allow his daughters to take classes at the local Bible college).
# Women are not to work outside the home, either before or after marriage.”
1.Preaching a sermon where a man who allows a daughter to go to college is likened to Lot allowing the rape of his daughters. (Scott)
-Excuse me? Has this man ever SPOKEN to a woman who was PHYSICALLY raped? My aunt was raped when she was 17, and she has NEVER truly recovered! I’m in college now, and I’m doing MUCH better here socially, emotionally, mentally, and physically than I EVER did in high school! Except for a couple of crazy professors, I have more confidence in my own abilities, I’ve grown closer to God, I’m not afraid to be social anymore(due to severe bullying for a long time I didn’t trust anyone- not even God) and as long as I stay with the people I trust, college has been a positive experience for me!
# A message on abortion is titled, “Planet Patricide” with the focus being on the killing of future fathers. (Scott)
I agree that abortion is wrong,but more often than not, it’s female babies that are killed- simply for being female. Look at China and India. It makes me curious that he didn’t comment on this. Or is a female only valuable once she’s given birth?
# The use of birth control is wrong (a sin).
Ummm, I’m sorry. What about my mother, who was diagnosed with lupus after my birth, and could easily miscarry or become very sick by having another child? (She has enough problems with her kidneys as it is!) What about poor women who simply CAN’T AFFORD IT? Or what about painful periods? I started my period when I was NINE, I just couldn’t handle the pain, so I was put on the Pill- not because I was a ‘whore’ (as he’d probably put it) but because it was EMBARASSING to be the only girl with my period! It depends on what you’re using it for- if you’re using it for health reasons, no, I don’t think it’s a sin.
# The use of psychological medications (including ones for ADD or depression) is wrong (a sin).
And isn’t suicide a sin? This man obviously has NEVER had to deal with any mental illness in his life! I have chronic depression and without these meds, I’d have killed myself. Preaching something like this is a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’ philosophy. It sounds like he WANTS the mentally ill to go to Hell!
# Women are asked to stop making announcements during the lunch after the service.
Pastor, if God wanted women to be silent at all times, we wouldn’t have been designed with the part of the brain that controls speech :@
# People are asked to stop describing lunch as “pot luck” and instead call it a “pot providence” meal.
IT’S—–SLANG!!!!!!!!!!
# Women should not vote.
This one needs no commenting… I’m not surprised. Is he afraid of being stood up to?
# Women should not attend college (however, Scott did allow his daughters to take classes at the local Bible college).
Oh, so did you get permission from God to ’sin?’”
# Women are not to work outside the home, either before or after marriage.”
I’m not gonna comment on that one. What about women who’ve been abandoned by their husbands? What about women in third world countries who are struggling to get their families to eat? Do you ever think about the real world, or the sufferings of the mentally ill? Go to a phych ward- and then justify saying taking antidepressants are a sin- THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK!
October 30, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Trish,
Again, we are again in conflict over presuppostitions. Many in the body of
Christ, particularly if they studied Wayne Grudem’s sysematics, believe that the issue of gender is bound to the Doctrine of God. They believe then that gender issues bear the same weight of significance as the doctrine of the Persons of the Godhead. Therefore, challenging gender issues is a most critical issue of Biblical Authority. Challenging gender is tantamount to rejecting the Father’s Lordship over all creation. Those who hold this presuppostition about this gender issue generally condemn fellow Christians and accuse them not only of honest error but of rebellion.
The majority of people here argue that this debate of gender is an intramural one and not one that represents God’s Lordship. Thus this is a presuppositional issue. And I don’t believe that anyone here is threatened by the different viewpoint which is not true of the patriarchal camp. I believe that most people who hold to a view that differs from yours (and say that of CBMW, for example) can agree to disagree. We dont call anyone reprobate or any other deChristianizing names or diminish the significance of their salvation.
We are all on different paths on our road to complete sanctification which I believe is a process governed by the Word and Holy Spirit’s work in my heart and through my circumstances. And we may have another presuppositional issue at work here as well. If you believe that piety and performance contributes to one’s sanctification, then holding to the “wrong” doctrine or understanding is detrimental and interferes with one’s relationship with God. But because I trust that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, I have patience and tolerance for those who believe differently than I do. My first response is not one of aggression, distain or correction.
The trouble with the discussion of these topics is that those from the patriocentric camp behave with offensive aggresssion to their fellow believers and resist all manner of both public and private accountability. (I believe this is because they are threatened on some level.) They will not dialogue about these issues, neither will they agree to disagree. Those who do not agree are often deemed as fallen and ethically compromised, throwing inappropriate labels around such as “open theist” and “liberal feminist.”
So thank you for your input. I have considered it. I don’t agree with it, but I am willing to consider that we are not operating from the same presuppositions about the issue. By God’s grace, we will eventually all come into the unity of the faith and hold to the absolute truth on these issues. Until that day, I honor you where you are, I have considered your opinion and I pray for God’s best and highest for all of us.
I ask that regarding matters of presuppositional differences that you might consider this when formulating your arguments. We all believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, holding to it as God’s infallible Word. We are however all human, and we all differ on our understanding of it. I believe that my views ARE flawed and will be to some degree until I leave this earthy body. It is my highest aspiration however that I will leave this life with far less misconsception than when I entered it, as truth transcends falsehood and conforms me into Christ’s image. From my presuppositional view, it is the elders of the church who assert that theirs is the corner on truth on intramural matters who are in greater error that I, because I trust in God’s Spirit and the Word over one group of many such groups of men. I rarely trust a pontif.
October 30, 2007 at 9:15 pm
“I have studied the text myself and I have let Scripture interpret Scripture. Since coming to Christ several years ago, I have found through study and have been taught that the woman’s desire in Gen. 3:16 means only one thing: that she desires to lord it over her husband. I have been taught that by the Elders of my church, by the two teaching Elder/Pastors I have been under, by my husband and it has been established in the commentaries I have read. It is not up for debate. The Word of God says what it says, and I believe it.”
Certainly the Bible has one meaning. But you’ll forgive me if I don’t just accept that your interpretation is the right one just because you say so. The Bible is infallible, but you, your husband, and your pastors are not. I’m glad you are so confident in your beliefs, but if I wanted to be told what the right answer was without investigating it for myself, I wouldn’t be in such serious contemplation of leaving the Catholic Church.
October 30, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Lady Helen,
The one about medication really bothered me. I suffered from severe depression as a teen. Severe enough that I almost didn’t make it to adulthood. We would never ask someone wearing glasses where their faith was, or deny insulin to a diabetic. Depression medications, when prescribed appropriately, save lives and make them better.
I no longer need them, but I would be highly insulted by someone who saw my legitimate chemical need for a medication as a “sin”.
October 30, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“The Bible only has one interpretation. It means what God means and it says what God says. Therefore, one of us is correct, and one of us is not.
I have studied the text myself and I have let Scripture interpret Scripture. Since coming to Christ several years ago, I have found through study and have been taught that the woman’s desire in Gen. 3:16 means only one thing: that she desires to lord it over her husband. I have been taught that by the Elders of my church, by the two teaching Elder/Pastors I have been under, by my husband and it has been established in the commentaries I have read. It is not up for debate. The Word of God says what it says, and I believe it.”
Trish,
So, this is what I thought.
You are the one that is correct, then?
MacArthur and Piper speak ex-Cathedra and when they interpret scripture their word is always infallible. Your husband and pastors follow MacArthur and Piper and that means anyone else is wrong?
What if I were to say that I have just as many godly men on my side and that my pastors and my husband agree with me?
You see how illogical your argument is? How is it that you have proclaimed you are right without even refuting what has been said? Do you realize that your interpretation is actually someone’s thoughts and it is ADDING to scripture things that are just not said?
You can ONLY take the plain meaning of scripture, Trish, and your mindset and thought processes are alarming. It sounds like the thought processes of the established Church when Martin Luther stood before his accusers! Happy Reformation Day!!!
It is clear that there can be no scholarly debate with a person who wins an argument by essentially saying, “I am right. My husband is right. My pastors/elders are right. And a couple of my favorite bible teachers are right.”
In fact, the Mormons could win any argument using your same “logic”. What makes the Mormons any less wrong than you are?
Trish, thank you for showing the root problem in hyper-patriarchy and just how unteachable and dogmatic this movement really is. The battle cry of the hyperpatriarchal movement is “My way or the highway” with a heaping topping of “because my husband said so”.
For me, I am going to write both John MacArthur and John Piper and ask them to further explain, from scripture and the original Hebrew and grammar constructs, how they derived their OPINION of this verse. I am quite sure that I will get a much more reasoned response than “Because I said so, I am never wrong” from their own mouths. In fact, I would bet they would be quite embarrassed to think that people just follow them blindly and take their opinions as God’s truth.
October 30, 2007 at 9:48 pm
“To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (RSV)”
In pain you shall bring forth children YET your desire shall be for your husband…..
Sounds pretty self-explanatory to me.
Because of the Fall, the woman will have multiplied sorrow in childbirth YET (still) her desire shall be for her husband.
No matter how much it hurts she will still have a desire for that relationship with a husband which produces that sorrow.
I don’t know but without even adding or taking away anything from scripture, it seems that this is pretty basic stuff.
October 30, 2007 at 9:58 pm
On comment #207 by Cindy Kunsman, that was flat-out beautiful. Thank you for saying sharing that.
October 30, 2007 at 10:15 pm
This is from one of MacArthur’s sermons on Gen. 3:16 and if you don’t think this is scary, I don’t know what would ring an alarm bell then:
“You have a premeditated, willful choice to follow his wife’s desire and disobey God. She ate. She wanted Adam to eat. Adam says I’ll do what you want, rather than what God commanded. That simple. He listened to the voice of his wife. Doesn’t tell us what his motivation was, but I can tell you what it was. He was more concerned about what she wanted than he was about what God wanted, right? Obviously. Obviously. He thought that she had a better take on the benefits than God did. He bought into her desire, because he believed that it was important to her and that it would bring about some benefit to him. That’s why he did it. And the penalty was death.”
MacArthur states that the Bible doesn’t tell us why Adam ate the fruit but MacArthur knows!!!!! (??????) And then he proceeds to tell us why and then MacArthur tells us exactly what was going on in Adam’s mind when he took that fruit.
If one of us did anything close to what MacArthur has done with this passage, our heads would be in a basket or we would have been tried by water for being a witch.
But, since it is MacArthur, he can tells us exactly why Adam did something and exactly what he was thinking when he did it and what his very motives were when he did it!!!
This should ALARM anyone.
I know it alarms me.
Obviously? Uh, no. It is NOT obvious to me.
October 31, 2007 at 2:36 am
Thank you, Molly.
I don’t always get that kind of response to my posts. Really everyone here contributes so much. I appreciate you all.
October 31, 2007 at 2:40 am
Trish,
I wondered if you could answer a couple of questions for me?
Do you believe that –
1. Woman is the indirect or the derivative image of God?
2. That woman’s greatest spiritual resource is a man?
October 31, 2007 at 3:27 am
Wow, I got so far behind in reading here and am blow away by the terrific discussion.
Cindy, I ditto how great your comment was. Thank you for your gracious spirit.
October 31, 2007 at 3:32 am
Also, Anne, your assessment of Jennie’s article was really good and right on.
If working outside the home is “sin” why weren’t the women who followed Jesus and the disciples, working to support them, described as sinning?
If working outside the home is sin, why is the Proverbs 31 woman our role model?
If working outside the home is sin, why was Lydia, a business woman who appears to run a single woman household and the first convert at Phillipi, praised rather than condemned.
Again, I go back to the phrase that I am enjoying so much…the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.
October 31, 2007 at 3:40 am
Karen, it goes back to their presuppositions. Of course, the women who followed Jesus around and even FINANCED his ministry were doing so with their husbands or traveling along with their fathers. The Proverbs 31 woman doesn’t actually work outside her home… she has a cottage industry. And Lydia- well, she’s non-normative, so we just dismiss her all together…
October 31, 2007 at 4:32 am
Thank you, Karen! You are absolutely right. As I’ve said before, I refuse to be made less by men than I would have been in the presence of my Savior.
Cindy, I agree with Molleth, your comment (#207) was so gracious, and intelligent, it was beautiful and a blessing to read.
CorrieJo, You said everything I was thinking. And that sermon was absolutely scary to me!
October 31, 2007 at 4:54 am
Anne,
I am really learning to start reading with my eyes wide open!
I am noticing a trend here with some bible teachers. They ascribe bad motives to Eve (ie., she wanted to overpower and usurp Adam’s authority and that was the reason she went for the fruit) but ascribe good and noble motives to Adam and why he ate the fruit (ie., he wanted to make his wife happy and he was concerned about his wife, he didn’t want her to die alone, etc).
Why can’t it be that Eve was just overcome with temptation and it had nothing to do with Adam and that Adam took and ate the fruit because he wanted to?
Adam and Eve sinned against God and God alone. They rebelled against God and Him alone. Eve did not rebel against Adam but against God.
The more I read this text the more I see just how much people have added to scripture. It is actually quite scary that people are doing this. Now some are claiming they actually know the motives for why Adam did what he did and why Eve did what she did.
Obviously I am dense because there must be a lot more riding on these verses than I can see at this point in order for people to be tampering with God’s word like this.
October 31, 2007 at 5:24 am
There is a LOT riding on Genesis. It is the foundation—the starting point.
Complementarian and patriarchal teachers know that *if* it can be proven that male-rule began at the Fall and not at creation, then we are literally forced to say that male-rule is not God’s “best” but a sin-produced outcome.
If we hesitatingly (and after much prayerful study) shake our heads and say that Scripture seems to point to it being a Fall-based outcome, THEN we are logically forced to ask whether or not male-rule is the intended goal for mature Christians.
…At which point we have to re-look at every major passage on the subject and re-evaluate the preconcieved way (ie. assuming male rule as God’s original design) we’d been approaching them. At which point all sorts of neat and tidy views on gender begin falling to pieces…
(I know I’m one of the few here who question whether male rule is Biblically supported as God’s original design. The above is an extremely condensed version of how this happened).
This is why complementarians simply *have* to find male rule in the pre-Fall account, even if it isn’t clearly spelled out there.
October 31, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Molleth said, “If we hesitatingly (and after much prayerful study) shake our heads and say that Scripture seems to point to it being a Fall-based outcome, THEN we are logically forced to ask whether or not male-rule is the intended goal for mature Christians.”
Molleth, your question doesn’t necessarily follow logically. Consider, we know that prior to the fall, both man and woman were naked but unashamed. After they ate, both gained awareness of their nakedness and covered themselves. Clearly, clothing was a Fall-based outcome. No presuppostition is needed here at all. Using your logic, we would be forced to ask whether or not clothing is the intended goal for mature Christians. An if it isn’t, is a Christian who walks around half-clad a more mature believer who is rightly operating closer to the intended biblical design and therefore not inappropriate?
That’s the leap that I just don’t see with the egalitarian argument. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but if we are going to go with the “progessive” gospel, there are a lot of things that happened prior to the fall that are changed because of it. How is it that this one area between a man and woman is the exception, but all the other effects remain in place? Who decides?
Keep in mind, like you, I question whether or male rule is Biblically supported as God’s original design. That seem’s to be a presupposition but not directly a part of the Genesis account. But even though I may not believe that male-rule was God’s original design, I don’t see how I’m forced to ask the question you said logically follows. If I desire to be an even more mature woman walking under God’s original design, then maybe should become a naked egalitarian?
And if that’s the case, maybe I’ll get on the bandwagon early and write the book, I’ll call it “Finally Naked.”
(That last part was a joke. I’m enjoying this discussion and all who contribute, including you Molleth.
)
October 31, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Spunky, can I have the first interview with you when you publish your book?
October 31, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Karen and Karen, I’d be on pins and needles waiting for that podcast (as I’ve loved your series together, it’s like listening in on a conversation between two of your smartest girlfriends).
CorrieJo, I also feel that I am learning a great deal. Forgive me if the following is too lengthy.
The women I’ve always associated with in the Bible aren’t Martha, Sarah, the Virgin Mary, or any of the other “Righteous Women”. The women I find kinship with are those with less than stellar pasts who find a new life in Christ. Mary Magdalene, the Samaritan Woman, the Adulteress saved from stoning, the woman who washes Our Lord’s feet with her tears and dries them with her hair.
I have a less than stellar past. I won’t go into it all here, but suffice it to say that I have much that I will account for before the Lord one day.
Still, I was a woman who never wanted anything but a husband, home, and children. When I came to the Lord I was certain that He would wipe my slate clean, and lead me to a man who also wanted those things and could look beyond my past to see me as the new creation I was. Thankfully, He did.
One of my problems as I read through the Patriocentric articles is that I feel there would be no place for someone like me to come to them. The image of the “lovely family” is so important, that the chance to reach out to a new believer with a “past” could easily be missed entirely. I wondered which of these fathers would want their son to marry someone like me. Someone who had a child already when she married.
Jesus reached out to women like me, transforming their lives completely as He did mine. One day I will stand before my Creator and account for my sins. Thankfully my Judge is also my Advocate and I will not receive my just punishment for them.
But I will not stand in judgment for the sins of my husband, nor he for mine. He may be my head, but there is no intercessor between God and me except for Christ.
I think the Bible is clear that God doesn’t accept Adam’s excuse that Eve made him do it any more than I would accept such a lame excuse from one of my children. Adam, Eve, and the serpent all carry their own blame and their own curse. To excuse Adam while heaping more condemnation on Eve seems misogynistic to me. And it only furthers my sense that while God accepted me back into His gracious loving arms, some would have a very difficult time seeing me as a true sister because, for them, I don’t conform to what their image is of a “Righteous Christian Woman” any more than the Apostles understood Jesus’ association with those who were considered “tainted” in His time.
These two issues of image and the fall are totally related for me. You see, I can’t imagine (though perhaps I’m wrong) the same judgment being leveled at a man with a past who turns and follows Christ. If Eve is really to blame for the sin of both herself and her husband, I think that easily translates into putting more blame for a sexual past onto a woman, and excusing a man for the same thing.
October 31, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“Spunky, can I have the first interview with you when you publish your book?”
Hmmmm…..well, I would think you would want to post that interview on Youtube so your listeners can get the full effect.
October 31, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Anne,
Wow!!! I am TOTALLY “getting” your post! It is like you are writing about ME. I think you and I are on a parallel journey.
I am sitting here wondering what part I should quote but I can’t make up my mind because every WORD is so good!
There were some of my husband’s friends who warned him about marrying me because I was tainted by having a child out of wedlock. It was heartbreaking to me as a new Christian because the Bible was telling me that I was a new creation but these Christians were judging me and trying to make me into damaged goods.
This is what Christ says of Mary Magdalene and it is one of my favorite passages in the Bible because it SO resonates with me:
Luke 7
41“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.42When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?”43Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.”44Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.45You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.46You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.47Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”
This woman’s great love and understanding of Christ is astounding but notice Jesus’ words in the last sentence and see the connection.
October 31, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“If working outside the home is “sin” why weren’t the women who followed Jesus and the disciples, working to support them, described as sinning?
Why is the Proverbs 31 woman our role model?
Why was Lydia…. praised rather than condemned.”
Because the Holy Spirit wasn’t pushing a late 20th-century hyperpatriarchal agenda when He inspired the sacred writers who wrote those scriptures?
Just a guess…..
October 31, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“# Women are asked to stop making announcements during the lunch after the service.”
What I would like to know is why a church would make this announcement? Women can’t talk in the service and now they can’t make an announcement during the lunch? Are they afraid that the women were using this opportunity to try and usurp the male power and leadership by sneaking in prayer requests and bible teaching under the guise of an “announcement”? It sounds like maybe they were suspicious of these women’s motives for making announcements during the lunch.
I would like to know what sort of announcements women were making. “The beans are ready.” or “Grandma Josie has bursitis, please pray for her.” or “The Lord is good.” If it is the last type of announcement dealing with the Lord or His word, then I am sure it would be considered “teaching” and thus usurping the powers that be. It would be very scary to have a woman give testimony of what the Lord is doing in her life and in the process learn something about one’s self and God.
Or maybe the women were just disruptive and causing a ruckus.
Whatever the reason behind that rule, it would be good to know.
BTW, this is a church run by a VF board member.
These rules very much get one a first class ticket into the minds of those pushing this agenda and what is really taught in those churches.
October 31, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Cindy (207) and Anne (224)-
You have stated so beautifully and succinctly my main concerns regarding the patriarchal movement, that I find there is nothing I can add to it.
Other than to say, dear Anne and Carriejo, I am glad that I have sisters on this road. I too am a broken woman whom God has made whole. I thought my feelings of being tainted and ‘not good enough’ for the Christian community were mine alone; it makes me feel better that you all have experienced it too.
October 31, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Corriejo:
The announcements that women were making were things like, “children need to go through the line with their parents.” or “we’d like the guests, expectant moms and moms with newborns to go through the line, first,” or “could we have some help with getting all the crockpots and dishes laid out. . . ” or “children, please stop running through the cafeteria,” or “we need some help supervising the play in the adjoining room.”
Occasionally, it was a birthday announcement.
Women were not disruptive. In fact, it seemed like one of the sweetest fellowships to belong to.
I don’t think there was a woman there who would have even thought of “teaching” over men – which was why it was such a surprise when all of a sudden, women weren’t even allowed to make an announcement.
What I think is even more important is that (according to ephesians511.wordpress.com) when Elder Don B. tried to work with the other elders and have them make a statement that many of these things were matters of conscience, the other elders either a.)did not believe they were matters of conscience or b.) did not think it was necessary to make such a statement to the congregation.
One other thing – someone pointed out that Scott consistently pointed out the evil of letting daughters, especially, go to college and yet let his own daughters go to the local Bible College.
Two things:
1. Scott has always been clear that his purpose of being here in Wake Forest and having a church that is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (even though it is so far from being anything like a Southern Baptist Church) is because he wants to influence the next generation of pastors. Wake Forest is home to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Additionally, the only thing a church has to do to be a SBC church is to agree with the Baptist Faith and Message and give to the Cooperative Program. But if Scott’s church is a SBC church, then seminary students can attend his church and not lose their scholarships or lowered tuition.
2. Scott always practised his beliefs in such a way so as not to get “caught” doing something “fringe-like”. What I mean is, he allowed people in the congregation to openly say things like, “Sunday School is a sin” without reigning them in or checking them. In fact, what he would say is, “they are allowed to believe that, even if we don’t.” One of those men who was the most vocal and absolute (a Theonomist) was Dan Horn, who is now an elder at Hope and also speaks for NCFIC conferences. Scott himself would later jump in himself and declare that SS was a sin at a Father-Son retreat in 2005.
But back to my point, Scott allowed his daughters to attend the College at Southeastern and later when challenged on his teaching about women in general said or some such thing (not a direct quote, but pretty close). Very hard to take direct statements out of context – either it is okay for women to go to college or it is not. He ALWAYS came down on the “it is not” side.
One other example: One of the concerns the three men had (Mike, Todd and Don A.) was the level of unchecked legalism in the church, in particular the “holier-than-thou” attitude toward other congregations in the area. Specifically those that had Sunday School. And Scott would make comments, just not from the pulpit, about those churches/pastors. Literally, starting the Sunday after the three men had their first meeting with the elders, Scott and Jason would specifically start saying nice things about other churches and pastors and during the prayer time in the service, specifically pray for those churches/pastors. This was something he had NEVER done before. And then a few weeks later, his response to the men was, “see, I support these guys, even if I disagree with them on SS. I even pray for them.”
Someone might argue that he saw his error and corrected it, however, he NEVER ever agreed that the church and leadership were being judgemental or legalistic. He just made the change and then used his later behavior to defend himself.
Bottom line – no reasoning was given, that I know of, for the change. It was just made. And this was not a congregation that was used to questioning decisions made.
One more thing – Scott was not just a VF Board Member. When TBC was first formed, Doug Phillips was on TBC’s Board of Advisors.
October 31, 2007 at 6:04 pm
“BTW, this is a church run by a VF board member.”
That would be Scott Brown, and he’s not just a board member but a “missionary” to the Christian church. And as a pastor/missionary, he solicits the “support” of the local church to carry on his missions work,
“Are you a local church leader-a pastor, a shepherd, an elder? Is the work of NCFIC your vision for your church? Then please consider whether NCFIC might have a place in your church’s monthly missions budget. Are you a local church member? First be sure you are giving generously to your own local church; then if your heart burns to see God raise up more family-affirming churches, pray with your family about monthly support to NCFIC. Are you a “searching family” actively seeking a family-friendly church? Then maybe NCFIC would be a worthy recipient of your tithes at present.”
What’s ironic is that he starts out the letter with the “humble” acknowledgement that Paul never asked for support for himself, but for others. And then goes on to ask for support for himself (and Doug Phillips).
http://www.visionforumministries.org/projects/ncfic/would_you_consider_ncfic_as_pa.aspx
How much does each get paid for their “missions” work to the Christian church? From the tax Form 990 for 2005,
Scott Brown – $53,089 for 30 hrs/week
Doug Phillips – $42,570 for 25 hrs/week
Keep in mind this is work that they are already supposed to be doing as pastors within the local church.
Ephesians 4:11 “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
So why are Doug Phillips and Scott Brown going outside “kingdom architecture” to create 501(c)3 a missions organization to the local church, soliciting funds from their missions board, and getting paid for work they are already supposed to be doing as pastors?
Remember, this is not just my thinking, the Botkin girls wrote in their book on page 264,
“First we need to explore God’s design for doing His work. Though people may invent “more modern” and “more trendy” or “more effective” ways of doing evangelism, and minsitry, man’s most clever pragmatism is always inferior to God’s design.”
As an organization, the National Center for Family Integrated Churches is a well-intentioned trendy ministry that operates outside the local church but under the authority of the state.
And these are the “visionary” men that are supposed to reclaim the church for the glory of God?
October 31, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Spunky,
What can I say? That’s great! Keep it coming!
October 31, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Regarding Spunky and comment #222:
LOL… Well, that would get MIGHTY cold up here in Alaska…
I agree with your questions to a point and have them myself. If male-rule is fall based, so is pain in childbirth. I had five kids, and I know the Cross doesn’t take away pain in childbirth (though relaxation techniques sure helped a lot). *grin*
HOWEVER, if male rule is Fall-based, I still think that’s incredibly important to note. It takes away the sweeping grandious argument that male rule is inherant design, that females were literally fashioned to be in subjection, that males were literally fashioned to rule. It makes male rule a much humbler thing, it makes it a mere product of the Fall, a negative thing and not a positive one.
To my mind, this makes it something that is good to be aware of. I mean, knowing that a thing exists is half the battle. If male rule is indeed fall based, then as fallen creatures, we can know that most men will tend toward having a difficult time seeing women as their full equals. We can also know that as fallen creatures, most women will tend to be willing to follow the lead of men, even at their own cost.
This helps in my own marriage. I can know that the Fall-based urge to “own” or “dominate” me resides in my husband (in the same way that sinful inclinations dwell in me). So I can offer grace to him when he struggles with those urges, instead of getting angry or passively going along with him. I can love him as I have been loved by God.
I’m free from being dominated and I’m free from thinking I have to be dominated in order to be a good Christian wife, but in the same way, I’m also free from needing to rise up and yell and fuss and make a big scene and demand my rights. This is where it’s so wonderful.
I’m free to offer grace in the same way that I appreciate grace given to me when I’m operating from my fallen nature. I’m free to submit to my husband as my brother in Christ, in the same way that he is free to submit to me as his sister. I still bring him his meals on a plate (because he won’t eat if I don’t, since his mind is usually on other things), not because I’m a patriarch’s wife but because I am married to someone I’m called to love with God’s love—so nurturing him is a part of that. I’m free to pick up his favorite coffee when I’m at the store, not because I’m subjected but because God has freed me to be able to give love freely (because I’m secure: my identity is found as God’s daughter, which gives me peace about who I am and what I’m worth). I’m free to be able to watch my husband try to dominate me and to be able to (sweetly) refuse to go down that road, JUST AS he’s free to respond graciously to me when I begin acting in Fallen ways.
I’m SO rambling here…sorry about that. For me, considering whether male-rule was fall based or not really made a big difference in how I looked at the NT…if male rule is fall based, then it loses it’s “holiness,” you know? It made me, for the first time, watch carefully how Jesus treated women. He wasn’t Fallen, so He would show us how women were meant to be seen.
It also made me consider that a patriarchal culture was being written to…that Paul’s admonitions to wives, for example, may have had something to do with the fact that wives were under legal rule to obey their husbands, etc… It’s plausible to suggest, anyway. Under comp/patriarchy, such a possibility wasn’t an allowable option when trying to interpret. Out from under a “creation-based-male-rule,” considering culture became possible.
For anyone else coming out of patriarchy, a huge huge huge book that really helped me as I came out of patriarchy was “Families Where Grace is in Place.” by VanVonderon (I think that’s the last name). Very cheap on Amazon if you get it used.
I can’t recommend the book enough. I don’t know if he’s egalitarian or complementarian or not, the book doesn’t get into that, but that small book DOES get into living graciously towards eachother, something patriarchy did not promote in our home and something we began to experience less and less of as the years went on.
Very ramblingly yours (and avoiding housework…got. to. get. of. this. computer…)
Molly
who loves God.
October 31, 2007 at 6:29 pm
“Occasionally, it was a birthday announcement.
Women were not disruptive. In fact, it seemed like one of the sweetest fellowships to belong to.”
Thank you for that information. It is helpful.
So, the rule was made because they are just suspicious of any speech coming out of a woman and not just during the church service but before and after. She just might be trying to usurp the men, after all, by trying to get her nose under the tent like the proverbial camel. Once that birthday announcer thinks she can make a birthday announcement, she will think she can get up and expound the doctrines of grace and then all hell will break loose!
Do any of these women admit that they DO learn things about God from women? Do any of these men admit that a woman is able to teach them something about God and His word without it turning into some overthrow of the dictator?
October 31, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“Do any of these women admit that they DO learn things about God from women? ”
That should be “do any of these men…….”
And that is a sincere question. I really want to know if these men in these churches admit that women teach them things all the time.
I just do not see someone teaching someone something linked to having authority over that person one is teaching. We all teach each other things about the Lord all the time. I am sure most of us do not think of ourselves in a position of authority while talking about the word of God.
There is one blog that comes to mind where the men believe they have authority over all believers simply because they are an elder in some church somewhere and that women, especially, owe them an extra measure and portion (shaken down and filled up, I suppose) of reverence and awe when responding to them.
October 31, 2007 at 7:02 pm
“So the rule was made because they are just suspicious of any speech coming out of a woman. . . ”
Well, I really think it was a part of the whole, “let’s not tell them what we’re really doing, let’s just make the change.” Remember, decisions made the by the elders were just that and not any business of any one else.
So much of what went on at TBC, in hindsight, was not done in the open. Decisions were made and no one thought to question why. Like the frog in the hot water pot. Now some distance from the events, I have no doubt that TBC was on the path to becoming a little “Boerne Assembly.” Doug was Scott’s best friend – so whatever Doug did, Scott was going to do, too.
So, changes were made subtly and slowly. With a certainty, if Scott had stood up one Sunday and said, “here’s what we believe” and laid out all the extrabiblical teachings that he was slowly implementing, there would have been a mass exodus and Scott and Jason would have had no further credibility in this town.
But you couldn’t pin him down on anything. It was like spearing jello when you questioned him directly. He would respond with, “Oh, no, you’re confused. . . you don’t understand what I’m saying. . . Here, read this 700 page book and write up short chapter summaries and then we’ll get together and talk.”
By just disallowing women to make announcements one day, the women are left with choice a: go along with it, choice b: ask why and then be labeled uppity (no one would do that!) or choice c: ask their husbands to ask why and they would get the jello answer. But since all of us were such good friends – we extended what we thought was “grace” and just went, “okay” and didn’t think anything more about it. Until later.
“Do any of these women admit that they DO learn things about God from women?”
Yes, we had women’s Bible Studies and learned how to submit to our husbands and love our children and be keepers at home. And, other women taught us this. Using Doug’s audiotapes for guidance.
“Do any of these men admit that a woman is able to teach them something about God and His word without it turning into some overthrow of the dictator?”
Surely you jest.
Seriously, as wives are their husbands’ helpmeets, they could offer constructive discussions in the privacy of their homes. I just cannot for the life of me remember a woman ever doing more than praying at a prayer meeting (held in homes, not the whole congregation). I don’t think anyone ever even thought about it. Even when families were going through the “formal” process of being accepted into the church and would be “presented” to the congregation, the wives were reminded that the husband needed to give his testimony, but as only he should speak, he should also tell a little about his wife. Just, she was not to tell it herself.
I know people think, “how did you not see what was going on??” All I can answer is, “does anyone who is being deceived know he/she is being deceived? Isn’t that the nature of deception?” I know for our family, we really just thought that the reason they had heads of households meetings was for logistics. TBC met in a school and did not own property of its own. For everyone to gather in an alternate location, we would have to meet outdoors. Hence, save space and just have heads of households meet. There was nothing ever taught or put up on the church’s website that this was an ideology.
And as for women not giving their testimonies during the “presentation” of the family – to save time, of course! Again, there was no direct teaching at that time. It just happened. It wasn’t until later that it came out that all of this was a part of their theology, not just an outward working of pragmatism.
Sorry for the length.
October 31, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Oops! I’m reading my post (230) and I left out the point. It should read:
But back to my point, Scott allowed his daughters to attend the College at Southeastern and later when challenged on his teaching about women in general attending college said “Hey, I let my daughters to the College, you’re just taking my statement out of context.” or some such thing (not a direct quote, but pretty close). Very hard to take direct statements out of context – either it is okay for women to go to college or it is not. He ALWAYS came down on the “it is not” side.
October 31, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Molly and Spunky,
Bruce Ware of CBMW and John MacArthur both argue pretty strongly from the postition of origin as a proof for male headship. Adam was source material for Eve, therefore she is the indirect image of God. (Since Trish quoted MacArthur, I thought that I would try to push her to see if she accepted all of MacArthur’s teachings or just the one on woman and the desiring her husband.) This plays very strongly into all of their arguments. Eve is ontologically, by origin, design and development, less than Adam because she was taken from him. I assume that they deny the traditional Jewish interpretation that Adam possessed both male and female aspects until the rib and the feminine was extracted from him to form Eve, although I can see them arguing their point no matter what the premise. MacArthur says that a woman’s greatest spiritual source is a man and that a woman is unable to bear the Word or righteous work to a full extent without the presence of a father or husband. They rely quite heavily on their ontology to support headship.
The issue of primogeniture (creation order as proof of headship and a hierarchy of governance) presents the same dilemna and often goes back to the Genesis account as a proof text. I Tim 2:14 is used as a proof text, based on the presupposition of headship by ontology or original design. I find I Tim 2:14 (Eve was deceived but Adam sinned with knowledge) to contend that Eve did not realize that she was sinning when she considered Satan’s argument, but Adam sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing. Adam’s sin was one of willful choice to disobey. But they cite the same verse as a proof text, claiming that Eve is a lesser creature without a bit of equivocation or doubt. Granted, this is not true of all who claim the validity of primogeniture or male headship or complementarianism, but it is an argument quite passionately used by some. Wayne Grudem is one.
They would also say that hermeneutics that take logic into consideration along with tradition and experience to interpret Scripture is flawed. Hence, like Trish commented, there is only one accurate interpretation of Scripture. Go back to the foundationalism view, the use of tradition, logic and experience to influence exegesis is liberal and abhorrent. But they assume that their interpretation and that their presuppostitions about it all are accurate. As one who has studied NT Greek in seminary, I think that it’s a naieve view to believe that there are no issues over Scripture interpretations. In general, the original language (depending on your school of thought and who teaches) quite often opens up more controversy regarding interpretation than it solves.
Those who claim subordinationism of the Son in the Godhead (Federal Vision, Bruce Ware)either by essence or by authority only, use this ontological arguement to support the ontological difference between men and women as well. Those who claim that the Persons of the Godhead exist in a hierarchical relationship rather than an egalitarian one use bad hermeneutics to project this back on to marital relationships, asserting that all relationships are hierarchical. I attest that I can be in an egalitarian relationship (of “one anothering”) with my husband as an equal component of our one flesh together and still submit to him in love. For me, I can’t imagine that the Persons of the Godhead could exist in a hierarchy, save for the knosis/the period of time when Christ emptied himself to become a man.
Anyway, for many of the “complementarians,” just arguing for ontological differences between men and women are not sufficient. They are well disposed to rethink the Trinity and use bad hermeneutics to support their claims.
Again, much of this boils down to presuppositions about how to apply Scripture and what hermeneutics you find reasonable. However, Molly is correct in her impression and many do use the argument of origin. Not everyone talks about it, however. I’ve been reading like a maniac since this issue first became known to me over the summer months as I tried to figure out where some of these doctrines originated.
October 31, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Here’s a link to an article that discusses hierarchy in the church in a different context, but it is interesting. It points out differences between the assumption of hierarchy and the approach of “one anothering,” demonstrating how this can have an affect on how one interprets the Word. Again, it is a perspective. We’ve all got one.
http://www.theexaminer.org/volume2/number4/rule.htm
October 31, 2007 at 8:21 pm
justanothermom, what about saying that taking antidepressants is a sin? I’m sorry, but that is medical treatment! Would you take away insulin from a diabetic or tell someone who had recovered from a heart attack not to take their medicine? The brain is an organ that gets sick just like any other part of the body. Taking medicine doesn’t mean that your faith is weak. Like I said, I probably would have ’succeeded’ in killing myself had I not been on antidepressants. Just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean God will heal your mental illness if you ‘have enough faith.’ Paul spoke of a thorn in his flesh, but God told him that his grace was sufficient. So what’s the bigger sin- not taking my medicine and dying by suicide(which your church would probably say I’d go to Hell) or ’sinning’ my whole life by taking meds to stay alive! As you see it’s a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’ thing for the mentally ill. I’m sorry if you’re not the one that believes it, but psych meds have probably saved my life. The mentally ill deserve compassion from the church, not condemnation.
October 31, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I applaud and thank you, ladies. This thread and the one before it are so very substansive, I’ve gained quite an education just reading through them.
Keep up the good work,
anne
October 31, 2007 at 9:31 pm
For those curious about the old argument against psychobabble and meds, this is a very antiquated and ignorant view. Functional brain imaging has come a long way over the past decade or so, and that which was once just believed to be subjective is observable on brain imaging. Once need not know very much about the brain at all to look at these images and see the differences between a normal and a DISEASED brain. I suppose that treatment should be withheld from stroke patients too. After all, it is the brain! Granted, meds may be over prescribed, but look at these images of those who were helped by medication, restoring their normal function.
http://www.amenclinics.com/bp/atlas/ch16.php
BTW, Daniel Amen is a Christian. He was in ORU’s first med school class and is an expert (trained at UCLA) in brain malfunction and nuclear medicine imaging. His books on the brain and ADD recommend and teach non-pharmacological methods (diet, right thinking, etc.) for dealing with dysfunction, using meds only when they’re needed. He recommends natural supplements and can back up his use of them with data obtained from SPECT scans.
Also, Spiritual Abuse has a PTSD affect on the brain that can be viewed on SPECT and also on functional MRI. The area of the brain (Posterior Cingulate Cortex area, either Broadman’s 21 or 23 ? does not activate after this type of abuse, along with suppression of the prefrontal cortex, overactivity of the anterior cingulate gyrus, chronic activation of the basal ganglia and amygdala, and suppression of the limbic system). So, to all those who claim that all of this is psychobabble, you’ll have to figure out how to answer this science and the growing body of objective, supportive evidence.
November 1, 2007 at 12:18 am
MacArthur and others believe in a hierarchy before the fall. But none of the men mentioned above take this idea as far as Tim Bayly does, at least, as far as I can see, which I admit has not been everything.
Vision Forum is out there with its theonomy and harking back to the Old Dominion, but the Baylys are much more mainstream Evangelical, IMO. Yet despite being much more mainstream their application of a pre-fall hierarchy clearly means, by any sample of their writing on the subject, that no woman may have any kind of position over any man, anywhere, or she will be in violation of the created order.
Tim has written on this a lot on his blog. It doesn’t matter if you talk about a woman police officer or a woman county commissioner or Deborah or the Queen of Sheba. In one blog entry, Tim said the Bible examples are all exceptions that prove the rule. Which is bunk. Because the “rule” was that if a woman had any kind of authority over a man she was in violation of God’s Word. But that can’t be said of Deborah, or the Queen of Sheba, one who was raised up by God, and the other who was commended by Jesus. These Bible examples don’t prove the rule, they do demonstrate that the rule Tim is making is not one God intended.
Today I had a delightful experience finding a blog entry about a man’s recollection of hearing Anne Lotz speak. Please take time to read the link. I thought it was so good, I posted the link to my blog today. And then, in the next entry, I will post a link about what Tim Bayly has to say about Anne Lotz and her ministry:
http://www.joemckeever.com/mt/archives/000363.html
November 1, 2007 at 12:37 am
OK, I’ve tried three times to post the other link, and it didn’t work — if one of you owners could get it from the spam box, I’d thank you.
November 1, 2007 at 12:42 am
[I'll try stripping the link of the h-t-t-p so you'll have to paste it in your browser if you want to see it. Let's see if this works.]
After you read that other link, where Anne preached to mostly women, and shared a wonderful message of the gospel of Christ with a summons to receive Him, see what Tim Bayly has to say about her. This was written some time after that other article I linked to. The quote I placed here came after Tim’s explanation about how women who teach are exercising authority over a man no matter where it happens and this is a bad thing. Very bad. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
Tim goes on to cite another Scripture at the close of his blog post. Does this Scripture have anything to do with his point? I don’t think so. What is Anne trying to do and what is she all about? She is all about proclaiming the gospel of Jesus wherever she is welcome. Does Isaiah 3:12 really apply to her?
Now, I have not agreed with everything Anne Lotz has said. She wrote some piece on the Bible and women that appeared in the Washington Post which left some things to be desired, as far as I was concerned. But I have got to hand it to Anne for telling others about the gospel of Christ, and I pray that God will continue to use her in a mighty way. And I think Tim Bayly’s use of Scripture below is deplorable, and more so than any disagreement I may have had with Anne’s views in the Washington Post:
timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/028698.html
“As Billy Graham turns over his mantle to his daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, calling her “the best preacher in the family,” we see God’s hand of judgment on us, as it was prophesied by Isaiah:
O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)”
Pretty over the top, wouldn’t you agree? Check out some of the comments, too.
November 1, 2007 at 12:46 am
Please delete comment 244, DON’T rescue anything from your spam box that looks like comment 245 or it will be sent four times(!), and please delete this comment, thanks. WordPress was giving me fits tonight!
November 1, 2007 at 12:48 am
Ummm, wasn’t Isiaiah 3:12 written to ONE SPECIFIC VILLAGE?
November 1, 2007 at 1:01 am
““As Billy Graham turns over his mantle to his daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, calling her “the best preacher in the family,” we see God’s hand of judgment on us, as it was prophesied by Isaiah:
O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)”
Pretty over the top, wouldn’t you agree? Check out some of the comments, too.”
Lynn,
That is over the top. My goodness. Anne Graham Lotz is our oppressor? Whew! To think that a godly woman would make a man shake in his boots like that!
It kind of reminds me of the playground at recess in elementary school. The boys chanted that they were better than the girls and then they would chase us around knocking us off all the playground equipment in order to show just how much better they were.
Someday I hope we can grow up and progress past the elementary school playground.
BTW, I looked through Warren Wiersbe’s commentary on Genesis today while I was at the bookstore and it said nothing about the woman’s desire being one of trying usurp and overpower her husband. What he did say that now Eve, because of sin, would be subject to her husband’s rule and she would have multiplied sorrow in childbirth but in the NT there is mutual submission where the husband submits to the wife and the wife submits to the husband. He also said that this verse does NOT teach that a husband is sovereign over his wife.
Trish told us that Wiersbe agreed with her and since she hasn’t followed through with any quotes, I thought I would post this bit of information. I couldn’t afford to buy the book just to quote it word for word.
November 1, 2007 at 1:07 am
“Ummm, wasn’t Isiaiah 3:12 written to ONE SPECIFIC VILLAGE?”
Helen,
Interesting, huh? I would think this is true for all time we would have seen this written about other women like Deborah and the Queen of Sheba and Josiah and the other young male kings.
The fact of the matter is there are far more adult male oppressors over God’s people throughout the ages than there have been female and children oppressors.
It would be nice if they actually kept these verses in their context and realized just WHO (ISRAEL) this was being written to and that it was for a specific time.
I am sure God didn’t have Anne Graham Lotz in mind when He penned that verse. Who in the world is she ruling over? She is no different than Elizabeth Elliott; they both speak to mixed audiences.
They could always just turn their chairs around and turn their backs on her when she did get up to speak to show her just who was boss and who the real leaders were. That would be what Jesus would have done, right? He would have turned His chair around on Anne. Women like that need to know their place in God’s kingdom after all. Who do they think they are sitting right there amongst the men instead of in the kitchen preparing their lunch for after they are done learning theology?
They really should blame Mary, Martha’s sister, for starting this whole trend! She really is the forerunner of all these uppity women.
November 1, 2007 at 1:35 am
“….what about saying that taking antidepressants is a sin? I’m sorry, but that is medical treatment! Would you take away insulin from a diabetic or tell someone who had recovered from a heart attack not to take their medicine? The brain is an organ that gets sick just like any other part of the body. Taking medicine doesn’t mean that your faith is weak. Like I said, I probably would have ’succeeded’ in killing myself had I not been on antidepressants. Just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean God will heal your mental illness if you ‘have enough faith.’”
Helen, I’m almost afraid to ask, but what kind of flaming ignoramus was actually stupid enough to condemn you for taking antidepressants?
Honestly, it’s a good thing that I became a Christian 40 years ago, because if I were a young person growing up amid all of this popChristian nonsense today, I’d probably not have listened to the Holy Spirit and accepted Jesus in the first place — His followers are just too “out there.”
November 1, 2007 at 1:51 am
“Helen, I’m almost afraid to ask, but what kind of flaming ignoramus was actually stupid enough to condemn you for taking antidepressants?”
The same sort of people who said I was in sin for having 5 c-sections and that I allowed the docs to rape me each time I went in for surgery. Yes, this was actually said to me more than once by more than one person. “Better to die in childbirth than allow my body to be violated.”
I think if we search for a “root causes” we’d find Gothard’s name at the center of much of this nonsense.
November 1, 2007 at 3:47 am
Spunky and Cynthia, I have seen both of those sentiments shared just in blogsphere. I don’t understand the logic.
When the widows and orphans needed fed, the church didn’t sit on it’s hands and wait for God to provide. The body of Christ had to move and act. God works miracles every day, but I see a very good biblical case to be made that He very often works through us.
Believe me, I’ve received my share of judgment from that crowd. Especially after the loss of our daughter 3 years ago. People believed that it was better for me to die than to deliver her early, even though her physical anomalies made her incompatible with life and she couldn’t survive no matter how long I carried her. Doug Phillips actually wrote an article about how the life of the mother doesn’t matter, and compared it to a mother throwing her toddler overboard to the sharks.
I can’t tell you how much it hurt to read that. To have agonized over that decision as we did, and to mourn our daughter as we still do… I have trouble even finding the words to explain it.
Thankfully, Doug Phillips is not my judge. My Judge welcomed Sarah home into His loving arms, and has promised that I will see her again someday in a joyous reunion that I long for with my whole heart.
I pray that Mr. Phillips wife is never in a situation like I was.
I did write a response to his article:
http://ourhomeschoolfaith.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/the-mother-is-a-life-too/
I also wrote about what I learned about my faith through our experience with loss:
http://ourhomeschool2.wordpress.com/2005/02/24/where-are-my-duties/
For anyone who wants more on our story, on my homeschool blog, which is linked to my name, I have a link to Sarah’s webpage which tells about Sarah and a category for the posts that dealt with our loss of her.
I don’t think some people really think through the theological implications of their statements, in regards to these issues. We, as mere mortals, can not take away God’s ability to do anything (like perform a miracle), nor can we thwart His Sovereign Will. What does it say about God if I have that kind of control?
I also sometimes wonder if their sense of righteousness has interfered with the understanding of grace. Jesus didn’t tell the adulteress what a whore she was. He reached out to her in love, he saw her as a hurting and flawed human being, told her to sin no more, and forgave her.
If someone truly believes that you are in sin for taking psychotropic medication, or for having a c-section, shouldn’t their response be to reach out in love to their hurting sister and try to minster to her?
Where is the heart in the faith? If all we have are do’s and do not’s, if all we do is try to live to the letter of the law so that our beliefs are not watered down, we will lose so much. I’m not saying that we should water down our beliefs, or our idea of what is right and what is wrong. Simply that we must become so intellectual as to lose sight of our ability to minister. We must temper self-righteousness with love, and the knowledge that we all have much that we are forgiven.
Sorry if I’m getting preachy.
November 1, 2007 at 3:50 am
“Simply that we must become so intellectual as to lose sight of our ability to minister.”
Sorry, that should say:
“Simply that we must not become so intellectual as to lose sight of our ability to minister.”
November 1, 2007 at 3:54 am
Molly, re#233.
You will love this week’s podcast….great minds must think alike because I used the book Families Where Grace is in Place as the basis for how families are supposed to function as opposed to curse-based patriocentricity! I got shivers when I read his definitions of curse-based relationships….I have experienced way too many of those!
November 1, 2007 at 5:55 am
Wow! Super cool!
November 1, 2007 at 10:48 am
So, next week, Corrie and I ought to be able to share a first impression of The Return of the Daughters. Corrie is coming to Central Illinois to be one of the speakers at the retreat for homeschooling moms and is staying at my house! (A little background here…Corrie and I first “met” in a homeschooling moms chat room about 15 years ago but we officially met in real life last spring.)
We are doing a double feature night, watching Return of the Daughters AND Monstrous Regiment of Women.
If you all think of it, pray for both of us, as we are both speaking at the retreat and I am blessed to see our attendance up this year 66% over last year! I think it is because they heard Corrie will be here!
Corrie will be sharing Bible study tips for moms and will be challenging them and encouraging them in the Word.
I am doing a presentation on the difference between your purpose in Christ, your calling from Christ, and your role as a homeschooling mom. The Lord has blessed my study and I am really excited about what I have learned. Hint: women have their own callings!
I will be using our presentations on podcasts throughout November so will keep you posted.
Corrie, was that self-promotion shameless enough for you?
November 1, 2007 at 10:49 am
For those who just can’t get enough of the comp/egal debate, Tim Challies had an interesting post
http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/the-source-of-submission.php
Read the comments, there’s some good stuff in there too.
November 1, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Just a very bried comment in regard to submission.
Nowhere in scripture is man given the authority to force his wife to submit. All of the commands to submit — even after the fall — are given directly to the wife. So ultimately, when a wife joyfully and respectfully submits, she is displaying her love and devotion to God.
November 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Well, thatmom, I’ve certainly enjoyed your podcasts so far, and I look forward to hearing Corrie! I recognize her telephone voice as we have spoken several times, and this will be a real treat. Corrie, I know a little bit about how you are feeling now, so will keep you in my prayers! And I’m not the only one who will be praying for you. Of that I am certain.
Thanks, thatmom, for featuring all the people, both men and women, that I have heard from your podcasts! There’s two ways of communicating with words — speaking and writing, and I greatly appreciate your efforts in getting more speaking on these subjects to the internet.
November 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Is anyone reading “Passionate Housewives” yet?
November 1, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Cally,
I’m waiting for my copy in the mail. I have never read any of these popular books like CTBHHM or So Much More, so I am looking forward to reading it and making up my own mind.
November 1, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“The same sort of people who said I was in sin for having 5 c-sections and that I allowed the docs to rape me each time I went in for surgery. Yes, this was actually said to me more than once by more than one person. “Better to die in childbirth than allow my body to be violated.””
EGADS!!!!! Your body was violated and the doctors raped you when they did a c-section???
“I think if we search for a “root causes” we’d find Gothard’s name at the center of much of this nonsense.”
I just said the same thing yesterday to someone. But, I also said that Gothard’s teachings, in many of these areas, PALE in comparison to what they have morphed into now. Jonathan Lindvall used to say that even Gothard told him he was to strict.
I had a stillborn baby in 2/95 and I conceived another baby shortly after our son, Oliver, was stillborn. I received a couple of comments correcting me because I had not waited the biblical amount of time before I went back to having relations.
Add those comments on top of losing our precious baby, burying him in the cold hard Wisconsin ground and then the uncertainty of expecting another baby and worrying if this would happen again and I can tell you that those comments were a bit hard to process. I expected God’s judgment on me to come because I didn’t wait according to the Old Testament laws (40 days after a boy).
I am happy to say that Olivia was born in 12/95 and she is now almost 12 years old and her pregnancy and birth and life has been a blessing to me.
It grieves me that we [homeschooling moms] can be so judgmental and nasty to one another at such vulnerable times.
November 1, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Karen,
Yes, that was very shameless of you!
Karen has a much nicer speaking voice than I do. Most people know that I am a Wisconsinite before I tell them.
Lynn,
Thank you for your prayers. I covet them and truly need them. This has been a very busy and stressful week and I feel truly inadequate to tell anyone anything except for what NOT to do when you are in the midst of stress and business!
I am so looking forward to hearing Karen and the other ladies speak. I am in need of encouragement in my homeschooling “venture” and my walk with the Lord.
November 1, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Spunky,
Thank you for sharing that link. There ARE some very good comments there.
Carol,
I just ordered “Passionate Housewives” from Amazon. Don’t do a search for that because you are certain to bring up a bunch of very raunchy erotica. It seems that the criticism that housewives are denigrated is not as true as one might think. I have searched the web over and I can’t find people who are denigrating women who stay home but I do find a lot of people who think that housewives are some sex-crazed women.
I know my husband’s work associates think that about me. The #1 comment he gets from other men is that he must be a very “lucky” guy- if you know what I mean. They think I am some sex-crazed housewife who can’t get enough and the proof is the number of children I have The women, on the other hand, that he works with call me a “saint” and tell him that he better be good to me because I am doing a very hard job.
So much for “feminists” (women who work and put their children in daycare, women who wear pin-striped suits and sell their flesh cheaply in one night stands in hotels to their co-workers) looking down on women who stay at home to raise their children. In my experience I only hear GOOD things about my decision to stay home and take care of my children.
I think the HURT comes into play when we start acting like we are better than they are because we stay at home. Then the defenses go up. It would be much better if we just go presuppositional and assume that they love their children just as much as we love our own children and meet them on that level. I have had wonderful conversations and I have had much more influence over others doing it this way than approaching them in a caustic and brash manner all the while hurling insults that go to the very core of their being.
November 1, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I love the idea that having more kids means you have more sex. Haven’t people with 2 kids at least done it 12 times or more?
November 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I have pre-ordered Passionate Housewives as well. And I have to say, my experience sounds much like Corrie’s…most people really appreciate the fact that I have chosen to be home with my kids. And now I am also in the season of caring for an elderly parent and people seem to appreciate that as well.
I must admit, however, sometimes I do feel desperate….that laundry thing again.
November 1, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Spunky,
Thanks for sharing the article by Tim. I read every comment and there were some good, thought-provoking ones.
I think the concept of the eternal subordination of Christ is key to all of this and I would like to see who believes what about this historically.
Also, I keep wondering about this….if the Bible says that men are to love their wives and we are all to love each other, and it also says that women are to submit to their own husbands and we are all to submit to one another, WHY is the submission of a wife to her husband central to so many of these teachings?
And, the other questions involves the word “ezer.” I just cannot see where it implies being subordinate. Can someone show me how that word can be translated that way?
November 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Lynn, thanks for you kind words.
I am looking forward to some of the speakers I am looking to interview next year. There are so many “ordinary” folk who have much good to say and who hold to the authority of the Word of God as they say it. i am much more interested in bringing the voices of these dear saints to my microphone than any who’s who guru.
November 1, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Personally, I have never been ashamed to be a housewife. I’ve never shied away from telling people my vocation because I’m pretty darn proud of it. I don’t feel like I’ve sacrificed anything because this has always been my ambition.
And I have never once encountered anyone who suggested I was “just a housewife” or “just a mom” or anyone who denigrated SAHM/SAHW… I’m sure they are out there, but I have yet to find them.
Well, strike that. I did encounter one person kind of like that on an old message board I used to frequent. Anne knows this person as our favorite atheist. She was all about “choice” for women as long as it was a choice approved by radical feminists. She paid lip-service to her alleged belief that women should have the “choice” to stay home or work, but it was obvious that she really only valued those “contributing” members of society, i.e. working women.
She’s really the only one though…
November 1, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Here’s a good overview article on the eternal subordination of the Son.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/cary_new_evangelical_subord.pdf
November 1, 2007 at 7:25 pm
“The same sort of people who said I was in sin for having 5 c-sections and that I allowed the docs to rape me each time I went in for surgery. Yes, this was actually said to me more than once by more than one person. “Better to die in childbirth than allow my body to be violated.””
A sin to have a C-section??? Ok, now I have heard everything. How in the world do they compare surgery with rape?
Are they against ALL surgery, or just female surgery? And what about women with cancer of the ovaries, uterus, etc? Do these people say that women are sinning if they get surgery to remove cancerous reproductive organs?
November 1, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I don’t ask people who make such statements where they got their beliefs. I just move on as quickly as I can. I had one woman berate my husband before the birth of our fifth about this very issue. Telling my husband that he was failing in role as “protector.” My husband (a very gracious man) just laughed it off, but found it incredibly ironic that a “patriarch’s wife” would dare rebuke the decision made by another head of household about his wife . That was a theological mind bender, for sure.
The reason I had a some many c-sections was because my third flipped inutero when I was complete and ready to push. (Don’t ask me how I’m a wee bit over 5′1″ without a lot of middle to wiggle around in.) The doctors tried for nearly two hours to reverse him, but when he grabbed the cord and headed for the exit, it was a done deal and time to take the baby. After that birth, I was berated by more than one woman who told me that all the doc had to do was pinch that little guy’s hand and he’d know who was boss and start cooperating!
I’d laugh if it weren’t so sad.
November 1, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Cynthia—the c-section comment didn’t surprise me because I’ve heard it before from some in the patriarch camp. For some, if you don’t homebirth, then you’re just not trusting God enough.
Ironically it was the whole birth issue that really helped me open my eyes and quit romanticizing the VF type lifestyle. I’ve written about it on my blog in depth:
http://justenjoythejourney.blogspot.com/2007/02/time-for-letting-go-and-moving-forward.html
I am not trying to plug my blog, the only reason I linked is that it is my most popular post found via searches. Long story short, my husband and I carry a genetic disease that will be passed on 50% of the time. We’ve lost 2 kids, and we have 2 kids that are affected (albeit mildly) with the disease. We have chosen not to have anymore.
One of my “in real life” former friends no longer speaks to me because she thinks my husband and I are not trusting God enough with our fertility, and that even a dead baby is a blessing from God. To which I agree, all babies are blessings. But until you walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, you will not understand the pain of losing a baby.
The over-the-top quiverful arguments that come from many in the patriocentric camp is what really did it for me.
I could take the guilt no longer. And, I had 3 csections myself, which was frowned upon.
In the end, to many in this lifestyle, a woman who cannot birth 10+ children at home is simply broken.
November 1, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Lindsay, I am so sorry that you have had to endure such heartless abuse from others. It never ceases to amaze me what people will say in the name of “taking a stand” for whatever.
My husband and I have 6 children and to many in these circles we are small potatoes.
I can remember when I was really and truly suffering prior to my hysterectomy. I didn’t need to hear about all the optional remedies I could have. I didn’t need to hear that I was closing my womb. I spent a year grieving before the Lord before I finally agreed with all the doctors. Amazingly, the surgeon validated what I knew…I would have bleed to death eventually and once he completed the surgery, he told us he was surprised that I hadn’t been rushed in to the emergency room already.
These stories I keep hearing about how the medical profession is supposed to take a back seat to the fathers scares me. Of course, they would be in good company back there, wouldn’t they? Boy oh boy.
November 1, 2007 at 8:46 pm
My Passionate Housewives” book just arrived in the mail…Corrie, it might be a triple feature….
I don’t have time to read much today but did notice a couple things in the acknowledgements that are interesting.
First, a quote from Stacy:
“Pastor Tim Bayly, your courageous and biblical stand against egalitarian compromise in the church has inspired many Christians to stand firm. We thank you for your willingness to critique our chapters on feminism as we sought to define terms accurately. Your wise counsel came at the perfect time, and we are grateful for the investment.”
This will explain the presuppositions that are behind this book regarding the place of women and what is and is not feminism.
And, this ““to my beloved James, the loving head of our home, the patriarch of our family….” Confirmation of what we knew, though I believe James has stated, several times, that he is NOT a patriarch. Does anyone else remember that?
More later….
November 1, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I haven’t met any people who have such weird ideas about c-sections or homebirth only. Oh, my word!
I have gotten mostly positive remarks from women concerning my current status as SAHM. The only people who have criticized me are baby boomers ready to retire who put their careers ahead of their family. All the young moms think it is wonderful that I stay home and wish they could, too. A lot of women are staying home and putting off their “careers” like I did. Sure, there are some radical feminists out there like Linda Hirchman (or whatever her name is), but I don’t think they are the norm. They don’t live in my town. Normal middle class women that I see would give their right arms to stay home with their babies.
I think people view my husband and I as sex-crazed, too, because we have almost 3 children in 4 yrs of marriage. Whatever. These people need to retake sex-ed or something.
November 1, 2007 at 9:22 pm
The same sort of people who said I was in sin for having 5 c-sections and that I allowed the docs to rape me each time I went in for surgery. Yes, this was actually said to me more than once by more than one person. “Better to die in childbirth than allow my body to be violated.”
Spunky, what they said to you was over the top. I also had a c-section with my oldest child; VBAC for the 3 following children. My oldest was 2 1/2 lbs. and went into distress with each contraction. C-section was a mercy God gave to save his life. I was also dealing with pre-eclampsia, so it could have turned bad for me.
Anne, my heart goes out to you because I also have a young child in heaven and because of my chronic medical condition, my husband and I decided for me to get a tubal (gasp) after her birth. Out of compassion for future children, and to not tempt God, I made one of the hardest, painful decisions I have ever had to make. It was devastating to my emotions. But God is good. Thank the Lord I wasn’t also around people at the time who would have judged me for such a decision. I can confess my reason I don’t get pregnant any more (I’m 40) around other Christians I know, ONLY IF I preface it with my medical background. The emphasis on baby-making/delievering seems to be turning into an agenda, instead of a decision between husband and wife. I was pro-life from the moment I found out I was pregnant with my first child; God giving me a clear conviction my baby in utero was alive — even without ever reading any pro-life literature or knowing much of what the Bible said. I immediately began to view babies as precious people who God entrusted into our care. But to elevate the process of birthing, or how many we should have to the point of equating modern mercies of God with a horrible sin/tragedy of rape, is really a tragic ignorance and stumbling block. (maybe I’ll write a book: “What Color is Your Quiver?” in honor of What Color is Your Parachute?) My first question to those who would be so legalistic: What about the grace and love and mercy of God?
November 2, 2007 at 1:03 am
post 251- Cynthia, Spunky answered your question for me
November 2, 2007 at 1:11 am
These two things made me giggle:
“They really should blame Mary, Martha’s sister, for starting this whole trend! She really is the forerunner of all these uppity women.”(#249)
and
I must admit, however, sometimes I do feel desperate….that laundry thing again.(#265)
*******
Here’s what a note in my bible says about “ezer”(Heb., lit (helper)) I am outlining/paraphrasing here: God identifies Himself with the same word (as applied to Eve) in Ex 18:4, Deut. 33:7. Eve would have a vital part in extending the generations (Gen 1:28), would bring comfort and fellowship to Adam (Gen 2:23,24). Used with the phrase “kenegdo” (Heb., lit.(“corresponding to what was in front of him”)) only in verses 18 and 20, it emphasizes the commonality between the man and the woman.
I don’t know if that helps Lynn- I have heard so many interpretations on these two little words, from John Eldredge in Wild at Heart to the VF stuff, that from what I can tell, it’s pretty much how the person/preacher chooses to interpret the Hebrew. But outside of the patriarchal circle, I’ve mostly heard the phrase “ezer kenegdo” described as alternately “helper” and “companion”.
November 2, 2007 at 1:21 am
For some, if you don’t homebirth, then you’re just not trusting God enough.
Ironically it was the whole birth issue
Sorry for two comments in a row- but- if I’m not mistaken- aren’t hospital births safer than homebirths? And where in the Bible does it say “Thou shalt not go to a hospital?”
November 2, 2007 at 1:26 am
I guess I should have said, I am using the Woman’s Study Bible, 2nd ed. NKJV.
*****
As for the C-section/sin debate…how my heart breaks for what you have been told Anne! I’ve never heard this kind of bunk. For that matter, what would they say to Eve, who had Cain and Abel, lost them both, and who remained childless until God blessed her and Adam with Seth, through whose line the Messiah would come? (See Gen. 4:25, 26.)Three children! Oh my! What would they say to Elizabeth? Sheesh. I cannot believe they would compare it to rape to have a c-section. All life is precious, whether male or female, young or old, mother or baby, disabled or of sound body…the minute we start making some sort of distinctions about who is more “worthy of life” then another, we veer dangerously close to the precipice, because it devalues another human being. I don’t need another Holocaust to tell me that!
James and I are seriously praying about what we are doing now regarding childbirth- we both are feeling four is complete for us, and my body, quite simply, cannot handle another pregnancy right now. So I can’t imagine what they would say to us. But I remain firm in the fact that, the final decision is between God, my husband and I.
My heart breaks for the women (and men) who have been so gravely hurt by such unkind and unthoughtful words!
November 2, 2007 at 3:39 am
“I had one woman berate my husband before the birth of our fifth about this very issue. Telling my husband that he was failing in role as “protector.” ”
It looks to me like these people value their belief system more than they value the actual lives of mothers or babies. They apparently find a natural birth resulting in a dead baby or mother to be preferable to a C-section resulting in a live birth!
This is what comes of putting a belief system ahead of real, live people — you end up with an ideology-turned-idolatry, where commonsense and charity go out the window, and are replaced by a certain strident superstition and judgementalism.
One wonders just how many babies’ and mothers’ lives have already been sacrificed on the altar of this modern-day fertility cult, and how many more deaths it will take before everyone wakes up and smells the “Kool Ade”.
November 2, 2007 at 3:43 am
Thank you to all of you who have shared stories regarding trusting the medical profession in regards to your reproduction. Again, I see nothing in the bible that says that the only way to allow God to perform a miracle is to sit back and wait for it to happen. Even Jesus’ miracles involved action of some kind, whether hauling water or telling someone to go bathe in a river.
November 2, 2007 at 3:47 am
Once upon a time, a man sat on his porch as a flood warning was beginning. His neigbor was pulling out of the driveway following the evacuation order from the community officials. The neigbor said, “Hey. Jump in. We can ride out together to avoid the flood.” The man responded, “I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood.”
A little while later, the water covered the street, and an SUV cut it’s way through the flood. A stranger rolled down the window and said, “Hey fellow. Jump in, this flood is going to get worse.” The man responded, “I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood.”
As time passed, the water became high enough that the man had to move inside and look out his second floor window. A boat came by, and the man in the boat yelled out, “Jump in. This flood is going to get worse.” The man responded, “I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood.”
The man was forced to climb to the roof as the flood entered his second floor. A rescue helicopter whirled overhead and a voice came from a bull-horn yelling, “Grab this rope ladder. we’ll save you.” The man yelled back, “I have faith. God will save me from the impending flood.”
The man drowned.
When he reached the pearly gates, the man said to Saint Peter, “I had faith. Why did God let me drown?” Saint Pete responded, “We sent you a car, an SUV, and boat and a helicopter. What else were we supposed to do?”
November 2, 2007 at 6:40 am
On the comments on Challies blog, they are really good. Suzanne, in particular (a member of the Better Bibles Blog (such a good blog!), Greek translator, and someone with a passionate scholarly mind) is always a thought-provoking read.
On the eternal subordination of the Son, this was a HUGE thing that came up for me as I researched patriarchy (last year as I slowly and painfully exited the patriarchal fold).
I posted about it (last year) in the link provided below (posts are in order from most recent to last, so start with the bottom post) and provide some links. It is VERY intersting stuff. Here’s a brief little quote from one of the posts for those interested:
…
“The illogical proposition that one can be equal and subordinate was immediately spotted by Arius while reviewing Origen’s theories of the Trinity. He held that Christ could not be subordinate and co-eternal. Hence, he opted for a created being so that the issue of Christ would be logically consistent. Athanasius corrected the heresy (Arian) by stating that Christ was NOT subordinate and was co-eternal – completely equal to and with God. (New Dictionary of Theology, “Trinity”, pp 692-693).”
…
This really blew me away!
I had *always* been taught eternal subordination of the Son—ALWAYS. It was *never* something I questioned. I thought it was just the truth, the end. Learning that it’s a pretty new doctrine on the scene (and that it stands in stark contrast against the Nicene Creed) was pretty astonishing to me. Anyways, here’s the link to the three posts I wrote about this:
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/?s=eternal+subordination
Again, I want to reiterate that leaving patriarchy was *not* something I set out to do. It was something that happened as an inevitable result of digging and digging and digging into Scripture (with my end goal being NOT supporting a belief structure but simply finding what best glorifies Yahweh and living it.
I didn’t find patriarchy supported there by the time I got done turning over all the stones. But I did find Love.
And that pretty much blew me totally away and made everything brand new.
Patriarchy told me that I *had* to submit to my husband, that it was my *place/role* to honor him. Love tells me I *get* to prefer him over myself, that I *get* to honor him (and that he has the freedom to do the same to and for me). I’m not a patriarch’s wife anymore. But I love and honor my husband—not because he’s my earthly lord, as I once thought, but because he’s a man that God loves (and I love what God loves).
God’s love for ME (wow!) gives me my identity, not anything else (and whether that identity is found in being a “Biblical woman” or a patriarch’s wife or an egalitarian or WHATEVER it is, if it’s something we’re adding to the Gospel, then it’s just wood, hay, and stubble).
Paul wrote Galatians for a reason, and it wasn’t just for the Jews who were adding on Jewish customs to the Gospel—it was for modern add-on’s too. It’s Jesus-plus-NOTHING-ELSE. Paul said any other Gospel was anathema.
Interestingly, the Galatians were keeping the crucial points of the Gospel…they were just adding on some things you had to do in order to keep God happy, just a few yearly holidays and a little snip-snip on the male organs and whatnot.
They *still* believed that Jesus was Lord, they *still* held orthodox theology…they just started polluting grace. They just *added* to what a Christian had to do in order to enjoy God’s smile of approval.
But Jesus-plus-nothing-else is the message of Galatians. NOT Jesus-plus-a-parenting-method, or Jesus-plus-the-Vision-Forum-catalog or Jesus-plus-egalitarian-theology or Jesus-plus-my-prefered-denomination or Jesus-plus-hymns-instead-of-choruses.
JUST Jesus. He’s big enough all by Himself.
BLESSED to be graced by God, (Wahoooo!)
Molly
November 2, 2007 at 7:03 am
Hello! I’ve been following this conversation for a while now, and much of what has been said resonates with me. Thank you all for encouraging us to get back to the Scriptures, and back to Jesus.
One the big things I’ve realized as I’ve left the patriocentric movement is that I wasn’t finding my identity in Christ alone, my identity was tied to being a member of the movement, and to conforming to various standards. I’m now learning to find my identity in “just” being a daughter of God. I should really do a study on Galatians; several people have referred me to it lately.
I’ve been thinking lately on blogging about my own journey out of patriarchy…maybe I will.
Molly, excellent comments above (# 284), as always. I love the phrase “polluting grace.” A very succinct way of describing what I’ve been feeling.
November 2, 2007 at 11:11 am
All right, so I have some questions. I’m reading Rebecca James’ article on this site: http://www.theresurgence.org/rebecca_jones_2000_does_christianity_squash_women
It’s long, and I haven’t finished it, but I see already that she believes in the eternal “submission” of Jesus, as been mentioned here. My question comes from this paragraph:
“Looking back over the first twenty-nine years of married life, I might take stock of my “successes,” the kinds of things I could put on a resume: I have helped start a Christian school, made a highly effective method of communicating with the deaf known and popular in France, taught kindergarten, 7th grade, physical education in a school for delinquent girls, Cued Speech in a graduate program for speech therapists and graduate writing skills in a Seminary; I have written and produced several plays for Christian schools and churches, served on the board of various organizations, published articles and a novel, edited a dozen or so theological books and Doctor of Ministry projects, and spoken at numerous women’s retreats and functions. However, my real resume, the one God will be holding when I see Him, will have a different list of achievements altogether. The achievements of my human resume may have elements that are mentioned on my real one, but many are rubbish in comparison to the value of bearing, nourishing, nurturing, teaching, loving and training seven fabulously intriguing and rewarding images of God, and having helped to form the image of Christ in my husband.”
My questions are these:
1. Is she saying/implying that God will not judge or reward her for doing the former things? If so, why did she do them? Or, in comparison, to family life, God’s evaluation of those things is unimportant? that His attention to them is negligible? is that true?
2. If she were single and this was what she’d done with her life, God would or would not judge her for these things? how would God judge her differently than if she were married?
3. Does a man get judged mostly/only for what he does with life outside the family or inside? Is one more important than the other in God’s eyes?
I get the sense that she (and others) glorify childraising as some type of glorified work. It’s important, but it is more important than other callings or vocations that other people have? Is it more a heavenly reward than other ministries/work a mom does besides child raising? is she saying that for a wife/mom, it’s the most important thing she’ll be judged for? Is that true? It’s a bit perplexing.
thanks,
anne
November 2, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Anne, I think that Rebecca is missing the point.
It is true that the Bible doesn’t say that we will be judged as being righteous for our work outside the home:
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Nor does the Bible state that we will be accounted as being righteous for child-rearing. Child rearing is our duty, IF we have children, but our children are, after all, OURS, and in a sense taking care of our family is taking care of our own interests.
If someone does not take care of his own, according to 1 Timothy 5:8 “and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel”.
This is because infidels (and even animals) look out for their families — it’s part of our carnal nature and is no more than we are supposed to be doing anyway, whether we are Christians or not. God promises to look out for women in childbirth if they are faithful to Him (1Timothy 2:15), but we are told that both women and men can have a higher calling than family, in service to God alone:
1Cr 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 1Cr 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.
1Cr 7:34 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.
So childrearing is not an automatic guarantee of being judged as righteous. What we can do in order to be approved by God, according to the Bible, is to look out for our fellowman:
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
The New Testament says that women can do this too, and goes so far as to say that we should adorn ourselves with such “good works”:
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves…….. not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
And Acts 9:36 describes such works as being “almsdeeds” (done for others), and does not mention housework (which is SELF-serving, in part, since it is done for one’s own comfort and that of one’s own household):
“Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
So much, then, for childrearing and service to family being a guarantee of a favorable verdict on Judgement Day — even infidels raise children, love their families, and keep house.
Of course, there IS one surefire way to be judged as righteous, that doesn’t involve OUR works at all — it’s the BLOOD of Jesus Christ, and His Work on the Cross. When you follow Jesus, you will want to do good works, and you will DO good works, but there will be none of this stuff about being JUSTIFIED by them.
November 2, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I remember when Lindsey (#272) wrote her post about not having more children and it was partially what gave me the courage to write my own post about our decision to stop at one. The other factor was a strong conviction that Christians need to hear that there are those who love Christ and still make different decisions than what the current quiverfull movement promotes. Here’s my shameless plug:
http://agracioushome.com/?p=854
It generated a lot of comments and thankfully very few of them were negative. However, one woman was quick to point out that she was sure I could have avoided my c-section based on everything she has read. Sigh.
Cynthia said (#282):
It looks to me like these people value their belief system more than they value the actual lives of mothers or babies. They apparently find a natural birth resulting in a dead baby or mother to be preferable to a C-section resulting in a live birth!
This is what comes of putting a belief system ahead of real, live people — you end up with an ideology-turned-idolatry, where commonsense and charity go out the window, and are replaced by a certain strident superstition and judgementalism.
One wonders just how many babies’ and mothers’ lives have already been sacrificed on the altar of this modern-day fertility cult, and how many more deaths it will take before everyone wakes up and smells the “Kool Ade”.
This is precisely why I’m not trying to have any more. If I lived just four generations back or even in a different part of the world today, I wouldn’t be here and neither would Caroline. God may have made woman in the universal sense to bear children, but that doesn’t mean every female body was designed to do it more than once or even once in some cases.
I’ve come to terms with the fact that I will always be considered suspect in certain circles because I only have one child and made the decision to not try for any more. But I’m thankful for discussions like this one where I can meet other women who have struggled with similar choices and where we can tell our stories to those who read here and are sorting out these issues in their own lives.
November 2, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Another thing to consider….children are a blessing, but isn’t it possible to have too much of any blessing?
Food and “fatness” are described in the Scriptures as a blessing, but when we are greedy and eat more food that is good for
us, that’s gluttony and it’s a sin.
Likewise, in the Old Testament wine is called a blessing, but if we are greedy and seek to be “blessed” too much and too often, we commit the sin of drunkenness.
Obviously just because a thing is a blessing doesn’t mean that it’s
good to seek it in unlimited quantities — quite the contrary, in fact. A horse is “without understanding” (Psa 32:9) and if it is not bridled it will founder itself on oats, but humans are supposed to
know better.
Could it be that couples who seek to be “blessed” with more children
than they can safely bear or properly support are also sinning — perhaps moreso that the glutton or the drunkard, because they excuse their child-greed with the presumptious notion that “God will provide” when, as a natural result of their actions, they end up with more kids than they can feed without seeking aid from the government, the community, or the church; or when, despite warnings, women who are physically unable to safely bear children persist in trying to do so, and ruin their health or even die, leaving the children they do have motherless?
November 2, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Cynthia Gee said, “Could it be that couples who seek to be “blessed” with more children
than they can safely bear or properly support are also sinning — perhaps moreso that the glutton or the drunkard, because they excuse their child-greed with the presumptious notion that “God will provide” when, as a natural result of their actions, they end up with more kids than they can feed”
I understand your point Cynthia, but also consider that a man and woman can be intimate but a child is not the natural result of their actions. A man and woman cannot create a child by their actions alone. (Infertility clinics are proof of that.) Children are God’s creation, and His reward.
“Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from HIM.”
In the case of the drunkard, an excessive action leads to an excessive result – drunkeness, which God calls sin. But not so intimacy in a marriage, excessive intimacy does not lead to excessive children. It “could” but that was God’s choosing not the result of their actions alone. Also consider that God does not call excessive intimacy sin, in fact we see the opposite, Scripture says we are not to refuse our spouse.
“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” 1 Cor. 7:3
And even if a husband and wife were intimate to the point of excess, the fruit of their supposed excess is not called sin, as it is with the drunk or the glutton.
“Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.”
So comparing parents of large families to a drunk or a glutton doesn’t seem to be supported in Scripture, as neither the action itself (intimacy) or its result (children) are things that the Bible condemns.
November 2, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Spunky, you have a very good point, it IS God who gives children or not , just as He gives us life, or not, every second of every minute of every day.
I wasn’t so much pointing to an excess of sex when I compared some parents to drunkards or gluttons, for as you say, not every act of intimacy results in a child, and intimacy can be timed around the woman’s cycle so as to result in a child, or not.
The type of greed that I am referring to has little to do with the sex act. It is greed for the children themselves, where couples deliberately seek to have as many children as they can, as quickly as they can (sometimes even forgoing breastfeeding in order to concieve again as soon as possible after giving birth), with no regard for whether they can feed and cloth their children or for the effect of such avarice on the health of the mother.
In young, healthy women, as in cats, dogs, and most other mammals, an “open” womb is God’s default setting. Copulation at the right time of the female cycle will generally result in offspring — a look at the number of out of wedlock births (or a visit to the aniomal shelter!) proves this — and people can certainly choose to quite deliberately concieve more children than is wise (as opposed to merely having “too much sex”), just as they can choose to eat too much food, drink too much wine, or acquire too many cats or dogs.
Usually, God will not stop them from such foolishness, and He will often even bring a blessing out of it, but that doesn’t mean that He willed it in the first place.
THAT is the same as drunkenness or gluttony — the inordinate seeking after a thing which, in moderation, is a blessing.
November 2, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Ugh.. that last posting was written in a hurry, and it’s a grammatical mess. Too bad that computers don’t have a “usage check” feature..
November 2, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Cynthia, what you appear to be doing is ascribing a sinful heart of “greed” to a certain family’s decision to forgo birth control. Their greed for more children, has led to an undesirable result. That is, children that they cannot afford.
That is the same thing that some attempt to do to those that deicde to limit family size only they don’t call it greed, but a lack of faith or trust in the Lord. Their sin of disbelief in the Lord, has led to the decision to prevent childen.
I don’t think either can be supported Scripturally. Both a lack of faith and greed can be viewed as a sin, but to say concretely that this is the motive of one who chooses to use or forgo birth control cannot be said. I understand that many try to do so, but I just don’t see it in Scripture.
Further, the idea of “deliberate conception” is not an idea consistent with my worldview which says that God is the Creator of all life. One cannot deliberately conceive. It’s just not possible. At best, they can only deliberately TRY to conceive. Yes, “God’s default” appears to be an “open womb” but clearly that is God’s deliberate choice. He closes and opens the womb and allows conception to be the default result of the act of marriage. But that is not the same thing as “deliberate conception.” A couple who chooses to forgo contraception is merely accepting God’s default option as their option as well.
“Usually, God will not stop them from such foolishness, and He will often even bring a blessing out of it, but that doesn’t mean that He willed it in the first place.”
To say that it wasn’t God’s will for the child to be conceived, but simply the result of His refusal to stop their foolishness doesn’t make sense. If God chose not to stop their “foolishness” and God’s default choice is conception, then how can we say that conception of a child wasn’t His choice? He could have stopped the action but didn’t, and he could have shut the womb, but didn’t. So how was conception not HIS will? And if conception wasn’t His first choice, then whose choice was it and how did their choice supersede God’s choice?
November 2, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Spunky, I disagree.
First of all, child-greed goes way beyond skipping birth control. Skipping birth control is simply doing nothing to STOP conception, and letting what happens,happen.
I was talking about couples who do things like avoid breastfeeding, so that the mother is fertile again after childbirth months sooner than she normally would be, or who chart ovulation and deliberately attempt to conceive a child at every given opportunity.
God’s default choice is conception, but He gives us human beings an mind and a say in the matter. We are not animals, to breed mindlessly, we have a choice.
Does He want people or even animals to concieve at every opportunity? If He does, why not let thirteen-year-old kids get married and have children? They are certainly capable of concieving, you know. Or one could let their cat out every time she comes into season, with the thought that any kittens that result are simply part of God’s will.
Not everything that God allows us to do, is something that we SHOULD do — as Paul says “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”
November 2, 2007 at 6:32 pm
On contraception…
This subject always makes me think about my girlfriend (mother of 7 with only one fallopian tube) who for many years wore hats to church. She loved God and honored Him so much that she wanted to be conservative and ere to the side of honoring the Word rather than treading on the Blood of Jesus. The response that many had was quite interesting. Frankly, it was one of those things that I thought was none of my business, having grown up in Amish and Mennonite country. The subject came up between us many years ago, and I honored her reverence to the Lord. She did not EVER subject anyone to her practice but sought only to serve the Lord as her conscience gave her liberty. I was humbled by her devotion, and years later, she grew in faith and stopped wearing hats. It reminds me of many issues in my own walk. Years ago, many things seemed sinful to me and many things seemed like liberties. Many of those things have changed based on the maturity that I’ve developed over the years.
It’s clear in the Bible that we are to be fruitful and multiply. I’ve heard a sermon that said that the outcome of intimacy is fruitfulness, both in the physical realm and in the spiritual. Solomon wrote that we should walk in the ways of our hearts and the sight of our eyes, but for all these things, God would bring us into judgement. Paul wrote in Romans 14 that we could eat meat that was sacrificed to idols if our individual conscience gave us liberty to do so. (It’s interesting to me that over the course of my life that the standards to change with maturity.) So the focus is not so much the practices (those which are not clearly deliniated) versus keeping one’s heart contrite towards the Lord, the Word and His Spirit. Plugged right in there in Paul’s discourse is the instruction to live with consideration of one’s brethren in mind, always showing love, deference (and tolerance for those who hold a different conviction). Not all is black and white, and Paul did give us this liberty.
Granted that a couple is devoted to the Lord, is this topic not like that of meat sacrificed to idols? Clearly we are to be fruitful and multiply in general, and it seems obvious to me that we should not use abortifacient means of birth control. But, especially in circles that are Reformed and claim that God is sovereign, do they believe that God opens and closes the womb or not? Are those that push this militant fecundity agenda somehow responsible for those who fail to produce a sufficient number of offspring? (Offspring seems about as personal and considerate a term as militant fecundity, so I offer it for consideration…) This movement is so paternalistic! Let people live their lives and answer to God — and let God be God. That’s not to say that we are to wink at or fail to speak out against that which does not honor God or honor life.
This movement is about child greed as a response to child distain. I find it interesting though, to use a Doug Phillips-like comment, they end up aborting their women alive on altars of the traditions of men. And as someone stated here recently, they have far more honor for their belief system than they do for their women and children. It’s about as sensible as the French Revolution’s Robespierre guillotine execution of all those who did not follow his beliefs which included the outlawing of capital punishment.
November 2, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“I was talking about couples who do things like avoid breastfeeding, so that the mother is fertile again after childbirth months sooner than she normally would be, or who chart ovulation and deliberately attempt to conceive a child at every given opportunity. ”
So you are arguing that a person who deliberately tries to conceive by creating the best environment possible for conception wrong, but a woman who creates an environment where conception cannot occur (except by divine intervention) is okay? And if so, why is the first wrong, but the second acceptable according to the Bible?
“God’s default choice is conception, but He gives us human beings an mind and a say in the matter. We are not animals, to breed mindlessly, we have a choice. ”
I agree, It appears that God has given man a choice. And if that is true, some will choose to “breed mindlessly” (your words) and some will choose to not have any at all. But it seems you apparently want view those that choose to “breed mindlessly” a choice based on greed. That’s similar to those that seek to make the choice not to have any, a choice based on greed (careerism) or lack of faith in God.
That COULD be true in the specific, but not in the general sense. And since God appears to allow us the choice as you said we must allow that choice as well. And since only God knows the motives of the heart, it is best in my opinion, to limit our discussion to what we KNOW rather than supposing motives such as greed; which we cannot possibly know.
November 2, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Again, patriarchy is not monolithic. Not everyone or every leader is driven by “militant fecundity.” It’s just in the absence of evangelism as directed towards our fallen culture (and focused on neo-tribalistic, self-edification), it seems to be more about perpetuation of the system than it is about Christian principles.
In the abscence of evangelism and Christian love for the lost within our fallen culture, is it really incorrect to call “militant fecundity” a type of “child greed?”
In that View of Southern Patriarchy talk by Doug from sermonaudio, he quotes Adam Smith as saying that children are a sign of opulence and prosperity to the parents and that daughters should marry young. They are a source of economic wealth (as well as spiritual blessing), and they are an in-house medicare and social security system. It need not be, but it could be distorted by some to support usury.
November 2, 2007 at 7:05 pm
My thoughts on the subject are pretty simple. After having 5 babies in 6 years, I learned that the QF doctrine doesn’t take into account the fact that human bodies are under a curse.
It’s also interesting to note that our own reproductive systems (NOT just giving birth, but our fertility cycles and everything) are NOT what they were pre-Fall. (Go ahead, check it out in Genesis 3, look up the Hebrew words). So having babies every 1-3 years *is* hard on a woman’s body because it’s more than her body was meant to handle.
However, a family that wants 10 kids should be given the grace to have 10 kids and the church should welcome each child with open arms. Likewise, the family that decides they shouldn’t have kids, or stops at one, or has one and then adopts, or WHATEVER should also be given the freedom to decide what they think is best for their family, and equally welcomed with open arms.
Just because the QF camp has pitched battle flags up and raised the war cry (against those who use birth control) does NOT mean we have to agree that there’s a battle. They can whoop and holler all they want (either side, the anti-QF and the pro-QF) but I don’t think we have to join in. Can we just give people the benefit of the doubt and figure they’ve probably prayerfully made the decision that’s right for them? Or are we so insecure about our decisions that we have to try to force them on everyone else so that we feel better. ?
Much Love,
From someone who really struggled with purposely stopping childbearing, because I’d thought to stop was sin…
(Wrote about it last year in an article I titled, “Justification by Wombs?”
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/07/09/justification-by-wombs/
November 2, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Btw, YES, I exclusively breast-fed (and through the night, at that). NO, exclusive breast-feeding does not delay fertility for some women.
November 2, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“So you are arguing that a person who deliberately tries to conceive by creating the best environment possible for conception wrong, but a woman who creates an environment where conception cannot occur (except by divine intervention) is okay?”
Now when did I say that? I said:
A.)that a person who tries to have as many children as humanly possible, regardless of whether thae can care for them and regardless of the effect on the health of the mother, is NOT OK;
AND,
B.) I NEVER said that “a woman who creates an environment where conception cannot occur (except by divine intervention)” IS OK.
I NEVER ONCE mentioned artificial birth control — when I talked about couples limiting the size of their families, I referred to avoiding sex around the time of ovulation. Variations in a woman’s cycle do occur, which is why the Rhythm Method is not at all foolproof. God is, as you say, in charge of conception, and a glich in a woman’s cycle which results in conception should be taken as evidence of His will that a child be born.
I’m sorry if I touched a nerve here, Spunky, but please don’t put words in my mouth. You are better than that.
November 2, 2007 at 7:27 pm
“In the abscence of evangelism and Christian love for the lost within our fallen culture, is it really incorrect to call “militant fecundity” a type of “child greed?”
In that View of Southern Patriarchy talk by Doug from sermonaudio, he quotes Adam Smith as saying that children are a sign of opulence and prosperity to the parents and that daughters should marry young. They are a source of economic wealth (as well as spiritual blessing), and they are an in-house medicare and social security system. It need not be, but it could be distorted by some to support usury.”
Thank you, Cindy, that is exactly the sort of thing to which I was referring. And what about couples who go to extreme measures to have upwards of a dozen kids and then end up relying on other people to support them?
November 2, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Molleth, breastfeeding didn’t help me too much either. I got pregnant once before my menses had even returned, while exclusively breastfeeding around the clock.
I do wonder, with people like Jennie Chancey who are Quiverfull and don’t approve of women working outside of the home, how would they feel if their church was supporting a family that couldn’t support itself on one income, but was having a baby every year.
I think I might resent it a bit.
November 2, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I was also thinking today about how some of these “extra teachings” are quite regional and varied. Here where I live, the patriarchal-type churches are really big into the quiverful thinking and family-oriented church (no sunday school, etc). But, I have friends who go to these same VF like churches and the focus there is more on headcovering, defining modest dress to the extremes (think Mennonite/Amish cape dresses). Personally the whole headcovering and dress issue is not a big deal in the VF-like churches in our area. I know Jen over at JensGems has talked at length about top top-down male management of communion, women not voting and other “rules” that are more prominent in her area churches.
I think it becomes very easy to zero in on one type of “rule” when you’re not focused on the gospel.
Sorry for a completely different comment in an odd direction, but I felt it should be mentioned.
November 2, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Molly,
I really appreciate your post #298.
I come at this from the other side of the fecundity fence. I’ve been married 17 years and have never carried a pregnancy beyond 2 months. About a year into our marriage, my husband was diagnosed with an atypical type of arthritis, and I developed asthma after exiting four years in a Bill Gothard influenced church. My husband has been on FMLA twice in the past ten years for chronic, incapacitiating migraine and when he lost his eye in a car accident. I ended up on steroids for about three years while in Texas. Regarding contraception, I didn’t need it for a couple of years and have little call for it now.
I cry out to the Lord for His Will to be unto me according to His Word. My best friend once said that she wished that she could let me nurse on of her babies because I was so moved by concept. I have no children and am told that we would be unlikely for approval for adoption because of our health issues. But we look pretty good on the surface, so some people carry on with us about “our choice” against parenthood? What choice? We’ve been consumed with surviving for 15 years. People should have seen me cry when I finally got rid of my “home schooling hope chest” of things that I’d collected in anticipation. I’ve focused on being a devoted wife and have worked as a nurse when circumstances allowed. But I guess that per many of these standards, I’m thrice fit for hell.
I still believe that God opens and closes the womb. And I am ever grateful and rejoice that the steps of the righteous man (only through the Blood of Jesus) are ordered of the Lord. I’m created unto good works just like every other believer, prepared in advance for me to do. Mine just seem to be a bit different.
November 2, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I’ve decided that, no matter how many children you have or how you birth them, someone will get upset and feel it their duty to let you have it.
Over the years, I’ve been roundly rebuked for:
giving birth in a hospital
giving birth at home (with highly qualified midwives and after much research and prayer)
having a c-section
not having a c-section
laboring without drugs (why on earth should anyone who wasn’t even there care about whether I used painkillers or not???)
having one child
having two children
having more children
having only six children
being a “shameless breeder”
having a baby at the advanced age of 39
not being pregnant now, even though I’m 49 and apparently incapable of pregnancy without “extreme measures”
having only one daughter (I guess it’s sinful of me not to adopt a few girls)
I could go on and on. My favorite story is the total stranger who overheard me talking about my midwife at a baby fair and then stalked me around the convention center just so that she could scream at me for being a child abuser and threaten to call the police on me for planning a homebirth. (By the way, homebirths are not illegal in my state. I was actually hoping she would call the police, because I thought they might end up dragging her off to the loonie bin, where she belonged.)
I think some of the militant QF people are so because they are reacting to years of people berating them for daring to have more than the socially acceptable number of children. I also think militant homebirthers have snapped after hearing, for the hundredth time, someone babble hysterically, “Don’t you love this baby? Don’t you realize it could DIE if you insist on this homebirth nonsense? How will you feel when your baby dies and you bleed to death and your poor husband is left a widower with all these babies to raise?!”
I know it was really hard for me to just smile and nod politely when some women in our church insisted that ALL MIDWIVES WERE WITCHES!!!! and that I was duped by the ones who claimed their were Christians.
November 2, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“I know it was really hard for me to just smile and nod politely when some women in our church insisted that ALL MIDWIVES WERE WITCHES!!!!”
Great Scott…. where do people GET all of their crazy ideas?
November 2, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“I’m sorry if I touched a nerve here, Spunky, but please don’t put words in my mouth. You are better than that.”
No, Cynthia you didn’t touch a nerve.
And I didn’t put words in your mouth.
If you look back at the quote, I asked a question. Here’s the quote.
““So you are arguing that a person who deliberately tries to conceive by creating the best environment possible for conception wrong, but a woman who creates an environment where conception cannot occur (except by divine intervention) is okay?”
That’s not putting words in your mouth, all you have to do is say, no. That’s not what I’m saying. When I read the previous comment, it appeared as though you might have believe that a women who deliberately chooses not to breastfeed in order to conceive was some how wrong. But I didn’t want to assume that, and thus put words in your mouth, so I asked a question instead to clarify it a bit. That’s all my question was for.
“In the abscence of evangelism and Christian love for the lost within our fallen culture, is it really incorrect to call “militant fecundity” a type of “child greed?”
Cindy, I understand your point and it introduces an aspect that was not in the original discussion, that being the absence of evangelism and Chrsitian love. Which would create a totally different scenario and discussion altogether. My point was merely to state that a women who desires lots of children (no other factors considered) is not necessarily greedy. I allowed that greed COULD be a motive and your scenario demonstrates one possibility. But we cannot know for sure.
Cynthia, as your story demonstrates about giving up your “homeschool hope chest” your heart was to do the will of the father. You had a desire for children, but it did not come about. Another family has an equal desire for children, and they have ten. Is your desire more pure than their desire, or their desire more greedy than yours? No. And just as you felt total freedom in expressing your desire for children, so too should the woman who has ten. Neither of you should be looked down upon for expressing the honest desire of your heart.
That said, if however the desire for children is elevated to the point of replacing evangelism or a love for the lost, then that desire could be called sin. But both the childless and the “quiverfull” are equally tempted by such “greed” if that is indeed the motive for their desire. Such could be the case with Doug Phillips in the quote you gave above, but not necessarily for all who decide to have as many children as the Lord allows. I know many women who choose to have a houseful of children, whose heart for the lost is not absent. So once we cannot make a generalization based on a specific example of Doug Phillips. And even then, I don’t know his behavior toward the lost, so its difficult to even say that he is greedy for his choice in having a large family.
November 2, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Oops, that should by Cindy’s story about the “homeschool hope chest” not Cynthia’s. My aplogies for the confusion.
November 2, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I just got the latest Vision Forum catalog.
Um…Did anyone think it was kind of funny that the Botkin’s DVD has an endorsement printed next to it saying something to the effect of how the dvd will be a great tool to help father’s learn how to better parent their daughters?
Considering the fact that women making general announcements during a Church meeting was suspect (of women trying to usurp male authority) and therefore not allowed in Doug Phillips church, WHY is it then okay for the Botkin young ladies to produce a video that Vision Forum advertises to be an educational resource to help fathers become better patriarchs?
The double standards get kind of confusing after a while…
November 2, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Spunky,
Thanks for your kind words. We shouldn’t ascribe motive to people, but I do wonder sometimes. Again, I don’t think many people would be so polarized by their statements if they didn’t prescribe a higher order of Christian for those who comply.
And my girlfriend (who used to wear hats!) says that I can claim two of her kids as my own. She really wants me to claim the most willful ones, especially since they became adolescents! Ha, ha, ha.
November 3, 2007 at 12:38 am
Molleth,
Don’t you know that the “rules” don’t apply to the likes of the Botkin sisters, Doug Phillips, Stacy McDonald, etc.? They are above the rest of us.
November 3, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“The double standards get kind of confusing after a while…”
I noticed the same thing about the catalog Molleth. And it’s not just in the catalog with the Botkin’s movie, but on on the back of their book So Much More.
Pastor and teacher, R.C. Sproul, in his endorsement of the Botkin book on the back cover said,
“I encourage fathers, mothers, daughters, and sons to read this book and that covers everyone.”
Ironically, the Botkin girls themselves acknowledge this, on page 6 they write,
“If you are not willing to to give your heart to your father, this book will put you at odds with the Scriptural mandate you will find here. besides, if you leave the book lying around your father might find it and get fatherly ideas. However, this is not a book for fathers. Even though there are many things we might like to say to fathers, it is simply not a part of God’s design that we do the saying.
But yet “saying to fathers” is exactly what they’re doing in their movie and at the encouragment of R.C. Sproul. Ironically, the men who have taught them that men should be doing the saying, are strangely letting them say it with their blessing.
This isn’t confusing for me at all. It just helps me understand that they don’t even take the stuff they preach seriously in their personal lives. And if they don’t take it seriously, why should I?
Does that mean I expect an author or teacher to be sinless and perfect? No, but I do expect that they are willing to be held accountable for what they teach. And when their life doesn’t match their words, personal credibility and respect for the Truth requires that either they admit that they are not living what they preach, repent, and change, or that acknowledge that what they preach isn’t necessarily a “Scriptural Mandate” as the Botkin’s called it. But ignoring the obvious contradictions diminishes their credibility. And once a teacher or writer loses credibility their words become meangingless, even if they are true because few will trust what they say, and who can blame them?
November 3, 2007 at 4:04 pm
A plea from the heart,be wise when you see a couple without children,with a long time interval between one child and the next, with a small number of children, be careful what you say, don’t ask questions of others you wouldn’t ask the couple themselves, don’t make assumptions-you don’t know the family story.
I wrote this in my blog just this week, it links in to what Sally, Lindsey and Cindy have written.
http://whateverthingsare.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/loving-memories-part-1/
http://whateverthingsare.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/loving-memories-part-2/
I come to the large family debate as a christian mum and a midwife. Women rarely die in childbirth in the Western world, but it does happen. Women who have had many children are at risk of a low lying placenta because the placenta doesn’t attach to the same area of the uterus each pregnancy, a low lying placenta even if it doesn’t cover the cervix increases the risk of bleeding after the baby is born because there are fewer oblique muscle fibres (which help control bleeding) in the lower part of the uterus. If a woman has had a Caesarean section and has a low lying placenta , she is more likely to have a morbidly adherant placenta which often causes heavy bleeding after birth. I have cared for women who’ve needed Hysterectomy because of massive bleeding.
i am not against Home Birth at all, but women are all different and great wisdom needs to be exercised in the where to give birth debate. Fatalism / whatever will be will be isn’t Biblical at all. God is sovereign but he has given us our minds and need to think through what the consequences of our decisions may be of for our husbands, family, the baby being carried and those who may be caring for us during birth.
Also, as an aside the Bible talks of the blessings of children but Leah is the one woman who comes to mind whose many children are named, God gave her these children because she wasn’t loved by Jacob.
November 3, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Same here, Spunky. I don’t mean to pick on the Botkin’s and it’s not like I expect perfection, sheesh. But this continual double-standard is really annoying.
If you’re going to silence women, then silence them, for pete’s sake. Don’t let some blatantly break the rules while you sing their praises and aid their endeavors (since they’re promoting your agenda).
I don’t blame the women for enjoying having a platform. For those women born with a leader/speaker/mover-and-shaker type personality, this is the only outlet they have within the bounds of patriarchy. So it’s not like I want to take the one place they have away.
It’s just frustrating, that’s all, at how the rules are allowed to change, all depending on what the women are saying. If it’s, “Come to Billy’s birthday party,” it’s not allowed and is dangerous in a church meeting with men present—could be usurping behaviour, you know? And after all, God’s word specifically commands against women speaking and we want to be very very very obedient to the literal word.
But if it’s two young ladies saying, “We wrote a book all about how daughters need to dote on their fathers and obey dad’s will in every way until they marry, upon which they will do the same thing for their husbands since that is a female’s rightful place and it is a male’s rightful place to rule over females,” then, hey, it’s perfectly okay and not only is allowed, but gets front-page press.
Systems that abuse do this, across the board. This is a textbook example, interestingly enough. The oppressor takes away the right of the oppressed to speak, usually also convincing the oppressed that they HAVE no right to speak. The exception is made when the oppressed is praising the system that oppresses them, in which case they are made spokesperson (by the oppressor, of course) for all the oppressed.
So this situation is classic. It wasn’t until I left patriarchy that I learned this, though.
November 3, 2007 at 8:14 pm
The double standard of patriarchy… It’s the time honored tradition of straining gnats and swallowing camels. It’s swearing by the temple vs. swearing by the gold in the temple.
In other terms, this typifes the dynamics of
- Doctrine over Person
- Sacred Science
http://www.watchman.org/cults/usemindcontrol1.htm
November 3, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I am on Stacy’s Yahoo group and I have learned from her first hand the double standard. One only has to watch from the background to know that she is a do as I say, not as I do person.
But of course, she is earning money by selling books to a select audience, so she has to get their approval.
I find it so ironic that the Monstrous Regime DVD has Phyllis Schlafly in it. Now there is a woman who is nothing like what the “patriarchy” would want. She graduated law school, worked away from the home, ran for public office, and the list goes on.
I simply am tired of being told I have to be one way, when the women telling me to be that way are not that way themselves.
I will buy a book from Stacy (and others) when they teach the truth. Women are equal, and they can work away from the home and still be a “homemaker”. I am not saying you have to work away from home, but it is not wrong to do so.
November 3, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Maybe I should have been more specific. Go look at Stacy McDonald’s blog. Her and Jennie Chancey went to Arkansas to do interviews with Dennis Rainey of Family Life and then Nancy Leigh DeMoss which is fine. But Stacy did not take all of her children with her, only a couple. So here is a mom who leaves some of her children behind to plug a book. And the reason to plug this book? TO MAKE MORE MONEY!!! So while it would be wrong for the rest of us to do something like that, it is ok for Stacy and Jennie to do it.
That is what I am tired of. Stop telling me I am wrong if I work outside the home. Stop twisting the Scriptures to work in your favor.
November 3, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I have long said the same thing of Elisabeth Elliott. She gets a free pass by many patriarchalists. She says, “Women should be keepers at home” and goes away from home speaking and selling books. She says “Women should take their husband’s last name when they marry” and does not use the name of her latest husband on her books because then people won’t recognize the name and buy them. She says, “Women should not have careers,” and has made a career of writing, speaking, and teaching. A friend of mine once saw her at a conference, arguing with a man and saying to the man that a woman should never argue with a man!
I just don’t have the patience anymore for hypocrites. They may have some good things to say, but I simply can’t see past the hypocrisy to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
November 3, 2007 at 10:18 pm
This was just sent to me by email.
Jennie Chancey has endorsed a candidate for President,
“October 29th, 2007
Jennie Chancey- homeschooling mom of 7 and co-author of Passionate Housewives Desperate for God
“Unlike other candidates for President who claim to be pro-homeschooling, Ron Paul understands that the greatest thing the federal government can do to help home schooling is to get out of the way. He is the only candidate campaigning for the complete abolishment of the federal Department of Education and all other unconstitutional education spending.”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/homeschoolers/endorsements/
Imagine that, a woman who has an opinion about who should be president speaking independent of her husband about her choice for President.
But consider her endorsement in light of Brian Abshire’s essay on Biblical Patriarchy,
“Until the twentieth century, Americans almost universally held to this doctrine of representation in some form or the other. The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered “inferior” or “too emotional” (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community. By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!”
And a little further into the essay he wrote,
“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.”
I have not seen the TV show Desperate Housewives, nor have I read the book “Passionate Housewives, Desperate for God” by Chancey and McDonald, but for those that have, I am curious to know, would the TV show or the book best reflect Jennie Chancey’s willingness to represent her family’s choice for President of this great nation?
November 3, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Well at least we all now know who the “representative” in the Chancey family is.
November 3, 2007 at 11:17 pm
While Jennie is busy endorsing Paul, writing books, and speaking on the radio, look who’s wearing the apron and doing the cooking for her favorite candidate….
http://johnkillian.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-paul-wins-jefferson-county.html
(Click on the second You Tube video. I wonder if Jennie sewed his apron or if he just borrowed one of hers?)
November 3, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Oh dear, I actually started laughing out loud as I read Mrs. Chancey’s quote- so hypocritical. It’s not the fact that she stated her opinion (I have nothing wrong with that). It’s that she and Mrs. McDonald have been rather strident about their views on how a woman should act outside the home, and participating in politics is quite firmly discouraged! I grow tired of a movement that is constantly “do as I say, not as I do”. And I tend to agree with Cindy in #314.
Spunky, could you link to that essay by Brian Abishire? I’d like to read the whole thing in context. It’s piqued my curiosity. (A dangerous thing to have, I know.
)
November 3, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Joy here’s the link to the Federal Vision essay by Abshire,
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx
November 4, 2007 at 12:22 am
The “Patriarchs” need to start talking with each other to figure out what they can and cannot do. Now since God does not allow women to vote (reference the article posted in #323), why in the world do we have Jennie Chancey endorsing a candidate? She can’t vote for him!
My, my, my…can they please decide what is allowed and not allowed. They are confusing me!
Did anyone else notice that he said that “Some men may decide that certain activities are counter-productive to the spiritual welfare of his family while other men decide differently; e.g., whether a wife may work outside the home or not until God blesses them with children. The basic principle is that God’s law is sufficient and we must not make rules where God Himself has granted liberty.”
November 4, 2007 at 1:04 am
Meaning, God has granted liberty to the *husband* (to decide what the wife’s liberties will and will not be, in other words).
November 4, 2007 at 1:07 am
Thanks for sharing the link Spunky.
November 4, 2007 at 1:21 am
YAY! I am a cultural parasite.
Doomed to fail. Pshaw. The sweeping generalizations Mr. Abshire makes in this article completely undermine his argument (and I am not even getting into the logic issues)…
and then there’s this:
I don’t even know where to start with this little statement: “his most important task is to present his wife “perfect” in Christ”. Doesn’t set both the man and the wife up for failure? Not to even get into the thorny theological issues at hand here. Oh dear.
November 4, 2007 at 1:22 am
Molleth,
Exactly!!! So if my husband decides that I can work outside the home, who is anyone to tell me I am wrong and not fulfilling my place. No one!
November 4, 2007 at 1:27 am
I’m a cultural parasite? Thanks! *dripping sarcasm*
November 4, 2007 at 2:02 am
Lady Helen- ye-a-ah. *eye roll*
If that is in fact so, why in the world am I married with four children, a comfortable home, and neither poor, nor in jail, nor addicted to drugs (unless chocolate counts…he he). Because God is faithful, and works miracles of all shapes and sizes. Thank goodness. Or more accurately, Thank God!
It seems to me that this whole “hyper-patriarchy” thing puts God in a very very small box. The man can do most of it, right? He can even “perfect” his wife!
November 4, 2007 at 2:09 am
a white-washed cultural parasite, at that
November 4, 2007 at 2:45 am
Joy said,
“I don’t even know where to start with this little statement: “his most important task is to present his wife “perfect” in Christ”. Doesn’t set both the man and the wife up for failure?…”
Molly replies:
We believed this. We lived it.
So many people would say it didn’t work for us because we “didnt’ do it right,” or “we were in sin.” But we did do it right—we were textbook case for “Family Man, Family Leader” (VF’s patriarchy book). We were not in sin, as in no porn addictions, no secret stashes, etc…
We had the best of intentions. We got the idea of a husband’s job being to “wash” his bride (from her own imperfections) from Douglas Wilson’s “Reforming Marriage” book and our own understanding of Ephesians 5. We wanted to be true to Scripture. We believed a husband was uniquely made to lead his wife, was uniquely designed to bring her into perfection, to be God’s agent of sanctification in her life (in a way that she could not reciprocate).
I lived like this for 8-9 years…lived having another person’s view of perfection be my law. If you are married to a perfectionist, this can be very difficult.
His (well-intentioned!) view of “what I should be like” meant that was what I was “created to become like,” (created to be *his* helpmeet, right, meaning in whatever way he deemed that to be). He truly meant it all for my best—truly. I truly thought that trying to change my personality to conform to his view was for my best, too.
He meant well. I meant well. We sincerely loved God with all our hearts. But we were totally totally totally decieved.
Just thinking about it makes my stomach sick. Blech. I could say more, but I don’t want to go down this particular memory lane anymore tonight…so I think I’ll go see what the “cookie-ish” smell is wafting down the stairs (you can be anti-patriarchal and still teach your girls to cook! LOL Though my boys will be learning too, of course, just as soon as they’re old enough)…
November 4, 2007 at 5:40 am
“Jennie Chancey has endorsed a candidate for President,”
Monstrous!
November 4, 2007 at 6:34 am
“I find it so ironic that the Monstrous Regime DVD has Phyllis Schlafly in it. Now there is a woman who is nothing like what the “patriarchy” would want. She graduated law school, worked away from the home, ran for public office, and the list goes on.”
Anne,
I have said the same thing over and over again.
The whole thing begs the question: What is Phyllis Schlafly’s husband’s name?
I thought it was supposed to be about *his* vision? I don’t even know a thing about Mr. Schlafley. Not that there is anything wrong with that or it is wrong that he supports his wife’s ministry but it is just ironic, that is all. It is also a double-standard.
Also, as Light has mentioned, Elizabeth Elliot does not fit the box set forth by the patriarchalists who use her to further their agenda.
Elizabeth Elliot has a ministry and her husband *supports* her and helps her in her ministry.
I have the Monstrous dvd and it causes me to have some questions. Anne, you have highlighted one of them. They teach one thing but do another.
Carol Everett is an egalitarian who thinks women can be pastors.
Both of the Scottish experts who appeared as authorities concernng their knowledge of John Knox were women.
Sharon Adams, PhD, is a professor at a university.
Rosalind Marshall is a fellow at the Royal Society of Literature. If you go to Amazon and look at the books she wrote (Scottish Queens, Virgins and Viragos: A History of Women in Scotland from 1080 to 1980, The Days of Duchess Anne, Queen of Scots, etc). Her books look very informative.
Carolyn Graglia is a lawyer who has a B.A. from Cornell and a J.D. from Columbia. She had 3 children and continued to practice law throughout her life.
Here is part of Schlafley’s bio:
“Legal: Mrs. Schlafly is an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Illinois, Missouri, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court. She served (with the late Chief Justice Warren Burger) as a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, 1985-1991, appointed by President Reagan. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, foreign policy, education, tax, encryption, and family issues. She served five terms as a member of the Illinois Commission on the Status of Women, 1975-1985, appointed by the Illinois Legislature. She served as a member of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 1983-1986. She has filed several amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal.
Education: Mrs. Schlafly received her B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis in 1944 (Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Sigma Alpha, Final Honors). She worked her way through college on the night shift at the St. Louis Ordnance Plant testing ammunition by firing rifles and machine guns and as a laboratory technician investigating misfires and photographing tracer bullets in flight. She received her Master’s in Government from Harvard University in 1945. She received her J.D. from Washington University Law School in 1978.
Family: Mrs. Schlafly was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year. She and her late husband of 44 years are the parents of six children (John, Bruce, Roger, Liza, Andrew, and Anne) and 14 grandchildren. She taught all her children to read before they entered school and all had outstanding academic success: three lawyers, one physician, one Ph.D. mathematician, and one businesswoman.”
Go to the link, below, and read more of her accomplishments.
http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/bio.html
ALL of these women go against the patriocentrist teachings on a woman’s role. It is confusing and rightly so. What are their readers supposed to believe about women when they use women to further their agenda who do exactly what they teach against?
According to their very own teachings, Schlafley, Graglia, Adams, Marshall and Everett are all feminists. Or, at the very least, “white-washed feminists”. If I and others on this board have been called “white washed feminists”, then these women are certainly white-washed feminists. Not only do they have degrees and use them but they have encouraged their daughters to do the same.
November 4, 2007 at 6:37 am
“It looks to me like these people value their belief system more than they value the actual lives of mothers or babies. They apparently find a natural birth resulting in a dead baby or mother to be preferable to a C-section resulting in a live birth!
This is what comes of putting a belief system ahead of real, live people — you end up with an ideology-turned-idolatry, where commonsense and charity go out the window, and are replaced by a certain strident superstition and judgementalism.”
Cynthia,
Can’t sum it up any better than you have. You are exactly right.
And your words do not only apply to the realm of childbirth. They apply to the safety and welfare of women and children and any other aspect of life where God has given us liberty and choice.
November 4, 2007 at 12:20 pm
You know.. not all “feminist” views are bad. Jesus and Paul would have been seen as “feminists” in their day, AND HOW! Those tenets of feminism that agree with Christianity need not be disposed of when their adherent becomes a Christian.
Perhaps being a “white-washed” feminist is not a bad thing at all, when the feminist is one whose robes (and whose feminism) have been washed white as snow in the Blood of the Lamb.
November 4, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Is my imagination fuzzy, or didn’t Jennie Chancey publish an article via Vision Forum where she discusses why women ought to not be involved in the political process? I can’t find it now. Does anyone else remember this? As I recall, it was her article where I first had heard about this growing idea within the patriocentric movement.
November 4, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Spunky, that video clip is priceless, as is your commentary.
I just got my Passionate Housewives book on Thursday and the weekend has been too busy to read it but I plan to start this afternoon.
I did, however, watch the Monstrous Regiment movie and The Return of the Daughters. I don’t have much time to review right now, but have a couple comments.
Corrie’s assessment of the Monstrous Regiment is right on. This film, by the way, just received the $10,000.00 first prize at Doug Phillips’ film festival.
Most troubling to me was the very gratuitous scene of the 2nd trimester baby being aborted. I still don’t understand how they can logically equate women’s suffrage with the death of that little one. The original suffragettes were pro-life.
Secondly, I wanted to mention that the Botkin sisters sent me a personal complimentary copy of The Return of the Daughters with a sweet note inside. (They had someone I know personally bring it back to me in Central Illinois from the film festival.) I have only watched it once and need to look at it a couple more times before really commenting, but I did want to note that toward the end of the movie, one of the girls makes a statement that said many girls are returning home to obey God’s law. What does that mean if it doesn’t mean that a single woman living outside her parent’s home is sin?
I plan to write them a letter and see what kind of response I have to that question. I also think it might be helpful to ask the same question of those who are promoting that book.
November 4, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“but I did want to note that toward the end of the movie, one of the girls makes a statement that said many girls are returning home to obey God’s law.”
Karen,
If I remember correctly, Voddie Bauchem (sp?) also said that it was “God’s law”. I am not sure what he meant but he had just gotten done talking about daughters and what they should be doing and what fathers should be doing regarding their daughters and then he said “it is God’s law”. But, it was late and I was working so hard cutting all those ribbons for the name tags so I might be confused!
I am thinking of 1 Cor. 7 and how that is God’s law for single women- to devote themselves fully, not to a man and the concern of pleasing a man, but to God. I don’t see God’s law for daughters being that they must fulfill their father’s vision.
In one example, the daughter of a janitor said that it was her father’s vision for her to be a servant. And she fulfills this by serving in homes by caring for other people’s children. Is this her father’s vision?
What if it is the vision of a father for his daughter to go to school to become a doctor? A lawyer? A teacher?
I don’t know of any other “God’s law” concerning daughters in specific. Both sons and daughters are to honor and obey their mother and father.
And we already have multiple examples of women who did not stay home and fulfill their father’s (or would that be Doug’s) vision in the Bible. They were all about doing the business of God.
And what does “casting vision” mean? That sounds really new-age to me. I used to dabble in New Age/occult stuff and this resonates with me as being a New Age term. It looks like that term is used by some in the church (Bill Hybels, Willowcreek, Rick Warren,for example). In fact, the more I look at a search on this word, the more I see how that term is very popular in the church growth movement.
I just noticed this under the description of Passionate Housewives. “Exposing Lies, Debunking Myths, Casting Vision, Offering Hope”. I would be interested, Karen, to hear your thoughts on these four points as you read the Passionate/Desperate book. How does this book expose lies, debunk myths, cast vision and offer hope?
I think these four things will be my guidelines as I review the book.
November 4, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Corrie,
I kept feeling like The Return of the Daughters WAS casting Doug Phillips’/Vision Forum’s vision and that many of the fathers were helping to fulfill Phillip’s vision, ie the man who plans the father-daughter retreat and his daughter executes those plans.
I often see fathers repeatedly quoting Doug Phillips and other patriocentrics on their blogs and yet they have little of their own perspectives on life. It makes me wonder if these sons and daughters are having their hearts turned toward their own fathers or toward their father’s gurus.
I have even seen photos of some of these sons sporting those hats like Matt Chancey is wearing in that you tube clip Spunky linked to. (You know that hat that we see frequently on Doug Phillips.) That would be a wake-up call to me if I were a dad. I would be sad if my son were imitating Doug Phillips or Matt Chancey rather than me.
The other day, one of my sons told me how much he wants to be just like my husband when he has his own family and went on to tell me all the things about his dad he so admires. People frequently tell me how much my boys remind them of their dad. My heart is so blessed when I hear that. My husband has no gurus but he does love the Lord and imitates Jesus. My daughters-in-law are truly blessed, as I am.
November 4, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Corrie, those four points would be an excellent starting point for reviewing the book. Let’s set up a podcast date ok?
November 4, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I did want to say that neither Jennie or Stacy have ever offered me any hope. All they have offered is a life of misery, trying to become something or someone that they themselves are not able (or willing) to obtain.
November 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I’ve been watching just the promo for Monstrous Regiment of Women(.com) and was troubled by the previous facts Corrie stated in comment #336 about the hypocrisy of the women who have careers, gained from going to college in several cases, and how other women shouldn’t. What they say does not equal their fantastical lives. I don’t want their lives, but they shouldn’t deprive their sisters in the Lord the same opportunities they had to gain a platform to instruct. Each one of them are essentially instructing us all — including men of all ages who happen to watch the movie or promo (what a sticky paradox!)
One quote [Dana, a homemaker with opinion] from the promo was pretty broad:
“I have come to the conclusion that people in the world truly hate children. And that is strong words, but, the more I see people and the way they relate to children, the more I see that they truly see them as burdens on society.”
[A curious thought: Couldn't we insert the word "women" to replace the word "children" and make the same broad statement about the patriocentrists and their views on women? Just a thought.]
What’s also disturbing is that they make broad sweeping statements about not only unsaved women’s motives but christian women’s motives for not following their advice, and pursuing careers. Abortion is grievous and should be acknowledged as a terrible sin compounded upon sin, but I’ve known many women who have made those decisions (abortions, troubled homes and marriages, worked outside the home) and the interesting part of the equation was how they felt mis-treated by their husbands or boyfriends, and were not “stand up” guys for them in their weakest hour and need. Men don’t seem to get as much exhortation, according to some in the patriocentric teachings, to “giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” 1 Pet. 3:7
“Do as I say and not as I do” never worked for me as a non-christian, and it doesn’t work for me as a Christian whose blind eyes have been opened by the King of Grace and Mercy.
November 4, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Hello, all.
Karen,
Have you thought about marketing those hats for little boys? Forget wanting to be “Like Mike” wearing Nikes. Little boys everywhere can be “Like Matt” (and Doug, of course). Along with the “Militant Fecundity” maternity Tshirts, there’s a great market for the cream coloured straw fedora with a black band for boys. Think of how many you could sell at a homeschooling event where Doug appears? (I wonder if they’d threaten legal action for stealing their intellectual property since it’s a commonly used M.O. in patriarchy?) Any one want to take a Chancey?
Corrie,
I love the “monstrous” comment. I motion that we replace the cliche of “over the top” with “monstrous!”
And also,
I was so excited because I ordered the Passionate Wives book from Amazon yesterday as I actually found a USED one already. (Perhaps it’s a second or something? Or a complementary copy that someone was not interested in?) Either way, VF doesn’t get the proceeds.
And oddly, I also found the Botkin book for $8 and change and ordered that also. I swore that I would not pay more than $8 for it, but I figured that since I found one near $8, I could indulge. God bless the used book industry. No proceeds went to VF.
November 4, 2007 at 4:43 pm
So if I buy it from Amazon VF will not get the profits? I just want to make sure because I do not want to support VF in any way, shape, or form.
November 4, 2007 at 6:01 pm
“but I did want to note that toward the end of the movie, one of the girls makes a statement that said many girls are returning home to obey God’s law.”
I have to ask… to which god are they referring?
The God I worship, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, didn’t mandate in either the Old Testament or the New that single daughers must remain at home until marriage and fufill their father’s “vision”.
What god made this law?
November 4, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Anne,
I was surprised to see Passionate Housewives for sale by a used bookseller. Amazon does feature it, however if you buy it new (and it does not state that it comes directly from a used bookseller), then VF does reap the profits. I’m not sure who ships the new copies, but they are new (but at least are at a significant discount). I lucked out (or should I say “providenced?”) with Passionate Housewives so early after release of the book. I’ve been monitoring Powells, alibris and other sites for So Much More for several months. I was surprised to find both books yesterday.
November 4, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Surprise!
I just looked on Amazon, and they have three copies for sale from used booksellers.
(What does that say about the book, I wonder?) Get’em while their still available.
November 4, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Apparently, these booksellers have purchased the book in bulk from VF and sell them at a major discount. So VF already made their money, essentially.
At least my information will not place me on VF’s mailing list and they will not receive nearly as much money from the sale.
I paid $10.38 or something. That means that VF probably was paid about $5 for the book as opposed to the near $15 profit they would make if I bought it directly from the VF website.
(I wonder if all this counts as “pragmatism?” See J McD’s blog…)
November 4, 2007 at 8:54 pm
“You know.. not all “feminist” views are bad. Jesus and Paul would have been seen as “feminists” in their day, AND HOW! Those tenets of feminism that agree with Christianity need not be disposed of when their adherent becomes a Christian.”
Cynthia G.,
Exactly. Do we have to take the whole ball of wax or can we allow the Bible to speak to us and see truth on both sides? I think we can do the latter. In fact we should do the latter.
“Perhaps being a “white-washed” feminist is not a bad thing at all, when the feminist is one whose robes (and whose feminism) have been washed white as snow in the Blood of the Lamb.”
The whole “white-washed” feminist is a misnomer. What exactly is a white-washed feminist? It is a mischievous label given to godly women simply because they disagree with how the extreme patriarchal right defines their mandmade system.
But, I agree with your version of a white-washed feminist. We have been all washed as white as snow.
The term, from what I can tell, was coined by Stacy McDonald. She defines it in her new book. White-washed feminists are Christians; they are distinguished from the secular/radical feminists.
November 4, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“What god made this law?”
Their god fashioned by their own hands, made in their own image.
November 4, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“I kept feeling like The Return of the Daughters WAS casting Doug Phillips’/Vision Forum’s vision and that many of the fathers were helping to fulfill Phillip’s vision, ie the man who plans the father-daughter retreat and his daughter executes those plans.
I often see fathers repeatedly quoting Doug Phillips and other patriocentrics on their blogs and yet they have little of their own perspectives on life. It makes me wonder if these sons and daughters are having their hearts turned toward their own fathers or toward their father’s gurus.”
Karen,
When we watched the Return of the Daughters together and you made that point, I thought it was very astute and I hadn’t picked up on it because it is so very subtle. Sometimes I am as dumb as a box of rocks and I need to be hit over the head.
But, I would think that someone who knows the inner workings and lingo of this sect would be able to pick up on a lot more than people who are on the outside of things looking in.
I am still trying to process this film. I have some thoughts but I don’t know how to word what it is I am trying to say. I will have to wait to see it again before I can sort out my concerns.
Truly, if you are rich and your father owns his own thriving business, you are in luck. You get to do the same things that women do in outside jobs and you get great experience, too. But, if your father is poor or he has a blue-collar job, you are limited. It seemed like if you are in that situation then you go and fulfill Doug’s vision or just serve him in his home or you find another man who does have a vision and go serve him in place of your father.
I do wonder if some of these girls are going to be content with just household work, diaper changing, laundry and the like after they have had such varied and exciting careers working in jobs that bring them lots of acclaim and a position of authority.
November 4, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Totally off topic for a minute…
In regard to the link Spunky put up in #323…
It’s a great link, but don’t let Matt Chancey in an apron deter anyone from seriously considering a vote for Congressman Ron Paul.
He is a Christian who doesn’t use his religion to garner votes, he supports homeschooling, and is a man of genuine integrity — his voting record and life practice backs up his principles.
And he’s not in the patriarchy camp — despite Matt Chancey and the apron.
Comment from ‘A Christian lady who votes – with the blessing of her husband’
Thank you for bearing with my digression — back to the discussion…
November 4, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Another off-topic rant here: I just sat through a sermon today all about the headship of the husband in leading his family. That topic is a good one, but some very familiar concerns were brought up and I felt some important texts were left out, such as verse 21 of Ephesian 5. Went straight for verse 22 to support the message. My husband and I are in agreement how it could have been preached more balanced, but alas, it was not to be. Doesn’t stop my household from following hard after what we see in the Bible and following God. I’m just glad to read here some thoughtful discussion on the complexities of true Biblical womanhood.
You know, God bless Abraham and all — but it was SARAH, the FREEWOMAN, not the bondwoman Hagar, both types, whom we as believers in Jesus see as a type in the O.T. Let’s be balanced, my patriarch friends out there. We are not under the law but grace. By the Spirit do I serve(submit to) others out of reverence or fear of God. Not by the law.
Gal. 4:21-31 “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
“Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty, I’m free at last!” through the beautiful blood of my Savior Jesus Christ.
And in regards to the tender mercies of the Lord toward us, verse 27 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 54:1:
“Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more[are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD."
Sounds like a wonderful, praise-lifted blessing from the LORD. Sometimes our worst crosses to bear can be our biggest blessing and growing experiences. [off my rant now
]
November 4, 2007 at 11:01 pm
whoops! I kinda went crazy with the bold. Didn’t mean to, though.
November 5, 2007 at 12:43 am
Hey all,
I haven’t been able to keep up with the discussion very well, but as I was just checking in, I had to comment on the verses cited by Kate in #355.
My pastor just did a great series of sermons on Galatians, and the allegory of The Two Covenants was, I felt, very profound. Throughout the series, I couldn’t help but find numerous similarities between the Judaizers and the patriocentrists. Here’s some of my sermon notes…
-The reality of Sarah’s Covenant was “I can’t do it without God!!!”, because obviously a 90 year old woman needs divine intervention to bear a child. The essence of Hagar’s Covenant was “Well, I can do it. I have what it takes.”
-The Law came from Mount Sinai, a land of oppression. The fulfillment of Sarah’s covenant came out of Jerusalem, a free land.
-Sarah’s children were Children of Promise. Hagar’s were children of the flesh.
-Those under Sarah’s Covenant WANT to adhere to the fulfillment of it because “I can’t ever be kicked out!” (once salvation is given, it’s not taken back when we stumble). Those under Hagar’s covenant MUST keep the Law “or else I’ll be kicked out”.
It was crazy how some of the comments resonated with my impressions of the patriarchal community. My pastor mentioned how the Judaizers turned adherence to the law into their own “mutual stroking society”; basically telling potential followers, “you know, I think you have what it takes to stick to the Law… you make the cut”. Then the new disciples in turn can say to the guru, “WOW, look at how well you keep the Law. I want to be just like you”.
The Judaizers also accused Paul of preaching a Gospel of Grace so that he would gain popularity. Paul responded with, “Yeah, right! You think people like it when I tell them that they can NEVER be good enough?? That nothing they can bring to the table will save them, that they have to let Someone else make the atonement for them???” One of the reasons that the circumsicion proponents in Galatians gained such influence was because they told people, “You know, of course Christ paid your way, but you’ve got that something extra…”
But the thing about the Law is, how much is enough??? When do you know you’ve kept enough of it to be good enough? When do you make the cut? The Law was an all or nothing deal: you had to keep the whole thing, or you were a “law-breaker”. The Law was given to us to frustrate us, to show us our need for the Gospel.
There were lots of other great things in there, but to sum it up before this gets too long, Christ freed us TO righteousness, and FROM the worry of SELF righteousness.
November 5, 2007 at 12:56 am
Thatmom asked,
“Is my imagination fuzzy, or didn’t Jennie Chancey publish an article via Vision Forum where she discusses why women ought to not be involved in the political process?”
Do you mean this one?
http://0rz.com/?CE2eR
“Should Women Vote?”
By Mrs. Jennie Chancey
Aug 19, 2004 – 10:00:00 PM
Do you believe that women should use their votes and cast them at a ballot box? I personally feel that God wants me to use my vote as, even though I do not work outside the home, I am still a citizen and therefore should use my voting rights to honour Him. I would be interested to hear your opinions. ~ Curious
Should women vote or hold any political interest? ~ A Reader
When we approach the issue of suffrage, it is important to note right up front that this is not a male versus female issue. It is really an issue of individual versus household suffrage. When our Founders laid down voting laws for the colonies and the states, they did not create universal suffrage (“one man, one vote”).[1] This may sound foreign to our ears, but it is only because we have grown so used to the idea in the past century of every individual casting a vote at the ballot box. Our nation is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The difference may seem unimportant at first blush, but it really affects our view of everything from the way American government is structured (three branches rather than one) to how power is divided (checks and balances between the branches).
A Republic is a government that is made up of legislators who represent their constituents in Congress. When Americans go to the ballot box, they elect leaders they believe will represent them fairly and accurately at the state and national level. When an important issue comes up for consideration, constituents can call or write their representatives to express their views, but they do not personally vote on the particular issue in question. If a representative consistently votes in a way that does not reflect his constituency, the people can vote him out of office next time around. In a Democracy, each individual citizen over a certain age votes on every single issue (this process is called “referendum”). If 51% of the people vote a certain way, the majority carries the day. So Democracy always results in the rule of the majority of the people who vote (and sometimes very few people actually vote). The reason our Founders chose to create a Constitutional Republic was to protect the rights and interests of the minority. With divided powers and a system of checks and balances, the majority cannot run roughshod over the rights of the minority. Of course, this doesn’t mean a Constitutional Republic is a perfect form of government or that it never tramples the minority, but its intent is to protect the “common good.”
After that (very brief!) introduction, we can move on to suffrage and the purpose of voting. At the founding of our nation, there were many men who were not allowed to vote. Depending upon the state in question, men could be denied the right to vote if they didn’t pay taxes, if they didn’t own property, if they were indentured servants (like my ninth great-grandfather), if they were convicts, etc. One reason that suffrage was limited was to prevent a man who had little stake in the community from having authority over community affairs. He might, after all, pick up and move elsewhere at the drop of a hat. He might not put down roots and become involved in his community. And, finally, he might not pay any taxes. It should also be noted that the very thought of anyone on “public assistance” being allowed to vote would have been abhorrent to the founders of our nation. That man’s judgment would be biased by the money in his pocket. All of this is simply to demonstrate that women were not the only ones who couldn’t vote. And, in fact, there were many women who did!
Single or widowed women who owned property were allowed to vote in most of the colonies (they did this under the so-called “Dame” laws).[2] During colonial times (1600-1776), the right to vote was linked directly to land ownership (as mentioned above).[3] This practice did not end until the 1820s, as Enlightenment philosophy began to creep into the notions of franchise. (The unfortunate results of the Enlightenment are discussed in The Woman’s Place by R.J. Rushdoony.) The founders and lawmakers who didn’t give the vote to married women were not woman-haters out to suppress the opinions of half of the population. They had an entirely different view than we do today–a view built around landowning households rather than individuals. According to English Common Law, man and wife become one not only in the spiritual or romantic sense, but in the legal sense. They are one force to be reckoned with legally rather than two individuals. The family (not the individual) has always been considered the foundation of society and the bedrock of government. Therefore the vote was given to the head of the household and not to each member residing within the household. The head represented his household when he went to the polls, much as our senators and congressmen represent us when they vote in the Senate or the House. This is one of the foundation stones of a Republic. Certain people are elected to represent others within their district. In this sense, the husband (or head of the landowning household) was “elected” to represent his household at the ballot box. If a husband was incapacitated or otherwise unable to exercise his right to vote, there were laws allowing the wife to vote for the household. In this way, each household was fairly represented at the ballot box.
We have a completely different notion of franchise today, which is not based upon households but upon individuals within the household. Each eligible individual may vote his or her own opinion. In this way, a husband and a wife can completely cancel each other out at the ballot box. Many commentators in the 19th century (when women began demanding the vote) found such an idea absurd, since it conflicted with republican principles of government. But instead of appealing to the law or making rational discourse about the representation of households, most men who opposed votes for women did so on the grounds that women weren’t smart enough to vote or shouldn’t be bothered with politics. Those arguments proved weak and ineffective (as they should have). The issue has nothing to do with brains or ability. This brings us to another facet of this discussion, which is addressed in the following question:
What about women voting in church? Do you believe only heads of households should vote, or should every member of the church have a vote? ~ A Reader
One of the best ways to illustrate household voting versus individual voting is to consider the practice of individual church members voting on issues in the church meeting. When my husband and I were first married, we were members of a church that practiced individual voting. The church was not large, so it was immediately obvious how the results of such a practice played out in real life. First of all, the family with six (member) children could outvote four young couples without children–they had eight votes, after all, and each couple had just two. (This is assuming, of course, that every member of the household voted the same way. In a family that prays, studies, and worships together, this is almost always the case. But there are times when this does not happen, and the results are painful to observe.) During a discussion of whether or not the church elders should serve on a rotating basis, a majority of the members expressed a certain opinion. The man seated in the pew in front of us stood to explain why he would endorse the majority view. After he sat down, my husband rose to express his concerns with the majority view and propose a different plan. Right after he did so, the wife of the man in the pew in front of us stood to say that she felt bad that my husband was the only one expressing his viewpoint, so she would vote with him! She had just cancelled out her husband’s vote, effectively curtailing his leadership of his family–and publicly. He flushed red and managed to stammer out a joke as a cover for his embarrassment. But both my husband and I felt awful about the division. This is absolutely not to say that a wife’s opinion does not matter and carries no weight. A husband should seek his wife’s counsel on important issues. Then, when the head of the household votes, he carries the responsibility on his own shoulders, but he does not act as a “lone ranger.” He has weighed the issues carefully with his wife beforehand.
The Bible is filled from beginning to end with the phrase “you and your household.” God’s promises to Adam and Eve were also to “their seed.” His promises to Noah involved his entire family. His promises to Abraham involved “you and your children after you.” The government of the household is a small republic. The husband may represent the household in public and when he votes, but his “constituents” stand right behind him. They speak with one voice. Now, this doesn’t mean there are never times when a wife disagrees with her husband’s decision. But, in the end, she models the Bride of Christ and submits to her head. She does so without rolling her eyes or fretting, knowing that God is ultimately in control, and she can trust Him. When voting is done by heads of households in church (and this includes older widows who run their own households and make their own vows — see Numbers 30:9), each household has one vote. The Joneses with eight kids cannot outvote the Smiths with three children and the Harrisons with no children. Surely we can agree that this is wise and maintains a balance (not to mention harmony, since small families will have no reason to resent the power of the large families).
Now, how does this principle carry over into the political realm outside the church? Was the 19th amendment misguided? Should all women (or all people, for that matter) have a vote?
We have to walk carefully here. Let it be understood that there are good, thoughtful people on both sides of the suffrage issue. There are godly Christians who disagree on this matter. This is not an issue that should divide brothers and sisters or cause one person to judge another. What we all must commit to do is to go to the Scripture (all of which is “profitable…and able to equip [us] for every good work” – I Tim. 3:16-17), think, pray, talk about the issue, and live out our decisions with love instead of pride in our own view. So, if you disagree with me on this one, I am not going to think harsh thoughts about you or write you off as a liberal.
The model of household suffrage is based upon biblical precepts for government. When God commanded that the people of Israel should be numbered, it was done by heads of household (men twenty years old and above; see Exodus 30:14 and 38:26). “Now the LORD spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying: ‘Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male individually, from twenty years old and above–all who are able to go to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their armies” (Numbers 1:1-3). Did God do this because He was not concerned with individuals, including women and children? No, He did it because He has always been concerned with households from the beginning. And for thousands of years, a household has been considered a force to be reckoned with. Splintering the household into individuals has only occurred in the past 140 years in these United States. This has effectively rendered the household a non-entity (the dream of the radical individualist as well as the socialist–and who now gets to define what constitutes a “family?”). It has pitted fathers against sons, husbands against wives, mothers against daughters. Now, you may argue that it has actually increased the power of the household, since all the members can unite to vote together, multiplying the power of their opinion at the ballot box. But here’s the rub: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Put yourself in the shoes of the widow at the ballot box. As she casts her vote, the family with three children of voting age comes right along behind her and casts five dissenting votes. They’ve outvoted her five to one, even though she represents one household, just as they do.
“But think of the opportunity we have as Christians these days!” someone might exclaim. “We can unite to outvote our enemies!” But what does Jesus say? “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:43-45). The ends do not justify the means. We are to model the justice of our Heavenly Father, who “sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Multiplying votes in this manner simply does not fit a biblical pattern of government (or even of charity toward our neighbor).
“So what about women? Can’t we get back to the point here? Why should men represent their families at the ballot box?” Well, why not? Someone else represents you in Congress; you do not directly vote on every issue. If you have a problem with men voting for their households, you must necessarily take issue with the republican form of government our Founders laid down. How can 535 representatives possibly represent the votes of 280 million people? If we don’t like this fact, we have the right to “alter or abolish” our government, but we don’t have the right to do so at the expense of our neighbor. This is why a system of checks and balances is so vital–and this brings us back to women voting. Should women vote? Yes! Here’s the point: Every woman does vote, whether or not she physically pulls the lever or puts the paper in the box. A wife casts her vote every time she discusses the issues of the day with her husband. A daughter casts her vote every time she asks her father about an article she has read or a speech she has heard. A wife votes by the very virtue of the fact that she is the “queen” of the household and rules by her husband’s side. In this respect, all women “hold political interest,” as our reader said above. It would be foolish indeed for a husband to pat his wife on the head in a condescending manner and say, “There, there, dear. You don’t need to think about that; I’ll do the thinking for our household all by myself.” The wise husband seeks the counsel of his wife and enoys hearing her opinions. He is able to represent his household well because he is listening to those he represents. But, in the end, he does the representing, just as our congressmen represent us in the House and Senate on a daily basis.
God is the one who defines the household and declares who shall be the head of it. A married man is the head of his household. A widow “indeed” (over sixty and not obligated to remarry) is the head of her household (like Lydia in the book of Acts). Single young men like Samuel or Daniel were leaders even while single and so headed their own “households” (they were not dependent upon anyone). If a father died without a son, his daughter could become his heir, basically becoming the de facto head of the household and bearer of the family name (Numbers 7:1-11). But the normal pattern God has clearly laid out in Scripture is that of a young woman living under her father’s roof until she is given in marriage and a young man leaving home to “cleave to his wife.” When Ruth was widowed, she placed herself under the protection of her mother-in-law’s male relative, Boaz. It is not the scriptural pattern for young women to seek to be heads of their own households and remain single for life. It must also be noted that it is not a scriptural pattern for young men to avoid marriage and become parasites to their parents! God’s pattern is for the creation of households that follow after Him. When God covenanted with Abraham, He said He did it “in order that he [Abraham] may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19).
Are you a woman who is vitally interested in the issues of the day? Talk to your husband (or your father, if you’re a daughter)! Draw him out into conversation and get to know his mind on the issues. Most of all, be willing to listen. You may be astounded at how well your husband can articulate his viewpoints when he is asked for them. Ask lots of questions! And be willing to be wrong! When your viewpoint cannot hold up to scrutiny, accept defeat gracefully. If your husband ends up changing his mind, be humble. And when you really feel your husband is wrong, commit your feelings to the Lord and pray for your husband as he represents your household “in the gates.” It is a solemn duty to serve as the “magistrate” of the household and not one to be taken lightly. Much rests upon husbands and fathers as they represent their households, so lighten that burden by being supportive, encouraging, and involved. And besides serving as an interested counselor, there are many ways women can be involved beyond the ballot box. Are you passionate about pro-life issues? Write articulate letters to the editor from a woman’s point of view. Offer to counsel young women in crisis pregnancies. Is your family excited about a political candidate? Work together to help his campaign by placing signs, handing out brochures, and opening your home for a “Meet the Candidate” coffee (we’ve done this as a family many, many times). Together, families can work as a team to influence our nation for godliness. Gender has nothing to do with our success.
NOTES:
[1] Einwechter, William. “The Christian Colonial Foundation of America.”
[2] Banner, Lois. “Woman Suffrage,” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia
[3] For a very thorough treatment of the history of women’s property ownership in America, see Women and the Law of Property in Early America by Marylynn Salmon. While the book is written from a feminist perspective, it covers dozens of interlocking aspects of the history of property ownership (including a woman’s legal status when it came to voting) in detail.
* Daniel Crittenden also has a fascinating take on the 19th Amendment in her book, What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us. Mrs. Crittenden takes a pragmatic look at what has happened to political campaigns since women have received the vote and asks if we are really any better off. Would a presidential candidate’s hairstyle really have been an issue 100 years ago? Image and emotion are big players in modern politics. While women’s suffrage certainly isn’t the only cause, isn’t it possible that it has played a major part in this shift, Crittenden asks?
November 5, 2007 at 12:58 am
Thatmom asked,
“Is my imagination fuzzy, or didn’t Jennie Chancey publish an article via Vision Forum where she discusses why women ought to not be involved in the political process?”
Do you mean this one?
“Should Women Vote?”
By Mrs. Jennie Chancey
Aug 19, 2004 – 10:00:00 PM
Do you believe that women should use their votes and cast them at a ballot box? I personally feel that God wants me to use my vote as, even though I do not work outside the home, I am still a citizen and therefore should use my voting rights to honour Him. I would be interested to hear your opinions. ~ Curious
Should women vote or hold any political interest? ~ A Reader
When we approach the issue of suffrage, it is important to note right up front that this is not a male versus female issue. It is really an issue of individual versus household suffrage. When our Founders laid down voting laws for the colonies and the states, they did not create universal suffrage (“one man, one vote”).[1] This may sound foreign to our ears, but it is only because we have grown so used to the idea in the past century of every individual casting a vote at the ballot box. Our nation is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The difference may seem unimportant at first blush, but it really affects our view of everything from the way American government is structured (three branches rather than one) to how power is divided (checks and balances between the branches).
A Republic is a government that is made up of legislators who represent their constituents in Congress. When Americans go to the ballot box, they elect leaders they believe will represent them fairly and accurately at the state and national level. When an important issue comes up for consideration, constituents can call or write their representatives to express their views, but they do not personally vote on the particular issue in question. If a representative consistently votes in a way that does not reflect his constituency, the people can vote him out of office next time around. In a Democracy, each individual citizen over a certain age votes on every single issue (this process is called “referendum”). If 51% of the people vote a certain way, the majority carries the day. So Democracy always results in the rule of the majority of the people who vote (and sometimes very few people actually vote). The reason our Founders chose to create a Constitutional Republic was to protect the rights and interests of the minority. With divided powers and a system of checks and balances, the majority cannot run roughshod over the rights of the minority. Of course, this doesn’t mean a Constitutional Republic is a perfect form of government or that it never tramples the minority, but its intent is to protect the “common good.”
After that (very brief!) introduction, we can move on to suffrage and the purpose of voting. At the founding of our nation, there were many men who were not allowed to vote. Depending upon the state in question, men could be denied the right to vote if they didn’t pay taxes, if they didn’t own property, if they were indentured servants (like my ninth great-grandfather), if they were convicts, etc. One reason that suffrage was limited was to prevent a man who had little stake in the community from having authority over community affairs. He might, after all, pick up and move elsewhere at the drop of a hat. He might not put down roots and become involved in his community. And, finally, he might not pay any taxes. It should also be noted that the very thought of anyone on “public assistance” being allowed to vote would have been abhorrent to the founders of our nation. That man’s judgment would be biased by the money in his pocket. All of this is simply to demonstrate that women were not the only ones who couldn’t vote. And, in fact, there were many women who did!
Single or widowed women who owned property were allowed to vote in most of the colonies (they did this under the so-called “Dame” laws).[2] During colonial times (1600-1776), the right to vote was linked directly to land ownership (as mentioned above).[3] This practice did not end until the 1820s, as Enlightenment philosophy began to creep into the notions of franchise. (The unfortunate results of the Enlightenment are discussed in The Woman’s Place by R.J. Rushdoony.) The founders and lawmakers who didn’t give the vote to married women were not woman-haters out to suppress the opinions of half of the population. They had an entirely different view than we do today–a view built around landowning households rather than individuals. According to English Common Law, man and wife become one not only in the spiritual or romantic sense, but in the legal sense. They are one force to be reckoned with legally rather than two individuals. The family (not the individual) has always been considered the foundation of society and the bedrock of government. Therefore the vote was given to the head of the household and not to each member residing within the household. The head represented his household when he went to the polls, much as our senators and congressmen represent us when they vote in the Senate or the House. This is one of the foundation stones of a Republic. Certain people are elected to represent others within their district. In this sense, the husband (or head of the landowning household) was “elected” to represent his household at the ballot box. If a husband was incapacitated or otherwise unable to exercise his right to vote, there were laws allowing the wife to vote for the household. In this way, each household was fairly represented at the ballot box.
We have a completely different notion of franchise today, which is not based upon households but upon individuals within the household. Each eligible individual may vote his or her own opinion. In this way, a husband and a wife can completely cancel each other out at the ballot box. Many commentators in the 19th century (when women began demanding the vote) found such an idea absurd, since it conflicted with republican principles of government. But instead of appealing to the law or making rational discourse about the representation of households, most men who opposed votes for women did so on the grounds that women weren’t smart enough to vote or shouldn’t be bothered with politics. Those arguments proved weak and ineffective (as they should have). The issue has nothing to do with brains or ability. This brings us to another facet of this discussion, which is addressed in the following question:
What about women voting in church? Do you believe only heads of households should vote, or should every member of the church have a vote? ~ A Reader
One of the best ways to illustrate household voting versus individual voting is to consider the practice of individual church members voting on issues in the church meeting. When my husband and I were first married, we were members of a church that practiced individual voting. The church was not large, so it was immediately obvious how the results of such a practice played out in real life. First of all, the family with six (member) children could outvote four young couples without children–they had eight votes, after all, and each couple had just two. (This is assuming, of course, that every member of the household voted the same way. In a family that prays, studies, and worships together, this is almost always the case. But there are times when this does not happen, and the results are painful to observe.) During a discussion of whether or not the church elders should serve on a rotating basis, a majority of the members expressed a certain opinion. The man seated in the pew in front of us stood to explain why he would endorse the majority view. After he sat down, my husband rose to express his concerns with the majority view and propose a different plan. Right after he did so, the wife of the man in the pew in front of us stood to say that she felt bad that my husband was the only one expressing his viewpoint, so she would vote with him! She had just cancelled out her husband’s vote, effectively curtailing his leadership of his family–and publicly. He flushed red and managed to stammer out a joke as a cover for his embarrassment. But both my husband and I felt awful about the division. This is absolutely not to say that a wife’s opinion does not matter and carries no weight. A husband should seek his wife’s counsel on important issues. Then, when the head of the household votes, he carries the responsibility on his own shoulders, but he does not act as a “lone ranger.” He has weighed the issues carefully with his wife beforehand.
The Bible is filled from beginning to end with the phrase “you and your household.” God’s promises to Adam and Eve were also to “their seed.” His promises to Noah involved his entire family. His promises to Abraham involved “you and your children after you.” The government of the household is a small republic. The husband may represent the household in public and when he votes, but his “constituents” stand right behind him. They speak with one voice. Now, this doesn’t mean there are never times when a wife disagrees with her husband’s decision. But, in the end, she models the Bride of Christ and submits to her head. She does so without rolling her eyes or fretting, knowing that God is ultimately in control, and she can trust Him. When voting is done by heads of households in church (and this includes older widows who run their own households and make their own vows — see Numbers 30:9), each household has one vote. The Joneses with eight kids cannot outvote the Smiths with three children and the Harrisons with no children. Surely we can agree that this is wise and maintains a balance (not to mention harmony, since small families will have no reason to resent the power of the large families).
Now, how does this principle carry over into the political realm outside the church? Was the 19th amendment misguided? Should all women (or all people, for that matter) have a vote?
We have to walk carefully here. Let it be understood that there are good, thoughtful people on both sides of the suffrage issue. There are godly Christians who disagree on this matter. This is not an issue that should divide brothers and sisters or cause one person to judge another. What we all must commit to do is to go to the Scripture (all of which is “profitable…and able to equip [us] for every good work” – I Tim. 3:16-17), think, pray, talk about the issue, and live out our decisions with love instead of pride in our own view. So, if you disagree with me on this one, I am not going to think harsh thoughts about you or write you off as a liberal.
The model of household suffrage is based upon biblical precepts for government. When God commanded that the people of Israel should be numbered, it was done by heads of household (men twenty years old and above; see Exodus 30:14 and 38:26). “Now the LORD spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying: ‘Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male individually, from twenty years old and above–all who are able to go to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their armies” (Numbers 1:1-3). Did God do this because He was not concerned with individuals, including women and children? No, He did it because He has always been concerned with households from the beginning. And for thousands of years, a household has been considered a force to be reckoned with. Splintering the household into individuals has only occurred in the past 140 years in these United States. This has effectively rendered the household a non-entity (the dream of the radical individualist as well as the socialist–and who now gets to define what constitutes a “family?”). It has pitted fathers against sons, husbands against wives, mothers against daughters. Now, you may argue that it has actually increased the power of the household, since all the members can unite to vote together, multiplying the power of their opinion at the ballot box. But here’s the rub: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Put yourself in the shoes of the widow at the ballot box. As she casts her vote, the family with three children of voting age comes right along behind her and casts five dissenting votes. They’ve outvoted her five to one, even though she represents one household, just as they do.
“But think of the opportunity we have as Christians these days!” someone might exclaim. “We can unite to outvote our enemies!” But what does Jesus say? “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:43-45). The ends do not justify the means. We are to model the justice of our Heavenly Father, who “sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Multiplying votes in this manner simply does not fit a biblical pattern of government (or even of charity toward our neighbor).
“So what about women? Can’t we get back to the point here? Why should men represent their families at the ballot box?” Well, why not? Someone else represents you in Congress; you do not directly vote on every issue. If you have a problem with men voting for their households, you must necessarily take issue with the republican form of government our Founders laid down. How can 535 representatives possibly represent the votes of 280 million people? If we don’t like this fact, we have the right to “alter or abolish” our government, but we don’t have the right to do so at the expense of our neighbor. This is why a system of checks and balances is so vital–and this brings us back to women voting. Should women vote? Yes! Here’s the point: Every woman does vote, whether or not she physically pulls the lever or puts the paper in the box. A wife casts her vote every time she discusses the issues of the day with her husband. A daughter casts her vote every time she asks her father about an article she has read or a speech she has heard. A wife votes by the very virtue of the fact that she is the “queen” of the household and rules by her husband’s side. In this respect, all women “hold political interest,” as our reader said above. It would be foolish indeed for a husband to pat his wife on the head in a condescending manner and say, “There, there, dear. You don’t need to think about that; I’ll do the thinking for our household all by myself.” The wise husband seeks the counsel of his wife and enoys hearing her opinions. He is able to represent his household well because he is listening to those he represents. But, in the end, he does the representing, just as our congressmen represent us in the House and Senate on a daily basis.
God is the one who defines the household and declares who shall be the head of it. A married man is the head of his household. A widow “indeed” (over sixty and not obligated to remarry) is the head of her household (like Lydia in the book of Acts). Single young men like Samuel or Daniel were leaders even while single and so headed their own “households” (they were not dependent upon anyone). If a father died without a son, his daughter could become his heir, basically becoming the de facto head of the household and bearer of the family name (Numbers 7:1-11). But the normal pattern God has clearly laid out in Scripture is that of a young woman living under her father’s roof until she is given in marriage and a young man leaving home to “cleave to his wife.” When Ruth was widowed, she placed herself under the protection of her mother-in-law’s male relative, Boaz. It is not the scriptural pattern for young women to seek to be heads of their own households and remain single for life. It must also be noted that it is not a scriptural pattern for young men to avoid marriage and become parasites to their parents! God’s pattern is for the creation of households that follow after Him. When God covenanted with Abraham, He said He did it “in order that he [Abraham] may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19).
Are you a woman who is vitally interested in the issues of the day? Talk to your husband (or your father, if you’re a daughter)! Draw him out into conversation and get to know his mind on the issues. Most of all, be willing to listen. You may be astounded at how well your husband can articulate his viewpoints when he is asked for them. Ask lots of questions! And be willing to be wrong! When your viewpoint cannot hold up to scrutiny, accept defeat gracefully. If your husband ends up changing his mind, be humble. And when you really feel your husband is wrong, commit your feelings to the Lord and pray for your husband as he represents your household “in the gates.” It is a solemn duty to serve as the “magistrate” of the household and not one to be taken lightly. Much rests upon husbands and fathers as they represent their households, so lighten that burden by being supportive, encouraging, and involved. And besides serving as an interested counselor, there are many ways women can be involved beyond the ballot box. Are you passionate about pro-life issues? Write articulate letters to the editor from a woman’s point of view. Offer to counsel young women in crisis pregnancies. Is your family excited about a political candidate? Work together to help his campaign by placing signs, handing out brochures, and opening your home for a “Meet the Candidate” coffee (we’ve done this as a family many, many times). Together, families can work as a team to influence our nation for godliness. Gender has nothing to do with our success.
NOTES:
[1] Einwechter, William. “The Christian Colonial Foundation of America.”
[2] Banner, Lois. “Woman Suffrage,” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia
[3] For a very thorough treatment of the history of women’s property ownership in America, see Women and the Law of Property in Early America by Marylynn Salmon. While the book is written from a feminist perspective, it covers dozens of interlocking aspects of the history of property ownership (including a woman’s legal status when it came to voting) in detail.
* Daniel Crittenden also has a fascinating take on the 19th Amendment in her book, What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us. Mrs. Crittenden takes a pragmatic look at what has happened to political campaigns since women have received the vote and asks if we are really any better off. Would a presidential candidate’s hairstyle really have been an issue 100 years ago? Image and emotion are big players in modern politics. While women’s suffrage certainly isn’t the only cause, isn’t it possible that it has played a major part in this shift, Crittenden asks?“
November 5, 2007 at 1:09 am
So it would be safe to say that she does not vote?!
November 5, 2007 at 1:13 am
Kate in #344 – “One quote [Dana, a homemaker with opinion] from the promo was pretty broad:
“I have come to the conclusion that people in the world truly hate children. And that is strong words, but, the more I see people and the way they relate to children, the more I see that they truly see them as burdens on society.”
[A curious thought: Couldn’t we insert the word “women” to replace the word “children” and make the same broad statement about the patriocentrists and their views on women? Just a thought.]”
I got to wondering, why is it that some people do not want children? Usually, it is because of the enormous amounts of needs that they have that we must attend to. It’s natural to a point to resent those who demand so much of us.
I just find it ironic: the patriocentrists tell us that the Father is the one who has needs that the rest of the family must see to. Well, when I started thinking about the Scriptures that instruct someone to meet another’s needs (out of the three familial categories; fathers, mothers, children), it seemed to me that there were MANY more passages addressed to the husband to meet the wife’s needs. Out of the 13 verses in Ephesians 5:21-33 that instruct husbands and wives in mutual submission, wives are given two instructions (to “be subject to” and to “respect” their own husbands, while there are 9 verses (25-33) explaining the husbands responsibilities to meet his wife’s needs… a lengthy passage, it seemed to me.
Beyond respecting and meeting a husband’s sexual needs, I couldn’t think of a verse or passages that went into as much detail about meeting a husband’s/father’s needs as there are the many reminders to consider the wife and her needs, as the “weaker vessel”. When it does instruct wives, there is always an instruction for the husband as well; Corinthians, when it says that a husband or wife is concerned with making their spouse happy, or where Paul tells married people that their body is not their own, but their spouses. So, it seemed that, for the most part, Paul is always balancing the scales, saying basically “watch our for each other”, but they do tip a bit when he adds those admonitions to the husband.
Anyway, just some thoughts about the percentage of whose needs took the Scriptural priority. I’m not saying I’ve thought this out a great deal… just my first reaction to the question.
November 5, 2007 at 1:19 am
Cynthia, that is the article I was looking for. Thanks.
November 5, 2007 at 1:22 am
“But think of the opportunity we have as Christians these days!” someone might exclaim. “We can unite to outvote our enemies!” But what does Jesus say? “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:43-45). The ends do not justify the means. We are to model the justice of our Heavenly Father, who “sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Multiplying votes in this manner simply does not fit a biblical pattern of government (or even of charity toward our neighbor).”
Maybe it’s the lack of sleep, but I fail to see AT ALL how this verse applies to women voting. It’s not a matter of “enemies”, but of redeeming the time for the days are evil. I’m totally failing to see any logic in this paragragh.
November 5, 2007 at 2:10 am
I can’t see how whoever that person is- can say that people hate children. I’ve never wanted to have children myself(and I physically can’t anymore) but that doesn’t mean that I HATE them! I like playing with kids. Kids seem to like me- I just don’t have a maternal desire. But it’s a far cry from not wanting your own child to say ’she hates children.’
That might change some day- I mean, of course, there’s always the option to adopt- but I can’t see that happening in the foreseeable future. But still- to say I hate children just because I have no maternal desire at this time is ludicrous!
November 5, 2007 at 4:00 am
Notice that Jennie Chancey never clearly answers the question about whether women should vote or not. It’s still very unclear whether that’s a “yes” or a “no.” I have found this to be a pattern with patriocentrists – when you ask them questions like these, they don’t want to take the flack they’ll get for giving a straight answer, so they dance all around it. We’re all still left wondering whether Mrs. Chancey goes into the election booth and casts a vote on election day. A simple yes or no would be nice.
Some patriocentric wives on another forum boldly admit to ordering absentee ballots in their own name and handing them over to their husbands to fill out. I wonder if they know that’s illegal.
November 5, 2007 at 4:43 am
Lady Helen,
I felt as though I’d been run through when I listened to that woman (Dana Feliciano under the QF subtitle) speak of how people hate children. I felt like I’d absorbed a great deal of hate from that video clip (on the first viewing) and had to make a concerted effort to discharge it. It sickened me, literally.
I enjoyed Phyllis Schafly, Carol Everett and that theologian from Knox, but the rest of it was very emotionally arousing (term meaning something that engages deep emotion or excitement and should follow with a healthy discharge of emotion). The best way that I can describe it is to say that I absorbed anger and hate from it that is not my own. I don’t know what it was like to watch the whole film in context, but I carried an unspoken, disturbing something that I had to make a concerted effort to release that next day. I thought at first that I was just hyper-sensitive about the “hating children” comments, but I believe that it’s more than that. (Many in this movement make such assumptions about me since I don’t have any little ones, and I imagine that if I met Dana Feliciano that she would likely make such charges to my face.)
There’s just so much of this black and white/all or nothing belief about things in this movement. There’s no place for grace (or I have yet to find it) for Christians who do not fit their mold to their satisfaction. It’s the either/or fallacy, rearing its ugly head.
I thought of Trish today and her comments on this thread. Here again is another example that she proposed: I believe that there is only one right interpretation, you don’t share it so you are absolutely wrong and I am right because I believe in Biblical authority. As if any of us dont…
God grant us deeper and greater love for one another and love for the lost. You loved a world that hated You, dying for it while we were yet sinners.
Ephesians 5
1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace….
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
November 5, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Cindy- thank you for your support. I needed to see that scripture
I seem to have a natural talent for writing- my father has literally said that I seem to write as easily as Mozart composed(his words, not mine.) I wouldn’t know- all I DO know is that I’ve been given a gift of creativity.
And I’ve always wondered how I can use that for God- my talent is definitely in fiction writing, but naturally, of course, these people would tell me that I can’t write unless I’m writing about how to raise daughters or submit to a husband. I’m certain there’s a way, though. In Matthew, the temple curtain was torn from top to bottom, meaning we have direct access to God- and also meaning that we shouldn’t be putting him into a box. Why sew the temple curtain back together?
November 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“I enjoyed Phyllis Schafly, Carol Everett and that theologian from Knox, but the rest of it was very emotionally arousing (term meaning something that engages deep emotion or excitement and should follow with a healthy discharge of emotion). The best way that I can describe it is to say that I absorbed anger and hate from it that is not my own. I don’t know what it was like to watch the whole film in context, but I carried an unspoken, disturbing something that I had to make a concerted effort to release that next day. I thought at first that I was just hyper-sensitive about the “hating children” comments, but I believe that it’s more than that. ”
Cindy K,
I can relate to your comments. There are many things in the Monstrous Regiment film I enjoyed and agreed with, too, but I felt disturbed by some. Probably the abortion scene. Having had a stillborn baby, it was hard to watch that and it brought back memories of our precious Oliver. I did pick up on a the “hating children” comment but for a different reason. I know that this is not true. Yes, some may “hate” children but most do not. This issue is not as cut and dried as some would like to have us think.
Just because someone has a lot of children it doesn’t mean that they love children. Some people could be having a lot of children to fulfill something inside of themselves or they could be trying to get rid of some emptiness left to them from their own childhood. Some have children just for the sake of having them and view them as trophies or proof of their spiritual standing with God. Some have a lot of children because of the government aid they will get.
We do not know why some people have no children or just one or two children. They could very well love children a LOT more than the parents who have 10 children and are just be unable to have any children or they may have secondary infertility.
Did you look at the cover of DVD? I just looked at it a few days ago and I noticed some things. I am sure there is a message in it but I am having a hard time figuring it all out.
There is a large round table with about 20 or so beings sitting around it. Some are human looking, some are not. There is one woman, the rest look male. There seems to be some monks sitting around the table and some elfin-looking beings. I don’t know who these people are representing. The woman? The elves/devils? I think the monks represent the Reformers.
But, on the table is where it gets interesting. On one of the plates is a small baby with its umbilical cord still attached. On another plate there is a man’s head with an apple stuffed into his mouth. Obviously this is symbolism which stands for the feminist movement.
There are many of us on this board who have actually “fought” in the front lines against abortion. We have gone to the clinics and prayed. We have counseled women who were seeking abortions and gently pleaded with them and told them that this was not their only option. We have help try to pick up the pieces of the post-abortive woman who can hardly live with her guilt and shame. The whole abortion aspect of this film makes me wonder who their target audience was? Was it to try and elicit strong emotion from those on their side in order to get them to rise up even more against feminism? Or are they marketing this to pro-abortion advocates and trying to get them to see the horrors of abortion?
Also, the people they chose to interview on the street were very lost. What else do we expect from lost people? Some of them looked like they could be homeless and/or hooked on drugs. As if they represent the average person in this world.
I did find that the movie was different than the “Return”. The people interviewed and hosting the movie didn’t seem to be on the same “robotic” drive. The Monstrous DVD did have the gospel message in it. I was very encouraged by that. There were beautiful and REAL scenes of the Gunn family and their beautiful children. It was heart-warming. These were not posed moments for the camera but real-life video. I didn’t at all feel like I was watching a soap opera or some heavily scripted piece being passed off as every-day life.
And, I could have listened to the Scottish brogue of some for the entire film.
November 5, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Shameless plug,
since Densie mentioned the upcoming election. I had a guest post of at Barbara Curtis’s blog. She has graciously asked me to guest blog any time I want. I’m not sure if I’ll take her up on it, but I did do a guest post there this weekend.
http://www.themizreport.com/2007/11/spunky_on_huckabee_and_mormoni.php
If you like taling about politics as a Christian, you might check out her blog.
November 5, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Alisa,
Thank you for sharing that in comment #357 about the Sarah/New Covenant in Christ insights. That was much more clear about what I was thinking yesterday, yet I’ve heard nary a word from the patriocentrist’s teachings on this.
November 5, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Cynthia Gee in comment #358 quoted the article by Jennie Chancey. I read through and found this:
“God is the one who defines the household and declares who shall be the head of it. A married man is the head of his household. A widow “indeed” (over sixty and not obligated to remarry) is the head of her household (like Lydia in the book of Acts).”
Can someone please tell me where it states in that or other passages that Lydia (seller of purple) was a widow? I looked up that passage in a Matthew Henry commentary (late 17th, early 18th minister of the Gospel and endorsed by Spurgeon) and he never even brings it up. He apparently didn’t even have a problem with Lydia having a business outside of home:
(2.) Her calling. She was a seller of purple, either of purple dye or of purple cloth or silk. Observe, [1.] She had a calling, an honest calling, which the historian takes notice of to her praise; she was none of those women that the apostle speaks of (1 Tim. 5:13), who learn to be idle, and not only idle, etc. [2.] It was a mean calling. She was a seller of purple, not a wearer of purple, few such are called. The notice here taken of this is an intimation to those who are employed in honest callings, if they be honest in the management of them, not to be ashamed of them.
(3.) The place she was of—of the city of Thyatira, which was a great way from Philippi; there she was born and bred, but either married at Philippi, or brought by her trade to settle there. The providence of God, as it always appoints, so it often removes, the bounds of our habitation, and sometimes makes the change of our outward condition or place of our abode wonderfully subservient to the designs of his grace concerning our salvation.
You can read about Lydia here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/comm_read.pl?book=Act&chapter=16&verse=40&Comm=Comm%2Fmhc%2FAct%2FAct016.html%2354%26Matthew%26Henry&Select.x=35&Select.y=9
November 5, 2007 at 5:07 pm
alright…
small error in my last post
ephesians 4 (and not chapt 5 as i noted… guess i had eph 5 and man sanctifying women on the brain…)
sorry!
November 5, 2007 at 7:37 pm
In response to Spunky’s shameless plug…
Oh my! A place to discuss politics as a Christian — how tempting!
Now I’ll never get off the computer.
November 5, 2007 at 11:03 pm
“A widow “indeed” (over sixty and not obligated to remarry) is the head of her household (like Lydia in the book of Acts).”
Can someone please tell me where it states in that or other passages that Lydia (seller of purple) was a widow? ”
Kate,
I thought the same exact thing. Lydia is a widow? News to me. It seems like some people are able to make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims as long as it backs up the point they intend on making.
The Bible never mentions that Lydia was a widow. And I never thought of her as being over 60 years of age? Where do we get that from?
It is concerning to me that people take such liberties with scripture.
I already listed an example where John MacArthur tells us that the Bible doesn’t tell us why Adam took that fruit from Eve but he DOES know why Adam took the fruit and he proceeded to tell us Adam’s motives for eating that forbidden fruit! Now, how does he know?
The fact of the matter is that he doesn’t know any more than I know. Maybe the reason Adam ate the fruit was because he was waiting to see if Eve died and when he saw she didn’t die, he figured it was safe to eat it. My conjecture is just as rational and worthy as MacArthur’s conjecture. Do we not both have the same Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth? I hardly think that the Holy Spirit would give some this special knowledge and not others.
What we can ascertain is that Lydia had her *own* household and she seemed to have great influence. She was a “seller of purple” or a business woman. I hardly think that Lydia was a woman over the age of 60. Also, I would like to know what Chancey meant by “not obligated to remarry”? There is no such obligation of any widow. Paul suggested that those young widows remarry so they wouldn’t burn with lust and go back on any vow of singleness and devotion they made to God. But, that doesn’t mean widows were obligated to remarry.
We don’t know that Lydia was ever married at all. That is conjecture and assumption and it isn’t even based on any evidence at all.
I know why they say things like this because if they didn’t say this, it would put down quite a few of their assertions concerning a woman’s role.
November 5, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I was wondering if anyone was familiar with Colin Campbell (Nancy Campbell) and his DVDs on patriarchy? I just received my new “Above Rubies” magazine and it reminded me about his teachings on the subject in book, cd and now dvd form.
I don’t know anything about them but I am assuming they would have a different spin than the stuff we have been looking at just because of the rest of their things that I am familiar with.
November 5, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I take it that Colin and Nancy Campbell present a balanced view of male governance? (At least significantly less authoritarian than the Visionary Daughters and VF perspective?)
November 5, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Corrie…funny you mention that. I got my new Above Rubies magazine too and noticed that article on the Father as the leader of the family altar. Then, this week I also got my NGJ magazine (Pearls). There was an article in there called “Michael Pearl Answers the Critics”. In this article he goes to lengths to skirt the whole calvinist/armenian issue.
In the end, I don’t want ANY of these people to be the spokesperson of the homeschool community at large. I like(d) some of the VF stuff for a long while. I still glean nuggets of wisdom and encouragement from AR and NGJ…but to use any of these voices as *THE VOICE* of the average homeschooler concerns me.
I’ve run into several other homeschoolers as of late who seem to think we all fit the same mold. You know, the VF/AR/NGJ type ideals. When they (quickly) discern that I’m not *that* type, I usually get hit with the cold shoulder—I’m not good enough, holy enough or whatever. I had to drop out of a homeschool group this past year because I could no longer take the “unadvertised requirements” put on all of us. I was the only one with a “small” family. I was the only one who did this, or that.
I’m just tired of people in our own homeschool community using these people as the voice for everyone. There are MANY wonderful and varied homeschoolers out there who may or may not homeschool for religious reasons. While our path started that way, it has changed and emerged over the years. I still homeschool as a religious conviction, yes…but I no longer use it as a religious mouthpiece either. I have many other wonderful reasons for homeschooling.
Sorry this was off topic…but Corrie’s comment got me thinking!
November 6, 2007 at 12:25 am
I agree, Lindsey. I think it all comes back to the fact that “all we are like sheep.” We seem to follow the group and have a distinct aversion to thinking outside of groupthink… This is true of Christian homeschoolers just as much as it is true of humanity at large.
It’s no fun being “group-less,” but it’s equally no fun being in a group for the feelings of safety and identy provided there, yet in actuality being led away from the Path of the Good Shepherd.
My “group” is with Him. That means I’ve got a pretty big (and diverse) group! But He’s my identity and He’s my safety, so I can handle the bigness of this group without getting my undies in a wad over all the differences…
November 6, 2007 at 12:35 am
Been reading back… lots of thoughtful and thought inducing words.
The fertility issue struck a nerve.
Both of my full term pregnancies (catch the innuendo, please) ended up being high risk in the end. To the point with my son that I was induced and they gave it up for failed and I spent an entire month on monitors until his natural birth.
Then after my daughter’s birth I had massive complications and since I can’t remember, my husband has described the images of the nurses mopping up my blood and measuring it to see how much I needed transfused.
We were told very, very clearly that another birth would be the death of me.
Then there were the financial concerns. We are heavy in Student Debt. Still, and our daughter is 6 so we didn’t feel another child was acting Stewardly.
There is a verse that talks about acting as a child when a child, but as an adult when an adult.
To me, taking the knowledge that we had of our health issues and our financial issues and choosing to not take medical measures with the advances we have… is to act like a child.
We are called to be the salt of the world. Not to avoid the world, but to season the world. This means we are to bless Creation but not shun it. So to ignore medical and financial advice and knowledge is to shun Creation.
After all, I believe that God does work both in those saved and not saved. Didn’t he use the surrounding nations in the Old Testament to help shape the nation of Israel?
And, yet even with this belief… the times I often feel so guilty for having made the choices we have made.
And often, I feel the need to defend ourselves when confronted by well meaning strangers. I praise God that this pressure is not from members of my own church, but often… other home schooling mothers!
November 6, 2007 at 6:02 am
“Sorry this was off topic…but Corrie’s comment got me thinking!”
Lindsey,
Well, I will have to do that more often! I like when you think. You always have some good thoughts.
I think there are a lot of us who don’t feel like we belong even if we have all the “credentials” to belong.
I agree with you.
November 6, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Spunky, #368..
You go girl!
November 6, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Lindsay said “In the end, I don’t want ANY of these people to be the spokesperson of the homeschool community at large. ”
Lindsay, this is very true. I am concerned about who these spokespeople are. They certainly don’t represent me nor does their “homeschooling vision” represent the vision I have for my own life or that of my family.
Sarah, who posts on here, sent me an article a while back about some of the concerns that those outside the homeschooling community have regarding the education of girls. The basic premise of this particular article was that there are possibly violations of constitutional and civil rights for girls in homeschooling families where there are both brothers and sisters. If the girls do not receive an equivalent education, their rights are being violated and this writer suggested that there be investigations into this practice and the appropriate laws written and enforced to address it.
I believe that if we do not take care of this as a homeschooling community, someone from the outside will come in and do it for us and then we will be truly sorry.
Sarah, if you are reading, please comment on this.
November 6, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Karen I fear you are correct. If we continue on allowing Doug Phillips et al to be the “voice” of the American homeschool movement, we may very well be hit with further restrictions, requirements, and homeschool laws.
I mean, to the average American who knows nothing about VF and their style, what would YOU think when you hear of homeschoolers who refuse their daughters college and deny their wife the right to vote?
If I were that average American, unexposed to the homeschool community at large, and I got wind of that type of behavior, I’d be pushing for more laws, wouldn’t you?
November 6, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“If I were that average American, unexposed to the homeschool community at large, and I got wind of that type of behavior, I’d be pushing for more laws, wouldn’t you?”
That may be happenning sooner than we think. The “average American” tends to view homeschoolers as a bunch of religious nuts already, thanks to DP et al.
November 6, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I am a 30 year old homeschool graduate. I attended a large state University, I have a husband, a career, a home and I am active in my church. Being homeschooled, while that is a big part of who I am, doesn’t define me. Yet, everytime I tell somebody that I graduated from home I hear “I can’t believe it!! your so normal”
November 6, 2007 at 3:33 pm
oops left the rest of my comment off.
I used to thank Bill Gothard for people’s reaction but now a whole new group of people associate it with Vision forum.
November 6, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Its too bad we can’t do a traveling “Return of the Daughters” movie… you know, pass it around between all of us who don’t want to buy it, but who most definitely want to see it. We do this on a babywearing message board on which I participate. Someone gets a really cool sling and people send it to each other. Everyone takes a picture of their baby in the sling and posts it on the thread. Its really neat to watch where it goes.
So far, it looks like you can only buy it through the Botkin’s ministry or Vision Forum. Nothing on Amazon
Where else do ya’ll think it might pop up?
November 6, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Cally, my copy of the movie was free from the Botkin sisters and I am happy to pass it along.
Why don’t you all send me an e-mail address if you want to see it and I will send it to Cally first and then she can send it along to the next person on the list. Cally, just e-mail me your snail mail address. This is a great idea!
November 6, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I just wrote to Netflix and requested that they purchase and rent the Botkin and the Gunn Brothers films. Here’s the link if anyone would like to do likewise:
http://www.netflix.com/Suggest?type=0&lnkctr=cu_tr
And speaking of letter writing, I wrote to both Family Life (Dennis Rainey, et all) and Nancy Leigh DeMoss to protest their interviews with the authors of “Passionate Housewives.” I begged that they at least give equal airtime to those who believe that the VF version of patriarchy is spiritually abusive.
Anyone willing to write to these radio hosts also?
November 6, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Hey, I think one of my comments went to spamland.
Anyway, I just wrote to Netflix and requested that they offer both the Botkin and the Monstrous DVDs for rental.
Anyone else want to echo my request?
November 6, 2007 at 6:55 pm
A few general thoughts, referencing various comments in various places:
#1: I think Jennie Chancey and Stacey McDonald get a free pass to speak on issues that other patriocentric women don’t because the leaders know them personally and can trust their viewpoints. Same with the Botkin girls, who after all are just repeating what they’ve been told. (I did that, in my youth. I thought I was being wise by agreeing with those who assured me they were older and wiser than me.)
It would be nice to see some consistency in the patriarchy circles, although I’d far rather see other women come forward with their ideas, rather than see Jennie and Stacey packed away and silenced.
#2: Another thought, this one about the husband-wife relationship in patriarchy. It really works best (or at all) with a certain combination of personalities: the driven, do-great-things leader husband, and the supportive, let-me-serve-you wife. (I’m not being snarky in my description of the wife. My own sister is one of those women: she makes life better before you even realize it needs to be.) But not everyone has the combination you need to live up to this ideal. In my marriage, for instance, it’s really hard to be Obedient when my husband never issues any Orders!
#3: “People hate children” Some people do, yes. But I’d say that in our society in general, people do not APPRECIATE children. As someone phrased it, there’s a “socially acceptable” number of children to have. The patriocentric circle takes this lukewarm, and sometimes unkind, view toward children and turns it into Hate. They do that sort of thing all the time: everything is big, dramatic, and polarized in their world. (Doug Phillips might very well expire from a surfeit of superlatives one of these days.)
And those are my thoughts!
– SJ
November 6, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Sara wrote: “I think Jennie Chancey and Stacey McDonald get a free pass to speak on issues that other patriocentric women don’t because the leaders know them personally and can trust their viewpoints”
I don’t know if anyone was aware that both ladies were interviewed for broadcast on both “Family Life Today” and “Revive Our Hearts.” I wrote to both programs and asked that they consider pulling these broadcasts or at least give those who oppose their version of patriarchy equal airtime.
Find all the necessary links on my blog at http://www.undermuchgrace.blogspot.com
Maybe if enough people write, Don Veinot can get some airtime with them?
November 6, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I think its terribly ironic that Nancy Leigh DeMoss would have them on her program considering that they believe she is sinning by working outside the home. Who is her husband? Why isn’t she working to support HIS ministry? And if this isn’t what they believe, perhaps they need to clarify because I certainly get that impression from their writings AND from their book. Am I the only one?
November 6, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Hello, ladies. I’ve been following along with the discussion and thought you might be interested in an outsider’s perspective. I was raised Catholic and am now a mainline Protestant. I think I’m far more liberal than most of you in my politics, and I readily confess to being a theological featherweight. I have, however, spent some time over the past couple of years reading LAF and other hyper-patriarchal sites. I’m somewhat fascinated by the phenomenon and the way that certain parts draw me in and other parts repulse me.
It seems to me that the hyper-patriarchs have built feminism up into a colossal (monstrous!) force that it simply isn’t, all for the sake of defining themselves in opposition to it.
When I read their various denigrations of feminism, I don’t see any absolutes. They’d admit that a woman can go to college or work outside the home if her husband wills it. They’re not against those things completely in and of themselves. The parts of feminism that they find most repugnant – selfishness and consumerism, primarily – seem universal to me. What they’re against is sin, and we’re all susceptible to it, men and women alike.
Consider this recent quote from Courtney Tarter, featured in Doug Phillips’ blog:
Feminist ideology is not simply relegated to the brash Gloria Steinem types, or even the female executive with the corner office. Rather, feminism rises up in ordinary women in our congregations, homes, and in the least obvious place, the mirror. Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ…
I know that what’s in the core of my heart is selfishness and pridefulness. It’s sin and human weakness, pure and simple, and I struggle to overcome that through Christ. Feminism is only one way that those sins might manifest themselves – I could stay at home, cover my head, read only the KJV Bible, and speak only when spoken to, and I would still have the same struggle.
The cynic in me says that the hyper-patriarchal camp and Vision Forum couldn’t make a living simply denouncing sin, so they had to package it in a new way. The new marketing strategy is to be completely anti-feminism, complete with glowing photos of little boys bearing wooden swords and lovely young ladies in dresses sitting down to tea at home.
The less cynical side of me is still concerned that this is being presented as a Biblical truth, rather than one way for Christians to live. I can only imagine the heartache that might come in striving to live up to this ideal, and feeling that you are sinning when you inevitably fall short.
I’d just like to end with a note of encouragement to you – the discussion on this website (and elsewhere on the web) has been a blessing and a source of reflection for me in my own growth as a Christian. I find myself thinking of ideas presented here in the oddest places – while raking leaves, during a particularly boring row of knitting, while in the grocery store… You know, all the places feminists like me are found!
November 6, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Whoops, sorry about the italics there!
November 6, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ellen says:
“It seems to me that the hyper-patriarchs have built feminism up into a colossal (monstrous!) force that it simply isn’t, all for the sake of defining themselves in opposition to it.”
I think this is very insightful. How many times I have seen patriocentric women define themselves by all the things they are not rather than by what they are. But the truth is that there can be a lot of wiggle room in doing it this way. Yous can answer a question without out and out lying, though you still are withholding enough information that it is, in my book, bearing false witness.
One reason this is being done, I believe, is to conjure up some sort of crisis, usually one that is based on a truth or partial truth, and then turn it into a major crisis where, guess what, only they offer the solution.
Corrie and I were discussing this over the weekend. One thing that we both noticed as we watched the movies and read excerpts from the Passionate Wives book, is that there is a presupposed attitude that only a certain group is able to offer the solutions to the invented or magnified problems.
As we chatted, we both were thinking of and naming others, outside the patriocentric paradigm, who have addressed similar problems, even 30 years ago, and who are currently addressing the problems. And most of the time, their ideas have much more Bibical merit. Again, the arrogance that you are the holder of the secret information for solving these problems is what comes through to the masses.
November 6, 2007 at 9:02 pm
“I think its terribly ironic that Nancy Leigh DeMoss would have them on her program considering that they believe she is sinning by working outside the home. Who is her husband? Why isn’t she working to support HIS ministry? And if this isn’t what they believe, perhaps they need to clarify because I certainly get that impression from their writings AND from their book. Am I the only one?”
Carol,
No, you are definitely NOT the only one!
Now, none of the following at all in any way is a condemnation from me concerning her activities. I don’t think she should have to curtail any of it and she has been obviously gifted by God to do this. But, according to Chancey’s, the Botkin’s and McDonald’s writings and the writings of many others in their group, she is not doing what she is supposed to be doing.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss has her own ministry, runs her own ministry, has no husband, hasn’t ordered her life around one man in order to serve him, etc. She writes books on the subjects of forgiveness, holiness, and brokeness which are read by both men and women and marketed to both men and women. Her radio shows are broadcast and men listen to them and learn from her teachings. She is definitely a leader in Christianity and a theologian. She is not merely fulfilling a Titus 2 role of teaching younger women, that is only one part of what she does.
She has two radio programs, one for women and one for revival in the church.
http://www.seekinghim.com/pastors/
She has a section called “Tools for Pastors”
“Seeking Him is designed to help you set the stage for a greater work of God in your church than you have ever dreamed.
We have developed several great tools to aid you and your church in maximizing the Seeking Him material.
The Tools
Sermons for each of the 12 Topics
Supplemental Power Point Presentations
Suggested Worship Songs
Small Group Guides
and many more resources to help you!”
This is her writings and teachings TO pastors.
“”Everybody is talking about revival, but seldom have we seen a clear step-by-step guide to experiencing personal and corporate revival. This is every Pastor’s dream. Finally! A guide to assist every member in personal revival and every church in corporate revival.”
Anthony T. Evans, Th. D.
Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship”
http://www.reviveourhearts.com/aboutus/nancy.php
“Nancy graduated from the University of Southern California, with a degree in piano performance. After completing college, she served as the Primary Children’s Ministries Director at Thomas Road Baptist Church, in Lynchburg, Virginia. Since 1980, Nancy has served on the staff of Life Action Ministries, a revival ministry based in Niles, Michigan. Until 2001, she served as the Director of Women’s Ministries and as the editor of Spirit of Revival magazine.
For more than 25 years, Nancy has communicated her burden for both personal and corporate revival in conferences and retreats throughout North America and abroad.
Nancy is author of Choosing Forgiveness, A Place of Quiet Rest, Lies Women Believe, Walking in the Truth, A Thirty Day Walk with God in the Psalms, Brokenness: The Heart God Revives, Surrender: The Heart God Controls, Holiness: The Heart God Purifies, and she co-authored Seeking Him, an interactive Bible study on revival. She is also the general editor of Biblical Womanhood in the Home. Her books have sold over 1,000,000 copies.
Nancy is the host and teacher for Revive Our Hearts and Seeking Him, two nationally syndicated radio programs, heard each weekday on nearly 1,000 radio station outlets.
A compelling speaker, Nancy communicates a love for the Word and for the Lord Jesus that is infectious!”
November 6, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Anyone watching the Dr. Phil show?
The first two segments are….well….interesting.
November 6, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Cally,
Nancy Leigh DeMoss has never married, but I must say that the work she is doing now in radio and through writing would have been endorsed by her father (who passed away many years ago).
November 6, 2007 at 10:27 pm
In “Return of the Daughters”, Kelly Bradrick talks about how she was content waiting for a leader, someone she could follow, someone she could be a helpmeet to; she wasn’t looking for someone simply to fulfill little emotional needs she had here and there; but someone who could be used in her life to be a sanctification tool. In praying for a husband, she asked Him to send someone who had a mission, had a vision, who feared Him greatly, and was moving along in the sanctification process and going places.
I don’t dispute that marriage is a tool for one’s sanctification but why does it seem like that in the hyper-patriarchal group, the husband is the tool of sanctification of the wife but not the other way around? We all know that the wife is, in the same way, a “tool of sanctification”, because both the husband and wife are part of a royal priesthood.
Peter approached Scott Brown and privately expressed his feelings about Kelly and asked about a potential courtship with Kelly. For several months, Peter worked through a thorough evaluation process with Scott Brown, going through an interview process and writing theological papers and answering the hard questions that only a future father in law can ask. During this time, Kelly had no idea this was going on.
After Peter completed this phase, Scott Brown told him that Peter could start a courtship with Kelly. After 5 months of guarded interaction, Peter proposed and his offer was immediately accepted.
I don’t know if I agree with a father keeping this whole process of interviewing and paper-writing without his daughter’s knowledge. What if the daughter isn’t interested? What sort of position will the daughter be in when her husband gives the go ahead but she has no interest? What will this do to the young man who has gone through months of interviews and writing theological papers? This could be a set-up for some extreme heart-ache. What if the father decides the young man isn’t worthy of his daughter and turns him away before the daughter even has a say in the whole thing? What if the daughter is interested in that young man but the father isn’t too impressed with his theological paper writing skills or the interview process? I can only imagine that this would be very nerve-wracking.
The Botkin girls tell us that the families are different and distinctly different in the way they apply these principles. They tell us that these families have discovered the liberty in applying these principles. These principles do not force families to be identical or to conform to narrow, ritualistic regulations. There are exciting opportunities for diversity, from family to family.
My 4 year old daughter just asked me if the girls (Botkins) were real or if they were robots. I asked her what she meant and she said they looked like and talked like robots. This was not prompted by me at all and it was totally unsolicited. Caroline was simply sitting next to me as I watched the last few segments of this movie and this is the observation she made.
Jennie Chancey assures us that when they talk about productive daughters in the home they are not talking about daughters who know how to use the remote control. She also talks about going to college and how young girls should develop their gifts at home where they will be using them. I have no argument against that if that is only one of the options that a girl is given. She also gives a testimony of her college experience.
Voddie Baucham (introduced as “one of America’s leading bible scholars and teachers of apologetics”) makes the analogy of sending a girl to college as sending her “out to the wolves”. And he tells us that individualism is wrong (not that I disagree) and that a person’s gifts are to be used in the family. Voddie says he has more degrees than a thermometer but that doesn’t mean anything.
Voddie tells us that the “desire” a woman has is for her husband’s position, against the order God has ordained towards independence. He does not want to foster the desire which his daughter is sinfully prone (she is well-traveled and widely educated and had a desire to go to New York University to be a screen writer or in the film industry).
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/Bio.html
His bio on his website says that he is one of the most sought-after preachers of his generation and that he is considered a modern-day prophet because of his sound biblical expostion, theoglocial content and down-to-earth demeanor. He is a greaduate of Southwestern and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminaries and he has also done additional post-graduate work at the University of Oxford in England.
I had never heard of Mr. Baucham until just recently and only via Doug Phillips.
There is commentary by Mr. Botkin and Scott Brown.
I sure hope that means they will be coming out with the “Return of the Sons” video very soon. Are the sons being given this same message? If they aren’t, why not? What scriptures teach that a son isn’t supposed to latch on to his father’s vision and serve him in his home?
There is so much more on this “controversial documentary”. BTW, this is what THEY call this film, not me.
November 6, 2007 at 10:48 pm
In the extras section:
Botkin and Phillips are two men who have a good understanding of the theology behind the “Return of the Daughters”.
Botkin talks about aberrant theologies concerning women. He talks about these aberrant theologies teaching that women are ornaments, mysterious creatures of unspeakable evil, nothing more than discardable playthings (ala Hugh Hefner and all women have been affected by this) and being viewed as mere property.
(Kudos to Mr. Botkin! It is hard to get a patriarchalist to admit that for most of history women are treated in these ways. Talk about suppressing the truth! But, he readily admitted that there have been many aberrant theologies that have harmed women. Most of the time, patriarchalists like to suppress this FACT or down-play it and make it look like it really wasn’t widespread.)
Doug Phillips talks about heirarchy. We must totally and comprehensively submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. The family is the first institution established by God- we have a leader, we have a subordinate. He has a very passionate message about the importance of the family. He talks about “one of the most interesting chapters in the Bible”- Numbers 30. (???????) This chapter teaches that the wife and daughter are the “agents of the father”. Daughters are not to be independent or act outside of the scope of their fathers. This is order, this is love, this is integrity. It is about being a unified whole with one head. It is also a protection for society. Daughters need the approval of their dads in order to marry. He talks about Dinah who went out unprotected and brought devastation upon the family line.
November 6, 2007 at 11:14 pm
In the extras:
The impact of sisters upon their brothers. Sisters shouldn’t emasculate them and they should encourage them in their masculinity and set a good example of submission so they know what to look for in a wife.
Kelly and Peter’s courtship. Kelly states that her father fell in love with Peter before she did. Peter explains what he wrote on paper for Scott Brown. What he wanted for Kelly, what he thought her jurisdiction/role is, what is vision was, etc. Peter never told her that she was beautiful nor did he tell her that he loved her until after he asked her to marry him to leave the emotional aspect out of it. I think he had a good attitude about protecting both of them from renegade emotions. He had some good things to say about the courtship process. Wrote their own vows from scripture.
November 6, 2007 at 11:40 pm
“People hate children” I hear this also on Kevin Swanson’s radio broadcasts, ” Fathers hate their daughters” Yes, this one was used to describe fathers who allow their daughters to go away to college. Over the top rhetoric, sarcasm, ridicule etc….all used to drive home their points to the average joe or josephine that is listening.It arouses their concern, even anger at our culture, which Kevin calls the “zoo”. Now, correct me if I’m wrong but God has created this” zoo” right? And all these “zoo animals” are the objects of his love and mercy. But they are treated with disdain.The enemy appears to be the culture- not the prowling lion satan, who wishes to devour us. So keep your kids at home…be afraid….don’t let them go even to college or the workplace, home business is what is “biblical”. Well, what I “fear” is that the homeschooling community is buying into this stuff. Our state conference this year features Doug, Voddie and company. All patriocentrists. Now they are even calling it “2008 Family Conference”. We used to have a homeschooling conference, where we could get encouragement each year- yes, vision forum had a presence, but lots of other folks were there as well so it wasn’t all one sided. Now… well, its pretty one sided. The whole thing makes me sad. I think that these folks don’t really care about homeschooling, I think its just a platform that they have co-opted for their own use to market their wares and preach their doctrines. I’m seeing a whole lot of- I’ll speak at your conferences and you speak at mine.
Sorry, I’m ranting now.
November 7, 2007 at 12:17 am
Corriejo said: “I don’t know if I agree with a father keeping this whole process of interviewing and paper-writing without his daughter’s knowledge. What if the daughter isn’t interested? What sort of position will the daughter be in when her husband gives the go ahead but she has no interest? What will this do to the young man who has gone through months of interviews and writing theological papers? This could be a set-up for some extreme heart-ache. What if the father decides the young man isn’t worthy of his daughter and turns him away before the daughter even has a say in the whole thing? What if the daughter is interested in that young man but the father isn’t too impressed with his theological paper writing skills or the interview process? I can only imagine that this would be very nerve-wracking.”
This is a very nerve-wracking situation. I had a friend from jr high and high school go through this when she was 20 years old. Her father told her that there was a young man that wanted to court her and that he had been communicating with him for a year…the father required financial statements as well as other information from the interested guy. So for one year my friend held onto any information her father would provide. She spent hours preparing to become his wife and daydreaming about his identity. After a year or so the young man was never mentioned. She never knew who he was or why she was never courted by him. No amount of questioning could persuade her father to share with her the details of her possible courtship. From what I understand (I have lost touch with her, except for one random phone call 5 years ago to tell me she was pregnant) this situation sent her into a serious phase of rebellion against her parents and her hyper patriarchal upbringing. She longed for male attention and sought relationships with the wrong men. She became involved with a much older man and is now the single mother of three young children. Obviously this is an extreme situation but it always reminds me of the verse in Colossians 3:21 “Fathers, do not embitter or children or they will become discouraged”
November 7, 2007 at 1:12 am
Mary said:
“It arouses their concern, even anger at our culture, which Kevin calls the “zoo”. Now, correct me if I’m wrong but God has created this” zoo” right? And all these “zoo animals” are the objects of his love and mercy. But they are treated with disdain.The enemy appears to be the culture- not the prowling lion satan, who wishes to devour us. So keep your kids at home…be afraid….don’t let them go even to college or the workplace, home business is what is “biblical”.”(#402)
I couldn’t have said this better myself. Things are never so simple as these hyper-patriarchalists are making it. If you follow rules “x,y, and z” then you are the best Christian you can be. And if you don’t follow the rules, you are fallen, white-washed, and (always somewhat implied) not a “true” Christian. But the Scripture is clear that not by works (or rules x,y, and z that say you must own a home business) are you saved, but “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8,9 NKJV)
The legalism of the VF camp is astounding.
November 7, 2007 at 4:35 am
mary said:
“The enemy appears to be the culture- not the prowling lion satan, who wishes to devour us. So keep your kids at home…be afraid….don’t let them go even to college or the workplace, home business is what is “biblical”. Well, what I “fear” is that the homeschooling community is buying into this stuff. Our state conference this year features Doug, Voddie and company.
and Joy said:
” But the Scripture is clear that not by works (or rules x,y, and z that say you must own a home business) are you saved, but “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8,9 NKJV)
Oh, good, I thought I was the only one who had a problem with inserting “home-business ownership is next to godliness” into the Biblical text. I love that verse, Eph 2:8,9, and quote it often to people.
We had that preached to us from the pulpit this past Sunday and it really bothered me. We cannot place man-made agendas ahead of the Word of God. Where is there a biblical mandate that a mature man of God will own his own business to provide for his family, huh? That is a heavy burden to add onto a man who has just incurred debt from schooling, providing food and shelter, etc., for his wife and children and that isn’t good enough? It starts to feel like the name it and claim it mentality “I name Abraham as my father and I claim this or that.”
Voddie may have some good things to say, I don’t know, though, as I’ve only heard one of his sermons at the request of my elder and my husband. I did not think at the time that his argument was well-thought out in many regards. He seemed to build straw men and rely on fear. In fact, I still have the sermon and some notes I took and was really troubled by how he brought up the fear factor about Christian young people going off to college to “lose their faith”.
Well, Jesus was pretty confident when He said no one would pluck them (believers) out of His hand or His Father’s hand (Jn. !0:28-29) and God also was confident when He spoke by His Holy Spirit through Paul this, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). Jesus also prayed for His disciples (us) and said, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil …. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth … Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (Jn. 17:15-21)
If I can dig it up, I’ll see what my notes said about Voddie’s sermon on “The Centrality of the Home” from last year’s conference somewhere.
November 7, 2007 at 4:44 am
“We had that preached to us from the pulpit this past Sunday and it really bothered me.”
I need to clarify:
I meant it bothered me that the business ownership model of a mature Christian man, opening up your own business, which is a token of taking a step of faith in male leadership and spiritual growth was emphasized and preached — not that the Ephesians 2:8,9 verse bothered me.
November 7, 2007 at 5:41 am
I am late to the party, but I wanted to say that I am impressed by the depth of this conversation, by the general tone of politeness, and by the fact that new and worthy observations continue to be made despite its length. While the topic has drifted now and then, my interest has not.
corriejo said:
“In “Return of the Daughters”, Kelly Bradrick talks about how she was content waiting for a leader, someone she could follow, someone she could be a helpmeet to; she wasn’t looking for someone simply to fulfill little emotional needs she had here and there; but someone who could be used in her life to be a sanctification tool. In praying for a husband, she asked Him to send someone who had a mission, had a vision, who feared Him greatly, and was moving along in the sanctification process and going places.”
While of course I have no idea whether Kelly Bradrick is coming from this perspective, this reminds me so strongly of women I have known who make their husbands their lives. Back when people here were discussing Genesis 3:16 (“thy desire shall be for thy husband”), I was rather disappointed that my understanding of “desire” in that passage wasn’t brought up. I always thought it meant that the woman’s natural desire for the man could be warped by sin (just as childbirth was changed by sin), which could make her more vulnerable to his tyranny. My understanding is similar to Walter C. Kaiser, Jr’s “The Hebrew reads, “You are turning away [from God!] to your husband, and [as a result] he will rule over you [take advantage of you].”” or Matthew Henry’s comparison of Genesis 3:16 to “the sinner’s desire is towards [sin], for he is fond of his slavery, and it rules over him.”
Not that every woman has suffered this, any more than every woman in history deals with giving birth or every man in history has had to fight thorns and thistles or work by the sweat of his brow. But it just seemed to me that men who have sinful views of romantic love tend toward seeing the woman as a servant or a decoration, while women with skewed views of romantic love seem to me to be more likely to make the guy a god – sometimes a cruel god, who uses them and tosses them aside but they still want to serve him, he’s someone who gives their life direction and purpose. Rather, he IS their direction and purpose – supportive spouses of either sex can help someone find or otherwise enable them to seek their direction and purpose, but that isn’t the same thing as a guy becoming her purpose.
This is why I don’t think there’ll ever be much of a male market for romance novels. While some romance novels are all-around excellent, too large a percentage of them are relying on that desire for someone to give you direction and purpose and make your life complete. I tend to dislike romances because I think God should make your life complete and a guy is optional – this despite the fact that I was dead certain from age twelve that God was calling me to marriage. God has to be first; I think women are far more prone than men to put their spouse before God (and of course both men and women are prone to put self before God).
Which is one of the reasons unbiblical patriarchy so unnerves me – if my understanding of Genesis 3:16 is correct, unbiblical patriarchy encourages women to sin in a way they are particularly tempted by, namely putting their husband in place of God.
corriejo Said:
“Voddie tells us that the “desire” a woman has is for her husband’s position, against the order God has ordained towards independence. He does not want to foster the desire which his daughter is sinfully prone (she is well-traveled and widely educated and had a desire to go to New York University to be a screen writer or in the film industry). “
Is he arguing that “desire” in Genesis 3:16 is the woman desiring her husband’s position? That’s a new one on me, but it seems like a variation on John MacArthur’s theory that “desire” there means “wants to rule over.” It’s been mentioned here before that MacArthur’s theory is recent – I was surprised to discover just how recent. My commentaries that mention it trace it to Susan T. Foh’s paper “What Is the Woman’s Desire”, which was published in 1975!
I suspect part of the reason that it’s so recent is that it violates a lot of standard rules of Biblical interpretation – just for starts, generally it’s wise to interpret words in questionable passages by how they’re used in much clearer passages, and what “desire” means, or who it applies to, or who is feeling it, are ALL debated in Genesis 4:7. It is surprising that MacArthur, who usually strikes me as well-grounded in the traditions of the church, would embrace such a new theory that violates a lot of the interpretive rules he himself recommends.
November 7, 2007 at 5:54 am
Here are some more of Voddie Baucham’s teachings:
“The Rev. Voddie Baucham Jr., pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas and founder of Voddie Baucham ministries, is indignant that so many “blood-washed” Christians choose to send their children to public schools. He boasted about his involvement in pushing a resolution before the Southern Bap tists’ annual convention that calls on church members to yank their kids from public schools.
“If we continue to send our children to Caesar for their education, we need to stop being surprised when they come home as Romans,” Baucham said.
Baucham encouraged the gathering to do what his family does, which is to keep children at home and immerse them in religiosity. The towering pastor – virtually the only African-American at the conference – noted that his son Trey travels with him full time.
“Trey travels everywhere with me,” he said. “Trey is 14 years old; I am his teacher. When our sons reach the age of 13, they go through a rite of passage; they enter into manhood. And when they enter into manhood, their mother closes up the books and hands them to me.”
There are things that only a man can teach a man, Baucham said, though he did not elaborate other than to say that his son is his assistant now.”
This was not taken from a Christian site but since these were direct quotes, I thought them to be applicable.
http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=9212
It bothers me as a mother that a woman would be viewed as no longer fit to teach her own son. I guess there are a lot of homeschooled boys in deep trouble. Couldn’t a father teach his son “man stuff” along with a mother teaching her own son grammar and algebra?
November 7, 2007 at 6:06 am
“Which is one of the reasons unbiblical patriarchy so unnerves me – if my understanding of Genesis 3:16 is correct, unbiblical patriarchy encourages women to sin in a way they are particularly tempted by, namely putting their husband in place of God.”
Shilohmm,
I had forgotten about this view on Gen. 3:16. It is much more in keeping with the words of scripture than all of that other stuff that is inserted in the text.
“My understanding is similar to Walter C. Kaiser, Jr’s “The Hebrew reads, “You are turning away [from God!] to your husband, and [as a result] he will rule over you [take advantage of you].”” or Matthew Henry’s comparison of Genesis 3:16 to “the sinner’s desire is towards [sin], for he is fond of his slavery, and it rules over him.””
This is interesting and something I hadn’t considered.
“s he arguing that “desire” in Genesis 3:16 is the woman desiring her husband’s position? That’s a new one on me, but it seems like a variation on John MacArthur’s theory that “desire” there means “wants to rule over.” It’s been mentioned here before that MacArthur’s theory is recent – I was surprised to discover just how recent. My commentaries that mention it trace it to Susan T. Foh’s paper “What Is the Woman’s Desire”, which was published in 1975!”
Yes, he was arguing that the woman will now desire her husband’s position.
Thank you for that bit of information. I couldn’t find where this new way of translating Gen. 3:16 came about but I knew it was new because of my search through all of my older commentaries.
November 7, 2007 at 6:46 am
On the topic of the luring pull of a “got-it-all-together” gospel…
This sermon my pastor preached this Sunday really hits on a lot of these things…the presentation of this “larger-than-life” leader (who you try to emulate)…
http://www.alaska.net/~lrh/sermons/11-04-07.htm [It is seriously good good good--this guy's teaching is flat out GRACE filled, yummy like chocolate]…
It’s so destructive, so dangerous, this path that only-ever-so-slightly (or so it seems, at first) veers from the sweet path of our First Love. In the end and without our ever really realizing it, it takes grace right out of the picture and we are bound up in the chains of legalism, pride, and condemnation.
I know that what attracted me (to VF, to the Pearls, to all of that crowd) and caused me to leave the narrow road was the seeming BEAUTY of the other path. It looked *so* good…it was all *so* what we wanted (the happy family, the kids that would turn out perfect, the beautiful pictures of old-timey harmonious living)…
It took a long time before we realized that the side road was a trap, that it leads to death.
Thank God for His grace. The narrow path is not always “beautiful,” per say, to eyes that can only see short-term (was the Cross beautiful when Jesus was carrying it up Golgotha?), but it is truly truly truly The Beautiful Way, because it’s Him. He is the Beautiful Way.
November 7, 2007 at 6:53 am
Re, #407
I am completely agreed wtih your understanding of “desire” in that passage. It not only bears out in the text, but it also bears out in history.
History clearly shows that thorns and thistles grow.
History clearly shows that childbirth is full of “toil.”
But history does NOT clearly show that women are constantly trying to overthrow men. In fact, history seems to show the exact opposite. It shows women being willing to do all SORTS of horrible things, if it means that men will approve of them.
We wouldn’t have burquas, female circumcision, etc, if this wasn’t the case.
To say that the “desire” means a desire to usurp Adam’s rightful rulership is not spelled out in the text but must be inferred. It is also, unlike the other aspects of the Fall which are evident through history and our own experiences, sharply missing from world history.
November 7, 2007 at 11:32 am
“But history does NOT clearly show that women are constantly trying to overthrow men. In fact, history seems to show the exact opposite. It shows women being willing to do all SORTS of horrible things, if it means that men will approve of them.
We wouldn’t have burquas, female circumcision, etc, if this wasn’t the case.”
Exactly.
History does not show that women desire to rule over men — history shows that men desire to rule over women, and usually do so, and that women go right on desiring their love and companionship, anyway, sometimes in the face of all kinds of abuse.
It’s not logical, but that’s how it is, and I am convinced that God hardwired this instinct into women after the Fall to ensure the survival of the human race.
November 7, 2007 at 11:48 am
“home business is what is “biblical”
Man, oh man… I bet Dick DeVos (Amway) and his Dominionist ilk LOVE this new twist on the Gospel.
They could make a new religion (not that they haven’t done that already!) and call it the First United Patriarchal Church of Mammon. All you’d need to join would be an X chromosome and enough cash to buy into the first level of the pyramid, and you too could be a righteous home business owner, fufilling your “vision” of a brave new world…
November 7, 2007 at 11:50 am
Whoops, that should be a “Y” chromosome.. That’ll teach me to try to be a smart alec before I’ve had my second cup of coffee!
November 7, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Shilohmm,
This is an interesting insight. It is like the Israelites who cried out for a king and God gave it to them. Here they were with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and they wanted a king they could touch, a human protector and leader. Isn’t this the same thing? Eve’s desire would be for her husband. Perhaps the greater curse, greater than pain in childbirth, would be the longing for an earthly protector, someone who could take the place of God, yet, in the end, that idolatry would become bitter. It always does.
Today we have women (and I do believe women are behind the patriocentric movement) who are assigning to their husbands those things that only God can do. It IT idolatry!
November 7, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Cynthia, giant light bulbs going on here.
Talk about the Amway connection.
Did you know that one of the patriocentric church movements here in Illinois is headed up by Henry Reyenga from the CRC and who has connections to DeVos? I have long thought that DeVos was funding much of that work here.
The name of this ministry is Christian Leaders and their website is http://www.homediscipleship.org/
Not long ago I saw a connection between Reyenga and Voddie…will see if I can still find it.
Your insights on this one would be fascinating for those of us here.
November 7, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Molleth said: “hank God for His grace. The narrow path is not always “beautiful,” per say, to eyes that can only see short-term (was the Cross beautiful when Jesus was carrying it up Golgotha?), but it is truly truly truly The Beautiful Way, because it’s Him. He is the Beautiful Way.”
Amen!
November 7, 2007 at 12:58 pm
The Bradrick courtship:
Kelly’s focus on finding a Godly leader is commendable; far too many people go into marriage not planning for the practical and “unromantic” aspect of things.
But I strongly dislike the repudiation of “little emotional needs.” That’s a recurring theme in these carefully-scripted courtships, and sends the clear message that Emotional Attachment Is Bad. It’s dangerous, it’s to be avoided until you’re safely married.
Obviously emotions can run away with you, and obviously they can fool you: but one of the greatest joys of courtship (speaking as one who went through it) is falling in love. I had so many emotional insecurities that a restrictive courtship like the ideal one above would have damaged my marriage. As it was, my husband and I built a very strong emotional and physical foundation… without neglecting the practical.
And five months of guarded interaction, followed by marriage… they’ll spend their entire first year of marriage in remedial courtship!
If a girl doesn’t mind what I’ve heard described as “guy dating the father,” then go ahead. But don’t, don’t, don’t undervalue emotional needs and joys.
– SJ
November 7, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Once again I read the comments and find something I simply must spit out
When I read about the home biz-attractive-like-chocolate-got-it-all-together gospel Molly so smartly described, I nodded my head and smiled and had a rather AHA! moment.
The people who fall for this stuff do so because it very subliminally fulfills the unsaid WANTS in their life. Before I sound too crazy, let me try to explain:
-On Home Biz: who doesn’t want to be their own boss, working from home, setting their own schedule, taking breaks when needed and wanted? Who doesn’t want to make a boatload of money and be comfortable and be the “boss” of it all? Surely wealth will follow if I do it right!
-On Courtship: who doesn’t want a pretty lady for their own—even if she isn’t exactly into him? I’ll take the girl, even if I didn’t have to work for it! If it is all set up, there is no need to “woo” her and win her over. I don’t have to be vulnerable and set myself up for disappointment and be prepared to answer for all my faults—it’s a done deal and Daddy’s agreed to give me her hand (with or without her knowledge at that!) There is no need to find romance because God waved his magic wand and made it happen! This woman is mine. Surely love will follow if we just do the right things! (see home biz note above, they are oddly similiar)
-On Patriarchy: Who doesn’t want to be the man revered in his home…respected by all? God made men the way they are, and who can blame them for wanting instantaneous respect without having to work very hard to earn it? Surely respect will follow if I just do it right!
-On children: Who doesn’t want beautiful daughters and strong sons who are seen and not heard? The envy of everyone else—the little family who behaves and listens to Daddy’s beck and call! Surely a legacy will follow if I do this right!
************************************************
So *some* people are sold on the whole VF-laden model, home biz and all because it just sounds so, so, so PERFECT! Instead of trusting God to put us in a job that makes us happy, with a spouse who loves us deeply and children who want to love us with abandon, instead we want Him to wave the magic wand and set it up all for us, because afterall, we’ve been taught, THIS IS OUR RIGHT! I deserve no less! Then, working at the factory (like my husband does, thankyouverymuch and makes a very good living!) and marrying the woman who is so-romantically in love with me looks like the cheap, Godless way out that only the heathens choose.
It is maddening really when I see how people (like myself) were sold this bill of goods all in the name of holiness.
And again, how often in this camp of Doug et all do we EVER hear about God’s sanctifying and saving grace? Very, very rarely. The gospel is presented as a sideshow to theh lifestyle. Lifestyle being the most important measure of how much you trust God (or don’t, whatever the case may be).
November 7, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Lindsay says:
“And again, how often in this camp of Doug et all do we EVER hear about God’s sanctifying and saving grace? Very, very rarely. The gospel is presented as a sideshow to theh lifestyle. Lifestyle being the most important measure of how much you trust God (or don’t, whatever the case may be).”
I just watched the Return DVD again as well as the “theological foundation” for this philosophy as taught by Geoffrey Botkin and Doug Phillips on one of the special features.
Here are some things they said:
Phillips said that the family begins the Bible and ends the Bible and that the doctrine of the family is central to the Bible. (I think he needs to read Colossians 1 and meditate on the centrality of Christ.)
Botkin talked about the “fantastical theological systems” people come up with
He talked about the centrality of hierarchy in society and relationships and stated that these hierarchical relationships must be believed for someone to be saved because they reflect the relationship God has with man. (perhaps this might be referring to eternal subordination of Christ?)
Phillips stated that Numbers 30 is the theological basis for this doctrine of young women at home, that it is a “rich depository” proving that wives and daughters are the agents of the father. (We have read this on James McDonald’s blog as well.)
Phillips refers to this as
the biblical doctrine of womanhood.” Though he doesn’t say it outright, wouldn’t any other pattern be considered NOT God’s pattern?”
I just wish they would come right out and tell us what exactly they do believe about other views and perspectives. Do they think it is sin? Does unbiblical equal sin to them? If not, then how can they say that what they believe, ie Numbers 30, is biblical?
November 7, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Molly, Cindy,
“History does not show that women desire to rule over men — history shows that men desire to rule over women, and usually do so, and that women go right on desiring their love and companionship, anyway, sometimes in the face of all kinds of abuse.
It’s not logical, but that’s how it is, and I am convinced that God hardwired this instinct into women after the Fall to ensure the survival of the human race.”
I agree with both of you and that is what I was trying to get at when I said that our “desire” is not purely sexual but relational.
You are right that history bears this out. Women still desire a relationship with a man in spite of all the pain and sorrow that comes with it.
This discussion has been very helpful for me because I didn’t think of this other aspect to a woman’s desire for a relationship in spite of the pain that she sometimes faces from an abusive husband and how a woman will bend over backwards in many instances to please her husband in order to save that relationship in spite of ongoing abuse.
I would like to hear someone who holds to the “a woman’s desire means that she wants to overpower her husband” side refute this argument. (Not just merely proclaim: I am right.) I would like to know if they see this as a plausible interpretation. Why? Why not? If not, why is it not plausible but their interpretation is?
November 7, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Molly,
Since you mentioned the “First Love”, I will tell you what I learned as I put together my testimony for a retreat I recently attended.
Rev. 2:1-7 is an admonition and a praise for the church at Ephesus.
In v. 4-5 it says this: “I [Jesus] have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first:”
This was a very important verse for me and it was the one that brought me out of the hyper-patriarchal man-made extra-biblical system. This is the verse that God used to break the chains that held me. I had allowed myself to become enslaved.
I had left my first love. I had forgotten Him in the midst of keeping rules and regulations and playing some part/role that would allow me to belong with the spiritually elite. It was must easier than actually having a thriving and real relationship with the Lord. All I had to do is follow the teachings of man and their interpretation of what the Bible taught and take their word as gospel truth and my family would be just as promised. If they said it, it was good enough for me. It must be true because they said it.
What were my deeds I did at first? I voraciously read His word, I prayed, I loved others according to His word, my whole being sought to please my Lord, etc. I wasn’t weighed down by all of these do’s and do’s….I just did. I never thought about it because it was as natural as breathing to me because I was so close to the Lord and so immersed in His word that all of this hyper-patriarchal stuff was not even an issue.
I went on a fast from all of these sources and I simply took in the whole counsel of God’s word without filtering it through the lens of the hyper-patriarchal system (which only focuses on about 5 verses in the whole Bible). For instance, how often do you hear patriarchal types discussing the “one another verses”, the book of Isaiah, the life of Christ, 1 Cor. 13, the OT sacrificial system, etc? They have become so myopic in their focus on scripture that they have lost the beauty of God’s word and they have lost perspective.
Once I cleaned my palate from all the junk, I was able to see God’s word like I did at first. Things were much clearer to me and the fog was clearing.
But, here is the amazing part! I then read this in v. 6:
“Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”.
I decided I should look up the Greek etymology of this word in order to understand what is meant by the Nicolaitans.
As you can see in that word we have the word “laity” which means simply “people”.
Then we have the word “nico” and that means to conquer or to enslave.
Basically, the word Nicolaitan means “those who enslave the people”.
God commended them for hating the deeds of those who enslaved the people.
Gal 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Set us free to do what? Sin? Do our own thing? Feed our flesh? Pursue our own goals? May it NEVER be! Christ has set us free to love Him, to serve Him, to obey Him. But, we are to actively NOT allow ourselves to be burdened again by a yoke of slavery and that is exactly what the traditions of men are.
Then, yesterday, as I was driving, I heard Woodroll Kroll talking about this very thing concerning the Nicolaitans.
November 7, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“Today we have women (and I do believe women are behind the patriocentric movement) who are assigning to their husbands those things that only God can do. It IT idolatry!”
Karen,
Exactly.
You mentioned protection. That seems to be a big thing in the hyper-patriarchal movement. But, the Bible teaches us that we can be armed to the hilt and do everything to protect ourselves but that safety is of the Lord.
Psalm 20- the whole Psalm speaks of God’s protection
Proverbs 21:31
The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the Lord.
Proverbs 18:10
The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runs into it and is safe.
We are replacing God with men and then we are making up all sorts of rules and then claiming that this is what the Bible teaches. Then we use Dinah to “prove” that a woman who doesn’t have a male escort at all times is asking to get raped.
But, we ignore the other examples in scripture where fathers and husbands threw or offered to throw their daughters/wives out to the wolves in order to save the dignity of the male visitor.
Yes, we must be wise about taking reasonable safety precautions but our trust must be in God. Is He not sovereign? Does He not have our days written in His book?
I am not talking about taking a walk down a street in East St. Louis at 2 a.m. in the morning. In fact, I am not talking about taking a walk down a street in East St. Louis at 2 pm in the afternoon.
I am talking about the over-emphasis on man and the part he plays in the life of others.
November 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I would really like to hear some of your thoughts on Numbers 30 and the regulation of vows.
I am trying to figure out how exactly that applies to us. Do we still take vows? What was the nature of those vows? Does the fact that this chapter is sandwiched in between a chapter (29) concerning the observance of the day of atonement and the various offerings and a chapter (31) on the destruction of the Midianites have anything to tell us? In fact, if we take into account the whole book of Numbers and its purpose, what significance does Numbers 30 have on us as believers? Do chapters 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34 have anything to do with us? Do these chapters also apply to us today?
How about Numbers 6 when it talks about a man or woman making a special vow, the vow of a Nazarite? Hmmmm? Could that have a connection to the vow in Numbers 30? Especially considering the fact that Numbers is all about the temple and the system that was to be observed concerning sacrifices and such.
How about Numbers 5 and the test for suspected infidelity on the part of a wife? Why don’t we do that today? Why aren’t we applying that like Doug Phillips and others like to apply Numbers 30?
Lastly, does the FACT that this book was written to the “sons of Israel” have anything to do with how we interpret and apply these scriptures as believers? If we apply Numbers 30, should we not apply all of Numbers?
Does Numbers 30 mean what Doug Phillips and others says it means? What does v. 16 mean when it says that this statute, which the Lord commanded MOSES, as between a father and his daughter, while she is in her YOUTH in her father’s house?
Do we still live in a theocracy? Would this law hold up in the United States? Why wasn’t this law written into the constitution?
It seems it would be wise to try and figure out how this verse pertains to us since this seems to be one of the biggies used to “prove” all the other teachings on daughters.
November 7, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Molly,
Thank you for posting that sermon! I can totally relate about needing God more and more instead of less and of knowing even less about God than I did when I first started!
It was very good and it was a blessing to read.
November 7, 2007 at 4:57 pm
shilohmm in comment #407and corriejo in comment #409 both shared on this thought:
“My understanding is similar to Walter C. Kaiser, Jr’s “The Hebrew reads, “You are turning away [from God!] to your husband, and [as a result] he will rule over you [take advantage of you].”” or Matthew Henry’s comparison of Genesis 3:16 to “the sinner’s desire is towards [sin], for he is fond of his slavery, and it rules over him.””
Yes, this is what I came up with when I did my own recent study on Genesis 3:16 (spent a good time pouring over passages and looking through the verses that use the same Hebrew word for “desire”). It’s the same word in Gen. 4:7, and interestingly, Song of Solomon 7:10, “I am my beloved’s and his desire is toward me.” Some might say the relationship in the Book of Solomon is foreshadowing the relationship of Christ and His Bride; others might say it’s just a romantic account. Did Solomon want to “usurp” his lover, or did Christ come to “usurp” us, when He desired us in relationship with Him, His Bride? I don’t believe the Bible supports that idea. I did come to the same thought (though I’m still working through it) as the above quotes by Kaiser and Henry, and was sharing that with my husband just this morning — before coffee even!
However, the meaning of the phrase “your desire will be *for your husband” has a footnote on the word “for” in the ESV Bible. It says “or against”. So, there, you have a footnote that ESV editing committee placed there that really changes the meaning of the passage. If her desire wasn’t “for” her husband but “against” him, in order for her to challenge or usurp his authority, then that would make sense.
So, my next step is to really find out if the preposition “against” should be in Genesis 3:16 or “for” in the ESV and NASB, or likewise in the KJV, “to thy”(husband). The preposition “toward” is not challenged in Song of Songs/Solomon 7:10 in the ESV, though. This study reminds me of when Bill Clinton once said, “It depends on what the word ‘IS’ is”.
shilohmm said:
“I suspect part of the reason that it’s so recent is that it violates a lot of standard rules of Biblical interpretation – just for starts, generally it’s wise to interpret words in questionable passages by how they’re used in much clearer passages, and what “desire” means, or who it applies to, or who is feeling it, are ALL debated in Genesis 4:7.”
Yes, I was wondering the same thing over the last couple of days, too.
November 7, 2007 at 5:10 pm
corriejo says:
“I couldn’t find where this new way of translating Gen. 3:16 came about but I knew it was new because of my search through all of my older commentaries.”
Glad to be of service. If you’re interested, Katherine Bushnell has a LONG discussion on the Hebrew word for desire in that passage, touching on how the passage has been understood through history, not mentioning every possibility but “hitting the highlights”. I am not much of a Bushnell fan – I think she is far too prone to come up with a theory and then go searching for evidence to support it, and she doesn’t always convince me that her theories were ever mentioned in the Christian church before – but she is a great researcher and I found this discussion interesting. It starts here and goes to lesson 19.
http://godswordtowomen.org/studies/resources/onlinebooks/GWTW%20book/lesson%2013.htm
molleth says:
“Thank God for His grace. The narrow path is not always “beautiful,” per say, to eyes that can only see short-term (was the Cross beautiful when Jesus was carrying it up Golgotha?), but it is truly truly truly The Beautiful Way, because it’s Him. He is the Beautiful Way.”
I am puzzled – by some of the patrocentrists, by the proponents of the more common “prosperity gospel” – that Christians will so completely ignore the many, many passages warning that Christians will face serious hardship and persecution. The Vision Forum beautiful lifestyle – patriarchal dad, submissive mom, many children, modesty, etc. – may be peculiar in our culture, but plenty of pagan cultures have embraced it. It has a very “fleshly” attraction to it; it does not appeal only to those who are Christian. Which doesn’t make it wrong in and of itself, of course.
Yet I am reminded of John Piper’s comments on 1 Corinthians 15:19 (“if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied”) – Piper asks, “How many Christians do you know who could say, ‘The lifestyle I have chosen as a Christian would be utterly foolish and pitiable if there is not resurrection’? How many Christians are there who could say, ‘The suffering I have freely chosen to embrace for the cause of Christ would be a pitiable life if there is no resurrection’?”
I am always wary of Christian leaders who argue that Christians can and should live “well” by secular standards. Some Christians will be rich, and will need to be rich to accomplish what God calls them to do – but this does not mean that riches or a comfortable lifestyle are what Christians as a whole are called to. When a particularly comfortable lifestyle is presented as “the” Christian ideal, I get itchy.
I enjoyed the sermon you linked to; thanks muchly.
molleth says:
“To say that the “desire” means a desire to usurp Adam’s rightful rulership is not spelled out in the text but must be inferred. It is also, unlike the other aspects of the Fall which are evident through history and our own experiences, sharply missing from world history.”
Exactly. If mankind is plagued by women trying to rule over men, why do so many pagan cultures believe women are naturally submissive and despise women because women will put up with so much abuse from their men that men would not tolerate from ANYONE, much less their spouse? When pagan cultures create a mythology where women rule (the Amazons, for instance), do they remove men from the equation because they refuse to imagine women ruling men – or do they remove men from the equation because they cannot imagine women being so dominant in the presence of men?
Women wanting to rule over “their” man are viewed as oddities in most pagan patriarchal cultures, not the norm. The idea that many women want to usurp the man’s power generally shows in the MOST patriarchal cultures, where women are severely downtrodden; I find it intriguing that it has appeared in American culture, which most fans of patriarchy consider shockingly egalitarian. Don’t know what it means, but best I can tell it’s a historical oddity.
Although of course Christians generally recognize the sinful desire to dominate we all share – an editorial to John Bunyan’s commentary on Genesis 3:17 (“Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife”) says, “There are few Eves but whose dominant passion is to rule a husband. Perhaps the only way to govern a wife is to lead her to think that she rules, while in fact she is ruled. One of the late Abraham Booth’s maxims to young ministers, was, If you would rule in your church, so act as to allow them to think that they rule you.—Ed.”
The difference is that neither Bunyan nor his editor argue that “desire” in Genesis 3:16 means the woman will try to rule over the husband – but they do recognize that the natural HUMAN condition is to rebel against rightful authority. Would that more modern Christians would recognize the wisdom of Abraham Booth’s maxim – what matters is that the authority is IN authority; lording it over others or otherwise making your authority obvious or oppressive is not required. IMHO, Biblical authority rests in God; anyone who has to bully and bluster in order to lead is not exercising Biblical authority. Not to say they don’t have the right to Biblical authority, but it is not Biblical authority in that they are exercising it in an unBiblical way.
Drifting from topic, sorry.
Kate,
This essay very briefly discusses the idea of translating it “turning toward” versus “turning away,” but I have to confess it didn’t clarify anything for me. Maybe it’ll make more sense to you, though; it’s under “LEXICAL CONSIDERATIONS”. Plus he gives a brief over view of the major interpretations and why “rule over” is generally rejected, so it might be worth reading for that reason (unlike Bushnell’s study, this one is reasonably short).
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Busenitz-Gen3-GTJ.pdf
November 7, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Concerning a desire to submit to another for the benefit of protection, be it pope, king or husband….
My favorite depiction of this (for ye who art Right Brained…) is Dostoyevski’s passage called “The Grand Inquisitor” from “The Brother’s Karamazov.” Two brothers are debating evil in the world (as they frequently do throughtout the book), and one tells a story of Jesus getting captured by the Grand Inquisitor.
Jesus is on the steps of the church, healing people which is, of course, forbidden. The Inquisitor halls Him in and interrogates Him (rather than falling on his face before the Lamb of God). The passage basically culminates with his statement to Jesus:
“We have corrected Thy work and have founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority. And men rejoiced that they were again led like sheep.”
When I first read this, I was reminded of both the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness and of the I John passage citing the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. We all battle all of them all the days of our lives. There’s no excaping them as they are all part of the human condition. This also reminds me of a quote that my husband used to cite from Samuel Adams: basically, Depart from us and go in peace. Bend down and lick the hands that feed you and may history forget that we were your brethren.
Like thatmom’s observation that many women push their husbands into patriarchy for less accountability or for romantic notions of the fantastical knight on a white horse, patriarchy is all about survival. We have the greater patriarchs who appear to have the key to our survival and appear to not fear, thus giving us the illusion of safety.
Sometimes, especially if one has been very rattled by something, we seek to play it safe. And for a time after a trying period, playing it safe and having someone provide for you and protect you, hashing out the details for you when you’re too weary from life to invest in it is very appropriate and healthy. (Even Jesus Himself had angels that came to comfort Him, for a season!) It’s appropriate for a season. But it’s not our final destination or the means to an end. We are all at risk because we all have God-given need. In many ways, our lives are really just about learning to trust Him to meet those needs (such as safety/survival) as opposed to looking to any source other than Him.
But the Christian life is not about self-preservation and survival. (That’s an endeavor of the flesh.) It’s about loving one another (even our unsaved neighbors as ourselves) and following Christ’s example in faith, often against our own needs of survival. It’s about benevolent sacrifice, often at great risk of life and limb. Certainly at risk of our perfection and piety.
Funny, but I just can’t fathom that if Jesus actually, bodily, showed up like he does in the story of the Grand Inquisitor that he would spend much time at Vision Forum or the Christian Film Festival. Given a choice, I think He’d be over at El Mercado at 2AM, ministering to a urine soaked drunk in the gutter. He’d be in an abortion clinic, lovingly reaching out to the physician and the women, demonstrating to them exactly what love is rather than what it is not with an extra heaping of angst. He’d show them the wounds in his hands and his side, borne in their stead. I’m certain that they are well acquainted with the latter.
BTW, I was taught that perfectionism is always based in shame. Shame over our humanity and our inability to save ourselves from our body of sin. An inability to transcend that which only He can transcend.
November 7, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Clarification of above. The people in an abortion clinic would be well aquainted with the latter of what love is not with angst (not Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice).
November 7, 2007 at 6:13 pm
“So, my next step is to really find out if the preposition “against” should be in Genesis 3:16 or “for” in the ESV and NASB, or likewise in the KJV, “to thy”(husband). The preposition “toward” is not challenged in Song of Songs/Solomon 7:10 in the ESV, though. This study reminds me of when Bill Clinton once said, “It depends on what the word ‘IS’ is”.”
Excellent Kate! And too funny about the meaning of “is” from Clinton!
I am sure you will post as soon as you find that information.
I have read some things from theologians that said the word could be translated “yet”. The NASB translates it this way.
Basically, God told that she would have pain and sorrow in bearing children YET/STILL her desire would be for her husband.
That is the plainest meaning of this verse and it makes the most sense in keeping with the fact that God is telling EVE her consequences and that she will have sorrow in bearing children.
I think the meaning of the word “desire” is important, too. It means longing- plain and simple. It is the presuppostions of people who have an agenda and who have set out to make the scripture say what they want it to say that have put a malignant attachment to that word.
In Song of Songs 7:10 it says that the Beloved desires (same Hebrew word) his Bride. Does that mean that the Bridegroom desires to control and rule over his Bride? Nope. It means that he desires her.
It makes much more sense to read scripture in its plainest sense.
God is talking to EVE, not Adam. Adam’s curse is coming but God is dealing with Eve right now. God tells her that her sorrows will be multiplied in childbirth but she will STILL desire that relationship with her husband that is the source of this sorrow and pain.
Funny, how many women yell at their husbands in childbirth, blaming THEM for dong THIS to them!!!??
November 7, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Kate,
Never mind my comment about “yet” as it regards your statement about “for”. Yet means still and clearly connects the childbirth to her desire and not her desire to his rule. You were talking about another word. I think that would be very important to understand what the Hebrew for “for” really is.
For and against are two totally opposite meanings. If this is indeed true, that Eve was now desiring to control and usurp Adam, I would think that this would be in vs. 17-19 when God addresses Adam and tells him the consequences for his sin.
November 7, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Corriejo asks:
Do we still take vows?
I would say no, in that we aren’t to swear by the temple and our yes should be yes and our no, no. As I understand it, from reading a lot of Christian Reconstructionist stuff (they believe that the OT law still applies so take it pretty seriously), vows functioned as the contracts of the day; it was a way of someone saying “I absolutely and without a doubt will do this” and the penalty for not honoring a vow was very high, often death.
I would also question if Christians should take vows on the grounds of Jephthah’s daughter – since we cannot know everything, taking a vow could be hazardous because we could end up having promising to do something contrary to God’s will. That’s why some Christians have refused to serve in their country’s military; they feel the required vows might mean they’re obligated to do something contrary to God’s law, and nothing should come between us and God, nor should we deliberately put ourselves in situations where we’re likely to become socially obligated to do something against God.
OTOH, if I were to testify in court I would have no problem with “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God” because that’s perfectly compatible with God’s word, and because “so help me God” recognizes, to me, the fact that my truth is going to be slanted by my perceptions. Saying that God’s help I will tell the truth is simply recognizing the reality I am already under, rather than creating new conditions I’m agreeing to.
Do these chapters also apply to us today?
I don’t think so, or at least not directly. We are under the law of Love, not the Mosaic Law. Galatians 4 clearly rejects the covenant “from Mount Sinai” as bondage and says Christians are under a different covenant. Mosaic law is not evil, but it was written to a particular people in a particular situation and in many ways reflects the laws of the cultures surrounding ancient Israel, and much of it no longer applies. Also, “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (Galatians 3:24 & 25). The Greek word translated “tutor” referred to a slave who escorted the children and kept them in line; the tutor had wisdom but was not “the last word” on things, and while the child who had outgrown a good tutor would respect that tutor, they would also feel free to question the tutor’s leading or to recognize that the tutor was working under a legalistic understanding of things while the child has grown to understand the reality beneath those specifics.
As you’ve pointed out, even Christians who argue that the Mosaic law still applies end up picking and choosing which aspects of the law to follow. IMHO, they are wrong to say one thing and do another, but perfectly right to recognize that parts of the Mosaic law still apply “as written” while others were cultural or pointing toward Christ or for some other reason don’t apply. My question is whether they are judging the OT law by NT principles, or by some other criteria.
I would also argue that some OT law applies to some Christians but not others, in the sense that our individual journey or individual calling may make one law applicable to one Christian in one situation but not to another in another. God can still use OT law to teach us things, just as a child’s old tutor might offer wisdom long after the child is out from under his authority, but we must remember that God is over us, not the law. And that what God calls us to do may not be what he calls others to do – I think some of the appeal of the law is that “everybody is under the exact same rules,” but the truth is that our relationship to God is a relationship, not a contract, and every relationship is different even if the underlying moral principles are the same.
Does Numbers 30 mean what Doug Phillips and others says it means?
Gary North believes that the OT law applies to Christians (except where it has been fulfilled by Christ, i.e., the sacramental law) and should be “updated” or “modernized” because he thinks Christians will literally rule the earth before the second coming, so we need to know the laws the rule it with. Yet he thinks the implications of Numbers 30 are very different than those Doug Phillips suggests.
North says that, under Mosaic Law, “A woman was always covenantally subordinate to a man, except for a widow (Numbers 30:9). She was inherently in a position of covenantal subordination.” However, “Because daughters receive the covenantal sign of baptism, the New Testament’s position is that in all but biological respects, adult women are covenentally equal with adult men. The only exception is that women are not allowed to speak in church worship services (1 Cor. 14:34). Circumcision as a required rite is no longer binding in the New Testament era… The locus of authority for approving a marriage has shifted from the family to the church. This is manifested symbolically by the fact that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenantal sign of family membership.”
North points out that even in the Old Testament the daughter had ways to pressure her dad into accepting her choice of a bridegroom, and that appealing to the local religious authorities was one of them, but under the New Testament pressuring the father is no longer necessary; if the church okays the marriage, that’s enough. He also argues that a father should either give his daughter a dowry or another financial inheritance, and he argues that her college education can serve as her dowry!
So there’s one person who takes OT law very seriously, to the point of believing it applies to Christians today, but who still doesn’t agree with the idea that Numbers 30 means the daughters must stay under their father’s authority, in their father’s house, or avoid a college education.
I’m pulling North’s opinion from his “Tools of Dominion”, a monster of a tome on how to apply the case laws of Exodus to modern society. It’s available on the web but I would hesitate to download it – my print copy is 1287 pages long!
http://freebooks.com/
November 7, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Cindy,
Your post, #429, was excellent.
“But the Christian life is not about self-preservation and survival. (That’s an endeavor of the flesh.) It’s about loving one another (even our unsaved neighbors as ourselves) and following Christ’s example in faith, often against our own needs of survival. It’s about benevolent sacrifice, often at great risk of life and limb. Certainly at risk of our perfection and piety.”
Exactly.
I was just doing my 10 year old’s grammar assignment with him and 1 Kings 17 was the subject of a writing assignment.
In it we find the ravens providing for Elijah’s need. Then, when the brook dries up, He tells Elijah to go to Zarephath. There, God has commanded a WIDOW to provide for *him*.
Now, if we stop and look at this, we can only imagine Elijah’s thoughts on this. First the ravens and now a widow? The society was to provide for the welfare of its widows not the other way around. This was God’s law. It would appear that God was reversing His own law (which He wasn’t). Again (ie., Deborah, Huldah, Abigail, Rahab, Esther, etc), God chose a woman to provide when He could have readily chosen a man. Why is that?
All of this is to show that God is the provider and the protector and that there is no one set way for His provision to be made. He will often use the “foolish” things of this world to confound and confuse the “wise”.
His kingdom is turned upside down. The weak are the strong. The foolish are the wise. The ones who serve are the greatest. The ones in authority are the ones who serve.
Certainly not what we would call “normative” concerning the practices of man. But these are normative with God. We are not to be like the Gentiles (the world) in what we view as normative.
And we see that God is the same today and yesterday in the fact that He has a widow providing for the needs of a man. He doesn’t go against His law/word; it is man who doesn’t understand His law’s original intent.
Jehovah Jireh, our provider, his strength is sufficient for me.
November 7, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Cindy Kunsman Says:
“BTW, I was taught that perfectionism is always based in shame. Shame over our humanity and our inability to save ourselves from our body of sin. An inability to transcend that which only He can transcend.”
This is brilliant! Now where do I put it so I don’t just nod my head and express my awe and then promptly forget it?
But the Christian life is not about self-preservation and survival. (That’s an endeavor of the flesh.) It’s about loving one another (even our unsaved neighbors as ourselves) and following Christ’s example in faith, often against our own needs of survival. It’s about benevolent sacrifice, often at great risk of life and limb. Certainly at risk of our perfection and piety.
This is another bit I need to save for future – preferably frequent – meditation. And I have always loved the Grand Inquisitor story – excellent post all the way around.
corriejo Says:
“If this is indeed true, that Eve was now desiring to control and usurp Adam, I would think that this would be in vs. 17-19 when God addresses Adam and tells him the consequences for his sin.”
Yep – it is a curse on Adam addressed to Eve, which violates a number of parallels in the passage. Another problem is that, while Genesis 3:15 and 4:7 are grammatically parallel, the situation is entirely different. Not just the fact that God is talking about a man and a woman in Genesis 3:16 (and Song of Songs 7:10, where the situations directly parallel), but God is telling Eve she will “desire” someone, and telling Cain he will be “desired”, very different situations.
November 7, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I meant to say Gensis 3:16 and 4:7 are grammatically parallel. *sigh*
November 7, 2007 at 7:22 pm
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/searching-for-the-missing-pink-link/
Reverend James McDonald just wrote a blog entry about all the women in the Bible. To sum it up, basically, they don’t count.
Mary Magdalene was an immoral woman so she shouldn’t be held up as an example of a woman’s role. Huh?
Susanna, an ex-demoniac, is not a role model for our daughters. Is she the Susanna who supported the Lord’s ministry from her own means? Because she was an ex-demoniac, she is disqualified even though it was AFTER Jesus had healed her and she was now traveling with Him?
“Lydia–The businesswoman (Acts 16:14). She was the first convert in Europe and was an Asian business woman. She obviously did not grow up in a covenantal home. She was outside the people of God (the Jews). Is it any wonder she made a living outside the prescriptive will of the Lord? Yet, she is held up a hero by evangelical feminists.”
Phoebe and Lydia were Gentiles. Lydia made a living outside of the prescriptive will of the Lord. (!!!!) Phoebe was probably a wife or a mother (no one said she wasn’t, it only confirms what people are saying about her if she was a wife and mother!). God forbid that we should look up to Lydia!
“Still, she is not an “independent woman” purposing to live apart from family and “do her own thing.” She is a tried and true servant of the church.” I am not sure who made this argument nor have I ever heard anyone make the argument that women are independent and should do their own thing. This is a strawman if I ever saw one.
“I do not believe that all those who hold to the “egalitarian” positions outlined above are feminists. Some are simply evangelicals who have not taken the time to study these things out for themselves. Others have studied, but come to the Word with their own iron-clad presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is time for Christians to be counter-cultural, or rather, to be biblical in their study and application of God’s Word. The cause of the weakness in the church that has occurred over the decades is not complementarianism but liberalism, pragmatism, and feminism. If we really want to reach the lost and see the Church create culture rather than adapt to culture, it will occur when the members of the church live as the Bible commands.”
As the Bible commands or as he commands?
In order to come to his conclusion, one would have to assume that he has argued his case correctly. I will counter that he has proved nothing and that his arguments were mostly strawmen. Also, he disqualified what these women were doing based on what they were BEFORE Christ which is ridiculous. If Christ had a problem with it, He would have sent Susanna home. Paul would have found a man to take the letter to Rome and he would have found a man’s home to seek shelter in instead of LYDIA’S home.
If Phoebe was a wife/mother that only proves all the more that a women plays a vital role in the church besides her role as wife/mother.
The fact is that God chose these women to confound and confuse those who were wise in their own eyes.
“Euodia and Syntyche–Lawyers, maybe (Philippians 4:2-3)? Or, perhaps, Philippian boxers? We know nothing of these women except they were Christian women who were contentious and in some sort of quarrel. Good thing their conflict took place before the age of blogs. Again, the text does not give us any indication of where they lived – or with whom (brother, son, family, etc.)”
Funny!!!…..???
What in the world does that have to do with anything and what does that prove? That only women cause trouble in the church? Men don’t disagree? They don’t quarrel? Women who quarrel are boxers or lawyers? Quarreling is for men?
I maybe unfamiliar with some egalitarian argument that uses Euodia and Syntyche. Obviously, I am missing something here because the comment makes no sense.
“Deborah–A judge (Judges 4:4-6). Yes, she was a judge. But God’s Word tells us that women ruling in places of authority are a curse upon a land (Isaiah 3:12). The men of Israel had turned their backs on Jehovah. The whole Book of Judges chronicles the apostasy and rebellion of the men of Israel (Judges 2:11-23). Maybe it is time for Hillary after all!”
Ha! Now that would be funny but the Word forbids me from gloating when I see those who are my enemies suffering.
God is sovereign and I am secure and resting and trusting in Him. If Hilary gets in, I am sure there will be many patriarchalists gnashing their teeth. But who are they gnashing AT? That is the real question.
What is NOT funny is Reverend McDonald comparing Deborah’s appointment as judge, ruler and prophet over the nation of Israel to Hilary’s appointment over our nation. He forgets to mention that Deborah was a prophet, thus she guided the nation of Israel in spiritual matters as well as legal matters. She wasn’t doing what was right in her own eyes. God appointed her there. The Jews, to this day, revere Deborah, name their daughters after her and they do not look at her rule over the nation of Israel as a curse or judgment. They look at her rule as a blessing from God before the sin cycle started all over again.
November 7, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hey does anyone else remember reading a commentary on Mary Magdalene that talks about how people assume that she was the woman who washed Jesus’ feet but that there is no proof of that? I can’t find any proof of it, either, but a new blog entry by James McDonald wrote today (worth reading to understand more of the patriocentric mind) states that she was one in the same. Any thoughts?
November 7, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“Susanna–A demoniac (Luke 8:3). Not much is known about her, except she appears to be one who the Lord delivered from demonic possession or infirmities. Again, a picture of God’s grace, but not a role model for our daughters.”
Luke 8:3 does not say that Susanna was a demoniac.
This is why I stress reading things very carefully because many times we just take what people say at face value.
“1And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
2And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
3And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.”
It tells us who was following Jesus. It tells us that there were certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and then it specifically mentions Mary Magdalene.
Then it goes on to tells us about OTHER women who were following him who were supporting Jesus from their own substance. We have Joanna, Herod’s steward’s wife and Susanna and others. The scripture does NOT tell us that they were also demoniacs. There is a clear break between vs. 2 and 3 and it is merely listing all the various people who were following Jesus.
1. The 12 disciples
2. certain women who were once possessed
3. women with means of their own
Here we see three groups of people, not two. It does not say that all the women who followed Jesus were former demoniacs.
November 7, 2007 at 7:51 pm
thatmom said:
Hey does anyone else remember reading a commentary on Mary Magdalene that talks about how people assume that she was the woman who washed Jesus’ feet but that there is no proof of that?
Yes, and as I recall the two of them were treated as distinct by Christian authors until a particular… pope? connected them sometime in the middle ages or otherwise late in the game. I ran across the historical evidence reading up on The Da Vinci Code but can’t remember the specifics beyond that.
My mind is boggling over the quotes from the James MacDonald article. “She was outside the people of God (the Jews). Is it any wonder she made a living outside the prescriptive will of the Lord?” How did he miss the fact that the Jews were just as far out of the will of God as the Gentiles; it’s only the form their sins took that differed?
November 7, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Re, #423,
Corriejo,
WOW. That gave me chills. It sounds like we’ve had a somewhat similar journey. I could relate to so much of what you said. AMEN on the First Love. And that is fascinating about the Nicolations–wow.
#420,
Lindsey,
I love your flashes of insight, girl!
On the ESV,
This is the Bible with Grudem on the translation oversight commitee, right, and I believe one of the reasons it was “born” was out of concerns about gender-neutral language in the TNIV, for example (which is interesting, because I first believed Grudem’s well-published concerns about gender neutral language and ran out and bought 3 ESV’s [plus, they have cool covers-lol], and then learned that much in the Greek *was* gender neutral! Sheesh!).
I’m not entirely sure that promoting one’s views on gender issues should be a major factor in deciding to make a new Bible translation, versus simply working to faithfully translate the text in a way that the reader can understand. The Better Bibles Blog (made up of Bible translators) has some interesting things to say about the ESV on women. Take this post for an example (and be sure to read the comments). There are many more like it. http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/05/womans-bible.html I found it all (and continue to find it) very interesting. And I’m not a fan of the ESV anymore, either. *grins*
To everyone else:
Great thoughts. I’ve so enjoyed these conversations…and really appreciate all the different voices chiming in and adding thoughts and mullings. This is what the Body is for…it’s good.
November 7, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“Mary Magdalene–An ex-harlot (Luke 8:2). She certainly shouldn’t be an example of egalitarian bliss. Before Christ’s gracious touch, she lived a life of sexual exploitation and sin. Not much of a model for our daughters – but a sister in the Lord, nonetheless. Mary Magdalene was another sinner saved by Grace, just like me, but she should not be held up as an example for women’s roles.”
I can’t find that Mary Magdalene was an ex-harlot in Luke 8:2.
There is NO where in scripture that says that she was a prostitute. If you read up on the history of this you can see that it was invented by men and it was a progression of thought and misinterpretation and confusion.
Pope Gregory declared that all three women- Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene and the unnamed sinner in Luke 17:36-50 were all the same woman. In 1969 the Catholic church reversed that teaching. Mary, Martha’s sister, and the unnamed woman in Luke 17:36-50 both washed the feet of Jesus.
What I would like to know is how she is held up as an example of egalitarian bliss? I do not understand that comment at all.
November 7, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I’ve been pondering this Numbers 30 chapter for nearly a day now…
Well, first consider that Doug is an attorney. I’ve read this in several different translations this afternoon, but the King James (where I started) sounds like legalese. And for some odd reason, the scene from “Night at the Opera” pops into my head, with Groucho and Chico talking about sanity clauses and Santity Claus! The party of the first part vows a vow…
Shiloh,
You poor antinomian. How dare you supplant the law! (LOL!) Only kidding! You did a great job of explaining what I had been pondering myself. It’s such an all “black or white” way of seeing the world!
Well, call me Anne Hutchinson, but this is just too much. Certainly, we will give account for every idle word, but I agree with the “vow” interpretation. I definitely took a vow when I married. But does it count as a vow if I forgot to get my father’s hunting gear out of the attic for him when I agreed to do so? I didn’t have a father that “ruled” me. I had a father who served his wife and daughter to provide them the best comfort that he could possibly muster.
I assert that if you have an authoritarian style or personality type (Left Brained), you would be more interested in ruling rather than viewing family as a group of people that serve one another in love. Let me qualify that with the concept that parents are called to serve their children, and not the other way around as a general rule. They bear the full weight of responsibility for caring and training their children. Hopefully, they are taught the virtue of Christian service by the example (and participation with) their parents.
There’s just so much glorification and connotative magnification and expectation attached to all these “roles” as well. Reading Num 30 in the NIV, for some odd reason, made me think of this. “And Moses declares unto all those under Biblical Womanhood that she is obligated by her husband to follow his vows, thus saith the Lord.” It’s a conceptual framework that is hierarchical, authoritarian and very mechanical. (And I’m reminded of Kevin Giles book stating that the language citing “works” and “acts” of traditional orthodoxy was replaced with “function” and finally the currently popular “roles” in the late 20th century. 100 yrs ago, no one talked of roles within Christianity.)
Every single thing that we do is worship unto Godm and our members are weapons and instruments of righteousness all the time. Whatever we do in word or deed should be done in service to the Lord and for His glory. Much of it is banal and just the everyday of everyday. It’s neither good nor bad (but thinking makes it so)? It’s the purpose with which we do things that makes them honorable …or “Biblical” or glorious or whatever VF modifiers are used to push the latest “role” of interest. (I can imagine the response of many who are critical thinking that it depends on what product VF is marketing this month.
A war hero’s service is just as noble or valuable as scrubbing a toilet if it is done in service and unto the glory of God. This is no less true of the woman who works a menial job to help her family make ends meet. It’s the intent of the heart of the individual, not the role that is holy or lofty. It’s not limited to a special group or a certain activity.
All that to say that I see much more of Doug and his preferences in his argument than I do in Numbers 30. I don’t see his doctrine and all the implications that he suggests in the Scripture cited, but I do see them in the lenses through which he peers to read that Scripture. (Corrie’s description of his conviction and excitement remind me of a Bruce Ware DVD download wherein he said that when you look at Scripture through this subordinationism/Arius interpretation of Trinity arguing the ontological subordination of women, everything has new meaning. Presuppositions and perspective color everything.)
November 7, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Shilohmm,
#433
Excellent post on the law. I am a student of the OT Law. I spend a lot of time there. I just finished a three month in depth study on Leviticus and it was fascinating. I truly appreciated your post on this subject because I learned even more about the role of the OT Law/Covenenant in the life of a believer. I also found North’s comments on Numbers 30 very interesting.
Thank you!!
November 7, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Numbers 30 is an example of patriarchy in a much “gentler” form than was practiced in the surrounding cultures.
In the surrounding cultures, all a man had to do was say his wife comitted adultery and that was that. She was dead. Under the Levitical code, at least the wife had a chance.
Fact is, Jesus Himself said very clearly that the Law is *not* a system that spells out God’s heart, but a good system made for SINFUL people. Remember Jesus telling the religous leaders that the reason divorce was in the Law was *not* because God likes it, but simply because they are Fallen humans.
Patriarchy, if it began at the Fall, was not promised to be destroyed by the Levitical code. So…it stands to reason that just as we expect to see toil in childbirth and thorns/thistles in dirt, we will also see patriarchy woven into the fabric of humanity, including Israel. The Law regulated shameful practices like slavery and patriarchy, making them FAR less evil than the practices of neighboring nations. But the Law should not be used as an example for “how things oughta be.” Jesus told us that the “way things oughta be” is how God *originally* made them to be. He told the leaders that God allowed divorce because of the “hardness of your own heart, but from the beginning, it was not so.” God’s heart for us is much more clearly seen in the pre-Fall picture, not in the way He regulated post-Fall behaviour.
The Law could not set us free. Jesus did. While the Law is instructive and studying it is beneficial, the Law should not be looked at as a model for the way things should be.
The New Testament gives us that model—walking in the Spirit, bearing the fruit of the Spirit. The New Testament does not support the idea that a woman is owned by her husband/father, that she cannot make a covenant to God unless it is approved by her male authority. As I recently wrote about in a post on the Compegalitarian Blog, if Numbers 30 is true, then God was in sin for coming to Mary instead of first going through her “male authority.”
http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/2007/11/mary-mother-of-christ-submitted-to-god.html
November 7, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Well, how interesting. Speaking of shame and the covering of God’s glory with our shame. And the perfectionism that is borne out of shame… I was probably typing as James McDonald was posting.
Talk about reading through lenses!
Of all the stuff written there (perhaps this deserves its own thread?), the statement that sickened me was this one:
Susanna–A demoniac (Luke 8:3). Not much is known about her, except she appears to be one who the Lord delivered from demonic possession or infirmities. Again, a picture of God’s grace, but not a role model for our daughters.
As if any parent has any control over infimities that their daughter might have? And what if a daughter has trouble with a particular ethical or character trait. I’m sure that if you’re not in the inner circle of a privledged group, your daughter could be viewed as demonically oppressed. This sounds like Ken Copeland.
So why would this not be an excellent model for a daughter? To be delivered from oppression and illness by the King of Kings and the Prince of Life is not an ideal role for one’s daughter? Isn’t his own wife afflicted with physical problems of her own? Is she then a poor example of someone whom God has ministered to, preserved and used for the kingdom, in her husband’s opinion?
I’m thinking of the passage about why the blind man was made blind. Was it the sins of his parents or something he did? Jesus said it was unto the GLORY OF GOD. Hallelujah.
Physical blindness not an ideal role? It certainly is if God heals you. It certainly is if you are like Fanny Crosby who praised God, stating that she would choose to be blind all over again if it was that blindness that drove her to the Father. It’s better to be a doorkeeper in the house of the Lord…
2 Corinthians 12:9
And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
November 7, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Why don’t they just put a banner across their patriarchal websites that state
“Imperfect need not apply.” ???
November 7, 2007 at 9:32 pm
This movement is CERTAIN to cause heartache- in fact, for a long time in my life, due to my extreme independent and nonconformist personality and being told I couldn’t do x, y, and z because I’m a girl made me even curse God for causing me to be born a female. What kept me sane was my writing.
Finally, I turned to God in a time of extreme depression and sickness and I realised that God didn’t create women to be robots. I was praying and I finally just heard something along the lines of “If I didn’t have a plan for women, you wouldn’t have brain functions beyond a brain stem or being able to perceive the command to obey!”
I’m not downgrading homemakers at all, what I’m trying to slam is people saying that women are robots made only to obey men. CHOOSING to be a homemaker/mother is one thing- I may do the same thing as I don’t relish the idea of having an office job to support my writing career. Being told you HAVE to do it or else “you’re going to hell” is another thing.
November 7, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Lev. 19:20 on sex with betrothed slave girls and Deut 21:10-14 on TAKING a captive woman (booty, spoils of war) as a wife.
How do we apply those today? What does this teach us about man’s authority and rights over women? How do we employ these verses today? If these do not apply, then why does Numbers 30 still apply.
These are some of the questions I have regarding how some use the OT Law and pick and choose what should and should not be followed. I understand ceremonial law but the above two are not ceremonial. So they still apply today. I wonder how Doug Phillips would apply these today?
Would Lev. 19 explain the widespread practice of many “Christian” slave owners who had sex with their female slaves? After all, it is not adultery for a man to have sex with a slave girl or a woman who is not married or betrothed, even if he is married, according to the OT Law.
In my mind there needs to be some consistency to how we apply these verses or else it is up for grabs and those who have the biggest agenda get to dictate to everyone else which ones will be followed.
November 7, 2007 at 9:50 pm
This discussion has been very helpful for me because I didn’t think of this other aspect to a woman’s desire for a relationship in spite of the pain that she sometimes faces from an abusive husband and how a woman will bend over backwards in many instances to please her husband in order to save that relationship in spite of ongoing abuse
Sorry for double post but- not all women do this. If any guy hurts me in ANY way- he’s GONE!
November 7, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“Of all the stuff written there (perhaps this deserves its own thread?), the statement that sickened me was this one:
Susanna–A demoniac (Luke 8:3). Not much is known about her, except she appears to be one who the Lord delivered from demonic possession or infirmities. Again, a picture of God’s grace, but not a role model for our daughters.”
Cindy,
I agree. This might deserve its own thread, especially because he names so many biblical women and downplays their role and calling and purpose. I am just as sickened by this but I am loathe to admit it because it might be taken as “righteous persecution” or “stones and arrows” for preaching the truth.
Whether Susanna was once possessed by demons or had some sort of infirmity (ie., the woman with the issue of blood) has no bearing on her whatsoever. Why wouldn’t we view her as a role model? She followed Christ and supported Him! Of course we want our daughters to do that very thing.
I have no idea what infirmity or demon possession or whatever has on a person? A picture of God’s grace but she isn’t a role model? What does that mean? How are our daughters NOT to take after Susanna? That is where he left off.
By this same token, then, whatever is in his or his wife’s past disqualifies them from being a role model and a leader. It is no different for men, is it? Or is God’s grace able to cover over men’s pasts but not women’s? If a man with a past is delivered from an affliction does this disqualify him from being a role model for our sons? This is crazy!
I am really not sure what our daughters shouldn’t follow when it pertains to Susanna. I hope my daughters choose those women, who followed Christ and supported His ministry with whatever they have to give, as their role models. Nothing would make me more joyful to know that my children are whole-heartedly following Christ wherever He leads them.
November 7, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Corrie,
You mention slaves and the spoils of war… In the back of my mind, while pondering the Numbers 30 chapter, I thought of unclean women who were sent outside the camp.
Now I know, Gothard has his teachings regarding some of this, but if we take everything in the OT as an example for specific law, considering that so many of these concepts like multigenerational faithfulness (to patriarch and not necessarily God) so literally, then why not send women out of town for a few days each month? This could be a real money maker. Have a spa for women while they are unclean where they can be isolated from the purity of the household. Women could get spa treatments to help ease their distresses, helping them to be more godly in character when they are given to distress.
Why this focus on certain laws and not all the law. It would give to reason (and maybe from a comment made by Jesus) that one would be required to keep the whole law and not just certain laws. Or is a woman’s period of being unclean “ceremonial?”
November 7, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I’m surprised this movement teaches that women have souls..
November 7, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Oh, Susanna!
I just recalled my days as a “Missionette,” the Assemblies of God’s alternative to Girl Scouts. We earned badges, based on whether we had memorized key Scriptures (all focused on sharing the Gospel) and other acts of faithful stewardship. It was wonderful.
There are many badges, but the “core curriculum” centers on four, spelling the word “STAR.” Each of the four examines a role model: Susannah, Tabitha, Anna and Ruth. In Christian school, our Bible teacher had us write creative letters and such, as if we had heard Jesus speak or perform a miracle. I always chose Susannah (since Artemis — of which Cynthia was a nickname– was a Greek goddess.) I’d forgotten this.
Well, we know that the Assemblies of God are bretheren but outside the pale of orthodoxy!!!! They are antinomian, egalitarian and arminian! How horrible! Funny how my adult embracing of complementarianism buys me no “brownie points” and I suppose I am ruined for life. After all, my real-life role models were a Bible College professor and an unmarried missionary nurse in Africa!
November 7, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:
I’m surprised this movement teaches that women have souls..
Well, they have souls, but many believe that women are only the indirect and derivative image of God. That’s why we need the mysterious, salvific man (fathers and husbands and father/husbands) to save us.
November 7, 2007 at 11:11 pm
corriejo said:
Would Lev. 19 explain the widespread practice of many “Christian” slave owners who had sex with their female slaves? After all, it is not adultery for a man to have sex with a slave girl or a woman who is not married or betrothed, even if he is married, according to the OT Law.
It’s not adultery, but he is expected to marry her and/or to pay the bride price (which Gary North and others say was a chunk of change large enough to enslave most men, although that’s disputed), if she’s free to be married. If she’s betrothed and free, then the penalty for having sex with her is death for both of you (unless it’s rape, in which case she goes free). Leviticus 19:20 refers to a woman who is not free but is betrothed to another and says the two will be punished but not executed (the translation specifying whipping is disputed, not that I can remember where I read that…).
Under OT law, at least as I understand it, if a man has sex with an unmarried, unbetrothed woman, he is expected either to marry her or (“if you have no delight in her” Deut 21:14) set her free (which was considered a divorce even with the captive salve bride; experts differ on whether he was obligated to give her a gift on freeing a slave wife). A concubine was a slave wife, a wife with no money of her own, but she was still a wife and had the rights of a wife. Well, technically, it’s the other way around: the rights of a wife were based on the rights of a slave wife. Exodus 21:10 was central to the rabbinic debate on the topic of wifely rights.
Hagar was considered a slave wife – Jewish tradition says Abraham gave her a certificate of divorce when he sent her away. The practice in the American South of raping or just sexually using female slaves without marrying them or giving them the rights of a wife was against Mosaic law, best I can tell.
In “Tools of Dominion”, Gary North discusses the differences between a concubine and a free wife (and has a good long chapter ranting about how unbiblical slavery was in the American south). So does David Instone-Brewer (who is NOT a Reconstructionist, so far as I know) in “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible” – Instone-Brewer also touches on the practices in the surrounding cultures.
November 7, 2007 at 11:27 pm
in response to 455- Cindy, that sounds like Mormonism to me- in Mormonism women can only become ‘goddesses’ if they’re chosen by their husbands. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that women are not created in God’s image “Let us create man in our own image- so he created them MALE AND FEMALE he created them!” And I didn’t make that up- it says THE HOLY BIBLE sitting right here by my laptop.
The WOman at the well? Why is Jesus(GOD) talking to a woman if we’re God’s imperfect image? That woman was wiser than his disciples- she realised at once he was the Messiah!
“I know that the Messiah is coming- when he comes he will explain everything to us.”
“I who speak to you am he.”
John 4:28
Then, leaving her water jar went back to town and said to the people, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?”
Hmmmm. Should we assume this was a man in drag
November 7, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Well Stacy McDonald should not be one to be “looked up to” according then to her husband. She is in her second marriage, so she was what, an ex-harlot at worst, or at best, just another girl who got around(using his own words that he desribed Mary Magdalene)? No one should be buying her books then, because she is so far from perfect. Quoting her own husband in how he described Mary Magdalene, we could use this for our own daughters or even ourseleves: “was another sinner saved by Grace, just like me, but she should not be held up as an example for women’s roles.”
See his theory is flawed. Because either she can be a role model after being saved, or she can’t. If she can’t, then neither can his wife. You can’t have it both ways!
November 7, 2007 at 11:38 pm
What grieves me terribly about these ideas is that they come from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. (Primarily Bruce Ware within that circle.) I never believed that I’d see the day when the dean of theology at a Baptist seminary would believe let alone teach something so outrageous. Then we have John McArthur teaching this, too. And all that stuff about a man being a woman’s greatest spiritual resource and source, etc.
Actually, in practice, I find the Mormon model to be very much like VF’s version of patriarchy. After all, they do “have lovely families,” too. The Moonies also love the VF affiliated writings on patriarchy. Look at the free pdf version of “12 Before 40″ at http://www.divineprinciple.com. There’s a list of recommended books in it, many of which I’ve read and some I have on my bookshelf.
When you sell out the foundations of the Christian faith, it’s a prescription for error.
November 7, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Speaking of Stacy McDonald,
Did anyone send an email to Family Life Today or Nancy DeMoss about their interview for broadcast? I’m curious.
I have yet to hear from either, myself. The Family Life auto-response stated that it would take 2 to 4 days for a response, but I’ve yet to hear anything.
November 7, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I wanted to say that I have nothing personal against Stacy McDonald, but either it goes both ways or it doesn’t. If one lady in the Bible cannot be a role model because of her past, then neither can women today.
November 8, 2007 at 12:35 am
Cindy,
I sent one. I was actually surprised at the level of panic I felt when I heard that those ministries are going to give McDonald and Chancey airtime. It is very important to me to do my part to not see this stuff spread anymore than it already has/is. I don’t want anyone to go through what we have.
I hope others go to Cindy’s blog and click on the links as well. Please help these ministries know the danger of what they are supporting by giving publicity to hyper-patriarchy.
November 8, 2007 at 1:43 am
Wow Shilohmm…welcome and thank you for joining the conversation…you have given me so much to “chew” on…particularly the debate around Numbers.
Somebody mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating…I was surprised how very few verses are used to “fill out” the theology of the VF crowd…I didn’t really notice this until I started doing all the cross references mentioned in my bible.
Speaking of which, I have you ladies to thank for getting me deeper in the Word than I have ever been before…and as my husband was teasing me…it’s addictive
I keep finding something else that is fascinating me that I find myself quite sad when I have to leave my devotional time. I never thought that would happen! Now I get what a Sunday School teacher used to say: ” It’s like a love letter…and don’t you want to sit there and read your lover’s letter over and over again…” For someone who has spent such a long time in the “Christian” community but with really shallow roots, this has been an amazing time for me. So thank you, dear ones, for sharpening my faith and inspiring me to go deeper with God.
And Molly, I couldn’t have said this better:
Thank God for His grace. The narrow path is not always “beautiful,” per say, to eyes that can only see short-term (was the Cross beautiful when Jesus was carrying it up Golgotha?), but it is truly truly truly The Beautiful Way, because it’s Him. He is the Beautiful Way.
November 8, 2007 at 2:02 am
Cindy said:
“Susanna–A demoniac (Luke 8:3). Not much is known about her, except she appears to be one who the Lord delivered from demonic possession or infirmities. Again, a picture of God’s grace, but not a role model for our daughters.
As if any parent has any control over infimities that their daughter might have? And what if a daughter has trouble with a particular ethical or character trait. I’m sure that if you’re not in the inner circle of a privledged group, your daughter could be viewed as demonically oppressed.”
This “dehumanizing” was exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the discussion when I said this: (relating to women/C-sections)
All life is precious, whether male or female, young or old, mother or baby, disabled or of sound body…the minute we start making some sort of distinctions about who is more “worthy of life” then another, we veer dangerously close to the precipice, because it devalues another human being. I don’t need another Holocaust to tell me that!
One of the classes I took my senior year at University was an in depth study of the Holocaust. A heartbreaking study…but the thing is, the reason the Nazis were so “successful”
was because they were able to systematically “dehumanize” the Jews and downtrodden…the holocaust actually started with the mentally ill within Germany. That was how they perfected the technology that they would later use in the camps. And we won’t even get into what they would do in the ghettos…even convincing fellow Jews that it would be better to let the elderly, young, infirm, and mentally ill to “go first” on the trains. The reality was that the Nazis were going to liquidate the ghettos one way or another.
Beyond all that…God says “whatever you do to the least of these”…if we do not see the value in the “least of these”, then we are not seeing God! Such a grave error…and truly a scary thought for those who agree with what James McDonald is saying in this case!
November 8, 2007 at 2:35 am
Joy,
You might be interested to know (or know already) that the man who wrote the first, landmark book on brainwashing (Robert J. Lifton) also wrote a book on Nazi doctors. The two systems use the same mechanics, and I believe that spiritually abusive systems differ little from the mechanics of these groups also. Both the spiritual abuse/ideological totalism of brainwashing and the propaganda campaigns of the Third Reich teach dehumanization through connotative language. I read in “Occidentalism” that dehumanization and connotative language is also responsible for Asian and Middle-East hatred of Westerners. They are taught that Westerners, Americans in particular, are animals and barely human if at all. It’s very easy to justify ill behavior towards those whom you deem less than human (or less than Christian Canaanites filthying the name of Christ with their antinomianism and egalitarianism?).
I don’t think that James really thought about what he was writing. In his world of isolation, perhaps this a blessed ideal? Cast against the backdrop of the larger culture, this is hegemonic and full of self-righteous venom.
I posted a new blog entry about this post if anyone wants to visit.http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/11/pink-links-oh-susannah-and-ole-mcdonald.html
November 8, 2007 at 4:31 am
I’m going back to something a bit earlier, but in response to Karen’s comment #438–my church (Eastern Orthodox) still sees Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, as well as Mary of Bethany, as separate. It was indeed a later issue which confused the three.
Here’s what struck me as slightly insane about that James McDonald article: Mary Magdalene and Susanna were two of the myrrh-bearers, the women who went to the tomb of Christ. Mary Magdalene was given the grace to be the first person to see the risen Lord. Not James, not John, not Peter, not any one of the other male disciples, who were hiding for fear of the Jews. Why on earth are we not to emulate her? Why are we not to emulate the other myrrh-bearers who arguably took their lives in their hands when they went to anoint the body of the Lord? I agree with what’s been said. It’s a petty and condescending attack based on those women’s lives before their encounters with Christ. And the other arguments, in my opinion, are not logical, especially the quote about Deborah.
Yes, she was a judge. But God’s Word tells us that women ruling in places of authority are a curse upon a land (Isaiah 3:12). The men of Israel had turned their backs on Jehovah. The whole Book of Judges chronicles the apostasy and rebellion of the men of Israel (Judges 2:11-23).
But what does that have do with Deborah who clearly saved the Israelites with the help of God?
I noticed when I went back to get that quote that the section on Mary Magdalene has been changed to read “possibly an ex-harlot (see comment below)” so presumably someone’s corrected that, although I believe the point still stands.
I was also confused by the distinction between those who (perhaps) would have grown up in a non-convenental home and those who would. Seems to imply that those who grew up as Gentiles are second best to those who grew up in Jewish homes, or at least are more likely to retain old patterns of behavior. But Lydia is praised in the NEW Testament, after converting.
I hope I’m making sense.
November 8, 2007 at 4:34 am
I don’t really participate in the discussions but I am addicting to checking in and reading your comments. I am with Joy, it is amazing how much more I have studied and cross referenced during my daily Bible study. I just wanted to thank you ladies for your wisdom and thought provoking comments!!
I recently started emailing with a 15 year old girl who is heavily involved with Vision Forum. She has asked my opinion on several verses concerning “Biblical Womanhood”. Please keep me in your prayers as I tried to lovingly point out scriptural truths to her.
November 8, 2007 at 5:10 am
“I hope I’m making sense.”
Maureen,
Are you kidding? Please post more often! Excellent post.
Kyla,
I will be praying for your interaction with this girl. As long as we point people TO the scripture and teach them how to identify the difference between man’s opinion and God’s word, then we are on the right track. We can avoid the errors of the hyper-patriarchal movement by taking in the WHOLE counsel of God’s word. People in this system are taught to read everything through the hyper-patriarchal grid and it distorts and taints everything. What a great opportunity you have to take on the role of being a Titus 2 woman!
November 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I have been removing comments that I have deemed too personal and that I have felt were not germane to the discussion. However, I did leave up one from yesterday that I thought made the point that was necessary to have been made. However, I am not completely satisfied with that decision. And here is why…
If we start taking the past sins of others, especially sins that are repented of, and use those to nullify the teachings or writings of people, we might as well go home because each and every one of us have things of which we are not proud. Does that make us not worthy of having our views read or considered by others?
When I read that wearying list of women and the ridiculous comments on James’ blog yesterday, all I could think about were the men in the Bible whose writings have been such a tremendous blessing….Paul, David, Matthew, Peter, etc. All of these men failed and sinned miserably. And they even sinned after their conversions. But the Holy Spirit used them to write the Word of God!
We all know how very silly that list was. But in our zeal to point out the silliness and the folly of making such statements, I want each of us to remember to be as gracious and loving as we possibly can. Let’s keep our discussions focused on what is being taught rather than the personal. I know it is sometimes hard, but let’s try, ok?
November 8, 2007 at 12:32 pm
from my blog today:
A book titled “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People turn Evil caught my eye on friend’s sidebar blog spiritual abuse booklist. While, as a Christian, I don’t believe in “good people” but rather redeemed people, nonetheless when I clicked on the Amazon link and found this quote in a review of the book, I thought it was appropriate to the discussion on patriocentricity.
“The author, who was an expert defense witness at the court-martial of an Abu Ghraib guard, argues against focusing on the dispositions of perpetrators of abuse; he insists that we blame the situation and the “system” that constructed it, and mounts an extended indictment of the architects of the Abu Ghraib system…… Zimbardo challenges readers to look beyond glib denunciations of evil-doers and ponder our collective responsibility for the world’s ills.”
While I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that we are all responsible for our own sins and will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ one day, I also think there is the phenomenon of “group think” within the patriocentric camps that we must recognize. As has been pointed out, there are a handful of Scripture passages that have become the “core theology” of the patriocentric movement and the party line interpretation of them within a certain paradigm has taken precedence over diligently seeking what a passage of Scripture actually means.
This became very real to me yesterday when I watched the special feature segment of The Return of the Daughters. In it, Geoffrey Botkin and Doug Phillips explained the theological underpinnings of their teachings on daughters. Numbers 30 is the basis for their views and Phillips said that it provides “a rich depository” for understanding father-daughter relationships.
Remembering that other patriocentric leaders have also used this passage to support the teachings of the visionary daughters, I wanted to study this “rich depository” for myself. But, it became a problem for me. You see, I pulled out every commentary I own and read what Bible scholars have had to say about Numbers 30. I went online and researched and read but do you know what? I did not find one scholar who explained that Numbers 30 provides a mandate for daughters to be in their father’s home, fulfilling his calling, until they are given in marriage.
And this brings me to the quote about individual responsibility vs the “system” which, in this case, is the patriocentric mantra that seems to get louder by the day. Each leader and teacher and espouser of these views must give account to the Lord himself, or herself, for how Scripture is handled. Each one must decide in his or her heart of hearts that they honestly believe that, for example, Numbers 30, teaches that young women must live at home until marriage.
While I agree with the concept of the effects a group has on the individual (we all have many personal examples…you ought to see my e-mail since I started the patriocentricity series of podcasts!) I also know that every one of us will stand before the Lord. Men and women who are teaching patriocentric views had better be sure that they can give an honest accounting for the Scripture they use to support these teachings. If they cannot do so, they should stop teaching them.
The leaders of the patriocentric movement have much for which to be held accountable. There are hurting families who have suffered the consequences of following some of these teachers. There are broken relationships and devastating choices all about. But each of us within the homeschooling community has a collective responsibility to police our own as well.
A friend sent me an essay that had been written by a law professor who is quite interested in the homeschooling community’s curriculum and the disparity of what is taught to some young ladies as opposed to what is taught to young men, citing the potential violation of constitutional rights. In the article, the solution was posed that there need to be more restrictions on homeschoolers and a more careful examination of what is taught in light of those rights.
If we, as homeschoolers, are not holding those within the patriocentric movement accountable for the spin they are putting on Scripture, someone from the outside WILL do it and we will all have to live with it. We need to stand firm in our opposition to these teachings so those outside the homeschooling community can be assured that we are not all of this aberrant persuasion. It is our collective responsibility.
November 8, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Here is a good resource and I am quoting the last paragraph as it helped me a great deal to put the Numbers 30 passage into perspective.
“Many questions related to the Old Testament law and New Testament believers are difficult to answer. Questions relating to the Sabbath and tithing come to my mind as particularly thorny problems. But the principles for thinking through these issues always relate to two key issues: 1) the original purpose that God had in view when He gave us the particular law in question and 2) Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law. Our fulfillment of the law is accomplished not through our observance of the law, but through our union in Christ. When Jesus fulfills the Law, often His fulfillment removes any practical application from view. However, sometimes Jesus fulfillment intensifies and clarifies the practical application for us in our day. A careful study of the scripture is required to be able to discern the difference in each specific law.”
This was taken from a paper on OT law recently written by the senior pastor at Bethany Baptist Church in Peoria, Il. Here is a link to the entire article:
http://www.bethanycentral.org/resources/docs.asp?cat=243
November 8, 2007 at 3:53 pm
thatmom, quoting an Amazon review of “The Lucifer Effect.”
“The author, who was an expert defense witness at the court-martial of an Abu Ghraib guard, argues against focusing on the dispositions of perpetrators of abuse; he insists that we blame the situation and the “system” that constructed it, and mounts an extended indictment of the architects of the Abu Ghraib system…… Zimbardo challenges readers to look beyond glib denunciations of evil-doers and ponder our collective responsibility for the world’s ills.”
I have just started this book, but I’ve read some lengthy articles by the author, and I think this reviewer overstates his case a bit when it comes to Zimbardo blaming the environment. Zimbardo believes that the environment or situation is pertinent and that we need to work to change things, but he does not argue that environment is the only factor. From what I have read, he believes that our individualist culture over-focuses on individuals and doesn’t recognize how much influence the environment has, but I think he does recognize that individuals are not completely controlled by their environment.
One of the things Zimbardo discovered is that, when the leadership is tolerant of minor abuses, those under that leadership end up tolerant of much greater abuses. It made me think of Matthew 23: 15, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” and James 3:1, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement.”
This is the passage where James refers to the bits in horses mouths and the rudders on ships – usually you see that in reference to watching our own tongues, and of course I agree that we should watch our words, but James introduces this passage with the concept of teaching. What our teachers teach us, what we believe, can have a great effect, particularly as we pass on that teaching.
James 3:6 says, in part, “The tongue is so set amoung our members toat it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature…” – John MacArthur’s comment on “the course of nature” is, “Better translated ‘the circle of life’, this underscores that the tongue’s evil can extend beyond the individual to affect everything in his sphere of influence.”
This passage hovers over me so often as I post on the Bible, especially when I quote some expert. It’s intimidating, but I suspect it should be. If Zimbardo’s observations are correct – and in my experience they are – the teachings of a leader will often “expand” as they go out. When the leader teaches that minor evil is alright, the followers can learn to tolerate evil at a level that horrifys those over them. When a leader passes on slightly skewed theology, it may continue to skew in the same direction, further and further from what God has actually said.
This, I think, is why the Bible teaches that leaders must be held to a higher standard. Their actions and teachings often end up, not merely reflected, but amplified. Small movements of the rudder create great movements from the ship.
November 8, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Zimbardo has a companion website with information about the book and systems that increase the chances for the abuse of power. He uses the analogy of people (like apples) in a system (like a barrel) to describe environments that make it more difficult to behave with integrity and general altruisim. Per Zimbardo, it’s important to consider the possibility of bad apples, bad barrels and the systems that maintain the barrels to prevent the hierarchical abuse of power. (I liken Zimbardo’s “system” to Shiloh’s analogy of the “rudders” on a ship.) In that sense, it graciously highlights the fallen nature of all men, given the circumstances. By recognizing the potential for evil, it provides a great opportunity for the prevention of bad situations and environments.
What’s also notable in Zimbardo’s book is that he concludes the book with an examination of what produces a hero, in contrast to that which promotes abuse. It’s a refreshing contrast to the depravity of man that Zimbardo terms the “Lucifer Effect.”
November 8, 2007 at 6:01 pm
shilohmm said:
“If Zimbardo’s observations are correct – and in my experience they are – the teachings of a leader will often “expand” as they go out. When the leader teaches that minor evil is alright, the followers can learn to tolerate evil at a level that horrifys those over them. When a leader passes on slightly skewed theology, it may continue to skew in the same direction, further and further from what God has actually said.”
WOW. That was really good stuff. I’m going to have to get that book…