This is thread #6 regarding patriarchy, patriocentricity, visionary daughters, and includes a discussion on the books So Much More and Passionate Housewives Desperate for God. Any topics related to the discussion of patriarchy are welcome here and sometimes we meander along rabbit trails but they always bring us back on topic again!
I would encourage you to go back and read through the past posts on these topics…lots of great discussion and thought-provoking insights.
February 6, 2008 at 1:53 pm
This is now comment number 3,815 in the thread series on visionary daughters. I began a new thread because I anticipate much more discussion now that the Botkin sisters are answering the questions that are being put to them. (at least the ones that were filtered and presented by Stacy McDonald.)
A couple things to note:
They have stated that, while they would perhaps words some things differently, they are now even more committed to their teachings.
They also state that they do not counsel parents.
Finally, something else I want to discuss: they have given their explanation of the “harlot” reference.
any thoughts?
February 6, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Here is the link to their website where they include the interview with Stacy.
http://www.visionarydaughters.com/
February 6, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Keer, given your fine article referenced at the end of thread #5, I would love to get your take on their response to critics about their age.
February 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Karen, can you post their original quote which contained “harlot” here for easy reference? And if there was a cleaned up quote, could you provide that as well? I didn’t follow that particular subject closely to check out what was originally said. Thanks.
February 6, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I read their original quote in context. Their explanation stinks, to be quite frank. They use the verse Bill Gothard used to explain why the working wife/mother fails the test of virtue . . . because “her feet never stay at home.” Thus, Bill Gothard effectively compared working wives to harlots.
Because of the legalistic emphasis on daughters having to stay at home to serve fathers (what they call biblical but what many understand to be extra-biblical), it places other women’s choices (such as Amy Carmichael’s, for example) on the same plane as those who are truly boisterous and rebellious.
Which is why their original quote was unwise. Not everybody who lives life the way they say not to live it is therefore necessarily being rebellious.
The “harlot” reference is just bandwagon campaign rhetoric. Either you return all the way home, and purpose to stay at home to serve your father, or this is what your attitude must be.
Don’t agree, and I don’t buy their explanation.
The bottom line is their theology is flawed. Explaining why the harlot reference is over the top will not have any effect on them unless they can be made to see that they are taking passages from the Bible that describe family situations, and are running with them as though the Bible is prescribing them as commands which everyone has to adhere to. And until they can see that, they will not understand why the proverbs reference is offensive to the many who do not share their views.
February 6, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Lynn,
I agree with you. This is a very poor choice of Scripture to use if their desire was not to offend women who are not living under their fathers’ roofs.
Frankly, that paragraph didn’t make any sense at all unless you meant to equate independent girls with harlots. The point that they are missing is that there are many young ladies who are attending college or working and living on their own who are not rebellious or “boisterous” (this is the word they chose to use but the actual word is “loud” and I will get to that in a minute.)
In fact, there are many young ladies who are living very submissive lives while not living under their father’s roofs. This is a false assumption and connection that they are making. Unless, of course, we put it all in the context of the rest of their book.
Now to the word “loud.” According to Strong’s, this word translated from the Hebrew as “loud” is used only one time in the Bible and that is in Proverbs 7 where it is referring to the harlot. It is not used anywhere else at all. It means “to murmur, growl, roar, cry aloud, mourn, rage, sound, make noise, tumult, be clamorous, be disquieted, be loud, be moved, be troubled, be in an uproar.” The general implication is that is means someone who is not content with her life so as to actively show it.
Most Christian young ladies I know personally who are attending or who have attended college or are working outside their homes cannot be described as malcontents. In fact, they seem to be pretty happy and excited about their lives.
If the Botkins are describing personality types, which I feel is also implied, I think they are also off base. They chose to use the word “boisterous” which has a broad range of meanings: “bouncy, brawling, clamorous, disorderly, effervescent, impetuous, loud, obstreperous, rambunctious, raucous, riotous, rollicking, rowdy, strident, tumultuous, unrestrained, unruly, uproarious, vociferant, vociferous, wild”
I believe there are many “effervescent and bouncy” girls and women who are as far from “wild and rambunctious” as possible. Once again, it would have been much better had the Botkins stuck with the actual Hebrew word and its actual meaning than to use a word that could lay a trip on a girl with a bubbly personality. I know this too well as I am one of those girls and yet I am quite content, remain under legitimate authority, am committed to moral purity in my marriage, and am committed to my home, though I must admit I wandered from blog to blog this morning, including from Stacy’s blog to the Botkin blog, to here to suggest you all might want to read and discuss. What does that make me?
February 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm
[...] have been sent to them by Stacy McDonald (what is wrong with THIS picture?) so we have started a new thread at True Womanhood to continue our discussion on this topic. Please join [...]
February 6, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Keer, given your fine article referenced at the end of thread #5, I would love to get your take on their response to critics about their age.
Was that in the interview on their site? I may have missed it – we’re in a hurry out the door so I just skimmed the questions Stacy asked them. But I didn’t see where they really responded at all other than something akin to “we tried hard to be theologically accurate” (which should cause us to assume that they are, in fact, theologically accurate) and “just ask our dad.” LOL.
February 6, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Keer,
Here is where they answered the “rumor”
http://visionarydaughters.com/responding-to-a-rumor/
February 6, 2008 at 5:48 pm
oh, sorry, I misread your question.
it was the first question they answered….
February 6, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Their answer seems to be very much like others when challenged: “We’ve been hearing so many wonderful testimonies!” The assumption is that since people are telling them how wonderful their lives are after following their advice, then that advice is automatically biblical.
Debi Pearl’s book did the same thing: Of course this is biblical advice, look at all the lives that have been changed for the better after following it!
No, what makes something biblical is if it holds entirely true to Scripture.
February 6, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I will say that I have not read the book, so I have no idea if it’s biblical or not. Based on what I’ve read in articles and such, however, I’m leaning towards “not.”
February 6, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The Botkins said:
And a case could be made that there are more manifestations to this discontent, gad-about spirit than just roving from “the house.” Christian women have many new, high-tech alternatives to the old, pedestrian gadding-about. Now we can “be idle, wandering about from [blog] to [blog]; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which [we] ought not,” (1 Timothy 5:13) without even leaving our own thresholds. It’s more easily justified, and therefore we must be even more vigilant to keep our consciences tender and our hearts willing to be convicted.
Oh for crying out loud!
February 6, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Keer, actually they admit in their article that it is BAD to build a practice on pragmatism — ie, it must be good because it works.
So they know that the testimonies aren’t proof that what they claim is biblical. That is a good thing they said, and I agree with them.
The problem is they firmly believe patriarchy to be biblical in the sense that it is the prescriptive word of God, and that daughters to remain in the near proximity of their fathers until married is part and parcel of that belief system.
THAT is the problem, and for those who don’t agree with them, we claim they are calling other lifestyle choices which are within the moral will of God as second rate at best. For example, I didn’t care for the comment about concert harpists, either. At worst, we see them calling women who have made these other choices which are acceptable before God as rebellious in the way harlots are rebellious — and that is offensive.
But as I said, they are not going to get why that was so offensive until they can see the error in their applications of what they perceive to be “God’s best” for single women. I firmly believe God is not limited to the “best” that they are promoting, although I certainly think it is an option among several, and it is good that they have a desire to see women cherishing the home and loving their families as a first priority.
God’s best is for adults to abstain from immorality, to work hard to meet pressing needs, and to minister at large in the church.
God’s mandate is the Great Commission. All these “bests” and this mandate can be achieved in a variety of contexts for unmarried adults.
In addition to Amy Carmichael, I also think of Isobel Kuhn, whose mother said to her if she went to China, it would be over her dead body. And her mother did die, and Isobel went to China to preach the gospel in “Lisuland.” Now I do have a disagreement with how the then China Inland Mission made heavy handed decisions in personal family matters, but that is a different issue. There are so many women who don’t fit into the mold the Botkin sisters proclaim as God’s best, but the examples I am thinking of are outstanding heroines of the faith. Gladys Aylward is another. And Mary Slessor. And Betty Greene. And Rachel Saint. And Elisabeth Elliot. There are so many women who lived their lives not according to this paradigm they promote, yet the common understanding among Christians is these women have made noticeable advances in advancing the gospel throughout the world.
There’s a real cognitive dissonance here, and it gets very pronounced when you think of well known female missionaries who did what they did at least at some point (if not all) as single women. But that’s not “God’s best?” I don’t agree.
February 6, 2008 at 10:08 pm
You know, it’s really difficult to read that “So Much More” book, looking at the specifics of their peripheral statements (comparing any woman who leaves the home to a harlot) in light of the significance of their foundational doctrinal problems. The bottom line of the book is the fear-oriented concept that women need an earthly male protector and source of sanctification. They are parroting what they were taught which essentially goes back to the logical conclusions of some of the later complementarian teachings.
I pulled out my copy of the book (used under $9!) and took note of some of the things that I highlighted:
pg 21:
“In the Garden of Eden, Eve let herself be deceived by the serpent, and Adam didn’t protect her from the deception. He then followed by her lead, even though he knew it was wrong. Interestingly enough, “in Adam all die.” — not in Eve! Adam is rightly blamed for the sin they both committed because he could not escape his role as leader any more than Eve could escape from her role as his helper.”
(This is just a recapitulation of teachings of people like Bruce Ware and John MacArthur who state that sin actually entered through Eve, but Adam bore the punishment because Eve was of lesser essence and nature because of headship. She was incapable of bearing full responsibility and consequences for her sin, so it fell to Adam. This is the primogeniture argument that is held by many in the comp camp.) At least they don’t seem to advocate the subordinationism (linking women under men to the concept of an eternally subordinate Christ in Trinity) that is inherent in other complementarian writings.
Pg 23: “Even before the fall, there was an order — a hierarchy of authority– established by God. This order states that man is the authority over the woman and is supposed to lead her.
Pg 25: (based on Numbers 30) “If a man makes a rash vow, the Lord holds him accountable, and he has no way out of it. However, God in His mercy granted daughters a go-between, or mediator. Her father can protect her from her foolishness, and the Lord shall forgive her. Because of the consequences for making a rash vow could be dire, this is why a daughter’s special exemption from obligation is a sign of particular mercy from God — and why her father’s protection is such a blessing. Men are also supposed to protect women’s lives, as shown in Ephesians 5:25…”
On page 2, the book states that it is about how a young Christian girl can wage war with the world and win. They present their views as the only proper way to live the Christian life. A few pages on, they call for the book to be read like a Berean would read it. Well, I certainly have, and I am opposed to the whole business that they believe that any and all females need a mediator to be effective and can only be effective within the sphere of home as the only “biblical” interpretation, well represented here by Lynn.
From page 34:
“If all women had to submit to all men, it would put women in a very vulnerable postion, but God’s design gives each woman, whether married or unmarried, a protective head to which she must submit. As we have said before, a woman’s life will always be tied into a man’s life, whether she is married or not. This is a basic feature of womanhood, and women are to be dependent on men’s protection and leadership. This is how God created it to be.
According to the laws of the vows in Numbers 30, an unmarried girl is under the authority of her father, just as a wife is under the authority of her husband.”
To then go on to take anything seriously that branches off from this basic, foundational premise about gender is moot to me. They have redefined what it means to be female, so I’ve no doubt to expect that I will disagree with their additional problems with how to be a “normative” Christian woman/lady/female in today’s society.
The more peripheral the teaching or concept that they attempt do defend, the more “wiggle room” they have, and the less consequential it seems. Their basic assumtions are that all women’s existence will always be “tied into” that of a man. They even have some suggestions about how to get a surrogate man if your family doesn’t provide one for you in their book. Well, I remember something about the pool of Siloam where a man didn’t even need a man, but by God’s power, the invalid man was restored to health! They haven’t answered (and perhaps have not thought out) all of the fine details of their ideology. When standing before God, will a husband answer before God for the sins of his family? Hmm.
This is all about male hegemony and how a man is called to sanctify women — an act that the cannot even begin to do for himself.
So they can answer all the peripheral questions that they want, but it won’t make much difference until they answer the serious questions about who women really are IN CHRIST.
The next big problem (a problem in Christendom and in the Presbyterian Church concerning the “New Perspectives on Paul” and Norm Shepherd, etc.) involves sanctification. They hold to what amounts to a non-Protestant view that works help to bring about sanctification, either through one’s own meritous behavior or through the direction of another’s behavior. That is the other crux of the issue.
In an interview with their father in Appendix A, Geoff Botkin has this to say:
pg 306:
“What has amazed me about good masculine leadership is this: some of the weakest, most unassuming men can rise up out of their cowardice and lethargy and become very effective champions of biblical leadership….Even leading publicly, in the roles of statesmen, is not that hard for a man who denies his fears and seizes the grand momentum of Western civilization.
(Girls ask “What is the grand momentum of Western civilization?”)
Multigenerational sanctification. That means young people tried to understand what God had accomplished for and through the previous generation, and then to build on that foundation. Each generation tried to go beyond the previous in terms of personal holiness and Biblical fidelity.”
Ultimately, this all boils down to salvation through works. That’s far worse than the implication that women who go off to school are harlots. These girls are “trying to go beyond the previous generation in terms of personal holiness and Biblical fidelity” just like Daddy taught them. This is further proof that this is a comparison-driven ideology and model, and I’ve no doubt that those who ascribe to it believe with all their hearts that it is Biblical. It certainly contains many Biblical elements, but it contains salvation by works as well. Their perspective (one that they say brings them special insight enabling them to write their book) also binds them to their father’s prejudice about what the Word really means regarding gender.
February 6, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Another thought about being boisterous…
I’ve got a loud, boombing laugh. When I started to really sing seriously and developed my breath support (for the glory of God), my laugh became more powerful. This discussion came up at a friend’s house a few years ago when my laugh rattled the glasses in her china cabinet! Another friend has always said that someone should bottle it up and use it as good medicine.
There are people who hate my laugh… Dare I tell you who they are?
February 6, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Here’s an interesting link about Protestant missions in the past and the semi-tacit expectation that single women missionaries were to remain single (in some cases). The author of this link is a woman whose research in missions is fairly well known to most evangelicals who study missions.
This link discusses Lottie Moon, who was courted by a man who was a Darwinian Evolutionist, and the claim is that although she was interested in marriage and he was interested in missions, she refused to compromise her beliefs in the area of Creation, and so turned him down.
Lottie Moon is yet another example of a woman who was independent in the right way — she stood up for her convictions — but her example again doesn’t fit the Botkin patriarchal paradigm:
http://www.missionfrontiers.org/1999/08/single.html
February 6, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Here’s an interesting link about Protestant missions in the past and the semi-tacit expectation that single women missionaries were to remain single (in some cases). The author of this link is a woman whose research in missions is fairly well known to most evangelicals who study missions.
This link discusses Lottie Moon, who was courted by a man who was a Darwinian Evolutionist, and the claim is that although she was interested in marriage and he was interested in missions, she refused to compromise her beliefs in the area of Creation, and so turned him down.
Lottie Moon is yet another example of a woman who was independent in the right way — she stood up for her convictions — but her example again doesn’t fit the Botkin patriarchal paradigm:
http://www.missionfrontiers.org/1999/08/single.html
February 6, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I have not had opportunity to read the book but did go over to the blog and read some of the questions/answers. One thing–that may not bother anyone else–concerns me. The mention of “when” not “if” marriage comes along. As someone who did not meet her husband until I was 26, there were some days I had to really cry out to the Lord in helping me be content in my singleness and realize there was a very real possibility that I might never marry. Marriage was indeed in His plan for me but I did not know this at the time. If all of this staying home, serving the father and the rest of the family is preparation for marriage, what happens when and if marriage never comes along? I believe there is great value in learning to be a wife and homemaker (I wish I had learned more!) but to approach it with the attitude that marriage is a given…that is something I am not comfortable with.
February 7, 2008 at 12:38 am
“Ultimately, this all boils down to salvation through works. . . . This is further proof that this is a comparison-driven ideology and model, and I’ve no doubt that those who ascribe to it believe with all their hearts that it is Biblical. It certainly contains many Biblical elements, but it contains salvation by works as well.”
And I know that both they and their cheerleaders would vehemently deny that. . . Yet, that is the heart of the issue with so much of the VF, patriarchy, Gothard, etc., crowd–they’ve latched onto a gospel that is Christ+plus, and in doing so have denied the Gospel.
Not that they necessarily see it now. . . but I know that God in His graciousness tends to pursue those of us whose struggle is with the sin of adding to the Gospel, just as he pursues those of us whose sins are more easily seen.
February 7, 2008 at 2:44 am
I haven’t read the Botkin’s book, just perused the website.
It seems they are determined to promote Western culture and values. I thought that Christianity began in the Middle East…(Oh, and not to mention all the scripture one encounters stating that God doesn’t care what latitude or longitude you’re from, we’ve all fallen short of HIs expectations…)
February 7, 2008 at 4:13 am
Cindy,
I think I have you “beat”. I am bubbly, I enjoy life, laugh wholeheartedly and usually loud, I am a widow, and I have a job outside the home.
February 7, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I know this is off-topic somewhat, but I just got a huge kick out of reading that link about Lottie Moon again. The man who wanted to marry Lottie Moon was a CONFEDERATE army chaplain, and he was a Darwinian Evolutionist who went on to teach ancient languages at Harvard.
That doesn’t quite match up with Doug Phillips’ ideas about the Christian men from the Old South and their beliefs, does it?
February 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Hey! Has anybody been severely affected by the storms recently? I know of at least one person who posts here who is from Kentucky.
We were battered by severe winds in the middle of the night early Tuesday AM. There was a tornado about a three hours drive west of us, but by the time the storm came our way, there was just minor damages locally.
February 7, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I would encourge everyone to read the whole story of Lottie Moon. She was raised wealthy, had the best education and could have stayed in her parents home, traveled, wearing the best and attending lots of exciting parties. Except for education, her pre-missionary life mirrors what VF tries to sell as the ideal life for young women.
Recently, my sister went to China and as one of her traveling team had been several times, knew where Lottie’s Moon’s old home had been. It has no markings, plagues, etc. Nothing to suggest she had ever been there. As a matter of fact, they ask that one not use the word ‘missionary’ while in China.
A family lives there now. it is still a primitive shack and my sister remarked that it had obviously been even more primitive for Lottie Moon.
Lottie ministered to everyone including men. She taught everyone about Christ…including men. Why? Because she was ‘called’ to do it. They were lost and did not know Christ.
She did not live in the ‘Baptist compound’ for missionaries but went out to live among the ‘heathen’. This put her in constant danger. Her trust in Christ gave her the strength to place her 4-foot-3-inch body in the path of an anti-Christian mob intent on harming believers and saying, “You will have to kill me first.”
When the horrible times came, the SBC had no money to send her and Lottie, using her own money fed as many people as she could. She went without. She went without so long that she became seriously under nourished and some other visiting missionaries insisted she leave and put her on a boat for home. She died right before they reached Japan. She weighed 50 lbs.
Her pre missionary life fits the VF ideal for women. Her missionary life would be considered sin and rebellion against God to the Botkins, Phillips’ and McDonalds. But, Lottie, was not content with that life. God gave her a heart and a calling for the lost Chinese people. Here is a quote from one of her many letters:
“I would I had a thousand lives that I might give them to … China!”
- Lottie Moon
Zhenjiang, China
August 27, 1888
These are the stories we need to be reading to our daughters. Not the worldy, extra biblical teaching of those like the Botkin Sisters. It seems so shallow when you read how Lottie gave her life so the ‘least of these’ could know athey had a Savior.
February 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I know, Lin. I think people might get confused when just thinking the Botkins are only advocating that women who are materialistic and self-centered return to their homes and stay there. That is not the case. There are many women who are NOT materialistic and self-centered, who ARE brilliant (Lottie was fluent in several languages, and had a masters degree, practically unheard of in her day), who leave home and never marry. And she crusaded for women’s rights to evangelize in her mission.
And she gave up her life, literally, loving and serving the people around her who also were starving.
She refused to marry a Southern army chaplain because he was an evolutionist, she was well educated, and she did campaign for women to be able to do more than they were allowed to do in missions, she proclaimed the gospel to many who had not heard it before, and she literally laid down her life to feed the starving.
I agree she is a stellar example of a life that pleases God, and that she goes totally against what the Botkin girls claim is biblical behavior for an umarried woman.
That is why I said yesterday that when you read about some of the women missionaries and their lives, you come to see a great dissonance between their lives and what the Botkins are teaching as “biblical” womanhood. After due consideration, the Botkins are advocating something that God has not commanded everybody to live by, and we need to encourage the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Lottie Moon’s life is almost everything the Botkins would say isn’t right, but my firm belief is God thinks otherwise.
February 7, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Lottie Moon’s life is a fascinating one, to be sure. I think of women in the Bible that were unmarried and where they lived was never mentioned. Lydia, some of the helpers in the churches Paul planted, etc. There is no mention of a husband, father, or “adopted male figure” in their lives, yet they dedicated their lives to God’s service. So when I read dogmatic statements like “Godly women in the Bible always lived at home w/ their fathers” (paraphrase), I don’t really get where that is coming from. I can think of several examples in which we know the woman is unmarried and living without a male head or there is no male mentioned at all. Bottom line: don’t read into the Bible what isn’t said.
February 7, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Ha, What they would think of a 21st Century Mary Magdalene!
Her feet going everywhere! Following the Lord. Would they refer to her with that horrible ‘H’ word? And being one of the first evangelists to deliver the Good News.
February 8, 2008 at 1:45 am
I know we are talking about the women here, but what Geoff Botkin says about the men in patriarchy is telling:
“What has amazed me about good masculine leadership is this: some of the weakest, most unassuming men can rise up out of their cowardice and lethargy and become very effective champions of biblical leadership….Even leading publicly, in the roles of statesmen, is not that hard for a man who denies his fears and seizes the grand momentum of Western civilization.
Those “weak” men get an excuse to continue to be weak and sometimes abusive in their pursuit of “leadership” that comes no where near close that of the leadership of Christ.
and still have a heart black as coal and be unsaved. That’s the problem with relying on image to judge. And that’s what the VF/Botkin/patriocentricity message is all about- an obsession with image. An “appearance” of holiness that has no real basis other than it “looks good” (to them).
As a matter of fact, that is one thing that has always bugged me about the VF crowd. The thought that Jesus spent time with prostitutes and sinners must just flip their lids. They are obsessed with a woman looking “feminine” by their standards and quick to judge those women who do not dress in a similar manner- forget the thought of ministering or witnessing to those women. Yet, any woman could follow those outside exterior “rules”: long hair, skirts to ankles, covered up, ‘quiet’, ’submissive’ (or whatever the new Ladies Against Feminism rules are this week…)
February 8, 2008 at 5:15 am
RE: post 22 -
jaj,
You go girlfriend! The joy of the Lord is our strength. Glory to God for making us all uniquely wonderful.
February 8, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I want to invite you all to listen to today’s podcast where Corrie and I are talking about the topics we think “someone” ought to write about in a book for wives and moms. We were going to review Passionate Housewives, but we just couldn’t bring ourselves to do it when there are so many really good topics in this area to discuss.
The first segment is up this morning and I think it is well worth a listen for any woman, not just a homeschooling mom. There will be at least 2 more podcasts to follow in this series, possibly 3. We talked and recorded for hours so we have a lot of good material and I hate to edit it out!
Comments and discussion about the podcast and the topics we bring up are welcome, too!
http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com
February 8, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Here is something else that I think is worthy of reading. Norm Wakefield is doing a series of articles on what he is calling the “curse of the standard bearers” and the legalism we have all seen within the homeschooling/patriocentric crowd. He references the fact that there are now statistics that are showing how many homeschooled young people are leaving the faith because of the legalistic standards being placed on them by their parents. Here is a link to the articles:
http://www.spiritofelijah.com/chariot/chariot1107.html
http://www.spiritofelijah.com/chariot/chariot1207.html
Then, after you read them, you MUST see James McDonald’s claims that these teachings “line up with his goals of ministry.”
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/standard-bearers-or-image-bearers/
He posted this on his blog at the same time Stacy posted her interview to promote the Botkins book. My only conclusion is that he hasn’t read So Much More OR Passionate Housewives, otherwise he would certainly see that the VF agenda IS to promote the same standards that Mr. Wakefield writes about with such concern.
I cannot help but think of the warning from James 1:8: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
February 8, 2008 at 12:49 pm
#29 I really wonder if the VF crowd is infilled by the Holy Spirit.That’s why they don’t mix,they have no power to co-labor with Christ to reach out and rescue others.
February 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm
What, only 33 comments? Do y’all need some coffee or something?
February 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Debbie wrote: I really wonder if the VF crowd is infilled by the Holy Spirit.That’s why they don’t mix,they have no power to co-labor with Christ to reach out and rescue others.
Having grown up in Pentecost, this is an interesting comment that is pretty sensitive for me. Consider first that many Penecostals/Charismatics treat manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit like the patriarchy movement treats their moral imperatives. I believe that it is very wrong to use outward signs as a measure of whether one is born of the Spirit or filled with the Spirit, once they have committed themselves to Christ and surrendered their will to the Lord for the working out of their salvation. As (I think it was) Molly who said that VF essentially sells spiritual vitamin pills for Christians, Pentecostals do much the same thing with gifts.
Having stood by the bedsides of young people in ICU who died, all believing and their families and ME believing for their divine healing, doing everything right and having observably Christian testimonies, I deny that one can use this as any measure of the Spirit. (Certainly if the outcome is good, it is always true, but when people die, it is not a lack of the presence of the Spirit.)
So having spent a major portion of my life trying to discern the way the Spirit works and how to manifest the Spirit in abundance, I believe that all who profess faith in Jesus have the indwelling of the Spirit. The Lord may be at work, changing the intent of the heart without us seeing the outward evidences of the Lord’s presence.
I think that with concern to the patriarchy movement, two major things are at work:
1. The Holy Spirit is depicted for us in the Word as a dove. Doves don’t force, push, control, etc. They are unassuming and require attentiveness and cooperation, if you will. So I believe that although the Spirit must be present in the believer, the believer can resist to some extent. God sanctifies us and will complete the work that He begins in us, but we can make it a rough ride.
2. The traditions of men are one thing that can make the Word of God of no effect. I don’t think that their apparent problems are related to the Spirit as much as they are to their placing of their traditions on equal or greater footing with the Word of God. Their lack of co-laboring, I believe, is not their lack of God’s Spirit but rather the downplay of the Word of God in what they preach and in what they do.
I can absolutely say that this is true of every problem area in my own life, too. It isn’t that the Word or the Spirit are ineffective, it’s a matter of my reliance on my own traditions or my own flesh that results in my own missing the mark.
I’m reminded of a friend of mine who says that it will be a “hoot and a hollar” when we stand before the Lord and this life is over. I believe this is true because man looks to the outward things, but God looks to the intent of the heart. I trust God that I will be found good and faithful in that day and “hooting” in laughter rather than “hollaring” in remorse. I expect that there will be a lot of both on my part, and I hope that in the final summation of things that I the goodness of the Gospel that has shined forth from my life will at least outweigh the evil I have done… And I trust that God will transform the evil and the failure into His glory anyway as He promises to work all things together for our good, with no condemnation in Him.
Okay. Off that soapbox!
February 8, 2008 at 6:17 pm
[...] You a Standard Bearer or an Image Bearer? Over at the truewomanhood blog, thatmom (Karen) included some great links to read. Click on this link to read Norm Wakefield’s articles (read 1st article, then the 2nd [...]
February 8, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Cindy,
Your comment (35) interests me.
Have you written about this anywhere else, like your blog?
February 8, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Karen, those articles are incredible! I tried to read them without any particular group in mind, but I have a pretty good idea of the groups Pastor Wakefield is talking about based on the examples he provided…
James McDonald’s consequent blog post is about ironic as you can get.
February 8, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Have you seen this article? Of course this thread does refer to Islam, but it is an illustration of what can happen when people sink to legalism.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html
Ephesians 2:8-9
“For by grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
I wish I could boldface and underline the “gift of God” part!!!
I think that a person who has truly experienced God’s saving grace is like a person who has just gotten over a horrible case of the flu. Just having a “properly functioning” body is wonderful! Being able to breathe through both nostrils, not feeling like you’re going to chuck up your soup-the world looks so new and sweet, you’re incredibly grateful and peaceful-ready to get to work on the things you couldn’t do while you were sick. (I’m sure you see where I’m going with this, right?)
Of course following Him won’t always “feel” good. But if you’re missing the critical elements of joy, peace, and love in your heart, you need to take a step back and ask what is REALLY motivating you. Because God is all of these things, and more…
February 8, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I meant to say this thread “does not” refer to Islam. (That’s what I get for trying to check math problems at the same time. Please excuse the mistake!
I don’t think I made my point clear enough either. I have met many “saved” women who at times are downright mean. When I was younger I would look at their long skirts and makeup-less faces and conclude that I wanted to have no part whatsoever with whatever they were about. The thing that drew me back were people who just had such a sweet spirit about them, so kind, so positive, yet pragmatic. They too dressed in long skirts and wore minimal makeup, but the reason was-well, different.
So I guess what I’m saying is that if a person thinks they’re going to get to heaven because they wear shirts that don’t show their collarbone, they are really missing the point.
I know this has been said countless times in the preceding posts, but given the alarming rate at which people are deciding they don’t want to have anything to do with Christianity, I don’t think that it can be said enough.
February 9, 2008 at 1:26 am
Marcia,
What is there a particular thing I mentioned that you’re interested in? I covered a great deal of topics — divine healing, outward signs of the Spirit, what sanctification is and whether we are participants, Paul’s many discussions of our subjection to sin while in this flesh as the self-proclaimed “chief of sinners” describes; the traditions of men, the snake-like qualities of spiritual deception….
Can you narrow it down? I could point you in the right direction for references, though most all these are discussed at length in the “Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” book. I did write about all these things in a general sense in this article: http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=340954
February 9, 2008 at 5:02 am
Mrs. B,
Good thoughts. The article on the abuses against women in Islam is shocking. The hatred towards women is intolerable. We certainly see the curse in action when we read things like this. God said that there would be enmity between Satan and the woman and we have seen this sort of thing throughout history.
February 9, 2008 at 5:12 am
“He posted this on his blog at the same time Stacy posted her interview to promote the Botkins book. My only conclusion is that he hasn’t read So Much More OR Passionate Housewives, otherwise he would certainly see that the VF agenda IS to promote the same standards that Mr. Wakefield writes about with such concern.
I cannot help but think of the warning from James 1:8: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
Karen,
No kidding!! The VF/So Much More/Passionate Housewives message is what those messages on being standard bearers are all about. Now they are claiming that they embody Wakefield’s message? Wow!
Also, can anyone tell me why Stacy is lying about people spreading rumors concerning the Botkin sister’s comment that likened college-going girls to harlots? No one started a “rumor”. That is just plain silly to say and it is untrue. Could someone point me to this so-called “rumor”? Maybe an “unexpected source” could point me to the “rumor”? Please, people. Do your homework and truly look beyond the words you read on some blogs.
Spunky quoted the words right from their book. If that is rumor starting, Stacy needs to write a dictionary so we can all be on the same page as far as word usage.
Why not liken college girls to Lady Wisdom in Proverbs? I mean, she went into the town square a CRIED ALOUD to all concerning wisdom. Her feet weren’t at home, either. They were planted right in the city gate where she was LOUDLY proclaiming wisdom.
February 9, 2008 at 5:19 am
Mrs. Joy,
Good thoughts. I think there are way too many people pursuing “leadership” and not enough people pursuing Christ and humble, meek servitude as Christ instructed His followers to do. I wonder if Christ came back today if His “own” would again not recognize Him because He was “weak” and “ineffective” and not “manly” enough by their outward assessments.
So much of what is taught under the guise of patriarchy seems to be idolatrous where the created is to be worshipped. I keep on looking for Jesus in all of these teachings but nothing I read comes very close to the Gospel.
February 9, 2008 at 5:43 am
“The weight of biblical passages seem to strongly indicate that the home is the woman’s domain. Why should this be true only for married women? Proverbs 7:11 describes one of the wiles of the harlot: “She is boisterous and rebellious, her feet do not remain at home.” This description could match many of the Christian girls we know. They would be outraged and insulted to be likened to harlots, but they are unwittingly acting like them. The godly woman loves to be in her home. Chapter 12, p. 173″
I agree with Lynn that their explanation stinks.
Why are they likening a college girl to a harlot? It makes no sense.
First off, the harlot in Proverbs 7 LIVES AT HOME!!!! She doesn’t go to college nor does she travel abroad. She is doing exactly what the Botkins claim a godly woman should do- she lives at home. She lures back men to HER HOME so that she can have sex with them. The harlot was married. She loved to be at home, too, especially when her husband was on a business trip. She loved being at home so much that she would bring men back to her home. Why they are comparing college girls to the harlot in Proverbs 7 is beyond me. It makes no sense and no explanation in the world will make their comparison logical or accurate.
Their statement begs the question: Why do they automatically insinuate that college girls are boisterous and rebellious and that these girls are unwittingly acting like harlots? This is wrong.
Could it be that God’s will is for some women NOT to keep their feet at home? Lady Wisdom’s feet were not at home and she is directly contrasted with the Harlot in Proverbs. Both women went out into the town square and both women were loud but it was the motive of each that is important.
Lottie Moon, Amy Carmichael, Elizabeth Elliot, Phoebe, Lydia, the women who followed Christ around supporting His ministry from their own means, the women at the tomb, ….all of these women had feet that did not stay at home. So what?
February 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm
To really be consistent when applying Proverbs 7 in the sloppy fashion that Stacy and the Botkins apply it we must really liken women who stay at home, especially women who have husbands who travel on business trips, to the harlot in Proverbs 7.
The harlot in Proverbs 7 was married and she was a homemaker. In order to be consistent we must say that a married woman who goes out of her home is unwittingly acting like the Harlot of Proverbs 7.
This seems a much more consistent usage of the verse (although it is still just as ridiculous as saying that girls who go to college are unwittingly acting like a harlot and are boisterous and rebellious because they go to college).
Between this and the Bayly blog discussion on “Warrior Custis James” I am thinking that the patriarchal movement is out of touch with reality. Someone might be tempted to think the whole thing was some sort of spoof that was making fun of Christians but sadly it is NOT a spoof. These people are the real deal. They are the basis for spoofs. They get to speculate and insinuate that Carolyn Custis James is not to be trusted because she has two last names and then they get to misconstrue her statements and spread rumors that she is using Hispanic housekeepers to do all her menial work because she is too lowly for that mindless stuff. They also get to falsely spread rumors that she teaches that women are stronger than men because she dares to define ezer as “warrior”. What a JOKE. And these silly statements are all done by people in MINISTRY! Did they ever bother to write Mrs. James and ask her these questions? Nope. The rules do not apply to them, only to us and even when we follow them, we still get slandered falsely. If you follow the dialogue over on the Bayly blog please look at how people act vs. the behavior of the ones being ripped a new one. It is very telling. But, these are the same people that the McDonalds LOVE and support and credit with teaching them all about feminism. How can that be when James McDonald claims he is the epitome of what Norm Wakefield was describing in his newsletters? I hardly think the disgusting, nasty behavior over on the Bayly blog is what Norm Wakefield was endorsing.
It is not a rumor to report what people teach. It is a rumor to make a statement that people have spread rumors when they haven’t.
But, I have found that the “no gossip” club (started by Carmon Friedrich who just happened to take a break from the internet while a new blog appeared on the scene which heavily linked and praised her….hmmmm…and as soon as her break was up, Patriospeak stopped being active) in the patriarchal movement does not practice what they preach. They freely gossip in email, on anonymous websites, under anonymous names and on the telephone but they only view gossip when people (and they will lie about it if you confront them about their gadabout ways) actually examine their teachings using their REAL names and do it publicly.
February 9, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“#29 I really wonder if the VF crowd is infilled by the Holy Spirit.That’s why they don’t mix,they have no power to co-labor with Christ to reach out and rescue others.”
Ah! The process of sanctification (which never ends) can look like death to the worldly. We have all been brainwashed to a certain extent that bad stuff that happens to us is only a result of our sin. If we would just trust God more, have more faith, we would be healed.
No one ever stops to think that suffering can be used to draw us nearer to Christ. It can be used to break us and remold us into Image bearers.
Just look at Jacob and Esau. Esau had a good life. He was wealthy and we see no real recorded problems in scripture for him on earth. But, Jacob…everytime he turned around it was something. Being cheated a whole bunch of times, threatened, etc. God was doing a work in Him. He was chosen.
Paul looks like a real loser to the worldly. He was even given a ‘thorn’ in his side to keep him humble.
Personally, I think VF, Botkins, etc., are more like Joel Osteen except on legalistic steriods. They teach a certain wealth, happiness gospel if you will only be/look/act like them. You, too, can have their good life.
February 9, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Lin, that is a very insightful observation about the VF/Botkin crowd being like Joel Osteen. It really is just another kind of prosperity teaching, isn’t it? “Do it our way, and God will prosper you.” I never thought of it that way before, but it is startlingly true.
February 10, 2008 at 12:00 am
I’d be very interested in seeing, when the Botkins have about 25 more years of history behind them, after life has smacked them between the eyes and, I hope, they’ve practiced enough discernment to see how wrong they’ve been, how they might write about their current hubris:
a la Jim Bakker, perhaps: “We Were Wrong.”
I honestly don’t think they can with any degree of integrity keep on justifying some of the nonsense they put into “So Much More,” once they get some maturity and look back on the harm they’ve done.
But then, there are plenty of people who DON’T gain that kind of maturity. I’m just hoping they do. The best witness is the changed life.
February 10, 2008 at 3:55 am
They chose to use the word “boisterous” which has a broad range of meanings: “bouncy, brawling, clamorous, disorderly, effervescent, impetuous, loud, obstreperous, rambunctious, raucous, riotous, rollicking, rowdy, strident, tumultuous, unrestrained, unruly, uproarious, vociferant, vociferous, wild”
-OH! Let’s see what I am…
I got a lot of detention in jr. high- mainly for correting teachers when they were wrong in lecture though… I’m a strong, opinionate, ambitious woman, I make noise… the Botkins would probably faint if they met me
My father claims ‘Livin La Vida Loca is my theme song! He knows me the best of anyone, other than myself and God
Their basic assumtions are that all women’s existence will always be “tied into” that of a man.
-We’re all undert the authority of a man- CHRIST!
As for earthly men, what about nuns? I don’t know that much about Catholocism, I’ll admit, but where do nuns fit in here for them?
Mrs. B,
Good thoughts. The article on the abuses against women in Islam is shocking. The hatred towards women is intolerable. We certainly see the curse in action when we read things like this. God said that there would be enmity between Satan and the woman and we have seen this sort of thing throughout history.
Mrs B, I believe Satan hates women more than men because women give birth to new humans- and humans are created in God’s image. I also don’t believe God approves of male abuse of women.
BTW, does the Bible state that Satan has a gender?
February 10, 2008 at 4:46 am
<>
Satan is referred to as “he” in the account of Jesus’ temptation. (Matt. 4)
February 10, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Lin, you said (#47)
“No one ever stops to think that suffering can be used to draw us nearer to Christ. It can be used to break us and remold us into Image bearers.”
Oh, this is a beautiful reminder that our Great Lord of the clay is not just rearranging our earthen bodies and outward “appearance” of us by His Hand — He’s forming Christ in us.
You said:
“Personally, I think VF, Botkins, etc., are more like Joel Osteen except on legalistic steriods. They teach a certain wealth, happiness gospel if you will only be/look/act like them. You, too, can have their good life.”
And that is why I struggle with the message that people in the patriarchy teachings or any “follow-this-way-to-success-in-righteousness” group has to offer. Christ crucified and risen in victory for sinful people so that we can humbly worship Him should be what marks our lives.
February 10, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Corrie,
You mentioned Carmon’s blog. I took a look and found the Prairie Manifesto and distinctives.
I am not quite sure how to word this or my thoughts right now as I mull that over. It seemed to strike me and left me thinking that it was saying since women do not follow their how-to-guide…..the rest of us are not being helpmeets and are tearing down our households,etc.?
Is is just me or does anyone else think they seem to get their backs up pretty easily? They seem to get their “denim jumpers” in a wad pretty easliy.
February 10, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“Is is just me or does anyone else think they seem to get their backs up pretty easily? They seem to get their “denim jumpers” in a wad pretty easliy.”
How else can they justify their legalism? It is designed that way.
The Gospel is free. Salvation is a ‘free gift’. We never have to earn it. We can’t! As a matter of fact, being image bearers (thanks, Karen!!) means that when we are saved the Holy Spirit is working out the fruits of the Spirit within us. It is not us! We are too depraved. All the credit must be given to God.
Their brand of salvation is works based. That is why they have to point out others as not being as pious as they are. They take much pride in this. They are like the Pharisee that prays, Thank you that I am not like that other guy. Instead of the poor guy who prayed: God have mercy upon me a wretched sinner!
We should pity them. they really are in bondage.
February 10, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Lin, I couldn’t have said it better myself (comment #54)…
And jaj “Get their denim jumpers in a wad”- LOL!
February 10, 2008 at 7:55 pm
From the Prairie Muffin Manifesto:
Prairie Muffins appreciate godly role models, such as Anne Bradstreet, Elizabeth Prentiss and Elisabeth Elliot. They do not idolize Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) or Louisa May Alcott (Little Women); while they may enjoy aspects of home life presented in their books, PMs understand that the latent humanism and feminism in these stories and in the lives of these women is not worthy of emulation.
I cannot believe she is serious. I don’t even know how to answer that- Little Women especially!
More:
27) The letter “P” at the beginning of their names should be the only similarity between Prairie Mufffins and Pharisees. Never should the Prairie Muffin haughtily pray, “Thank God I am not like that…(fill in the blank).” Rather, she should always say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.
28) Prairie Muffins mind their own business. While that business may include encouraging other women “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored,” it most emphatically excludes encouraging other women to run ahead of or resist the authority of their husbands or elders in pursuit of any PM distinctive.
Well, all of that would work great in theory, but this judgmental noses-upturned attitude is quite rank among those very same “Prairie Muffins” who are constantly getting up in other people’s business and calling us “harlots”.
What continues to irk me is the obsession with image. On the surface, I would appear to be a Prairie Muffin. On the surface. But all of those “numbers” on the Manifesto are tempered with a healthy dose of God’s grace and mercy! I read the manifesto off to my husband, and he just rolled his eyes. His response? “Pharisee much?” I get put in the patriarchal “box” a lot while out. I often wear skirts and dresses because I like them, but you’ll just as often catch me in my favorite pair of jeans. I have four kids, which obviously makes me a “quiverfull” mama. *rolls eyes again* I homeschool. I get friendly nods from the “fundie” women like I am ‘one of them’ and get the ‘oh you must be one of them’ from other who strongly dislike the whole fundamental, patriarchal movement. And this is without me even opening my mouth! They are going purely on my outside appearance.
I find it funny that most of us on this blog are relatively conservative, and would, on the surface appear to be patriocentric if you saw us out in town. Us white washed seplecures and all.
At the same time, there is a sweet lady I am friends with who is a strongly patricentric gal. She thinks VF is the best thing since sliced bread. She is a ‘Prairie Muffin’. But she has never once forced her opinion on me, judged me, anything. In fact, she is one of the first to show up anytime their is major upheaval in my house (like when David was born, and not to long ago, with James’ cancer scare) and bless me- one day she did all my laundry, which is so far above and beyond the call of duty of friend. I love and respect her, and we couldn’t be more different on this whole patriocentric thing. So sometimes I feel it is unfair to put all of the “Prairie Muffins” in the Pharisee box.
Sorry for the book…
February 10, 2008 at 9:33 pm
“As for earthly men, what about nuns? I don’t know that much about Catholocism, I’ll admit, but where do nuns fit in here for them?”
Hi Lady Helen,
Maybe they would say that nuns were “non-normative” since every woman was born to serve a particular man. Maybe they would liken them to harlots since their feet did not stay at home? Maybe they would say that they were boisterous and rebellious because they, in their singleness, chose to serve God and not to remain in the home of their earthly father?
Whatever they would say, the have to ignore the overwhelming evidence in the Gospel that proves their way of life to be the tradition of man and not the doctrines of God.
After all, Amy Carmichael, Mary Slessor, Gladys Aylward, Lottie Moon and other courageous, brave, sold-out-to-the-Lord women, are outside of the will of God according to their own dogma. All of these women also have “unwittingly” played the harlot since they did not love their home and being in the home and loved being out of their home and serving God where He called them instead.
What I don’t get is what they believe Paul meant when he said it was better for a woman to stay unmarried in order to devote herself to the LORD (not her father, btw, as they would have you believe)? They believe, as do many other patriarchalists, that women serve the Lord by serving their husband or earthly father. A woman can’t just serve the Lord directly. Her service must be unto her male “authority” which is then filtered through her male “authority” to God.
When Lottie Moon and Amy Carmichael and Clara Barton and Phoebe and Lydia and Mary and Martha and Susanna and Salome served God directly they were outside of the “prescriptive will of God”. A woman’s service must be directed through their earthly father or a husband or it really isn’t the Lord’s will. And many of these women went against their earthly father in order to serve God. Who were they to think they can just go off and serve the Lord directly without their male mediator? But, didn’t Jesus tell us that He will bring enmity between family members? Is a single woman to remain in her father’s house until/if she is married as some sort of household servant or pet (think Elsie Dinsmore)? Or is she single so she can serve the Lord and devote herself fully to His service where HE wants her to serve?
After all, women were created for man, to be used by the man, some say. Funny how they forget that Paul repudiated that argument in 1 Corinthians 11 when he went on to explain that, yes, Eve was created for Adam but since then every man has come from woman, so that neither is independent of the other and all have come from God.
“In 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.”
However is something that should make us stop and take a look. It is a point of contrast and correction.
Funny how this verse is left out of patriarchal writings because this is where Paul corrected the Corinthian Church’s error in thinking concerning women.
February 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I need to make a correction. I said that Patriospeak stopped being active. I just took a look. It seems like they have started it up again.
I also mentioned that Patriospeak was born and died while Carmon Friedrich went on a gossip fast. I am told that she has nothing to do with that site and that she doesn’t know who is behind that site. I didn’t assert anything but I am struck with several coincidences, especially the feminist/light-bulb joke that both sites hold as their favorite retort to feminists. Please know that I have no real proof of exactly who is the author behind that site, which is a fountainhead of patriarchal wisdom and knowledge.
Please go check it out and see exactly what Patriarchalists think about women. One wonders if they will be able to keep their sanity if Hillary gets elected? Here are some excerpts:
“Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highlyesteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men’s side. So God is wellpleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, “I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands. This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women. (Men, Women, and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1992], pp. 3536.)”
“It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. (On 1 Cor. 11:10, Calvin Translation Society edition of Commentaries.)
If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. And unquestionably, whenever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly. (Comments on 1 Cor. 14:34.)
Calvin was a man of clear understanding now wasn’t he?”
“First, that from a corrupt and venomed fountain can spring no wholesome water. Secondarily, that no person has power to give the thing which does not justly appertain to themselves. [137]But the authority of a woman is a corrupted fountain, and therefore from her can never spring any lawful officer. She is not born to rule over men, and therefore she can appoint none by her gift, nor by her power (which she has not), to the place of a lawful magistrate; [138]and therefore, [those] who receive of a woman office or authority are adulterous and bastard officers before God. This may appear strange at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent [impartial] and equal in the cause of God as that we can be in the cause of man, the reason shall suddenly appear. The case supposed, that a tyrant by conspiracy usurped the royal seat and dignity of a king, and in the same did so establish himself, that he appointed officers, and did what he list for a time; and in this meantime the native king made strait inhibition of all his subjects, that none should adhere to this traitor, neither yet receive any dignity of him; yet, nevertheless, they would honour the same traitor as king, and become his officers in all affairs of the realm: if after the native prince did recover his just honour and possession, should he repute or esteem any man of the traitor’s appointment for a lawful magistrate, or for his friend and true subject? Or should he not rather with one sentence condemn the head with the members? And if he should do so, who is able to accuse him of rigour, much less condemn his sentence of injustice? And dare we deny the same power to God in the like case? [139]For that woman [who] reigns above man, she has obtained it by treason and conspiracy committed against God. How can it be then, that she, being criminal and guilty of treason committed against God, can appoint any officer pleasing in his sight? It is a thing impossible.
Wherefore, let men that receive of women authority, honour, or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God. If any think, that because the realms and estates thereof have given their consents to a woman, and have established her and her authority, that therefore it is lawful and acceptable before God, let the same men remember what I have said before: to wit, that God cannot approve the doing nor consent of any multitude, concluding anything against his word and ordinance; and therefore they must have a more assured defence against the wrath of God than the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of a consuming fire. That is, they must acknowledge that the regiment of a woman is a thing most odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her officers, because she is a traitress and rebel against God. And finally, they must study to repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power.”
February 10, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Satan is referred to as “he” in the account of Jesus’ temptation. (Matt. 4)
I did know that- but it slipped my mind. So much for saying a woman is the cause of all evil, since it ultimately goes back to Satan rebelling against God and taking 1/3 of the angels with him, and not being content with that, tricked the entire universe!
February 10, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Hilary can’t say that she wasn’t warned. The Patrios have spoken and they will gnash their teeth and repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power!
I am so glad that with have the Patriospeak blog at WordPress. It really gives us a good glimpse into the thoughts and attitudes of those who promote patriarchy.
I guess this means that Deborah and Huldah and Golda and Margaret and Bhutto and Elizabeth and the Queen of Sheba usurped authority, too?
“Wherefore, let men that receive of women authority, honour, or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God. If any think, that because the realms and estates thereof have given their consents to a woman, and have established her and her authority, that therefore it is lawful and acceptable before God, let the same men remember what I have said before: to wit, that God cannot approve the doing nor consent of any multitude, concluding anything against his word and ordinance; and therefore they must have a more assured defence against the wrath of God than the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of a consuming fire. That is, they must acknowledge that the regiment of a woman is a thing most odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her officers, because she is a traitress and rebel against God. And finally, they must study to repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power.””
February 10, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands.”
Does this sound like our Lord who turned the whole concept of ‘authority’ on it’s head?
Let us NEVER forget that Calvin, while brilliant, was also in favor of the state church where everyone was forced to attend and considered ’saved’ if baptized..even as infants. He was totally in favor of magistrates to persecute those who did not comply. And yes, he turned Servetus, a heretic who came to hear him preach, over to the magistrates to be burned…even ordering ‘green wood’. Calvin even complained after the burning that people were critisizing him for the cruelty of it. (Burning ‘heretics’ were starting to bother some) Calvin was a tyrant who systemized theology. One can have knowledge yet bear little good fruit.
I am a bit sick of hearing of Calvin. I do not follow Calvin. And I have to wonder why people like teh Patrios are so keen to quote from him? What does our Lord say?
February 11, 2008 at 1:38 am
Regarding the Prairie Muffin Manifesto . . . does it bother any of the other unmarried ladies here that we are considered “Muffin Mixes” to them? That is, we have not yet achieved full “Muffinhood” (womanhood) and never will until we are married? That is, a woman does not become a woman until she is made so by her allegience to a man, which . . . well, WHERE in God’s Word does it say that?!
As somebody who is by no means yet certain it is God’s will for her to get married (however much I might like to believe that it is!) this deeply disturbs me. Really, the very terminology used in the Manifesto (“Muffin Mixes” etc.) speaks such volumes to their belief that women are in fact made whole, NOT through the saving grace of Christ, but rather through allegiance to a man; this very premise seems revoltingly idolatrous to me, no matter how much they might want to claim otherwise.
February 11, 2008 at 3:43 am
“….we have not yet achieved full “Muffinhood” (womanhood) and never will until we are married? That is, a woman does not become a woman until she is made so by her allegience to a man, which . . . well, WHERE in God’s Word does it say that?!”
Certainly nor here:
Isa 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.
February 11, 2008 at 3:50 am
I meant, “certainly not here”…
February 11, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Prairie Mixes?
That is downright insulting. I don’t know how I missed that one the first time I read through that document.
So, if I understand them correctly, a girl cannot be a complete woman (Prairie Muffin) until she is married? It takes a man (a husband) to make her whole? What Scripture are they now claiming proves that to be true?
February 11, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I hate Calvin’s teachings- sorry, I have a bit of a Calvin wrath problem… he was just as bad as the Catholics he was preaching against!(nothing against catholics, but the practices of the institution of the Catholic Church iin the middle ages were abominable and out of touch with Christ’s teachings completely.) And WHERE is the evidence for preordination? That completely removes God’s grace- and the uniqueness of Christianity! I think if Paul knew how much his words would be twisted, he would have been FURIOUS!
February 11, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Last week I read this article by Leonard Pitts when it appeared in our local newspaper.
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/408165.html
What was interesting to me is that he, as a liberal columnist, makes the observation that the word “feminist” is wrought with so many negative connotations that even many people who espouse egalitarian views shy away from the word because it it “seemed to suggest shrillness wrapped around obnoxiousness.”
I found this to be very interesting in light of the allegations of “white washed feminist.” Most of the women I know who are considered to be part of that camp are really lovely, gracious, and articulate women. They are followers of Jesus Christ and they are ladies. Yet, when that moniker is applied to them, what comes to mind is exactly what Pitts says “shrillness wrapped around obnoxiousness.” I believe that this is truly an example of slander and has been purposely used to evoke those images.
February 11, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Actually, Helen, while I would agree that there are some bizarre things written by Calvin, the Bible teaches predestination:
Ephesians 1:
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, 2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will– 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment–to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory.
(This is written by me, thatmom. Sorry for the confusion.
February 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Yes, predestination is taught in the Bible. To me, it is the ultimate in God’s grace because, He chose me and other believers in spite of us doing NOTHING that would cause Him to choose us. That IS grace!
I am against a lot of the patriarchical teachings and some of the Calvinist teachings they use to justify their positions (women’s roles, etc.) but I fully agree with Calvin in regards to theology and salvation.
February 11, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I forgot to add in my last post:
I just read the “Muffin Mixes” part of the manifesto. That breaks my heart. A woman is complete because of who she is IN CHRIST, not because she is married to a man! This goes back to my comment earlier (#19).
February 11, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Thanks for refering to Ephesians. It is all over both the OT and NT. It is NOT Calvin’s. He gets too much credit and he did some horrible things that if done today, we would more than question his fruit, he would be in prison.
My question is: If he was so godly, why was he in the state church and not hiding out with the persecuted remnant?
February 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Calvin was blessed to live in Geneva where he did not need to hide out with other persecuted Christians. He was a pastor first and foremost who loved his flock and cared for it most tenderly.
It grieves my heart deeply to see such misconceptions about Calvin.
February 11, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Calvin was blessed to live in Geneva where he did not need to hide out with other persecuted Christians.”
This is true that Calvin did not need to hide out. But those who did not believe in a ’state’ church of forced attendance but a church made up of regenerated believers or did not believe infant baptism was scriptural or sacralism had to hide out from Calvin and the magistrates. Why did Calvin go along with this considering his vast knowledge of scripture?
Those are NOT misconceptions or myths. They are facts and something many “Calvinists” choose to ignore and excuse as normal for ‘the time’. He loved his flock who ‘obeyed’ him…much like we see in the Patriarchal movement today.
Persecuting our own brothers and sisters in Christ is never normal. Especially since they were right to not join a ’state church’.
February 11, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Lin, are you speaking of Anabaptists?
February 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Can I just offer a big “never mind”? I don’t really want to argue about Calvin’s life. I know much more about his biblical theology than I do his life and while I believe that my knowledge on his life is sound and that there are very good explanations for his actions (right or wrong though they may have been), his life isn’t really the hill I want to die on, know what I mean?
February 11, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Cally, you know, I was thinking the same thing even as I typed before. I am much more interested in defending that wonderful passage in Ephesians 1 that makes my heart just sing ever time I read it. Can you even imagine that before the world was even spoken into existence, God in His sovereignty, chose us as His own!
February 11, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I don’t know that so much of this is about Calvin but rather about trusting in traditions of the Word. I come at Calvin from a different perspective, not feeling forced to commit to Calvin or anyone else, but submitting to my best understanding of the Word, with fear and trembling all the way.
As a person that tends to be very human, fallible and able to readily recognize my shortcomings (Romans 7 stuff), I strongly identified with the “total depravity” message (the first T in the TULIP mneumonic of the 5 points of Calvinism). This concept alone gave me much liberty by bringing my personal understanding of God’s providence into a better perspective. God didn’t get a deal when He reached down into the trash and pulled me out, giving me much unmerited beauty for ashes in Christ. I tend not to take that for granted, but I think that many others who fall into what I’ve heard people call “hyper-Calvinism” or patriocentrics forget some of this. Not all of us are alike, and there are personalities that approach things in life with an assumption of self-competence, wherein they would assume (much unlike me) that they are getting things right more often than they are. God reached down into the ashes and mire and pulled them out, but the mere fact that God did so gives them a sense of superiority above others (but this is based on their own merit, I think and not just on election).
That bumps us up into the unconditional election and limited atonement category which I think that fewer people understand, and emphasis on them tends to leave total depravity in the dust. (The folks who view election as “something that was due them” probably have more of a problem with this.) In debating this with others (as these points required much more study, considering my background), and considering my experience at a rather unbalanced Presby church and a semi-Presby, cultic and Charismatic one, I have noted this phenomenon. People tend to understand election and turn it into a prejudice and reason to what I can only call distain for those whom they deem “non-elect”. The “limited” aspect of the atonement pulls on the basic survival instinct in people, too. “I have it and you don’t.” (BTW, many Pentecostals look at spiritual gifts this way.) Rather than working in concert with election and the limited aspect of atonement, people tend to forget their starting point of total depravity – that only by grace did God open their spiritual eyes to even be able to recognize Christ and be able to receive Him. Rather than a tendency to rejoice in the prospect that “this person could end up being elect in the final summation of things,” they tend to see election through their own eyes – something that I understand that only God can see (in the final summation of things). There is not a joy in God’s unmerited favor, but rather distain for any people they think might not be in their own group. It’s as if they personally want to keep the elect smaller and not see it expand into as large a group as possible. It is also limited to their knowledge, bound within time and space. (How do we know what a person will become or where they will go in life, or even who they were?)
There is definitely a tendency in these folks to pit the elect (themselves) against the non-elect, as if this was an easy thing to discern. As a nurse who has worked with dying patients in many clinical settings including hospice, I have a great deal of hope and joy as a result of participating in deathbed confessions. I would lean down to the ear of many person and would respectfully speak the sweet, simple message of the Gospel (in terms of the person’s own faith, respecting their stated beliefs), never knowing of the outcome and their eternal fate. (I’m called to declare the Gospel and it’s the work of the Holy Spirit to do the rest!) Many of those folks were comatose and never regained consciousness. But you know what? My heart hopes and aches and rejoices – despite all outward appearances and history – to see every one of those people in heaven one day. In the Assemblies of God where I spent my formative years, everyone was taught to love and minister to the lost, no matter what the outcome. I was taught that I might never see a return on my investment, as some of us sow and some of us reap. I hope that there are far more death bed confessions that we never will know about until we are in heaven, and I have faith and optimism that this is true. (So I don’t doubt that this vocation has given me a little broader perspective.)
But this is not true of many of the patriocentrists. They’ve got very limited interest in the lost, I think because they look at election all wrong. Rather than looking at it all as a sinner saved by grace, they look at life as a member of the elect. Election is sure and immutable, so I guess they think that there’s no way that they are going to lose their status. It colors everything they do, especially missions and evangelism. There is some (very human and universal) tendency to think in terms of election rather than total depravity, forgetting who they were and why they are where they are. They gloss over passages that talk about the goats and “Depart, I never knew thee.” I don’t know what they think of “Be careful when ye stand, lest ye fall”? I tremble and think “Woe is me, for I am undone. Son of David, have mercy on me.” I have faith in God’s promises to me that I have eternal life, but to take this for granted is as much a treading on the precious Blood of Jesus as is the idea for the Calvinist that the Blood of Jesus is ineffective by the concept that It was shed for all men, but is not used entirely because not all men realize salvation.
What I think results, ironically, is a sick Christian version of karma. This is exactly what karma produces: “You are suffering, so you must be experiencing karma, the fruit of your own bad actions. You are getting what you deserve.” In my experience with the pagans who believe in karma, they will be very (seemingly) benevolent and giving up to a point. (They are required to do so to undo the damage of the past and earn merit.) But that benevolence wears thin and wears out when you do not accept their views and standards. When they see that they cannot win you over to their ideology, they will abandon you. The people in India that were dying in the streets get what they deserve because they did not accept someone’s ideology. They are alone because they deserve to be, without comfort. These Christians of election-karma offer it to unbelievers as well as fellow Christians, as some see unfortunate circumstances for Christians who don’t measure up as sweet justice. (“You are suffering, so you must be deserving of your circumstances.”) But what Christian does measure up? NONE in his own merit and NONE by virtue of his own works.
What set Christianity apart from these pagan systems was the care that they extended to all people without prejudice, regardless of their history and without demanding expectations. It was based simply on the golden rule – “Love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself.” One thing I loved about Sproul, Sr was his teachings on justice. None of us really wants justice – we should ask for mercy (because justice demands that we bear the eternal weight of our own sins). I always pray for mercy for others, but with the endpoint that they would receive the Lord’s salvation. For many who take this view of the Reformed faith, they actually advocate that it is wrong to ask for mercy for others, based on outward signs and election, with some degree of assumption that they can tell who is elect.
Here is an excellent example that I recently read in Doug Wilson’s “Mother Kirk.” Ask yourself if this is some Old Testament legalism or if this is what Jesus would have taught, knowing the Gospel’s and the character of Jesus as a result.
Moving Beyond Pro-Life (sub-title in Chapter X)
Pgs 245 – 246
In the hard providence of God, He sometimes allows His enemies to destroy themselves. When the pagan nations outside Israel sent their children into the fires of Molech, Israel wasn’t called to blockade the fire and rescue the babies. And when Israelite kings followed Molech, the people were not commanded to revolt. Israelites were to make sure they didn’t kill their own children (Lev 20), but God-haters were left to destroy themselves (Is 57:13; Jer 5:19; 6:19, 21)…
Let them kill themselves, for “God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Rom 1:28), even “murder” (Rom 1:29). This is the wrath of God…
[W]e must take up arms to defend God’s covenant children (Neh 4:14). But we may not use violence until they come after authorities or to defend the lives of Molech worshipers and their children. This is far more secular than biblical.
We must remember the antithesis. Scripture always remembers that deep chasm between those seeking to honor God and those who hate him. But this has not been a part of contemporary pro-life rhetoric.
The unbelievers are destroying themselves in a frenzy of child-murder and fruitless sodomy. Let them go. These are hard words. But Christians must learn to say them. Paul taught us that the children of God-haters are “foul” or “unclean” (I Cor 7:14). We must come to the day when the Christian can truly rebuke those who are “without natural affection” and say – “The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them on the rock (Ps 137:9). We see by your pro-abortion position that you clearly agree with this kind of treatment. And we in the Church, in a way you cannot truly comprehend, are now prepared to say amen.”
Why would any of these people be interested in Christianity after hearing something like this? Maybe we are put into their path to minister the Gospel to them and be an agent of change for them? Saul stood in Judgment over Steven as a Pharisee, but he was converted and became an apostle to the Gentile. If Wilson had run into Paul on a day before the road to Damascus, would Wilson have damned him to eternal destruction, too? There was a day when Luther was very Catholic and very part of that system until time caught up to him and he to time. Who are we to make such assumptions? (Sadly, some Reformed think that they are capable of making such assumptions, do so and teach others to follow their example.)
February 11, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Cindy K, I just felt ill as I read some of those quotes. Who would want to be part of a family like that? Where is the voice of my Father in that? For that matter, where is His HEART?
I am so confused. I can’t see any evidence of Christ’s heart in that sort of Christianity– not in those words, anyway. It’s as if something good –a love for God’s children– has been taken and twisted into a hatred and self-righteous, stiff-necked contempt for those who Don’t Belong. I want so desperately to look at Doug Wilson and have him see the utter absence of grace –of Christlikeness– in his words. I long to show him that the God I know and adore is a God who humbled Himself, who came as a babe, who loves the meek, the weak, the lost. Jesus did things so unacceptably, gloriously lowly out of His love for us that if people who think as Mr Wilson does saw Him today, I fear they would not even know Him.
I don’t feel ill anymore . . . just incredibly, heartwrenchingly sad.
February 11, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Well, as an unmarried woman who absolutely does NOT aspire to be a “Prairie Muffin,” I’m no “muffin mix.” I do know the joy to be able to devote myself more fully to serving the body of Christ than I would be if I were married, especially with children living at home. I think Paul was right about that one. The PMs are strangely silent about Paul saying he preferred that all be single, as he was.
Now, I know I’m surrounded here by married women, and I have nothing but profound respect for you. I wouldn’t mind being married, either, but I’m not right now and I’m certainly not lamenting my “barrenness.” We’re all supposed to be bearing fruit for God, and unlike in the world, that doesn’t require that we also bear children.
Muffin mixes…what a crock!
February 11, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I’ve noticed a whole lot more “shrillness” coming from those who hurl the “f-word” at other people, than from the supposed feminists who are their targets.
I think it’s time for a little of Gamaliel’s advice: Leave opponents alone and let God settle the question. Better not to judge prematurely and be found to be opposing God.
We’re already seeing the poverty of the idolatry of that which is not God, be it husband, home, a preferred theology, etc. The LAFs and the PMs have shown clearly what they’re about. If their systems cannot handle dissent, then that only proves the systems’ weakness. Let them spend all their energy denouncing what they oppose. I think it’s better to be known for what one supports than be defined by what one opposes. That’s what I find so ironic about LAF. That, and the fact that they have the literacy and the luxury of free time to denounce feminism in part because of the sacrifices of women who paid the price, some with their own lives, for women to BE free.
February 11, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Andrea,
(Love your blog title: “Work in Progress” How appropriate for this discussion!)
This whole karma-like aspect of patriarchy disturbs me deeply, too. In discussion of this and the exclusivity/special status of those raised in the “covenant community,” this topic came up with Karen Campbell. I was concerned that it was perhaps a bit too hyperbolic to state that this was really like a form of “spritual eugenics” or passive eugenics. Karen referenced this passage from “Mother Kirk,” (if I remember correctly was used for a Bible study at Peoria Providence Church, long before the McDonalds arrived). I don’t feel a bit bad about calling it spiritual eugenics anymore by the way, something certanly not passive– breed out the undesirables with our godly seed and pray for the destruction of the heathen or anyone who scrapes our iron with their own. According to Wilson, we even have a duty to do so even before “enemies” are ever born. (Are we not all at enmity with God before our conversion?)
I’ve also seen some of the imprecatory email prayers sent to me anonymously (out of concern for my welfare because of the proximety of some of my specific online activities, shall we say) that have come out of that same group, calling for God’s divine wrath to be poured out on people like me. This is very similar to the “cursings” that the Gothardite churches teach when you leave their fellowship, but those are mere warnings and expectation. I don’t think that the Gothardites actually plead with heaven to smite people after they leave.
These emails contained no prayers for truth to be revealed or, according to Jesus’ prayer in Gethesemane, for any desire for us to come together in the unity of the faith through the work of Spirit. There were no cries to heaven to show us how to purify the body of these problems and edify the body of Christ. There was no plea for deception to be removed or for mercy to be shown so that God’s glory could be revealed. It was just about shutting the mouths of those who were deemed wicked — anyone voicing decent. There was no plea for the saving of the lost or for God to change hearts of those beguiled Christians as the Lord turns the paths of the rivers. It was “We are righteous; they are our enemies; God, smite our enemines.”
Does anyone have any good thoughts about imprecatory prayer directed towards individuals or directed towards the lost in any capacity, or especially those prayers directed against other professing Christians?
Getting back to Calvin, I don’t think this is the kind of stuff he intended. More importantly, what does the New Testament say (after when grace was extended to the Gentile)? What did Jesus say? I’ve been called a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and I’ve named a few wolves, but I have never prayed for their destruction or harm. I prayed for their repentence and restoration. I’ve prayed for deception to be revealed and overcome with truth, but not for the harm and destruction but the salvation and deliverance of those who are on the opposite side of an issue. In fact, I pray for their blessing.
Any thoughts? I don’t think that any of this is Christ or Calvin, but rather a new twisting on the fallible ideas of men who applied the Gospel to the circumstances of their own day.
February 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Andrea said: I want so desperately to look at Doug Wilson and have him see the utter absence of grace –of Christlikeness– in his words.
Andrea, I have seen the fruit of Doug Wilson’s theology, and it ain’t pretty. For six years, our children attended a classical Christian school fashioned in Wilson’s image (after his Logos classical school in Idaho.) We ended up pulling our children out because of the ever growing climate of legalism and the disappearance of any warmth, love, or grace. Even though the academics were stellar, I was greatly concerned that if we stayed any longer, it would have done great damage to our kids spiritually and psychologically.
February 11, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“The unbelievers are destroying themselves in a frenzy of child-murder and fruitless sodomy. Let them go. These are hard words. But Christians must learn to say them. Paul taught us that the children of God-haters are “foul” or “unclean” (I Cor 7:14). We must come to the day when the Christian can truly rebuke those who are “without natural affection” and say – “The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them on the rock (Ps 137:9). We see by your pro-abortion position that you clearly agree with this kind of treatment. And we in the Church, in a way you cannot truly comprehend, are now prepared to say amen.””
Cindy K,
Chilling! We are to say “amen” to pro-abortion? As if all the children being aborted are damned souls? I don’t think so. Just like there is NO guarantee that “if we train up our children in the way they should go” that all of our children will all become believers, there is no guarantee that all children who belong to unsaved parents are going to hell.
I was the first Christian in my family and I didn’t become a Christian until I was 23.
It makes me sick to think that we are to say “amen” to those babies being aborted! How do we know if those moms will ever come to know the Lord or if the babies being aborted are part of the elect? We do NOT. Just like we cannot mistakenly believe that all children born to parents who are believers are part of the elect.
God said that Jacob he loved but Esau he hated and both of their parents were part of the Covenant. And God said this BEFORE they were born!
Also, the rest of your post is excellent, too, especially the part about “karma”. So true. Of course we know that bad things happen and it really concerns me when some people automatically cast judgment on the ones that get hit with tragedy. There is something incredibly wrong with individuals who think that way. They are usually also very blind to their own wretchedness and unaware of the fact that they deserve lots of bad things but for the grace of God they do not get them!
I can take Calvin in some areas and leave him in others. It is hard for me to see how men of God justified burning people at the stake or drowning them in mock baptism because they didn’t join the Protestant faith. When I read the accounts of those who died at the hands of religious leaders, I become physically ill. I can’t fathom how the Church or its members could have approved of such a thing and it is apparent to me because of what Scripture says that it was demonically inspired.
And the doctrine of election is found in Scripture and I knew it was there before I ever heard of Calvin. The Gospel of John is where I first came across the concept of election. God, not Calvin, gets the credit for that!
February 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Psalmist,
“The PMs are strangely silent about Paul saying he preferred that all be single, as he was.”
Yes! Strange it is. And I am also against the idea that single women are merely “muffin mixes”. We are complete in Christ and we have our identity in Christ. I have yet to find a verse that tells women they are complete when they get married, although I can find plenty of manmade teachings that say that very thing.
” The LAFs and the PMs have shown clearly what they’re about. If their systems cannot handle dissent, then that only proves the systems’ weakness. Let them spend all their energy denouncing what they oppose. I think it’s better to be known for what one supports than be defined by what one opposes. That’s what I find so ironic about LAF. That, and the fact that they have the literacy and the luxury of free time to denounce feminism in part because of the sacrifices of women who paid the price, some with their own lives, for women to BE free.”
Well said! Their system cannot handle dissent or challenge or questioning nor can it be held up to the light of day. We have leaders in the movement who telling us how to reform our families and we are not allowed to look at their lives any farther than the laminated facade. If we dare scratch beneath the surface we are accused of many things. But, how often would these same people turn around and use the very things that disqualify them from leadership to lambast someone who opposes their false teachings?
Shouldn’t leaders be held to a stricter standard? Shouldn’t image bearers be transparent about their lives?
February 11, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Cindy, I am glad you shared that quote from Wilson. I was in another church, not Providence, when the topic came up and there was a discussion on that quote from Wilson. As I recall, I brought up the quote and was met with some people responding that Wilson was correct. I knew there were several 1st generation Christians in the room and challenged that thinking. I was volunteering at a CPC at the time and took it so personally, not to mention that I am also adopted.
Several years later, Mother Kirk was the book of choice for the men’s Bible study at Providence Church and my husband participated in that study.
We just aren’t VF kind of folk, as Wilson is, and are much more interested in pursuing grace-filled relationships. This was before McDonalds were there so I don’t know where they stand on Wilson’s book, VF, etc.
February 11, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Somebody said this, I think it was Cindy….these people cannot have any meaningful exchange with you if leave the script. How true, how true.
February 11, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Psalmist,
I agree. I think, in a general sense, patriocentrists see things through very pessimistic lenses. No one can do anything without their wisdom, and without their intervention, we would all be left to ourselves. A woman has a double whammy then, because she is naturally given to deception as proven by the fall of man (in their estimation). They also focus on their dissent and critics which also seems pessimistic to me. Grace doesn’t seem to permeate deeply enough into the pessimistic exterior. And then there is pessimism abou the lost, too.
The trouble is that they pull many people into their mindset while waiting for Gamaliel’s process to work all the way through to the end. The collateral damage is very high in many cases as a result of working their traditions of men.
Corrie,
I was reminded of the CREC person that responded to CD Host this past year. He posed some questions to someone affiliated with the CREC (though not speaking on their behalf), and I was just really upset by the comment there under question 2 concerning how a father affects the Christianity of one of his sons. The kid raised in a home that they deem appropriate has an advantage over someone saved in college through campus minsitry? The person responded to my claims that this is a view of prejudice. The person mentions Campus Crusade, so I guess people like Josh McDowell are exception and not the rule? I commented there, and if you read his response (“fat souls”), he never even got what I was saying. The covenant community and the covenant children have more grace.
My story is similar to yours in some ways, as my mom got saved when I was 5 years old. My dad got saved when I was in high school (a Christian one). Is my life our your life any less significant to God than any other? This is comparison, that which Paul said was not wise.
Concerning those who tell us how to REFORM our FAMILIES, I would like to hear their views on imprecatory prayer with full disclosure, along with full disclosure on the rest of their doctrines and on their training and qualifications for ministry. We would enjoy a double standard as they do, if we would grovel and swallow and parrot their doctrines back to them. We don’t, so we get lamblasted with imprecatory prayer, claims that we are liars, feminists and all sorts of other monikers.
Just a quick reminder about the characteristics of Spiritual Abuse per the Watchman Fellowship:
1. Authoritarian (unquestioned submission)
2. Image-conscious
3. Perfectionistic
4. Suppresses Criticism
5. Unbalanced (describes exclusivity and it’s own cultic version of “limited atonement” by claiming that they have special insight and knowledge.)
Hmmm. Sound familiar?
February 11, 2008 at 11:31 pm
thatmom,
So I was almost right on target with your experience with the “Mother Kirk” book. If we were Old Testament “worshipers within the gate,” I could understand some of that, but HALLELUJAH, we are redeemed from the law!
You wrote: Somebody said this, I think it was Cindy….these people cannot have any meaningful exchange with you if leave the script. How true, how true.
I recently read that Cheryl Schatz (www.strivetoenter.com/wim) met up with the Baylys on their blog, and so very few are capable of following THEIR script. Ha! I was also reminded of Carmon Friedrich’s response me for deviating from her script for posting her very simple email on my blog. I wish that I could post her email response to the blog post!
If you don’t agree with them or point out truth, you are condemned. That’s not Calvin and it’s definitely not Jesus. It does sound like the pattern of spiritual abuse, however. Lately, I keep thinking of an example my father used — they are like the kid that owns a baseball and bat, but they won’t let you play ball with them unless they get to be the pitcher and call the rules. That would be a deviation from the script.
(Note that the language of “scripts” originated within the addictions and recovery professional literature.)
February 12, 2008 at 12:36 am
#63.. Amen Cindy G. I am a older single and a christian for 30 years. I know who I have been longing to meet face to face and with whom I co-labor in the spirit. I am my beloved’s and He is mine. I am quite fullfilled thankyou very much.
Good grief the way some of these patriarchs sound marraige can border on idolatry. If being married is THAT important and a woman’s identity is all ‘wrapped up’ in that, I doubt they would be all that ‘wrapped up’ about Jesus. Sounds like He comes in a close second.
February 12, 2008 at 2:31 am
about predestination- then how di i know if i’m saved?
February 12, 2008 at 3:27 am
Debbie (#89), you got me to thinking how they could make an idol out of marriage (and I totally agree with you that some sure seem to). Perhaps it comes from the strange stuff that the VF types are teaching. After all, if a husband is the representative and the priest and mediates between the wife and Christ and is supposed to be as Christ to her (in terms of her submitting to her husband while her husband submits to Christ) and so forth, there’s a pretty big divide between such wives and Christ, don’t you think? Got to go through hubby to get to Christ. It wouldn’t be very difficult to idolize marriage if you don’t have access to Christ EXCEPT through your marriage relationship.
Which, again, kind of leaves us single sorts in a “no-man’s land” (pun intended). Oh, yes…IF you are in the land of Patri, and your father is a godly man, AND you’re still at home with him and have never had a life out on your own, then sure, Dad can be your mediator. But the rest of us: ever notice that we either don’t exist, or are condemned by these people for NOT having godly (or even living) fathers or brothers under whose “headship” we live.
I’m with you. I’m a whole human being, redeemed by Jesus Christ. I’d joyfully embrace marriage if that were in God’s plan for me, but for as long as it’s not, I’ll keep on joyfully walking in unity with Christ my Savior and obeying his will.
February 12, 2008 at 3:31 am
Cindy K, I noticed that too about “scripts.” Best way to derail the script actors is to not follow the script. Freedom in Christ enables us to follow THE Script, which bears little resemblance to the silly little scripts in question.
February 12, 2008 at 3:36 am
Cindy K, I meant to add that I do see and concur with your concern about who’s getting sucked into these patriocentric doctrines before their eyes are opened about the evils of what they’re teaching. I really do think the patrios are getting more and more outrageous in what they’re promoting, and going more public (getting more shameless) about it.
I really meant that THEY would do well to take Gamaliel’s advice concerning those who don’t swallow their nonsense. We’re hardly preventing them from trying to spread it. Their continuing harrangues about those who reject their teachings only undermine their credibility. If WE’RE so wrong, it won’t be long before it will become apparent. I think the shrillness they employ betrays their desperation. We’re just making too much sense and their house of cards is starting to shake in the breeze.
February 12, 2008 at 4:39 am
thatmom said (#76)
“Cally, you know, I was thinking the same thing even as I typed before. I am much more interested in defending that wonderful passage in Ephesians 1 that makes my heart just sing ever time I read it. Can you even imagine that before the world was even spoken into existence, God in His sovereignty, chose us as His own!”
God opened my eyes to His unique love for me when I read that passage (Eph. 1) one day a few years ago. The Holy Spirit transformed my life and my understanding for God’s beautiful love for me as an individual — not as a woman who couldn’t fulfill some role I was struggling in as a wife or mother — but as a child of God. He chose me for Himself, outside of my abilities, or lack thereof, to live up to some standard. My heart also sings when I read that passage, and in fact, that passage is like a heart-beat to me. I’ve shared with so many people, especially women who have struggled with their worth in the site of God that very passage as a seed of hope for them.
I would agree with others here like Cindy K, that Calvin was just a man that others can easily idolize. I actually don’t know much of his works at all. I also don’t know much of Luther’s writings, but I have tasted the grace of God for me as a wretched, undeserving sinner and I pray I never grow “used” to being a child of God — no “frozen chosen” here! My hope is to share with others how God can raise the dead (relationships, embittered lives, dried-up branches, etc.) and create living beauty from ashes.
February 12, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Concerning predestination, if there are folks who “personally want to keep the elect smaller and not see it expand into as large a group as possible”, then that might be a good sign that they’re NOT “in with the in-crowd” when it comes to salvation.
The number one sign of a saved individual is love, the kind of Love that knows its own Father, Who is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
February 12, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Psalmist wrote: I really meant that THEY would do well to take Gamaliel’s advice concerning those who don’t swallow their nonsense. We’re hardly preventing them from trying to spread it.
Psalmist,
Sorry if I implied otherwise in my comment or crossed wires re: what you were saying. I would sit by and let the patriarchs spin their wheels, but if they were an element of influence in ministries I used to support, over the past couple of years, they certainly stepped up their influence and presence. I used to assume that their doctrine was weird enough that no one would buy into it, but sadly, that’s not the case. I used to hear about their weird doctrines at church in San Antonio, in discussions with moms. I half didn’t believe that they were serious or that I understood what they were saying.
I’ve actually made the same argument about them as well, months ago somewhere on another blog. If a ministry were large, secure, truthful, trusting in and dependent on God, Spirit-led, etc. care one iota about what one disgruntled person had to say. And from their stated, low opinion of this person, why would they care? You only intimidate the weak. But apparently, they employ more than one person to surf the web all day, looking for references to their group. Typical paranoia of a spiritually abusive/cultic system…
Cynthia Gee wrote: The number one sign of a saved individual is love, the kind of Love that knows its own Father, Who is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
HALLELUJIA and AMEN!
February 12, 2008 at 4:20 pm
oooops!
Correction of #96
If a minsitry were large, secure, etc. WHY WOULD THEY CARE if…
I was distracted by my cats, ripping through the living room like a herd of wild elephants!
February 12, 2008 at 6:24 pm
LOL re: your herd, Cindy. I have a two-cat herd who were doing the same thing not long ago!
February 12, 2008 at 7:22 pm
“about predestination- then how di i know if i’m saved?”
Lady Helen, There are saints in heaven who did not believe in election. I attend Bible study with a mix of people who believe in predestination and those who don’t. We love each other dearly.
But to help with how do I know I am saved…
Study Ezekial 36 and 1 John.
He gives us a ‘new heart’, He cleanses you (convicts you of sin), separates you (from the worldliness not from the ‘world’ although you look at it totally different)
This can look like death to the worldly. It can be dangerous at this point to think you are being ‘punished’ when in fact, you are being sanctified.
In 1 John we have a way to ‘examine’ ourselves to see if we are in the faith. ‘Walking’ in the Light denotes a lifestyle of sorts.
I heard one itinerant pastor put it well: Our relationship to sin changes. The sin that once did not bother us much, now breaks us and we are in repentance daily. We are being changed and molded. We love what God loves and hate what God hates.
Of course, all of this takes time. But the point is, we are totally different and everyone can tell. And some, even professing Christians, will not like it at all. But, He did not come to bring peace and we follow only Him.
Grace to you!
February 12, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Carol, I agree totally that Calvin is not a hill to die on. But, we cannot get away from facts that he was a Patriarch in behavior and in teaching.
If you are ever interested in learning more try a couple of books:
Stepchildren of the Reformation by Leonard Verduin written in the 1950’s. He was given a grant by the Calvin Institute to research and write this book. the problem was that until the early 1900’s quite a few writings and official documents were not available for research. AFter the fall of quite a few monarchy’s after the turn of the century, these archives slowly opened up as the state church was dying out….but then we had 2 world wars. Finally in the late 40’s and early 50’s these documents became available for research. It also helped that so many Americans were in Europe at the time going through archives from the Reformation period that had never been public.
Many of the records affirmed what was written in Martyrs Mirror which the Reformed church dismissed as lies. It wasn’t.
Mr. Verduin read Calvin’s letters, etc. It would be good to have a German/English dictionary because many of the letters are quoted in German. I have a good friend who translated them for me.
He also gives every single source for every single fact he mentions. And Mr. Verduin is of the Reformed Church and taught at a Reformed seminary. He had no agenda except truth.
I say all of this to just make a point that we must be careful not to follow men but to test everything we are taught as the Bereans do. We have ONE teacher and that is Christ through the Word illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
Grace and Peace!
February 19, 2008 at 3:58 pm
From the Botkin interview with Stacy McDonald:
Stacy: Are you ever concerned that by being at home you are potentially missing out on “opportunities” or other “good experiences?”
Botkin Sisters: Not a chance! Now, we should probably state that we did not choose this life based on the “experiences” and “opportunities” it would offer us. It’s bad epistemology to build our orthopraxy (the practical application of our orthodoxy) on the foundation of pragmatism.
Could someone interpret this for me?
February 19, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
Orthopraxy is a term derived from Greek meaning “correct practice” (orthodoxy means “correct belief”), and refers to emphasis on religious ritual as opposed to faith or grace.
Typically, primitive religions such as paganism, animism, etc stress orthopraxy, or correct performance of ritual, whereas Christianity stresses orthodoxy, or correct belief.
Pragmatism is either,
A.) A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
OR
B.)A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
So, I guess they are saying that philosophically speaking, it’s poor policy to base one’s works-based religious practices upon practicality and commonsense.
Given what we’ve seen out of the Movement so far, that’s not too too far off the mark.
February 20, 2008 at 12:19 am
“So, I guess they are saying that philosophically speaking, it’s poor policy to base one’s works-based religious practices upon practicality and commonsense.”
I do not agree with much of what the Botkins write about anything, but this was a terribly unfair and unkind statement to make. It is a deliberate twisting of their words to make them look foolish.
When Christians say that they do not choose how to act out their faith on the basis of “pragmatism,” they are merely saying that they are basing it, rather, on what they believe to be true doctrine, regardless of whether or not others see missed opportunities and experiences.
It’s similar to saying that one opposes abortion or infanticide, not on the basis of pragmatism, but on the basis of deeply held principles.
Can’t we at least try to give the appearance of trying to be fair? Don’t we gripe when they twist things this way? Sauce for the goose and all that?
February 20, 2008 at 12:23 am
Logically, if the way the Botkins have chosen to live is based on principle, and not on pragmatism, then it is the principle that is open to evaluation. It is a logical fallacy to point to possible missed opportunities as arguments against the principle, just as it is a logical fallacy to point to possible benefits and “blessings.”
Both sides engage this fallacy constantly.
February 20, 2008 at 3:40 am
Oh all right…
You’re right, I was being snarky… and for what it’s worth, I’m sorry.
But Mike….how would you translate that quote?
February 21, 2008 at 4:21 am
“But Mike….how would you translate that quote?”
Here it is, again: “Now, we should probably state that we did not choose this life based on the “experiences” and “opportunities” it would offer us. It’s bad epistemology to build our orthopraxy (the practical application of our orthodoxy) on the foundation of pragmatism.”
First off, it seems a little overblown to use all those big words, but I’ve been around folks who do that a lot, and while it is somewhat annoying, it is not always deliberate. I, myself, have always endeavored to avoid obfuscatory persiflage. LOL!
Second — it seems to be saying what I already mentioned above — that they do not base “how” they live their beliefs on any theoretical or hypothetical outcome or alternative, but on what they consider to be sound doctrine.
My example of abortion still seems to be good analogy. Most of those who are strongly active in the “pro-life” movement are “pro-life” for doctrinal and religious reasons, regardless of any theoretical outcomes of the decision. They may make many of their arguments on the basis of the theoretical outcomes, but the foundational reasons for their activism are doctrinal.
The Botkin sisters are merely saying, “We did not choose to live this way because it gives us great ‘opportunities.’ We choose to live this way because we really believe this is “God’s way” to live — regardless of whether or not it gives us any ‘opportunities.’”
This puts the argument where it belongs — on the foundations of their beliefs, instead of on the details of how they live. If it can be shown that the way they live IS a good and necessary consequence of biblical teaching, then all the alternative theoretical outcomes in the world will not alter that fact. OTOH, if it can be shown that the way they live is NOT a good and necessary outcome of biblical teaching, then all the positive outcomes of living that way will not support their case. Then it just becomes another pragmatic course, like so many others.
Some believe that pragmatism can be used as a basis for how we live. Others believe that that approach is a compromise to “worldliness” and they choose their course of life on the basis of “a priori” principles. It’s the principles that are in question, not the competing claims about pragmatic outcomes.
This is why you will never get anywhere arguing with people like this over outcomes or theoretical opportunities — or lost opportunities. As long as they believe they are living as God has commanded, they will not be moved by all the horror stories and bad examples you provide. They will only be moved by principle.
Now — it took me much longer to explain that one statement of the Botkins than it should have. I do believe I understand what they were saying, but I think it would have been better for them to provide the clarity themselves. However, even with the lack of clarity, it is still wrong for us to jump to bad conclusions and paint their comments in the most negative light — which seems to happen almost automatically with just about everything they say.
Once again — I am not a believer in the kind of lifestyle they advocate, nor do I accept their claims about the biblical foundations of such a lifestyle. I just think that many who oppose them tend to use the worst logical fallacies and paint them in the worst possible light almost reflexively.
February 21, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Mike says
“Second — it seems to be saying what I already mentioned above — that they do not base “how” they live their beliefs on any theoretical or hypothetical outcome or alternative, but on what they consider to be sound doctrine.
The Botkin sisters are merely saying, “We did not choose to live this way because it gives us great ‘opportunities.’ We choose to live this way because we really believe this is “God’s way” to live — regardless of whether or not it gives us any ‘opportunities.’””
Mike, have you see their film? You know, I might be able to buy what you are saying if….it were true. However, the entire film is based on the benefits they perceive of living the life of visionary daughters. The only explanation of Scripture comes in one of the features where Doug Phillips and Mr. Botkin explain that Numbers 30 is the basis for their entire lifestyle teachings and they use the presuppositional approach to teaching it rather than any proper exegesis of that passage.
As much as I wish you were correct, I am sorry to tell you that you are way off base.
For the record, I have no interest in arguing or debating those who teach these things. I only hope to point out the fact that their teachings are inconsistent with what the Bible actually says and that their choices are just that, their choices, for good or for ill. The reason they present nothing in a clear manner is that this movement must hide behind confusion and mystery and hyperbole in order to sell their lifestyle choices and products.
February 22, 2008 at 5:10 am
Thatmom, you are only telling me what I already stated. They continue to make arguments on the basis of pragmatism, even though they claim that their decision to live the way they live is not based on pragmatic concerns.
I believe I am right about what they SAID in answer to the question. You are also right that their other arguments put the lie to that claim. But I was asked to translate what they SAID in that one argument. Even if we agree that it doesn’t square with what else they say, that has no bearing on the fact that they do make the claim.
In THAT ANSWER, they are claiming to base their decisions concerning how to live on principle and not on pragmatism. Whether they live up to that claim or not is another question entirely. I agree with you that they do not.
February 22, 2008 at 6:19 am
Here’s an opinion of what I think is going on here.
The online comments made by the Botkins, aside from being a bit condescending to Americans raised in America, strikes me as pretty reasonable. It is not reflective of the stranger doctrines such as this need for of co-redeemer for all females in the person of a father or husband.
I think that Cynthia Gee’s origninal statement was pretty reasonable, save for the inserted sarcastic modifier of “works-based.” (That didn’t bother me however, as this is what makes Cynthia so endearing — her passionate responses and defense of her own faith.) Remove that sarcasm, and I would venture that the Botkin girls themselves would agree that this is a fair and accurate reflection of exactly what they intended to say. In fact, this is good advice for all Christians. We should not sell out our Christian beliefs for pragmatism. So as an axiom, this is good advice, even though we differ on how all of that translates into reality.
And as certain eyes roll, let me say that I did get a couple of emails asking me what I thought about this comment. Here’s my two cents, if anyone is interested.
I believe that people are confused at Mike’s response to Cynthia Gee’s comment because it seems out of proportion to what was intially written. I clearly understand Mike’s concern about avoiding the tactics of those who criticize those who find fault with the doctrines and practices of patriarchy, too. (Remember the hyperbolic, seemingly logical rhetoric that quickly descended into illogical banter when Phillips responded to Don Veinot in the “tale bearer” blog post, complete with a picture of who I think was either John Knox or Calvin???)
Mikes comment came across to me as so disproportionate, whether or not that is what he intended, so I think people misunderstood and found it confusing.
I could, however, be entirely wrong.
February 22, 2008 at 8:01 am
For what it’s worth, I *heard* Mike and nodded my head as I read his explanation…
The Botkin sisters are merely saying, “We did not choose to live this way because it gives us great ‘opportunities.’ We choose to live this way because we really believe this is “God’s way” to live — regardless of whether or not it gives us any ‘opportunities.’”
I think Mike’s dead on, and he describes exactly what I was doing when I was in the bowels of patriarchy: even though it generally *felt* wrong and seemed to be scrunching me into an ever-tighter box, the issue for me WAS NOT whether or not I *felt* good about it and/or felt liberated: the issue was whether or not I was obeying God.
And because I believed that God mandated the tight little box of patriarchal “Biblical Womanhood,” well…? There I sat, smiling through the pain, in my tight little box—because following God is worth it, even when it hurts.
I still believe that following God is worth it, even when it hurts, by the way. I just no longer believe that the patriarchs version (of what following looks like) is the correct path to follow.
The correct path is not a movement, not a book, not a “ministry,” not ANYTHING but Christ. He’s the Way, who came to set captives free, not to bind them tighter.
February 22, 2008 at 11:03 am
So, Mike, you are saying that the Botkins’ message to young women and their families is different than what they are saying verbally?
February 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Mikes comment came across to me as so disproportionate, whether or not that is what he intended, so I think people misunderstood and found it confusing.”
Actually, I don’t think that Mike’s comment was disproportionate — I WAS being deliberately snarky, or sarcastic, or whatever you would call it, and that’s neither nice nor logical.
But while my motives were wrong, I do think that my statement was correct.
The hyperPs stress orthopraxy over orthodoxy, in that they appear to follow a works-based religious system (really, their own version of the Mosaic Law) where lifestyle and the activities of day-to day living are elevated almost to the status of religious ritual, and virtue is measured by how well people measure up to certain idealized Standards of human existance, standards which the Bible does NOT spell out as being sin and non-sin issues, but which are based on extrapolation.
That the HyperP’s religious system is not based on pragmatism is not all that surprising, nor is it bad in itself — even honest, orthodox Christianity is not based upon pragmatism (1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty)– but this cultic movement has in many cases also left behind charity, mercy, and the Bible’s standards in its quest for normative perfection, hence the judgmentalism exhibited against women who are barren, or people who are single, or people who for any other reason cannot measure up to the Law of the Norms.
February 22, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“So, Mike, you are saying that the Botkins’ message to young women and their families is different than what they are saying verbally?”
No. I’m saying that that one statement of theirs was not what Cynthia said it was. In addition, I opined that that one statement of theirs appears to be inconsistent with their overall argument, since their overall argument is full of appeals to pragmatism.
February 22, 2008 at 7:48 pm
“…. I opined that that one statement of theirs appears to be inconsistent with their overall argument, since their overall argument is full of appeals to pragmatism.”
An interesting statement, Mike. Could you elaborate on that?
February 22, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Anyone hear of Lilias Trotter?
Could she be added to the the patriocentric Hall of Shame along with Amy Carmichael and Gladys Aylward and Mary Slessor? She seems like another one of those monstrous women who never married and who were non-normative and dared to follow God, first and foremost all the while forsaking their calling and purpose in life to be a wife and mother, which is the only reason why women were created in the first place. A woman cannot find true fulfillment in anything, not even in following God onto the mission field, but being a wife, mother or “keeper at home”. Women do not have a calling and purpose of their own, only men do. Women have one calling and purpose and her male “authority” or nearest male relative gets to define how she carries out her one calling and purpose.
She was a missionary for 38 years in Algeria to the Muslims and she was an artist (Ruskin, art critic, was under the impression that women could not draw or paint decently because they were not “right-minded” enough until he saw Lilias’ work). She gave up an art career to serve God.
“Appreciation of her talent by so famous a man would have been too sore a temptation had not the “love of One that is stronger” reached out and touched her heart. The die was cast. Turning her back upon a future so bright with promise, she summed up her decision thus: “I see as clear as daylight now I cannot give myself to painting in the way he (John Ruskin) means and continue still ‘to seek . . . first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.’””
http://www.kingsleypress.com/previews/lilias_trotter.php
It seems to me that Lilias would be one of those women who unwittingly played the harlot, according to the Botkin girls, because her feet did not keep IN the home.
On another note, I didn’t understand the disagreement that Mike had with Cynthia’s original statement but after everyone has spoken about it and Cynthia and Mike fleshed out their thoughts, I understand.
I agree with Mike that the bulk of their work is based on pragmatism even though they claim they are not making their choices to live their life as true biblical women according to pragmatism.
I also agree with Cynthia’s assessment that the patriarchal lifestyle appears to be based on works that are performed as part of a certain lifestyle which is elevated above the scriptures and if anyone differs from their chosen, manmade philosophical stance on *the* lifestyle, they are given a lower rank and status and scriptures are twisted in order to label them as being outside of the will of God and “non-normative”. Even worse is their labeling of women who do not live as they live as “unwittingly playing the harlot” because their feet do not keep at home. Then they go on to judge many amazing women of God who followed God’s CALLING on their *own* lives because they did not choose to live as they do.
The lifestyle paradigm that the Botkins and others push is considered the ONLY option for Christians.
Passionate Housewives may say they don’t expect others to live like them but when push comes to shove, they certainly DO expect others to live like them, especially when you examine the nitpicking of women in their very book who do not live like they do. And, they wholeheartedly support the Botkins and their writings.
Maybe I am just extremely illiterate but I don’t see them giving anyone the room to live differently than they prescribe and proscribe based on what they have written and the attitudes they have towards the very women who dared to live differently.
In my opinion, patriocentricity is rooted in pragmatism and that is why I find the irony in their statements to the contrast to be very comical.
February 22, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Should be “to the contrary”.
February 22, 2008 at 9:25 pm
So it seems that everyone is saying the same thing in their own vernacular. It just took a couple of comments to elucidate the point.
Again, I don’t think that anyone ever doubts the earnest with which people follow patriarchy or earnest of their intent in doing so. Surely, no one would follow that version of living in this day and age without the ideological pinnings and the message that so doing represents the highest, best and possibly only acceptable way of serving God today. As Molly described, people practice patriarchy because they come to believe that not to follow the “plan” is willfully choosing to disobey God. What committed Christian, when faced with that ultimatum, will choose otherwise? The weakness in patriarchy is not in devotion or in capitulating to pragmatism for most of those in the movement. Most people in it are spitting back what they’ve been taught by others, relying on someone else’s discernment, interpretation and application of the Word. Particularly of these young girls, I don’t think that anyone attributes deceit to them as they are diligently following the model of conduct and belief that they were given. (That should add to the esteem and integrity of the girls.) They are clearly ladies of principle. The problem is with the cogency of the principle.
If you believe that patriarchy is as 100% Biblical as any system of belief and code of conduct can impart today, then following that view is certainly not pragmatic but is based on principle. People like us object to the fact that what they are selling is far more pragmatic than the evangelists of patriarchy would care to admit.
Take, for instance, all this women’s suffrage business. It comes from pragmatic tradition and not from the Bible. (I’m sure that those who defer and surrender their critical thinking skills to the patriarchy evangelists believe that careful review of the Bible indicates that women should not vote.) But does it?
They draw from traditions of male hegemony. Phillips, in the intro to his booklet of Dabney quotes states that Dabney saw the “feminism” of his own day and the woman’s suffrage movement as, basically, as the causative factor producing our current decline in Western civilization. This is rhetorical and drawn from the ideology of the Confederacy, something feared as a change that accompanied the industrial revolution that threatened agrarian society. (And in some of the confederate literature, the agrarians maintain that it impossible to live the Christian life effectively outside of an agrarian lifestyle.) So this is 100% tradition in Biblical clothing.
Then, they appeal to the writings of Calvin and an interpretation of his “spheres” of dominion, stating that it is expressly Biblical for a woman to function only within the sphere of the home. Voting would be activity in the civil sphere, in which woman is not to be unless she is “covered” by her husband. That is not in the Bible, but it merely built upon Calvin’s work. The Scripture offered is that a woman should learn in quiet subjection…. And no other, despite the fact that this verse was discussing a particular woman who was propagating false doctrine in the church.
Then we go on to the next pragmatic argument that women should not vote because it divides the family. What if each spouse in a marriage votes for the same person? How is that causing division? Because the patriarch cannot invade the privacy that the state demands via anonymous voting practice? Young women who are of age are not to vote, as I guess this is another potential means of dividing the family? Why could not all parties be impressed upon to vote for the father’s visionary candidate and then be trusted to do so, based on their own integrity?
All these defenses are pragmatic, defending the hallowed words of RL Dabney. Lin pointed out to me that many of these practices are not even Biblical but come from the paterfamilias and the Hellenistic pagan writings of Aristotle and others in his “Book I of Politics” and similar writings about household conduct. Michael Kruse discusses these, but at least, he is honest about where the codes came from.
So, the principle of women refraining from voting comes from pragmatic arguments of history and perhaps out of duty to the writings of people like Dabney, all mixed in with the nature of man and the desire for power and control. They certainly do formulate well-constructed and defined principles, but these are not Biblical. And I am not an “open theist” for stating such!
February 22, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I stated that this is 100% tradition in Biblical clothing. Well, maybe about 80%…
I expect to meet Dabney in heaven and it is abundantly clear that he was an admirable Christian apart from the issues of racism and slavery. But he held to the Southern, Agrarian views of his day and his homeland, just like we hold to our particular beliefs today. Man looks to the outward things, but God knows our hearts. There was clearly abundant good fruit that flowed from other areas of Dabney’s life. It is in following Dabney over the Word that things destabilize.
So there is definitely Biblical material in what Dabney had to say, but on certain subjects, there was as much of Dabney in them or more than there was Bible.
This is why it is the duty of every Christian to study and follow the Word of God above the writings and the traditions of any man. We all get something wrong in the translation, and we loose the perspective of the time in which things were written. We can never affort to surrender to the views of others without being Bereans ourselves.
February 22, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Yeah, Corrie. I should have waited ten minutes to start my response here and saved myself the trouble!
February 22, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I just peeked over at Visionary Daughters, and I noticed the question “Were you brought up in a certain commmunity of homeschoolers?” or something of that effect.
I think a better question might be to ask what literature and which authors did their parents rely upon in order to train them? Did Mom and Dad Botkin read Michael Farris and the Pearls before Doug Phillips was around? Were they IBLP graduates? What influences and “visionaries” did their parents admire?
February 22, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Personally, I wonder what Mom and Dad Botkins were like as youngsters, and how they happened to get involved in the movement.
A lot of HyperP types became parents in the mid 80’s, and got caught up in the movement as part of a totally understandable effort to shield their kids from the less savory elements in our culture.
A few appear to have taken this to extremes — for them, their children became extensions of themselves, in their efforts to make everything in their surroundings conform to their “vision”.
February 23, 2008 at 4:40 am
Another monstrously non-normative woman would be Jane Austin.
Here is a description of her from Wiki:
“Jane Austen (16 December 1775 – 18 July 1817) was a British novelist whose realism, biting social commentary, and masterful use of free indirect speech, burlesque, and irony have earned her a place as one of the most widely-read and best-loved writers in British literature.”
Talk about irony! The woman who wrote the novels that the “normative” model themselves after!
She never married, turned down an engagement and wrote books which was scandalous for women of that day and age. And I mean scandalous. Again, irony abounds. Now the normative women are freely writing books and who should they thank? The very women who they look down upon as non-normative and not fulfilling their very purpose as a woman- being a wife and mother and working to further the calling of God on one man’s life, since God has no individual calling apart from father/husband on a woman’s life.
My girls and I watched “Becoming Jane” tonight and I would highly recommend the movie.
I wonder how many non-normative women it will take to make the patriocentrists sit up and take notice that maybe they are wrong about their views on the subject of women? How many non-normative women does it take for people to realize that these women are NOT non-normative at all but they are making choices that are well within the bounds of Scripture? IOW, they are normative and that God has a calling on EACH of His children’s lives.
It is ironic to me that some of the patriocentrists are leaders when they would have been disqualified from any sort of leadership only 100 years ago because of their history. What was highly scandalous then is now winked at now. What would have forced one to live a quiet life in the country then is merely a blip on the radar screen now.
How is it that the patriocentrists can change the rules as they go along? How did these rules change and what makes some changes allowable but not others? Why are they not following the same “Christian decorum” that was enforced in Jane Austin’s day when they so highly exalt Jane Austin and her novels?
February 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Hi Corrie
You make some great points about Jane Austen, butI’m not surprised at all that the patriarchal crowd really love Jane Austen books! She describes a society in which a stultifying social etiquette passed as morality. Infractions within that society are based upon an ignorance of tight-knit group norms known only to the very top of the hierarchy. Often in the novels the main characters are scornful towards those who have no idea they are breaking the norms…he, he, he I’m not a big Jane Austen fan and had to teach her for years…Oh, and you’re right her decision to write was done only if she could be protected by using a male pseudonym…and although she chose to live outside of the social norms she portrayed she was hardly critical of it. She was only critical of its fashions.
February 23, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Mrs. N,
You wrote: I’m not a big Jane Austen fan and had to teach her for years…
I’m so glad to hear that I am not the only Evangelical Christian in this era who does not like reading Jane Austen. I absolutely hated when the topic came up at the Gothardite/Shepherding/Discipleship church because it seemed to be a requirement to LOVE her writings. I do have a copy of Pride and Prejudice on DVD that I bought when the price dropped, but I did not like the book much at all.
My very sanguine mother talked about how depressing Jane Eyre was and discouraged me from reading that book in particular and from any Austen. She wasn’t all that thrilled about me reading Dickens, either. I was so tender hearted that she constantly feared that I would become more depressive and did all she could to down play my melancholy temperment anyway. She also did not like me to dwell upon what she viewed as powerlessness in the Austen characters, and her own mother HATED the books, too.
So I’m monstrous from both directions, having been discouraged from reading Austen, but also for not liking her.
My dearest girlfriend loves Austen, and when her marriage suffered some serious trouble, she realized that she was in love with the fantasy of having her husband be like Austen’s wonderful knights in shining armor, coming to provide and protect. It was intersting, because she realized that she had to give up the fantasy and the anger over her husband’s falling so desperately short of the Austen standard of happy endings. It was amazing, because she never saw the themes of rescue and redemption that pervade some of the novels. She was then challenged to reassign that desire to the Lover of her Soul, looking to Jesus to save rather than the continual disappointment of looking to her husband to fulfill these needs.
But you, Mrs. N, are the first person in these circles that I’ve encountered that actually admits not liking the books.
February 23, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Hi Cindy
Let’s form the “Anti-Jane Austen Book Club”! He, he, he. Formed for the depreciation of Jane Austen throughout the blogosphere.
I can understand why women do like her, the books are the prototype to all generic women’s romances, and of course, being Georgian they have no sexual content. I think however, you can read the books on many levels. First, like your friend, as good clean romance. And yes, we tend to look upon our husbands as romantic failures compared to the average Austen hero, so this reading has its difficulties. Secondly, as social comedies and dramas, a merry critique on “good” and “bad” manners. Thirdly, as a historical source on the behaviours of the very elite in a society riddled with inequality…and unlike Dickens or Gaskell, Jane Austen offered no critique…
Oh, I feel like I’m being a bit hard on poor old Jane now. But she’s not my cup of tea and I’m venting my literary spleen! Thank you ladies for allowing my slightly off topic rant!
PS. Give me “Jane Eyre” (now there’s a good Christian gel with spirit) any day!
February 23, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Hi again Cindy
Oh, I’ve just noticed your mum didn’t like “Jane Eyre”. She’s right, the beginning of the book is very depressing, particularly the terrible abuses she went through at her “Christian” school. However, Bronte faced a lot of criticism over her portrayal of Christians in her book. She was the daughter of an Anglican clergyman and she retorted that her critique wasn’t of religion but of self-righteousness, that she wasn’t criticising morality but blind conformity. It’s a phrase I’ve always liked.
February 23, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I love Jane Austin. Her characters are delicious. YOu can almost see her poking fun at the stereotypes of her time. One of her less known books is Persuasion. It is my favorite. She reverses the standard and makes the heroine rich who fell in love with a commoner. The commoner comes back a wealthy man from his war exploits but he is still a commoner.
Jane was also a clergyman’s daughter. But you know, when you have a state church and ministry is a ‘profession’, you are going to attract lots of fools who live off the benevolence of rich patrons. (Mr Collins!) Such was the Church of England at the time.
February 23, 2008 at 10:51 pm
OK, I am finally delurking after following through all six threads of this. Thank you all, thank you! I don’t idolise you all and what all you’ve said, (nor would you want me to) but it has been VERY helpful to me, as I see this book So Much More, and connected ideas growing so popular, and the influence existing in my own neighborhood and churches I’ve been to. I am so glad that there is more for me than just believing whatever I’m fed or come across. So glad.
I am not crazy about Jane Austen either, and don’t understand why so many are. I enjoy her sometimes, but her writing doesn’t seem to deal with really deep themes, and each book is centered on a romance (unless you count Lady Susan as centered on an evil woman getting her comeuppance). To Jane’s credit, she doesn’t give us boy-crazy heroines, they are strong willed and independant. But I think that a lot of women who think that a man would fulfill all their dreams USE the books for fueling fantasies, ect. I agree about Jane Eyre, she’s awesome, the book deals deeply with Christianity, both true and false, and it still would be a great story if she hadn’t ended up with Mr. Rochester in the end. I loved what you told us about Bronte’s response to criticism, Mrs. N.
February 26, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Alas, when I finally jump in, the conversation looks to have finally stopped. Oh, well.
February 26, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Beatrice…come jump in on the Prairie Muffin Manifesto thread- it’s kind of a continuation of this thread- and I was just talking about Jane Austen, LOL! Great minds think alike.
February 26, 2008 at 11:41 pm
“The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news.”"
Ba dum dum……
Isn’t this exactly what females are to aspire to? Isn’t that the business of a female’s life as taught by the hyper-patriarchalists?
To get married is what a woman was born for. Maybe they just do not understand irony in literature?
February 28, 2008 at 11:30 am
Hi, I too am finally delurking having followed these conversations from across the Atlantic for some time now, and also having looked at all the VF/LAF/Biblical Womanhood stuff.
Am I wrong in thinking that if you go back to what Christ actually said, it runs something like ‘You should love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength, and you should love your neighbour as yourself and in these two commandments are all the law and all the prophets’? If you follow that with all your soul and all your strength, does it matter if you wear a modest dress, or modest trousers? (I’m all for modesty, however)(And sorry, we don’t call them pants in the UK: pants are what men wear underneath: I simply cannot refer to myself wearing pants
)
Most of the VF stuff seems to come from St Paul, and St Paul held the Greek idea that the best fame for an (Athenian) woman of good repute was that her name should never be spoken outside her house. Good Greek women bore children, often being married from the age of twelve, wove wool, looked after their houses, and shut up. They didn’t even, like the Proverbs woman, run estates or have vineyards. That’s why when the Greek comedian Aristophanes wrote a comedy satirising the warmongering of Greek men, he had the women ‘punish’ them by withdrawing their labours – it was the most outrageous thing he could think of – and also very funny, though I don’t want to offend sensibilities by going into all the results of their rebellion.
But when I read this, and some of the VF stuff I’m really hurt by the lack of loving-kindnes (agape in Greek) they show. God surely doesn’t teach us to vilify people who think the wrong way? His ministry was to the despised and rejected, the harlots, tax-collectors and sinners.
We all sin – and who was it said judge not lest ye be judged? I agree with French mathematician, physicist, and theologian Blaise Pascal wrote, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.”
As far as the Jane Austen discussion goes – Austen was profoundly ironic – but that obviously doesn’t translate to those who see only the prettily dressed ‘Keepers at Home’ For those of you who love Austen, try the website ‘Pemberley.com’ which hosts discussions. For those who don’t . . . she does go deep – just have another look (Total Austen fan pleading here!)
I like this website – can’t imagine my views getting a hearing let alone being welcome on VF or similar. It is such a shame that people who want to try to be Christians see so much unkindness and legalism about it on the web. I think you provide a much needed balance.
February 28, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Hi Joanna,
I really resonated with your words on the greatest Commandments, and trousers, and Jesus coming to seek the really really really messed up. I would write more, but I’m not in that writing mood at the moment.
And I hope I didn’t sound like I was criticising Jane Austen hersef, or all Jane Austen fans … I do think I wasn’t wired to love her books myself, and that there are good things in them.
I just wanted to note that if you’re talking about the Apostle Paul, he was not Greek at all, but Jewish, and even if he had had wacked-out Greek ideas, God would never have let him spiel them out in Holy Scripture. I’m not wanting into an argument by any means, I just felt I should note what I believed about that for honesty’s sake.
February 28, 2008 at 4:23 pm
No, that’s cool, no argument – I know he wasn’t Greek. Those ideas were prevalent across the Mediterranean region – part of the culture. You and I may not be coming from the same place on the inerrancy of the Bible I guess, however I hope – no maybe that’s too presumptuous of me – perhaps you would say that we both serve the same Master. You didn’t sound critical of Dear Jane at all – we all have likes and dislikes, and one may objectively recognise a book as a worthy piece of literature, and subjectively loathe it. I still find this blog an interesting place to lurk tho’ – good, high levels of honest discourse
February 29, 2008 at 2:10 am
I’m really hurt by the lack of loving-kindnes (agape in Greek) they show. God surely doesn’t teach us to vilify people who think the wrong way? His ministry was to the despised and rejected, the harlots, tax-collectors and sinners.
This is something that deeply disturbs me about VF and many of the patriarch kinda groups I’ve read much on – this lack of compassion and/or outright attacking those who parallel the ones Christ hung out with, defended, and clearly loved.
The other thing that particularly bothers me is the isolationism – keeping the girls home is the most extreme form of it, but from what I can tell isolationism is the way to go for all ages and both sexes. Very much a “we only hang out with those like us” kind of approach, and not just a habit of laziness but of conviction. How is that a Christian concept? There have been a lot of Christian groups over the years that have embraced it and I’ve never gotten that one. Christians are supposed to be in the world but not of it, I always thought. The salt is scattered through out or all over what it preserves, not all tucked up hiding on one spot.
March 2, 2008 at 12:25 am
Dear Joanna, about us serving the same Master, I am rather confused right now about exactly what a real believer must believe so that is kind of a can of worms for me right now. I will say that I would love to think so, and I mean that.
But the Bible is how we know of Christ in the first place … and if it is not perfect, then how are we supposed to know what is true and what isn’t? Where does one draw the line? Is anything in Christian belief safe from us then, since we give ourselves that potential basis to reject it? If God has really spoken to humanity, shouldn’t we hang on those words? I have to choose to believe God rather than my own understanding of things … though my own understanding by no means all dies, because that’s something I used to come to that very conclusion and it’s what I use to try and dig into the Scripture. I don’t feel like I am articulating this very well … and I don’t want to squelch any dialogue, (like you, I really enjoy how this blog allows the ideas and discussion to flow) but I am rather young and just not competent to go into a deep discussion of this. I’m sure there’s a lot of things I’d miss.
Yeah, I know what you mean about believing a book is good, and not liking it! Not that I feel that way about Jane Austen, like I said I do enjoy her just a little bit at times, but I’m not a huge fan.
March 2, 2008 at 6:27 am
Beatrice, I fervently believe the Bible IS true. It is also our responsibility to study it, and that’s a lifelong endeavor. There will always be something fresh revealed when we allow the Holy Spirit to teach us, either in our private reading or in fellowship with other believers with reliable, humble teachers.
Just because we take into account a very different world in which the sacred words were written, doesn’t mean we (who do that) are claiming there’s anything less true about the words. The words simply intersect the real life we live in a somewhat different way than they would have for those who first read and heard them.
Take, for instance, a society that secluded women (which was the case for Greco-Roman–Gentile–women of the first century). Paul addressed converts who had to figure out what to do with the greater freedom that they had in Christ, over and against the very restricted life their society demanded of them. We, on the other hand, live in a very (probably overly) free society. That same freedom in Christ is going to intersect with our lives very differently. It will likely mean that we have MORE restrictions (as in, more responsibility to exercise our freedom in a respectable manner) than society imposes on us (it’s so “anything goes” compared to a decent, modest lifestyle).
Does that mean we are obligated to recreate the restrictions of the first century Greco-Roman world? No, of course not. But we do have the same responsibility to figure out with God’s and the Christian community’s help, how to exercise our freedom in Christ with decorum and respect for others.
Learning what the first readers and hearers of the Scriptures faced in their world, gives us valuable insights into what the writers were saying to them. It will also help prevent us from making surface-level errors in interpreting what they say to us today.
March 2, 2008 at 7:06 am
I would add this, about what a real believer must believe:
According to Jesus Christ, it all revolved around love. First of all, when we read “believe in” in the New Testament, it involves putting our trust in, not just thinking exactly the right thing. It’s more active than that. So Jesus gives us maybe the most basic thing to believe/trust in: “God loved the world this much: he gave his only Son, so that those who trust (believe) in him may not die, but have life forever (John 3:16). Jesus accomplished this for us. So when we say “Jesus is Lord” (as in, Jesus is the ruler of my life — 1 Corinthians 12:4), it means that we accept that love of God for us, now giving control of our lives to Jesus; we don’t try to be the owners of ourselves anymore. We become a part of what Jesus has already accomplished for us.
So how do we live in that new way? Again, it’s about love, this time, our love for God. Jesus, in quoting the ancient Law, said that we are to love God with our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as ourself. (Luke 36-40) He said that if we do this, we are also fulfilling all the law of God.
There are plenty of other important things to believe/trust in, such as God’s constant presence with us in the Holy Spirit, the basic truth of the good news (gospel) of Christ. There are a number of places where this truth is summarized. I happen to be focused on Colossians 1:15-23 right now:
“He [Christ Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for hin him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers–all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn fromt he dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwel, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
“And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him–provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you have heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul, becamse a servant of this gospel.”
I believe it all, always, comes back to trusting in Jesus. As he told his closest followers the night before he died on the cross, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6b-7) What’s the right way to believe? Jesus is the way. How do we know what’s true? Jesus is the truth. How should we live? Jesus is life.
I don’t think the most important thing is to get all the details of what to believe exactly correct. The most important thing is to cling to what we can all know without doubt: Jesus is God’s love poured out for us, alive forever, making us right with God. He is our way to God and God’s never-failing presence with us. Secure in this basic truth, we can dare to love God and neighbor in return. The other details, which ARE important, will come.
Anyway, that’s what I’ve learned in my years as a disciple of Jesus. Maybe it will be of some comfort and encouragement to you, Beatrice. You’re in my prayers.
March 3, 2008 at 12:42 am
I feel like I’m intruding slightly, as I read through some of the first two threads on this discussion.
I am pretty new to this blog, just found it a day or two ago, and I am thoroughly enthralled by this discussion.
I want to start by saying that I grew up in an egalitarian home, and have always embraced equality in marriage and in Christ.
But I have been a part of an online group for a while in which many of the Christian women (not all are Christians) are of the patriarchal mindset. They all read Created To Be His Helpmeet together, and often bug me to read it myself, because they think it will “help me” understand the Bible better. Frankly, I am very disturbed by some of the things I have read from the book (mostly quotes on the internet) and would probably never read it even for informational purposes unless someone gave it to me as a gift or lent it to me.
I watched the visionary daughters video and then investigated the website. I agree very much with the women on here who have issues with visionary daughters and also with the patriarchal attitude.
I do believe, however, that there are some who are called to different ways of life in Christ, and if these girls feel they are called to this, while I wouldn’t press that calling on others, I can accept their belief that they are called into it. But by using the term “harlot” to describe how they think other women are behaving (whether or not they say they ARE harlots), they are setting themselves up for the criticism.
At this point in my life, I am a stay at home mom, but my husband wouldn’t have it that way if it were up to him alone. He would have me working, because we do struggle financially at times. But it took me a long time to show him how we would be going through the same if not worse struggles if we both worked.
My biggest concern right now as a mom is that there isn’t much out there that is for someone who believes as I do. I have great church leaders and teachers, but many women don’t have such qualified people around them to show them the way. I am a writer at heart, and have itched to write a book for women in the church, and now I feel I have just that motivation. I think that young women are craving guidance, I know that as a teen and college student I did, but it was hard to find until I returned to my hometown AFTER graduating college.
I also studied ministry at a college filled with patriarchal professors, so the guidance I got there was less than helpful for such a spunky teenage girl like myself! In fact, fewer than 5% of the girls whom I graduated with came out with ministry degrees such as myself. Most were going to be teachers or something else.
I think a forum like this is wonderful, but the message needs to get out. Most of the women I have seen comments from on here are so kind and loving that it’s hard to believe that there are such strong disagreements. I am glad, though, that this discussion has been so positive for the most part.
Thanks for letting me elbow in and comment.
I hope to add more later.
March 3, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Abby, I am happy to see you here and look forward to reading your comments and thoughts.
And thank you for the word of encouragement. The women on this blog have a sweet spirit and are so gracious, even to those who disagree with us. Our goal is good dialog that ultimately glorifies Jesus and builds up the body of Christ.
Welcome!
March 3, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Abby, welcome! I’m new here too, and I’ve already been so blessed by much of the conversation on here; I hope you will be too
I have a question regarding something that’s popped up a few times over the past six threads– the Numbers 30 passage that they claim is proof that daughters are meant to remain under their father’s roof. How in the world does one go about refuting that? I mean, it’s not even a command, is it? It’s a protective clause for daughters caught between a rock and a hard place– the father who could stone them for disobedience, and God, who could strike them dead for the same. Personally I read that passage as proof of God’s infinite mercy, that He would provide a way out for girls with hard-hearted fathers who would forbid them to honour their vows to God; nowhere do I see a command for them to stay with their fathers forever. I mean, in a patriarchal culture like that it would really have been taken for granted that they would stay with him anyway, wouldn’t it? They would have nowhere else to go.
So, in approaching people who treat something that is NOT a command as a command, I am more than a little stumped as to how to deal with it. The only way I’ve been able to think of so far is to point out that Paul, who would surely have been as aware of the Law as any of the writers of the NT, says he could find no command for virgins, and therefore surely we can be confident that what they are treating as a command was not a command at all . . . but is that a little sketchy, trying to make an argument by saying “he couldn’t find a command, so there isn’t one”?
I am just very bound up in this and very burdened for a young lady I know who is caught in the middle of this web of teachings, and I am not sure how to approach this particular section of the problem. Any insights would be very much appreciated!
March 3, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I’m back again! I hope I can clearly share some of my thoughts on this subject, even though most of the women here have done a terrific job of saying pretty much the same thing.
I wanted to start out by saying that this is a topic I discuss ad nauseum with my husband, or I should say, I talk about. We decided last night that he very much values my opinion, I just talk too much! But in sharing some of what I’ve learned in the last couple days through this site and the links provided, he was quite open to talking about it, and told me some of his thoughts (which is rare for a couple of reasons, one of which I’ve already said.)
You see, my husband is Egyptian. He grew up in a Presbyterian home in Egypt, his dad was the pastor of the same church for over 25 years. In fact, we have been praying for the past 10 years of our relationship about serving God in Egypt and may well get this opportunity next fall. But when I told him about the Botkin girls’ book, he was greatly troubled, as I was. He said, even in Muslim homes in Egypt, the daughters are *expected* to go to college, just as the sons are. There aren’t many stay at home moms in Egypt. The fundamental difference between this view and the Botkin sisters’ view is that parents are PROUD of their childrens’ accomplishments as college graduates. And daughters are not expected to run the household with mom. Even so, in the middle eastern culture, daughters AND sons generally live with their parents until marriage. This is mainly an economic issue, not a religious belief, as buying or renting is very expensive, and often engagements last a long time so that the couple can get their finances in order to buy an apartment (no single family homes in Egypt!)
So as you can see, a cultural way of doing things in the Middle East is for adult children to live at home, but it is not considered a Biblical or Quranic mandate, simply a matter of economy.
What troubled me even more than this idea being passed off as “THE Biblical way” was the idea of the “helpmeet” being extended to the daughter. My mind immediately went the wrong way, straight to Lot’s daughters.
I am so glad the “ezer” discussion happened here, because this is a Bible study I did a couple of years ago. I can’t imagine a term that is also used of God being so grossly misrepresented when used of woman. If anything, the idea of the “suitable helper” represents a strong woman who is able to do things the man cannot do–in the context of marriage–rather than being something less than equal. Eve was a rather strong woman, from what I read, otherwise, she probably wouldn’t have been able to convince her husband to sin with her. Imagine a truly godly woman and how much influence she could have over her husband’s walk with Christ.
I mentioned before that I am an egalitarian in practice in my marriage, and my husband and I agree on this subject. I was thinking about the idea this morning, and don’t know if it’s a new term, but sure to cause a buzz if it’s not, but I thought about Christian egalitarianism as being “Theocentric egalitarianism” with God as the head of the whole home. Because I realize that there are non-Christians who practice the egalitarian marriage lifestyle, though they may not think to call it that, I do think there needs to be a distinction between the two.
I’ve been having this discussion in another forum for over a year now as well, and just a day or so before finding this blog, I was told by a woman at that forum that there are some women who are simply ignoring what the Bible says, in essence, that to not believe what books like these say is to be in rebellion against God. I was highly offended that she said this to me, especially because as loving as she was in saying it, the comment was a direct attack on my personal views. I have tried NOT to attack people personally in that group, but have continuously questioned why they believe things should be interpreted that specific way, and have never really gotten a straight answer. For the most part, they accept that I have a different interpretation, and I accept theirs as long as it is NOT something that I am condemned for disagreeing with them on. But the comment she made is not unlike what most of the woman and men attacking this discussion are saying.
I find it sad that we live in a place where there are so many exclusivists in the church, especially when Christ is for everyone. To say that “the only way to be a Christian is to do it this way” will leave many in out in the darkness, and I know that is not what Christ died for.
March 4, 2008 at 2:39 am
Hi Psalmist,
I see what you are saying, and certainly think it worth considering and that you want to really understand what God meant us to get from the Scriptures. I was thinking more of a viewpoint that would say that God did allow false ideas into the Bible from the Apostle’s cultural background, which is different that saying that he was speaking to a particular cultural set up that was not sacred. It seemed to me that Joanna meant the former. I do hope I haven’t misunderstood her.
Anyway, thank you for those thoughts.
And thank you so much for your prayers and the encouragement, and the reminder of what it really does mean to follow Jesus! I really need all that, and not just because I have friends who love the Botkin’s book.
March 4, 2008 at 4:08 am
Hi, Beatrice. I guess I just don’t see that Joanna was making any claim that God let mistakes/errors into the Scriptures.
As for Paul, he was skilled not only in the Scriptures (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) and the Talmud (commentary/opinions on the Scriptures), but also in the Greco-Roman traditions and learnings of his day. He was a Roman citizen, after all. He was able to speak persuasively to Gentiles, which undoubtedly enabled him to be the successful apostle to the Gentiles that he was. The Epistle to the Romans was a decidedly Greek-leaning document (“Greek” referring to the Empire-wide language and overall culture of the Roman world).
All that to say, Paul had a foot in two camps: Greco-Roman, and Jewish. I don’t think we should dismiss the Greek-ness of Paul. It’s far too much a part of who he was and what he was about.
March 4, 2008 at 4:15 am
Abby, you said:
“I mentioned before that I am an egalitarian in practice in my marriage, and my husband and I agree on this subject. I was thinking about the idea this morning, and don’t know if it’s a new term, but sure to cause a buzz if it’s not, but I thought about Christian egalitarianism as being ‘Theocentric egalitarianism’ with God as the head of the whole home. Because I realize that there are non-Christians who practice the egalitarian marriage lifestyle, though they may not think to call it that, I do think there needs to be a distinction between the two.”
That’s such an important point! Too many critics of biblical equality (i.e., Christian egalitarianism) either don’t realize or choose to ignore the fact that there is such an important distinction. That enables them, in their minds, to equate with Christian egalitarians the worst they can dig up about secular feminism. They simply won’t accept that there’s any difference.
That would be like my saying that there’s no difference between Christian complementarians and the dominant-submissive lifestyle. Hey, both include the wife being unilaterally submissive to the husband, right? Or how about between complementarianism and sharia-law Islamic subjugation of women? (Facetious questions; I do know that there’s a HUGE difference between Christ-submitted complementarians and the non-Christian practices I mentioned. HOWever, there ARE Christians who practice a D/s lifestyle…)
Anyway, I’m glad you made that point. It’s a very important one.
March 4, 2008 at 6:34 am
Hello
Your site is great, I font many usefull information, tnx.
Cya
March 4, 2008 at 8:27 am
There are cetainly Christians who do practice D/s lifestyles- you only have to look at websites such as Christian Domestic Discipline to really that . . . Personally I think that any relationship that uses physical strength to produce dominance is abusive. (Don’t flame me if you differ, anyone – I grant your right to your opinion)
But it’s possible to be an egalitarian and a complementarian. If I believe that my husband and I were created by God with equal free will, and equal capacity to sin or to choose salvation, and an equal responsibility in His eyes for the decisions we make about wrong doing or right doing, then surely I’m egalitarian.
How can I believe that I will be saved by allowing another person, be he never so wise, to direct my discipleship? Jesus didn’t ask Mary and Martha to speak to him only through Lazarus, who was obviously their head of household! A very old fashioned English poet, Rudyard Kipling, wrote once ‘The sins that ye do by two and two, ye must pay for one by one’ Christ spoke to women as well as men. We are individually responsible for our sins, as well as collectively, as a worship unit.
On the other hand, if I believe that as a female and a male we are profoundly different (which I do, in fact) with genetically different predispositions, differing hormones producing different responses, and different aptitudes as a result of differing neural pathways, then aren’t I a complementarian?
Tony and I work very differently; he has abilities and aptitudes that I simply don’t possess. I look at things in ways he doesn’t, and find my emotional satisfactions differently. We complement each other in roles and aptitudes. (I use aptitudes rather than character because I’m looking at things from a nature rather than nurture standpoint)
When I was younger, and rather less sensible, I was extremely feminist in my views, simply, I think, because I grew up in a household (Catholic) where I was sent to take a catechism lesson – on my own – at thirteen – with our local priest. He had a habit of holding me by the shoulders and pulling me towards him, to stand between his knees. I went for two lessons, and then I refused to go any more. My mother never asked why – I think she didn’t want to know, but given that it was the only religious observance I was ever allowed to miss, I think she had some idea. I saw feminism as a response to an abusive situation where I felt incapable of challenging a misuse of power that was condoned by my parents. (I bear them no grudge; they were doing what they thought right) Only a loving relationship with a man who embodies all that is good about leadership (except Christian leading, since he is an atheist) has enabled me to understand the complementarian ethos and how naturally correct it appears.
Unfortunately, I can’t see anything in the Botkin sisters but the sad victims of serious brainwashing – major sufferers from Stockholm syndrome. They sing in their chains, which are those of patriocentric possession, gilded with a wash of Christianity. Christ loved, suffered, redeemed, forgave, for you and me personally – not for us insofar as we obey Leviticus to the last detail. We can and do and will sin continually – but his grace is always flowing for us.
Sorry about long post . . .
March 4, 2008 at 11:53 am
On the other hand, if I believe that as a female and a male we are profoundly different (which I do, in fact) with genetically different predispositions, differing hormones producing different responses, and different aptitudes as a result of differing neural pathways, then aren’t I a complementarian?
Joanna, I agree with you completely. One of the strawmen that female subordinationists toss out repeatedly is that egalitarians deny all sex differences. Now, would that be any fun at all?
Many egalitarians actually prefer the term complementarian, but qualify it with the term non-hierarchical. In fact, that is the title of a book, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. I think non-hierarchical complementarian is a much more accurate term to describe myself, but it is also quite a mouthful.
March 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I also agree with you about being both egalitarian and embracing true complementarity. In fact, I think that it is the proponents of patriarchy who have warped the actual meaning of “complementary” so as to look only at sexual/male-female differences. There are so many more ways that any couple complement each other than in the ways that they’re different as male and female. IMO, no two couples’ relationship looks the same, because no two people are the same.
I only brought up D/s and Islamic Sharia law as examples of serious distortions of what is commonly referred to as “complementarianism,” a pretty broad and varied interpretation that abridges certain (varied) rights for women that men are free to exercise, simply because they’re women. I also know there are Christians who practice D/s and are sincere about both sets of beliefs.
I’m fine with “egalitarian” as a label, since it inherently includes true complementarity. However, there are the occasional unreasonable people who don’t know (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between secular feminism and biblical equality, or who equate biblical equality with something even more wacked out (such as communism–don’t laugh, it’s been done!). IMO, they’re the ones with the problem, and it’s usually deliberate. They do know the difference, but why would they let the truth stand in the way of a good smear job? God will deal with them in God’s own good time.
March 4, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I think it’s really hard to use terms like “egalitarian” and “complementarian” anymore, because the truth of their meaning has been lost in the debate.
I have a hard time even explaining “complementarian” to someone who’s never actually heard the term before (there are some!), because even to me, it seems like much is lost in translation.
I see the current “ideals” of the patriarchal complementarian as being the wife is a “complement” to her husband, not that we both complement each other. But in truth, this is not biblical. We each have strengths and weaknesses, and those things work in harmony in a good marriage to be “complementary.”
I think I choose the term egalitarian over complementarian mostly because it holds some of those negatives for me. I know there are some here who claim to be complementarian, and I’m not putting you down, because I think you do get the idea that it’s not just your job as a woman to “complement” but that it’s a mutual relationship of strengths and weaknesses working together in harmony.
As a stated egalitarian, I can say those very same things. But I do find it funny (not haha) that there are so many people out there who believe the men and the women have distinct roles in a marriage and those roles are not to be changed based on personality and personal weakness.
For example, my husband is really not that great at putting together mechanical things. My dad, however, was a carpenter and works on his own cars A LOT. If we need to put something together, it’s usually my job, but the car, we leave that to dad. But I am not the greatest cook. I’ve gotten better, but early in our marriage, when we wanted to eat something more than Hamburger Helper, my husband cooked. He’s also much more emotional than I am, and some more patriarchal people might look down on him that he is showing weakness by his emotional side being so prevalent. I see it as his greatest strength that he can cry and he can be touched by something so deeply. It’s Christ-like in a very good way.
Egalitarians recognize FUNDAMENTAL differences between men and women, but leave room for role reversals in the case where a man is more emotional or a woman is more handy. I don’t see the patriarchs working that way. I see them as men who were told “boys don’t cry” and “a woman’s place is the kitchen,” and women were told the same thing, I’m sure.
What I find most ironic is that I know a man who does, from time to time, contribute to the CBMW site, and he has more of a patriarchal complementarian view. Yet, in practice in the home, the relationship is far more egalitarian and balanced. I find it so ironic because to him, it seems to be all about semantics and ideals, but the way things really work is far different. Yet he doesn’t seem to recognize this.
Sometimes I do think that while doctrine seems like such a big deal to us, it’s a lot more about the fruit and the practices, and even when we disagree on some of the semantics, often there is far more agreement than we realize.
March 5, 2008 at 12:22 am
Abby,
I love what you said about you and your husband and role reversals. I am married to a man who does not “look” like a lot of other christian men. He is mellow, fun-loving, relaxed and often on the quiet side. I, on the other hand, am passionate, intense and love to have a good conversation. I contantly feel (when we are around church people – particularly leadership) very self-conscious. I feel like they are assuming that I am not under his submission because I am more vocal than he is. Which is so not the case. I love how mellow my husband is, but when push comes to shove, he is one strong man and quite wonderful to lean on:). Often the views I express are ones that we have completly agreed upon in private, but I end up being the one to voice them in public. (He is also very dyslexic, so “fast” conversations completly lose him) I always feel like other “christians” think that I wear the pants because of this. I was raised in a church that had patriarchal leanings and it has taken me a large part of my adult life to come to terms with the passionate woman that God made me. As a young woman, I often felt guilty and like there was something wrong with me because I CRAVED learning and knowledge. Being raised in the “vision forum” mindset is so destructive and can take a very long time to recover from. In the course of doing research, I skimmed just ONE of the books (passionate housewives) and just skimming it was enough to make me feel sick to my stomach. I think that people who have come from this and are now on the other side tend to have a pretty strong reaction to it. A lady I knew (who came from the same background as me) read one of their books and said it took her a REALLY long time to just get over reading the book. All of the guilt came flooding back. I just don’t think there is any “one” way that our Christian lives and marriages will look because we are all as unique as snowflakes and our lives will look unique as well. Amen. End of sermon:)
March 5, 2008 at 4:30 am
I just peaked over at Visionary Daughters and they put up a new post about a trip they took with their father.
Are they done answering the tough questions already? They’ve only answered two at this point.
March 5, 2008 at 5:39 am
Light said:
Many egalitarians actually prefer the term complementarian, but qualify it with the term non-hierarchical. In fact, that is the title of a book, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. I think non-hierarchical complementarian is a much more accurate term to describe myself, but it is also quite a mouthful.
Joanna, I agree with you completely. One of the strawmen that female subordinationists toss out repeatedly is that egalitarians deny all sex differences. Now, would that be any fun at all?
Psalmist Says:
I also agree with you about being both egalitarian and embracing true complementarity. In fact, I think that it is the proponents of patriarchy who have warped the actual meaning of “complementary” so as to look only at sexual/male-female differences. There are so many more ways that any couple complement each other than in the ways that they’re different as male and female. IMO, no two couples’ relationship looks the same, because no two people are the same.
I love how you two put this!
Sheesh, it’s SO true. Erasing the sexual/gender differences is so NOOOOOOOOT what egalitarianism is about! I love being female, and I love that my husband is a big hunk of MAN. (slurp, slurp).
What egalitarianism means is that we don’t believe that one of us is supposed to rule over the other. Which, while meaning he’s not ruling me, ALSO means that I am not to be ruling over him.
The patriarchy-promoters like to think that it’s only there way that saves men from domineering wives. Well…it ain’t.
Christ-centered egalitarianism is the idea that Christ rules us, and that means we are obeying the two commandments He gave us: to love our Lord, and to love eachother with His love.
That means I am to grant my husband respect and honor. That means I am to prefer his opinion. That means I am to love myself and honor myself as well, meaning respecting my husband does not mean I become a doormat (because God loves me—if I’m going to love God, then I’d best believe that I’m worth something, since, after all, that’s what HE said).
It means I am to walk in the fruit of the Spirit towards those in my household and beyond.
My husband, if being treated with love, joy, patience, peacefulness, kindness, gentleness and self-control, is likely NOOOOOT going to complain.
And anyone who says that treating a husband with the fruit of the Spirit means that I’m a feminist is…going to make me LAUGH really HARD!
Bottom line, the patriarchy-promoters really don’t get it. Rejoicing in our male-ness and our female-ness is part of being human (and part of having really good sex…er, ahem). Treating others with the love of God is part of being a **Christian.** You do NOT have to subsribe to patriarchy in order to enjoy gender differences and to treat each other with love and respect.
March 5, 2008 at 6:09 am
Good point, Molly!
The patriarchalists segregate all these specific behaviors into their made-up “roles” and expect men and women to behave completely differently. As if there’s something wrong with husbands ALSO exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit toward their wives. (much eye-rolling here)
Novel idea: Let’s trash ALL the labels and simply advocate behaving toward one another as we want others to behave toward us. Yeah, sure…EVERY wife wants–nay, NEEDS–a fellow-sinner who shares her bed to be her designated leader. He’s only giving her what she NEEDS, or so some would try to tell us. What, is Jesus out of that job or something? Did he resign and declare husbands in charge of their wives’ lives instead?
What other group of two requires a designated leader, when the two already have Christ as their all-sufficient leader? Best friends? Nope, no leader there. Business partners? Not unless there are more than three or four of them. Twins? Nuh-uh.
Silliness. Plain old unbiblical, unnecessary silly nonsense.
March 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I have a question and a thought about something I read in a patriarchal website that I guess confuses me a little. I guess I’m just wondering how this would really work in a patriarchal home
The idea was that once a daughter left home to marry her husband, he was the one she ought to go to for spiritual leadership if she had a question about the Bible. Along with the idea that we are molded for specific “roles” regarding chores and such, would you say that women are also not to go to their fathers (and same with men) if they had something the husband couldn’t handle or didn’t know the answer to? For example, we have a leak in our basement, and we couldn’t figure out why or how it was happening, so I called to ask my dad about it, seeing as he’s older and more experienced. My husband couldn’t have asked his parents as they live in Egypt and obviously don’t have problems with water in their basement!
So, I guess what I got out of the advice women are getting is that your husband is supposed to be the one who answers your questions, and he’s supposed to be the “handy man” of the house, so you can’t ask your dad about this stuff. But what happens if he doesn’t have the answer? Wouldn’t you go to someone else who could give you the answer, and if that wasn’t your husband, would they consider it disobedient? Or is the husband the one in charge of finding the answers to all of the tough questions if he doesn’t already know them?
I guess I’m seeing a lot of gaps in logic and it does feel to me like it’s a system of rules and regulations that can’t always be applied. What concerns me is that it doesn’t make a woman feel powerless, it makes her completely helpless! Why should she have to rely on one source of information when there is so much out there? Granted, not all of it is “good” but it makes me feel like the patriarchs think women SHOULDN’T think for themselves, even if they can.
March 7, 2008 at 3:02 am
So often we hear, “But you don’t understand the Botkins or Stacey MacDonald or Jennie Chancey or the patriarchalists. . .”
While this quote is specifically referring to academia, I believe it is related to the whole discussion about the critique of Passionate Housewives and Visionary Daughters and critique within the Christian subculture.
Quote: “3) “You’re misunderstanding him. You need to talk to him.” I had. By this point, on two occasions. Intellectual dialogue about rhetorical nuance was not going to happen. We tried. And while I am an advocate of empathetic criticism, I’m not beholden to the approval of the rhetor. That’s just not the way it works in any critical method. And I appreciate that the author may not intend to say what he is saying, but I don’t have access to that. No rhetorical critic has access to intention (if you want to really discuss it, we rhetoricians would argue that even the producer of rhetoric may not know his own intentions. We don’t really care about intentions. That’s for a rhetor’s therapist, not for the critic.). We only have words (do we have to check with Lincoln before critiquing his “Gettysburg Address”?). But why all the defensiveness over this guy’s writing? It’s a public offering; it should be able to withstand scrutiny. That’s the way it works! If the organization really wants to enter the academic fray — if fundamentalists really want to make scholars like they claim — then let’s do it!” –Camille Lewis
March 7, 2008 at 5:49 am
“But why all the defensiveness over this guy’s writing? It’s a public offering; it should be able to withstand scrutiny. That’s the way it works! If the organization really wants to enter the academic fray — if fundamentalists really want to make scholars like they claim — then let’s do it!” –Camille Lewis”
Yeah, Camille! Well said. Looks like a great book.
April 10, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Hello my friends
May 2, 2008 at 12:50 am
I realize I’m a bit late to post here, but I do have to wonder what Botkin, et. al. would say to the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church calls Mary Magdalene “Equal-to-the-Apostles”?
And, um, no: She didn’t stay at home.
May 2, 2008 at 1:57 am
And, um, no: She didn’t stay at home.
No she didn’t. Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward didn’t stay home either, and neither did Susanna and many others, all of whom His ministry by giving Him money out of their OWN resources.
Luk 8:1 ¶ And 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, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
May 2, 2008 at 2:42 am
Hello! I’m enjoying this blog so much!
The women you’ve cited are referred to as “The Holy Myrrhbearers” in the Orthodox Church– their feastday will be a week from Sunday, actually.
According to tradition, these women stayed just as brave after the Resurrection. Some even faced martyrdom. No word as to whether or not they had to have permission from their husbands or fathers to do so.
May 2, 2008 at 3:39 pm
What about Mary, Jesus’ mother?
I spoke with someone last week who told me all about a Catholic fringe group that essentially practice and push their own version of patriocentrism, except they talk about “Catholic manhood and womanhood” instead of Biblical…
One of the priests who pushes this stuff (a man of very short stature!) became upset about the meaning of the name “Mary.” I was confused by all of this because I was taught that Mary was a derivative of Miriam which derives from “myrrh”… But apparently, in some Catholic circles, they teach that Mary’s name means “star” but this particular priest fellow became inflamed by the symbolism meant that sailors were looking to a star as if they were analogously looking to Mary for guidance.
May 2, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I’ve heard several meanings of the name “Mary”. I too assumed it was a form of “Mariam”, or a form of the word Noami uses for ‘bitter’ in the Book of Ruth (the argument being for the latter interpretation that Mary, having to see her son suffer so much, endured much bitterness).
One meaning is “star of the sea”, as in the glow that comes from the sea at night. But that’s based on Latin, not Hebrew.
I have no idea what the Roman Catholic fringe group is. That sounds very strange.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that certain people wouldn’t care for Mary. For one thing, according to tradition, she grew up in the temple. Which means (by implication) that she probably knew alot of scripture and theology on her own.
May 2, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Mary in TN,
That explains my confusion about the names. The Catholic Believer I spoke with must have referred to the Latin definition, one that I had never heard. The priests behind this movement were upset about the imagery that navigators looked to the stars for guidance and that would mean that men looked to a woman for guidance. I was only familiar with the Hebrew origin of the name. Thank you for explaining that.
Here is a link to a blog post by one of these fellows. They actually had a seminary/monastery thing going for awhile in Scranton, PA, but it was disbanded. This movement within Catholicism is very fringe and not mainstream at all, however it is an influence.
Add the www. this link:
drchojnowski.blogspot.com/2006/02/flesh-of-my-flesh.html
May 2, 2008 at 5:36 pm
If anyone has specific interest in this patroicentric trend within Catholicism, email me and I’ll forward you more links.
UnderMuchGrace@gmail.com
May 2, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“Women need men in order to be truly women. Men, however, do not need women in order to be truly men. The military, the monastery, and the seminary confirm this. Every convent has its father confessor and the Eucharistic Bridegroom.”
Using that argument, The Blessed Virgin HAD to have had other children, right? Because she isn’t complete without a man. Since Roman Catholics believe Mary was ever virgin, no wonder this is considered a fringe group!
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of what I find wrong with that statement, but I think I’ll let it rest there.
May 2, 2008 at 6:17 pm
That is a mistranslation. Here is a Catholic site with an explanation of the origins of the word, Mary (remove the @@)
http@@://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464a.htm
Mary does not mean, “star”, but Esther does.
June 18, 2008 at 2:53 am
Hi all!
Bye