Carmon Friedrich, of buried Treasure Books, wrote what she calls the Prairie Muffin Manifesto, a treatise she contends is for godly wives and mothers. Someone recently quoted from the Manifesto and then others responded so I thought it might be a great idea to walk through Carmon’s article. I know, as I read through it, that much of it describes how I have lived my life. Other parts of it are disconcerting to me. So here is the link to that document and here is the first point to ponder and discuss:
“1.) Prairie Muffins are committed to obeying God’s law in every area of life, as they are aware of its application to their lives and circumstances.”
Any thoughts?
February 12, 2008 at 1:42 am
I just read the piece on why girls shouldn’t go to college (http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/pandorasbox.php)…. Oh my.
One of my thoughts on the above statement is that it lacks any mention of the Bible as the inspired (rather than dictated) word of God. So often I think we forget that the Bible was written in a particular time and into a particular context. This is not to say that it is not the inerrant word of God, but rather that there’s got to be some nuance whenever we talk about “obeying God’s law.”
It also doesn’t seem to leave room for God to make exceptions to his own law – something he does time and again in Biblical times, and, I would argue, today.
February 12, 2008 at 1:58 am
Karen,
They would have to define “God’s Law” for me before I can comment on whether I agree or not. I do agree that we, as believers, should be committed to obeying our Lord Jesus in every area of our life.
But, something in me tells met that when she says “God’s Law” is referring to the theonomic vision where people pick and choose which OT laws they would like to follow on top of the commands we are to obey from the New Covenant.
For example, do I believe we should stone homosexuals, adulterers, rebellious children and blasphemers? No.
We are under the New Covenant which is perfect whereas the Old Covenant is imperfect and has been replaced by a new and better Covenant. In the New Covenant we no longer need the priesthood to bring us before God (if you notice the patriarchalists are still living in the Old Covenant where they make husbands/fathers the priesthood). We must recognize that Jesus has rent the veil in half and we are all free to come before the Lord individually because of His sacrifice on our behalf. He is our Great High Priest and we no longer need the imperfect human priests to perform duties on our behalf. Jesus has done it all. He is our redemption and our sanctification and He is who washes us clean with the water of His word.
February 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I’m stopped by the term “prairie muffin”… it just makes me cringe and shudder… which is the same reaction I now have when I see/hear the word “vision”. But after swallowing and breathing again, I agree with both Ericka and Corrie. God’s ways are not our ways and God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. We should stop trying to “put Him in a box”. Grace and mercy are freely given now.
February 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It looks like Carmon has been made aware of this blog article:
“Note: It was decided in a hotly-contested election, that the husbands of Prairie Muffins would henceforth be known as “Prairie Dawgs.” An official Prairie Dawg greeting was also proposed. Single women aspiring to be Prairie Muffins will be known as “Muffin Mixes” and young children of Prairie Muffins are “Mini Muffins.” (Temporary note for my new visitors: “Muffin Mix” was a silly reference meant to be a wordplay, not a comment on the worth of unmarried girls and women. In fact, it was suggested by a single woman for whom I have the utmost respect and who has a very good sense of humor, something in short supply these days. Extrapolating any nefarious meanings beyond that is an exercise in futility. Oh, be careful little minds what you think. Better get a picture of this page as this note will be gone in a couple of days. Other than that, have fun!)
February 12, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Cynthia,
Thanks for posting that. Here is something interesting that seems to come up now and then. Statements can be made and if someone is offended by them, it is the problem of the person being offended rather than the offender, consequently there is no attempt whatsoever to make it right with the one who is offended. In this instance, Carmon states that a sense of humor is in short supply these days, linking that sentiment to the use of the phrase “prairie mix” and disregarding the offensive analogy that was made. Frankly, this saddens me a great deal. To belittle the feelings of someone who has been hurt by such an analogy grieves me and is certainly not the stance an older woman ought to be taking toward a younger one.
It reminds me of the young man I know who was running for public office and made a statement that was not wise. Rather than apologizing and admitting that he misspoke, he claimed he was joking. It did some damage to his credibility. How much more refreshing would it be for someone to admit error, seek forgiveness, and move on?
February 12, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Corrie and Erika, you pulled out of that first tenet exactly what I saw the first time I read it.
Corrie, which OT laws do they believe ought to be instigated today, do you know?
February 12, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Ericka, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet, Carmon would also like to see an end to women’s suffrage:
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1564
(the discussion about suffrage starts in the comments)
…and abolish public libraries:
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1905
…which she classifies as “welfare” — specifically, a “middle-class entitlement” — here :
As for the “poor” (a loose term…a news story today trumpets the fact that half of all Americans receive some for of welfare payment) patronizing libraries,I’m sure there are some who fit that technical definition who are borrowing books from the public library (as for whether it’s the government’s job to provide free books to anyone, I’ve discussed that before), but the main demographic for library patrons is middle class people who want access to free books, videos, etc. It’s a middle-class entitlement program.”
And, there’s more: the news article to which Carmon is referring is this one,from the Christian Science Monitor, and it cites certain statistics as saying that one in two Americans are “recieving significant income from government programs.” Those numbers include both people on Social Security and those people earning income working in government jobs, but the atricle does not call these welfare — Carmon twists the words of the article, in order to portray money earned through government employment and Social Security as “welfare”, and so
I called her on it….
What an interesting take on “welfare”…. and it proves what Twain had to say about statistics.
February 12, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Coming from a Reformed perspective (non-theonomic, of course), I believe God’s Law to be summarized in the Ten Commandments. We obey God’s Law out of gratitude for our salvation. So, if that’s what she means by “the Law of God” then I would be on board. But it appears that Carmon is a theonomist, so I’d definitely be asking what she means by God’s Law.
February 12, 2008 at 5:34 pm
OH, Cynthia, where DO you find these things. Some of those comments were priceless!
It also reminded me of that line Marilyn Monroe gave in How to Marry a Millionaire when she lamented the fact that she had to wear glasses. Her future husband said “I think you’re a cute little strudel even with your glasses on.”
February 12, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Here is the second tenet of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto:
”
2) Prairie Muffins are helpmeets to their husbands, seeking creative and practical ways to further their husbands’ callings and aid them in their dominion responsibilities.”
February 12, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Is this assuming that women do not have their own callings from the Lord and that they also have not been given dominion?
February 12, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“OH, Cynthia, where DO you find these things. Some of those comments were priceless!”
LOL… I’ve been looking at Carmon for quite a while.
She is part of a movement that uses Christianity to market an antitax/libertarian agenda which has little to do with religion, and which has its roots in the uber-right-wing politics of the mid-nineties (think tax revolts, militias, etc.)
Over time, that does tend to attract attention.
February 12, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Oh, I’ve been involved in a discussion elsewhere that’s touched on their work-around for both male and female having been given that dominion together. The response seems to be, she’s fullfilling HER dominion by being UNDER HIS dominion and serving him; HIS dominion includes having dominion OVER HER.
Of course, that goes totally against both of them having dominion over creation, but since it only negates HER dominion, I guess it doesn’t matter. Who cares if she gets lumped in there with all the beasts and other creatures as something for him to have dominion over? She’s a woman, and it’s her “nature” and even her curse to want to be dominated.
We do live in a fallen world…
February 12, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Karen said,
“[Carmon's justification for her/her single friend's euphemism] reminds me of the young man I know who was running for public office and made a statement that was not wise. Rather than apologizing and admitting that he misspoke, he claimed he was joking. It did some damage to his credibility. How much more refreshing would it be for someone to admit error, seek forgiveness, and move on?”
If I’m not mistaken, there are a couple of fellow Texans who participate here. If you’re not familiar with Texas politics, look up “Clayton Williams” sometime and see the huge favor he did to the gubnatorial campaign of the late Ann Richards by just this kind of refusal to apologize. (Short version: He made a gawd-awful inexcusable reference to “laying back and enjoying” rape, and tried to dismiss it as “just a joke.” Texas may be a pro-patriarchy state, but the voters saw “blue” over that one.)
Just because it’s “OK” for someone of a minority class to joke about their class in a way that those outside that class should avoid altogether, doesn’t mean it’s wise to publicize the joke, and it’s sure not wise to defend it if you do. (Speaking here not of Williams’ smear, but of “muffin mix.”)
February 12, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Actually I don’t find the “muffin mix” analogy to be particularly offensive, and the lifestyle has its attractions as well — basically, it’s “nice work if you can get it”.
But the fact that people who have been fortunate enough in life to be able to get such “work” are passing off white/uppermiddleclass/agrarianism as being somehow indicative of Christian virtue is a bit much to take.
February 12, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Cynthia Gee, I didn’t know that about the political agenda; that’s interesting. It also explains a few things about some other professing Christians I know whose espoused political views have confused me terribly!
Psalmist, referencing the beliefs held by some in these groups, you said She’s a woman, and it’s her “nature” and even her curse to want to be dominated.
I have to ask- does that philosophy not seem eerily close to certain secular “adult lifestyle choices” to anybody? The, um, “desire to be dominated” bit? Personally, the correlations that popped into my mind when I read that were certainly not Biblical ones! I find it terribly disturbing.
Finally, regarding the Manifesto itself, it really saddens me that her “clarification” only convicts me further of the graceless nature inherent in these teachings. Snide, loveless remarks such as “be careful, little minds” and the self-love that is betrayed by such prideful condescension . . . really, the longer people continue to speak, the sooner their true hearts are revealed. In my opinion, the fact that knee-jerk responses such as that are offered when legitimate, heartfelt concerns are raised is all too revealing.
February 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Cynthia Gee, had to add- “nice work, if you can get it” is it exactly! When I was eight or nine, tha sort of lifestyle would have seemed like a fairytale to me! Some of the little girls and boys I teach would no doubt say the same thing– they love to pick favourite time periods or settings and imagine living in them, and that is exactly what this calls to mind; excepting, of course, that in our class, the children are told to respond to disagreements with love and kindness
It’s just that, IMHO, a line is crossed when it’s not simply touted as “a nice way to live” but rather “God’s way to live.”
February 12, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Karen,
I do not know exactly what OT laws they have cherry-picked to follow but if they truly understood the Covenant they would realize that it comes as a package deal. When a person is under the Law, they are under the WHOLE law which includes ALL the laws.
Thanks be to God that Jesus came to fulfill the Old Covenant and institute a new and BETTER covenant.
I have read some people wanting to follow the menstrual and childbirth laws, stoning laws for homosexuals and adulterers and rebellious children and food laws, for example. There is also slavery which Carmon excels concerning knowledge of that issue. But, it is hard to know what she was referring to in her manifesto when she meant “God’s Law”. Anyone know if that is spelled out somewhere?
Cynthia Gee,
“(Temporary note for my new visitors: “Muffin Mix” was a silly reference meant to be a wordplay, not a comment on the worth of unmarried girls and women. In fact, it was suggested by a single woman for whom I have the utmost respect and who has a very good sense of humor, something in short supply these days. Extrapolating any nefarious meanings beyond that is an exercise in futility. Oh, be careful little minds what you think.”
Was this just put up? Funny how this blog can drive the agenda of so many other blogs.
It is AMAZING to me how many times I get private emails from people telling me that someone else told them about something said on this blog.
We need to be careful what we think? I would think that this admonition would go both ways, especially since some falsely report “rumors” when there were no rumors. Unless you would like to call actual verbatim quotes from source documents a “rumor”?
And then there is this guilt by association nonsense used as a smoke-screen.
February 12, 2008 at 8:19 pm
“I’m stopped by the term “prairie muffin”… it just makes me cringe and shudder… which is the same reaction I now have when I see/hear the word “vision”. ”
Susan,
Don’t be surprised if you are treated to the “How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb joke?” and told that you take things “too seriously” and that you have “no sense of humor”! I got this treatment over at Patriospeak when I noticed how many unsaved people were really getting peeved at some of what was being written. One of the things that was objected to was when big Patrio Manly Man referred to his wife as a “little helper”. I think that term is a demeaning way to refer to an adult woman, especially when coupled with all the other demeaning remarks about women.
The Patriowomen are the only ones allowed to take offense and to not have a sense of humor. Using derogatory phrases about women is perfectly acceptable and it is proof that you are a feminist if you don’t find them “funny”. It is kind of like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you don’t laugh at the demeaning language where grown women are referred to as if they were little girls, then the Others know you are not one of them.
Just go to Patriospeak and look at the demeaning statements about women that were put up in the last couple of months. For example:
“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.”
The authority of a woman is a “corrupted fountain”. Yeah, I know. The answer is “That’s not funny!”
I wonder if Knox had to eat his words when he met Deborah.
From what I know about “Prairie Muffin” it was RC Sproul Jr who coined that term when derisively speaking about female bloggers who shouldn’t be blogging about theological issues…only about home issues like cooking, cleaning and taking care of children. He was saying that they were usurping their domain when they crossed over the line and dared to discuss theology. That made several women upset and the term was adopted by the very women Sproul Jr. was aiming at. I believe Sproul Jr later apologized. I am sure it is all online and I will try and find it.
February 12, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“We need to be careful what we think? I would think that this admonition would go both ways, especially since some falsely report “rumors” when there were no rumors. Unless you would like to call actual verbatim quotes from source documents a “rumor”?”
How about using actual verbatim quotes from Carmon herself, as pertaining to source documents listed on her own blog, LOL? When I did that, she said,
” Our discussion is at an end here, as I won’t give you a platform for twisting words and false witnessing. One of the good things about the freedom that comes with private ownership is that one does not have to give a platform to everyone’s false ideas. You have my blessing to say whatever you want on your own blog and wherever others are willing to give you a hearing. I think we’ve covered it all.”
February 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Corrie,it is interesting that you would mention the guilt by association mantra that I keep reading about. It sure seems to be a popular topic these days. I have an idea….let’s try out this example:
What if you have a 12 year old son who is playing baseball in the park across the street every day with a group of kids from the neighborhood. One of the boys begins to become a good friend to your son, dropping by your house often after a game for snacks. You don’t know much about this child but you are happy to have him as he is polite and respectful. Then, one day, you see this same friend a few blocks away hanging out with a group of friends and several of them are smoking cigarettes and, because your car windows are down, you hear a couple of choice words as you drive past. You are concerned but let it pass as a one time situation. However you begin to see this same guy hanging out with this same group of rebels, day after day. So you go to your son and express your concern, telling him that he will need to find some other friend and he responds “Oh, mom, that is just guilt by association.”
Wise mama that you are, you will quote “Those who walk with the wise will become wise but a companion of fools will come to destruction.”
Please, someone, explain to me how this is any different when adults are concerned and the “rebels” are kinists or what have you?
February 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Corrie, when you find the article written by R.C. Sproul Jr. you will be the ultimate detective because I believe he removed it from his sight after many of us wrote a response:
http://fromtheprairie.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html
February 12, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“I wonder if Knox had to eat his words when he met Deborah.”
LOL! but I have to wonder if he ever met Deborah. Murderers…or those plotting to murder usually don’t make it there unless they really repented. So, can’t say about his salvation but do question his fruit.
February 12, 2008 at 9:15 pm
” Our discussion is at an end here, as I won’t give you a platform for twisting words and false witnessing. One of the good things about the freedom that comes with private ownership is that one does not have to give a platform to everyone’s false ideas. You have my blessing to say whatever you want on your own blog and wherever others are willing to give you a hearing. I think we’ve covered it all.”
Carmon Friedrich…or Tim/David Bayly?
I *know* I’ve read that kind of “justification” for not allowing dissent against the blog owners’ twisted words, false witness, and false ideas at both places.
February 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Karen, are you looking for the original “Prairie Muffin” quote, or the comment where Sproul condemned female bloggers?
I believe this may be the article where Sproul coined the phrase, “Prairie Muffin”:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Cd_xLLrJnBEJ:www.highlandsstudycenter.org/ETC/Volume_Five/Issue_Four/Vision.php+%22hardy+band+of+prairie+muffins%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
February 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm
“I *know* I’ve read that kind of “justification” for not allowing dissent against the blog owners’ twisted words, false witness, and false ideas at both places.”
Not allowing dissent is bad enough, but when you catch one of these folks in a flat-out deception, as I did Carmon, and then they turn it around and accuse YOU of “twisting words and false witnessing” — well, that really takes the cake!
February 12, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I wanted to invite you all to check out this blog entry I put up today on my thatmom site. I am posting a few things in honor of Valentine’s Day and this piece by Richard Baxter is a fine example of the one another exhortations at their finest. Please read and consider.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/valentines-day-inspiration-richard-baxters-wise-words-for-husbands-and-wives-part-one/
February 12, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Cynthia,
I think I was thinking, along with Corrie, that those two articles by Sproul Jr. were one in the same but they weren’t. You either have an incredibly fantastic memory or a great filing system. You are such a blessing to me, Cynthia, as you hold all things up to the Word of God. Thank you.
February 12, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“You either have an incredibly fantastic memory or a great filing system. You are such a blessing to me, Cynthia, as you hold all things up to the Word of God. Thank you.”
You’re welcome, :blush: , but I can’t really take the credit — it’s just Google.
February 12, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Here’s the article where Sproul talks about women bloggers, and says “people are teaching who shouldn’t be teaching”:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:CMCTZ5tq1TUJ:highlands.gospelcom.net/journals/hsc/2005_04_01_archive.html+%22People+are+teaching+who+shouldn%27t+be+teaching.+And+people+are+learning+where+they+ought+not+to+be+learning.+A+husband+who+loses+his+wife+to+a+hook-up+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
February 13, 2008 at 4:10 am
From Sproul Jr’s article noted in #31
People are teaching who shouldn’t be teaching. And people are learning where they ought not to be learning. A husband who loses his wife to a hook-up with some internet Lothario is probably better off than one who returns from work to find his wife safely at home, but having been seduced into Rome by some charming blogger.
How ironic is this? Seduced into Rome! Ha! He certainly would know!
February 13, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The poor brainless woman, seduced by a charmer…
Not only is his stuff slanted way weird, but he’s insultingly condescending as well.
That’s why we need the Holy Spirit (someone in very little evidence among the patrios, IMO…no room for the Comforter in that system)–there’s so much obvious need for sound discernment, with so much nonsense being peddled as truth.
February 13, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“How ironic is this? Seduced into Rome! Ha! He certainly would know!”
Well, really, Rome isn’t the only Continuing Church in town, dontchaknow!
Why not get seduced into Constantinople, or maybe Canterbury?
LOL!!!!!!
February 13, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest man born to woman.
Look what the “greatest man born to a woman” had to say about himself in relation to Christ:
John 3:30
“He must increase, but I must decrease.”
Now, if the greatest man born to a woman can say that, shouldn’t it be an example for ALL of us- man AND woman?
Do we see this “Jesus must increase and I must decrease” attitude in the patriarchal literature?
I think we see the “I must increase and He must decrease” when it comes to the “father rule” crowd.
The father/husband is supreme and Christ decreases and nearly disappears when reading the patriarchal literature. It is the father/husband who is lifted up and exalted and he actually assumes only the roles that Christ alone can fill.
Anything that supplants Christ as Head and Lord is idolatry.
Patriarchy is man-centered where man increases and Christ decreases.
We do not need a priest, king and prophet in our home since Christ already is all those things and we are ALL priests. Yes, even the women are part of the royal priesthood. And the women will rule and reign with Christ along with their brothers in the Lord when He comes back.
February 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“How ironic is this? Seduced into Rome! Ha! He certainly would know!”
“Well, really, Rome isn’t the only Continuing Church in town, dontchaknow!
Why not get seduced into Constantinople, or maybe Canterbury?
LOL!!!!!!”
I think she was referring to the irony related to the obvious Roman Catholic leanings in Federal Vision theology, and RC Jr.’s association with the same.
February 13, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Say, Corrie, you know, I may be wrong about my assessment of the idolatry of patriarchy.
See, Jesus said that the greatest in his Kingdom would be the servant of all, right? Well, by making women the servants, the men are sacrificing the place of greatest in favor of the women. They’re doing women the greatest honor they can by being their “authorities” so that the women can be greater than them in the Kingdom.
February 13, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“See, Jesus said that the greatest in his Kingdom would be the servant of all, right? Well, by making women the servants, the men are sacrificing the place of greatest in favor of the women. They’re doing women the greatest honor they can by being their “authorities” so that the women can be greater than them in the Kingdom. ”
Psalmist,
You are quite right and I have often thought of that very thing. I wonder why it hasn’t crossed any patriarchal minds? Or maybe it has but they just don’t share their thoughts on this BIG truth of Scripture?
Jesus seemed to greatly frown on those grasping for positions of power and desiring to be FIRST in the here and now. I also hardly think that “loving one’s wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her” is talking about getting the best cut of steak, or getting to make all the decisions, or thinking that others are to meet my needs and cater to my whims or thinking that there is anything inherently special in one’s gender that makes them more superior to the other.
I think that Ephesians 5 is truly talking about SACRIFICE and not just giving lip service to the concept of sacrifice under the guise of being first and foremost/leader/King/Redeemer of one’s own “little kingdom” (which rings a little Mormon to my ears). Where’s the sacrifice in believing one’s self to be King and above all in one’s [imaginary] kingdom?
In that same passage about John the Baptist, Jesus goes on to say that even though John is the greatest among those born to women, even the LEAST will be greater than John in His kingdom. So if the least are going to be greater than John, just think how much greater will be the least when it comes to those who are lesser than John who have spent their lives grasping for first place and usurping the role of Christ in other’s lives?
February 13, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“People are teaching who shouldn’t be teaching. And people are learning where they ought not to be learning. A husband who loses his wife to a hook-up with some internet Lothario is probably better off than one who returns from work to find his wife safely at home, but having been seduced into Rome by some charming blogger.”
This is so ironic!! What a hoot!
February 13, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I meant that as a joke, Corrie. With all the really off-the-wall justifications they’re making for patriarchy these days, I figured it’s only a matter of time before one of them says that it’s an intentional thing to make women subject to men, because that’s how they’re raising women up in the Kingdom.
I’m telling you, it’s not far from some strange stuff I HAVE actually read. Example: Adam was nowhere near Eve when she heard the serpent and picked and ate the fruit. Somehow, even without having eaten it himself, he knew she had and he willingly ate, though knowing how wrong it was, so that she wouldn’t be banished all by herself. He was doing it out of compassion for her. (The proponent of this invention didn’t have anything to say about Adam hiding from God and then blaming both the woman and God for his predicament. Naturally.) But see, it was all in order to PROTECT the woman. It ALWAYS is…
February 14, 2008 at 3:30 am
Psalmist,
I know YOU meant it as a joke! But, I have a feeling that it isn’t that far from someone’s reality.
To Everyone else,
Anyone watch “Wife Swap” tonight? It was about a very patriarchal family and an “untraditional” family. Very interesting.
February 14, 2008 at 3:52 am
Psalmist,
“Somehow, even without having eaten it himself, he knew she had and he willingly ate, though knowing how wrong it was, so that she wouldn’t be banished all by herself. He was doing it out of compassion for her. ”
I have read that in several places, too.
But, could this scenario be just as possible?
Let’s say that we go with what the Bible actually says when it says that Adam was with Eve. Adam had been tempted many times before. That fruit was just calling his name. Adam watched his wife eat the forbidden fruit. He heard the discussion that led up to her taking that bite and didn’t bother to interject or correct. When he saw that the coast was clear, that is that she did NOT really die, he went ahead and more than willingly took a bite.
How many times have we seen this same thing happen in the Bible where men have actually put their own wives in danger to save their own skin? Abram, Isaac, Nabal, Ananias, etc. Maybe they were a lot like their father Adam?
I am not saying that this is what happened at all but isn’t it as probable, if not more so, than the other things we have heard?
John MacArthur even goes so far as to claim that he didn’t have to be there to know what Adam was thinking. I can’t find the exact sermon where he said that but while I am looking, here are some quotes for your own personal edification:
“That takes us to point number four, the sin in Verse 6. Back to Genesis. I’m sure your Bible opened rather readily to Luke. We’ll go back to Genesis. Genesis, we come to Verse 6: “She took from its fruit and ate.” Are you surprised? I’m not surprised; not knowing where she is by this time. It went from the mind to the emotions, and the emotions overpowered the will, and the will produced the behavior. “She took from its fruit and ate.” Simple act, very simple act, with massive impact. Massive impact. And then it simply says: “She gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” Now, all of a sudden, Adam’s here. Where’s he been when we needed him? Well, I’ll tell you one thing. He wasn’t there during the temptation. How do I know that? Because it says in 1st Timothy 2:14 that “Adam was not deceived.” He wasn’t there during the deception. Satan pulled her out from under her protector. But Adam appears, from where we don’t know. But again, 1st Timothy 2:14 says he wasn’t “deceived.” So he wasn’t there through this whole process of deception, else if he’d have been there, he would have been in the conversation, believe me. But it just says: “She gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”
Why? You say why, Adam? Why? Why? Hold it, hold it, hold it, Adam. What are you doing? Why did he do it? We aren’t told why he did it. Can we speculate? Sure. I don’t really know why he did it. And I — I mean you could speculate, but what’s the point? I don’t know why he did it. You say well, maybe Eve took him back through the process of how she had been approached by this amazingly wonderful reptile, and maybe she said to Adam: Guess what, Adam? If we do this, we’ll be like God. Isn’t that good? Isn’t that neat? We can be like God, Adam. Maybe she didn’t tell him the whole deal. If that’s the case, he should have stopped her and said whoa, whoa, whoa. You were talking to who? A what? A talking reptile? I named the animals; I never ran across it. I mean at some point it doesn’t make sense for Adam to just say: Oh, really! A talking reptile told you to do this and you’d be like God? Give me one. That’s a little — that’s a fast track for a man of the intelligence of Adam.
Maybe, maybe she said to him: You know, Adam, God said — or maybe we didn’t hear Him right. God said, in the day you eat of that, you shall surely — what? “Die.” Hmm. Well, you know what, Adam? I’m here, and I did it. So I guess — I guess you can eat that, and it is good for food and it is beautiful, and it is going to make us like God. And guess what, Adam? I didn’t die. Now, maybe that was like some part of the conversation; I don’t know. But I do know 1st Timothy 2:14 says he wasn’t “deceived.” He just did it. He didn’t go through the deception process that Satan took Eve through.
Maybe she just said to him: Isn’t it wonderful? Now I’m like God and, oh, Adam, you can be like God, too. Wouldn’t that be great? And by the way, we must have misunderstood what he said. You know what? We kind of thought he said that you’ll die, but I didn’t die. Well, you say, does Adam have less guilt? No. In fact, whenever you look at the scripture in other places, the scripture always holds Adam accountable, not Eve, right? 1st Corinthians 15:22: “As in Adam all die.” Eve has immense guilt; no question. So does Adam.
Eve was deceived by the serpent through the whole process. Adam just joined in the sin for — for reasons or explanations that we don’t know. But both of them disobeyed God. God did say don’t eat, and they disobeyed God. And that’s sin. You say well, then why doesn’t it say as in Eve all died? Because there’s a principal of headship in the Bible, and it starts with Adam and it never ends. And it works in marriage, just as well as it works in the Trinity, as it works in the church. There’s a principal of headship. The husband is the head, right? 1st Corinthians 11: The husband is the head of the wife, as “God is the head of Christ.” And so he then becomes the responsible one. By God’s design, headship is in the man. Man then bears the responsibility.”
And then this little gem:
“But the question that followed that is important: why did Adam sin? You ask most people, “Why did Adam sin?” and they say, “He was tempted by Satan and he sinned.” That isn’t true. Was Adam deceived? No. Paul said to Timothy, “Adam was not deceived; the woman was deceived.” Eve was deceived. That’s why women have (for one reason) taken the subservient role in God’s order: because they sinned, they were deceived.
Why did Adam sin? The best answer to that is that Adam sinned because he loved Eve and once she was what she was, he wanted to be what she was. In addition to that, there is no answer. But apparently–and most scholars say–to be what Eve was. I mean, at that point he didn’t have a lot of choice; she was the only woman around! If you wanted any kind of compatibility, that was how it was. It shows you the foolishness of man’s first decision.
Now don’t ask me what would have happened if he hadn’t done it. “What if” questions are tough too.”
February 14, 2008 at 4:14 am
John MacArthur certainly seems to take great liberties when it comes to knowing certain things. Notice, very carefully, how he tells us that Eve was being “sarcastic”? HUH?
“She’s beginning to feel the restriction. Satan has gotten her to the place where she feels she’s in bondage; that there are delights being prevented; that she is being restricted by God from something that is desirable and wonderful and satisfying, and pleasurable. And so she’s beginning to think that God is harsh. And it shows up because she makes God even harsher. And she says we can’t even “touch” it. Well, God never said that. But she’s bought into the lie that God is harsh and restrictive, and narrow and binding. And she even in a — in a sort of sarcastic way says: Yeah, and God said we aren’t even to eat from it; we aren’t even to touch it. She’s now bought into it. Her heart has set its course. She is not defending God. She is not defending God’s goodness. She is not affirming God’s glorious majesty. She is not telling that reptile to get out of there. She is not saying God’s desires for me are all good and only good, and they are the highest and the best. And you know what? She is not taking offense at the wicked insults to God’s character. And that’s when the fall came. The first time she ever had a thought that God was not perfect goodness, she fell. Eve, a being that had been made holy and been equipped with the strength necessary to maintain moral integrity and a right relationship to God, freely chose to despise God’s goodness and distrust God, and severed her relationship with him thereby. And that’s what all sin is, all of it.”
and then he tells us that he would have done better than Eve:
“So he says to Eve: There’s this — there’s a serious flaw in the character of God, and that flaw is self-interest; he doesn’t want anybody on His level; and He knows that if you do that, you’ll be like Him. And He can’t stand that, and that’s why he’s restricted you. Wow! What a twist. Because that’s the compelling question. If I had been Eve and gotten that far, I would have said: But I don’t understand why God would do this. I mean okay, he’s narrow; okay, he’s restrictive. We’ve got a lot of freedoms. But you’ve painted this picture that all God is is restrictive simply because there’s one single tree in the whole of the created world that we can’t eat. Eve has bought into the restrictiveness of God, because of the way Satan framed all of that and made her focus only on the restriction. But the question still comes up: Why? And his answer is because God’s character is flawed; he hates competition; he hates anybody who attempts to be equal to God. And he knows that if you eat of that tree, you’re going to be like Him, and he hates rivals.”
and then he tells us that the man shines with the direct light of God while woman shines with the derived light from man:
“So man bears the glory of God because he’s given headship. He’s given the responsibility to rule. And that takes you back into Verse 3: “Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” There’s even a — there’s even a responsibility of headship and rulership within the Trinity, as well as within human creation. Woman is described here then in Verse 7 as “the glory of man.” Man was made to manifest God’s authority. Woman was made to manifest man’s authority. The woman is a vice-regent, if you will, who rules in the place of man, as it were, or carries out man’s will as man rules in the place of God and carries out God’s will. Man, in a sense, shines with the direct light of God, while woman shines with the derived light from man. She comes along to help man. Man is the image and glory of God. Woman is also the image of God, but she is the glory of man.”
February 14, 2008 at 4:18 am
MacArthur on marriage:
“Woman was made specifically for Adam, to meet his needs; physical, emotional and relational needs. Marriage is the very, very, very best. And you can figure out the implications of that.
If you’re not married, get married. Some of you people are so picky. You are just pushing off the best of life until — who knows? Some nebulous tomorrow when no one’s left. It isn’t a hasty decision you make, but it certainly ought to be the objective and the goal. So God’s creative design renders fornication, adultery, homosexuality and divorce outside the plan. Outside the plan. Proverbs — I don’t have time to develop, but Proverbs talks about being satisfied with your wife, and scripture just puts so much honor into marriage. It is the primary and essential relationship for man. If you want to be fulfilled as a man or a woman, this is where you find your great fulfillment. “
February 14, 2008 at 4:30 am
And folks like MacArthur claim egalitarianism requires people to reject the “plain reading” of Scripture. And his system is the “plain reading”???
Ridiculous. I continue to be amazed at the nonsense people are willing to swallow in order to accept patriarchal interpretations of Scripture.
February 14, 2008 at 4:57 am
Well it seems that the patriarchal family on tonight’s episode of Wife Swap are a Vision Forum Affiliate.
The patriarchal father kept on claiming to be the “gatekeeper” and man on the “wall” and the scene with daughter Columbia was very interesting.
http://www.projo.com/tv/content/lb-wifeswap_02-13-08_U38VPGL_v21.2281983.html
February 14, 2008 at 5:00 am
“And folks like MacArthur claim egalitarianism requires people to reject the “plain reading” of Scripture. And his system is the “plain reading”???”
So I wonder how MacArthur would explain the “plain reading: of these verses:
1Cr 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1Cr 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1Cr 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 1Cr 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Mat 19:10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry. Mat 19:11 ¶ But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given.
Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
…I think he’d have to do some pretty FANCY sidestepping to explain the plain reading of these away.
February 14, 2008 at 5:47 am
Speaking of who is NOT a “kitchen wife”:
“Who cooks for the family?
As a wife who is serving in the eyes of the Lord, it is my God given duty and wifely pleasure to serve my family and my husband by cooking their meals. The kitchen is my domain. I love cooking for my family, and I love putting a meal in front of my husband when he returns home from a day of providing for his family.
My daughters are always close by so they can learn what it means to be a devoted homemaker. I always seize every opportunity to train them by example and excellence. By the time God provides them with a husband they will be well trained in the art of wifely duties, which fills my heart with joy.
A man’s place is not in the kitchen
Does anyone else ever cook? Who and why?
As a devoted wife and mom, I do all of the cooking inside the house.
Chris will only cook outdoors, he says “show me a man who cooks in the kitchen and I’ll show you a man who was raised by his mama.”
We think men who do women’s work are emasculated and have lost their identity as king of the house. ”
This is from the “manual” from the patriarchal household written by the wife of that home.
They are also a “visionary family”. You can read the rest of their manual here:
http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap/index?pn=recap#
February 14, 2008 at 5:53 am
Another quote on pink vs. blue household chores. I probably did ti all wrong when I taught my son how to not only cook but how to clean bathrooms, dust, mop and vacuum.
And here I have been taking out the trash all this time and it is a “masculine” job? Why didn’t someone tell me this sooner!
“What are your general views on cleaning?
My wifely duties include the care and cleaning of our home and the training of my daughters to be the best homemakers they can be. My daughters will all live under our roof until they are ready to be married. Until that day it is my job to train them to cook, clean and care for their own families when they arrive.
My only son has a different role. One day Coburn will be the provider and protector of his own family, so it’s Chris’s job to train him to be a strong, God-fearing, respectful husband and father. Coburn is responsible for the all the masculine, outside work like taking out the trash.
Jesus likes a clean house and so does my husband. Chris should never have to come home from working hard all day and then have to clean his own house.
So every day before Chris gets home the children and I do a 5 minute Power Clean. We call it “getting the house back to standard.” As king of the castle Chris has the right to ask for another 10 minute Power Clean if the job hasn’t been done to his satisfaction.
Do you have a cleaning person or hired help? If so, why? If not, why?
We don’t have a cleaning person. It’s the right and proper wife’s role and duty to be the keeper of the home it says so in the Bible. ”
Where do people get these ideas? Where does the Bible tell us that cooking and cleaning is a woman-only job? Shouldn’t a family work together until the work is done and then they can relax together? After all, a woman works all day long, too, doesn’t she?
February 14, 2008 at 6:18 am
“Chris will only cook outdoors, he says “show me a man who cooks in the kitchen and I’ll show you a man who was raised by his mama.””
You know…. men who refuse to learn to cook and clean must of necessity be raised by their mamas, because if they leave home before they marry, they would have no one to fill their Mama’s role and take care of their helpless selves.
February 14, 2008 at 7:37 am
I was disturbed by this passage:
“Because we use the Bible as the blueprint for our lives, our children will never have to learn from their own mistakes, God willing. They will never know heartbreak, the evils of drinking or drugs, or selfish hurtful behavior. They won’t have the guilt of doing something stupid or getting in trouble.”
There is no formula, nothing that you or I can ever do, no method of homeschooling, no ideology to follow, that will result in our or our children never knowing heartbreak, or being free of “selfish and hurtful behavior.” This statement is kind of a distillation of the whole patriarchal agenda. Do, buy, wear xyz, and your life will be perfect. It must also be tough growing up in a household like that, with your parents expecting you to be sinless and perfect.
Also, I thought this was amusing: “Chris lived a sinful life booking rock bands, skateboarding, and performing stand-up comedy.”
February 14, 2008 at 11:54 am
Oh…so do you suppose THAT’S what’s behind the “children must stay at home until they are married” mandate? So the sons among them need never learn to do for themselves?
February 14, 2008 at 11:55 am
“Because we use the Bible as the blueprint for our lives, our children will never have to learn from their own mistakes, God willing. They will never know heartbreak, the evils of drinking or drugs, or selfish hurtful behavior. They won’t have the guilt of doing something stupid or getting in trouble.”
This absolutely wobbles the mind. We also raised our children with “the Bible as a blueprint”. I can not imagine making such a statement! One child turned out fine, the other was, sorry to say, a shipwreck from the time he was a toddler. We tried everything with him. He is the most selfish, hurtful person I have ever known.
I can not imagine ever using the word “never” especially when it comes to children.
This movement seems pretty “puffed up”. Wow.
February 14, 2008 at 11:57 am
And that “our children will never have to learn from their mistakes” thing is chilling to me. They WILL have to learn from their mistakes. Mama and Daddy have guaranteed that: the children will have to learn, for one thing, that Mama and Daddy were wrong. There will be some serious remedial “school of hard knocks” for these kids. Sooner or later, they’re actually going to have to grow up.
February 14, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Thanks, Corrie, for the link to the show and the family manual. I found it to be very insightful. And I am exhausted reading through it all. Where is the organic nature of one-anothering in that household?
You know, my husband would feel really uncomfortable if he were to sit at the dinner table with people rushing around him, waiting on him hand and foot like this man. He would tell us all to relax and enjoy the meal together. He loves to serve us all at the table, filling plates ( always ladies first, as his grandfather and dad did.
One other thing I would hate….my husband buying clothes for me to try on at home. Oh my goodness. My husband thinks one thing when it comes to clothing “serviceable.” He stopped buying clothes for me 30 years ago unless it is something I picked out. Otherwise I would look like a model for Farm King.
February 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Corrie, you saw the show. What does it mean the Columbia is the princess? And did Colburn really have as big a get over life as it sounds like? I think these people have to experience some serious sibling rivalry if their relationships are as the manual makes them out to be. What impression did you get? Oh, and, how did they justify Chris placing his wife under another man’s authority let alone roof for 2 weeks?
February 14, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Oh, and one more thing…..how do you “make” someone obey with a cheerful heart? Outwardly someone may be happy and compliant, but how can the parents know just how happy the heart is?
February 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“Because we use the Bible as the blueprint for our lives, our children will never have to learn from their own mistakes, God willing. They will never know heartbreak, the evils of drinking or drugs, or selfish hurtful behavior. They won’t have the guilt of doing something stupid or getting in trouble.”
Looks like God was wrong in giving Adam and Eve free will…. if He had done things this way, we’d all still be in the Garden.
February 14, 2008 at 1:40 pm
What is a Christian family doing on Wife swap anyway?! What a totally stupid idea….I just cringe thinking about it. Yikes!!
February 14, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“Corrie, you saw the show. What does it mean the Columbia is the princess?”
I don’t know. Was that in the manual? She is the second to the youngest. She is quite different than the rest of them. She has spunk and zeal and she is a thinker. You can tell that by her eyes. She is a beautiful little girl, too. But, after her dad gets done with her, she is visibly changed. And I mean that. She seems sullen and robotic and depressed. It was very hard to watch that part. There was a part in the show where Chris takes her and her younger sister away because one of the other chidren warned him over the phone that Columbia was getting ideas in her head because of Kim. Chris freaked on the phone and when he came home, he put Columbia in the van and sped off and would not bring Columbia back into the home until the next day after being cajoled to do so. When Columbia came back she was visibly changed. And her language and body motions were robotic, she was now wearing glasses and looked like she had been through an emotional wringer.
“And did Colburn really have as big a get over life as it sounds like?”
I don’t understand the question.
Colburn was the son, right? He was following in the footsteps of his father, for sure. Kim, the new mom, changed the rules and Colburn had to walk in the girls shoes for a week doing laundry and other household jobs. He had never done them before????!!!! He made some comment, while he was taking out the garbage that Kim was “empowering the women and emasculating the men”. He felt emasculated because he had to fold some laundry for a week? LOL! Where does he get these ideas? He also had a fit when Kim stated that their father had told her that he brainwashed the children. Well, Chris DID say that, few times. But, when the children questioned him, he back-peddled and twisted it and made it sound like he was washing them with the water of the word of God.
” I think these people have to experience some serious sibling rivalry if their relationships are as the manual makes them out to be. What impression did you get? ”
Highly controlling, especially concerning the mind. Chris, the Patriarch, made some statement about how his children do not struggle with sin or some such thing because of the way he has brainwashed them. Yes, he states that he brainwashes his children and it was creepy the way he said it. The look on his face/eyes was bizarre. Like a creepy movie.
“Oh, and, how did they justify Chris placing his wife under another man’s authority let alone roof for 2 weeks?”
I do not know. I really do not.
February 14, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“One other thing I would hate….my husband buying clothes for me to try on at home. Oh my goodness. My husband thinks one thing when it comes to clothing “serviceable.” He stopped buying clothes for me 30 years ago unless it is something I picked out. Otherwise I would look like a model for Farm King.”
ROFLOL!!! Oh, this is funny! I do have a visual image of you!
My husband, when we were first married, went out and bought me a new warddrobe (several outfits) for my birthday (from Sam’s Club) and he brought it home. I am not a good Poker player because no matter how hard I tried, he could read all my thoughts on my face. The clothing reminded me of the Garanimal’s that used to be so popular when I was younger. The pants were polyester and the shirts were that sweatshirt material and they were all interchangeable. You know, the monkey goes with the monkey and the elephant goes with the elephant? LOL We ended up having a good laugh and taking the clothing back.
On the other hand, I do buy all of his clothes, except the shirts that his work sends to him. Not that it is a rule but he just likes my taste in things and he finds it much easier for me to do the shopping.
February 14, 2008 at 3:14 pm
““Chris will only cook outdoors, he says “show me a man who cooks in the kitchen and I’ll show you a man who was raised by his mama.””
You know…. men who refuse to learn to cook and clean must of necessity be raised by their mamas, because if they leave home before they marry, they would have no one to fill their Mama’s role and take care of their helpless selves.”
EXACTLY, Cynthia.
How could Chris not know this? Mama’s Boyz are notorious for not doing anything because they are used to being waited on hand and foot.
I guess this makes me wonder what exactly they mean by “servant leadership”. I don’t see much “serving” in their “leadership”, especially when they have the attitude that they are so far above cleaning toilets and cooking a meal and doing laundry.
Again, I find no “sacrifice” in fancying oneself the “King of the castle”. That is NOT the image that Christ left for His disciples. That is a pagan one.
February 14, 2008 at 3:28 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330642,00.html
Here is a story that came across another email list. It is about a female referee who was told to leave because it violated this particular school’s policy that women cannot be in authority over boys/men.
Silly! I wonder if they were gnashing their teeth at her?
February 14, 2008 at 4:00 pm
This is a riot! I thought that I was the only person that saw that TV show!
I felt like I needed a shot of insulin after the first few minutes. All in all, my husband said that the husbands on the show were an excellent example of the opposite ends of the spectrum of “biblical manhood.” The VF man was intimidated by the working woman and her evils, even packing up some of the girls and shipping them out. By the end, we were cracking up over his repetitive references to “gatekeeper.” The other man was not intimidated by his wife working, but he was easily intimidated, crying because the VF woman brought him to tears through rejection. My husband said that they all needed exit counseling!
Though this is not very objective at all, both the non-VF husband and wife had the “hungry eyes” that I have seen many times in people who have been in spiritually abusive situations. The wife had that bug-eyed look only intermittently, but the the husband had it all the time. When I first went for exit counseling, the counselor noted the same quality in me which resolved after I started getting free. I’ve seen the same response in other people when they loose the “wide-eyed” look. I don’t notice it in everyone, but many people in these high-demand groups demonstrate the same quality. There are many in VF that have that “wide-eyed” look about them, and although this is not very objective, it is very notable and very human.
I thought that the VF people were terribly “smug” when they were reunited with their spouses and met with the other couple. I know so many families who homeschool who would have been better, more realistic examples to have used for that show. And the kids of the other couple came across as duds on the show, and I know many familes that would have been better examples of Christian familes where the woman works. (Though I don’t know any where the man is stay-at-home which I think is not advantageous for a host of reasons.)
The VF daughter, Columbia, bothered me and presented a good example of a child that probably does not fit the mold. She was tagged by her family as rebellious, and I wholeheartedly disagreed. She was different, but to some, that is a terrible sin. Some personality styles fit authoritarian or hierarchic environments and some have more trouble in them. Other people learn better and are more productive in less ordered environments. Not everyone marches to the same drum, and that daughter struck me as one who would excel in a different environment, though she seemed to be coping well. (Not all examples of those that don’t fit the mold cope as well, and those are the people for whom I have great concern.) The daughter didn’t represent a great tragedy, but I believe that she will have a great deal of emotional work to do as an adult.
It was certainly a drama, though I wouldn’t call it true-to-life. It was tiring to watch as both the VF couple and the non-VF husband were equally intense. It reminded me of the intensity of some of the people who attended my old church in San Antonio who left for BCA. It was also depressing. It’s no wonder that people think Christians are whacked and “too heavenly minded for any earthly good.”
The tag that played as the credits rolled was telling and hysterical, however. They cut to the stay-at-home dad on his few days of work as a carpenter, showing him basically standing around, venting. The last thing you hear is the carpenter foreman say “I just like to build things.” He didn’t get it, and I doubt that most people without additional insight into these two extreme example familes would get it either.
February 14, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Corrie, the “servant leadership” thing is so disingenuous because anytime anyone ’splains it to you, ever notice that it’s always about the leadership and they say nothing about servanthood? A friend of mine says that’s because it’s code-speak for “leading the servant.”
February 14, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I have watched only one episode of “Wife Swap,” and it happened to be one where one family had a 16-year-old daughter who was a pageant princess; they swapped with a family where the mother was a Quaker minister and the family embraced feminism. I was blown away by the fact that the pageant girl’s parents did all her homework for her; it turned out the girl couldn’t even write in complete sentences. The family ate dinner out every night. She got a present every morning from under the year-round Christmas tree. Everything revolved around her pageant stuff. There was a girl who was just as clueless and helpless and spoiled as sons are under the extreme patri role segregation (at least when it comes to knowing how to make a bed or run a washing machine or scramble an egg).
Based on the synopses I’ve heard about other episodes, the producers of “Wife Swap” must look hard for caricatures, rather than “normal” people. Really, they must.
February 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I know several people in the blogosphere who have been contacted by Wife Swap to be a part of the show, including my best friend in real life. They just send emails out to the “weirdest” families they can find- ones where traditional gender roles are present and the people are proud of it… people with strong religious convictions… large families… I know that Crystal Paine over at Biblical Womanhood, Barbara Curtis of Mommy Life and Sora and Matt Colvin of Parah and Fragmenta have all been contacted and blogged about it. Barbara was the only person who replied that they would do it. The rest had never heard of the show and were outraged at the suggestion.
I’ve watched the show for a few years and I really like it. Most of the time, families learn a lot from living with another person for a little while. They get out of their bubbles and sometimes make very positive changes. I’ve seen families obsessed with video games and fast food actually eat home-cooked meals together… absent fathers coming home… men who never cook actually get in the kitchen. Its pretty entertaining if you don’t take it too seriously.
February 14, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I wonder… what happens to these patrio-mama’s-boys if the happen to go into the ARMY???
Man, I’d like to be a fly on the barracks wall for that one, especially if he gets a female TI!
February 14, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“Corrie, the “servant leadership” thing is so disingenuous because anytime anyone ’splains it to you, ever notice that it’s always about the leadership and they say nothing about servanthood? A friend of mine says that’s because it’s code-speak for “leading the servant.””
Psalmist,
Yes, that seems more true to reality.
Whenever I hear a patriarchal type speak of “servant leadership” it is always under the guise of saying that they are serving BY leading. So, when they make a schedule for their wife to follow everyday, they call it “servant leadership”. When they pray with their wife who is crying in the laundry room at 2 AM because she is still up doing laundry and taking care of a newborn, they call it “servant leadership”. Oh, don’t get the wrong impression. The story I heard was that the husband heard his wife crying after her dozen or so children, went to her in the laundry room, told her that God doesn’t give her more than she can handle, prayed for her strength and then he went back to bed so that she could finish up her work. They talk about reading the Bible to their family as “servant leadership”. They also talk about how much they “sacrifice” for their families but their examples aren’t really ones that I would call “sacrifice”. I would just call it being responsible adults.
So, yes, it does seem to be more about leading the servant than serving. I don’t see much “foot washing” going on. Foot-washing was considered too low for even the Jewish slaves. Only foreign slaves were put in that low position and that is why, I believe, Jesus chose that example as one for His disciples to follow. That is also why He directly contrasted it with the pagan notion of authority and leadership.
You are right about the Wife Swap show going for the caricatures. There have been a few families from various Christian email lists I am on that have participated on this show. I happen to know a couple of real life patriarchal “caricatures” who act just like Mr. Childs in their daily interactions. It is disturbing, to say the least. So, while he may be a caricature, I am thinking that most of this was not an “act” that he was putting on but how it is in real life.
February 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm
The first Christmas we were married, my husband bought me a cashmere and suede jacket. It was about 3 sizes too small. He said he held it up at the store and thought it looked like my size.
)
Before we were married, I gave him a ‘no’ list. No hearts, ruffles, bows, animals or anything else cutsey on ANYTHING he buys for me. If he stayed clear of the NO list, he would probably be fine.I also gave him a list of approved stores.
)
I know you all think I am mean but you should have seen the appalling stuff he was spending good money on. It had to stop.
)
February 14, 2008 at 4:59 pm
” the “servant leadership” thing is so disingenuous because anytime anyone ’splains it to you, ever notice that it’s always about the leadership and they say nothing about servanthood? A friend of mine says that’s because it’s code-speak for “leading the servant.”
YOU HAVE NAILED IT! I used to be a part of facilitating these ’seminars’ and I can promise you that you have gotten it right!
(It is really a form of softer leadership by faux consensus that uses the Hegalian dialectic to persuade)
February 14, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Think of Lifton’s “Loading the Language” and thought-stopping cliches when you hear these buzz terms. (Buzz term is quite telling in and of itself.) These are techniques that in healthy environments serve as shortcuts in longer communications. Think of “STAT” or “ASAP” where their use cuts through the time of comminication to speed things along.
In manipulative groups that push ideology, this is a means of turning off critical thought by producing either cognitive dissonance or by drawing associations for you, “defining” things for the listener. Secret language connotes power and exclusivity and is a very powerful technique. Only people in the mens movements and in these aberrant groups know what these terms mean, and they have no cultural relavance outside of the group.
I just posted on the ABC website concerning this, and I can’t believe that the “servant-leader” term popped up here at the same time! Though on the show, it was hard to miss.
Loading the language is one of the things that Vision Forum does best. Language builds a construct upon which ideology can be fixed. It also enhances communication with others on their topics difficult when trying to communicate with others outside of their group. It helps them stay isolated, because those who are ignorant of their terms seem to be unqualified to speak to the concepts that their language represents. Unless the other party goes to the work of learning the specifics, the ideas remain exclusive and special. It helps solidify the concept that only those within the group are enlightened and that the ideology of the group is true.
February 14, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Kind of a verbal Gnosticism…
February 14, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Psalmist wrote: Kind of a verbal Gnosticism…
My thoughts exactly. Except that in some ways, it’s worse. They hold to that “Higher Life” teaching that Gothard is quite fond of. They believe that you can attain a place of mastery that keeps one from sin. (I used to think that this was an exclusive teaching of the Word of Faith movement!)
February 14, 2008 at 9:36 pm
That’s just pride, which renders the “sinles” sinful.
I’m Methodist (don’t anybody lob rotten produce at me, OK?) and one of the things Wesley, our founder, taught was that it is possible to be MADE perfect in love, in this life. He believed that it was possible to no longer consciously sin, but that it was entirely the gift of God, with the deliberate cooperation of the individual, that could bring one to such a state. He never claimed to have achieved it, but believed he had known a few of whom it might be true.
Now that kind of perfection, I can agree with. Not, however, some “state of mastery.” Who is the hero of the story, after all? I like Wesley’s understanding that we are MADE perfect; we don’t ACHIEVE perfection. And always, perfection in love.
February 14, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Luk 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom [his] lord shall make ruler over his household, to give [them their] portion of meat in due season?
Luk 12:43 Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
Luk 12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
While thinking about people who twist and abuse the conceptof “servant leadership”, this parable came to mind:
Luk 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom [his] lord shall make ruler over his household, to give [them their] portion of meat in due season?
Luk 12:43 Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Luk 12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
Luk 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
February 14, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Doggone computer… that should have read,
“While thinking about people who twist and abuse their position of “servant leadership”, this parable came to mind:
Luk 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom [his] lord shall make ruler over his household, to give [them their] portion of meat in due season?
Luk 12:43 Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Luk 12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
Luk 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”
I don’t know how those extra verses got in there at the beginning of the post, I could have sworn that I erased them!
February 15, 2008 at 3:47 am
Hey Kids,
ABC has a “Wife Swap” message board, and my posts started disappearing. Big surprise! It seems that they didn’t like my posts that pointed out that Mrs. Childs, the VF mom, has been working on Mike Huckabee’s campaign. I asked the bigger question: Whether or not Mrs. Childs and their 18 year old twin daughters vote since Vision Forum is against women voting. (Well, what the heck. Maybe they just do what Stacy McDonald says that she does. In a private email to an online acquaintance of mine, Stacy confided in this person that she and her daughters who were of age do vote.)
This gets more interesting by the minute.
Write to ABC and ask them to do a news piece on this family. Some people on the ABC blog have already written to Good Morning America to ask them to do a feature.
February 15, 2008 at 3:51 am
Here is tenet #3 of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto:
3.) Prairie Muffins are aware that God is in control of their ability to conceive and bear children, and they are content to allow Him to bless them as He chooses in this area.
February 15, 2008 at 3:53 am
The “Well Done Childs Family” has been a pretty popular thread over there.
http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap/index?pn=mb&cat=71886&tid=225721
What I find interesting is that people were so offset by Mr. Childs (the VF dad “gatekeeper”) that some note that the “rebellious daughter” was confronted by the dad by wisking her off in their van, away from the cameras.
I did not notice it, but a couple of people were really upset, because when that girl, Columbia, reappears on camera, she apparently has bruises on her eyes and below her left eye. People on the board hoped that CPS had been notified as many were so upset at the father’s authoritarianism, they found it easy to believe that the father could have been physically abusive.
As I stated, I didn’t take notice, but I think that people suggested this is very telling about the whole scenario. He was pretty angry, typical of some of these folks.
February 15, 2008 at 4:13 am
3.) Prairie Muffins are aware that God is in control of their ability to conceive and bear children, and they are content to allow Him to bless them as He chooses in this area.
This is great and exactly what I did in my nearly 18 years of marriage. It didn’t happen, and as my best friend, mother of 7 says, “I have the chlidren of my husband’s pain” instead. He has chronic pain and chronic illness. I spent about 5 solid years doing all of his driving and helping him by volunteering at his workplace.
But I’m a monstrous woman, none the less….
I guess because I am so highly boisterous.
Oh yeah. My dad was not born-again until I was 16, I was Pentecostal, I went to college, etc… So I’m washed up. Oh yeah. Some classify me as a feminist and egalitarian and gossip. Yawn.
February 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Cindy, you said,
“Write to ABC and ask them to do a news piece on this family. Some people on the ABC blog have already written to Good Morning America to ask them to do a feature.”
I’m just curious what good you think would come out of this. How would it further the kingdom of God for them to be on GMA? I didn’t see the show, but this just brings to mind the question of how we should approach situations like these. Obviously, we can’t pretend that patriocentric-types don’t exist, but do we want them to be the representatives of Christianity to the world? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your intent in suggesting this.
February 15, 2008 at 6:33 pm
“3.) Prairie Muffins are aware that God is in control of their ability to conceive and bear children, and they are content to allow Him to bless them as He chooses in this area.”
We just do not see this focus in the NT. And it is a HUGE focus for the Patriarchs. It is also something that has to be looked at very deeply. After all, most 13 year olds can get pregnant. And many godly women cannot. We live in a fallen world.
So only looking at this as a blessing means that the reverse is a curse of sorts. Not true! The focus on this is almost cruel to some women who cannot bear children.
February 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“The focus on this is almost cruel to some women who cannot bear children.”
Being one of those who God hasn’t given children at this time, I so agree. Yes, you get the token “sorry about your infertility” sometimes but the focus is immediately back to how wonderful and heavenly motherhood is (I don’t doubt it is) and how it is the HIGHEST calling. Ouch. I have to remind myself that the highest calling we can have is to be children of the King.
February 15, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“3.) Prairie Muffins are aware that God is in control of their ability to conceive and bear children, and they are content to allow Him to bless them as He chooses in this area.”
Maybe we don’t see much of a focus on this in Scripture because 1 out of every 5 childbirths ended up with a dead mother. In Roman society, the figure was even worse, because most women were married around age 12.
Upper class Roman women would stop having children after they had 3. Generally, this was accomplished by not having sex anymore. Jewish women, in contrast, continued childbearing.
The reason childbirth was so extra-deadly was probably greatly due to nutrition. A woman’s pelvic bones would often be too small, thanks to the poor nutrition she recieved in utero. Lots of deaths, painful deaths… A pregnancy was a cause for joy and also a time to prepare for death.
Our modern “quiverfull” movement thinks its harkening back to the faithful days of yore, but I’m afraid those who LIVED in the days of yore wouldn’t have much to say.
Babies come at cost. To tell people that they have to have them, whether they want them or not, seems foolish, at best. We heard about Andrea Yates, a QF mom, only because she killed her kids. How many more children are getting abused, etc, because a mentally ill parent is “forced” into having baby after baby, all because they think God won’t like them unless they do.
Or what about women like me? My body is ruined for life, thanks to the idea that birth control is sinful. My fertility, despite nursing, comes back only a couple months after a baby is born. I had 5 babies in 6 years, and my body couldn’t take the strain.
My pelvic bone was pulled apart. It will never heal. I can barely walk when pregnant, but thankfully, I’m mostly okay when I’m not pregnant.
No jogging for me, ever again. My uterus is prolapsed (the cords that “hang it” are broken). It is ever in a state of wanting to fall out, literally. Kegals will be my best friend, for the rest of my life.
Thanks to a very physically traumatic home birth (my second birth, where I used a birthing stool and ripped from top to bottom, basically), my pelvic floor is severely compromised. I have had two surgeries for this to clean up the mess that comes after birthing with such a high degree of non-stretchy scar tissue. I almost bled to death in the second surgery, when they nicked an artery.
After my fifth birth, I was told that if I get pregnant again, I will have to have a C-section IF I want to ever have sex again, becuase there is no more tissue left to repair my birth canal post-birth when the scar tissue rips, as it always has since that second birth). Shall I go on?
There are SO many babies and children in this world who need arms to love them. Why are we putting burdens on the backs of God’s people and telling them they must keep pumping out babies like so many rabbits? If welcoming life is the issue, let’s welcome the lives of all those unwanted children, just as the first century Christians did by rescuing the exposed infants and bringing them up in their own homes.
If someone wants to have ten children, then bless them! But if someone doesn’t want to, why in the world are we telling them they are “lesser thans?” Who are we to point such fingers?
The Prairie Muffin banner is one to fly high … if one is of the mind that the law is for today and that adhering to a list of externals equals inward righteousness. Truly, is this really what Christ came to liberate us into?
February 15, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Allison,
I believe that this stuff should be exposed. The Evangelical Church has been largely unwilling to do so, but the movement continues to grow. I believe that the exposure will both make people aware of how culturally irrelevant the whole movement. I believe that it will increase the degree to which they must be accountable, something that none of them are. If people knew about the drinking and gambling and protecting of molesters and lies and misrepresentation and stealing of intellectual property and work and real property and livelihood, I believe that it will make a big difference. He that covers his sin does not prosper and it eats at the church like a cancer, from the inside out. These people show little to no integrity (and I say that with full assurance of nearly every well-known evangelist of patriarchy, complete with documentation). They should be exposed, and if the church won’t recognize it, then the secular world should be warned.
Maybe Evangelicals will be shamed into taking responsibility. There are hosts of ministries and public figures in Christianity who could put people like Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips out of business in a day, but they are worried about the support and viability of their own ministries, should they take on the effort. These people are the worst thugs, tantamount to people in the secular culture and many know it but few will speak out of fear and pragmatism.
It will also make the unsuspecting more aware of what these groups really teach before they get sucked in. Again, if you don’t believe that the patriarchy movement utilizes surreptitious thought reform and uses the same techniques as cults to suck in the unsuspecting to indoctrinate followers, then you probably will disagree with me. But that is may stance. Snakes don’t come in the front door, they sneak into your life through cracks and fissures that we all have by means of being human. They are not obvious, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If people are informed about their tactics and their extreme doctrines before they get pulled in, they will learn to recognize them and turn around and stay away from them. Far away.
I’ve spent months reading and studying and investigating, really hoping to prove that things with these people are not as bad as some would have us believe. I’ve seen hard documentation of the outright garbage and crime that these men perpetrate in the Name of Jesus Christ. I didn’t want to believe it, but it is clear to me. How frustrating to realize that no one will even discuss some of these things. They teach heretical doctrine that is not Christian, and everyone says “But they have a nice family” because they’ve been hypnotized and have fallen asleep.
Maybe this would be the perfect wake-up call. I believe the truth can take it. The real church can take it. The Word of God can transcend it all. Keeping this filth hidden will only continue to poison the church.
Again, many of these folks have lost perspecive and believe that they are following the truth. But I don’t know how some of these others can wink at the corruption. It will catch up to them eventually, but I would like to see the terrible colateral damage that has been done by the patriarchy movement to be halted. I believe that the church will be all the better for it.
If you don’t believe that they practice thought reform or that their doctrine is not skewed, then you will undoubtedly disagree with me. More power to you. But that’s my perspective having studied and studied this movement, their doctrine and their heteropraxy. The Word of God is my standard and I am captive to my conscience. Here I stand, God help me.
February 15, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Molly,
God bless you. I am so sorry that you have had all these problems. I honor you and thank you for being so frank and honest about this. It rips my guts out to talk to people about the problems that my husband and I have had physically which have been life-limiting, making childbearing pretty low on the priority list. Coming to the topic via a very different path, I still relate to your description of pain and physical difficulties. Given the focus of childbirth in this movement, I know well the pressures that this topic brings. It’s often not easy to be candid about. Thank you.
In a prarie muffin world, only the perfect are raised up for comparison, and comparison is mandatory as our measuring rod for the value of our faith. We are not even given all the data wherewith to make a clean comparison. My heart aches.
February 15, 2008 at 7:54 pm
http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Building-Strong-Families/The-Husband-as-Prophet-Priest-and-King
This has really nothing to do with the Prairie Muffin Manifesto but this chapter comes from an online book called “Building Strong Families” that can be found at CBMW.
Bob Lepine goes through each facet of a husband’s so-called responsibility:
Husband-Prophet: he is the one who hears from God, he speaks for God, on His behalf, and he bears the word of God.
“Theology is a word that literally means “the study of God.”
Rather than ignoring theological and doctrinal issues, dismissing them as foolish or unnecessary, a husband should find himself wrestling with the issues raised in Scripture and should determine for his wife and his family what is right and true. ”
As a prophet, he confronts sin and calls his wife to repentance.
Husband as King: “In their quarrel with the
prophet Samuel over their desire to be ruled by a king, Israel said, “there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles”(1 Sam. 8:19-20, ”
These are the jobs of a husband. He is, as King, to present his wife and family to the culture.
“In their book Intimate Allies,Dan Allender and Tremper Longman
III write about this aspect of how a husband should function as king in marriage: “We are called to cultivate Christ in our spouses. . . . To do so effectively, we must be guided by a vision of who they are, a picture of who they were meant to be [like Christ] and a grasp of our role in helping them become like Christ.”
Husband-Priest:
Suprisingly he uses the functions of the Levitical priesthood and applies them across the board to all husbands. Even though only Levites, not all men, could only be priests in the OT and in the NT, we no longer need an earthly priest, he still presses that the Bible teaches us that husbands are to be like Levitical priests.
“In our contemporary, individualistic, egalitarian cul-
ture, many husbands reject their priestly responsibilities with their wives (I was one of them), thinking, She’s fully capable of having her own quiet time or doing her own Bible reading. Besides, I’ll just embarrass myself. The mature, godly man will not shy away. He will assume that his role as priest for his wife is a necessary function of being called her husband. ”
So she is not capable of having her own quiet time or doing her own Bible reading? Not sure what he is saying. I think reading the Bible together as a family is a very good thing but I also think that each individual believer is capable of having a relationship with the Lord apart from the other.
“Still, if a man aspires to be a godly husband, he will assume responsibility to oversee the spiritual condition of his wife. To love and serve his wife as Christ loves His church, a husband must intercede on her behalf. In John 17, where Jesus intercedes for His followers, we find a pattern of intercession a husband can follow in praying for his wife”
Wow! After reading this chapter, I am left wondering where these things are found in the Bible.
The husband is the prophet, priest and king. These are very important sounding titles, for sure. Who wouldn’t want to be addressed by these titles? Everyone of his points is something that the wife, as co-heir and fellow royal priest, is able to do for her husband.
What is the wife in her marriage? It would seem that the only role she has to play is one of subject. She is not addressed as prophetess, priestess or queen even though the Bible addresses women as prophetesses and tells us that women are part of the holy priesthood. And, the woman married to the King is usually called the Queen because she is a co-heir to the kingdom and a vice regent. But, when Lepine writes, he writes as if the wife is in the position of subject of the king, priest and prophet because his examples tell us what each of these positions do for the people UNDER them and not what each of these positions do for others in the same position.
February 15, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Cindy K, thank you. I really feel blessed by what you just wrote. I spent some time yesterday reading all the comments about the Wife Swap episode, and I just . . . ugh.
I don’t really watch much reality TV beyond the Home and Garden channel (real estate and home renovation shows are my guilty pleasure, lol!) but I did read the links provided, and I just . . . I feel ill. I am finding my stomach is increasingly sensitive to these things actually! I find I get nauseous and sometimes there’s a bad taste in my mouth when I spend too much time reading some of the things that are taught in those groups. It’s an unpleasant sensation, but perhaps it’s just indicative of the true nature of it all.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that a light needs to be shone directly on what I believe Molly once termed a “nest of vipers.” As you said, if the Evangelical church is not going to stand up in full force and confront these people, the world beyond needs to be warned anyway. Perhaps their resulting horror will shame the rest of the church into sitting up, taking notice, and finally taking action.
February 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Corrie,
I guess that it all depends in what universe that you establish your kingdom.
I read a section in Blaise Pascal’s Pensees, but I don’t recall where in the book it is… He says that men who desire to be king have no idea what it is to be a man, let alone a king. How true.
February 15, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Cindy,
I absolutely agree with you that the patriarchal movement uses the same techniques as cults. I know some of what you’re talking about firsthand, though I’m not as well-informed about it as you. As I suspected, I misunderstood your intent in trying to get their story on the news. And I’m still unsure it would work to expose them. If Evangelicals would be shamed into taking action, then I hope the story does get on GMA. My only thought was that it would be another sensationalized story about and unusual family, similar to the Mormon polygamists featured on one of the television news magazines last year. Patriarchalists would rise to defend them and Evangelicals would shake their heads and wonder that there are such oddballs in the world giving a bad name to Christianity. I wish I weren’t so pessimistic about it. I am saddened that Christian public figures don’t use their influence to stop the insanity. There are so many being hurt by this way of life.
February 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Molly,
Thank you for being so open about your struggles. I read some of your blog archives where you referenced your surgeries, but never saw you lay it out like this. I’m so sorry for the pain you’ve experienced. I wholeheartedly agree that if a woman wants to have ten children, that’s wonderful for her. But no one should feel they have to take that path.
February 15, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Molly,
Thank you for being so open about your struggles. I read some of your blog archives where you referenced your surgeries, but never saw you lay it out like this. I’m so sorry for the pain you’ve experienced. I wholeheartedly agree that if a woman wants to have ten children, that’s wonderful for her. But no one should feel they have to take that path.
Now I am going back to being a lurker for a while b/c I need to spend some time with my family. I don’t know how you women keep up with all these discussions–and many of you homeschool as well. Do you sleep? God bless!
February 15, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Whoops! Sorry that last one came through twice. I tried to stop it to add my final thoughts, but I guess I was unsuccessful. Back to lurking . . .
February 16, 2008 at 12:42 am
Molleth, Your comment has stunned me. I just cannot fathom what you have been through with child birth. Thank you for sharing this with us.
If you all have not seen this post about having lots of children quickly, please take time to read it after what Molleth wrote. And it is written by a comp husband…not a Patriarch. This post bothered me greatly and still does.
http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/2008/02/can-complementarian-man-submit-to-his.html
My cousin has a horrible second pregnancy and birth with her second child. When it was finally over, her husband fell on his knees and in tears begged her to agree with him that she would never go through that again. She almost died. She agreed.
February 16, 2008 at 12:45 am
“In their book Intimate Allies,Dan Allender and Tremper Longman
III write about this aspect of how a husband should function as king in marriage:”
Ya know…many earthly kings came to a pretty bad end. they may want to check history.:o)
It is harder to be a servant…as Christ called us all to be.
)
February 16, 2008 at 3:33 am
“3.) Prairie Muffins are aware that God is in control of their ability to conceive and bear children, and they are content to allow Him to bless them as He chooses in this area.”
Concerning “quiverfull”, children are a blessing, but is it possible to have too much of a blessing? Food and “fatness” are described in the Scriptures as a blessing, too, but when we are greedy and eat more food that is good for us, that is gluttony and it is a sin; likewise in the Old Testament wine is called a blessing, but if we are greedy and seek to be “blessed” too much, we commit the sin of drunkenness.
Obviously just because a thing is a blessing doesn’t mean that it’s good to seek it in unlimited quantities — quite the contrary, in fact. A horse is “without understanding” (Psa 32:9) and if it’s not
bridled it will founder itself on oats, but humans are supposed to know better.
Now, Christian parents should welcome pregnancies, and I can see where it would be sinful for HEALTHY couples to deliberately seek not to have any chldren, but could it be that couples who go out of their way to be “blessed” with more children than they can properly support are also sinning (and perhaps doubly so, because they excuse their child-greed with the presumptious notion that “God will provide” when, as a natural result of their actions, they end up with more kids than they can feed without seeking aid from the government, the community, or the church)?
And something else to consider — in the Old Testament Man is told to go forth and multiply and FILL the earth; in the New Testament is found a similar injunction — we are told to preach the Gospel to all
nations, so that the people who fill earth may be SAVED. I think that the New Testament command to preach the Gospel follows on the heels of the Old Testament command to procreate and make the people whose descendants would one day hear the Good News — sort of like Part Two
follows Part One in a sequence.
February 16, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Cynthia,
This “God will provide” mentality was highlighted on the Dr. Phil show. A QF couple with 7 children (she just gave birth to the 7th) appeared on the Dr. Phil show with her parents who were quite worried about how her husband neglected his family. He had a lot of misguided notions about what God would expect of him. He did not provide for his family at all. His home was on the brink of foreclosure and the gas and water had been cut off. In fact, he was quite proud of his “resourcefulness” when he rerouted the gutters so the rainwater would spill out into a pool so that they could use that water for household things. Too bad he didn’t take some of his resourcefulness and find a job to provide for his family. He also bled both of their parents dry with all his “visionary” wisdom. It was really sad but I was quite happy that Dr. Phil approached it by using the Bible and he also invited a pastor who made clear what the scriptures said.
I have heard of several QF families who think it is “God’s will” for them to keep on having babies all the while living off the government because the husband can’t or won’t hold down a steady job. They have the mindset that the world owes them and is supposed to help them out since they are doing the “Lord’s will”.
I think of the parable of the builder who did not consider the cost of his building before he started building. Children are a blessing but I no longer believe that all birth control is sin. It all boils down to the heart and I have sin bad motives on both sides of the equation. I have seen mothers eschew breast feeding in order to have as many children in as little time as possible. They are actively pursuing having babies very close together which I believe is detrimental to not only the mother’s health but also to the other children’s health. I think pursuing having a lot of children all the while you neglect your responsibility to your other children is just as wrong as cutting off your children so you can have fancy vacations, a nice figure and nice things.
I agree that our dominion mandate as believers has shifted under the New Covenant. The Old is concerning the flesh and the New is concerning the spiritual. It seems that a lot of the spiritual gets lost in all this concentration on the flesh.
The kingdom of God is made up of believers produced not by the will of man or of the flesh but by the will of God.
February 16, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Molly,
“The Prairie Muffin banner is one to fly high … if one is of the mind that the law is for today and that adhering to a list of externals equals inward righteousness. Truly, is this really what Christ came to liberate us into?”
Well said.
I also wish I could wrap my arms around you.
I was very dogmatic about this until my good friend came down with an auto-immune disease that necessitated a liver transplant. She had a stillbirth and a miscarriage during this. She also had two live children but it came to a point that having children was killing her….literally. She had 5 children who needed their mom and the QFrs said she must not do anything to cut off her fertility and then they quoted Martin Luther where he says it is a woman’s glory to die in childbirth because she is doing what she was made for.
She did end up getting a tubal after her last live birth and then she had a liver transplant. She mourned the fact that she couldn’t have any more children but she did the right thing.
I have seen women have child after child while their health and families suffered for it.
I finally got tired of the cut and dried, black and white answers that never took into consideration the actual human being. It, to me, was like the attitude of “be warmed and be fed” and then sending them on their way without supplying for their needs.
February 16, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I agree with Cindy K.’s statement in #86 that as the general population sees and scrutinizes the fine “tenets” of what the P.’s teach — as well as any particular group teaches — more of what they teach in comparison to what they actually do will come out. What should they be afraid of, if they are indeed teaching something that can stand up in the light of day? If it’s not able to bear other believers’ scrutiny, or even the yet unsaved’s questions, then they need to step back and evaluate their beliefs just like any “exclusive” teacher has had to do in history.
Many good teachers of the past have had to re-evaluate their teachings as they’ve gained maturity in the Lord, and have corrected themselves publically. Spiritual pride is the Achilles Heel of the Bible teacher.
I still believe that within the homeschool community there may be a springboard opposite effect of the legalistic teaching about gender roles and exclusivity within the specific homeschool communities. It’s as if, when some get caught up in the “do’s” and “don’t’s”, or “touch not’s” in the patriocentric or any segmented camps, that they’ve left their “first Love”, which is Jesus the Lord.
I also agree with Cynthia Gee in comment #97 that the Part Two of God’s commandments (preach the Gospel) is so much more important. Part One (fill the earth) was issued when there were only 2 people in all of creation — a lot different than where the world is at now. Christians can’t usher in the the Kingdom of God just by procreating them into existence through the flesh and homeschooling them. Remember — in this life you will have tribulation. The apostle Paul had no children, Timothy, the young pastor, wasn’t lauded for his ability to raise godly, visionary sons or daughters. The emphasis should be on living our lives in light of the Gospel.
“For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. — Romans 7:5-6″
February 16, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“…..and then they quoted Martin Luther where he says it is a woman’s glory to die in childbirth because she is doing what she was made for.”
Martin Luther is all well and good, but since when did his writings become divinely inspired or infallible?
When it comes to life and death issues, salvation issues, and such things, perhaps folks should look first to the Bible. If a thing is not mandated there, it is a matter of Christian liberty.
February 16, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The prophet,priest and king teaching phenomenon (PPK) I remember from Dr. Edwin Cole when I was up to my neck in the shepherding movement.circa 1990’s. The only PPK we have is Jesus and if married HE is the PPK of the husband ! Or better be. Hmm there is nothing new under the sun.
February 16, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I did not know where to post this so sorry if this should not be posted here. Delete or place it where it needs to be.
Does this mean that the website was shut down by tucows and go daddy rather than the website owner?
Registry Whois
Domain Name: degenhart.us
Status: clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Expiration Date: 2009-09-08 23:59:59
Creation Date: 2004-09-09 18:11:54
Last Update Date: 2007-09-08 04:23:13
Name Servers:
ns1.lunarpages.com
ns2.lunarpages.com
Registry Whois Domain Name: degenhart.org
Status: CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED, CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED, CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED, CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Expiration Date: 2009-01-31 14:41:00
Creation Date: 2001-01-31 14:41:00
Last Update Date: 2007-11-15 00:33:33
Name Servers:
ns41.domaincontrol.com
ns42.domaincontrol.com
Registry Whois
OrgName: GoDaddy.com, Inc.
OrgID: GODAD
Address: 14455 N Hayden Road
Address: Suite 226
City: Scottsdale
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85260
Country: US
NetRange: 64.202.160.0 – 64.202.191.255
CIDR: 64.202.160.0/19
NetName: GO-DADDY-SOFTWARE-INC
NetHandle: NET-64-202-160-0-1
Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: CNS1.SECURESERVER.NET
NameServer: CNS2.SECURESERVER.NET
NameServer: CNS3.SECURESERVER.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 2002-10-22
Updated: 2007-06-14
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE51-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse Department
OrgAbusePhone: +1-480-624-2505
OrgAbuseEmail:
OrgNOCHandle: NOC124-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Network Operations Center
OrgNOCPhone: +1-480-505-8809
OrgNOCEmail:
OrgTechHandle: NOC124-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network Operations Center
OrgTechPhone: +1-480-505-8809
OrgTechEmail:
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-02-15 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN’s WHOIS database.
Registry Whois
Domain Name: date-dabitur.com
Status: clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
Expiration Date: 2008-10-02
Creation Date: 2006-10-02
Last Update Date: 2007-09-18
Name Servers:
ns1.lunarpages.com
ns2.lunarpages.com
Extended Info IP Address: 209.200.255.50
IP Location: United States
Website Status: active
Server Type: Apache Webserver
Alexa Trend/Rank: 3 Month: 4,774,715
Page Views per Visit: 3 Month: 8.0
Cache Date: 2008-02-16 16:33:47 MST
February 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Corrie,
I also watched that Dr. Phil program. That guy seemed “disconnected” in many ways. He was slow to respond, acting like he was slightly out of phase with everyone else. I don’t know if he was just a bit overwhelmed with the idea of being on TV, but he was a bit off. Some of it seemed like he was not very intelligent, but I think that it was more of a matter of being out of touch with everyone else. He did show emotion at times, mostly with statements of self-justification, but he seemed very flat whenever it came to any other topic.
Dr. Phil did handle him very well, and it was very notable that he was concerned for the welfare of this family. Phil didn’t push, clearly seeing that he wasn’t connecting with the guy, suggesting that the guest meet with the pastor who Phil had invited on the show. That pastor, a man who ran a ministry to homeless and other displaced people was kind and gentle, but spoke the truth about things.
It was wise that Dr. Phil didn’t crush the guy, but said rather that the man “confused activity with productivity.” When you have demands (7 hungry and cold children), you do what needs to be done that is effective to meet their needs. The wife’s family was kind to point out also that he chose “risky” plans and not sure-fire plans to make money. He had trees that he had started to grow from seed in his garage, counting on selling fruit from them in the future. He talked about his successes in the past. It seemed that he was reluctant to talk about NOW. Some of it reminded me of ideas I’d read in survivalist books and self-sufficiency, homesteading literature, but he was 5 to 10 years out from reaping any profits from these endeavors.
The wife seemed more sensible, but said how she just trusted her husband, and with a 2 wk old baby, what else can she do? I was troubled when she talked about telling her kids that “next year will be different” and how next year came and went with little changes. They were a bit evasive when Dr. Phil asked her why they continued to have more children when they couldn’t provide well for the kids they already had. She stammered a bit and decively said “I just have trouble saying no to a life.” She seemed fine and appropriate, whereas the husband did not. Though they were very placid about the fact that in the next week or two, they would not have a place to live. I don’t get it. (Although the term “learned helplessness” ran through my mind several times.)
In a somewhat similar situation with some self-destructive behavior in my husband, I did draw the line and threatened to leave him. (Not divorce, just leave..) So, in some ways I can relate, but I was not willing to go as far as this woman did. At the time, I felt like I was fighting for my own survival and realized that I had enabled my husband to take things as far as he did. It is one thing to be forgiving and understanding, and yet another to be a fool. I know that I classified as a fool for awhile in my own experience… and I took measures to get back on course. I didn’t see this in the wife. (But I didn’t just have a baby, either.)
I saw some men like this in the Pentecostal church, where they claimed that God had told them to do things and the results make you wonder. I’ve known a few people that believed things like this and stuck it out to near the end, but I never knew that the bled their relatives dry of money.
Another family that I know believed the prosperity gospel, but they lived for 15 years off the charity of a wealthy family in their church. Their house was owned by this family who ended up manipulating them because they were permitted to pay “what they could afford” every month. They also believe the quiverfull philosophy and lived off charity while they built their very large family.
When they wore out their welcome and were told to move out, they believed that it was not God’s will for them to go into debt (though this family did have a decent, down payment saved for a home and the husband was employed). They camped at a local campground for many weeks until it started to freeze, so they started considering rentals. No one would take their large family, except one person who was willing to take them only if they paid a full year of rent in advance. They farmed out kids to others to care for and eventually had no alternative but to finally go into debt buying a home.
It was interesting because,of the family living without utilities claiming that it built their unity and was positive, Dr Phil quoted one of those Texas sayings of his grandfathers: “I wouldn’t trade it for a million dollars, but I wouldn’t pay a dime to go through it again.” I immediately thought of my friend, holding out for a miracle that never came, standing in their faith in the Scripture to “owe no man anything but love.” The difference between what my friend experienced and the family on Dr. Phil was that my friends never excused away their responsibilites and didn’t coast for very long without making some serious decisions, all without borrowing money. (They did lean on their friends, however, and lost a few in the process. Many people viewed it as infantile or laziness or a means of manipulation.)
Balance and moderation go a long, long way, and we can’t afford to be without them in the Christian life (preaching to myself, too).
I pray today for all these (Dr. Phil and Wife Swap) families that we’ve seen on TV this week. It’s odd that they were featured within a few days of one another. God, provide for all of them and give us all wisdom.
February 18, 2008 at 6:09 pm
” 4) Prairie Muffins seek to conform themselves to the image of God by not chafing at the trials and afflictions which He brings to them, but thankfully submitting to His loving providence as He makes them fit for heaven.”
Any thoughts?
February 18, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Well, taken at face value, that’s pretty good advice for all Christians. But, like anything else, this can be distorted.
February 18, 2008 at 6:44 pm
” 4) Prairie Muffins seek to conform themselves to the image of God by not chafing at the trials and afflictions which He brings to them, but thankfully submitting to His loving providence as He makes them fit for heaven.”
Any thoughts?”
Well, this is nit picky but I cannot help myself. We are to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. He is our example. I know, Jesus was God in the flesh, but God wants the Name of Jesus Christ exhalted. We are hearing it less and less these days from many ‘Christian quarters’. Has anyone else noticed this?
February 18, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Well, Jesus is male. I’ve been reading criticism of an author who dared to say that women can and should show Jesus to others; the critic says since they can’t be Kinsman Redeemer, they can’t show us Christ (speaking of Ruth and Mary, mother of Jesus).
I pity the Christian who believes, just because she is female, she cannot show Jesus to others or who may not believe that being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ pertains to men only. Maybe that’s one of those “blue” instructions that doesn’t apply to “pink” readers?
February 18, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Direct answer to your question, Lin: Yes, I’ve noticed that. Apparently being conformed to worldly stereotypical “roles” is enough for women.
February 18, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Big breath…here i go.I think this whole Prairie Muffin thing is silly!It just seems like bragging and an attempt to sound not so serious about it at the same time!It says look at me,I’m better than all those not so serious ‘luke warm’ christians out there!Look I submit to God without chafing at trials!Dont all true christians ultimately desire this?Just because someone may struggle and maybe chafe,does that make them any less important or used by God?Look at King David or Job! Wouldn’t they say God does all this in them anyway?So where are the bragging rights?
February 19, 2008 at 2:22 am
Molly (molleth),
Thank you so much for opening yourself up about the childbirth difficulties…it just broke my heart reading that…
Your post was still on my heart as I scanned Doug’s blog (I scan it about every month or so, just to see what’s what)
For some reason it set me to crying once again. Don’t get me wrong, I have four children. I love children. And I would never abort. But then on the same side, it saddens me greatly when a woman feels like she is ‘less than’ if she cannot have ‘more’ children, or if she is barren. It seems that the quiverfull movement adds to this awful burden of shame that barren women don’t deserve. I can’t stand the thought of someone telling a barren woman she is ‘less holy’ or ‘must be in sin’- and that a person who has had two or three and cannot get pregnant again as ‘not trusting God enough’.
Sorry…I’ll get off my soapbox now. Here’s the post:
Monday, February 4, 2008
Praying for More Babies
A tender blessing and important responsibility shared by the families of Vision Forum Ministries is our calling to stand with brothers and sisters in prayer. One of the most common prayer requests we receive is from families who love children, and who are crying out to the Lord for the blessing of this special “reward.” In my view these prayer requests are very, very precious. We live in a world that hates life and rejects children. The deep hunger of Christian couples for more babies to love and nurture in the fear of the Lord is one of the many marks that we are the Redeemed. Below is one letter I recently received, and I am respectfully asking that today you join us in praying for them and couples like them. May God send an abundance of children.
“I wrote about a year ago, asking for prayer because my husband was going to have a vasectomy reversal. The surgery itself (by surgeons’ expectations) did go well. However it has been a year now and we are still waiting for the blessing of another child. Will you and your staff please lift this up in prayer? The sadness every month sometimes seems overwhelming. We have two daughters and they, too, want us to have a baby so much that they have been in tears when we have realized another month has went by without a baby on the way. Thank you for your ministry. Our family has grown so much and been very encouraged from the many audio cd’s that we have listened to. B.”
Posted by Doug Phillips on February 4, 2008 | Permalink
February 19, 2008 at 2:34 am
I guess I should also state that after nearly 4 months of deep, considerate prayer, we’ve decided four is enough. My health problems multiplied exponentially with the last two pregnancies (Lorelei is 1.5, David is 3 months). And I am not too sure about my mental health (
*tongue in cheek* 
) if I had another one so close to David. So I am sure that I am going to be included in that ‘less than’ equation for some people now. I just struggle with the whole thing- isn’t this an area of Christian freedom? Yes, there will be families who will have lots of kids, and have lots of resources to care for them but there are just as many families that have a completely different calling for their life. Who are we to judge?
It just gets me hot under the collar the way Doug implied that we weren’t ‘redeemed’ if we didn’t want to have ‘more’ children.
February 19, 2008 at 2:54 am
It also struck me as extremely unhealthy and inappropriate to involve your existing children in your childbearing efforts to that degree. The daughters cry with each period because she is not pregnant? That seems to me to be involving your children in the marriage bed and spouse relationship to a degree that children should not be involved. I wonder too if the daughters sublty get the message that they are not enough and not a “complete family.” That is a burder that children should not have to carry. Let them concern themselves with the things of childhood.
February 19, 2008 at 2:56 am
Wanting children is a sign of being one of the redeemed? What? I know plenty of non-Christians that want children. Childbearing does not bring salvation. Salvation is found only in Christ. Why are they so works-based?
February 19, 2008 at 4:15 am
I can see wanting more children, no problem there, but “telling a barren woman she is ‘less holy’ or ‘must be in sin’”????
What ever happenned to
“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.”
AND
“Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband” …?????
February 19, 2008 at 4:30 am
Cynthia said:
I can see wanting more children, no problem there, but “telling a barren woman she is ‘less holy’ or ‘must be in sin’”????
I know I have shared before that I live not too far from RC Sproul Jrs.’ haunt in Abigdon (St. Peter Presbyterian Church/Highlands Study Center)…and well, it’s hard not to run into women and families connected with them and the patriarchal movement. And I have been involved in a conversation (the barren woman was a dear, dear friend of mine) and one of these hyper-P women. (It happened at a local women’s conference, btw). She and I were having a conversation between the two of us, and this hyper-P gal stuck her nose in, at first being sweet and kind, talking about how wonderful children are. But then, as she discovered my friend’s barenness, she launched into a near-tirade and actually used those words! I was livid. One, that she inserted herself into a conversation she had not been invited too, and secondly,for being so awful!
I ran into this same hyper-P woman a few months later at a local homeschooling thing, and it was more of the same type of tirade (except on homeschooling and patriarchal- ism).
She was actually my whole reason for beginning to research this crazy movement (an attempt to understand) and what led me to the first thread in the discussion of the Botkins so very long ago (I posted under joy until recently).
And it’s just gotten weirder and weirder since then.
February 19, 2008 at 4:59 am
I ran into this same hyper-P woman a few months later at a local homeschooling thing, and it was more of the same type of tirade (except on homeschooling and patriarchal- ism)….And it’s just gotten weirder and weirder since then.
Typical of cults and cultists, Joy…. they are obsessed with their “take” on religion,even when it can be plainly shown as being contrary to Scripture, and, they DO just keep getting weirder and weirder.
February 19, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Molly,
Thanks for being so brave and sharing your story. I wish I could give you a hug!
My husband has been in patriocentric men’s meetings where the topic was childbirth and the admonition to fathers was basically to realize that your wife could die in childbirth! Outrageous!!!
Equating giving birth to children to having a spiritual leg up on someone is also outrageous. Ever notice that the women who accompanied Jesus througout his earthly ministry are never equated with having children?
I absolutely see children as a blessing from the Lord. I also believe that there are times when people MUST take steps to prevent conception, even sometimes in order to PRESERVE their wombs for future pregnancies. The main thing is to not use birth control that inadvertently causes abortions, such as the pill or IUD’s. Abortificients ARE a sin.
Joy, where do women like that get off? This is one of my biggest concerns about this movement….the lack of graciousness on the part of the women. I see little compassion toward the unsaved, those who have made wrong choices and are living with the consequences, or even those who differ in doctrine and application of non-essentials of the faith. I hope you use every opportunity to set this woman straight, graciously of course!
February 19, 2008 at 3:42 pm
And speaking of weirder and weirder….it is funny that you would mention this because my husband and I often use that phrase. It is so true. Just when you think you have heard everything about patriocentricity, something else really weird pops up.
February 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm
”
5) Prairie Muffins improve their intellect and knowledge as they have opportunity, first by seeking wisdom from God’s word, then by reading good books and other materials which help them to make informed opinions about a wide variety of subjects.”
Ok, this one really gets me. And on a variety of levels.
It seems to me that “informed opinions” are to be derived by reading only patriocentric guru approved writers and materials. I know for a fact that this website has been black marked…heaven forbid any patriarch wife might read here and think outside the paradigm. Having read many, many articles and books on their approved list, I also know that the paradigm comes first, the Bible comes second.
Earlier today I heard a quote from Ben Stein regarding those in academia who want to shut down any discussion of intelligent design. He made the observation that “people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism.” I believe this applies to the patriocentrists as well.
February 19, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“… something else really weird pops up.”
And that really ought to set off our warning bells. Christianity has been around for 2000 years; though it was “odd” when it was founded, it has had two millenia to become mainstream, and it has certainly done so. It is only in the last 150 years or so that we, with our yen for the new and unique, have somehow found the Faith which was once delivered to the saints to be insufficient — hence the proliferation of weird doctrine, from Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy to Sun Myung Moon and the Hyper P’s.
This underlying, telltale “weirdness” which keeps surfacing in patriarchal teachings, together with the ongoing theme of spiritual abuse illustrates what happens whenever the Weird comes into contact with the Normal — and brings to mind this bit from C.S. Lewis’s novel, “That Hideous Strength”.
Here, Lewis’s protagonist, athiest Mark Studdock, is in a futuristic prison and is in serious danger; he is ordered to insult a crucifix as proof of his “objectivity”:
Meanwhile, in the Objective Room, something like a crisis had developed between mark and Professor Frost. As soon as they arrived there mark saw that the table had been drawn back. On the floor lay a large crucifix, almost life size, a work of art in the Spanish tradition, ghastly and realistic. “We have half an hour to pursue our exercises,” said Frost looking at his watch. Then he instructed Mark to trample on it and insult it in other ways.
. . . Mark had never believed in [Christianity] at all. At this moment, therefore, it crossed his mind for the very first time that there might conceivably be something in it. . . .
“But, look here,” said Mark.
“What is it?” said Frost. “Pray be quick. We have only a limited time at our disposal.”
“This,” said Mark, pointing with an undefined reluctance at the horrible white figure on the cross. “This is all surely a pure superstition.”
“Well?”
“Well, if so, what is there objective about stamping on the face? Isn’t it just as subjective to spit on a thing like this as to worship it? I mean – damn it all – if it’s only a bit of wood, why do anything about it?”
“That is superficial. If you had been brought up in a non-Christian society, you would not be asked to do this. Of course, it is a superstition; but it is that particular superstition which has pressed upon our society for a great many centuries. It can be experimentally shown that it still forms a dominant system in the subconscious of many individuals whose conscious thought appears to be wholly liberated. An explicit action in the reverse direction is therefore a necessary step towards complete objectivity. It is not a quest for a priori discussion. We find it in practice that it cannot be dispensed with.”
Mark himself was surprised at the emotions he was undergoing. He did not regard the image with anything at all like a religious feeling. Most emphatically it did not belong to that idea of the Straight or Normal or Wholesome which had, for the last few days, been his support against what he now knew of the innermost circle at Belbury. The horrible vigour of its realism was, indeed, in its own ways as remote from that Idea as anything else in the room. That was one source of his reluctance. To insult even a carved image of such agony seemed an abominable act. But it was not the only source. With the introduction of this Christian symbol the whole situation had somehow altered. The thing was becoming incalculable. His simple antithesis of the Normal and the Diseased had obviously failed to take something into account. . . . “If I take a step in any direction,” he thought, “I may step over a precipice.” A donkey-like determination to plant hoofs and stay still at all costs arose in his mind.
“Pray make haste,” said Frost.
The quiet urgency of the voice, and the fact that he had so often obeyed it before, almost conquered him. he was on the verge of obeying, and getting the whole silly business over when the defencelessness of the figure deterred him. The feeling was a very illogical one. Not because its hands were nailed and helpless, but because they were only made of wood and therefore even more helpless, because the thing, for all its realism, was inanimate and could not in any way hit back, he paused. The unretaliating face of a doll – one of Myrtle’s dolls – which he had pulled to pieces in boyhood had affected him in the same way and the memory, even now, was tender to the touch.
“What are you waiting for, Mr. Studdock?” said Frost.
Mark was well aware of the rising danger. Obviously, if he disobeyed, his last chance of getting out of Belbury alive might be gone. Even of getting out of this room. The smothering sensation once again attacked him. He was himself, he felt, as helpless as the wooden Christ. As he thought this, he found himself looking at the crucifix in a new way – neither as a piece of wood or a monument of superstition but as a bit of history. Christianity was nonsense, but one did not doubt that the man had lived and had been executed thus by the Belbury of those days. And that, as he suddenly saw, explained why this image, though not itself the image of the Straight or Normal, was yet in opposition to crooked Belbury. It was a picture of what happened when the Straight met the Crooked, a picture of what the Crooked did to the Straight – what it would do to him if he remained straight. It was, in a more emphatic sense than he had yet understood, a cross.
“Do you intend to go on with the training or not?” said Frost. His eye was on the time. . . . “Do you not hear what I am saying?” he asked Mark again.
Mark made no reply. He was thinking, and thinking hard because he knew, that if he stopped even for a moment, mere terror of death would take the decision out of his hands. Christianity was a fable. It would be ridiculous to die for a religion one did not believe. This Man himself, on that very cross, had discovered it to be a fable, and had died complaining that the God in whom he trusted had forsaken him – had, in fact, found the universe a cheat. But this raised the question that Mark had never thought of before. Was that the moment at which to turn against the Man? If the universe was a cheat, was that a good reason for joining its side? Supposing the Straight was utterly powerless, always and everywhere certain to be mocked, tortured, and finally killed by the Crooked, what then? Why not go down with the ship? He began to be frightened by the very fact that his fears seemed to have momentarily vanished. They had been a safeguard . . . they had prevented him, all his life, from making mad decisions like that which he was now making as he turned to Frost and said,
“It’s all bloody nonsense, and I’m damned if I do any such thing” (334-337).
February 19, 2008 at 6:36 pm
WordPress is really wonky today, I couldn’t sign in!
thatmom(Karen) said:
Joy, where do women like that get off? This is one of my biggest concerns about this movement….the lack of graciousness on the part of the women. I see little compassion toward the unsaved, those who have made wrong choices and are living with the consequences, or even those who differ in doctrine and application of non-essentials of the faith. I hope you use every opportunity to set this woman straight, graciously of course!
I think this is what I really have been struggling with- we all have- as we’ve been wrestling this the last 6 threads…is how to deal with this graciously. I struggle with how to address her ‘where she is at’ and call her to Truth in love. There is just so much ‘words and laws’ in the way. I find I just pray that God is guiding my words and cutting down those thorn bushes in the way. I mean, they (hyper-p) cherrypick so much of the Bible that often I have had this “well, this verse is true-r than this verse” response. Huh??? Isn’t all of the Bible, the infallible Word of God, true? I mean, what in the world? How are you supposed to respond to that?
February 19, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Dee, I think you encapsulated in a good quick run down why it is so hard to have a conversation with them.
It says look at me,I’m better than all those not so serious ‘luke warm’ christians out there!Look I submit to God without chafing at trials!Dont all true christians ultimately desire this?Just because someone may struggle and maybe chafe,does that make them any less important or used by God?Look at King David or Job! Wouldn’t they say God does all this in them anyway?So where are the bragging rights?
Everything should be done to the glory of the Lord. Not ours. The Lord’s!
February 19, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I struggle with how to address her ‘where she is at’ and call her to Truth in love. There is just so much ‘words and laws’ in the way.
Joy, that is so exactly the same problem I have. There are words and laws and, as you also said, cherry-picking of Bible verses (that hideous reliance on Numbers 30 as a verse to unequivocally keep daughters at home until marriage continues to do awful things to my stomach when I think of it!) and such an odd, prismed version of Christianity standing in the way. It’s so difficult to know which weeds to let God cut down first, and I tread so carefully for fear of trampling the wrong thing.
Truly, though, I find these women (and girls, too) are so penned in by hedges of their own planting that I am deeply worried they won’t even realise it when their own garden starts to choke the life out of them.
February 19, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I’m going to maybe do something foolish here, and engage in a little self-disclosure. I was married for many years, but have been divorced for many years now as well, after being abandoned by my husband. We were never able to have children together, and now that I am at the stage of life that I cannot have children anymore, I do grieve that lack. And no, I would not consider adopting children as a single mother. (I settle for a ministry that is active with children, and the kids and I love one another.)
I say these things in order to provide a little background, so that no one should think I have no compassion for what I am about to say.
Bearing children is a biological phenomenon. It is not, in and of itself, a virtuous thing or something that should be considered a spiritual accomplishment. While children are undoubtedly blessings from the Lord, the actual conception, carrying, bearing, and nurturing of them is not an inherently holy thing. Holy people (that is, men and women who are being sanctified by God) are blessed by these things and God is present in them. But let’s face it: the vast majority of human beings, including non-Christians, can and do reproduce. This process is not even limited to human beings!
In other words, to center one’s spiritual worth around a biological phenomenon, even such a wonderful one as having children, is simply not tenable. I think Jesus made this clear when he responded to the woman who blessed his mother for having borne and suckled him, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!” (Lk. 11:27-28)
There’s simply no place in the patriarchalists’ worldview for someone like me. Not that I WANT there to be…
February 19, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Dee and Joy, You’re so right. I think of Jonah. An entire great city repented from sin because he finally, so grudgingly delivered the word of God to them. He never did seem to get over his chafing and outright rebellion, yet God used him mightily.
Sometimes, I think the PM worldview is one in which they’re the heroines of their own sagas. I don’t see much room for the Holy Spirit to work in that worldview.
February 19, 2008 at 8:37 pm
“Sometimes, I think the PM worldview is one in which they’re the heroines of their own sagas. I don’t see much room for the Holy Spirit to work in that worldview.”
Well, you never know. I’m rather put off by the shrill PM’s on the ‘net (like Carmon F., et al), but probably, not all PMs are quite so strident.
February 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I have to admit that it’s the published worldview that I have to go by. I don’t know too many self-avowed Prairie Muffins in my real-life interactions. Given that I don’t have a husband or children to homeschool and I have to be out supporting myself (or else be homeless and starve), they have no reason to ever meet me.
February 19, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“I struggle with how to address her ‘where she is at’ and call her to Truth in love. There is just so much ‘words and laws’ in the way. I find I just pray that God is guiding my words and cutting down those thorn bushes in the way. I mean, they (hyper-p) cherrypick so much of the Bible that often I have had this “well, this verse is true-r than this verse” response. Huh??? Isn’t all of the Bible, the infallible Word of God, true? I mean, what in the world? How are you supposed to respond to that?”
James 2
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
February 20, 2008 at 8:43 am
Psalmist,
Thanks for sharing.
On the Prairie Muffin thing, I remember wistfully wishing I could put the little pic on my sidebar. I was a PM-wannabe (didn’t do the “dresses-only” then, so I didn’t fully “measure up,” ya know?).
Now, it just makes me sick to my stomach, and I’m not saying that for effect, but because it’s literally true. That whole world…I don’t know…I just remember the feeling of the invisible chains, and I feel so grateful that they were taken off of my legs and arms.
What is sad is that I laid my arms and legs out and asked for the chains to be put on (fully pursuaded they were God’s).
Thankful for all the voices out there now, speaking light into darkness,
Molly
February 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Psalmist, I think I can understand what you said in comment #125 about the overemphasis on childbearing in particular Christian circles.
I’m reminded of a time when one man in leadership once praised another couple who were pregnant with their 8th child. It struck me at the time that the only reason the leader was praising them for standing strong was the fact that they were continuing to be unrestrictive to limit having children; that children are a heritage of the Lord, etc.
While I also believe the verse about children being a heritage of the Lord, I was just thinking as I sat there that I wondered how they felt if they knew my husband and I made the decision years before to have a tubal ligation because we were trying to prevent another one of our future children from suffering from the effects of insulin-dependent diabetes (mine) while pregnant (our 4th child had major heart defects as well as other complications). All 4 of my pregnancies were high-risk and we went through a lot of modern technology (testing) and health care. I was a mixed bag of paradoxical paradigms, in light of some of the hyper-P’s.
My thought was that the couple was being praised for just allowing nature to take its course. While I also agree that actually having babies can, in many ways, be an actual victory over many hard obstacles, especially for those who find it hard to conceive, modern healthier living standards has made it easier for women to have safer pregnancies — unlike the way it must have been 100 years ago.
Why lift this particular couple up (which have many of the same lifestyle traits described in these threads) for giving birth and the subsequent biblical responsibility of caring for said children? I think it’s because the emphasis within homeschooling and the “counter conservative christian culture” has been getting more extreme, or weirder and weirder.
I guess my emphasis has been on how God’s mercy and grace has saved me, a sinner, in light of my inability in my flesh to outwardly produce good works within any prescribed gender “roles”. I’ve learned some good things from women and men in my life (some were not even Christian) to shape how I live, but not specifically to fit some biblical wife/mother role. In my whole Christian walk I’ve not specifically looked for commands in the Bible (except perhaps on occasion) to live as a wife or mother. I’ve gone to Galatians to see if the fruit of the Spirit is being evidenced in my life, or am I go to 1 Corinthians to reflect whether I’m being a “noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” Frankly, the last place I want to look is Proverbs 31 (though a beautiful picture of Christ’s Bride, IMO), knowing I’m setting myself up for a fall to try it on my own.
(As a side note: that passage was preached one Mother’s Day at church to my dismay).
A verse I came to meditate on is Philippians 4:8:
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
I don’t see any role distintions in that exhortation, but the one thing that grabbed me is that ALL those “things” are contained in Jesus, the Author and Finisher/Perfector of our faith. Just look to Jesus, and not be enamored by the advice of others on how to walk out our faith in areas of liberty.
February 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“6) Prairie Muffins dress modestly and in a feminine manner.”
any thoughts?
February 20, 2008 at 3:40 pm
My initial thought is I would never fit in because my favorite “uniform” is jeans and a top.
I never bought into this because I grew up a 110% tomboy. I hated dresses–hate them to this day–and I visibly cringe at any piece of clothing with lace or flowers.
Aside from that, I DO think there are ways to dress modestly and in a feminine way. I can do so and not wear a dress to my ankles. (Which, on someone like me who is less than 5′ tall, would be hopelessly unflattering.) You can wear a shirt that doesn’t show your cleavage or jeans that are loose enough that they don’t bring glaring attention to your backside or thighs. It CAN be done.
Finally, it’s the condition of the heart. If I enjoy having men look at me, it doesn’t matter if I’m dressed like Caroline Ingalls or Brittany Spears. My heart is the problem.
February 20, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Kate, I think you and your husband must have been very wise to consider both your health and your potential children’s health. I believe God grants wisdom to people who ask for it, and it doesn’t always match up to the systems we human beings tend to create for ourselves and others.
I was very saddened to see the blanket praise of pregnancy recently. A pastor was blogging about the high number of pregnancies at his church, and said called it “A whole lot of faith going on.” In the article, he directly equated becoming pregnant with the couple having faith. I do hope he at least has the good grace to refrain from saying that their faith wasn’t strong enough if, God forbid, any of those wives miscarries.
The more I see Christians giving broad-brush easy answers about life situations, the more I’m convinced that they are not speaking out of the wisdom of God.
February 20, 2008 at 3:53 pm
As for point #6, Karen, I disagree that what the PMs promote is the only way a woman can dress modestly and in a feminine manner. I don’t say that they’re not modest or feminine in their attire, only that some of what I’ve seen a few of them declare “immodest” or “unfeminine” is neither.
Example: I believe that a woman can wear trousers that fit her properly and look completely feminine, and be modest in them. Many women’s trousers are more consistent with modesty than many skirts and dresses. As for what is “feminine,” that’s mostly a matter of taste. A woman IS feminine; her clothing can’t be (since it’s not male or female)
I think a lot of husbands probably think that their wives look great in whatever they wear and wouldn’t even dream that she’s unfeminine if she’s wearing overalls, working in the garden. If a woman is confident in what she wears, she’s going to appear feminine, since SHE, by being female, is feminine.
I really don’t like the oversexualization of everything in some Christian circles. His vs. hers commandments, roles, clothes, jobs, books, merchandise…ugh! Whatever happened to men being men, women being women, and both being called to be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ?
February 20, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“6) Prairie Muffins dress modestly and in a feminine manner.”
First off — did anyone try to figure out the results of a recent modesty survey? The opinions were all over the board. Secondly, modesty is a conscience issue in many regards, and some women who are very conservative would not feel the liberty to dress as others do, so that’s a whole can of worms that just ends up being a straining at gnats. I do believe that certain female parts probably need to be covered in order to not cause others to stumble, but I’ve also think that if you dress like a hundred years ago, you’re just begging the question from others. It draws attention, and could be mistaken for a “Look at me! I’m being modest” mentality. (I’m talking about pre-teen girls wearing Felicity caps or bonnets, when at one time those were modern culture wear.) I think many times it will be just a phase in a woman’s life, too, as I’ve seen that happen.
Femininity is also similar, since there may be men who find a woman dressed in jeans, t-shirt, while her hair is in her face while painting a room, working in the garden or on the car — this may seem feminine to the man who just sees the woman inside the outer covering. Do flowery dresses specifically make a woman feminine?
I also think earrings can contribute to an aura of femininity (my mother didn’t go ANYWHERE without her earrings
) but some women in some Christian convictions believe that the wearing of earrings to be gaudy, or hearken back to an unsavory identification and would they would never have their ears pierced. They quote this verse:
“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 1Pet.3:3″
I believe the whole passage is talking about the “hidden man of the heart” with a quiet spirit that trusts God to win over a husband “that, if any obey not the word”. The way I read that passage is that it’s saying, “Don’t try to woo your husbands by the outward, typical feminine wiles. Be confident in your relationship to obey the Lord and His word in your inner man and the unbelieving or unconvicted husband will be dealing with the Spirit of God within you in your outward expression.”
When I read the Prairie Manifesto, if I don’t have a confidence in my liberty in Christ, then I’m just going to go down the checklist either checking off whether I’ve done this or that and if I need to complete this or that in order to fit some image.
February 20, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“6) Prairie Muffins dress modestly and in a feminine manner.”
any thoughts?”
What could be more modest and feminine in pants than Katherine Hepburn?
February 20, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I have been reading an interesting book the past few days. It is called “Pink Think, becoming a woman in many uneasy lessons.”
This book was not written by a woman who professes to be a Christian but it is VERY insightful when it comes to understanding the basic premises of today’s patriocentric women and their perceptions of the “package” godly womanhood comes in.
Lynn Peril, the author, researched the woman’s magazines of the 1940’s, 50’s, and 60′ and looked at not only the articles but the ads that shaped the thinking of American women. Remember that this is the post-WW 2 era, the era of women struggling to find purpose in their lives as their husbands returned from the war, the economy was booming, the war technology allowed them never-before, seen conveniences in their homes, and their children were disconnected from them a la child psychology of the day. It is amazing to me that much of what Madison Avenue was selling to these women parallels what I call the “paradigm peddlers” are also selling, a brand of femininity that dwells on certain preconceptions about the roles of men and women that are cultural rather than biblical. Here are a few comments from the book that I found interesting:
from Alma Archer’s book called Your Power as a Woman, written in 1957 and listed as the “male grievances to avoid”:
“Don’t fail to answer a man, and promptly, when he addresses you: he may feel slighted by the inattention. Inattention hurts a man’s ego.”
“Don’t show too much independence, it can be irritating but dependence can be used to cater to a man’s ego.”
“Never forget that men do not like women to know more than themselves and always remember the quotation: Brains do not handicap a girl if she keeps them well hidden.”
And here is one from Oliver Jensen as advice to working women in 1952:
“The career girl is characterized by the firm step and bold eye of the male executive, to which, however, she often adds chic and such feminine wiles (when needed) as the pleading smile and pretended helplessness.”
I still maintain that “real men” as opposed to girly men would find these manipulative means to be an offense to their intelligence.
thatmom wrote @ February 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Here is a quiz from a 1947 Ladies Home Journal article that will help a young woman determine if she ought to be considering marriage or a career:
Do you like either public speaking or horseback riding?
Have you ever wanted a business of your own?
Would you rather work with men or women?
Did you attend college two years or longer?
Have you earned as much as $150.00 a month?
Do you dislike housework, especially cooking or sewing?
Can you usually make your points in an argument?
Are you either over 26 or above average in height?
Do you have one or more special talents?
Are your clothes practical rather than frilly?
Do you like to guide or supervise others?
Were you an honor student in school?
Havbe you worked 5 years or longer?
Do your friends think you an independent person?
Are you relativey inactive in church work?
If married, would you want your own bank account?
Were you an athlete while in school?
JHave you been trained for a business job?
Are you either a pronounced introvert or extrovert?
Do you dress for men rather than women?
If you checked 16 or more, it is doubtful that marriage alone will satisfy you. In fact, you may prefer remaining single. A score of 10 or less suggests that you are not a career woman.
For the record, I scored a 12!
Since Corrie and I talked on the February 15th podcast about the idea some women have that men prefer their wives to be child-like rather than like adult women, I posted this there as well and I hope you all will discuss this topic either place,
February 20, 2008 at 5:36 pm
All that to say that I think this idea of Christian modesty has been abused and used to promote a certain preference while basing their views on some of the same tenets as women from the Pink Think era. For example, there is a notion that lacey and frilly things are necessary to be feminine. This is what the Pink Think era taught and I see the same thing in the patriocentric stuff. Look at their blogs. The Victorian theme is predominant. I live in a house that was built in 1894 so there are some things from that era that really appeal to me. But I don’t think all of femininity is embodied in vintage clothing.
I also think that modesty means more than wearing clothing that draws attention to yourself because it shows off your body. When I see girls who wear regency clothing (not just in a play or for a faire or pageant) or when I read them state how much them love to show off those clothes, it strikes me as just the opposite of modest because it draws attention to them on another level.
February 20, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“What could be more modest and feminine in pants than Katherine Hepburn?”
How about Doris Day?
February 20, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Hey all
Been reading, just not commenting or writing (my blog is now gone) due to many life changes here in our real life. I’m really going thru a season of quiet right now, and being really active in blogs and discussions just doesn’t fit all the time anymore.
Plus, you know, going from our former lifestyle to what lies ahead isn’t without tons of criticism and judgement. We are still homeschooling, but come fall I’ll be heading back to work. My husband’s job has tanked and he’s working 3 days a week. We are living with his parents. I cannot go on like this forever, homeschool advocate or not.
I’ll be putting the kids in school somewhere (not sure where yet) and I’ll be returning to the working world as a classroom teacher again, somewhere. It has been a HARD decision, but timely. All this talk about the hyper-P’s and such—-some of my homeschool friends are in the trenches of the VF lifestyle and some are very much hyper-p’s. My life to them has somehow become a thorn in their side. It is like me quitting homeschooling is somehow a taint on them, because they are my friends!
I’ve been told so much; from it is God’s will for a woman NOT to work (ever, in any circumstance). I’ve been told that I am being put back into the workforce because I must be “rebelling” and God is doing his “gotcha!” thing with me. I have been told that my husband should work 2, 3, or 10 jobs to keep me at home and that we don’t have enough faith and God is punishing us.
Whatever. These people would sing a very different song if they ever had to walk in someone else’s shoes for a change!
February 20, 2008 at 7:00 pm
*BIG HUGE HUG to Lindsey*
PS. I also had to grin, L. It’s weird how somewhat parallel our lives are! For what it’s worth, I’m returning to the workforce next year too, and my husband is going to be the main homeschooler.
He’s SO excited. As for me…I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m going to miss my kids, but I also have realized that I’m not a homeschooling mom (as in, full-time).
I love homeschooling, but I absolutely hate being at home with the children all day, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (which is what it’s been). I actually think I’d love it, if I had two kids. But trying to do things with the older two (9 and 7), while the youngest is scaling the fridge and the four year old is begging to get out the [fill-in-blank], and the 6 year old needs taken to gymnamstics and…
We’ve both gone from being certain that is a terrible criminal sin to not like homeschooling (and keeping the house clean, and keeping the kids clean, and getting all the meals prepared, etc), to laughingly realizing that it’s OKAY if I don’t.
I look at what needs to be done for a homeschooling family to operate and think, there’s not many personalities that COULD do all of this and do it well!
Hats off to those who can, but just like I can’t sing alto to save my life (my voice just doesn’t go low, the end), I’m not going to kill myself to fit into a “homeschool mom” mold that just plain doesn’t fit right now. I’ve been trying to fit myself into molds for too long…I’m just done with it.
If my husband continued to work, then I would put my children in one of the excellent charter schools around here (which is my preference, in many ways). But he wants to homeschool more than anything (and he’s amazing that way–VERY gifted as a teacher). So…I’m going to find a way to help bring in some income.
Isn’t that what marraige is… a team, pulling for the same dreams, supporting eachother…?
This is the first time I’ve completely shared our plans for next year, though…for the same reasons you’ve expressed, Lindsey. I’m just not interested in hearing all the disapproving voices.
February 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Lindsey and Molly,
I think you’re BOTH amazing for homeschooling as long as you have. I WAS homeschooled myself, and I don’t think I could do it. I cringe writing that, for fear my mother will somehow come across this thread. Good for both of you for working as a team with your husbands and following God’s path for you. May no one judge you ever b/c no one else has ever walked your paths.
Blessings!
February 20, 2008 at 9:10 pm
“What could be more modest and feminine in pants than Katherine Hepburn?”
How about Doris Day?
Audrey Hepburn!
I mean the examples are endless…as to regency clothing, I have paintings of my ggma with her victorian gear on and let me tell you…those whale bone corsets can really give the illusion of lots of cleavage….get my drift…as if the ‘lace’ hid anything!!! Those dresses were fitted to be very tight on top and low necked.
I have seen some very showy dresses on women in paintings from the early 1800’s.
Perhaps the Patriarches love that era until they realize how many people died of simple infections.
No Laura Ingalls there.
)
February 20, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Forgive me for veering a little off-topic but it is something w/in this movement that I’ve been wondering about and I figured, what better place to ask?
I have seen several blogs of women that could be considered members of this movement. I see a LOT of them teaching women about everything from budgeting to parenting. What I don’t understand is 99% of these women doing the teaching are about 23-29. Not that we can’t learn anything from those younger than we are but, when the command is for OLDER women (both in years and spiritual maturity) to teach the younger women…it makes me wonder why younger women doing the teaching is so vastly popular w/in this movement. I hope my question makes sense…I’m trying to listen for the dryer at the same time I’m typing. lol
February 20, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Very good point Johanna. To me, I think there are lots of little submissive wives out there just dying to be the next “authority” like Jennie Chancey, Prairie Muffin Organizer, Stacey McDonald and those ladies who for some reason, are the voice for the movement.
There is a very (and by very I mean VERY) popular VF’esque frugal blogger out there who has children who are not yet school age. Yet, she gives advice all the time about homeschooling and what not. I’ve seen women who’ve had ONE birth giving oodles of childbirth advice to mothers with five kids.
It is that little-pope syndrome if you ask me. Everyone’s an expert. Just ask them.
(and I’m including myself there ha!)
February 21, 2008 at 1:50 am
“My life to them has somehow become a thorn in their side. It is like me quitting homeschooling is somehow a taint on them, because they are my friends!
I’ve been told so much; from it is God’s will for a woman NOT to work (ever, in any circumstance). I’ve been told that I am being put back into the workforce because I must be “rebelling” and God is doing his “gotcha!” thing with me. I have been told that my husband should work 2, 3, or 10 jobs to keep me at home and that we don’t have enough faith and God is punishing us.
Whatever. These people would sing a very different song if they ever had to walk in someone else’s shoes for a change!”
Lindsay, I’m sorry to hear that… and I think that Job himself could relate to “friends” like yours!
Sheesh.. with friends like that, who needs enemas?
February 21, 2008 at 1:52 am
“My life to them has somehow become a thorn in their side. It is like me quitting homeschooling is somehow a taint on them, because they are my friends!
I’ve been told so much; from it is God’s will for a woman NOT to work (ever, in any circumstance). I’ve been told that I am being put back into the workforce because I must be “rebelling” and God is doing his “gotcha!” thing with me. I have been told that my husband should work 2, 3, or 10 jobs to keep me at home and that we don’t have enough faith and God is punishing us.
Whatever. These people would sing a very different song if they ever had to walk in someone else’s shoes for a change!”
Lindsay, I’m sorry to hear that… and I think that Job himself could relate to “friends” like yours!
Sheesh.. with friends like that, who needs enemas?
February 21, 2008 at 1:52 am
Sheesh is right, that should read, “enemies”….
February 21, 2008 at 2:34 am
enemies, enemas….hey, they’re a lot alike!
Thanks for the chuckle. I needed it!
February 21, 2008 at 4:30 am
Johanna, I agree with you. There’s nothing wrong with being in your mid- to late-twenties (it’s not like you can do anything about your age!), but the simple fact is that you don’t have a great deal of life experience behind you yet at that age. (Twice that here, and *I* sure don’t qualify as an expert!)
That’s what bothers me the most about the Botkin sisters’ book. They’re presuming to tell other young women THE way to be godly, and they make some terrible condemnations of women who have followed a different path AND have gone a lot further down their lives’ path than the Botkin girls have travelled on theirs. They simply don’t have the authority or the experience to be able to accurately judge what they don’t even know (as in, women who have obtained college degrees in residence at the institutions, women who have become established in honorable careers, women who have for a variety of reasons left their parents’ homes–some because their parents are dead or ungodly or impoverished or have lost their homes, etc.).
February 21, 2008 at 5:24 am
“Sheesh.. with friends like that, who needs enemas?”
You can say that again! ROFLOL
I like this saying much better than the original one!
February 21, 2008 at 5:32 am
Lindsey and Molly,
I appreciate both of you and your honesty and transparency. We need more of this. Thank you for setting the example.
I am tired of feeling guilty for not feeling certain ways. I really have to wonder where that message is coming from and who gets to decide what it is I am supposed to like/dislike, think/not think, desire/not desire, etc.
We are all so very different. I have no idea what life will bring for me next year…right now I am taking it one day at a time. But, you both are an encouragement to me and I am sure to many women who are silently reading.
February 21, 2008 at 5:37 am
““Never forget that men do not like women to know more than themselves and always remember the quotation: Brains do not handicap a girl if she keeps them well hidden.””
Karen,
These are great! LOL
My goodness. To think that catering to someone’s ego is a good thing? That seems like aiding and abetting sinfullness, in my book. It also seems like prolonging some major immaturity in others.
Wouldn’t it be better to do what is right for them? There is one thing we don’t need more of in this world- people with HUGE, FRAGILE EGOS!
February 21, 2008 at 5:43 am
“6) Prairie Muffins dress modestly and in a feminine manner.”
any thoughts?”
Who gets to define “feminine” and “modest”?
The Chinese?
Those from India?
The Middle East?
Little House on the Prairie fans?
Jane Austin fans?
February 21, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Lindsey and Molly,
Hugs and encouragement to both of you! I hope you both will always feel welcomed and loved and among friends here.
I weary of hearing criticism from those who have never walked in someone else’s shoes, house slippers, or whatever.
At my stage of life it is about taking care of elderly parents. Right now my mom is living with us and has for 14 years. I can see her slipping away a little every day, though, for the most part, she is able to maintain fairly well. But what if she breaks a hip or has another stroke that leaves her bedridden and in need of constant nursing care? As much as we would love to care for her until the end, I do not know what the future holds. Her needs might be best served somewhere else if she becomes difficult or a danger to herself or others. Already there are many times when I find myself having to choose between something one of my children want from me or what Clay might need and what my mom demands.
My cousin went through this with my aunt, caring for her until she was in such an advanced case of Alzheimer’s that she never slept and tried to hurt herself and get out of the house in the middle of the night. My cousin’s own health suffered because she was so committed to keeping her in her own home. Eventually, it was best for both of them for my aunt to be placed in an Alzheimer’s care unit. You should have seen how my cousin wept,telling me their story and hoping I would understand her decision.
I have heard the negative, obnoxious comments from those who disapprove of nursing homes, making blanket statements that induce guilt on those of us who are trying to minister to our parents as best as we can. In some small way, I understand what you guys are going through. I will keep you both in my prayers as you make these transitions in your families. I have every confidence that you both are walking with the Lord and that He will continue to guide you.
February 21, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“I have heard the negative, obnoxious comments from those who disapprove of nursing homes, making blanket statements that induce guilt on those of us who are trying to minister to our parents as best as we can.”
I fought putting my dying mom in a nursing home tooth and nail. My dad and brothers overruled me. I was totally broken over it and felt like such a failure to my precious mom.
But guess what? My mom, sick as she was, was a great witness to the care givers and other patients there. She never lost an opportunity to share the love of Christ and model Him to others. They loved her.
My daughter was 3 at the time and loved to ‘visit’ the patients. She would cover them up, bring them things, etc. I do not know how they did it, but many of them got her presents! She was well known in the place and they looked forward to her visit every day. To this day, my daughter loves old people and is drawn to them.
It turned out to be such a blessing for my mom to be there. We had impromtu worship services and sing a longs. My brother installed a wireless network in her room so we could all work from there!
I am broken over the loneliness that is in nursing homes. We always had a family member there and we made it a point to visit those who never seemed to have visitors. Going there can be a great blessing to others. I still go there now and visit ‘old friends’.
February 21, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Johanna, I think that is a vital question here, since as much as they criticize our blog here, they are just as involved in the blogosphere.
I think that some younger women do share a ‘hey I learned something new maybe it might help you’ type of post. I know I do. But it’s never in a ‘teaching’ mindset. I guess you can liken my posts like that in a “hey mommy, look what I drew today- I learned something new!” kind of thing. Never in a ‘this is the only way to this’. Some of my favorite craft blogs are written by women my age (26).
Frankly, I avoid any blog that gets didactic and preachy on me. I hope that my blog never comes across as judgemental…it’s just not my place. My sub-title on my blog is “confessions and musings of a girl on a journey”…which kind of drives how I write my entries- striving to be open and encouraging; making a ’safe place’ on the blog for my readers; while not avoiding some tough issues (like my husband’s recent cancer scare), speaking of everything with an uplifting, not complaining, tone. Some days thats really hard to do!
But I to, struggle with what I perceive as a ‘little pope’ syndrome too. It drives me nuts, and I often warn blog friends away from those types of blogs. In a lot of ways, I think they are jumping on that bandwagon without a horse in the race.
February 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Lindsey and Molly
Huge (((((((hugs)))))))!
And Kate and Psalmist too…
I applaud your transparency- I am glad to know that I am not the only one wrestling with these hard issues. I think, for one, it’s hard to make these decisions in a sub-Christian culture that is very VF- because no one is being really honest that they struggle with things. So you think that you, yourself are the weird one and everyone else is normal, and that you aren’t ‘believing enough’. I think that’s one of the strongest tools Satan has got. As long as he keeps us isolated and not talking to one another, he keeps us doubting and alone instead of “bearing one another’s burdens.”
February 21, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Thanks…
I think the biggest thing for me is wondering WHY I ever cared in the first place? WHY did I care what these people (who I never met) thought about me? Why do negative opinions hurt so much? It’s so dumb…
Finding a confidence in who I am in Christ has been SO helpful to me in so many ways, one of which is freeing me from the need to be “approved of” by various peoples. (Now my biggest dilemna is how to *lovingly* roll my eyes at it all)…
But when you are in the patrio-groups, your inward spirituality is measured mainly via outward conformity to the “Biblical Womanhood” model, making outward approval a very important aspect of discovering whether or not you are truly walking in righteousness.
February 22, 2008 at 7:14 am
“Don’t show too much independence, it can be irritating but dependence can be used to cater to a man’s ego.”
“Never forget that men do not like women to know more than themselves and always remember the quotation: Brains do not handicap a girl if she keeps them well hidden.”
“The career girl is characterized by the firm step and bold eye of the male executive, to which, however, she often adds chic and such feminine wiles (when needed) as the pleading smile and pretended helplessness.”
Is it just me, or does this advice strike anyone else as being just a little bit, well, whorish, in a special antebellum sort of way?
February 25, 2008 at 4:15 am
Lindsey, thank you for sharing what you’re going through. Know that I’m praying for you to walk this journey with the Lord joyously and there’s nothing but hope and peace prayed for you for the decisions you and your husband and family are facing. It’s sad that the some in the homeschool arena can be so judgemental, but I suspect that it’s really fear that drives them to their bias.
Molleth said:
“Finding a confidence in who I am in Christ has been SO helpful to me in so many ways, one of which is freeing me from the need to be “approved of” by various peoples. (Now my biggest dilemna is how to *lovingly* roll my eyes at it all)”
My confidence in Christ’s love for me has kept me through some very hard times and is what has steered me away from some “works-based” theology. If you figure out a “loving” way to roll your eyes at some of the extra-biblical teachings/convictions others hold, please let us know
(((Hugs))) to all.
February 25, 2008 at 5:19 am
“Don’t show too much independence, it can be irritating but dependence can be used to cater to a man’s ego.”
“Never forget that men do not like women to know more than themselves and always remember the quotation: Brains do not handicap a girl if she keeps them well hidden.”
“The career girl is characterized by the firm step and bold eye of the male executive, to which, however, she often adds chic and such feminine wiles (when needed) as the pleading smile and pretended helplessness.”
Is it just me, or does this advice strike anyone else as being just a little bit, well, whorish, in a special antebellum sort of way?”
Sounds like classic “Manipulation”. Which, ironically, starts with ‘man…’. Hmmmm?
February 25, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Funny thing is, this is the same sort of advice that B-magazines like Cosmopolitan were dishing out, back in the days before “feminism” really went mainstream.
Back then, the only girls who acted upon such advice were either tramps or spoiled Southern belle types, whereas wholesome young women were characterized as being straightford, honest, interested in getting a good education, and not in too big of a hurry to get married.
February 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Ugh! Who WRITES that trash? Oh, wait…we know, don’t we?! Silly me!
February 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm
And no, “silly me” did NOT write that awful nonsense. (grin)
February 25, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“Is it just me, or does this advice strike anyone else as being just a little bit, well, whorish, in a special antebellum sort of way?”
Sounds like classic “Manipulation”. Which, ironically, starts with ‘man…’. Hmmmm?”
Lin,
LOL! Yes, it does strike me a but that way. An it is interesting, I never noticed the “man” in manipulate before but it sure is fitting with all these teachings on how to manipulate men into getting them to do what you want them to do.
This must mean I am not to bright since I didn’t learn the art of manipulation and I have always been straightforward about who I am, what I want, what I feel and I haven’t tried to hide anything in order to get a man’s attention. My attitude was one of “If he likes me, he likes me, if he doesn’t, no big deal.”
Are men really this shallow? These teachings really make men look very shallow. I guess I am disappointed because the men I value and respect and appreciate are NOT like this at all.
February 25, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Corrie said:
This must mean I am not to bright since I didn’t learn the art of manipulation and I have always been straightforward about who I am, what I want, what I feel and I haven’t tried to hide anything in order to get a man’s attention. My attitude was one of “If he likes me, he likes me, if he doesn’t, no big deal.”
Are men really this shallow? These teachings really make men look very shallow. I guess I am disappointed because the men I value and respect and appreciate are NOT like this at all.
I busted out in a fit of giggles upon reading this…I feel exactly the same way. I dislike manipulation on any level whether with male or female friends/relatives/spouses, etc…it goes back to being less than honest and not regarding the Truth. Relationships based in manipulation, half-truths,and outward image are often quite shallow, and doomed to fail because they lack serious roots. ‘Course, it can change with God’s help- but it is a rare relationship that survives the shadow boxing.
February 25, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Corrie…back to your question in #155.
Jane Austin of course!
*giggle*
February 25, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Joy,
Thanks for the answer to my question!
I just saw this list on the benefits of being a homemaker and I thought they would be good for discussion. This comes from the “yoursacredcalling” blog:
“Being a full time homemaker allows Christian women to fulfill many satisfying and biblical roles. A home-making woman:
1. Is available to her husband whenever he needs her.
2. Is able to keep a schedule, have dinner ready on time for her family, and doesn’t have to rely on others to raise her children.
3. Is able to train and homeschool her own children.
4. Can influence and enrich her children’s lives by being there to exemplify Christ all day – on a daily basis.
5. Is home to witness her baby’s “first smile,” “first steps,” “first word.”
6. Is free to make her house a home – and keep it that way.
7. Is available to care for the sick or aging in her family, church, and community.
8. Is available to teach and minister to the younger women in the church during a working woman’s “working hours.”
9. Is free to take meals to new moms, sick families, or the elderly.
Disclaimer: I realize plenty of working women manage to do many of these things at times, but their time (and energy) is severely limited. Someone outside the household (their boss) “owns” much of their time; therefore, a working woman is not as free to minister to her family or the church as a homemaking woman.
Often, by the time the working woman makes it home, she is exhausted and depleted. She then prepares dinner, bathes children, cleans the house, and collapses. Her boss gets the hours where she is fresh, energetic, and cheerful. Her family gets the “left over” energy she has at the end of the day.
I recall a friend telling me once, after collapsing in a chair at the end of her very long work day, “I need a wife.” She wasn’t referring to sexual orientation, she was reflecting on the fact that she was being required to fulfill two roles – the breadwinner and the bread baker – and she was exhausted and overwhelmed.”
February 25, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Here are my initial thoughts on this list.
“1. Is available to her husband whenever he needs her.”
Really? I mean if we have a houseful of children and we are homeschooling all of them and taking meals to the elderly and having dinner always on time and keeping to any sort of schedule and ministering to the younger women during the day hours, then how in the world are we going to be available to our husbands whenever “he needs” us?
and what does that mean?
If my husband decided he could interrupt my schedule at anytime just because he “needs” me, then how would I keep on a schedule and get dinner on time AND homeschool AND train my children? There are only so many hours in a day and if one is homeschooling a houseful of children and keeping the house up and cleaning and laundering, that in and of itself is about 2 full-time jobs.
Certainly if my husband needs my help running an errand, I will do everything I can to work that into my schedule but maintaining a schedule and homeschooling our children correctly means that our time is pretty well spoken for during the daylight hours.
“2. Is able to keep a schedule, have dinner ready on time for her family, and doesn’t have to rely on others to raise her children.”
In a perfect world, yes. But, when you have things come up, interruptions and the like, there are many times where a homeschool mom is NOT able to keep a schedule or have dinner ready on time.
“3. Is able to train and homeschool her own children.”
Yes, but this is a full-time job if she is doing this correctly. This doesn’t leave much room for the rest of her list. It is a totally different story if you take homeschooling out of the mix. But, when you homeschool, that must be your PRIMARY commitment during the day. You must be disciplined and interruptions must be kept at a minimum or no homeschooling happens, at least not on a consistent basis.
“4. Can influence and enrich her children’s lives by being there to exemplify Christ all day – on a daily basis.”
This is certainly a worthy goal. I only hope to exemplify Christ to my children on a daily basis and that is my heart’s desire.
“5. Is home to witness her baby’s “first smile,” “first steps,” “first word.””
Yes, this is true. Wouldn’t trade it for the world.
“6. Is free to make her house a home – and keep it that way.”
I don’t know what this mean or what she is referring to when she says “keep it that way”.
It is more real to say that when one homeschools one’s home gets very messy very quickly. It was much easier for me to have a very neat and orderly home when I worked full-time since there were no “oxen in the barn”.
I have had to learn to lower my very stringent standards for how I want my house to be when I started homeschooling. It is constant cleaning and pick-up and diligence to keep my home at the level I need it to be at.
“7. Is available to care for the sick or aging in her family, church, and community.”
Really? More available than her working counterpart? If you are homeschooling your children and getting dinner on time and being there for your husband whenever he “needs” you, then where is the time for this?
We do do these things but that means sacrificing other things. It is always a trade-off. Again, we only have so much time in a day and so much energy and that is coming from someone that is a very high-energy person.
“8. Is available to teach and minister to the younger women in the church during a working woman’s “working hours.”
Really? When I worked, I ministered to women on my lunch hour or on the weekends or after work. That is, AFTER I became a Christian.
Now I minister to women when I can but I this frustrates me because I would like to do more but because I homeschool and have a houseful of children, I can’t minister as much as I would like without totally blowing my schedule and slacking on teaching my own children.
“9. Is free to take meals to new moms, sick families, or the elderly.”
Yes, this is true but, again, other things have to go.
I am a very organized person who is able to do many tasks at one time but has anyone tried to prepare dinners for the sick and people who have had babies? It takes time and extra-planning and then it takes time to drive it where it has to go and drop it off. A whole afternoon could be eaten up by this one thing!
I just don’t see that this list is very practical or realistic. Maybe I don’t have enough older children who do all the cooking, childcare and housecleaning so I can be doing all of these other things but my plate is FULL with the needs of my own family and keeping a “schedule” is very hard for a homeschooling let alone adding in some of these other points.
I am glad my husband doesn’t feel like he has the freedom to interrupt my schedule and the homeschooling of our children anytime he “needs” me. He takes what I do very seriously and understands it is a full-time job and although he does ask me to run materials to a contractor or pick up his medicine or type up a letter, it is not a daily thing. I respect my husband’s time too much to think that I can interrupt his work whenever I “need” him and he does the same for me.
This seems consistent with the double message I get from many in the homeschooling movement. Education is not important except for when it is being used by other homeschool moms with degrees to put women in their place or when a degree is used by patriarchal men to put down women and trump whatever they have to say. (This happened not too long ago on Karen’s other blog.) We are also told that what a woman does in the home is just as important but it seems that her work and respecting boundaries so that she can get her work done is easily done away with when someone “needs” her.
If a woman is homeschooling, caring for children, caring for the home, cooking, decorating in order to make it a home, then she is already MORE than busy. When a woman is working in a job she is able to freely concentrate on her job. This is the thing that I liked about working outside of the home. It was demanding, especially what I was doing, but it was rewarding because my work and time was appreciated and respected and valued and my boss and co-workers were respectful of each other’s time and didn’t think they could just barge into the middle of a project to ask one of us to go get them some coffee or run and pick up their dry-cleaning.
It seems we are expecting a LOT out of homeschooling moms. Take homeschooling out and we could easily be the 1950’s housewife who was always available to her husband and neighbors.
And the part about working women being exhausted? Well, if a homeschooling mom is doing her job correctly, she will be exhausted, too. In fact, I am more exhausted now than I was working outside of the home. There are many MORE demands on my time and emotions now than there was when I was working full-time. And, working full-time seemed to get me a lot more respect and people seemed to value my time a lot more than they do now. It seems people have the attitude that since I am a homemaker, I have a lot of time on my hands and that means I am available to watch their children and do favors for them because they are so busy working. Oh, also, people think I do this because I just like being around children all day long, so what is a few more?
February 25, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Here is a great quote from Wayne Grudem I found on Strive to Enter:
“Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb. ‘ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped.
In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).”
Really? God is subordinate and inferior when He helps us? He must be always so since He is our ever present help in times of trouble.
That means when you all help your children, you are subordinate to them. And that means when your husbands help you, that they are subordinate to you. And that means that when you help someone at the grocery store, they are now your authority.
Be careful who you help! The one you help will be the one who commands you!
When I look in my English dictionary help simply means this:
to make it easier for someone to do something by offering your services or financial or material aid; improve a situation or problem (be a benefit to); to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist: He planned to help me with my work. Let me help you with those packages. to save; rescue; succor: Help me, I’m falling! to make easier or less difficult; contribute to; facilitate:
Antonym of help: hinder or impede
The word help doesn’t seem to say what Wayne Grudem would have us believe it means.
February 26, 2008 at 12:45 am
Ok, I am so relieved….I thought I was the only “godly” woman who doesn’t live to watch or read Jane Austin!
And let me ask this question…do you consider Jane Austin books to be romances? If so, then how can some of the patriarch women claim that they don’t allow their daughters to read or watch anything that has romance involved but they LOVE Jane Austin? I was reprimanded once for making this observation, implying that I wasn’t thinking deeply enough when reading them. Can someone explain this?
February 26, 2008 at 12:47 am
As far as manipulation is concerned, I often see this displayed over and over again by Austin’s characters. (I do love Elizabeth Bennett because she strives to be herself, imho.)
Is manipulation ok? Does it fall under the Rahab’s Lie Principle?
February 26, 2008 at 1:02 am
Corrie, I also read that list and was tired just reading it. As far as I am concerned, a homeschooling mom DOES have a full time job. To imply that we have all sorts of “extra” time is simply not fair. Jennie and Stacy are the same ones who don’t encourage “me” time for moms, calling it “meology” so I think that explains some of this list.
I have often thought that first year homeschoolers need to know the reality of what to expect so they won’t think they are the only ones who struggle. Let’s go through that list and be honest. First of all, moms are exhausted at the end of a busy day of schooling and caring for babies, toddlers, grade schoolers, and teenagers. She isn’t always available for her husband. Sometimes she smells like old breast milk spit up and the thought of being romantic is not an option. Sometimes she falls asleep reading to a restless toddler. Sometimes she has lesson plans to look over once everyone else is in bed.
I would also challenge the idea of maintaining a regular schedule. For most of my married life, my husband didn’t have that sort of schedule. His job required him to be flexible and as such I was, too. He would call me when he knew what his afternoon would be like so I had a ballpark idea of his evening schedule but when I had little ones who were hungry or older children with commitments, we weren’t always able to have dinner together. And speaking of flexibility, that MUST be the most important character quality a mom learns!
Corrie, what I read in that list looks like something that might have come from a 1950’s home economics textbook. It doesn’t describe the way a family functions when they are under the same roof 24/7 and doing craft projects, chores, etc. June Cleaver would have forsaken her pearls the first month she began homeschooling!
February 26, 2008 at 1:30 am
They all lie.
It is a lie of mass proportions to say you are “that kind of woman.” Homeschooler or not, stay at home mom or working mom, whatever. It doesn’t matter.
We’re human, and nobody can accomplish all of those things in a lifetime with the type of perfection this cult perpetuates.
Period.
Let’s be honest. Jesus himself made time to sit down, and just relax and listen to people.
Nobody is going to h*** for having a manicure or some “me” time. Nobody is going to burn at the stake for not taking meals to someone at church. We as women do NOT have to do it all. Jesus has not asked us to do it all.
Seems to me it is only these patrio types who are asking women to “do it all” and in the name of Jesus at that.
I’m so glad I’m not under that lie anymore.
February 26, 2008 at 3:33 am
“Ok, I am so relieved….I thought I was the only “godly” woman who doesn’t live to watch or read Jane Austin!”
Actually, they are about money.
)
February 26, 2008 at 3:33 am
oops wrong quote. I meant to answer this:
And let me ask this question…do you consider Jane Austin books to be romances? If
MONEY!!
February 26, 2008 at 3:38 am
ThatMom said:
“As far as I am concerned, a homeschooling mom DOES have a full time job. To imply that we have all sorts of “extra” time is simply not fair. Jennie and Stacy are the same ones who don’t encourage “me” time for moms, calling it “meology” so I think that explains some of this list.”
Wow, does that ring a Scriptural bell, or what?
Mat 23:2….the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men’s shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.
February 26, 2008 at 3:49 am
“Corrie, what I read in that list looks like something that might have come from a 1950’s home economics textbook. It doesn’t describe the way a family functions when they are under the same roof 24/7 and doing craft projects, chores, etc. June Cleaver would have forsaken her pearls the first month she began homeschooling!”
Actually, it describes a NORMAL family “Back in the Day”, when Dad went to work, Mom stayed home, and pastors stayed busy courting donations to support the church-run schools that the kids attended, instead of making money hand over fist by going into the book business and guilt-tripping Mom into swallowing the idea that she should be both homemaker and “home educator” (read, homeschooling curriculum consumer.)
February 26, 2008 at 4:27 am
thatmom-
A confession. I love Jane Austen.
However, I find it funny that people think that the regency times were “modest”. Have you seen the cleavage on those beauties? Wow.
As for them being manipulative? Austen seems to poke a lot of fun at the women (and by extension, herself) for trying to manipulate their way into an advantageous match. She doesn’t think too highly of it. As a matter of fact, Austen seems to be struggling (through out her novels) with what the definition of a woman was during her time (which echoes, in many ways, the Prairie Manifesto, but without all the ‘godly’(according to Ms. Friedrich) extras).
February 26, 2008 at 4:30 am
“Actually, it describes a NORMAL family “Back in the Day”, when Dad went to work, Mom stayed home, and pastors stayed busy courting donations to support the church-run schools that the kids attended, instead of making money hand over fist by going into the book business and guilt-tripping Mom into swallowing the idea that she should be both homemaker and “home educator” (read, homeschooling curriculum consumer.)”
February 26, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“Wow, does that ring a Scriptural bell, or what?”
If I had a dollar for each time that bell is rung……
February 26, 2008 at 1:03 pm
MrsJoy,
I love how Jane mocks her own culture in her writings but what puzzles me is that I perceive so many “visionary” daughters who LOVE Jane Austen who embrace the very things Jane mocks. Do you see that? And what do you make of the romantic themes as being acceptable when other, more modern romances are rejected? I am really interested in your take on this….
February 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“Prairie Muffins protect the innocence of their children, until such a time their children are mature enough to be exposed to potentially-harmful cultural influences.”
February 26, 2008 at 1:26 pm
But when does that time come? Apparently never, in some instances.
Cindy Kunsman left the following insightful comment on another thread elsewhere on this site, and it certainly applies here as well:
“I am just amazed, as time goes on and I learn more about this patriarchy stuff, at the high degree of similarities with Pentecostalism. There was a huge degree of anti-intellectualism there, based on the belief that if you had too much “head knowledge” about how a system worked, it would somehow inhibit your ability to have faith and “heart knowledge.” I never dreamed that I would find this as a characteristic among those who call themselves Reformed! We’ve got the distortion of Federal Vision that tries to take us back to Eden before the fall of man based on a weird twist of Covenant Theology and distortion of comments in the Westminster Confession. We’ve got the trend to keep girls at home and the trend away from higher education at universities. We’ve got prairie muffins and cottage businesses who can learn in quiet subjection to their patriarchs…
I don’t think that it is so much of an issue of religion but that of fear, but as much as some Christian conservatives strive to attain a high level of logic and intellect, they actually produce a great deal of anti-intellectialism. The fideism (the “ism” of faith alone) of Pentecost differs little from the fideism and fear that is fed by some groups of religious conservatives.
Again, I will offer this:
If homeschooling is meant and accomplishes the raising of strong Christians with strong faith and character, why is it that so many believe that their grown kids (18 years and such) are not prepared for a college environment? They ought to be thrilled to send their kids off to such an environment in order to get some experience in a somewhat controlled and protected environment — as opposed to throwing kids directly out into the adult workforce.
If we are to go out and take dominion, when and how exactly does this happen? When are these kids going to engage the lost in our culture? Why is their preparation in homeschooling so inadequate for this challenge? When, exactly, can a parent stop this paternalistic role of protection?”
February 26, 2008 at 3:53 pm
thatmom-
I’ll try not to write a book, bwahahaha.
*WARNING*- I wrote most of my upper level papers on themes in Jane Austen. *Just so you’re warned*
I guess it’s similar to the question of the Laura Ingalls Wilder books- They are actually quite ‘mouthy’ and ‘complaining’ (Laura and her sister).
The thing is, most of these lovable books that Corrie listed are lovable precisely because their main characters are flawed and ‘just like us’. I enjoy them because they have timeless lessons embedded in their often funny reparte. Anne of Green Gables anyone? I also love the many novels by Grace Livingston Hill (albeit more modern, but still just as good…) I do think that they harken to a simpler time, yes. The older books in that vein are uncluttered by modern existentialism and postmodernism that crowds even the best of the Christian novels of today. We can’t help it really- our whole civilization has changed drastically in the post-WWII age.
I would argue that the VF girls that fawn over Jane Austen don’t have a true concept of the books. Personally I’d love to hear how a VF girl would deal with Northanger Abbey, bwahaha! Neither do they have a true concept of the world and age that she lived in. Or Mrs. Wilder, Mrs. Montgomery, Mrs. Hill.
It’s still the same world, painted in different colors. The problems of sin existed then, just as they do now. Some are exposed to the light in ways they weren’t then. Yet other, more insidious sins have taken the place of those, and all of it has become more mainstream. This question of “women” has gone back and back among women themselves long before even those favorite authoresses’ time. Every one of those books are a commentary on what women think about the world they live in via their characters.
I think VF girls notice the laudable themes in these books, but like everything else, they ‘cherry-pick’.
Many of the older romances describe:
(in no particular order)
1. purity
2. respect
3. gracefulness (of both body and mind)
4. being oneself- think about it- what is Lizzie dealing with? Anne? Laura? Marianne?
5. Most also deal with faith- what it looks like in relation to the rest of their lives (JA excepted here).
Yet, it remains, that their world is not perfect, just as it is now. All of the driving plot lines in every single book deal with that tension- ‘things are not as they should be’. Whether they articulate it or not, they realize that the world is flawed. For JA, it’s how the current patriarchal system leaves women no other choice than to marry well, and manipulate their way into everything. She clearly sees it as messed up, but she is at a loss as how to ‘fix’ the problem. But her heroines, in the end, are always wed for love, not money. That seems to be her way of dealing with it.
I think that the VF women avoid the more modern romances because, well, they’re a bit more honest. Take the series on Amish women that Beverly Lewis writes. (I love ‘em too- I am a voracious reader, can you tell?) How could you get any more simple or separated from the world than the Amish? The VF crowd should be all over it, right? But I guarantee they won’t pick up the books, because the themes in the book honestly deal with the question of image and religion; following rules v. embodying faith; the tension between sin and grace. Ms. Lewis does a superb job of dealing with these issues while also entertaining with beautiful Christ-based romances. But she doesn’t ‘prettify’ the whole thing. Neither did the older authoresses- it’s just harder to see because our cultures are so different.
It’s easier to say that it would be easier to go back to the time of JA…without realizing just exactly what that would mean for those same VF girls…they have no concept of just how hard it would be.
February 26, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I try not to be angry every time she posts something new, I really do. But her sweeping generalizations drive me bonkers.
1. Is available to her husband whenever he needs her. Um…I am a SAHM ‘just like her’…and it doesn’t always look like this. We try- we have ballpark figures. But ‘whenever’? I think my husband is more concerned about dinner getting on the table than me dropping everything to fawn over him.
2. Is able to keep a schedule, have dinner ready on time for her family, and doesn’t have to rely on others to raise her children. She must have a maid. No seriously. I agree with thatmom in this that we have a general, very flexible schedrule. ‘On time’ may look like 5pm one night and 7:30pm a few days later.I’d also like to point out that God raises my children- I am just a vessel. To imply self-righteously that I am fully and solely responsible for my children’s upbringing counts out both God’s and their father’s influences.
3. Is able to train and homeschool her own children.Don’t make me go there.
4. Can influence and enrich her children’s lives by being there to exemplify Christ all day – on a daily basis. More like my flawed, through a glass darkly, grace-based representation of Christ working through me. All day? I am more likely showing my children, whether I realize it or not, just how far I have to go on this journey towards becoming like Christ!
5. Is home to witness her baby’s “first smile,” “first steps,” “first word.” Oh, for crying out loud.Some things shouldn’t be dignified with an answer. What a horrible dig implying we are less than mothers if we happen to miss it! The first time a mother hears it, is the first time for her. Enough said.
6. Is free to make her house a home – and keep it that way. Again, an image-based judgement, not rooted in truth or grace.
7. Is available to care for the sick or aging in her family, church, and community.
And the working women don’t?
8. Is available to teach and minister to the younger women in the church during a working woman’s “working hours.” Again, give me a break. I didn’t realize mentoring had a time limit. It happens whenever it needs to happen, not when it fits into someone’s highly regimented schedrule.If it doesn’t fit the needs of the mentee, could it really be called mentoring?
9. Is free to take meals to new moms, sick families, or the elderly. Again, and working moms aren’t?
I am a SAHM (of four). I do not have a job outside the home. I homeschool. But my life does not look like this. It is God-guided, uniquely fitted to my families needs. Her obsession with ‘her way’ being the only way is a bit ridiculous. It sets new moms up for certain failure.
February 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Regarding comment #170 and the homemaking woman on yoursacredcalling:
“8. Is available to teach and minister to the younger women in the church during a working woman’s “working hours.”
This just seemed like a backhanded insult and/or attempt to “usurp” other women’s convictions (and possibly the other women’s husband’s convictions) about our liberties in Christ. It almost sounds as if while the “working women” are employed in some career or job, the REAL teachers are the ones edifying the younger portion of the Body of Christ. Is it just me, or doesn’t that sound a tad puffy?
I don’t know where else to continue with that list of *wonderful* homemaking ideals. I miss the mark in that list a lot, because I don’t have a perfect situation, with a perfect set-up and I have a varying schedule. In a perfect world this would work. There were times when our family’s lives were turned upside down. We had a child in the hospital for months at a time for over 2 years, my husband has attended college twice, we’ve had chaotic work/school schedules, etc. That list leaves little room for feeling free to fall into any of my life circumstances without feeling a sense of failure to live up to some legalistic, perfect “homemaker” standard.
Even in a perfect world, though, I don’t think I’d want to be at the beck and call of my husband’s whims, as much as I love him. That’s just catering to his selfish nature, which I’m starting to see from some of the leanings of patrio teachings that men have the residual responsibility of being head/authority, while women got stuck with the continual curse of needing to know our place, or always wanting to usurp.
BTW: Whenever I’ve shared with others who aren’t “boned up” on the particulars of what people who follow patriocentric teachings, they just look at me strangely like it can’t be true some of the strong convictions these people have and promote with their books and seminars, etc. That list is some proof of what they promote. My offline friends who are well-balanced Christian women who love the Lord and their families just tell me they just don’t care what others think. I believe the proof is in the pudding, and some of these women promoting “Visionary Daughters”, “Passionate Housewives” and “Prarie Muffin” ideals haven’t had their grandchildren yet to prove whether their exclusive teachings have good fruit.
February 26, 2008 at 4:35 pm
mrsjoy, you said it way better than I did
February 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm
““8. Is available to teach and minister to the younger women in the church during a working woman’s “working hours.””
Ministering to the “younger women in the church” during a working woman’s “working hours” is all well and good, but who is going to minister to working women during their working hours, if not those women within the church who are working women themselves?
(of course, if the Great Commission has been swept aside in favor of a return to the OT command to “fill the earth”, then I guess that witnessing to the world doesn’t matter any more…)
February 26, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I believe the proof is in the pudding, and some of these women promoting “Visionary Daughters”, “Passionate Housewives” and “Prarie Muffin” ideals haven’t had their grandchildren yet to prove whether their exclusive teachings have good fruit.
I’m really enjoying your comments, Kate and MrsJoy, but wanted to toss out a thought on the above statement.
Personally, I don’t care what the “fruit” is. I know families with working moms and public-schooled kids who have turned out GREAT adult children (and had a warm and loving home in the process). I know homeschooled-head-covering families who make me want to run for the hills every time I see them, there’s such a lack of grace in their walls (and their kids are miserable!). And I also know complete opposites.
I’m of the opinion now that it’s NOT the outward things (and if it is at all, then it’s only in very minute amounts), but it’s the inward things that make a happy home and give children the chance to grow up into happy healthy adults.
Things that the Bible talks about, like “the fruit of the Spirit,” don’t depend on outward things to make them come to fruition. Love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, and self-control can be practiced by women in skirts and women in pants.
Maybe the reason we like to focus so much on switching to “dresses-only” is because dresses-only is within our power. Walking in gentleness is NOT. We can only walk in gentleness as we draw from the Life of God inside of us.
I had so much faith in Things, in these Right Things (which included gaurding viligantly against Wrong Things) that would *guarantee* (or at least practically would) my kid’s salvation and future holy lifestyle.
I may be a bit jaded, but I’m hardly able to restrain my rolling eyeballs now, when I think about how much faith I had in Things. It was all in His name, and yet He was…where? He was hardly in any of it. I was too busy bowing to the Things.
If someone wants to switch to dresses-only, fine. I mean, it’s such a small issue—-who really cares, and who am I to say that they can or can not? The indidious nature of focusing on Things, though, is that it is all too easy to crowd out the “things” that are closest to God’s heart.
Walking in the Spirit is *not* “do not handle, do not taste.” We’ve come to a MUCH different mountain. And this Covenant asks for much different things. And I think that’s exactly what gets lost in the long lists of what we should and should not do.
February 26, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Ooops. I forgot to come back to my original point. All I wanted to say, before I went off on a tangent there (*grins*) is that if a VF-esque family turns out great kids…well…uh, great.
That’s not proof, though. Unless one can only turn out great kids by doing certain right outward things. Which then leaves me befuddled as to explaining how our neighbors turned out such awesome God-loving adult children when Mom worked outside the home and when they grew up in public school!?
It’s also entirely possible to point to what LOOKS like a great home and to use it as a bludgeoning tool to beat others into submitting to “your way as best.”
I personally know a rather famous VF-type speaker who does exactly this. It goes something like, “Not only does the Bible say all of this, therefore if you don’t do it my way you’ll be disobeying God, but ALSO look at our wonderful home! If you want what I have, you HAVE to do it this way.”
Her home/family looks just delicious. Who wouldn’t want it? Yet I also have heard what some of the adult children said about her behind her back.
In other words, sure, they all LOOK good in the pictures and on paper (sure fooled me, before I got up close and personal!), but it’s NOT actually that way. And she turned out to be the opposite of many of the “principles” she promoted.
Which simply means I’m rambling on a tangent again, just to say that if a VF-family does a good job raising their kids, great. But that’s not proof that their *particular* ways are the right ways. It just means that they probably loved. (And, according to the NT, Love *is* the Right Way).
February 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Can somebody tell me, how on earth did this dresses-only/headcovering business get its start, anyway?
The nearest that I’ve been able to tell, it is a modern fad. My mother is 79 years old, and I asked her about it, and even when she was a young girl and women wore dresses most of the time, they wore pants sometimes too; no one other than the Mennonites (and maybe some Southern Baptists) had ever heard “dresses only” or headcovering being made a religious issue.
February 26, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I’m not sure where the head covering began. (Other than the Mennonites) I grew up Southern Baptist and we never had head coverings (or were dresses only). You may be thinking of Primitive Baptists. I’m not aware of all of their “rules” but they are among the strictest in the Baptist denomination.
February 26, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I first of all want to thank you guys for having this website. I was getting so discouraged and down on myself because I thought I was doing everything wrong by working full time and not having any children.
My first exposure to Christian women blogging were these Prairie Muffins and I bought their line of thinking hook, line and sinker. I immediately started crying and begging my husband to let me quit my job so I could stay at home and have a baby and fulfill my role as a Godly woman. My wonderful husband assured me that quitting my job right now would not be the best idea (we are trying to pay off some debt, and the cost of living is atrocious where we live) and he also let me know that I am fulfilling my God given role as his wife by helping him through my working full time. Also he reminded me that kids stress me out.
It’s amazing to me how convincing these women sound and I’m beginning to see how dangerous that is. Sure, I’ve wavered in my faith throughout my life, but I know for certain that I am strong in my faith in Christ and for the Prairie Muffin belief to start making me wonder about my Christianity is scary! I’m beginning to wonder how many other great Christian women these PMs are affecting!
So all of that was to say thank you. It makes me feel so much better to know that I’m not a horrible wife and Christian for living differently than the PMs do.
February 26, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I first noticed it in about 1999; that’s about the time that people started talking about it on the ‘net, too, though there is some evidence, consisting of various individual tesimonies, that the phenomenom of fulltime headcovering in nonAnabaptist women began as much as a decade earlier. (The modern meme of fulltime covering must be distinguished from the ages-old Christian practice of covering during worship, which dates from the times of the Apostles.)
In nearly every case, the person in question claims to have been “led by God” or by a dream or a vision to cover their hair; the usual reason is modesty or as a sign of submission and separation from The World (which appparently includes all those Christians who have not been led to cover fulltime.)
February 26, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Molleth said:
I’m of the opinion now that it’s NOT the outward things (and if it is at all, then it’s only in very minute amounts), but it’s the inward things that make a happy home and give children the chance to grow up into happy healthy adults.
Things that the Bible talks about, like “the fruit of the Spirit,” don’t depend on outward things to make them come to fruition. Love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, and self-control can be practiced by women in skirts and women in pants.
Exactly!
You said what I was trying to say better!
February 26, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Becky…we are so glad you stopped by. It makes putting up with the ungracious actions of the VF crowd easier, knowing that this is helping someone. Molleth has some links on her blog about her trip out of patriarchalism/patriocentricity that might help you too!
((((hugs))))
February 26, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Thanks for the tip to Molleth’s blog. I’ll be sure to look them up!
February 26, 2008 at 8:19 pm
thatmom, you remarked on the romantic content in the Austen books and wondered how the VF crowd and their ilk could excuse this while still professing to despise romance novels. While mrsjoy has already answered you quite capably (mrsjoy, I have to say I started laughing when you brought up Northanger Abbey– while I adore “Love and Freindship” best of all, Northanger Abbey is without a doubt my favourite of Austen’s full-length novels. She takes nothing seriously, does she?!) I thought I’d throw my two cents in as well.
I am not by any means a die-hard devotee of Austen’s works, but I enjoy them when I read them, and I had the chance to partcipate in a University course where we read Pride and Prejudice. Unlike the course where we read Northanger Abbey, which everybody understood to be a somewhat tongue-in-cheek novel, the class where we read P&P delivered widely (almost stunningly) varying responses. Not one of us had read it quite the same– some people saw it as straightforward social satire, some read it as a ridiculous, archaic version of the worst type of Harlequin romance, and the rest of us were all scattered in between.
I think the true beauty (I might even say genius) of Austen’s writing is she meets everybody “where they’re at.” That is, you can take from the novels what you wish– if you want to take from them nothing more than a decorous urging to find a husband as soon as possible, you absolutely can do so (I doubt very much she could have gotten published at that time if this were not the case!) Or, if you want to peel off the first few layers of onionskin, so to speak, you can also uncover some stinging barbs aimed at the very people who pursue nothing more than a husband. On this level of reading you can still retain substantial faith in the idea of true love, and be satisfied with that as well. Or you can go all the way, cut to the core, and take the message to say that she took none of this societal claptrap seriously at all– I have heard cases well-argued for each “level” of reading, and while I prefer a middle-of-the-road approach myself, I can’t say for absolute certain that mine is the “only” way to read it, since I’ve seen people read them so many different ways!
I would therefore venture to guess that the VF-types would choose to take away principally those elements that mrsjoy outlined– the personal/social graces, the decorum, and of course the pursuit of a suitable husband. Because the romantic content (to say nothing of the social commentary) is so heavily veneered with these more acceptable elements, the novels really have very little of the “nitty gritty” character development and real life issues you will find in even the mildest of modern romances.
February 26, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I don’t remember ever hearing about or being exposed to any headcovering discussions until reading Gentle Spirit magazine in the 1990’s. O can also remember reading at the time that R. C. Sproul Sr.’s wife always wore a head covering to worship.
I do know that my grandmother would never ever attend church without a hat on her head. She passed away in 1973 and to the very end was never without a hat. It was the same with all the other women in our American Baptist church when I was growing up UNTIL Jackie Kennedy became first lady and stopped wearing hats in the mid 60’s. That set the trend for the future and along with hats, gloves and stockings for every occasion went out the door.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I have been reading Pink Think and have really gotten a kick out of the style preferences of the 1940’s to 60’s and the changes. I think many of the patriarchal preferences today are a throw back to that time. Some of the women I have seen who insist on headcoverings for worship only wear vintage hats instead of the cloth ones. Is there a difference?
February 26, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Becky,
I am so glad that you found us. I look forward to getting to know you better!
February 26, 2008 at 8:27 pm
MrsJoy,
Thanks so much for the insights into Jane Austin and her readers and admirers. You almost made me want to pick up one of her books and read it!
I really appreciate your insights into the fact that each of these women were responding to their own cultures. That is such a crucial point. We do not live in those same cultures and as such we are called to respond to the day in which we live and the people who cross our paths.
Personally, I love the Little House books and really would have loved to have been mentored by Mrs. Wilder. But I am also so thankful that I do not have to do all that she did just to survive today! It all goes back to being thankful for the time period in which God has placed us and seeking to minister to those today who are struggling with the issues that are relevant now, not years or even centuries ago. Though we live in different times and have different challenges and struggles, God has not changed nor has His Word. Thanks, Joy, for the reminder.
February 26, 2008 at 8:28 pm
One more thing…..I was really intrigued with the notion that Jane Austins’ characters were resigned to the culture of their day and the means of marriage etc. Perhaps you have just explained the connection the VF girls have to Austin’s characters.
February 26, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I read here, but I rarely comment. What more can I add that hasn’t already been said?!
After reading all of these lists and some of those women’s blogs, I’m left wondering if they’ve ever read the book of Galations. Freedom in Christ seems to be a concept that they are lacking. Sometimes I get the impression that they think the only biblical passages that even pertain to women are Proverbs 31 and Titus 2.
Something I’ve noticed that is missing, besides freedom in Christ, is ministering to the lost world and friends. Has anyone else noticed a complete absence of friendships from these people’s lives? Sure, they have their fellow VF-following blogging buddies, but when they write about their day-to-day lives, it is a rarity for anyone other than their family members to ever be mentioned. They don’t have dinners with other couples/families, their children don’t have playmates outside of each other, and they seem to have no one in their lives besides their own family. That strikes me as very sad.
And yet, they claim to be impacting the world by living out a godly example. I just don’t see it.
My husband and I work with the youth at our church, and let me tell you, there are a lot of lost and hurting kids out there. Those kids are such treasures, and I count it privilege to be in their lives. Many have come to know Christ because of those of us out there who are willing to spend time with them, get to know them, love them, and accept them as worthy human beings. But the Prairie Muffin types would never know that these kids are great because they’re too busy “protecting” their own children from these scary non-Christians. (Or even scary Christians who just live life a little differently.) How can a family make an impact in the lost world when they are too frightened to get to know anyone in it? They are deluding themselves if they honestly believe that just living their so-called examples is leading people to Christ.
And don’t even get me started on their love affair with all things Victorian…
As for lack of grace among those types, I’ve experienced that firsthand. I’ve been married for nearly 10 years, but we do not have children. I’ve been called selfish, immature, not ready to be married (even though I’ve been married longer than many of them), told that I hate kids, etc. Now, none of this has been said to me directly, but it’s always made as a blanket statement because, of course, if I’m not living life just like them, then I’m doing it all wrong anyway. Personal circumstances, God’s calling on one’s own life, etc. do not count for squat. If you’re not a “keeper at home” and have a jillion babies, you’re not truly a godly woman. There is no grace, gentleness, kindness, or love.
February 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Thanks! I’m not as deep thinking as you guys are, but your posts are wonderful. I hope to contribute as much as I can!
February 26, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Could someone who has the book, So Much More, tell me the context of Chapter 12 and the context of the quote:
“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″
Here is what they said concerning the so-called “rumors” (this is what Stacy McDonald told them) started on this blog about them likening college girls to harlots:
“Though we consider college a lesser option for those who want to be thoroughly educated (for reasons clearly stated in our book), we have never called college attendance a sin, or passed moral judgment on girls for going. (More on our position on this issue in an upcoming question.) We certainly never said anything about harlots, or quoted any verses about harlots, in any connection with college or full-time jobs.”
Is this assertion true? Did they pass moral judgment on girls who go to college? Did they pass moral judgment on women who go off on the mission field? What did they say about women who work full-time? Basically, what is the title of Chapter 12 and the gist of that chapter. What was their point when they made the statement about harlots?
February 26, 2008 at 9:26 pm
http://visionarydaughters.com/responding-to-a-rumor/
Here is a bit of their explanation about why they said what they did.
“Please note that we used the words “unwittingly acting like.” Of course most girls who are boisterous and rebellious are not actually harlots; they’re just behaving in a similar manner, sharing these characteristics with the woman of Proverbs 7.
We understand this verse to be a broad warning, not just to men who might be destroyed by a boisterous, forward and rebellious woman. It holds wisdom for girls who live at home, as well as girls who live elsewhere, single women and married women alike. The Bible, and especially the book of Proverbs, tells us many things about the harlot. Three of the things God wanted women to know about her are these: A, she is boisterous; B, she is rebellious; and C, her feet do not remain at home. Because of many of the other things we know about the harlot, these three things might surprise us in how innocuous and common they seem. Why did God want us to know that the harlot is like this? To tell us that all women who do A, B and C are harlots? We hope not, because, like all women, we have the tendency toward all three.
As Christian women who should tremble before God’s Word and want to see both the exhortations and the warnings for women in God’s Word, we should consider that this was stated to let us know that A, B and C are not the attitudes of a godly woman. In other words: This is how bad women act. We do not want to be like bad women. We should avoid all the attitudes of the bad woman, including attitudes A, B and C.
Because A, B and C all do boil down to attitude. The trouble with the woman of Proverbs 7 is not that she opens her mouth; her counterpart, the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31, is praised for “open[ing] her mouth in wisdom; the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.” It is the defiant, loud, tumultuous attitude that we are warned away from. The trouble with the wayward woman is not that her feet leave the house; her counterpart, the virtuous woman, “is like the merchant ships; she bringeth her food from afar.” What’s interesting is the wording in Proverbs 7: Her feet do not remain at home. As John Gill wrote in his commentary of verse 11: “Her feet abide not in her house; to attend the business of it; but she is gadding abroad to seek her lovers, and bring them in; it is the character of good women that they are keepers at home, but it is the sign of a harlot to gad abroad…” (emphasis added)”
February 26, 2008 at 9:33 pm
“Personally, I love the Little House books and really would have loved to have been mentored by Mrs. Wilder. But I am also so thankful that I do not have to do all that she did just to survive today! I”
Karen,
That is the root of your feminist problem. You like the Little House books. Haven’t the Prairie Muffins warned us about those books and all that feminism found within the pages of those books?
You need to hide your feministic tendencies like the characters in the Austin books did. You need to wrap them up under a feminine cloak and spray them with rose oil and use your feminine charms to manipulate the men. The Little House books are just…well, too honest and forthright about their intentions. That seems to go against all the rules on Christian decorum.
The heroine in Austin’s novels was always a bit feisty and rebellious, no? But, in the end she always gets her man and she lives happily ever after! That is quite the lesson!
I can identify strongly with the main characters in some of the Jane Austin books but I don’t think, according to what I have read in the patriarchal literature, that this is a good thing!
Also, I agree that these novels are of the genre of romance. How could we deny this fact?
February 26, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“I would therefore venture to guess that the VF-types would choose to take away principally those elements that mrsjoy outlined– the personal/social graces, the decorum, and of course the pursuit of a suitable husband.”
Andrea,
Good points in your post.
I think “pursuit” is a key word. These women did pursue men. I find it ironic in the light of the patriarchlist teachngs of man as initiator and woman as responder.
February 26, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Mrs. Joy,
“I would argue that the VF girls that fawn over Jane Austen don’t have a true concept of the books. Personally I’d love to hear how a VF girl would deal with Northanger Abbey, bwahaha! Neither do they have a true concept of the world and age that she lived in. Or Mrs. Wilder, Mrs. Montgomery, Mrs. Hill.”
Yes! Great point. I don’t really think they have a true concept of the book or culture surrounding the book, either, or they wouldn’t be promoting them as heavily.
You should teach an online class for girls concerning Jane Austin and her books. I would sign my girls up!
February 26, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Cynthia,
The whole dresses only and headcovering thing seemed to be picking up steam when I came on board the homeschooling (patriarchal) train in the early 90’s.
I did dresses only and headcovering during that time. Gentle Spirit was a major proponent of it.
February 26, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I am just reading Pride and Prejudice for the first time (well it’s the 5th time I’ve picked up the book, but the first time I got past chapter 1) and I think it’s funny that many VF Jane Austen loving bloggers love this line from the book:
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
I look at this quote as being completely tongue and cheek and a bit of a bite to to the Bennett family, however those that love this quite take it as being serious.
Am I the only one who thought of that?
February 26, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
I look at this quote as being completely tongue and cheek and a bit of a bite to to the Bennett family, however those that love this quite take it as being serious.
I thought it as obvious as she ever gets that that line was a jab at the whole mentality, particularly since she follows it up with some comments by Mrs. Bennett I can’t remember at the moment.
Jane A is often claimed as a “proto-feminist” by feminists, meaning she shared many feminist concerns and viewpoints within a culture that hadn’t really discovered feminism. Amuses me muchly that VFers embrace Jane A and reject modern romances since many feminists do the same thing. I think in both cases there’s a “too common” vibe when it comes to their attitudes toward romances, but maybe that’s me thinking snarky.
February 26, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Corrie,
The quote in question is found in Chapter 12, entitled “Daughters and a Father’s Roof (where you can be protected and productive)” It then proceeds into a series of questions to which the girls offer responses:
“If I’m supposed to be an active part of my family, then does that mean I should live at home until I’m married?”
In historical biblical circumstances, a girl lived at home under her father’s roof until she was married.
But that was then and this is now, right?
What women have now is neither progress nor improvement. Western women are much worse off than they have been for a long time…
It is a father’s responsibility to provide for his daughter, lead her, and protect her body, soul, mind, and emotions…
Throughout the whole Bible we see examples of young women who lived at home under their fathers’ protection until they were given in marriage…
This opens up into a small section where the quote in question is sandwiched wherein the authors cite quotes from some of these girls that they talk with, whether here or in all of their seemingly exotic travels abroad they do not say.
The first girl quoted on pg 172 is “Fiona” who talks about “one of the greatest dangers and temptations facing the unprotected women of today.”
pgs 172 -173:
When a young lady is out from under the protection of her father — this can be a physical or a spiritual thing — the world looks so attractive. All the things she never noticed before seem to be everywhere and readily available. The boys, clothes, music, easily acquired finances, cars, jewelry… I think the worst is probably the boys who are there waiting for a nice, pure, lonely young lady in need of attention and caring. The rest is history. I have seen this happen to so many people I know. It is painful and leaves emotional scars.
When I ask myself why I left home when I was 17, the answer is simple. I rebelled against my father, did not respect his authority and quite simply wanted to live life the way I wanted. No, it was not well with me. From the moment I left home, life was fraught with difficulties. I had car accidents, I lost my wallet, I couldn’t keep a part-time job for longer than six months, I got myself almost immediately in financial bondage. I was truly in a state of “spiritual blindness,” walking up and down the streets of “vanity fair,” not registering anything or anyone.
(end quote from Fiona)
The weight of the 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.
Sarah says:
It is such a blessing for me to be under my father’s roof — under his authority, protection and leadership. No longer do I seek to leave it in search of a more “significant” position. It is such a joy to know that I am part of a family that is a team — a unit — that works together to further God’s kingdom for the glory of God. We are no longer a household of individuals with our own ministries and activities independent of one another — for then the family unit cannot function as God designed it. I am amazed at the difference in our lives due to the work God has done in our hearts.
Then it opens up into a new subtitled section with a question asking
“Can a girl really accomplish a smuch living at home as outside it?”
February 26, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“Jane A is often claimed as a “proto-feminist” by feminists, meaning she shared many feminist concerns and viewpoints within a culture that hadn’t really discovered feminism. Amuses me muchly that VFers embrace Jane A and reject modern romances since many feminists do the same thing.”
Shilohmm,
The irony amuses me, also.
Here is a bit from Sparks notes:
“The opening sentence of Pride and Prejudice—“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”—establishes the centrality of advantageous marriage, a fundamental social value of Regency England. The arrival of Mr. Bingley (and news of his fortune) is the event that sets the novel in motion. He delivers the prospect of a marriage of wealth and good connections for the eager Bennet girls. The opening sentence has a subtle, unstated significance. In its declarative and hopeful claim that a wealthy man must be looking for a wife, it hides beneath its surface the truth of such matters: a single woman must be in want of a husband, especially a wealthy one.”
Here is the first chapter for anyone who wants just a taste of the irony that Jane Austin frequently employed in her writings.
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
“My dear Mr. Bennet,” said his lady to him one day, “have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?”
Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.
“But it is,” returned she; “for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it.”
Mr. Bennet made no answer.
“Do not you want to know who has taken it?” cried his wife impatiently.
“You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it.”
This was invitation enough.
“Why, my dear, you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four to see the place, and was so much delighted with it that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week.”
“What is his name?”
“Bingley.”
“Is he married or single?”
“Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!”
“How so? how can it affect them?”
“My dear Mr. Bennet,” replied his wife, “how can you be so tiresome! You must know that I am thinking of his marrying one of them.”
“Is that his design in settling here?”
“Design! nonsense, how can you talk so! But it is very likely that he may fall in love with one of them, and therefore you must visit him as soon as he comes.”
“I see no occasion for that. You and the girls may go, or you may send them by themselves, which perhaps will be still better; for, as you are as handsome as any of them, Mr. Bingley might like you the best of the party.”
“My dear, you flatter me. I certainly have had my share of beauty, but I do not pretend to be any thing extraordinary now. When a woman has five grown up daughters, she ought to give over thinking of her own beauty.”
“In such cases, a woman has not often much beauty to think of.”
“But, my dear, you must indeed go and see Mr. Bingley when he comes into the neighbourhood.”
“It is more than I engage for, I assure you.”
“But consider your daughters. Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general, you know they visit no new comers. Indeed you must go, for it will be impossible for us to visit him, if you do not.”
“You are over-scrupulous, surely. I dare say Mr. Bingley will be very glad to see you; and I will send a few lines by you to assure him of my hearty consent to his marrying which ever he chuses of the girls; though I must throw in a good word for my little Lizzy.”
“I desire you will do no such thing. Lizzy is not a bit better than the others; and I am sure she is not half so handsome as Jane, nor half so good humoured as Lydia. But you are always giving her the preference.”
“They have none of them much to recommend them,” replied he; “they are all silly and ignorant like other girls; but Lizzy has something more of quickness than her sisters.”
“Mr. Bennet, how can you abuse your own children in such way? You take delight in vexing me. You have no compassion on my poor nerves.”
“You mistake me, my dear. I have a high respect for your nerves. They are my old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these twenty years at least.”
“Ah! you do not know what I suffer.”
“But I hope you will get over it, and live to see many young men of four thousand a year come into the neighbourhood.”
“It will be no use to us if twenty such should come, since you will not visit them.”
“Depend upon it, my dear, that when there are twenty I will visit them all.”
Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three and twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. Her mind was less difficult to develope. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented, she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news.”
February 26, 2008 at 11:42 pm
This all goes without saying that two girls do not an accurate worldview make.
I had an absolutely wonderful experience when I left home for college and also to live on my own. I was well-prepared by my parents to face the challenges of life that I was faced with, and I promptly went home to discuss problems when I encountered them.
I had a checking account and a credit card with a low credit limit ($250), just enough to get some experience but not enought to get into trouble. I saved money and purchased my own car, paying for all the expenses. I actually had an easier time with money then before I married! In college, I had to have my tonsils removed, and I remember being upset that I did not have the money to pay for the surgery, even though I was 19 and was still in school full-time.
I remember also, when attending community college when I was 16, going home and crying to my Dad when a dirtball guy tried to pick me up. The guy flat out said that he wanted to have sex, and I cried to my dad about how disappointed I was to realize that there were really people like this out in the world. (This was long before the job and car and money in the bank.. I hitched a ride with a family friend who worked at the college.) All that to say that I was prepared for some things, and when I found myself stressed, I knew where to go for support. I remember that my Dad picked me up from the friend’s house that day, otherwise I would have talked about this with my mom. I remember Dad saying that I was silly for crying since there were plenty more jerks like this out there, and not all of them were as forthcoming about their true intentions.
I think, all along life, I have had unfortuate circumstances like losing things or locking myself out of my car, something I did a few times after I started driving. (That’s what AAA memberships are for.) Vanity Fair was defintiely there, but I was not interested in it. I was interested in getting an education and earning good grades. I cannot relate at all to either of the experiences that these girls relate.
Again, if it were up to Dad, I’d be in the cellar, tying flies and reloading. (And baking cookies.) We had plenty of our own interests and shared some common ones. I can’t imagine things any other way.
February 26, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Hey, hope I didn’t offend any Austen fans out there. It just doesn’t click for me, and note that I am even more “non-normative” than most girls anyway. You’d probably hate the stuff that I like!
It’s just more interesting to me that I was discouraged from reading Austen, then found myself in a community where Austen was venerated. It’s more ironic than anything.
February 26, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Yeah, I didn’t like dolls, either. I preferred paper and tape and scissors from a young age. I preferred the live action of a plant or a cat or a critter of some variety.
I loved being a girl, wearing dresses and spent several years wearing tutus and ballerina tights, however.
When I read that stuff on dolls that was posted on VF a couple of months ago, I wondered if I was Doug’s kid, if they would have sent me away for electroshock therapy or something. Oh no. They don’t do psychology at VF. I’d have been taken for deliverance prayer or something.
February 26, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Cindy,
It appears that they are talking about girls remaining under the physical roof of their girlhood homes and not just living under it in a metaphorical sense, no?
The Botkins firmly state that they were not talking about girls who go to college but after reading what you wrote, it certainly seems that they are saying that the home is a female’s domain and that she must be in it to be fulfilling her calling as helpmeet to both her husband and/or father.
“The weight of the biblical passages seem to strongly indicate that the home is the woman’s domain. ”
So, conversely, the college dorm room is NOT the woman’s domain and when a woman does not live under the physical roof of her parent’s home, then she opens herself up to car accidents, financial tragedy, heartbreak and hardships.
Is this statement true in light of what they wrote in their book?
“Though we consider college a lesser option for those who want to be thoroughly educated (for reasons clearly stated in our book), we have never called college attendance a sin, or passed moral judgment on girls for going. (More on our position on this issue in an upcoming question.) We certainly never said anything about harlots, or quoted any verses about harlots, in any connection with college or full-time jobs.”
Do they pass moral judgment on girls who go to college and who do not remain under their father’s roof? Or are they neutral and express that the Bible does not mandate these things and that girls are free to decide what path God would have them take? Do they use the Bible to refute girls attending college? If they do, then that would be passing moral judgment in my book.
February 26, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Ewokgirl said: let me tell you, there are a lot of lost and hurting kids out there. Those kids are such treasures, and I count it privilege to be in their lives. Many have come to know Christ because of those of us out there who are willing to spend time with them, get to know them, love them, and accept them as worthy human beings.
Ewokgirl, we have been privileged to have two such young people like this in our lives. My 17 y.o. DS’s girlfriend is the daughter of a single dad who travels a lot. My 16 y.o. DD’s boyfriend is the son of a single dad who also travels a lot. The girlfriend had never heard the gospel before we got to know her. She came over one time in a VERY short skirt, and I was able to discreetly and gently talk with her about why this was inappropriate. Both these teens love to come to a family meal in our large-ish family (well, 6 total in our family, large by today’s standards) because they are used to making do with frozen microwaved dinners in front of the TV for themselves most nights. I’ve taught DD’s boyfriend how to cook. He also has had trouble sleeping for years, and I gave him a natural remedy, and for the first time since he was 12, he is sleeping well every night (and is a different person because of it!) We had a frank talk with all these kids about the sexual boundaries, and DS’s girlfriend said, in an awed voice, that we really must care about her to speak so frankly. I say all this not to brag, but to demonstrate just how vital it is that we not separate ourselves out, but be involved in the very messiness of life, with people from all backgrounds. I know many parents would fear their kids having sweethearts from dysfunctional families; my husband and I do not, because we have very open communication with our kids and what we expect, and set firm boundaries. I fear that the hyperP’s would treat kids like these as untouchables who might taint their kids – yet I feel that we have gained so much from having these young people in our lives, and I wouldn’t trade it for the world.
What is funny is that I am not formally involved in youth ministry, because I don’t really enjoy it. So God has placed these kids in our lives instead.
And it has been a wonderful blessing.
February 26, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Here is a repost of one of Spunky’s posts which highlight the views on a woman’s only option:
Spunky Says:
June 26, 2007 at 2:44 am
I would like to know if the Botkin girls approve of young ladies working to take the orders for Vision Forum, which sells their book, is consistent with their beliefs or hypocritical?
I called the Vision Forum toll free number published on the Vision Forum website today. The ordering is outsourced to a call center in Virginia. Twice the call was answered by a woman answered and once the call was answered by a man. This violates the Tenets of Patriarchy in at least two areas.
According to the Tenets of Patriarchy posted on the Vision Forum website,
“Since the woman was created as a helper to her husband, the bearer of children, and a “keeper at home,” the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home, although her domestic calling, as a representative of and helper to her husband, may well involve activity in the marketplace and larger community. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Prov. 31:10-31; Tit. 2:4-5)”
“While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)”
Clearly the two women who answered the phone, Jasmine and Sierra are working alongside another man as their functional equals in the public sphere of dominion known as commerce. They are also working for the benefit of a household of a man not their father. (Assuming their father does not own the call center.)
They are acting as the public representatives of Vision Forum, working to build his estate and not that of their own father as promoted by the Botkins and Vision Forum. He is using another man’s helpmeet for his benefit, and the benefit of the Botkin girls at the expense of the “success” of another man’s estate.
Outsourcing is obviously a desirable choice for many businesses, for economic reasons. But is it wise for a man such as Doug Phillips or authors such as the Botkin girls to contract women to sell their wares and allow women to be the “public” face of Vision Forum contrary to their own beliefs and teachings.
Quoting from Jennie Chancey’s response to Andrew Sandlin on the Vision Forum website, “We are living under a cursed economy. We are not living under God’s blessing. When the Church abandons “hard” teachings for soft words, the salt loses its savor and is trampled underfoot. When we follow pell-mell in the path of the “working world,” straining after the “American Dream” income, we’re going to fall into the same trap the rest of our culture is in: wives forced to work to make up a “shortfall,” debt, divorce, children handed over to government schools, etcetera. And we’re in it — knee-deep.”
According to Jennie Chancey, It would appear that this call center and perhaps even Vision Forum through its agreement, have both abandoned the “hard teachings” for financial gain, following “pell-mell in the path of the “working world” straining after the “American Dream” income.
Jennie Chancey then goes on to say, “Rejecting our roles or revising them to suit our individual tastes and plans is blasphemy. I didn’t say it; St. Paul did. Is it difficult for every woman to obey the clear command to be a keeper at home? Indeed it is, but, again, it is because we are living under God’s curse (He doesn’t bless an economy built upon fiat money, consumerism, and debt). ”
For now it appears, Doug Phillips and the Botkins believe women are called to be home, unless they are accepting the calls of customers placing an order with Vision Forum.
Will the Botkin girls whose mentor on their book was Jennie Chancey, ask Doug Phillips to refuse orders for their book taken from call-centers that employ women ? To be consistent, it would seem to do otherswise is blasphemy and inviting God’s continued curse upon the land.
February 26, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Jennie Chancey then goes on to say, “Rejecting our roles or revising them to suit our individual tastes and plans is blasphemy. I didn’t say it; St. Paul did. Is it difficult for every woman to obey the clear command to be a keeper at home? Indeed it is, but, again, it is because we are living under God’s curse (He doesn’t bless an economy built upon fiat money, consumerism, and debt). ”
I wonder, then, if Mrs. Chancey permits her children to be treated by female nurse practioners when they are sick, or if she is comfortable going through the grocery line if the cashier is a woman. For if she is, she is enabling that which she claims is evil.
February 27, 2008 at 12:00 am
Also, we cannot forget the Botkins’ interview with Kevin Swanson (“women in pin-striped suits, selling their flesh cheap in one night stands to co-workers Kevin Swanson”). I am sure they spoke about college in that interview.
February 27, 2008 at 12:01 am
PBS has been running “The Complete Jane Austin” for some weeks now. I enjoy watching it at the end of a long day to relax, and sometimes my daughters join me. We very much enjoy the subtext and satire. And since my daughters get tired of hearing me drone on and on and on about how blessed they are, as females, to live in this time and culture with so much opportunity, Austin’s storylines reinforce the point much more enjoyably.
February 27, 2008 at 12:39 am
This is maybe a minor point, but it bothered me nonetheless.
Jenny Chancey writes (taken from Corrie’s post):
“We are living under a cursed economy. We are not living under God’s blessing.
…
Is it difficult for every woman to obey the clear command to be a keeper at home? Indeed it is, but, again, it is because we are living under God’s curse (He doesn’t bless an economy built upon fiat money, consumerism, and debt). ”
Is she talking about THE CURSE? The one we’ve always been living under and will until we die and go to heaven or until Christ returns? Or is she just saying, in her opinion, we’re living under God’s extra special only for these present dark ages kind of curse. Because if the latter, how does she know?
History does not seem to suggest that these times now are any worse than when God flooded the earth, or when Jesus walked upon the earth, or when Rome ruled or hello? Anyone heard of the Dark Ages? What a blessing to live in these “dark times” as opposed to those “dark times”.
It’s like the opposite of looking through rose-colored glasses. Everything is cursed if it’s not ideal. And perhaps another way in which they romanticize the “austin era” or the victorian age.
February 27, 2008 at 12:50 am
“Prairie Muffins protect the innocence of their children, until such a time their children are mature enough to be exposed to potentially-harmful cultural influences.”
comment 185- I don’t think any parent can completely protect their children from harm. If only it were true….
BTW- sorry to be a pain, but can I ask for some prayer? Not too comfortable explaining why…
February 27, 2008 at 2:33 am
Corrie said:
You need to hide your feministic tendencies like the characters in the Austin books did. You need to wrap them up under a feminine cloak and spray them with rose oil and use your feminine charms to manipulate the men. The Little House books are just…well, too honest and forthright about their intentions. That seems to go against all the rules on Christian decorum.
Oh stop…I am laughing so hard now I can’t breathe!
February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am
Lady Helen…I continue to pray for you. If you feel comfortable, drop me an email (the linkydoo is on my blog towards the bottom I think…)
Corrie said:
You should teach an online class for girls concerning Jane Austin and her books. I would sign my girls up!
But it would be so non-normative.
About Romance and ‘Chick Lit’ and all that:
I think there is a place for it, as long as you see it for what it is. But if you are totally sucked in to them and can’t wait to sneak away to read again, and then feel so unworthy of being a woman after reading them, I’d avoid them. You’re letting the author have way too much power over your thought process. Granted, every author/authoress wants to have their viewpoint ‘heard’- but there’s a fine line.
To me, books are a conversation. Particularly fiction. Fiction/memoir is meant to be enjoyed for it’s artistic sensibilites. But as a way of ‘lifestyle’ as these VFers proclaim? Totally unfair to both the writer and the other readers…personally I think JA,Mrs.Wilder, Mrs. Montgomery, and Mrs. Hill would be spinning so fast in their graves they’d generate electricity if they realized what people say they ’said’! I don’t know, JA might be getting a good laugh. And Mrs. Montgomery. She had a innate sense of humor too.
February 27, 2008 at 2:48 am
Rachel, I think you nailed it there.
It’s like the opposite of looking through rose-colored glasses. Everything is cursed if it’s not ideal. And perhaps another way in which they romanticize the “austin era” or the victorian age.
And the ‘ideal’ is not found anywhere in Scripture, at that!
February 27, 2008 at 3:15 am
I’m praying for you, Lady Helen.
Rachel, I wonder what the Botkins have to say about the women who traveled with Jesus and supported him out of their means. Their feet were certainly not at home. Perhaps they’re the heirs of the original “He eats with prostitutes and sinners” critics.
Hmm…Mary of Magdala did not stay home. She dared to proclaim the risen Lord to the Twelve. The women who went to the empty tomb didn’t stay at home. The woman who blessed Jesus (and his mother) from the crowd did not stay home. The Lord’s mother Mary also didn’t stay home; she traveled all the way to the outskirts of Jerusalem from Nazareth to visit Elizabeth. Phoebe didn’t stay at home. And Paul speaks of many women, giving us the names of some of them, who worked alongside him. They didn’t stay at home and they dared to be a man’s coworker. All these, in the name of the Lord.
I fear that the Scriptures themselves bear witness that the Botkins’ chosen way is not what God mandates for women.
February 27, 2008 at 4:42 am
“And the ‘ideal’ is not found anywhere in Scripture, at that!”
Sure it is, three times!
The first Ideal was in Eden, which we screwed up and lost.
The second Ideal was the Law, which we could not keep because we are screwed up and lost.)
The third Ideal is Jesus, God’s ideal Son. By faith in Him we may come to share in His perfection, and though we may still screw up sometimes, we need no longer be lost.
February 27, 2008 at 5:03 am
Don’t forget Deborah the Judge! She led Israel for a time. But then, I’ve read that explained away as her having to lead simply because the men wouldn’t be men and step up to take charge. Nowhere in Judges is that supported, but the patriarchalists have to make something up to support their view of women never having positions of power. God himself isn’t allowed to prove them wrong…
February 27, 2008 at 5:42 am
Yes, there are even more examples in the OT. I deliberately limited my list to a few of the prominent examples in the NT. But it’s always interesting to me how they get shrugged off as “not normative” or “the exception that proves the rule” or some other such unbiblical nonsense.
February 27, 2008 at 5:51 am
The funny thing is, nearly every woman mentioned in the scriptures, good or bad, was non-normative, including Jesus’s own mother. I wonder how Mary would have fared had she been born into a 21st century PM family, and become pregnant by the holy Spirit?
February 27, 2008 at 6:22 am
Cast out into utter darkness as the unforgivable harlot she obviously was.
Or, for the more tender-hearted (wimpy) fathered-families, kept at home except for being A-lettered at church as a harlot as a fearsome example to the other girls, just to be sure she didn’t have an abortion, then forced to give up the baby to an infertile PM couple and THEN cast out as an unforgivable harlot.
Hey…don’t pregnant girls look lovely in Regency-style gowns? She’d at least be a FEMININE, FASHIONABLE harlot, especially if she bought her high-priced Regency maternity patterns from the approved PM sources. At least if she’s going to be a harlot, she’d be supporting a good, chaste PM “home” business.
Or maybe not. Who knows?
February 27, 2008 at 6:22 am
Light,
” Both these teens love to come to a family meal in our large-ish family (well, 6 total in our family, large by today’s standards) because they are used to making do with frozen microwaved dinners in front of the TV for themselves most nights. I’ve taught DD’s boyfriend how to cook. He also has had trouble sleeping for years, and I gave him a natural remedy, and for the first time since he was 12, he is sleeping well every night (and is a different person because of it!) We had a frank talk with all these kids about the sexual boundaries, and DS’s girlfriend said, in an awed voice, that we really must care about her to speak so frankly.”
You egalitarians are all the same. Cooking homemade meals? Helping people with their health issues? Talking about sexual boundaries!!!! What is our world coming to! Why do you religious feminists always have to push the envelope? You sound so domestic!
And this is the kicker that sent me right over the edge:
“The girlfriend had never heard the gospel before we got to know her. She came over one time in a VERY short skirt, and I was able to discreetly and gently talk with her about why this was inappropriate.”
Come ON!!! How could you! This is really just too much. What a slippery slope!
The next thing that woman Light Morton is going to tell us is that she made her husband his favorite dessert solely to please him! The nerve of such women!
How will anyone see the gospel in families such as these?
February 27, 2008 at 6:24 am
Yep, it’s not about how you behave, but what patriarch your theology aligns with.
LOL
February 27, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Corrie, I am soooo happy that someone has finally been able to identify my root problem….and to think all along it was Laura Ingalls Wilder. We should have guessed…any woman who keeps her maiden name when she writes books MUST be up to no good!
Here is my basic problem with the visionary daughters et al approach…it is never presented in terms of why something is good for them and then left at that. They have to sprinkle it all through with why it is what Scripture prescribes all the while saying that Scripture doesn’t prescribe it. This is exactly what was done in the Passionate Housewives book.
It just seems to me that if you have what you believe to be a great product (being a homemaker or daughter at home) then it ought to stand on its own by your endorsement rather than having to prop it up with false claims that it is a sin to do things any other way.
February 27, 2008 at 12:05 pm
MrsJoy,
I would send the suggestion for you to teach an online class on Austin. I would love to take it as well. Seriously, would you consider such a thing? Or maybe even leading a book discussion, one at a time, in a yahoo group setting?
February 27, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Cindy, who gets to make the rules as to which toys are for girls and which ones are for boys? VF?
One of my boys has never cared for playing with guns or army guys. He has always been very tender-hearted toward people and animals and to this day, as a teen, has an exceptional way with animals. (The very thought of hunting really bothers him.)
Another one of my sons loves to read poetry and is very artistic.
Both of these boys are very manly and seem to be chic magnets, which brings its own challenges as a mom. But they really wouldn’t get into many of the items that are for sale in the VF catalog.
So many of these things are just plain cultural, too. In many homeschooling circles, the roles even for little ones are hyper-defined.
February 27, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Cynthia,
You have reminded us of the real important truth….we are to be like Jesus. Period.
As I read through the Gospels and the book of Acts, I see gentle words and kindness for those who are in sin and who are seriously questioning Jesus. But those religious authorities who seek to place extra burdens on others are the recipients of His harshest words. What does that tell us?
February 27, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The next thing that woman Light Morton is going to tell us is that she made her husband his favorite dessert solely to please him! The nerve of such women!
Well, no, I haven’t gone that far. But I must confess last night I put together a lasagna to take to a sick friend for dinner this evening. I hope we can still be friends, Corrie. I can only excuse my behavior by saying that I think it’s my innate inner kitchen wife trying to get out.
February 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm
“It just seems to me that if you have what you believe to be a great product (being a homemaker or daughter at home) then it ought to stand on its own by your endorsement rather than having to prop it up with false claims that it is a sin to do things any other way.”
Yes, but let’s not forget, VisionForum and all this patriarchy foo-fa-ra has its roots in Reconstructionism. The big plan is to reconstruct society along Old Testament lines, and they think that the best way to reconstruct society is to reconstruct the family, and hope to achieve this by reconstructing people’s worldviews.
The worldview that they want to see features a Great Society of macho, warrior-type men and feminine, submissive women who have will have lots of kids, kids who will be raised in this worldview and will propagate it in THEIR lives; the big picture is a WASP nation full of Christian warriors and Christian mothers, which will serve as a bulwark of Western culture, standing against the Islam and against nonWestern Christian nations as well….
….AND, when we have done this well enough, Jesus will be able to return and establish His earthly Kingdom.
On one hand, this sounds vaguely attractive, rather like “Leave it to Beaver”, sanctified and on steroids; on the other hand, it sounds somewhat scary, sort of like a Christian version of Islam with the Crusader mindset revisited; and on the third hand (I didn’t know I had three hands!), I wonder if it isn’t somewhat unBiblical, because even though Jesus predicted that the result of His coming would not be peace, but would instead bring a sword, He did not call us as His followers to either militant sexuality or to DELIBERATELY (and I think that the deliberate part is key here) build some sort of Great Society prior to His coming.
Rather, He said things like this:
Mat 5:5 Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 26:52..Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Luk 6:27 Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Luk 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
Mat 5:39 ….resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also…
And this:
Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
Luk 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
And especially, this:
Mat 6:19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal…
Mat 6:24 ¶ No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Mat 6:25 ¶ Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof.
Now, living as Christian families in a largely Christian nation is a very good thing, but these folks are putting far too many of their eggs in a carnal, perishable basket, I think… Jesus did not call us to reconstruct Rome, rather, He called us to spread the Good News and await the Kingdom that HE will bring, when He makes everything and ALL societies anew.
As Paul says,
“1Cr 15:50 ¶ Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1Cr 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1Cr 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.”
February 27, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Thatmom and Cynthia Gee,
Your recent comments sent me on a tangent to pull out Steven Keillor’s “This Rebellious House: American History & the Truth of Christianity”
This book is fantastic and addresses the Puritans (who essentially were a carryover from the English movement that sought a state-church and a type of Christian utopia). He talks about the American War for Independence which was just as much of a distruption to the Puritan ethic as was anything else. He talks about the Virginia gentry and the Radical Whigs and how they used religion to meet their own objectives. He talks about the agrarian movement (how it was not the “Manifest Destiny” that the modern agrarians would like to promote but rather more related to male hegemony and a means of escaping some of the debts that they had back at home). It talks about the antebellum period as well.
In a very general summary, the Puritains set up a system where the church and state were synonymous and they heavily screened those who wanted to immigrate, so it was not anything like Emma Lazarus described. It was a “members only” or a “like-minded Puritains only” type of club. Essentially, perpetuation of their utopian-type of life depended upon continual conversions, something that cannot be legislated but is born from above.
So forget the liberals, because Keillor suggests that it was the Great Awakenings that fouled everything up. He also points out that these were not American phenomena but also occured in Europe, something many people do not emphasize. (Although I understand that VF is going to Scotland or did at some point in a Faith and Freedom Tour….) All of a sudden, people got a fresh vision of salvation apart from government and from every “sphere” as part of the main. Salvation came from above as an act of God as did the revival. It was something that the Puritans could not cause to be by means of government or family.
In some sense also, because there were no men around through the War Between the States and through the agrarian push West, women were left to take up many of the responsibilities in man’s absence to some extent. This polarized the “spheres of dominion.” There were similar things going on in Victorian England as well, as can be seen in with the whole prostitution issue. People were so desperately poor, women with hungry mouths to feed resorted to this debatchery. The patriarchs don’t like to talk too much about this kind of thing, though James features this stuff in his writing, as opposed to Austen. (That may be why my family was not hip on Austen because they were so desperately poor? There were no Mr. Darcys in their world, so perhaps it all seemed like a crock about happy endings. My family history is riddled with both upright, moral Christians, and they all suffered desperately during the late 19th Century when at least one set of ancestors came to America.)
Anyway, back to Keillor (Note that this is riddled with references which I am not going to cite. Get the book…) :
pg 178
The two Enlightened revolutions (in America and France) raised the possibility of “radical changes in the relationship between the sexes”… American feminism has been an ongoing revolution which has never quite seized power or admitted to being accountalbe for its consequences. Its philosophies always have an ancient regime to critique, rarely a Robespierre to regret. [FYI: Robespierre is one of my favorite examples of irony and totalitarianism in the name of freedom. To grossly oversimplify so somewhat inaccurately, he sought to outlaw capital punishment but had to resort to eliminating his opponents. Guess how he met his end?)
In the US, radical changes were less likely than in Revolutionary France. There was not American Wollstonecraft, and males controlled republicanism. The idea of equality for males “tore through American society and culture with awesome power.” That left women worse off. In colonial, hierarchical society, everyone had superiors. Inequality was part of being human, regardless of gender. A colonial merchant’s wife was superior to a working class male even though she had to accept a position below her husband. But in democratic, egalitarian America “women were transformed into the inferiors not only of same-class men but of all men.” This inferior status “became all-encompassing and carried a more negative social connotation” than ever before. As American males adopted individualism, they defined it as male and excluded women from its freedoms. The thwarting of possible changes and the breaking of implicit promises of equality angered women more than the millennia-old scriptural injunctions to submit.
The one clear gain for women was increased educational opportunities, meant to train them in “republican motherhood.” A republic needed virtuous citizens, and mothers could teach virtue to the male citizen-to-be if they were first trained themselves. A republic needed educated mothers more than did a monarchy, so women’s status was slightly improved, but for the republic’s sake more for theirs. Even this small role lost significance as the male citizen’s virtuous battle against state tyranny became a sham affair. When he used the language of liberty for his self-interest, the republic hardly needed a republican mother to teach him a selfishness that came naturally. Virtue lost its meaning for males. It came to mean “enlightened female sociability and affection” and finally “seemed to mean little more than female chastity.”
The creation of Separate Spheres in Antebellum America
The Role of Rebellion and Revivals
Early nineteenth-century revivals slowly gave back to American women the role of teaching males virtue — this time Christian, not republican, virtue. They were supposed to teach males to satnd with the Father against worldly vices. In regions hwere revival gave women this role, their status improved. Where democratic male individualism reigned unchallenged, their status declined.
The chapter goes on to discuss how the admixture of religion with nationalism with republicanism with individualism with Enlightenment ideology produced a great deal of problems.
The thing that Christian Reconstruction i9n America avoids talking about is that the very essence of the whole ideas that formed America produced its problems. Whenever the state became involved with politics and things unsecular, we ran into trouble. The Puritans (like the Shepherding/Discipleship movement and Gothardism and Patriarchy) looked back to the past to affect good Christian living. God sent the Great Awakenings to shake things up and get Christianity away from the governement and this pervasive utopian goal, in some sense. How ironic. A Christian utopia cannot change men hearts, only God can! A Christian America today will be not more effective than the Puritans were in their day — and they were grossly ineffective. Blame it on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and every evil liberal that you can so label as to the seeds of America’s intial problems, stating that a pure, Puritan group would have been able to make a better America from the start. Pick and choose your winning, founding fathers and place your bets. But the truth is that these men all worked together for freedom, not a theocracy. There was good and bad intermingled in the works, and without both elements, we would likely still be a group of English colonies. The gospel alone was not good enough, and the cause for dominion of the earth and the great commission was intermingled with the pragmatic traditions of men. As the heavens are higher than the earth, and His ways higher than our human efforts and understanding, we are destined for problems. It was this tangling of the traditions and wisdom of men along with the Gospel and the Word that produced the very problems that we now struggle with. It is childish to lay blame on women or roles or the Enlightenment alone. The truth is that the Puritans had their own objectives. And the Kingdom of God is not of this world.
I read this in Harold Brown’s “Heresies”:
pg 393
“At the same time, Pietism is partially responsible for the religious individualism that permitted Protestantism to become theologically and ethically highly pluralistic. Its emphasis on deeds rather than creeds has permitted modern Protestantism to degenerate into a kind of spiritually illiterate moralism. Interest in the truth of theological doctrines has been left largely to the strong conservatives, now often labeled fundamentalists. In a theological climate in which no doctrine can be labeled heresy, no teacher a heretic, the proclamation and defense of Biblical and theological truth has become a curiosity. Without Pietism, Protestantism might never have survived the 18th Century, but with Pietism, it may ultimately cease to be Protestantism.”
February 27, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I can’t resist posting this:
Pg 67 -68:
Massachusetts “Puritains often used the term Rhode Islandism to describe acrimonious, divisive conduct.” If we are seeking the roots fo modern America, we will find thism in colonial Rhode Island more than in Puritan Massachusetts. Rhode Island’s original defining quality was lack of religious unity, lack of an established church. No church integrated society, so like the Intalian city-states, Rhode Island pointed us forward to modernity…
Williams, its founder, rejected Massachusetts’ church-state with its belief in Otld Testament precedents and its clami to be the new Isreal. For him, “the coming of the Messiah and a new and spiritual dispensation had relegated” these Hebrew antecedents “to mere history without precedential force.” Other exiles did not intend to make Williams a new Moses either. They only agreed with William’s followers on a list of negatives: no state church, not limits on freedom of Protestant worship, no oaths, no infant baptism and no traditional clergy. By necessity, religious toleration reigned. No sect was strong enough to rule the others. Rhode Island had the dynamism of a Puritan work ethic without Puritan magistrates to curb greed and cheating.
It had not modern theory of pulralism or diveristy to justify or manage its remarkably modern situation. The colony was held together by two fears: fear of falling under the control of Massachusetts’s Quaker-persecuting Puritans and far of losing land titles if the colony collapsed. Far does not unite for long. Rhode Island was a forerunner of modern, liberal democracy with its negative idea of freedom — freedom from compulsion, not freedom for some goal.
Pg 69-71
Coupling Church and State Distorts Christian Faith
Rhode Island horrifies Puritains who call it “the paganizing and perishing plantations.” Yet Baptists and Quakers thrived there with many other Protestant churches. Church contrlol of government and economy was perishing there but not necessarily individual souls. Puritains in Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut held on to their Reformed belief that one state church should morally mold government and economy. They succeeded for a time. Church members dominated their towns, and royal charters protected their right of self-government. But their succes and their church-state thinking distorted their Christian practice in ways that undermined thir continued control.
The church-state depended on church members being a majority (of voters, at least) in the colony…
Yet forming a church-state and defining it as a new Isreal hampered the Spirit’s work of converting the young. The Isreal analogy lead second and third generation preachers to exhalt New England’s Founders as spiritual heros almost equal to first century Christians. Ministers added a retrun to first-generation principles to the Reformed return to first-century ones. They made the Founders like Moses and Aaron, laying down timeless standards for later generations. Here was an unscriptural primitivism, a desire to live Founder’s lives.
Following the Isreal analogy, they interpreted disasters as judgements from God for the descendants’ failure to meet the Founder’s standards. The logic of convenantal history was that the covenant people were purest when the covenant was made but declined later and had to be renewed. Ministers used this logic to accuse the young of lacking the Founder’s piety and thus endangering the colony: the weight of responsibility rested on the young. They must keep the covenant even if they had never converted or joined the church: “they were automatically part of its promises and conditions” anyway.
The resulting legalism is seen in the Halfway Covenant and the covenant renewal ceremony. The official solution to the problem of fewer conversions, the Halfway Covenant allowed unconverted adult sons and daughters of the church to become “halfway” members by publicly owning the covenant. Then their children could be baptized and they would be subject to church discipline. By relaxing the rule of testifying to conversion, Puritans ensued that church members would still be a majority. Covenant renewal ceremonies renewed each church’s covenant. Participants “acknowledged their guilt for the latest disasters… and then pledged a new beginning…a more systematic religious life and special attention to the children of the church.” Their main advocate, Increase Mather, intended covenant renewal ceremonies as the main means to bring the people back to the Founder’s church-state traditions. The Reforming Synod of 1679, which recommended them, admitted their legalistic nature: “Some that are but Legalists and Hypocrites, yet solemn Covenants with God, ahve such an Awe upon Conscience, as to enforce them unto an outward Reformation, and that doth divert temporal Judgements.” Viewing setbacks as God’s judgements against covenant breakers, ministers sought individuals’ outward compliance to avoid these dire judgements.
Boy, when was the last time you heard that in a Kennedy sermon, on a Vision Forum CD or in an article by American Vision?
Hmmm.
But then, I am a flawed creature and unworthy of admittance into the great fold of patriarchy, lest I have a frontal lobotomy. I came from Quaker country, trained there when away at evil college, my husband was born in Quakertown and I own a Quaker City grain mill.
I love the prayers in the “Valley of Decision,” but I want nothing to do with the ideological totalism of the “utopian Calvinists,” both past and present.
It’s really odd, but I and others have speculated that perhaps the great revival that the WORLD needs (America included but not preeminent necessarily) may come from this next generation. May they have bellies so full of legalism that they will be ripe for revival, just as the products of the Puritans were in their day. Puritianism did not last, so ultimately, neither can this neoPuritain, neoVictorian, neoAgrarian, neoConfederate “nationalist folk religion” (quoting Janet Fishburn) of utopian ideals last and prosper. I know that God is orchestrating all things for His ultimate glory and the salvation of many, but “this present dark age” can be discouraging, especially when the church comes up with theological innovations of man’s traditions and wisdom. How encouraging to pray and believe that the children that have this stuff written on their hearts will recognize and discern truth from error in due time in revivals to come. I pray for such a revival, and may the fruit of it all be above and beyond all we can ask or think!
February 27, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Very interesting stuff Cindy. Thanks for posting that!
I was wondering if you guys have heard about this documentary “Demographic Winter”
Here is the trailer:
http://www.demographicwinter.com
I was wondering what you thought. They make some points but I’m wondering if it is more scare mongering.
February 27, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Becky,
When I headed off to college in ‘83, this was a major concern. It has been a major concern for the nursing profession, preparing for the coming of this top-heavy population in the US, both from the concerns of caring for the elderly and how it all will be funded. I think that the implications will be inescapable, but we do not know what will come. It reminds me of several years ago now when someone in the Fed retired and wrote a book, but he described how America has now sold future generations into economic slavery already — and that was many years ago.
Of all the things that are presented today as scare tactics, I think that the inequitable demographics between generations is one that is absolutely valid. I’ve seen it completely change my profession over the course of my 22 years as a nurse and those preceding when I trained. It’s not the same world that it was and I shudder to think of what is to come.
One thing that sounds to many like an unrealistic science-fiction novel is what we will do when there are five sick, elderly, needy people for every healthy adult and limited to no resources. Many have speculated that the Baby Boomers who promoted abortion will meet the logical conclusion to their convenient ideas by facing euthanasia. And it’s funny, because I tried many times to discuss this with my parents in their mid 60s, but they deny that it will ever happen because of the entitlement mentality that they’ve always known as Americans. They think I’m insane because of some of these long-term concerns about demographics. But the numbers don’t lie. Perhaps this is another unstated purpose behind “militant fecundity” and the like?
Of all the “scare mongering” that goes on today, this is one CONCERN that is very legitimate. I’m not going to be fearful, as we don’t know what will befall us. Tomorrow has enough worries of its own.
And God’s grace is always sufficient. The wheels of time are turning, and the future will be challenging. I’m so glad that our steps are ordered of the Lord and that God holds us in the palm of His hand.
February 27, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Praying for you, Lady Helen. And I want to say, as one who has long lurked on this site and just recently de-lurked, that your honesty about your life, struggles, and opinions has been very soothing to me.
Cynthia and Cindy, you have so much food for thought here. And you’re awakening a latent interest in history in me.
Cynthia, that comment 245 with all the Scripture verses was soooo good. Just what I need as I live among dear brothers and sisters who listen to ministries like Vision Forum.
February 27, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Very interesting. I wasn’t sure what to think of this because a lot of VF people are promoting this documentary left and right, and I was thinking that they were using this as a scare mongering tool to convince more people to have kids. I hate being so skeptical sometimes.
I can definately see the concern there. I don’t know if completely changes my line of thinking, but it does make me think, which is good! I guess it’s because I’m having my own struggles when it comes to the decision of eventually having a baby. At this point in time, my husband and I can be perfectly happy if we never have a baby. I’m only 27, so in a few years, when my “clock begins to tick”, so to speak, I may completely change my mind.
There are times when I see, or hear about or read about the problems with today’s youth I do feel the urge to raise a kid so I can prove (to whomever) that there can be good kids out there, but then I get scared and wonder if I really could raise kid to be a good Christian adult. That’s where my faith waivers a bit and I need to learn to rely solely on God for his protection for my family.
February 27, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Becky wrote: I wasn’t sure what to think of this because a lot of VF people are promoting this documentary left and right, and I was thinking that they were using this as a scare mongering tool to convince more people to have kids.
I hate to tell VF, but the damage has been done. This problem will primarily fall to generation X and will be too little about 20 years too late and why it was such a huge concern twenty years ago. It was my parents’ generation that should have heeded this.
I’m very bothered by this also as a type of social engineering or reverse Darwinian thought which does not necessarily make it right. This is very creepy to me and is social Darwinism. Then we have folks like Doug Wilson telling us to pray that the heathens die in utero. (They need to get together and formulate a straight party line. Pragmatism and Divine intervention are intermingled in a type of spiritual eugenics? What else is there?
I’m also disturbed by the whole idea that people are told to have babies when there are billions of lost people dying in their sins, but these are of little regard.
If God opens and closes the womb, then why the big push for big families? And why scrape and dig for pragmatic arguments to support their postitions if this is God’s mandate and a Christian’s duty? Whether it is demographically advantageous should have nothing to do with anything. The demigods declare that we must have many children, so we should. That’s the bottom line.
We are called to be fruitful, and we should live that way and not seek to thwart things.
About ticking clocks and pragmatism… Risk for breat cancer is substantially lower for women who give birth and breastfeed their baby prior to age thiry. Fertility becomes more complicated after that statistically, too.
Twenty years ago, a Christian friend of mine that was married a few years asked me about her fears about bringing a child into this messed up world, given all the horrible things that were bound to happen. IMO, there’s never a good time that makes sense to have a baby for most people when you look at things that way. (They have a daughter now named Evangeline who by now is probably college age. One of them became chronically ill a few years later, and they are so glad that they were blessed with their daughter when they were.)
February 27, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I’m definately not trying to be argumentative, but didn’t God only command to be fruitful after the flood and Noah and his sons needed to re-populate the earth?
February 28, 2008 at 12:03 am
Oh, Becky, you sound like me! I’ve always said that God’s pronouncement to be fruitful and multiply was said to the only 2 people on the planet at the time. Now there are more than 6 billion, so what does it really matter if I have a kid or not?
My husband and I are 34, and we still haven’t been hit by the baby bug. Sometimes I feel like there’s something wrong with me because I don’t want a baby, but then I figure that God has other things in mind for me. I’ve been vilified by the VF types for not having babies, but I figure I’m out there doing the work that they refuse to do–working with the kids who are already in existence, but are too frightening to them to pay a lick of attention to.
Maybe the Lord will impress upon me the desire for a baby at some point, but so far, it hasn’t happened. And it’s not like this is something new for me. I didn’t like babysitting as a teen, either. Babies don’t interest me. But give me a moody teenager, and suddenly I’m interested.
I watched that documentary trailer. It does look like scaremongering to me. I am aware that we’re going to run into some problems in the not-too-distant future due to the retiring of the baby boomers, but I have to wonder if it truly is going to be that bad.
February 28, 2008 at 2:11 am
“Babies don’t interest me. But give me a moody teenager, and suddenly I’m interested.”
Ewokgirl,
Do I have a deal for you!
“I watched that documentary trailer. It does look like scaremongering to me. I am aware that we’re going to run into some problems in the not-too-distant future due to the retiring of the baby boomers, but I have to wonder if it truly is going to be that bad.”
I haven’t watched the trailer yet but I can’t help but think of the whole Y2K debacle and all the fear-mongering that went on within the patriarchal movement. It was horrendous. Not to mention that some played the part of moneychanger and made money off of God’s people. They created a crisis and….voila!…..they had just the solution but it would cost you some big bucks. You would think people would remember that period of time and how OFF the patriarchalists were. They were the ones, for the most part, fueling this in the homeschooling movement. People were writing curriculum for families to study on survival, homeschooling conventions had workshops on surviving the Y2K crisis and we were told to buy guns and have ammunition because our neighbors would come to steal our potatoes out of our gardens and we would need to shoot them in order to hoard the food for our own families. After all, that is how real men protect their families.
I wonder why Joseph didn’t think of that!
February 28, 2008 at 2:31 am
Send that moody teenager my way!
I do remember Y2K. I wasn’t aware of the patriarchal movement at the time; just that there were some religious nuts out there who were convinced the world was ending. And now that you mention it, that documentary trailer is reminiscent of that.
Actually, it’s only through blogging that I’ve discovered patriarchalism, Vision Forum, et al. It seems like most of the Christian blogs I run across are part of that, and it makes it seem so prevalent within Christendom. But in reality, I’ve only ever met one of those families in real life (although I am starting to wonder if the best man from our wedding is part of that, too, as I’ve seen his name mentioned on the VF website). That family I knew personally caused a lot of disruption in our church, and more specifically in our youth group. They disapproved of almost every activity and were always trying to get us to change everything to suit them. And when the wife asked when I was going to have babies, which is a very rude question, she looked like I’d kicked a puppy when I said we probably weren’t.
They left our church not long after that. I’d heard from our church secretary that they disapproved of a lot of things, but some of their disapproval was with our Sunday school class. My husband and I teach the middle schoolers, and their daughter was in our class. They thought that the girls should only be taught by women, the boys should be separated from them, and her daughter should have been learning how to be a good wife and mother.
Really, I was just concerned with teaching the bible to the kids. I didn’t/don’t consider it my job to teach 12-year-olds marriage preparation. I’m really much more concerned with their salvation and biblical knowledge at this point.
February 28, 2008 at 2:46 am
” But in reality, I’ve only ever met one of those families in real life (although I am starting to wonder if the best man from our wedding is part of that, too, as I’ve seen his name mentioned on the VF website). That family I knew personally caused a lot of disruption in our church, and more specifically in our youth group. ”
Bingo!
This is not too uncommon at all. I will tell you that these people do much more harm than they do good. Because of their constant droning on about public school, women who don’t have more than 2 babies, the youth culture, guns, family integrated, etc., they come off as zealots and isolationists. Not only that but they tend to be weird. I am not talking weird as in different but weird as in really weird and sometimes scary and unstable. I am weird, admittedly, but not scary weird as in “don’t know when someone will snap” weird. What makes them especially scary is that they constantly talk about guns and they have a short temper and get easily irritated with others.
I am not saying that all are like this but I have seen enough to know that there needs to be some classes offered amongst the patriarchalists in how to be tactful. And maybe throw in an anger management class while they are at it.
February 28, 2008 at 3:03 am
Okay, I just watched the trailer for “Demographic Winter”.
Very dramatic music, worried looking people…an urgency. Certainly gets one’s emotions going.
I recognized Alan Carlson of the Howard Center because he is from where we used to live for the past 8 years and his wife has taught several of my children in a homeschool co-op. She is a wonderful lady and very learned. I went to hear Mr. Carlson’s lectures a couple of times. He was a good speaker and he presented his material well. He did one on Martin Luther and his thoughts on marriage. It was very good.
I noticed Philip Longman. He wrote the book about declining birthrates.
I don’t know who anyone else is.
I don’t know who the producers are.
I don’t know their worldview or who backs them or what theology/philosophy/ideology is driving them.
I quickly did a search online and I found an article by “The Nation” which has an obvious bias against conservatives. So, while I can glean some factual information from the articles, I can’t trust the commentary.
Anyone know anything about the WHO behind this movie?
Visionary Daughters is a nice looking movie and if one was totally unfamiliar with the WHO and the WHAT and the WHY behind that documentary, one could easily miss the underpinnings of certain phraseology and teachings.
I have been reading a bit about the declining birth rate and I do get the Howard Center newsletters but beyond that, I know nothing.
I feel I have done my part as far as the birthrate goes.
I have had 17 pregnancies and 10 living children. 15 of those pregnancies have taken place in under 16 years. My body needs a rest. I am taking the time to get it back into shape so it can, Lord Willing, take me through the back half of my life. I may get criticism from the Right for being “selfish” or not having enough faith. But, after suffering 3 horrendous losses before I had my last, not to mention a stillborn and other miscarriages between other babies, I don’t have it in me to go through that. When a baby dies inside of me, my body has a severe reaction called D.I.C. and I have almost died several times. One time I ended up in ICU after being brought back from death because I contracted sepsis.
And I have personally heard criticism from the Left for being “consumers” or “breeders” or what have you. I laugh but they are dead serious. I had two women in a McDonalds once talking very loudly about how people like me were ruining our environment and consuming all the natural resources because I had too many children. I think I was pregnant with my 6th or 7th at the time. I think they thought I was too stupid to understand that they were talking about me (since some people equate lots of children with a lower IQ). I may be stupid but I am certainly not deaf!
So, I am a loser to both sides of the equation. I am starting to like the position I find myself in because it presents me with a unique perspective on many issues.
February 28, 2008 at 3:55 am
I would argue that people who drive giant gas guzzlers when they’re only driving one small kid around, or people who shop shop shop and create a lot of garbage as a result are far more dangerous to the environment than a large family. I’ve heard that “breeder” argument, and I think it’s silly.
Honestly, though, that touches on what bothers me so much about all of this. It’s the fact that other people want to get into everyone else’s reproductive business. If you have lots of children, you’re ruining the environment and using all the resources. If you have only one or two kids, then you don’t have enough faith. And if you’re like me and have no children, then you’re just a faulty human being who hates kids. No matter what a person does, it’s wrong to someone. Unfortunately, too many people are vocal about other people’s reproductive choices when it’s none of their business.
But that’s a whole other topic…
February 28, 2008 at 4:01 am
“Okay, I just watched the trailer for “Demographic Winter”.
Very dramatic music, worried looking people…an urgency. Certainly gets one’s emotions going.”
Yep… and that’s a big warning sign for me that it’s likely not altogether trustworthy.
Anything which relies on “getting the emotions going” in order to convince me of a viewpoint tends to arouse my suspicions, because a thing which is strictly logical and true doesn’t have to do that.
Truth stands on its own.
February 28, 2008 at 5:25 am
I’m listening to a series of Tim Keller sermons, The Trouble with Christianity: Why it’s so Hard to Believe it. What I like about it is how it keeps pointing back to Christ, back to the Gospel.
One thought that caught my attention as I listened tonight while grocery shopping (I think it was the sermon on suffering) was how there are two different ways to view Scripture. One way is to view it all about Christ–which is the way I believe most Christians believe is how we should view it. All the pictures and parables and principles in the Bible point to Christ. The other way is to view the Bible as all about me–which I believe is the natural human tendency, in spite of what we may believe. We see it as rules of what we need to do, guidelines we need to follow, what God tells us to do, etc, etc. . .
Immediately I thought about the conversations we’ve had here. Not for a minute do I think that Vision Forum, Stacy MacDonald, or the Prairie Muffins BELIEVE that the the Bible is all about us and the rules we need to follow to earn God’s approval. But at the same time, what is lived out and taught and central tendency is to gather the “principles” of patriarchy and so many other ideas which we can measure our worth and feel like we are earning heavenly brownie points.
I think that is the tendency of most Christians, most humans. And so I believe that is why we need to keep looking to Christ, keep being reminded of our sin and our self-righteousness, keep repenting, keeping leaning into grace, and keep encouraging one another to rely only upon the Lord.
February 28, 2008 at 5:28 am
Nothing in my previous post is “new”–the same thoughts have been shared by others of y’all throughout these threads. But wow! The way Tim Keller talked about our views of the Bible really grabbed my attention and led my thoughts here to TW. I recommend that sermon series to everyone here (even though I’ve only listened to parts of it so far.) Podcasts are great for keeping my attention while my hands are busy with other things like folding laundry or doing dishes.
February 28, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Tulip Girl, what you said has so resonated with me this morning. EVERYTHING should be about loving God with our whole hearts, souls, minds, and strength and in loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Not long ago I had one of those revelations about my life and this one involved our pastor. He preaches the Word, in season and out, and it is always bathed in grace, both in word and in his gracious manner. He always makes application of the Word but not once have we heard a list of do this or don’t do that etc. unless he is talking specifically about sins. One day I was coming home from worship service and it occurred to me why I so look forward to his messages….it is the preaching of God’s mercy and grace that makes me want to be obedient to Christ! Once we begin to grasp what that means, our desires for Jesus and to minister and serve other people flows naturally and organically from our lives. Not a big news flash, but it was a moment of true respect for my pastor and for God’s goodness and grace to me on a personal level.
February 28, 2008 at 6:29 pm
“8) Prairie Muffins are creative, learning new skills and working with their hands to provide items of beauty as well as utility for their families.”
February 28, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“8) Prairie Muffins are creative, learning new skills and working with their hands to provide items of beauty as well as utility for their families.”
Could a clean toilet be considered an item of beauty?
)
February 28, 2008 at 7:13 pm
What constitutes an item of beauty to them? Something Victorian?
February 28, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Becky, I second that question– what, exactly, constitutes an item of beauty? That phrase is so subjective. I know many families who would find, for example, a fully restored vintage automobile a thing of beauty. Is it in keeping with Prairie Muffin teachings that Mrs Muffin be found working long hours under the hood of a ‘69 Camaro? I will confess that I get the feeling they would not consider things like car maintenance within their womanly jurisdiction, although I could very well be wrong about that and am quite open to (indeed hopeful of!) being told so. I would love to hear that many Prairie Muffins welcome the chance to overhaul an engine, or would at least not frown on a woman who did!
(I chose this particular example because, while I personally would not know where to start when it came to overhauling any part of a car, I have a friend who is very capable with them and I greatly admire her skill)
February 28, 2008 at 9:49 pm
hey…I am on a small spring vacation right now, thatmom and corrie…
About the Austen class…
I’d be willing to do it if you all were interested…I’ll have DH set up the particulars for the forum, but it’d probably be a week or two at least before the first part is ready.
Is there anyone else that would be interested? Can you email me through my blog?
February 28, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hey…I hand-embroider beautiful kitchen towels and pillowcases, and I do intricate doilies and edgings in thread crochet. And behold, I work outside my home! (If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have a home, for no one pays my bills for me.)
I wonder, in PM-land, what that makes me??
(This is not really a serious comment. I just get a little tired of the insinuation that ONLY homemakers in the PM mold manage to create beautiful things.)
February 29, 2008 at 12:02 am
I’m a stay-at-home Mom of three and I don’t make beautiful things. Unless food counts. Sometimes I decorate cakes for my kids. But that’s about it.
I guess I can’t be a PM either.
Darn it.
It seems like all they’re doing is cultural stereotyping. It’s not based on reality. Where are we told making beautiful things is inherent to being a woman of God?
February 29, 2008 at 1:17 am
“It seems like all they’re doing is cultural stereotyping. It’s not based on reality. Where are we told making beautiful things is inherent to being a woman of God?”
Darn straight they are stereotyping, and this was one of the first things to make me suspest that all this patriarchal nonsense was a load of bull-oney sausage.
If what Jenny Chancey, the PM’s, et al say is true, then a poor woman (for example, a Mexican wife who has to go out and work for a living because her husband can’t get as lucrative a job as can a white PM’s husband) is less able than a rich woman to be holy; put another way, under this system, just as in the OT, rich people can afford to be holier than poor folks can,
As I recall, Jesus blew that notion right out of the water, and how!
February 29, 2008 at 4:37 am
Like it or not, most women in this world are too busy participating materially in the work involved to keep body and soul together, for themselves and their families, to have the leisure time to make “beautiful things.” A society must be a wealthy one, and individuals within it must meet a certain standard of wealth, in order to have the leisure time to engage in artistic endeavors.
What I’m trying to say is, those who would elevate “making beautiful things” to a standard for women, is totally out of touch with reality for most of their sisters in the world. Survival is the standard for them. Whatever-it-takes-style survival. Like water and food and if they’re lucky, some crude manner of shelter. Whatever clothing they can obtain. If they manage to bring in money at all, it goes for obtaining these things, not for materials to make “beautiful things.” And it really doesn’t matter if the man or the woman, or both, earn that money. They do what’s necessary for survival.
I think PM-ism is snobbery. You’re so right about it being stereotype-based, and a wealthy stereotype at that. They’ve so whitewashed earlier times that they ignore the fact that only wealthy women have ever had the luxury to send their husbands out to earn the family’s income. Most have worked to earn it right alongside their men. They COULDN’T stay home, they ALL were home! Husband, wife, and as many able-bodied children as they could bear all struggled to be sure they didn’t all starve, in whatever the family’s business was. “Beautiful things” were extravagances very few could afford, be they made or purchased. “Beautiful things” took food out of their hungry children’s mouths.
Why is it such a stretch to say that a Christian woman’s “manifesto” is the same as a Christian man’s: To follow Jesus Christ?
February 29, 2008 at 1:20 pm
But please don’t forget about the Gee’s Bend quilts made by many black women in deep poverty. They used the leftover scraps from other women to make beautiful and celebrated quilts. These have been in museum tours and honored by the post office with a series of stamps. And there are many examples of other beautiful quilts from the previous centuries and decades. They were items of necessity, but their creators made them objects of beauty as well.
I have a good friend who has weathered many years of poverty and yet has taken the time to continue making many different crafts because it fulfills a need for her creative mind.
Edith Schaeffer has a book about homemaking in which she argues that beauty doesn’t have to be expensive – it can simply be a pretty arrangement of flowers in a vase.
I am not trying to derail the argument, but thought that it should be pointed out that it is not only the wealthy with free time who can create beautiful things, but women who carve out time and use whatever materials they have available. But I don’t think that it is a necessity to “create beautiful things” to be a worthwhile woman.
February 29, 2008 at 1:45 pm
keebler, I LOVE those quilts. And the stories behind them are amazing. It is proof positive that you do not have to have material wealth in order to create things of beauty. I also think that you don’t need to have that much leisure time, either. I have always loved to create things….many things. When my oldest children were all pre-schoolers, life was pretty full and money was really tight. But I always had a project in the works that I could pick up whenever to work on. My one dream was to learn how to quilt. So I collected scraps of fabrics and old clothing (no cost involved) and began piecing a quilt by hand. I kept everything in a basket and pulled in out during nap time or in the evening as we sat around as a family. After many month, I had pieced a quilt top and my grandmother and my dad’s cousin came to my house to help me put it in a simple frame. They showed me all their techniques after spending their entire lives quilting. I continued to work on the quilt until it was finished, which took many more months. The total cost was minimal, I learned a terrific skill, spent time listening to family stories and sewing tales, and have something of beauty to show for it.
February 29, 2008 at 1:47 pm
keebler, I also wanted to add that Edith Schaeffer really inspired me to use what I have in my home to create and display things of beauty. It is one way I make myself enjoy cleaning, knowing that at the end of the project I will do something lovely in the place I just cleaned, as a reward for time well spent and to lift everyone’s spirits, which things of beauty often do!
February 29, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Hi… you know, this conversation (about cultural things being used
as a measure of godliness in the church) mirrors one taking place
right now on over on an Anabaptist list, and whenever the same subject comes up on multiple, disparate lists, it can be a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work.
The thing is, exactly to the extent that a church depends upon cultural, physical things for its identity, that church is not “of” God.
The Kingdom of Heaven is spiritual, and we partake in it spiritually while we are still in this world. Such things as food and drink, raiment and culture are not sinful, but they cannot inherit the Kingdom — they are local and temporal, and a church which defines itself by these things, especially as pertaining to godliness, defines itself by Separation:
it separates from the rest of the Body of Christ, and from the Kingdom, and thus from God.
Similarly, Jesus’s Body is made up of all saved people everywhere who have ever lived, and nothing that is not common to all men can define His Church and His worship, since in His worship all are united in the communion of His Body.
This is what is meant by “catholicism”, BTW — the word does not mean “the church of Rome”, ranter, it means, “universality”,
as in “all Christians everywhere in Christ”, and that which cannot be shared by all Christians everywhere is not part of His spiritual Kingdom.
February 29, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I was speaking of relative wealth. Those who have adequate food and shelter, even if extremely poor compared to their own society, are relatively wealthy, compared to so many people in the world. That was my point: we’re so far removed from the subsistence poverty that is a fact of life for the majority of the world’s population, that we simply can’t conceive of it. It is THAT population, consisting of real live living breathing women, that has no way to create “beautiful things.” They’re too busy trying to simply survive. It’s a blessing that we can’t really wrap our minds around that kind of poverty, but it’s real. It’s *one* reason that I think the PM mindset is one of privilege and luxury. Relatively speaking.
February 29, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Also, please understand: I’m NOT saying that there’s anything bad about creating things of beauty. I’ve confessed that despite my single, non-stay-at-home status, I do create such things. It’s simply wrong of PM to use this wealth-borne activity as a measure of a godly woman.
February 29, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hopefully, most PMs aren’t looking at this as a measure of the value of one’s faith. There are so many other points of conduct to consider!
It may be part of the black and white thinking that goes on, wherein the separate themselves on all points from those whom they identify as rivals or what often seems like enemies. They like beauty so those that are not like them must, by nature, gravitate towards things that are not so beautiful because we are spiraling down into depravity. (But then if we do, we are materialistic…) This seems to be true of other areas, for instance, if we do not have 8 kids or have none, we hate children and hate life and hate God. It’s just more rigid thinking and the ongoing attempt to vilify every other aspect of people with whom they disagree, even if it doesn’t pertain to their theology?
Who knows? Sometimes there is no love or logic in any of what the PMs do…
February 29, 2008 at 6:54 pm
One other thing just occurred to me about the “PMs make beautiful things” thingy.
Throughout history, men have also made “beautiful things.” In a system like the PMs’, where men’s and women’s “roles” are so segregated and rigidly defined, what place is there for men to whom God has given strong gifts of artistry and esthetic leanings? Over and over, I’ve seen Christians denigrate men who love the arts and engage in artistic pursuits.
I have believed for a long time now that the segregated “roles” that define many of the various strands of patriarchy, hurt men just as much as they hurt women.
February 29, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“They like beauty so those that are not like them must, by nature, gravitate towards things that are not so beautiful because we are spiraling down into depravity. (But then if we do, we are materialistic…)”
Cynthia,
This was funny and true.
If PMs have marble counters then it is because they like things of beauty but if others who do things or think differently than they do have marble counters, it is because they are materialistic and they don’t care about what is truly important.
February 29, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“Why is it such a stretch to say that a Christian woman’s “manifesto” is the same as a Christian man’s: To follow Jesus Christ?”
Well the Bible tells us that this is our mission no matter what our gender but God needed help in fleshing what “to follow Jesus” really means specifically for women, so we have the PMs to tell us what that looks like.
Why did Paul tell us that it was better to remain a virgin so as to devote ourselves solely to the Lord? Why do we teach that marriage is the better thing when Paul says something differently? Why is marriage normative when the apostles and many of the followers of Christ- both male and female were NOT married? Why do unmarried people feel like second-class citizens, as if they are deficient and not whole in the body of Christ and walk around feeling out of place and depressed? Why are females who do exactly what Paul told them to do, denigrated by the PM types for being “non-normative” and outside of the “prescriptive will of God” for going off on the mission field and giving their whole lives and being as a drink offering for the lost?
Why do we only take some of the things Paul says dogmatically and literally but not the other things?
I wish they would come out with a Bible that had pink and blue highlights so that I could be saved some time and then I could concentrate on only the verses that pertained to me. Just think of it, if we women could be freed up from reading all the verses that pertained to males only, we would have so much less to obey.
We don’t need to hear what Jesus said to His disciples, they were men. We don’t need to know about the great commission or dominion, that is for men. And don’t you know that females are created to be eternally subordinate, even in heaven? So we don’t need all those verses telling us that the saints will judge along with Christ in the 2nd coming. Those are for the men. Everyone knows that women do not rule, even in heaven.
Just don’t tell the Queen of the South, that. Matthew 12 tells us that she will judge the nations but that must be a mistake. It means something else. It probably means she will bake cookies while the men judge the nations.
We just don’t need to worry our little heads about all this extra scripture when we could be minding our own business by concentrating on the pink verses only. After all, we only reflect the image of God when it is directly derived from our husbands (John MacArthur said so).
So, you unmarried women are really out of luck in the reflecting the image of God department. I am not really sure what you all reflect except that you, as females, are nice to look at and make a lovely addition to any social gathering.
With the pink-verses-only Bible, I will have more time to spend making things of beauty and doing the domestic chores I was created to do since I won’t have that much to read anymore.
February 29, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“Hey…I hand-embroider beautiful kitchen towels and pillowcases, and I do intricate doilies and edgings in thread crochet. And behold, I work outside my home! (If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have a home, for no one pays my bills for me.)
I wonder, in PM-land, what that makes me??”
Psalmist,
You are single so none of that counts. You are merely a Mix who is waiting for the Oil, Eggs and Milk that will make her a complete Muffin. No, that is not 3 husbands, just one. But it is like the husbandly Trinity, since husbands are said to be like all three members of the Trinity but only when it pertains to ruling and leading.
You work outside of the home, in the marketplace, as a functional equal to men? How can that be? You are not only subordinate to all men but you are certainly not functionally as capable as a man. You must necessarily be boisterous and rebellious, too. Oh, the teeth you must cause to gnash!
You might be outraged (but that won’t stop me) at what I am going to say but you are unwittingly acting like a harlot. You must get your feet back inside of your home. You could always start a home business and embroider pillow cases. I am sure that will bring in plenty of money to support yourself. Also, you must find a man’s vision to serve, any man will do. You do know that you cannot have a vision of serving Christ apart from the directive will of a particular man? As a woman you were made for a man, in order to be put to use by him in his quest for dominion.
I can’t remember if women are allowed to have their own homes? I do know that we are not to follow any of the examples of Godly women from the NT. They are not normative.
Please just rip the part out of your Bible where Paul tells you that it is better for you to remain single so that you can devote yourself solely to the Lord. He really didn’t mean it. At least that is what I am told. Just trust me on this. I am getting this from people who have spent hundreds of hours looking through the Bible to find references to men as rulers. Since this is their sole focus, they cannot be wrong.
That will be all. Please obey the things I told you, so you can be normal like me.
p.s. Didn’t Eve’s penchant for things of beauty get her into trouble?
“Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
I am sure that I could proof-text this right quick. I have taken lessons from the masters of proof-texting. I am getting pretty good at it if I don’t say so myself.
February 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“Throughout history, men have also made “beautiful things.” In a system like the PMs’, where men’s and women’s “roles” are so segregated and rigidly defined, what place is there for men to whom God has given strong gifts of artistry and esthetic leanings? Over and over, I’ve seen Christians denigrate men who love the arts and engage in artistic pursuits.
I find this comment interesting. We’ve been teaching the OT with our middle schoolers for the past couple of years, and we read Chronicles a few months ago. When reading about the building of the temple, one thing that so stood out to me was the vast degree of artistry that was put into the temple. Every detail was laid out, even down to the priests robes. All was beautiful, and the Levites were the keepers of all of this.
I guess it all strikes me as so interesting because the men were the artists; they were also the keepers of God’s house. By PM standards, that would be feminine work, and yet, it was prescribed by God himself for the Levite men.
For people who seem to cling to much of the old law, even while professing Christ, they certainly do pick and choose their passages when defining gender roles.
As for why artistic men would be denigrated today by them, all I can figure is that it’s because the only real role I see them set out for men is to be a bread-winner and authority to his family. Artistic pursuits are often not lucrative. When one of the only prescribed gender roles is to earn money, a man who dabbles in the arts isn’t fulfilling his duty. Besides, being artistic often goes hand-in-hand with a degree of sensitivity. We can’t have men being sensitive, you know! Not manly enough, of course.
February 29, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Corrie, you are cracking me up!
February 29, 2008 at 9:27 pm
““8) Prairie Muffins are creative, learning new skills and working with their hands to provide items of beauty as well as utility for their families.””
Lin,
I agree with you. A clean toilet IS a thing of beauty!
Now, if I can’t find the time to have a quiet time with the Lord (after all that is just legalism and a burden tied up on the backs to make moms weary) then how in the world can I find time to embroider, knit, crochet, macrame, paint, do counted cross-stitch, or make any various and sundry chachkas?
Talk about burdens! Now I have to learn a new skill? How many? Is there a certain number of new skills I need to learn per year in order to belong? I have been reading photography books while I in the bathroom. Does that count?
If I am not able to find the time to make things of beauty after being available to my husband whenever he needs me throughout the day, taking meals to the sick, ministering in my home to younger women, sticking to a schedule, getting wonderful meals out on the dinner table on time, teaching my children all of their school subjects on top of training them in the things of God, (forget the quiet time, I can always shoot up a prayer in my bath while I am making myself smell like a female should smell), then am I a failure?
I had to cut the “things of beauty” out of my life when I started having a LOT of children to care for. I used to love to do crafts and such but with little ones, they can be a dangerous endeavor not to mention EXPENSIVE and time-consuming. A shiny sink, a clean toilet and windexed windows are the only things of beauty that I desire. Oh, and the pillow at night. Now that is a thing of beauty!
February 29, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Ewokgirl,
I am letting out some pressure. I have been reading some stuff that has caused a build-up of internal pressure in my brain and I am afraid that my head might blow apart if I don’t laugh about some of the insane things people say all the while accusing those who question what they say of being “she-wolves” and making up “new” stuff about the Bible.
As Glenn Beck warns, get the duct tape and wrap it around your head because it will blow after you hear what is being said!
I am not so sure we are making up anything. In fact, we are calling those who do make up things into account so they can explain why they are making up things and teaching them as the very doctrines of God.
If that makes us “she-wolves” and “haters” and “abusers” and “gossips”, then so be it. I will wear those as badges of honor along with considering the source. I will also do everything in my power to make sure this country never gets close to becoming a theocracy. We do not want the people who desire such a thing in control of this nation. There isn’t enough room in Rhode Island to banish all of the heretics to.
February 29, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Ewokgirl:
You’ve reminded me of a sermon I once heard at a Messianic congregation where I used to frequently visit. This came not from a lawyer or a business major but from a full-fledged, Hebrew teaching rabbi:
He taught that women are actually endowed with special wisdom that is uniquely feminine and read this right from the Hebrew text. One of the references and examples that he used from the OT was that “with wisdom,” the women sewed and crafted the beautiful textiles for the tabernacle. He went on and read many other references, and from his presuppositions that women are equal beings and of the same value as men, he found this meaning in the original text.
This was just one theme that he looked at amidst a whole series on Moses and Aaron, and at the time, I didn’t even perceive it as a gender-oriented teaching at all. It was so beautiful.
It’s interesting if you take a strongs or look on a search engine and pick out the references to “with wisdom,” and you will find so many verses that speak of the wisdom with which women specifically did many things.
I suppose however that the presuppositions of the patriarchs would cause them to interpret that wisdom was either confined to a limited number of pink activities or that when doing anything other, that God had to grant the women special, non-normative wisdom because it was not an intrinsic characteristic of women. Just a guess!
BTW, I was told by a Calvinist that the use of the term “normative” is actually used more extensively and specifically by Baptist Theology and not by the teachings and disciplines of other denominations. So in that sense, the term of “normative” is almost a Baptist theology buzz term. This person denied that it was used in theonomy much and did not occur (very often) in Presby theology either.
Can anyone here confirm or deny this? I have no idea who I would ask to evaluate the validity of this concept. I know that I don’t recall reading this term often, but became familiar with it first through Vision Forum literature. It is used obsessively in George Knight III’s 1977 book on gender, and he went to Westminster in Philadelphia and Covenant Seminary. Is the “more frequent” use of this term something that originated from the Reformed Baptist seminaries or from within the discussion of Covenant Theology? I really don’t recall that Rushdoony used the term like the patriarchs do.
February 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Just to clarify, that Hebrew teaching Rabbi I mentioned was an Evangelical Christian who was one of many pastors of a Messianic congregation (a very Evangelical Christian church)!
February 29, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Corrie, #283
LOL
It feels good to laugh out loud at the end of a long hard work week.
~Annie (another unwittingly acting “harlot” whose feet doesn’t stay at home)
February 29, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Yes, Corrie, you’re a riot!
As one of those “she-wolves” who dares to question the biblicity of patriarchy, I understand too well the point about needing to let off some steam with people who also recognize the accusation as the lie it is. Far from “hating” those who promote patriarchy as godly, I grieve that people get so enamored of the position that they rip apart those who don’t do so. If there’s any wolf-likeness going on, it’s those who willfully lie about others, just to avoid dealing with the hard truth.
February 29, 2008 at 10:58 pm
You know, there’s a REASON Wisdom is portrayed biblically as a woman. WE know it.
And she was a boisterous one at that, raising her voice in the streets; obviously, HER feet strayed from home. Yep, Lady Wisdom was indeed acting like a harlot, probably unwittingly.
Oh, I get it. WOMEN aren’t supposed to be reading about Wisdom. No, that’s in the BLUE BIBLE!!! NOW I get it!!!! We all just get to go blithely on our stupid way, never becoming wise, because some MAN will obtain wisdom (that harlot!) and reflect some of his manly wisdom onto us.
Except for the ungodly unmarried women, who were stupid and willful enough to not stay with their fathers until they died of old age or whose husbands died or whose husbands divorced them. Make such a bed, lie eternally stupid in it. No grace for you. No man, no wisdom, no head (Jesus doesn’t count), no voice, no status. That is, in PM-land. Not even the beauty of being a muffin mix gathering dust on the shelf. A harlot spreading ungodliness in the world by serving Jesus Christ unfettered by the concerns of a husband and family. Yes, unforgivable harlotry there.
February 29, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Starting next week, I’ll be an acting harlot, too. I begin my annual gig of tutoring a few days a week at a local middle school to prepare kiddos for the reading portion of the TAKS test.
Wow, I can’t wait to hear what my husband says when I tell him that I’ll become a harlot next week since I’ll be working outside our home! I’m a SAHW because I want to be, not because we believe it’s my womanly role.
As for the use of the term normative, you have to be more specific when you say Baptist theology. I’m Southern Baptist, and I haven’t noticed use of that word. My husband attended a SB seminary, so I’ll have to ask him about that. But I suspect its use is within more strict Baptist sects, which is not to say that the SBs aren’t doing some nutty things themselves at times…
February 29, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Corrie, I can see how scary it must be to have a diabetic with the flu (regardless of his age). I do hope he’s on the mend very soon.
But if he doesn’t want his pot roast, can you send some to me? YUM!
Seriously, I’m praying for your husband’s very speedy recovery.
February 29, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Ooh, maybe we wage-earners ought to start a Harlots-Only club.
February 29, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Ewokgirl, since by the title of the test I’m guessing you’re also in Texas, we could be the Lone Star Chapter of HA (Harlots Anonymous).
March 1, 2008 at 12:27 am
How about a “Monstrous Harlots for Christ” club?
March 1, 2008 at 12:29 am
Corrie, you are in rare form today!
Do you want tips on the best place to buy duct tape, because I know that you’ll need a whole lot!
March 1, 2008 at 12:42 am
Psalmist, I’m all for it! Although, I’m only a part-time harlot. And only in spring.
Do you mind my asking where you live? I’m in a suburb of Dallas.
March 1, 2008 at 12:49 am
“I think they thought I was too stupid to understand that they were talking about me (since some people equate lots of children with a lower IQ). I may be stupid but I am certainly not deaf!”
Corrie, Corrie, Corrie, everyone knows that babies’ brains are formed from the brain cells of their mothers, and that our brain cells do not regenerate. That is why, whenever I would go out in public with what I called my “stair-step brigade”, people would talk to me in loud clear voices, using simple words, and ask questions such as, “Don’t you know what causes that?” or “Have you ever thought about how you are going to take care of all those children?” or even “How many children do you have?” — the last one a test, no doubt, to see if I was still capable of counting.
After we had four or five children, extended family members gave up on me. They knew that my brain was now so tiny that their brilliant arguments against having a multitude of children would be incomprehensible to me.
Corrie, you probably knew about the brain cell loss several children back, but have since lost the brain cells that stored that information.
The really sad thing is that it doesn’t stop there. Breastfed babies are smarter because breastmilk contains more of our brain cells.
I figure that, after all my children and the length of time they all breastfed, my brain is roughly pea-sized. I’m sure yours is still larger than that, since it was probably bigger to begin with.
March 1, 2008 at 1:03 am
Rebecca,
I am not sure that I have a brain left. I feel more like an ameoba most days, just going about my business because it is programmed in my simple cell. Or maybe it is the TTD (Theologically Transmitted Disease) that I have that has run its course and has affected my brain.
Either way, I can relate to Patrick (a starfish) of the Sponge Bob fame more often than not.
Thank you for the tutorial on what child-bearing and nursing do to a mother’s brain.
March 1, 2008 at 1:55 am
“Ewokgirl, since by the title of the test I’m guessing you’re also in Texas, we could be the Lone Star Chapter of HA (Harlots Anonymous).”
Psalmist, Ewokgirl, y’all do that any you just might become the “Best lil Chapter House in Texas”…
March 1, 2008 at 4:43 am
Cindy,
I personally started hearing “non-normative” and “normative” when I was running with the theonomists and reconstructionists. Then, a little while down the road, I heard it with Reformed Baptists who are Covenant Theology. I do not think I ever heard those descriptives being used among any of the Baptist churches we have attended.
I have to tell you that I sometimes wish I could be blissfully ignorant of all of this junk like most of the other fine Christians I know in real life. All these weird teachings have stolen a little bit of my innocence that I had in Christ when I was first saved. Knowing all of this “stuff” can be very burdensome and it feels like bondage and it can be depressive.
I constantly have to remember to return to my first Love and do the deeds I did at first. I have to go to scripture and just read through a book without reading it through The Grid in order to clean the gunk out of my head.
I keep on having to remember that being a Christians is about relationship and not about a particular lifestyle.
I think we should all just admit it….repeat after me….
“I am non-normative.” It is okay. Be the best non-normative God-fearing, Christ-honoring, Holy Spirit submitted believer you can be.
Truthfully, I do NOT want to be “normative”.
March 1, 2008 at 5:16 am
““8) Prairie Muffins are creative, learning new skills and working with their hands to provide items of beauty as well as utility for their families.””
I use my own hands to make the $$ that pays for the things of beauty in my house!
And Ewok and Psalmist, can I join the Texas chapter of the Harlot group?
March 1, 2008 at 5:37 am
Oh Corrie,
I’ve had some liberating experiences this week, and my DH rose to the occasion and was wonderful! I’ve had a long run of bad experiences, and I had a week full of good ones, nice stuff to put in the bank of confidence and optimism to make up for a long run of withdrawls. I listened on the noon news show yesterday when a bunch of neighbors in Detroit rallied around a house that was on fire, catching a young child that the mother dropped out of a 2nd story window while other neighbors ran and got a ladder that was too short to reach for the mother to escape, so the people below lifted the bottom of the ladder into the air, supporting it from below so that the woman could reach it and escape. I forgot myself and realized that I was crying and I had both arms in the air in worship and joy. I remembered the day and season in my life when this happened to me more days than not and grieved the loss. Too long, I have been alienated from them and the occasion to rejoice. Too long, I’ve been around the religious who would first ask if the people in the burning building were elect or not who I could imagine would have assumed not when the ladder they raised to the window was found to be too short. We have not so learned Christ! (But, sadly, many of us have… Oh to forget all of this!)
Sorry folks, this is just where I am right now! I also just finished putting some new posts on my site, ruminating on some of this.
I also found several websites today that talked about sanctification and real Christian love and joy. I cried with joy when I read them, realizing on a deeper level just how very toxic patriarchy really is, and I was never directly involved with the movement! I spent 4 years (now 11 years in my past) in Gothardism, but not immersed in it as some are. (I went to one IBLP seminar and was only around church leadership that ascribed to the teachings.) But I am deeply affected none the less, since it seems like all around me were people either steeped in patriarchy or in Gothard, and it has taken its toll.
How I wish that I were also blissfully ignorant of this stuff, just still innocently in love with Jesus with a heart for ministering to the lost and for missions! How I wish that I’d never heard and seen so many people used and misused and trusted leaders beating sheep with their Biblical mandates and performance standards. Back before the church was based upon Christ and ministry rather than family and fear of being “contaminated” by the sins of those lacking piety.
I don’t believe that anyone was normative and I once speculated that only Jesus was normative. But that’s not true either! Jesus was the most non-normative person on the face of the earth, for he condemned sin in the flesh for us, doing what the law was always too weak to do for us. If we are to be conformed to His image, we are to grow into non-normativity too!
God have mercy on us for adding and for taking away from His Holy Word! I’m sure that it all started in earnest, but as our wisdom from below does when it becomes the object of our great affection, it becomes our undoing. Lord, forgive us, PMs and non-PMs alike.
March 1, 2008 at 6:52 am
“I also found several websites today that talked about sanctification and real Christian love and joy. I cried with joy when I read them, realizing on a deeper level just how very toxic patriarchy really is, and I was never directly involved with the movement!”
Yes. Very toxic.
Beautiful reminder for us as believers, Cindy!
March 1, 2008 at 8:07 am
I’m also in North Texas, Ewokgirl. For reasons of online safety, I don’t pin it down any further than that.
Cindy K, I like the “Monstrous Harlots for Christ” idea. I just went with Harlots Anonymous (HA) because it struck me as a good counter to LAF. (And everybody knows, ya gotta laugh!)
Kyla, sure you can join us! Harlots, unite!
And Cynthia G, you are right, we WOULD be the Best Li’l Chapter House in Texas!
Reminds me of the time I was driving somewhere and saw, RIGHT NEXT TO A CEMETERY, a self-storage company called “Best Little Warehouse in Texas”! Made me laugh so hard, I had to pull over and wipe the tears. Gotta love the “Buckle of the Bible Belt”!
March 1, 2008 at 8:13 am
Cindy K (re: #305), thank you SO much for posting that testimony!
Yes, Jesus was the ultimate non-normative person who ever lived, and I think that’s one of the many, many qualities we should emulate as we are being conformed to his image.
I’ve never understood this demand to conform to long lists of extrabiblical rules and roles, when we have Jesus as our model. He didn’t make it difficult. Love God with all you’ve got, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. All the other details of living according to God’s law will sort themselves out if those basic, similar laws are obeyed. “Conform yourself to xyz” is NOT a part of the Great Commandment.
((((Cindy)))) Reading your comment blessed me more than I can express. Thanks again.
March 1, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I’m thinking that when we arrive in Heaven, it is not going to be said of us:
“Well done, thy good and faithful prairie muffin.”
March 1, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Yeah, what would follow, I wonder?
“Enter into the joy of continuing eternally to serve thy lord and master, thy husband?”
That may not be fair; while many patriarchalists are arguing that both Christ and women will be eternally subordinate, I’m sure not all PMs believe that…at least, I HOPE not!
March 2, 2008 at 12:29 am
Psalmist wrote: Love God with all you’ve got, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
and, of the PM,
“Enter into the joy of continuing eternally to serve thy lord and master, thy husband?”
Talk about toxic! Patriarchy does not teach “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and I wonder what it looks like and what constitutes self-love for women in the movement? There is admonishment to care for others and the poor and unfortunate, however we have the incongruent message that says that the Christian should hate those who hate God, advocating imprecatory prayer for example. So I wonder how that works?
Reduce that down to the “sphere of family” for a moment, too. Consider the wife. What does it mean for her to love her husband as herself? She’s actually called to love him better than she loves herself. I’ve heard that in some of these families where resources are limited, the men and boys get better food (protein!) than do the women and girls. (This was actually true of my maternal grandmother’s home where the girls were not liked as much as the boys/men, and the men ate their fill before the young women were permitted to scavenge whatever was left over and then clean up. I never dreamed that I would hear of anyone else doing this in this day and age as this became a pattern of survival for them in the depression era.) This echos that California Law Review article awaiting publication by Yuracko from NWU, looking at how this is also true of homeschooling resources and how they are allocated (where boys get primary consideration and greater opportunity in some cases).
This may not be problematic with some, but for families and parents and spouses that have had previous shortcomings in the self-love department, it seems that balance in this area could easily be lost. Put a demanding man together with a self-denying woman, and a verse like Philippians chapter 2 about “with lowliness of mind, let each esteem other better than themselves” could become a pragmatic nightmare. The woman would be required to sacrifice like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and man’s vision wins every time (despite the mandate to lay down his life in sacrifice for his wife). The wife is lowly like Christ and husband is like unto God the Father, so I would think that the wife would be called upon to “downgrade herself” in some sense.
What would self-love look like? (We already know that loving God with all one has equates to worshiping the patriarch and doing all to direct self towards his vision. … caring for children is more instinctual and I take for granted that they are totally dependent on parental care, so that is a different situation.) But where and how are PMs admonished to draw the boundaries between self and husband? Or are there none that regard personal well-being?
I’m concerned that for some, this could be a very, very toxic situation. What is health and what is usury? Maybe this is covered in books like Debi Pearl’s “Helpmeet” book, (one that seems steeped in shame to me).
Just a thought.
And thanks, Psalmist for reminding me again of that scene on the news again. I am blessed all over again, reminded of the neighbors who caught the child and bore up the ladder in their arms to save another. Jesus certainly did both of those things for us, bearing up underneath us and catching us when we were falling into destruction in our sins. Glory to Him.
March 2, 2008 at 12:32 am
Glad both you girls don’t live near La Grange! It’s a pretty little town, but that would be too funny!
March 2, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Corrie and Cindy, your posts above (#303 and 305) are simply lovely. They summarize this blog in its entirety in the very best way, and describe the sweetness and freedom awaiting those who stop and hear its message. Thank you.
March 3, 2008 at 12:43 pm
9) Prairie Muffins do not reflect badly on their husbands by neglecting their appearance; they work with the clay God has given, molding it into an attractive package for the pleasure of their husbands.
March 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Sounds like the perfect slogan for a plastic surgeon. HAHA
Maybe they could have whole gyms for these praire muffins, so they can mold their bodies back in shape. That way the women can discuss how better to become a praire muffin. The gym could even play RC Sproul sermons instead of CNN.
Hmmm maybe this would be a great investment idea.
Can you add a free autographed copy of Passionate Housewives Desperate for God for every paid membership? After all, the ladies need to learn to be desperate for God and not desperate to be the best little praire muffin in church.
Seriously though, it is all about the outward appearance with them isn’t it?
I am on Stacy McDonald’s Yahoo group, and I am beginning to realize some things. One is that she doesn’t respond to most of the ladies on there. Those she knows in real life from church, she will respond, but the rest, no matter how bad their life situations, she ignores.
And to think that I tried so hard to conform and be just like her (and others like her). I bought all her books, and tried so hard to change not only me, but my husband. Needless to say, he was not impressed.
I don’t fault her though. She is an author, looking for a way to sell more books. A businesswoman will do whatever she can to raise profits. She can use her group to get more interested in her works, and get more ideas to turn into books.
I will say that I do not like the double standard that I see. Since I am not allowed to share with you what goes on in that group, I will take another route.
In her book, Passionate Housewives, Stacy thanks Loretta Lanphier. Then you can see that Loretta is a moderator on her group, http://www.patriarchspath.com/Charter.htm as her name is listed as the last name on the page.
Once you have that, you can do a search on any search engine using her name and you will see she doesn’t fit the mold that Stacy wants the rest of us to fit into.
I personally am finding all this frustrating.
I am facing a huge faith crisis. I can joke about it, I can laugh about it, but in reality, I feel hurt, betrayed, and I don’t know where to go. I have spent my entire married life, trying to live up to the ideal that Stacy preaches, only to find that there are huge gaping holes in what she and others believe.
My husband has no idea how to help me. My pastor told me a week ago, to get off her groups and stop reading her materials, as I am beginning to question not only my faith, but my own dh. My pastor has been homeschooling for many, many years, and he hasn’t heard of them. When I mentioned VF, he was like oh yes, he has seen them around but something didn’t sit quite right with him.
March 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The bit about keeping up one’s personal appearance isn’t so bad, when one considers the other side of the coin. In certain areas of the country, especially the deep south, virtue is measured by personal dowdiness. The whole modesty craze of the last couple of decades grew out of this, I think. Not that we should NOT be modest, certainly, but there are women who seem to glory in going around looking like a moose in a calico sack, with grimy hair, unshaven legs, and hemlines worn just above the tops of their ratty athletic shoes. Some of them apparently also eschew deodorant, all in the pursuit of “modesty”.
March 3, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Anne said: I am facing a huge faith crisis. I can joke about it, I can laugh about it, but in reality, I feel hurt, betrayed, and I don’t know where to go. I have spent my entire married life, trying to live up to the ideal that Stacy preaches, only to find that there are huge gaping holes in what she and others believe.
My husband has no idea how to help me. My pastor told me a week ago, to get off her groups and stop reading her materials, as I am beginning to question not only my faith, but my own dh.
Anne, my heart goes out to you. I only brushed up against the patriarchy stuff a few years ago, without ever really living it, and even with that limited contact, it was toxic to my faith. There are times now when I have to stay away from even healthy, open blogs like this one where these issues are discussed because I find myself angry at all men, all pastors, and even God.
I agree with your pastor – stop reading this stuff. It is clearly toxic for you, your marriage, and your faith. Go read Galatians about 10 times through, and tell me you don’t feel better.
Cast off those shackles! You are FREE!
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
March 3, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I want to invite anyone interested to participate in this discussion on my other blog. I have been thinking about this topic for quite a while and think there are probably others who have as well…
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/bloggers-church-discipline-and-captain-barbossa/
March 3, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Well, I guess I should have told you what the topic was…..
blogging, church discipline, and captain barbossa…….
March 3, 2008 at 3:40 pm
The bit about keeping up one’s personal appearance isn’t so bad, when one considers the other side of the coin. In certain areas of the country, especially the deep south, virtue is measured by personal dowdiness. The whole modesty craze of the last couple of decades grew out of this, I think. Not that we should NOT be modest, certainly, but there are women who seem to glory in going around looking like a moose in a calico sack, with grimy hair, unshaven legs, and hemlines worn just above the tops of their ratty athletic shoes. Some of them apparently also eschew deodorant, all in the pursuit of “modesty”.
Oh, Cindy, coffee on the monitor screen AGAIN!
Thanks for the reminder for balance in our lives. For me, if often comes down to choosing how to spend my time. I can either read or curl hair, etc. I have decided that a pretty simple wardrobe, a hairstyle I really like I keep trimmed every 3-4 weeks, and make-up I could put on in the dark and that’s it. I have tried being a high-maintenance girl and I am too uncoordinated!
March 3, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Anne, I am so glad that you have been transparent enough to share your frustrations and doubts and fears with us. Believe me, many of us have already walked in your Mary Janes and can relate all too well.
Yesterday I heard a sermon that referenced this passage and I had a new appreciation for what Jesus was saying. I think it applies here.
In John7:24, he says “Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteousness judgment.”
You know, so many times I have tended to evaluate something spiritual the same way I evaluate the purchase of an item for our home. What is the cost? What are the features, functions, benefits?
But spiritual things can only be discerned spiritually. We can look at all the features of the patriocentric lifestyle, the prairie muffins functions and benefits. But the real question is what does God’s Word say?
Here is my what bothers me the most and you really gave great examples in your comment. Living the life of a Christian is living in obedience to the two commands…loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and your neighbor as yourself. It is all about a natural, organic relationship that flows from how we relate to Christ and He to us and how we relate to one another. It is based on love. It is based on obedience to the one another commands. And it flows not from what we are doing and checking off of some muffin list. It flows from grace that God gives to His own.
When I read your comment, I do not see a woman suffering from lack of faith in God and His goodness. I see a woman who has decided to judge by righteous judgment rather than by appearance because the appearances have been tried and found wanting.
{{{{{}}}}} to you and I am so glad you are here!
By the way, on the February 29th podcast with Corrie, she and I discuss what marriage and family life ought to entail for Christian families. I think you will be encouraged if you listen. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate Corrie.
March 3, 2008 at 4:22 pm
oops, I did it again. I clicked submit without finishing..
you can find the podcasts at http://www.thatmompodcast.com
If you have a dial up connection, let me know and I can send you anything you want on a CD.
March 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I have high speed, and I will have to listen to them. I heard the ones you did a few months ago. They were good! (:
March 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Anne,
Just want you to know that you are not alone in seeing and experiencing what you have shared. Once you get past this and you are released from the pharisaical bounds of religious boundaries and you are able to live for Christ in the way He has designed YOU to live, you will be free from the emotional yo-yo.
I would highly recommend you spend a lot of time in the Gospels, getting to know Jesus and His heart again. The patriarchalists are so far off of the mark. They have forgotten what they are here for. It is not about who is first or about our own little kingdom or about our own families but about bringing the gospel to the lost. They want to bind everyone up with their religious rules just like the pharisees who claimed that Jesus could not be of God because He broke *their* rules. Jesus broke their rules precisely because they were not His rules.
If you read Mark 9 concerning the healing of the blind man, tell me if you cannot see the humor in the blind man’s retort to the pharisees.
The hypocrisy in the patriarchal movement can really be a stumbling block. For years I have not understood the whole “Dr.” business of the PW moderator and how she fits in with the rest and how she represents the vision of a woman who is serving her man’s vision and not her own.
If people knew that the couple who made it their ministry to reform families were only married 12 years, would they be flocking to them? What about the woman who was the first wife and gave birth to four children? Is she involved in her children’s life? Or is the whole covenant family thing a joke where the actual mother and father can be done away with if it doesn’t fit into a particular person’s vision?
March 3, 2008 at 7:44 pm
“bounds” should be “bonds”
March 3, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Corrie wrote:
What about the woman who was the first wife and gave birth to four children? Is she involved in her children’s life? Or is the whole covenant family thing a joke where the actual mother and father can be done away with if it doesn’t fit into a particular person’s vision?
Of course, this makes reference to the McDonalds…
There are so many double standards in patriarchy in general. We have the reports of people who assert that the evangelists of the patriarchy movement have hidden pedophiles in their churches, used the church coffers to pay of gambling debts of the officers in their seminiaries, use other peoples tax ID numbers, etc, etc… There are other pockets of patriarchy who steal intellectual property and material within an hour after it’s published online and in print. There is plagerism. There is lying and suing and the use of the courts to steal. Some claim that there are those in patriarchy who don’t pay their bills, venturing elsewhere to start their scams all over again. The unpaid balances range from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, amounts of money that most Christians would be absolutely sick about, unpaid bills that have been abandoned through “business savy,” taking advantage of business law, slick legal advice and outright usury. (Makes you wonder where they got their legal advice?) Some claim that some of these individuals have maliciously taken actions with intent to interfere with businesses, and some actually have done so, both in and out of the civil courts. People have been blackmailed. People have been terrorized, but many become ill as a result of contending with these who are very willing to threaten lawsuits as readily as they say “Amen.” People are too afraid to continue the pursuit of finding justice for themselves because they fear that their children will also be harassed, and they have been worn out from their struggles. But we are supposed to just esteem these men as holy, just and godly, giving them a free pass on everthing that they have to say and everything that they promote as “Biblical.”
I guess what is so troubling is that in these other circumstances, so far as anyone knows, the great men in patriarchy have been completely responsible for these things while the wives remain innocent and isolated from the workings of these questionable deeds. I guess that is why I am so disturbed by the McDonalds, because Stacy seems to be in it as deeply as James is. They sell a magazine called “Family Reformation,” but I’ve been called a liar for pointing out any of these discrepencies, and I know that these same people have threatened you with legal action. For speaking documentable truth?
The last time this subject came up about the McDonalds, I received some emails asking me to clarify what I had said as very many people who follow the McDonald’s ministry had no idea that they had a blended family, as the terminology seems to go nowdays. This person said that this was a shock to them because, after all, “it’s not like [the McDonalds] are selling coobooks.” They are selling formulas about how to live the perfect, VF style family.
When I first made mention of this, I received emails from Stacy that essentially accused me of judging them for their sins of the past. Who ever said that divorce was a sin. Or remarriage for that matter? But many believers and denominations believe that this history precludes one from the pastorate and from eldership. Consider also that this family makes their living primarily from promoting this image, avoiding the topic of their history at all costs because it threatens their sales. I had to laugh when I listened to the online interview of Stacy on Marilyn Moll’s website! Avoid the subject like the plague. “We met through friends at church” and “We have 10 children” is a whole universe away from “We were both married and divorced when we met, but the Lord healed both of our families by uniting us in Him.”
There are always two sides to every story, and these first stories and marriages clearly didn’t have happy endings as they ended in division. We are called to be transparent and open books to be known and read of all men. Why conceal this? The reasoning was offered that the McDonalds were unprepared to tell their young children that each of them had been previously married, but then why did they put themselves in the public eye where this would be a concern. In so doing, did they not anticipate that this would become an issue eventually? So the people that are expected to pay for their books are also expected to not ask any questions? These small children are used as leverage to manipulate people into overlooking the documented facts that are easily retrieved in this information age.
As Stacy implied in her email to me, I absolutely do not have a problem with remarriage. What I have a problem with is their promotion of themselves as something very different from their message. The McDonalds were both previously married. Stacy brought ONE child into the marriage and James brought four children into the marriage. Their union was blessed with five additional children, but rather than talk about their experiences and the issues involved with weathering divorces while parenting their kids, they say nothing. They say nothing that would offer wisdom and hope to those who struggle with the problems that are common to blended families, something that I expect they could address with the wisdom of experience and their ideology of patriarchy.
They could write books about their experiences and help people trapped in bad situations. What of Stacy’s first husband and James’ first wife? How do they preach all of patirarchy, complete with the vague term of “multigenerational faithfulness” which, when convenient, means that you have to be faithful to your patriarchs and elders (rather than successive generations serving God). Did they change their names so that their spouses couldn’t find their children? Did they take their children out of state? Do their ex’s have visiting privleges in keeping with the honoring of mother and father so that their children might have long, blessed lives? What are the rules for someone after divorce and remarriage? What are the “Biblical” teachings governing how to work out visitation, and how is any of that in keeping with their visions of “family reformation?” Can you hide a child away and conceal them from a spouse that is not a Christian or from a Christian that has fallen into some sort of sin? Was there abuse invovled? Was it physical or mental or sexual? How is all of that specifically defined?
But I am maligned as a gossip and a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a liar for asking these questions. I am a gossip for asking others to ask these questions. I am unforgiving for asking how on earth they get around the ethical problems of pastoring and founding a denomination no less, given their history and in light of their rigid interpretation of conduct for women (found in the same book of the Bible as qualifications for elders and teachers).
This whole thing about unforgiveness is perplexing to me? I am supposed to be forgiving? Of what? I’m not being unforgiving at all but am rather questioning doctrine. We are also called upon to forgive after someone has repented and asked forgiveness. When did that take place? Not only has this couple failed to be honest and an open book about their past (including information about James’ intitial ordianation), they’ve responded to those who ask with damage control, name-calling and imprecatory prayer (Christian curses). They offer not honesty or candor. They wont even answer questions about doctrine, and my list of questions concerning their views about Trinity (as they quote people who profess an heretical view) remain unanswered online over at the thatmom site. What about the doctrinal issues? And I’m the one who gets called a wolf?
And it all would be so simple. Just answer the questions. Just be honest. Tell people you had a blended family instead of weaving creative and misleading stories for the local newspaper and your own magazine. Tell people in interviews when you are out promoting your book. (Maybe the sales would increase!) Why wont James disclose any of the details about his reported SBC ordination? Why push the VF agenda if they do not fit that model? Ah, there’s the rub.
Again, did the McDonald’s, as you say, do away with their previous spouses and the parents of their children? How did they do it. And why is it not a glorious part of their testimony but rather concealed at great cost? (Why weave stories that distract from the facts of it all?) It can’t all be because their little ones will be scared and damaged. The children that would have suffered obviously have suffered the consequences of divorce already. I don’t understand, but I know that I have never been extended this kind of double standard in any venue except before the Cross when Jesus imputed His righteousness onto me and took my sin.
I’m not unforgiving and I am not a gossip monger. I have reasonable questions about a subject that this family CHOSE to make public by publishing about it. Did they fail to take note of Paul’s writings about teachers and higher standards for teachers and ministers? Am I being asked to forgive them for being ignorant and naive regarding these admonishements in the Word of God?
March 3, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I think my husband would be very upset if I became a prairie muffin. He didn’t marry a prairie muffin and I doubt he would have wanted to.
Though I thought some of the points were on target with Proverbs 31, I am disturbed at the liberties this woman takes in her interpretation of the Biblical role model of a wife.
For example:
11) Prairie Muffins own aprons and they know how to use them.
Sure, I own an apron, I know how to use it, and my daughter has two for playtime and loves wearing them, but what’s that got to do with being godly? I don’t like wearing my apron because I had to wear them for a couple years working in the college cafeteria and Panera. I don’t mind letting flour get on my clothes anymore when I bake. That’s what a washing machine is for! And my husband worked in the same places, by the way, so he probably feels the same way about aprons
16) Prairie Muffins are accomplished at organizing and delegating.
Well, I definitely am not a Prairie Muffin! The desk I’m sitting at right now has two stacks of paper that are higher than my laptop! I’ve been using Flylady’s system for a while, but I’m not a very organized person!
18) Prairie Muffins are fiercely submissive to God and to their husbands.
I love the use of the word “fiercely.” I imagine a woman concentrating with all her might saying “I AM SUBMISSIVE! I AM SUBMISSIVE!” like the little engine that could. Maybe “devotedly” would be a better word?
6) Prairie Muffins dress modestly and in a feminine manner.
I don’t really know how to take this? Am I supposed to wear a dress, or just not wear men’s clothing? What if I feel like wearing sweats all day every once in a while? I know how to dress modestly, I just don’t think dressing “feminine” is a priority.
I realize that this is a serious woman who really believes these things are important, but I can’t help but chuckle at the idea that I’m somehow to emulate the “homestead” Christian wife of the 19th Century.
On a somewhat more serious note, I admit I’m a little naive about the teachings going around the churches these days. I was more than a little disturbed about the theonomy and reconstructionist view, but I have a simple question–Is this view popular with the patriarchal movement only? Are the two nearly synonymous, or are there many patriarchy groups that don’t adhere to that particular belief? I can really see why one would be popular to believers of the other, but I didn’t know if the two were essentially connected??
March 3, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I guess the blinders are starting to fall off. You would think that Stacy would want to help those on her list as much as possible, but she remains silent. I have seen some ladies struggle with blended families, but not a peep comes from her mouth.
I guess we are to buy her book to learn how to be better wives. Shouldn’t Titus 2 be free? That is why I like Thatmom, her stuff is free.
I am not against a woman making money, not at all, but I am against having to pay for my Titus 2 mentor. To me, that is just wrong.
This whole thing with the binders falling off is very painful. I can’t believe I was duped! DH says I wanted to believe it so bad, I ignored all the warning signs. And who wouldn’t want a large family, and a large blended family if that was your lot in life?
Oh well, I think I need to take a break from online groups for awhile. I know that not only would my dh be happy, so would those at church who are praying for me. They want me to have joy in serving Jesus. Everyone close to me in my life is trying to tell me it is about Jesus, not rules. Just live to please Him, forget everyone else.
March 3, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Anne,
You wrote “This whole thing with the binders falling off is very painful. I can’t believe I was duped! DH says I wanted to believe it so bad, I ignored all the warning signs.”
You are in good company, along with the whole human race. We’ve all been duped, and most likely, the people who are heading up the marches we followed were duped themselves. All deception like this and all of these types of movements that tend towards stasis and totalism all hook us in with ideology and desire, usually our deepest ones. What idiot wouldn’t wilfully choose the greener grass?
So don’t feel like you are a strangeling — you are right in tune with the rest of the human race, but you went to the trouble of thinking, asking questions and going through the very painful process of removing the blinders. It reminds me of some of the dialogue in the first “Matrix” film. Welcome to what seems like the desert of the real, but at least there is no deception. All of this involves a great deal of grieving and loss, even if it is just an idea or a dream. It’s hard work to go through and evaluate one’s dreams, figuring out what is reasonable and realistic and what things were never substantial or were misguided.
I know that for so long, I was stupified by the fact that a group of people took my own earnest character and that which was truly good (thanks to the Lord) and exploited my goodness for what turned out to be painfully wrong and destructive. But hidden in that goodness, there was a lot of ME. And for Him to increase and for me to decrease, it had to go. And it came through brokenness. And the cost was high.
I pray that God will bless you with joy and comfort, and something very wonderful from Him to fill the place in your life that used to be filled with blogging and rules and the rest. I pray that He puts you back into touch with His sweetness and kindness and deep heart of compassion and love. May He work that in all of us. (And remember that it gets better. This is one wound that time works well to help in healing.)
March 4, 2008 at 12:19 am
Abby,
Great thoughts on the PM Manifesto!
On the word “fierce” used to describe a Prairie Muffin’s submission…..this just cracked me up.
Fierce means: aggressive, vicious, savage, ferocious, violent, awful, dreadful, agonizing, acute, piercing, intense….
It could also mean vehement, passionate, impassioned, fervent, ardent.
The antonym of fierce is “gentle”.
I guess I am wondering what “fierce submission” would look like as opposed to regular old submission?
I can understand being “fiercely loyal” to someone but fiercely submissive?
Submission seems like something we quietly do and it involves a gentle yielding of one’s self. Submission doesn’t seem like something we aggressively pursue.
I guess I will have to mull that over in mind for a while. Just not quite grasping the picture.
March 4, 2008 at 12:23 am
Cindy,
I have had people write to me and tell me of long records of unpaid debts owed them. You are not making this up. The people who have written me are too afraid of the people who have not paid them because they have seen what they do to those who do bring these things to light.
All does not seem as it appears, unfortunately. It is really quite sad. The book of James has some fierce things to say about the rich who oppress the poor.
March 4, 2008 at 12:46 am
” Avoid the subject like the plague. “We met through friends at church” and “We have 10 children” is a whole universe away from “We were both married and divorced when we met, but the Lord healed both of our families by uniting us in Him.””
Cindy,
Correct. Add to this the newspaper articles from the PJS that had details out of chronological order which gave the appearance of things that were not. Add to this a recent comment by a woman who said that she was glad that she could come to Stacy’s blog for advice from those who have been married for much longer than she has been. The problem that I saw with that is that this woman was clearly under the impression that Stacy was married longer than she was but this woman was married for 14 years while the McDonalds have been only married for 12. There was no correction telling this woman that it was Stacy who should be seeking advice from this woman since she had been married longer.
I know people who are in horrible marriages and who would love to start over and find their “honey” and their “hero” and they are sorely tempted by their lives. After all, if the McDonalds can divorce their first spouses and find the love of their lives in each other, well why can’t they? They were both Christians when they married their first spouses and James was an ordained whatever in the SBC (or so he says but no one knows where, what church, what town?????) while he was married to his first wife and having 4 children in the 12 years they were married. These people could not only escape the hell and loneliness (remember the blog story about her being lonely in her apartment when she was really still married and had a child?) that comes from being in a bad marriage, they could also have a second chance at love and happiness in someone else just like those who are leaders they are to emulate, the McDonalds.
You are exactly right that it is about being honest and forthright. No, they don’t have to share all the gory details but they need to be upfront about these details. Shouldn’t they be using their own unique experiences and circumstances to minister to others?
” but rather than talk about their experiences and the issues involved with weathering divorces while parenting their kids, they say nothing. They say nothing that would offer wisdom and hope to those who struggle with the problems that are common to blended families, something that I expect they could address with the wisdom of experience and their ideology of patriarchy.”
Exactly.
Isn’t this the very least that should be done? Above reproach?
There is a huge double standard at work. It is very hard to sit and read the illusion put forth and know that others know these things and just wink and nod about it all. It is too bad that those who should be holding our leaders accountable are not doing it and forcing others to do their work for them.
March 4, 2008 at 1:05 am
Corrie wrote: Isn’t this the very least that should be done? Above reproach?
There is a huge double standard at work.
Well, I guess like Orwell said in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others, or in this case, they are not so much above reproach but they behave as though they are above criticism. How is it that one can gain that status? I’ve never managed it.
March 4, 2008 at 1:28 am
“Well, I guess like Orwell said in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others, or in this case, they are not so much above reproach but they behave as though they are above criticism. How is it that one can gain that status? I’ve never managed it.”
Cindy,
I guess you are not very competent working smoke and mirrors? Also, a side dish of “smarmy” is a must.
I look at Jesus’ interaction with the woman at the well. She didn’t seem to have trouble admitting to the facts about her life when confronted.
It is actually quite freeing to live with your life exposed to the light. It frees you from a lot of worries.
There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. What don’t we live like it? This isn’t about condemning others at all. This isn’t about thinking that some sins are worse than others. This is about being honest and not deceptive. This is about transparent living and living in the light.
Misleading people with carefully worded prose is just the same as lying. As the old Yiddish saying goes, “A half truth is a whole lie.”
I would have expected that Passionate Housewives would have fleshed out how to deal with a difficult marriage since the author of that chapter has been through it. Instead, it gave some advice that was hard to understand when you know the rest of the story. Not a mention at all about one’s own personal life. But, this book is marketed as being one of openness and honesty about one’s shortcomings and life?
March 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“10) Prairie Muffins are patient and forbearing, not responding rashly to slights, perceived or real.”
March 4, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Really? That’s quite interesting. Must be the ideal only. Some of the things said publicly about non-PMs by PMs don’t sound much like the fruit of patience and forbearance to me.
Don’t do as they do; do as they say?
March 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I am sorry, the only thing that came to mind when I read this was:
. . . really?
Now, it’s certainly an excellent practice in principle (slow to anger, quick to forgive, etc.) but I will take a great deal of convincing before I agree that it is their widely-practiced MO.
Personally, as I read this I can only recall that pithy little addendum Mrs Friedrich made to the Manifesto following the discussion here concerning the derogatory language inherent in the term “Muffin Mixes.” That acerbic line she used– “be careful, little minds, what you think”– just . . . well, if that isn’t the polar opposite of patient and forbearing in the face of a slight (perceived or real) then goodness, what is?
March 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I took #10 to have a slightly more narrow meaning: That we are to do this with our HUSBANDS, but anyone else, it’s okay. In the context of what she’s talking about, it’s about a marriage, right? So, the basis is “be a perfect little wife and don’t backtalk, even when your husband deliberately tries to antagonize you.”
I think I saw right through her statement to what the heart was, but maybe I’m wrong.
March 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“That acerbic line she used– “be careful, little minds, what you think”– just . . . well, if that isn’t the polar opposite of patient and forbearing in the face of a slight (perceived or real) then goodness, what is?”
Speaking of Carmon’s “patience and forbearance” , (LOL!!!!!)….
Once upon a time I published an article on a largely liberal site, Talk2Action. The article was critical of Rushdoony, the HyperP’s, theonomy, etc.
Carmon posted this article on her blog, claiming that since I had posted at Talk2Action I must therefore share the liberal values of many of the other posters on the list(I don’t!), and warning people about me, claiming that she “wanted to set the record straight for the sake of those who might read some of her writing and have the mistaken impression that she is fundamentally in agreement with their Christian worldview.”
She was hoping to lure me her blog, and it worked: when I showed up to explain that I DO NOT support abortion, same-sex marriage, simply because I published an article on a site where the majority of people do support these things, Carmon posted this link at the bottom of the page:
Buried Treasure Books: Weblog » The Spider and the FlySays:
February 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
[…] Cynthia, I was hoping you’d drop […]
March 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I have a comment full of links in moderation, pertaining to Carmon, patience, and forbearance…
March 4, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Not responding rashly? LOL!
I don’t know what else to say but my email box doesn’t bear out this assertion to be true.
March 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Abby,
That is good point. It very well could be talking about husbands and that would mean everyone else is fair game.
This is one thing I always thought was funny. Those who speak the loudest about having a meek and quiet spirit are usually the ones who have it the least. I always thought that the meek and quiet would spill out in other dealings. Not so much.
One thing I know, some of the PMs scare me. That isn’t easy to do.
March 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Corrie, your comment in #340 is sad to me. I commend you ladies for putting yourselves out there and allowing others to attack you directly for the sake of Christ. I wouldn’t be able to open up my email to public critics because I think I would lose my mind. It’s hard enough when my family criticizes my choices as a mom, I would need to go to an institution if I allowed strangers into my life that way.
I have been reading a little about the public/private confrontation on here, and I have to agree with someone who said that it’s much better in this situation to bring the truth and lies into the light publicly, rather than allow manipulative people to fill our inboxes with harsh lies.
Again, I really commend you for allowing yourself to be open to that, some people are called to put themselves out there, while I, for one, am not!
And I will stand by my assertion that #10 applies to husbands only. It’s just too bad she didn’t see clearly enough to use that qualifier.
March 4, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I agree with you Abby and I comment these ladies too. More people that are sucked into this Prairie Muffin way of thinking need to know more about the women who are “leading” them. I honestly had no idea about Stacy McDonald until Cindy and Corrie brought everything up yesterday. I can understand feeling duped by these people! It’s completely discouraging.
And to think, just last year I was driving my husband crazy and blaming him because I couldn’t be a prairie muffin.
March 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Looks like my comment got lost…here goes again. I broke the links right after the http:// so they come through, put ‘em back together and get an eyeful:
“That acerbic line she used– “be careful, little minds, what you think”– just . . . well, if that isn’t the polar opposite of patient and forbearing in the face of a slight (perceived or real) then goodness, what is?”
Speaking of Carmon’s “patience and forbearance” , (LOL!!!!!)….
Once upon a time I published an article on a largely liberal site, Talk2Action. The article was critical of Rushdoony, the HyperP’s, theonomy, etc.
Carmon posted this article on her blog, claiming that since I had posted at Talk2Action I must therefore share the liberal values of many of the other posters on the list(I don’t!), and warning people about me, claiming that she “wanted to set the record straight for the sake of those who might read some of her writing and have the mistaken impression that she is fundamentally in agreement with their Christian worldview.”:
http:// buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1815
She was hoping to lure me her blog, and it worked: when I showed up to explain that I DO NOT support abortion, same-sex marriage, simply because I published an article on a site where the majority of people do support these things, Carmon posted this link at the bottom of the page:
Buried Treasure Books: Weblog » The Spider and the FlySays:
February 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
[…] Cynthia, I was hoping you’d drop […]
http:// buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1824
March 4, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Ok, it’s still not coming through, it seems that the http: and the // is seen as a link, and is keeping the entire comment from posting.
March 4, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Let’s try it this way, third time’s a charm, dontcha know… add an http: folowed by a // to the front of the links in order to make them work:
“That acerbic line she used– “be careful, little minds, what you think”– just . . . well, if that isn’t the polar opposite of patient and forbearing in the face of a slight (perceived or real) then goodness, what is?”
Speaking of Carmon’s “patience and forbearance”, (LOL!!!!!)….
Once upon a time I published an article on a largely liberal site, Talk2Action. The article was critical of Rushdoony, the HyperP’s, theonomy, etc.
Carmon posted this article on her blog, claiming that since I had posted at Talk2Action I must therefore share the liberal values of many of the other posters on the list(I don’t!), and warning people about me, claiming that she “wanted to set the record straight for the sake of those who might read some of her writing and have the mistaken impression that she is fundamentally in agreement with their Christian worldview.”:
buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1815
She was hoping to lure me her blog, and it worked: when I showed up to explain that I DO NOT support abortion, same-sex marriage,etc., simply because I published an article on a site where the majority of people do support these things, Carmon posted this link at the bottom of the page:
Buried Treasure Books: Weblog » The Spider and the FlySays:
February 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
[…] Cynthia, I was hoping you’d drop […]
buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1824
March 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“If you took one of those online quizzes about “Which Character from the Lord of the Rings Are You?” I have no doubt you would be Gríma Wormtongue. You are everywhere making insidious accusations against godly men and women. You whisper delectable lies in the ears of anyone who will listen, weakening their faith and damaging the kingdom of God.”
ROFLOL!! Oh yeah. I can just hear the “patience and forbearing” dripping from those words!
What I don’t get is why she always has to take the tone of boss when talking to other people? She talks down to them as if they were beneath her. Instead of approaching them and simply explaining what it is they are supposedly wrong about, she scolds people like they are far beneath her.
“Your remarks on your blogs about illiterate homeschool moms ought to give the women who have approvingly interacted with you some pause. I have edited several books, and I carefully edit my posts (and my words) before firing off what I write. I assure you that you are not a shining example of literacy. You sometimes apologize for your “typos,” but your writing is much sloppier than you give yourself credit for. Who do you think you are to be condemning the homeschooling mother? You had an account with Homeschool Blogger…do you even homeschool?”
Oooh, another shining example of patience and forbearance.
Why is it she can ream someone out but when some of us expose the outright LIES coming from her very own friends we are accused of gossip?
“As for your association with the foul Talk2Action, let me quote your own words, words you used to upbraid James McDonald (which he did not deserve):”
She doesn’t even know who James McDonald is. She doesn’t know anything about him except for what he tells people. Where was he ordained? How hard would it be to tell people the church and the year of his ordination? Why couldn’t he produce the requested documents for his divorce and ordination to the presbytery he promised to provide them to? He is whatever you want him to be. He is an evangelical, a complementarian, a patriarchalist, etc to whatever audience he is speaking to. He tells people what they want to hear and nailing him down to any one thing is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.
And since she states that she is Reformed in the Presbyterian persuasion, she should be very concerned about McDonald’s behavior at the presbytery which deposed him for the sin of being independent. This is not good practice for Presbyterians. The Presbyterian governing system is based on accountability. And some are worried about female deacons in the PCA when we have this going on?
Undeserved? No. He has some very odd associations and there is nothing wrong with questioning him about those associations. Someone who claims to lead God’s flock would have no problem providing this basic information.
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If a marble countertop identifies a woman as a “professional mommy” or a “whitewashed feminist” then wouldn’t the people’s writings one promotes say something about what they believe?
Naah!
“My blog is controversial, but not usually this negative. My mission is to encourage Christian women, not get into fights with foolish people. But you have been busy whispering in the ear of many women who instead need to hear some clear thinking to clear away the cobwebs you keep spinning (”‘Will you walk into my parlour?’ said the spider to the fly”) This is not written for you, it is written for them.”
I see. Very patiently put.
March 4, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I have a question and maybe someone can help me out. In the Passionate Housewives book, page 43 Stacy says: “If each of my children only bears half the number of children that I have, my husband and I will be blessed with 50 grandchildren.”
She has eight children (right?), but she has not “born” all of them. What is it, five or six that she has given birth to? So even if it was 6, half would be 3, and 8X3=24. Where is she getting 50 grandchildren from? And even had she birthed all of them, which she did not, half of 8 is 4, and 4X8=32
To me, it is lies and if you would lie about something like that, what else are you lying about.
This is really upsetting me. The lies are starting to just jump off the pages now.
March 4, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Anne, she is saying that since they have 10 children, 10 X 5 (half of 10) = 50.
March 4, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Oops, I was still logged on with the site name. Sorry about that.
“And to think, just last year I was driving my husband crazy and blaming him because I couldn’t be a prairie muffin.”
This is interesting, isn’t it? I have long stated that the patriarchy/patriocentricity movement is run by women and I still believe that. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard or read a woman make a statement similar to this one, I would take us all to lunch. I know I, myself, was much more inclined toward these teachings than my husband ever was.
March 4, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I would have to add that patience and forbearance go hand in hand with a gracious spirit toward others. Do any of you remember Carmon’s son’s article on how he didn’t learn a single thing by taking college classes? I would have been horrified had my son behaved in that manner. When it was talked about here, the behavior was never corrected or challenged. Again, we were just “gossips.”
March 4, 2008 at 6:28 pm
But she didn’t “bear” 10 children!!! UGH! Am I the only one seeing this as a lie? She says if her children bear as many as she did. Some of those children were “born” by another woman. She did not “bear” them.
It just bothers me. The bible says let you yea be yea and your nay be nay. This is a far cry from that.
March 4, 2008 at 6:42 pm
How many women know the truth that James McDonald had 4 children before he married Stacy? I just found out yesterday because of this website. I can bet that many of the prairie muffin ladies don’t read this blog, so they will never know the truth. Which, I believe, is what Stacy McDonald wants.
It’s hard to tell how many women just believe the lies that have been told to them by the McDonalds.
Why don’t they just come out and write books on blended families? I’m sure there are many people who can benefit from something like that.
March 4, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“If I had a dollar for every time I have heard or read a woman make a statement similar to this one, I would take us all to lunch. I know I, myself, was much more inclined toward these teachings than my husband ever was.”
Most of us have been there…
You know, I remember one of these sites (I don’t remember WHICH one, and for once, I’m not going to bother looking it up) saying that women shouldn’t read even Christian romance novels, because they might make us dissatisfied with our real-life spouses.
Hmmmmmmm…….
March 4, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“Why don’t they just come out and write books on blended families? I’m sure there are many people who can benefit from something like that.”
Good point! But, it could pose HUGE problems as a pastor qualifying under 1 Tim guidelines for elders. People tend to be uncomfortable with divorced pastors much less both husband and wife divorced. (Wasn’t he ordained when he divorced?)
But, it would be honest if they were more open about it. After all, he is not in a denomination where such things are dictated but then it could hurt their efforts to sell books or grow the church within the Patriarchy movement.
March 4, 2008 at 7:29 pm
“10) Prairie Muffins are patient and forbearing, not responding rashly to slights, perceived or real.”
Such as freaking out over a few bad reviews at Amazon and calling the reviewers ‘gossips’?
March 4, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Such as freaking out over a few bad reviews at Amazon and calling the reviewers ‘gossips’?”
Would it show a lack of “patience and forbearance” on my part, were I to call the PMs “biddies”? Probably, even though that’s mild compared to what they’d be called in NON-Christian circles…. sigh…..
….so, I won’t (even though I WANT to) and I’m not even a Prairie Muffin… not EVEN! LOL!
Christians shouldn’t call names, even mild ones like “biddies” (or “gossips”, or “white-washed feminists”.)
March 4, 2008 at 9:54 pm
More of the hypocritical double-standard, IYAM.
Kind of like all the rules and regulations single women are supposed to be following, laid down for them by married, many of whom had very little time as singles once they were of age. Like they have clue one what challenges face singles over 25!
Or men declaring themselves the experts on what women are supposed to do. Uh, when were they ever women, and let’s see the transcript from heaven on the communique they received.
It’s one thing to say, “We made mistakes, but by God’s grace, here’s what we’ve learned and why we’re doing it differently this time around.” But that’s one of the weakest points of patriarchy, IMO: never admitting mistakes.
March 5, 2008 at 12:24 am
Lin,
Yes, the freak-out and all the behind the scenes desperation to get the “bad” reviews taken down were quite comical. If not very telling.
Not sure why someone would boast about writing a controversial book and then freak-out when there is a bit of controversy.
And I agree about the name-calling, Cynthia G. I could use any of their tactics and turn it around on them. They say that women who take issue with some of the patriarchal teachings are “bitter and rebellious” and other such things.
Well, we could say that about those who are still loyal to the South and the war against Northern aggression. We could say that against the patriarchalists who daily rail against the “feminists” and blaming the “feminists” for all the evils that rage on this planet. As if there was not a very long, historical record of evils and mass killings and the like committed under patriarchal regimes all throughout history, since God created the world. We could say that the Revolutionary War was an evil and rebellious movement motivated by bitter people who didn’t understand the beauty of submission to proper authority.
I say it is illogical. Calling women “whitewashed feminists” is not helpful, especially when you read the description of what one really is in the Passionate book. Basically, a WWF is any woman who disagrees with the author’s conclusions on biblical womanhood and what the Scriptures say about the topic. Really. read it for yourself and see if I am misrepresenting it. When I asked McDonald what a WWF was, she said that if the “shoe didn’t fit, don’t wear it”. Is this the answer I should expect from an author who claims God and who has coined a confusing term that seems to paint with a broadbrush? This seems more like something I would hear on the playground at recess while in the 5th grade.
Like Anne said, why are we paying for Titus 2? Why do we flock to the latest and greatest book as if we didn’t have all the Truth we need right in front of us? We are trampling on God’s word and the power to affect change in the individual when we rave about a book changing one’s life when it really says nothing new. We can get all of it on the internet, anyways. Why pay for it?
When the patriarchal movement stops being a money-making endeavor, I just might take it seriously. Right now I am reminded of the money-changers in the temple whenever I stop and think about the whole thing.
March 5, 2008 at 12:39 am
Anne,
Now you are seeing the things that some of us have seen for almost a decade. It is frustrating. And when we continually read the half-truths and obsfucation about the facts and we finally say something (very little, I might add), we are taken to task.
You had better believe if John Stackhouse or Carolyn Custis James or Rick Warren had their family situation and tried to repackage it in the way they do and then tout a ministry that is reforming families, that they would be all over it like white on rice.
As it is, women with little dogs, high heels, marble sinks and fewer than the acceptable number of children are run through the meat-grinder and their motives impugned.
I have made it my policy to be open and honest about my past in an effort to be transparent, I expect those who call themselves leaders of God’s people to be more so. I have nothing to be ashamed of since Christ has forgiven my sins and removed them as far as the East is from the West. Now, I can freely use my past to help others who need comfort, reassurance and encouragement. If my past gets in the way of my own plans, then so be it. But, I truly believe that my past will NEVER get in God’s way for His plan on my life.
March 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
BTW: What do the Southern Patriarchy women call themselves? Southern Grits?
March 5, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Corrie,
I 100% agree with you about being transparent. I think that showing a “perfect” facade is not helpful to ministry AT ALL. We see it not only in these discussions, but in many other evangelists around the country who are caught up in affairs, tax evasion, and various other sinful or criminal activities.
Calling those people names doesn’t help, but extending a hand of grace and forgiveness–along with making them make restitution for their actions–is what the best pastors do.
I know from seeing people close to me that hiding your past is not only wrong, it is incredibly damaging to your ministry. If you want a healthy ministry in any capacity, transparency and openness about who you are and what you’ve done is the ONLY way to go.
I give my mom as an example of openness. She was raped and abused by her high school boyfriend, had a baby at 15 who she kept–my older brother–had an abortion at 19, got married when she was 5 months pregnant with my sister and eventually came to the Lord right after I was born. My parents have never hidden most of those facts. She did hide the abortion for over 20 years, which was devastating to find out about for all of us, but it also gave my mom a lot of freedom to have admitted to it. God restored her, and now she runs the pro-life ministry at our church with integrity and credibility. If she condemned women who were “fast and loose” instead of caring for them–because she’s been there–and someone found out that she’d had an abortion in her teens, I would be hard pressed to find any woman in that situation who wouldn’t find her to be a hypocrite and have no respect for her ministry.
That’s what we’re talking about here. Genuineness, honesty and grace are a lot more important than a presentable package. Sadly, I think it is becoming very rare to find such things in a public ministry.
March 5, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Of course, Abby, if the Reconstructionists had their way, neither you nor your sister would ever have been born. Gary North, et al, advise that the women who have abortions should be publicly executed, along with the doctors who perform the abortions and anyone who may have advised the women to seek an abortion.
I guess that Mr. North doesn’t realize that his attitude is a form of proactive abortion or sterilization, since it “kills” any future babies the woman may have.
March 5, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Abby,
What an awesome testimony of God’s grace in your mother’s, father’s and family’s lives!
And God used the bad to do good for His kingdom. Your mother probably uses her story to encourage other women and families going through various situations.
Cynthia Gee,
That is a very good point about executing women who have had abortions. Wow! I just can’t imagine how many of God’s elect Mr. North would have executed along with all of their future children had his agenda ever come to fruition.
March 5, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Right.
Jesus said that even God the Father judges no one:
Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Jesus says that a day will come when He Himself will return to judge the living and the dead:
Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
But until then, He says of Himself that Mat 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory;
He also says that
Jhn 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
He tells US:
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
And the writer of Hebrews says:
Hbr 10:30 For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Paul writes that we are to judge the deeds of those within the Church, and then only so far as to avoid keeping company with them:
1Cr 5:9 ¶ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Cr 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous…(etc)… for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous,…(etc)…. with such an one no not to eat.
But Paul says that it is the LORD’S job to judge those outside the Church,and other scritures show us that the Lord will do this in His own good time:
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
So, presuming that women who have abortions are generally unsaved, and therefore outside the Church, where does Gary North get the idea that the Church should run the government and so have the authority to put judge sinners and put them to death?
Secular governments will have the authority to “wield the sword”, of course, until Jesus comes and takes the reins, but insofar as the Church itself is concerned, the judgment and punishment of sin is the job of the secular government for now, and the job of Christ when He returns…..
….unless, of course, North’s theonomic government presumes to usurp that title for itself.
March 5, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Sadly, I think the biggest problem with the judgmental people in the church is that they put everyone either under the OT Law, or under the expectations of Christians. But that’s not how it’s supposed to be! I know many unsaved people, and while I don’t like what they do, I don’t have much room to tell them to do it “my way” (which is hopefully being obedient to God) because they are not under grace. When they come under grace, the expectations are a little different, but when we judge the world by the standards of the church, we are setting them UP for failure. And that’s not very gracious.
March 5, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Sadly, I think the biggest problem with the judgmental people in the church is that they put everyone either under the OT Law, or under the expectations of Christians. But that’s not how it’s supposed to be! I know many unsaved people, and while I don’t like what they do, I don’t have much room to tell them to do it “my way” (which is hopefully being obedient to God) because they are not under grace. When they come under grace, the expectations are a little different, but when we judge the world by the standards of the church, we are setting them UP for failure. And that’s not very gracious.
March 5, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Abby, I think that you have the right idea, but for whatever reason, Gary North and Co. just don’t “get it” yet.
He and the other reconstructionist theonomists just didn’t listen very well back in Sunday School, I guess.
March 5, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Abby, you nailed it. There are those who expect everyone to abide by the morality of Christianity and/or OT Law. (Although, they definitely pick and choose what to enforce from the OT.) We cannot expect a lost world to follow a biblical standard because it just doesn’t make sense to them. What’s more, people shy away from anything that automatically condemns them. If the lost can’t see any grace from Christians, then they certainly won’t be drawn to Jesus.
I fear that this attitude of condemnation for anyone who doesn’t abide by a certain standard is further isolating certain Christians from the very people they’re supposed to reach. And they conveniently avoid reaching out by claiming that they are protecting themselves and their families from the things of the world. While we are not supposed to be OF the world, that doesn’t mean we are to avoid our fellow humans who are IN the world.
Somehow, some have decided that they will influence the lost world around them by simply being shining examples of virtue, but only from a distance. They honestly seem to believe that they are impacting the lost by living their isolationist lives in which they are too fearful of their fellow humans to interact on a personal level. Somehow, they’ve managed to convince themselves that the lost are watching them and wishing they could be like them.
March 5, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I won’t give details but I was confronted today with the fact that there are some scary people within this movement. Scary in their beliefs and their thoughts about child development. Oh, wait. They don’t believe in psychology, right? I guess that explains it…
Sad…
March 5, 2008 at 11:06 pm
“We could say that the Revolutionary War was an evil and rebellious movement motivated by bitter people who didn’t understand the beauty of submission to proper authority.”
Corrie, you’ve made an excellent point again, even if you do have a brain like “Patrick Star(fish)”
March 5, 2008 at 11:23 pm
“…there are some scary people within this movement. Scary in their beliefs and their thoughts about child development. Oh, wait. They don’t believe in psychology, right? I guess that explains it…
Sad…”
Johanna…
EXACTLY.
I know there are some real fruit-cakes masquerading as psychologists, but it really rubs me the wrong way when Christian people dismiss psychology as lacking any real validity; especially those who make sweeping, demoralizing statements tacking the label of “pop-psychology” on anything that might shed an unflattering light on their “biblical model”. Let’s have “as many children as God will give us”, “use the only model of education that God has given us”, “the only hierarchy that God has given us”, but lets completely ignore the natural laws of inter-personal relationships that God has put in place.
March 5, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I just got my newsletter from the Pearls–No Greater Joy.
The first article is talking about raising children. I threw it in the trash so I can’t quote exactly, but the article is talking about children being raised in Christian homes and emulating Christian marriages.
At one point Shalom (Pearl) Brand says something to the effect of:
“I used to pray every day that Jesus would return before my children became teenagers because I was FEAFUL I’d lose them to the world.”
Just a few months ago I would have nodded my head when I was in that camp. But now I see how everything in these fundie-extreme movements revolves around FEAR.
Fear of failure.
Fear of ungodly children.
Fear of children who misbehave or act badly.
Fear of education (knowing TOO much.
Fear of children questioning their faith.
Fear of children leaving the parent’s belief system behind.
Fear of the world.
I could go on, but we get the point.
The prairie muffin manifesto is more of a fear driven thing than a “praise” of what a prairie muffin is. It is more of an “is not” list (or an I don’t want to be list) than it is something that is REAL and CONCRETE and that is actually attainable.
March 6, 2008 at 12:54 am
Johanna,
I have had some of those scary encounters of the patriarchal kind in the past few months. I can’t share the details, either, but the more I know, the more alarm bells DONG in my head. I have seen the fruit of some of these teachings in real lives and it is deeply disturbing.
Kathleen,
Why, thank you! When the fog clears, you never know what you might get.
Cynthia Gee,
Excellent post on Jesus and judging. I just studied John 5 this week for an in depth Bible study I am taking and I will tell you that there is MEAT in that chapter.
Another thing I am struck with while studying the gospels is that Jesus IS God. I am not sure why this nouveau doctrine on the eternal subordination of the Son has picked up so much steam but what I do see is that it came about in order to shore up patriarchal doctrine on the permanent subordination of women. The patriarchalists even teach that heaven will be patriarchal, where only the elect males will be able to rule and reign in the highest positions of heaven and you won’t see any women there.
I think this doctrine is dangerous. It makes Jesus less than fully God, imho. The Godhead has PERFECT unity and they CANNOT have a will different than the others in the Godhead. John 5 tells us that Jesus canNOT doing anything apart from His father. The Pharisees, in the great turning point in His ministry on earth, now wanted to kill Jesus because He told them that God is His Father, thus, in the pharisee’s mind making Himself equal to God.
One cannot be fully equally but eternally subordinate. Sure, they can have different roles within the Godhead but that does not mean that their is some heirarchal chain among the members of the Godhead since they are all fully God. I have always believed that Jesus is fully God, equal to Him and subordinated Himself when He took the form of man but that was temporary not permanent.
I get a little bit of a kick out of the patriarchalists who try very hard to liken men to God and as having the same role as God (Husband, like God, sends, commands, directs, while the wife obeys like Christ). Now only if they had scripture to back that up.
March 6, 2008 at 3:54 am
“The patriarchalists even teach that heaven will be patriarchal, where only the elect males will be able to rule and reign in the highest positions of heaven and you won’t see any women there.”
Well, since everybody is supposed to be happy in Heaven, maybe the women and all of the normal men will be over in some other part of the Kingdom, LOL!
March 7, 2008 at 11:28 am
11) Prairie Muffins own aprons and they know how to use them.
March 7, 2008 at 11:29 am
12) Prairie Muffins prefer others above themselves, seeking to serve God by serving others, especially members of their own household.
March 7, 2008 at 11:31 am
I just got caught up on this thread…so many good points. Wish I could comment but I am barely out of bed. Chills, fever, sore throat, (wondering if it is strep) and stuff in my chest…..and just watched a documentary on the influenza epidemic of 1918 so my wheels are turning…..carry on.
March 7, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I’m sorry you’re sick, Karen! Hope you’re better soon!
March 7, 2008 at 1:49 pm
12) Prairie Muffins prefer others above themselves, seeking to serve God by serving others, especially members of their own household.
I think that this is a valid point. I definitely think it’s Biblical, but I don’t know about the “especially members of their own household” being a qualifier. I think we are to use our gifts to serve everyone, and always put others above ourselves.
But using preferential treatment toward specifically your own family members borders on servitude. Last I checked wives and daughters were not the servants of the entire family, rather the attitude should extend to husbands and boys as well.
I recently read a study about families in Egypt, and in a majority of families–Christian and Muslim, the boys were preferred. The daughters were even taught to obey their YOUNGER brothers if they were told to do something or misbehaved. I realize that is extreme, but can’t help thinking that this is the attitude of the patriarchal groups. I find it really frustrating that they focus so much on women being servants and submissive, but don’t focus much on how the men are to act.
March 7, 2008 at 2:06 pm
The part about serving others is absolutely Biblical. What stands out at me with the few PM-ish blogs I read though, is that I never see these women doing anything outside the home. The few (VERY few) times I have read of them serving outside the home or bringing people into the home to serve them, I have been surprised. It’s just so seldom. It’s like your family is supposed to fulfill all of your needs. What about friends? Neighbors? Fellow moms from church?
Re: wives/women as servants. This reminded me of a part that I read in Passionate Housewives. Jeannie was telling about some young women from church (?) that came over to clean her bathroom after she gave birth. Her husband had asked them to. Now, that was very kind of those girls to do and I commend them for their servants’ hearts. But in the back of my mind, knowing my own husband, I couldn’t help but think…the guy was incapable of scrubbing his own toilet? Maybe it was wrong of me to think but I think that would’ve been the perfect time to show your wife how much you love her. So I wonder…was he maybe too busy with the other kids…or did he consider cleaning a bathroom “women’s work” and call up the young ladies?
March 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Interesting point, Johanna. That’s why I have a general suspicion every time I hear men touting the “servant leader” principle. Too often, its apparent meaning is “leading the servant,” not being a servant.
Awful, evil egalitarians like I, believe that the biblical admonition to prefer others to ourselves and serve one another applies just as much to men as it does to women. A real man’s manhood isn’t threatened by doing the work of a servant and putting a woman before himself. Even if it is his wife.
FTR, I suspect that plenty of other Christians besides just those who are egalitarian, also agree that men should embrace Christ’s example of being a true servant. I wish I saw true servanthood being advocated among the “Prairie Dawgs.”
March 7, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Serving others is biblical, as others have pointed out. It’s that clause that says “especially members of their own household” that has me shaking my head a bit. That just seems to point back to what I stated earlier in that they never seem to have friends, but only associate with their own families. And you can’t exactly serve others outside of your family when you’re terrified of the outside world.
That clause just further seems to solidify their isolationist attitude. The family is on a pedestal.
Now, I certainly do believe that my own family should be #1 in my priority list of people, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have others as #2, #3, etc. I just wonder if that little clause is used as an excuse to avoid mixing with others outside of their sect.
March 7, 2008 at 11:04 pm
“I couldn’t help but think…the guy was incapable of scrubbing his own toilet? Maybe it was wrong of me to think but I think that would’ve been the perfect time to show your wife how much you love her. So I wonder…was he maybe too busy with the other kids…or did he consider cleaning a bathroom “women’s work” and call up the young ladies?”
Johanna,
Without context what else are we supposed to think? I don’t think it is wrong of you to wonder this and it is a very fair question. Add to this that Jennie had just gotten done telling us that we should not expect men not to do/”help” with the woman’s job/role? And how busy can he be with the other children that he couldn’t even clean up after himself (I am assuming he also uses the toilet)? It doesn’t take that long to wipe down a bathroom and clean a toilet. And it was only a temporary thing until his wife was up and running again and able to assume her responsibilities as the one who cleans the bathrooms. I read that same section and had the same questions.
Then she goes on to tell us that women often need to start a home business in order to supplement their husband’s income and that this is part of our job as homemakers.
Interesting double standard at work. Women are not to bother men with their “women’s work” but women are expected to do not only all of the household chores, childrearing and the like but also do the “man’s work” by supplementing the household income.
I say all this as the person who does 100% of the cleaning, cooking and housekeeping. That is how it works out in our home. But, when I am sick, which is rare, or I have a baby, my husband would never think of bothering someone else’s daughters to clean our toilets. He doesn’t view that as women’s work or “my job”.
This section of the book just didn’t look good for the patriarchalist’s claims that husbands are to be SERVANTS to their wives. I think it is more like, as someone else has stated, that they are leaders OF the servants. The whole servant-leader claim is a bit overstated in my opinion.
March 7, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Has anyone read “Love and Respect” by Emerson Eggerich and/or have you taken his DVD course?
Thoughts? What do you think about the “give to get” philosophy?
This is a wildly popular marriage book in evangelical circles and it bothers me that we so readily check our brains at the door and throw all critical judgment out the window.
Basically, he talks about the “crazy cycle” and how when a man doesn’t feel respected he doesn’t love his wife and when a woman doesn’t feel loved she doesn’t respect her husband. Then he liberally throws in some anecdotal stories about how this really works. But, then he offers a caveat that it always doesn’t work and there are times when a spouse can love/respect the other (selfish) spouse and it doesn’t provoke them to love/respect back.
I also have a problem with the thought that men NEED respect and women NEED love as if a woman doesn’t need respect and a man doesn’t need love.
I don’t know about you but, as a woman, if a man doesn’t respect me, I am not going to feel loved at all. I don’t see how we can separate the two? I would say that I need both love and respect. In fact, forget the flowers and the chocolates and respect me as a human being made in the image of God.
This whole slicing and dicing seems to be missing the whole purpose of Ephesians 5 which is unity.
Also, I have a real problem with the broad-brush stereotyping of women in that curriculum and of men, for that matter. He also openly mimics/mocks women (when he imitates them he talks in a shrewish, nagging voice) in the DVD series. I suppose it is to be funny but I can’t imagine how men would receive his wife getting up their scratching herself and acting like a mouth-breather who drags their knuckles on the ground.
It seems kind of ironic to me especially when the emphasis is on respect. Maybe that is because women don’t “NEED” respect? Although the Bible does tell men to HONOR their wives. I know that the two words are different in the Greek but respect and honor are closely related.
So much for the “one another” verses.
March 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Also, does anyone know if Eggerich teaches that Adam ate the fruit given to him by Eve out of his deep love for his wife and his nobility towards her in that he didn’t want her to die alone?
I know MacArthur teaches something like this but I was told by someone that Eggerich teaches this, too?
I find it funny because it makes no sense. What one of us would buy this from our children? “But, Mom, I just had to sin because I love my friend so much and I didn’t want them to be all alone in their sin.”
March 8, 2008 at 12:32 am
Wow…one week on vacation and the thread goes light-speed. Catching up now! (I enjoyed the break though…it was wonderful. The first since a-way back since Ben was wee little- 5 years? wow.)
Karen, so sorry you are feeling under the weather. I am sure that documentary didn’t help .
Fascinating stuff though.
I had a few books with me to absorb, and I couldn’t help but connect a few of the thoughts with what we’ve been discussing here. Once I get them unpacked and find my notes….I also attended a ladies conference (egads!oh my!me-ology!
) that immediately made me think about the whole works v. faith dichotomy that we’ve been wrestling with- she was expositing Rom.1-4 in a new way (at least to me) that had light bulbs going off in my head left and right.
March 8, 2008 at 3:03 am
“But, Mom, I just had to sin because I love my friend so much and I didn’t want them to be all alone in their sin.”
Hmmph… sort of like one drunk not wanting to let his friend get loaded all alone, LOL!
March 8, 2008 at 3:26 am
“I couldn’t help but think…the guy was incapable of scrubbing his own toilet? Maybe it was wrong of me to think but I think that would’ve been the perfect time to show your wife how much you love her. So I wonder…was he maybe too busy with the other kids…or did he consider cleaning a bathroom “women’s work” and call up the young ladies?”
Four years ago my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She and my father had been married 50 years and were both in their seventies. They had had a pretty traditional marriage (although my Dad liked to cook every once in a while). Once my mother got sick, he made a point of learning how to do the things she had always done. Certainly, they had wonderful friends and neighbors who helped and I went over as much as I could, but it was important to my Dad that he take over as my mom’s primary caregiver. Every load of laundry, vacuumed floor and dishwasher full of clean dishes was a labor of love for him.
It also had a practical benefit. When Mom died eight months later, Dad had become pretty adept at a lot of the household chores, doing his laundry, and cooking. He’s a pretty independent guy and I can’t imagine him calling on neighbors to do these things for him.
I wonder how some of these patriarchs would handle a crisis like the ones my parents faced?
March 8, 2008 at 3:54 am
I wonder how some of these patriarchs would handle a crisis like the ones my parents faced?
Their daughters would step in as the “helpmeet.” An older mom dies, and grown daughters with their own families then do a juggling act between two households because their father can’t even make himself a sandwich. I’ve seen it happen more than once.
March 8, 2008 at 5:24 am
“Has anyone read “Love and Respect” by Emerson Eggerich and/or have you taken his DVD course?”
My husband and I went to an all-day video conference of “Love and Respect” hosted by our church. Our church leadership really put the influence on all the married couples to attend, as a whole church.
I, too, struggled with the whole boxed idea that women need just this (love) and men need just that (respect).
March 8, 2008 at 5:29 am
Karen,
Get better soon! Sending prayers for your comfort.
March 8, 2008 at 5:50 am
Corrie, (in 386)
Yes! Yes! My English teacher talks like this all the time (he has that book, Love and Respect), as if women just want lovey feelings and relationships and security and men just want to make their mark on things and be tough and be honored and it Drives Me Wild!!!! It so can’t be the whole truth, can it?
A whole new question … I’ve noticed that this site and other connected ones have become a kind of support group of sorts (in addition to their other roles)for women who have been scarred or threatened by patriocentric thinking. (That includes me, and I don’t know if I’d have made it after first looking at So Much More without this site.) But the group just seems to be women that have come out of this. I am wondering, are there any resources for men who have been scarred by these types of thinking? Obviously women are more vulnerable, but it seems that these ideas ya’ll refute and take issue with would pose danger to men too in at least some ways. (Whether they would be different ways, I don’t know.)
March 8, 2008 at 5:51 am
Oh, that last question was to all and/or any of you, btw.
March 8, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“Their daughters would step in as the “helpmeet.” An older mom dies, and grown daughters with their own families then do a juggling act between two households because their father can’t even make himself a sandwich. I’ve seen it happen more than once.”
On the other side, the husband dies and the wife does not even know where he keeps the insurance policies. His lawyer has to tell her.
My mom and dad made sure us kids, both male and female, knew how to do it all. My brothers washed clothes, cooked, set the table, cleaned, etc., and I mowed lawns, painted the house, etc. I can assure you, their wives really appreciate that my parents did that.
None of this means we did not make deals. My brother would pay me to do his wash sometimes or we would make trades. The point is, the ‘chores’ were not gender related. Both brothers turned out ok…both are successful businessmen and quite manly
)
March 8, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Beatrice,
I don’t know of any resources, but I do agree that if they are out there, they would be really helpful. I know there are men who have been burned by this logic, and it seems like sometimes there are men whose wives fell into the belief even though they didn’t feel that way themselves, and they need some guidance as well.
Men who have grown to accept that theology probably–I’m just guessing here–have a harder time changing than women. I guess I see it that way because men have a lot more control in patriarchy and to learn that they don’t actually deserve to have that control might be really hard for them.
On the other hand, I’ve seen a transformation in our senior pastor from 1987 to today in which he changed from a complementarian (but not entirely patriarchal) to an egalitarian, and now commits himself to that, not only in the marriage setting, but in church practices as well. In fact, our church has sent out a couple of female pastors to plant churches, and there is one stay-at-home-mom whose husband is a pastor, and she preaches on Sunday morning more often than her husband! (only a few times a year, but still!)
I think it takes a lot for anyone to step out and say that they have been wrong about such a deeply held belief, in our association of churches, there has been a bit of a rift in this area as well, as the overall leadership holds egalitarian beliefs, but some individual churches are still in the patriarch camp. The woman I mentioned above actually preached at a pastors conference held at our church and many men got up and LEFT–they didn’t believe they could learn anything from a woman. Huh.
Lin/Elizabeth–I’ve often wondered the same thing. My mom was very ill when I was a child and teenager, and though we were all capable of doing things around the house, my dad was the one who took care of most everything. We did do the laundry and get it put in the right places, but he did the dishes every night, made sure the clothes were washed (just in case!) and he dutifully packed our lunches EVERY DAY for school. I can count on one hand the number of times I packed my own school lunch, and that was only when he had set everything out but hadn’t put it in a bag for us.
Both of my parents are quite capable of any household chore, and the only thing my mom won’t do is anything carpentry related–not that she couldn’t, she just won’t, because it’s his area of expertise. Though, I haven’t seen my dad do a lot of gardening, except when they moved last summer in the middle of July. My point is, men should know how to do the basic chores. My husband isn’t great at them, but he’s capable. I do most of the work around the house, but he would never dream of asking anyone else to do it for me if I was out of commission–my mom would come over before he asked, anyway, but even if she didn’t, he could do it. But, he also lived in the dorm for 6 years and had to learn how to do it all for himself anyway. I think it still surprises his mom that he’s able to cook, because she does do everything around the house–including cleaning the kids’ bedroom. (sometimes she even gets a maid to help! *Gasp!* What would the patriarchs think??)
My parents made it a point to make us all pitch in with every chore. We all knew how to do the dishes or laundry or whatever else. The only thing I never learned how to do was the lawn mower–which I did end up doing for the first time last summer and I will never do again! The man I married would have had to know how to do some things for himself, because I was willing to do the chores, but not spend my entire life serving him. I thank God he didn’t inherit his dad’s traits in that area.
March 8, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I’ve said this before, but what happens to these fellows who won’t do “women’s work” should they join the military? I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall in that situation. (And, just for fun, picture either of the Bayly Bros. in boot camp, with a female Training Instructor….)
March 8, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Cynthia, there is a reason they chose the ‘church’. They are insulated from the real world to the point they can rail against it (and other churches) without too much consequence of losing their income or position.
March 8, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Karen,
I hope you are feeling better? This flu stuff takes a while to get out of the system.
I picked up the “Pink Think” book at my library and it is just making me laugh! I need to quote some things from that book.
Talk about acting like a little girl? Ha! One of the female training books from the 50’s have several exercises for a woman to do so that she can use her little-girl techniques on her angry man.
On another note, I went to see “The Other Boleyn Girl” with a friend last night and it was very good. It was a lot of food for thought. I ended up thinking that if I lived back then I would want to be a peasant. I need to do some research because I don’t know how much was fact or fiction but we can thank God we no longer live in an era where women are traded like cattle in order that their families may gain power, prestige and money.
March 8, 2008 at 11:44 pm
“(And, just for fun, picture either of the Bayly Bros. in boot camp, with a female Training Instructor….)”
CJ, after my son came back from Basic Training he told me the female training instructors (TI’s) were tougher than some of the male TI’s. They could really be tough on the trainees. My son jokingly told a his friends I’d make a good TI
I told him thank you(?) He’s thanked me for being tough on him during his teen years, though he didn’t appreciate it then.
I guess what sort of ruffles my feathers is when these young VF-type guys and homeschool celebretory-types engage in military-esque speech, when they don’t have the foggiest idea what kind of environment the military, especially boot camp, is like. They don’t join the military because they’re very busy “setting the standard” for the rest of us un-enlightened homeschoolers, all the while preaching with military analogies … it’s just a little thing I’ve noticed.
March 8, 2008 at 11:47 pm
whoops! That was my comment (#401). I was still logged in to wordpress.
March 8, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Corrie, that era is one of my specialties. I haven’t seen that movie yet, but plan to maybe Friday or Saturday of next week. I do know that the moment Anne Boleyn caught Henry VIII’s notice and determined not to be his mistress, she effectively lost what little freedom she had. She couldn’t have predicted that he would break with Rome in order to marry her, nor that she would not be able to bear a son in order to secure her place, but Mary Boleyn took the far safer route by agreeing to be Henry’s mistress. And IMO, Thomas Boleyn (Anne and Mary’s father) was a despicable schemer who orchestrated a lot of the whole tragic situation.
Another sick part of the whole Tudor era was how young the noble girls were sold off. Unmarried noblewomen were considered little more than breeding stock, sold for the purposes of cementing alliances and securing lucrative royal favor. Occasionally, children were betrothed at two or three years old. (An example later in Elizabethan history is the young Baron of Denbigh–the Earl of Leicester’s son by his second wife–and Lady Arabella Stuart, who had a claim to the throne. Denbigh was just two or so, and Arabella was not yet five. The point was to advance Leicester’s position as Denbigh’s father by allying him with a future royal wife.)
I personally wouldn’t have wanted to be either noble or peasant in that era. Life was cheap.
March 9, 2008 at 12:33 am
Kathleen, I have very little patience for the VF-types, especially those who are pastors, who show blatant disrespect for women in uniform, yet never served a day themselves. I am a veteran, and I think I’ve earned the right to tell those blowhards that they’re both ignorant and arrogant…and probably wimps, to boot! How dare they make their stupid claims that women don’t have what it takes to serve. How would they know WHAT it takes to serve? Cowards.
March 9, 2008 at 5:31 am
“They don’t join the military because they’re very busy “setting the standard” for the rest of us un-enlightened homeschoolers, all the while preaching with military analogies”
“How dare they make their stupid claims that women don’t have what it takes to serve. How would they know WHAT it takes to serve? Cowards.”
Cowards…. wannabees… posers…
It’s all very similar! They talk tough with their military analogies, and they aren’t afraid to tell women what to do, yet how many of them actually SERVE alongside real men?
Kind of reminds me of a nursery rhyme:
Georgie Porgie pudding and pie,
Kissed the girls and made them cry
When the boys came out to play,
Georgie Porgie ran away.
March 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I find it interesting to contrast patriarchs’ beliefs about women serving in the military, with their teachings on domestic violence. They believe that women should be “protected” from military service and are too weak to be effective soldiers, but also, ala this article from the Bayly Brothers (http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/09/if-ye-continue-.html) that women commit a significant portion of spousal battery, and are just as violent in this arena as men. How can women both be too weak to serve in the military, and regularly batter their husbands? If the natural strength difference between men and women is so vast, and women are so naturally physically vulnerable, then how come these women’s husbands can’t easily deflect their attacks before it becomes domestic violence? This doesn’t make any sense.
March 9, 2008 at 8:23 pm
You know. . . I WANT the military to be populated by men. I WANT women to not “need” to be in the military, “need” on a personal or societal level.
And yet. . . I’ve known many amazing women who have made great sacrifices for our country and have made a huge difference by serving in the military. I appreciate what they have done.
I will encourage my sons to serve in the military, and if I had daughters I’d discourage it. Yet, I want Psalmist and others whose mothers, daughters, wives, or sisters serve to know–you ARE appreciated.
March 9, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Psalmist,
When you see that movie, please let me know if the portrayal of Anne is historically accurate.
“I do know that the moment Anne Boleyn caught Henry VIII’s notice and determined not to be his mistress, she effectively lost what little freedom she had. She couldn’t have predicted that he would break with Rome in order to marry her, nor that she would not be able to bear a son in order to secure her place,”
Was she behind the whole push for him to get a divorce and break with Rome in order that he could marry her?
“but Mary Boleyn took the far safer route by agreeing to be Henry’s mistress. And IMO, Thomas Boleyn (Anne and Mary’s father) was a despicable schemer who orchestrated a lot of the whole tragic situation.”
Did Mary have a son with Henry? The movie showed that Mary had just married another man and that her father and uncle schemed to have the young couple sent to court and Mary and her husband knew that she would become Henry’s mistress.
Also, George Boleyn lost his life because of Thomas’ scheming?
“Another sick part of the whole Tudor era was how young the noble girls were sold off. Unmarried noblewomen were considered little more than breeding stock, sold for the purposes of cementing alliances and securing lucrative royal favor. ”
This really came out in that movie. I have to wonder why we rail against feminists as the cause of all sorts of evil when, under heirarchal/patriarchal regimes, people were murdered for the most inane reasons and women were treated like cattle? Why do the patriarchalists ignore so much of history? Surely they see that their argument against feminists comes back to bite them in their rearend?
“I personally wouldn’t have wanted to be either noble or peasant in that era. Life was cheap.”
Very true.
March 9, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Women still cannot serve in infantry type positions in the military nor should they. However with advances in weaponry they are able to be gunners or fighter pilots and I think they should if they have the capability. Women like these are not the norm though just like women who are FBI agents ,troopers etc. I wonder what all the VF types will do if Hilary actually wins the presidency . It should be interesting.
March 10, 2008 at 2:42 am
I just had an aha!!! moment.
I finally figured out what is really bothering me about the PM manifesto…
Follow me for a second:
Husband goes to work every day.
Husband has very good day. Makes lots of money. (Doesn’t matter if it’s corporate or whether he owns it- actually it’s even better if it’s his own business).
Husband has a very bad day. Loses three months of work and untold amounts of money for company.
But all in all, there is a balance of good days and bad.
Because husband made honest mistake at work, he is a sinner, condemned to hell.
Now, you’re probably going, um, no he’s not, just because he made an honest error does not mean he’s a “sinner”. (Okay, so I guess you could say he wasn’t diligent enough or something…)
Now read the same thought flow again, this way:
Woman is ‘keeper at home’.
Woman has good day. She gets all the chores done, makes the bed, gets a modest outfit sewn for eldest daughter, meal plans, stays within the gates (you know, the Prov. 31 gal again).
Woman has bad day. Baby and middle child are sick with the flu. The pipe burst in the basement. The bread didn’t get made. Woman was seen with hair in disarray and probably said a short word or two.
But all in all, there is a balance of good days and bad.
Woman is a “sinner”"white washed feminist” etc.etc.etc.
Ahem.
Are you seeing what I am seeing?
Putting all the theological arguments/differences aside- if being a ‘keeper at home’ is in fact our “job” why is the first thought flow so not true (most of us would find the thought ludicrous) BUT YET the second thought flow passed off as true when it is actually false, just like the first one?
Hello, invalid argument. Cognitive dissonance, yet again.
Nevermind the whole lack of mercy, grace, and a bunch of other things…if this is the way a “good, righteous life” is viewed in Prairie-Muffin, Vision Forum Land…again, where is God? It’s all on works based on what he or she got done that day! ACK.
March 10, 2008 at 3:30 am
Thanks for the very kind words about military service, TulipGirl. That means a lot to me.
Corrie asked: “Was [Anne Boleyn] behind the whole push for him to get a divorce and break with Rome in order that he could marry her?”
It’s difficult to say. What Anne did was make it clear that she would only share Henry VIII’s bed as his wife, that she would not be his mistress. No other woman had ever turned him down before, and he became enfatuated with her. He’s the one who tried every possible (and ridiculous) argument to get a divorce from Katherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne. Just how much Anne pushed for that, rather than merely refused to commit adultery, is not really clear from contemporary sources.
Corrie: “Did Mary have a son with Henry? The movie showed that Mary had just married another man and that her father and uncle schemed to have the young couple sent to court and Mary and her husband knew that she would become Henry’s mistress.”
Here, the movie is somewhat accurate. Mary had gone to France with her sister Anne, where both were ladies-in-waiting to Queen Claude. There were substantial rumors that Mary was promiscuous there, possibly with King Francois, who referred to her later as a “great whore.” When she returned to England in disgrace, she was married to Sir William Carey, a courtier to King Henry. There was certainly a brief affair with the king after her marriage, but he tired of her quickly. Carey almost certainly knew of the affair, but the king was not a man to cross even over adultery with his wife. Mary gave birth to a son, Henry Carey, who was never acknowledged as Henry’s son, but was widely believed to have been fathered by the king. She also gave birth to a daughter, Catherine, also surnamed Carey. Sir William Carey died after 8 years of marriage. Mary married a commoner, William Stafford, after Carey’s death and lived quietly in the country with him, bearing another son and daughter.
Corrie: “Also, George Boleyn lost his life because of Thomas’ scheming?”
Yes, indirectly. Thomas Boleyn pushed all three of his children (Anne, George, and Mary) into prominence in the French and English courts. He probably only expected grand and glorious things to come of his ambitions. However, when Henry had finally married Anne and then tired of her, and she had failed to produce the male heir that Henry had made it clear that he needed, Henry and his advisors needed an excuse to get rid of Anne. (Catherine of Aragon had died by this point, so there was no inconvenient former wife to impede his ambition to marry again.) Since infidelity was considered treason in a queen, Henry decided to pursue his own paranoid suspicions that Anne had been unfaithful to him (after all, he was unfaithful to her, so it wasn’t difficult to suspect his wife of retaliatory adultery). This was a difficulty, though, because there was no evidence of infidelity on Anne’s part. Eventually, however, Anne’s devoted young musician, Mark Smeaton, was tortured in order to extract a confession from him that both he and Anne’s brother George had committed adultery with her, though it is very doubtful there was any truth to either charge. So it was Thomas Boleyn’s ambition that started the whole bizarre Boleyn/Henry saga, but the tragic deaths of Anne and George were certainly beyond their father’s ability to prevent once Henry had determined to get rid of Anne in order to marry Jane Seymour.
I’ll let you know what I think about the movie’s accuracy/lack thereof once I’ve seen it.
March 10, 2008 at 3:42 am
“I just had an aha!!! moment.
I finally figured out what is really bothering me about the PM manifesto…”
And you know what? None of it means a thing in terms of the Kingdom of God. The true question is through each day (good or bad) are we walking in faith.
(Your analogy reminded me of 1 John and the ‘walking in the light’ test to examine ourselves if we are in the faith. You could follow me around with a camera and ‘catch’ me in a sin and prove to the world I am a sinner. But if you followed me around with a video camera for several weeks would you see that overall, I am walking in the light?)
BTW: Do these women believe they are more saved if they make homemade bread than if you buy store bought bread? Really seems rather silly when you view it from that stance.
March 10, 2008 at 4:23 am
Psalmist,
Thank you for the history lesson! I didn’t know some of that info on Mary Carey. I have read Phillipa Gregory’s The Other Bolelyn Girl and I saw the movie last week. I enjoyed the movie but the book is better. I love anything that has to do with the Tudor’s. I have tried to find some additional books to read on Mary Carey. Any suggestions?
March 10, 2008 at 4:28 am
“However with advances in weaponry they are able to be gunners or fighter pilots and I think they should if they have the capability. Women like these are not the norm though just like women who are FBI agents ,troopers etc.”
Actually, there are LOTS of women who are State Troopers, and plenty of women working for the FBI as well. Women are just about as normative as are men in these areas.
March 10, 2008 at 5:40 am
Hi, Kyla.
I’ll give you two titles that may help a little. Mary Boleyn really is a fairly minor historical figure, and I don’t know of any works, other than _The Other Boleyn Girl_, that are devoted primarily to her. That title belongs decidedly in the “historical fiction” genre, though heavier on the history than many books of that type.
These two also are not heavy-weight scholarly works, but are more definitive than _The Other Boleyn Girl_; Mary is mentioned significantly in both:
_The Wives of Henry VIII_, By Antonia Fraser, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1992.
_The Six Wives of Henry VIII_, By Alison Weir, Grove Weidenfeld, New York, 1991.
March 10, 2008 at 11:59 am
Also by Philippa Gregory, I recommend The Boleyn Inheritance. Historical fiction again, but Gregory does a good job building a story on little known facts. Again in this novel, it really comes to light how women were used as pawns in power games. In this book, the story is told in alternating chapters by Jane Boleyn (George Boleyn’s wife), Anne of Cleves (Henry VIII’s 4th wife), and Katherine Howard, Henry’s 5th wife.
For another good read of historical fiction, read Alison Weir’s Innocent Traitor – again, about an innocent woman, Lady Jane Grey, used by men to advance their own ambitions. Weir was known first for her work as a Tudor historian, so her novel is probably more historically accurate than Gregory’s works.
March 10, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I concur about _Innocent Traitor_. Excellent read. It was haunting.
March 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Lin, you may have a thing going with the homemade bread comment. Many of the people associated with Phillips are very much associated with Bill Gothard, and he made a whole spiritual thing about whole grain bread — how very much more biblical it was to eat whole grains. Not just “more healthy,” mind you, but “more spiritual.”
While I think that everything is interconnected in this life, his claims about the evils of white bread are really over the top, and he twists Scripture along the way to make his claims about evil men and their “quest for white bread.”
March 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I just now read through Carmon’s manifesto. I was going to comment here about it, but what I wanted to say got too lengthy for a comment. In a nutshell, I was stunned to read some of her manifesto, about how tolerant and “forgiving” they are of “differences,” after remembering how she and fellow muffins ripped away at Ryan Dobson — not for laziness, drunkenness, adultery, etc., but for another reason which is not listed as a sin in the Bible. And that reason was, with Ryan fully covered, mind you, so it wasn’t about nakedness, but his clothing choices.
Here is the link with the quotes:
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2008/03/carmon-on-ryan-dobson-and-prairie.html
March 10, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Thanks for the link. Um, wow. WOW. Talk about judgemental and self-righteous. Calling the guy out b/c he had a Rolling Stone magazine on his coffee table? Calling him out because of the type of table it was? Seriously?!? Guess where I was on 2/28? I was at a Bon Jovi concert. GASP! What circle of Hell does that have me land on?
March 10, 2008 at 4:05 pm
What circle of Hell does that have me land on?
The party ring.
March 10, 2008 at 4:25 pm
LOL! True. And I hope that didn’t come across as arrogant in my post. My point was just that the whole blog post began with “I hate to judge a book by its cover” and then there are 80-something (?) comments doing just that. And digging up things about a previous marriage? How does anyone but the two of them know how it ended? She could’ve just up and disappeared. It’s not anyone’s business but theirs.
Side-question: Where does all of the anti-tattoo talk come from? What verses are used to support that? Is it the Mark of the Beast discussed in Revelation? I knew deacons in my church growing up who had tattoos. It didn’t inhibit their love for Jesus. (One of them had a heart attack and died in front of his SS class…the last words from his mouth, before he fell to the floor, were “I love Jesus!” Can you imagine going like that?)
March 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm
When I go to that link on Carmon’s blog, I notice the circle with the slash mark through the word “gossip.” That, among most of those comments, just floors me.
But like the Botkin sisters on comparing the attitudes of unmarried women who don’t live at home to the attitudes of harlots, I don’t think Carmon and her muffin friends really dig how hypocritical that one entry is compared to the manifesto.
They truly must think that Ryan Dobson sinned by his clothing choices, or they wouldn’t have spoken the way they did.
March 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm
total side observation about the original post by Carmon….in the comments? Anyone who she doesn’t agree with? The linked sites are to p#rn sites. I am not kidding. Like, you click on my name in this forum, and it takes you to my blog.It appears that the commenters were doing the same thing there. BUT In the comments, anyone she doesn’t appear to agree with? It links to a suggestive site or an empty link. At first I thought it was an anomaly till I clicked through them all, and it is clear as day that the links have been messed with.
For some reason, that really really gets me angry. Especially because it looks like our very own Molleth (Molly) commented there but the link was broken and points somewhere else entirely.
March 10, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I saw that comment, and a couple of others by Molly, and it looks very much to be the Molleth that comments here. Her remarks were a gracious relief to what was going on there (hers and a couple others). I’m going to have to check this out.
March 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm
#424= Me. I had forgotten to sign in to wordpress.
I don’t know why I noticed that…but for some reason that seems to be a horrible thing to do.
Thoughts?
March 10, 2008 at 6:34 pm
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=967
Here is the link we are talking about — what #424 is all about.
Molly’s comment is number 4. The link her name takes you to is smutty.
Molleth, did you make that comment? And if you did, what do you think of this?
This is making me furious.
March 10, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Oh wait- I didn’t realize just how old this post was…2005!?!?!?
Yikes.
It is highly possible that many of the links have just plain gone broken.
I jumped the gun and overgeneralized. Very not cool of me.
I owe an apology for assuming…
March 10, 2008 at 6:35 pm
It is a bit strange, I’ll give it that.
March 10, 2008 at 6:36 pm
This is what comment 4 in Carmon’s blog will take you to (at this moment, anyway) if you click on Molly’s name.
http://threepennies.blogdrive.com/
Single and Sexy hot sl**
We are a young, open-minded, fun couple looking for someone to have fun with either online or in person. We are both fit, clean, and new to this. We are hoping to find someone with a sense of humour, who is down to earth and can actually carry on a conversation. If you are interested in Porn Movies, drop me a line. Women only please.
Group owners, please feel free to delete this, but I wanted there to be some record of how Carmon operates her blog, in case this gets altered.
March 10, 2008 at 6:39 pm
http://threepennies.blogdrive.com/
That is what the link in comment 4 takes you to. No visuals, but advertising.
March 10, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Oh, I agree with you about assuming. Perhaps I jumped the gun, too. But I just checked all the available links on that page, and that was the only one that was remotely like that. It’s very strange.
March 10, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I’m reading the discussion at Carmon’s blog, and I can’t help but be reminded of what my pastor said just a couple of weeks ago about Christianity.
He was talking about religions that are culture-centric, like Islam being a primarily middle eastern/Arab religion, and how it doesn’t really “fit” with other cultures, and various other religions with their own “subculture.” Anyway, what he said is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what Carmon and her allies are saying–that we must conform to a certain culture to be considered “Christian.”
I can’t quote him exactly–but here’s the link to the page with his sermons:
http://www.vineyardcolumbus.org/resources/sermons/index.asp
Basically, what he said is that Christianity doesn’t necessarily “change” the cultures that it goes to–missions, etc., it changes the people. People who dress a certain way are not really meant to change the way they dress because they’ve met Christ, it’s quite the opposite. The more we leave behind the unusual–to the “normal Christians” that is–the more people we say are not worthy of being preached to.
If there’s someone who wants to look a certain way because they are able to reach a group of people, then I’m all for it. We shouldn’t criticize people based on the way they are dressed–it’s the message they are sending and preaching. Frankly, I think we need more Christians who are willing to continue in a way of dress or whatever–just being Christians and living like Christ instead of living like the world. We can be IN the world as long as we are not OF the world, right?
Just another great example of sheltering ourselves from the realities of the world. So sad.
March 10, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Abby,
I agree with you. I said something similar not too long ago (was it on thread 6, maybe?) that the VF crowd “looks” all nice and polished and very mainstream ‘Christian’ or what-have-you…but the preaching and teaching is anything but. And Carmon was basically saying the exact same thing regarding Ryan Dobson.
But at the end of the day…what it really comes down to…what does our heart look like? And only God has the wisdom to judge that. I remember reading the post and half laughing at the audacity (and irony) and half crying out of sheer pain that the point of reflecting Christ and reaching out to the least of these (regardless of what they look like) was totally lost to them.
March 11, 2008 at 12:17 am
I’m reposting this question since it may have been missed. (And I’m very curious about the answer!)
Side-question: Where does all of the anti-tattoo talk come from? What verses are used to support that? Is it the Mark of the Beast discussed in Revelation? I knew deacons in my church growing up who had tattoos. It didn’t inhibit their love for Jesus. (One of them had a heart attack and died in front of his SS class…the last words from his mouth, before he fell to the floor, were “I love Jesus!” Can you imagine going like that?)
March 11, 2008 at 12:46 am
My understanding is that is Molly’s “old” site, and the URL has been taken and is used by someone who is NOT Molly and is used to promote ungodly things.
I went through my blog (to the degree I could) to update the links I had from Molly’s previous comments.)
March 11, 2008 at 12:54 am
Johanna…I’d be curious to hear what people have to say too…I can’t ever remember a sermon or teaching that was one way or the other about it, so I am not much help. I think the only thing that has kept me personally from getting a tattoo is the contemplation of what it would look like in 60 years…that little dolphin I considered once would probably more resemble a whale after four kiddos!
LOL!
March 11, 2008 at 12:57 am
Tulip…thank you for clarifying that. It was really bugging me if someone was purposely breaking links… I was worried that someone was trying to malign Molly.
March 11, 2008 at 1:30 am
Sorry Johanna, no, the problem some people have with tattoos doesn’t come from Revelation. The verse is much more pointed and explicit toward banning tattoos, but it was only for the nation of Israel.
From Leviticus 19:
27 ‘You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard. 28 ‘You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.
The key verse is 28, Johanna. For those who say this law still applies to Christians, I put in in verse 27. It’s interesting how we pick and choose which Levitical laws are still binding on us. I’ve heard men speak against tattoos on account of this verse — and these men think nothing of having a clean shave each day.
Very inconsistent application of the OT law.
We are NOT under that law, and while tattoos are not my thing, believers are free to get them or not get them, just as the apostle Paul was free to eat, and did eat, all the foods he couldn’t eat while he was still under the old law.
March 11, 2008 at 1:45 am
Lynn, you make a good point! My Jewish pastor (he’s a Christian now!) pointed this out once about a baptist pastor who was saying we needed to do this and that–things that are straight from the Old Testament law. He just straight out asked if the guy shaved his sideburns. What’s really sad is that I bet that the patriarchal group and the PMs would look down upon orthodox Jews who follow the law even down to how they cut their hair! (Calling them Pharisaical?) Yet they expect Christians to live under the same law that they themselves are not even following to the letter, it makes no sense to me.
In fact, about the whole tattoo thing, all three of my siblings have tried to get me to get one–two of them are Christians–but I have no desire. I hate needles enough as it is, I don’t want someone sticking me with one for several hours. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think they are “okay”–I think they are perfectly acceptable. My husband has even admitted to wanting one, even though I don’t see it happening!
March 11, 2008 at 2:59 am
I should say some people are concerned with skin implants (memory chips, tracking devices), due to Revelation and the mark of the beast — but the location is the hand or forehead — not a typical place for tattoos. Perhaps there are some who link tattoos to Revelation, but I’ve not heard that.
March 11, 2008 at 3:20 am
“…how very much more biblical it was to eat whole grains. Not just “more healthy,” mind you, but “more spiritual.”
The price of grain recently doubled. It is expected to get worse as more are growing corn and soybeans for manufacturing purposes as it is more profitable.
So, they may want to start plowing now!
March 11, 2008 at 3:56 am
And the price of grain is reflected in the increasing price of things which consume grain — chicken, beef, milk and especially eggs. Remember when eggs were considered poor-man’s meat?
March 11, 2008 at 5:46 am
HA! That is HILARIOUS (that my first blog is now a porn advertisement). YEESH!
That is not Carmon’s fault at all, btw. It’s just the way the dark side of the internet is. Btw, most of my comments to Carmon never made it through her moderating policy. I believe that moderating policy is something to the effect of,
“If I agree with it, I’ll let it exist. If I don’t but you are really stupid, I’ll let it exist so that I can rip it to shreds. If I don’t agree with it but you actually managed to word your argument well, I’ll never let it see the light of day.”
That’s what it felt like, of course. I think that’s one of the biggest reasons that I want to maintain a “come one, come all” policy on my blog, even if those people rabidly disagree (though it can be difficult when there’s a large onslaught of disagreeing commenters, I’ll give you that).
I’ve even let Carmon come on my blog and blast me for the error of my ways. Why? Because you can only have REAL (and therefore fruitful effective maturing) conversation if everyone is allowed a voice, including those not “on your side.”
I’m faaaar from perfect, and I know it. Hence why it’s good to let all voices have their say. Some of the dissenters may drive me nuts sometimes, but most of them…? I love them. They usually have a thought that is worthy of chewing on, even if all it ever does is serve to keep me humble. I need a good dose of humble from time to time. And that’s the most striking thing lacking about PrairieMuffinhood.
March 11, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“12) Prairie Muffins prefer others above themselves, seeking to serve God by serving others, especially members of their own household.”
March 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I remember that conversation about Ryan Dobson. At least Ryan was being honest about himself and who he is.
What I really don’t agree with is how certain religious leaders are given a “pass” and others are not.
It is troubling to me that, for example, R.C. Sproul Jr. was defrocked by his denonination, was found to have committed identity theft and spiritual abuse, and, though I have never read a statement of repentance from him, he is still considered to be an acceptable speaker and teacher and author. Good thing he doesn’t have any tattoos.
March 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Reading this blog, I’m starting to feel like the writers and commenters need to write a book dealing with all this junk. Seriously!! It makes me really sad, in an old church I used to go to (which I feel like was and is in most ways a shining example of grace), the whole head-covering mentality is starting to creep in in a really judgmental way. Very sad. I wish there were something very solid written that could gently counter that (the attitude, not necessarily covered/non-covered).
Elizabeth said (#390)
“Four years ago my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She and my father had been married 50 years and were both in their seventies. They had had a pretty traditional marriage (although my Dad liked to cook every once in a while). Once my mother got sick, he made a point of learning how to do the things she had always done. Certainly, they had wonderful friends and neighbors who helped and I went over as much as I could, but it was important to my Dad that he take over as my mom’s primary caregiver. Every load of laundry, vacuumed floor and dishwasher full of clean dishes was a labor of love for him.”
So sweet! This made me think of my old piano teacher who’s wife ended up getting such severe arthritis that she couldn’t do a thing for herself. He did absolutely everything (!!) for her. And wrote her songs to boot.
My mom has fibromyalgia, and over the past few years, my dad has taken over a lot of the housework, taught himself how to cook, taken care of her many needs, etc. He’s always been soft-hearted, but I’ve seen him grow so much through this servanthood.
I feel so blessed by my DH, too. When our twins were born, I changed something like one diaper during the first two weeks. He took over everything so I could recover and breastfeed them. He still is so involved with the kids, and with the house, and with me. I feel like men stuck into the other stereotype miss out on soooo much. I honestly feel sorry for them because they’ve missed out on a lot.
March 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“It is troubling to me that, for example, R.C. Sproul Jr. was defrocked by his denonination, was found to have committed identity theft and spiritual abuse, and, though I have never read a statement of repentance from him, he is still considered to be an acceptable speaker and teacher and author. Good thing he doesn’t have any tattoos.”
Karen,
Ha! Yes, good thing.
What about all the boozin’ pictures and rhetoric? I am not against drinking alcohol at all but honestly. He seemed to brag about his drinking and made jokes about how his congregants would hide the booze if they knew he was coming over. And the people who support Sproul Jr are the same people who turn right around and tell people to submit to their authorities in the church! The very same people who leave so they don’t have to submit to any authority.
Hmmm? And we have a problem with tattoos? The same people with the problem concerning Ryan’s tattoos are the very same people who laud Sproul Jr. They seem confused or something.
What is more important? Honesty, genuineness, love for the Lord, transparency or “the look”?
I will take tattoos on a pastor any day of the week over the posers who lord themselves over God’s flock.
March 11, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Molleth,
You are a wise woman and a great example of how to conduct one’s self in online debate. Yes! Everyone should have a voice and we should listen.
The blogs that tightly restrict open conversation should NOT be trusted. Especially if they claim that you are not allowed to comment on their blog because you are known as a “gossip”. That is code-speak for “I don’t want anyone to know the real truth so anyone who is known for exposing untruth is to be silenced.” If they were concerned about gossip then they wouldn’t be gossiping themselves.
If there is nothing to hide and if one believes that they are correct in their opinion then why the fear? God’s Word stands. It is only when we use God’s word to shore up our preconceived and preferred notions about how things should be that we need to be afraid of having open disagreement.
March 11, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“From Leviticus 19:
27 ‘You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard. 28 ‘You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.
The key verse is 28, Johanna. For those who say this law still applies to Christians, I put in in verse 27. It’s interesting how we pick and choose which Levitical laws are still binding on us. I’ve heard men speak against tattoos on account of this verse — and these men think nothing of having a clean shave each day.
Very inconsistent application of the OT law.”
Lynn,
This is an EXCELLENT point. How can we choose to follow one but not the other.
My personal preference in regards to tattoos? I don’t really care for them. They don’t bother me on other people but they are not my “cup of tea”. It is their choice and their preference if they want to get tattoos.
But, to slap a Bible verse ripped out of its context in order to “prove” that tattoos are not for Christians? That is unconscionable. Just like redefining “ezer” just because we want it to mean “subordinate”. Just like redefining the Trinity in order to retain our hierarchal positions in the [pagan concept] authority chain. The JW’s and the Mormons lessen the person of Christ but it makes me furious when so-called Christians do it. Talk about fierce. I am fiercely protective of the fact that Christ IS fully and equally GOD.
It is no different than the dress issue. They get the notion that the Bible commands dresses for women but they forget that that men and women all wore robes and NOT pants back then. So, pants cannot be “that which pertaineth to the man”.
March 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“Their daughters would step in as the “helpmeet.” An older mom dies, and grown daughters with their own families then do a juggling act between two households because their father can’t even make himself a sandwich. I’ve seen it happen more than once.
Light,
Can’t? Or won’t? A man who can’t make himself (and even his whole family) a sandwich is a man who shouldn’t claim to be a patriarch nor should he aspire to be a leader in any area.
I have seen this same thing, too, and it is really sad. There are some who have a learned helplessness and then there are some who plain think this is woman’s work and they refuse to those tasks.
And I am not talking about the photo-ops that we see flung out on the internet with men in aprons carving and cooking. I am talking about the day in and day out sort of stuff. Not stuff done for the camera to impress people.
I should start with my own Manifesto.
#1 Don’t trust people who constantly rail about gossips and slanderers and libelers because they are guilty of their very own railing. They readily accuse others of this because they think that everyone is just like them.
#2 Don’t go by sight. Anyone can put nice-looking pictures on their blog but it means NOTHING. It is a distraction from substance and reality.
Psalmist,
Thanks for the history lesson. I have been doing some reading on this and it has helped to see the historical license in the movie.
March 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Can’t? Or won’t? A man who can’t make himself (and even his whole family) a sandwich is a man who shouldn’t claim to be a patriarch nor should he aspire to be a leader in any area.”
Let me clarify this. I do NOT mean a man who is physically UNABLE to make his own sandwich. I am talking about a man who won’t make his own sandwich because of his sexist worldview and who won’t learn how to do these things because of his own bias against such “woman’s work”.
March 11, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“They get the notion that the Bible commands dresses for women but they forget that that men and women all wore robes and NOT pants back then. So, pants cannot be “that which pertaineth to the man”.”
Actually, I did some research on that score. Way back when, missionaries began encountering pants-wearing “barbarians”, and they were scandalized because the MEN as well as the women were wearing pants, which Western Christians considered to be effeminate. This was because pants restrained the wearer’s manhood, in other words, they hampered a man’s sexuality.
This evidently caused quite a flap, and eventually made its way up the chain of command all the way to Pope Nicholas I, who had this to say:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.html
Chapter LVIIII.
We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God’s gift, we could say many more.
This idea is reflected in some of the comments to this article in “The Daily Texan”:
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=a5f1644d-86bf-41ec-a339-834f678a9bed
This comment offers an excelent summary of the mindset which I believe is behind the whole “dresses only” phenomenon:
“…Pants prevent others from easy sexual access and so put any restriction of coitus squarely in the domain of the person who wears them: for Haecker this should be man. Dresses, on the other hand, offer a metaphor for sexual openness and lack of control. Sexual interaction is forfeited and there can be no opposition to unwanted intrusion. That women should desire control over their body, even in the smallest way (what they wear) is anathema to Haecker. He sees women as not only the “fairer” sex but the weaker as well. Further, he would like to see this weakness reiterated in every possible detail. “
March 13, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“Please know that my readers, as well as Christians in our local community, will be actively participating in a campaign to purge this, and magazines like it, from the stores we frequent. At the very least, we insist that you cover the offensive magazines from view. For those stores that refuse to hear our pleas, we will be forced to boycott them; and we will actively push for others to take a stand and shop elsewhere.
I have always considered Sam’s a family-friendly store. Please, for the good of American families and society, please stop selling pornography.
Sincerely,
Stacy D. McDonald
Editor-in-Chief
Family Reformation® Ministries”
Stacy McDonald has just started a campaign against soft porn in our stores, namely concerning the recent edition of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.
While this is noble, I find it highly ironic.
Look at the way she signs her name to the letter she sends out. Not “a concerned stay at home mother” but “Editor-in-Chief”. Interesting. I thought that being a wife and mother was the highest and most noble calling? Why not use the title she is so proud of “housewife” to sign her name?
Also, she stated that the women have to battle this with the stores when a woman asked her why the men are not leading the culture war against soft porn. She said that if the men complained about the magazines to the store managers that they would be looked at as “freaks” or “perverts”.
I guess it is okay for her to lead cultural battles but when other women (ie., prohibition) do it they are called feminists.
The irony and inconsistency abounds.
March 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm
She said that if the men complained about the magazines to the store managers that they would be looked at as “freaks” or “perverts”.
Maybe Stacy didn’t read James’ posts on pragmatism?
Would not this be activity and urge for women to speak out about porn classify as activity in the civil sphere (like voting), that which VF defines as limited to men only? Oh, but Stacy votes and her daughters vote, or so she wrote to an aquaintence of mine via email when they asked her position on voting. So I guess the McDonalds don’t completely hold to the Vision Forum party line. I wonder if Doug Phillips knows that they vote and if he’s taken measures to discipline James? Oh, wait… Some Christians are more equal than others, and they get a different set of rules.
Another thought:
Why should a Christian be the least bit concerned about what a store manager thought about them? Why doesn’t someone come out and say that they don’t want men to get tempted by the pictures as their rationale for letting women spearhead these efforts?
Maybe Stacy does not know that the owners of Sams and Walmart are major contributors to Benny Hinn (at least they were some years ago). They are egalitarain and Pentecostal, two big marks against them. Does that constitute a sufficiently pragmatic argument to justify a boycott of them as well?
The McDonalds have quoted notable figures affiliated with CBMW, but I guess they missed this teaching. Russell Moore says that we can win the culture back by becoming a kingdom of freaks. Considering how culturally irrelevant the McDonald’s corner of patriocentricity has become and the fact that they and Phillips reference their materials, I thought that this was their modus operandi. This is also a rationale for women who wear headcoverings given in the Monstrous Women video, and I believe that Stacy discussed their culturally unusual dress in something she wrote recently. It opens up doors of opportunity to witness because of the attention that they draw to themselves (another pragmatic argument).
Here are my notes from the end of the Moore’s lecture:
We need to create a view that seems even more odd and strange so that people may walk away and not buy the Gospel (take the risk of not delivering a seeker-friendly message)
We should strive to be percieved as unusual –Little communities where people are seen as freaks
From
Notes from The Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Different By Design Conference, Minneapolis, MN, Feb 2007
Russell D Moore
Dean of the School of Theology, So. Baptist Theo. Seminary, Louisville, KY
Audio online (or at least it was) @ http://www.cbmw.org/media/differentbydesign.php
March 13, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Possibly splitting hairs…but I’ve never heard of anyone being “editor in chief” of a ministry. A magazine, yes. Ministry, no. I don’t get it…
March 13, 2008 at 8:22 pm
FYI- The Family Life Today interviews with Stacy McDonald and Jennie Chancey are broadcasting today and tomorrow. You can listen to them here:
http://www.familylife.com/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=dnJHKLNnFoG&b=3832113&ct=5075801
March 13, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I don’t come here very often anymore to read because I can hardly stand it. I’ve gone from passionately wanting to see this patriarchy/family-worship stuff stopped to a more jaded place of having a hard time believing anyone can get sucked into this stuff.
And yet…I was…for years…
It’s just hard to believe it now, on this side of the fence. It’s actually frightening to see how much ‘group-think’ goes on there, how little rational thought is required, and how RIDICULOUS it all looks.
I know the opposition would say that they’re living by faith, not rational thought, and that looking ridiculous is just proof that the foolishness of Christ is greater than the wisdom of the wise, but you know what I think?
I think that living by “faith” means a whole ‘nother thing than they think it does. Living by faith isn’t living a life based on external rule-keeping. And the foolishness of Christ is the fact that Grace-filled Love trumped everything else, something that the patriarchy/family-worship camp has yet to discover.
I am just having a more and more difficult time even wanting to engage with this. Instead of growing in patience and perspective with these people, I feel more like I’m losing it. Unlike God, who deigned to stoop down and gently save us despite our hateful howling, I feel more like Jonah: just rain down fire and brimstone and start over with a clean slate, Lord. Which isn’t a good thing, I know.
March 13, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Oh Molly,
Can I relate. I’m really not into the gender arguments, save the teachings that come out of some of the comp camp and patriarchy. I’m angry over the teachings that reduce women to lesser creatures through faulty logic. I’m angry over the teachings that claim that men are spiritual intercessors for their wives. But most of these gender teachings are not very engaging for me. Some of them seem so irrelavent and ridiculous that I can barely stand it. And I’m essentially “monstrous” for rejecting a view that is not remotely compelling nor Biblically supported. These are matters of presupposition, eisegesis and prejudice. Christians have more important things to do.
Then consider that these are issues that are basically limited to Christian circles. Our world is so full of problems and I am so missions oriented, and we are largely distracted by these serious issues within our own ranks. How frustrating! We are members of one another for the most part (I hope and pray that this is the case), yet we spend so much effort on things that should just be plain and obvious.
I’ve spent the better part of the last couple of days hashing over the fallout from the EMNR conference. I spoke there on patriarchy (audio coming in a few weeks), and someone in the workshop knew Bruce Ware personally. I mentioned him briefly as one who holds to a hierarchy in Trinity to support gender arguments, nearly in the same way as Federal Vision maintains. No one can fathom that Ware could profess such things, and frankly, I can’t believe that he professes these things either. Rather than enjoy the correspondence following the conference, I’ve been distracted by the discussion of these doctrines of Trinity. And I stand in awe, trying to figure out why anyone would find Ware remotely convincing or reasonable (though my first introduction to him came through these gender debates and not other doctrine).
I hear “but I’m friends with Ware” and think of “but this man is a godly man” and “they have such a lovely family.” It’s tremendously frustrating for me.
I was admonished to remain sweet and gentle in spirit and not become bitter over some of the discussions that ensued. It isn’t a matter of bitterness but of intense frustration. But that frustration has produced some good fruit already, but it is exhausting. The fact that I am contending for my faith and doctrines that are blatantly obvious can be very engaging, but it seems pretty thankless sometimes. I’m amazed at how tired I am sometimes.
Cally notes here that the Housewives interview has aired. I gave it the old college try to keep this off the air on this widely attended medium, but I’ve since learned that Bob Lepine participates with CBMW and holds to some of these comp views which I frankly find quite odd. I’m so disappointed! My appeal centered on the argument that it would give the spiritually abusive Vision Forum a wider audience. Family Life would essentially be legitimizing their aberrant views. But it turns out that some of those at Family Life share some of these views. As the nationals said to me so often in Trinidad when I did missions there, “The world is mad.” It truly is, and the madness is not limited to secular society. The church at large seems far more insane and schizophrenic to me sometimes.
But I’m going to keep on plugging as God gives me opportunity. There will always be some list of prairie muffin directives and someone’s latest teaching supposedly elucidating some new mystery. But the truth is still the truth.
I wouldn’t mind some good fire and brimstone to fall, but I think that I will pray for latter rain (in the form of revival and not some mystical sense). I don’t think the howling is so hateful but rather just frustration. Anger is usually a good sign that healing is taking place, too. There’s plenty of reason to be angry, and that can inspire a good howl. May our cries be howls for deliverance! We surely need it. Hosannah. Lord come and save.
March 14, 2008 at 1:13 am
Molly and Cindy, I totally understand what you are feeling.I keep going through these waves of anger and then sadness.
It’s interesting…I’ve been reading Rom.1-4 and Ephesians 1-4 in significant depth these last few months, due in part to some sermons I have heard. I’ve been studying this so hard now that I can’t remember who it was (I attended a woman’s conference and also my parent’s church within the last few weeks) but there was one point that just struck me and I have been musing on ever since. In short, there are three barriers to living out one’s faith: legalism(moralism), intellectualism, and emotionalism. The key to all three is that they prevent action. A strict adherence to extra-biblical rules leaves one quite busy trying to attempt to get everything ‘done’ in a works based sense, but without truly engaging in a relationship with Christ. Intellectualism lends itself to a constant discussion of what faith might look like, act like, but because there is such an intense focus on wisdom to the abandonment of all else, it too distracts from a deep relationship with Christ. Emotionalism tends to chase after the spiritual ‘high’ of retreats and the like without also having the roots of a relationship with the Father. And through out it all, there is not an outward focus toward the lost. Rather, it is all inward- “am I doing things right?”"I think that my faith should look like this…”"Idon’t feel like God is near to me…”
The interesting thing in all of this, at least to me, is how each of the stumbling blocks is essentially a twisting of something good that God has created. I found it so interesting that such significant chunks of Romans and Ephesians talk about this over and over and over again from differing aspects of life (work, love, children, church, etc), describing what it should look like.
Ephesians 5:1-2:
1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.(NKJV)
March 14, 2008 at 1:18 am
All that to say, I’ve really been working through what that looks like in my life, and then I come smack up against these hyper-P, Sproul Jr.-ettes just about every week, and I really struggle with the whole ‘Love while speaking Truth’ thing. I cannot even fathom you ladies with your podcasts and speaking engagements! I pray for you all often in that vein, that you would have courage as you ‘contend for the faith’ as Cindy said.
And I deeply appreciate it!
March 14, 2008 at 2:20 am
“I know the opposition would say that they’re living by faith, not rational thought, and that looking ridiculous is just proof that the foolishness of Christ is greater than the wisdom of the wise, but you know what I think?”
I, too can sooooo relate to your post. What bothers me is that nothing you say or do helps them to see it. Christians are not to go hide in little groups and rail against the culture. We are separate from the world in a spiritual way all the while living within a composite society being salt and light. (We are NOT to judge the world 1 Corin 5…that will be done later.)
Christians also do not follow the teachings of men. They are to grow…mature become a ‘minister’ of the Holy Priesthood.
Sometimes I think the real problem is that (Oh, I can hear the gasps coming now) very few of us have met a truly humble, Christlike Christian ‘leader’ who never once lorded it over with their title or position. Chances are there are quite a few of them out there…we just do not know who they are because they have not written a book, not on the radio or TV. They are not ’special’ in a worldly way. They are humble servants only concerned for the souls of those brothers and sisters around them.
So, I thought to myself…be one. It is not easy to do. Our pride gets in the way. Imagine how much pride gets in the way when you get some earthly power behind you and have real ‘followers’.
March 14, 2008 at 2:37 am
“This is also a rationale for women who wear headcoverings given in the Monstrous Women video, and I believe that Stacy discussed their culturally unusual dress in something she wrote recently. It opens up doors of opportunity to witness because of the attention that they draw to themselves (another pragmatic argument).”
I guess they forgot about the Gospel of Matthew, and what Jesus said about drawing attention to ourselves by our religious clothing and “public works”:
Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
March 14, 2008 at 3:25 am
Oh, CJ,
Thanks for hitting my hanging curve ball out of the park!
You’re so good!
March 14, 2008 at 3:36 am
Mrs Joy wrote: And through out it all, there is not an outward focus toward the lost.
You know, if the patriocentrics were actually evangelizing people and demonstrated love and ministry to the lost, so much more of their imprecatory junk and legalism would be easier to take. But they basically don’t care about the lost, pray for their destruction and/or don’t want to get messy. Keeping themselves unspotted from the world seems incompatable with caring for the widows and fatherless, as though they pit the two admonishments against one another. In that crazy podcast from that Swanson where he talks about separatism and Christians being “yeast,” he says that for all little good that most Christians do (talking about participating in government), it’s not worth risking the “contamination” that seems inevitable to him, resulting from the close contact with the lost.
If there was any reasonable love for the lost, this all wouldn’t be so desperately bad. But they primarily recruit other unsuspecting Christians. I’d love to see some of their statistics on evangelism, if you could trust them.
March 14, 2008 at 3:40 am
Speaking of behavior, this is interesting.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/03/martins-biblical-analysis-of-false.html
We are told that we can only stick to doctrine, but 47% of the verses talking about false teachers and spiritual abusers in Scripture deal with BEHAVIOR.
It’s not so much about what they teach but about what they do. Their behavior and their fruit tell us far more than their teachings do.
March 14, 2008 at 1:07 pm
13) Prairie Muffins practice hospitality, graciously, even when their home is not as perfect as they would like.
March 14, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Here is a link to Norm Wakefield’s 4th essay in his series called The Curse of the Image Bearers. Much good food for thought, once again, and he hits on many of the same points we all have been making.
http://www.spiritofelijah.com/chariot/chariot0208.html
March 14, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Cindy…
Yeesh. That’s some crazy theology to follow (the Kevin Swanson interview). That seems totally at odds with what the Scripture was saying. And to me, that “little good” he implies seems to state that God is not all-powerful and dwelling on His throne! For isn’t the very nature of yeast, in such a tiny amount, to change the whole ball of dough? I can think of Christians who were faithful to God’s calling on their lives, and the transformation both within themselves and their realm of influence was a sight to behold! And more than not, it is the broken and contaminated who have come to know God’s redeeming love that speak and show the ‘loudest’ by the change wrought within them by Christ’s ‘yeast’.
OOOh, does that make me mad.
thatmom(karen)-
Love this article. I like how he goes through very specifically and deals with each thing. I thought what he said here is so very true (and what I attempt to stumble towards, with Christ’s help):
It takes humility to release your expectations and demands of other people, and it is the love of Jesus that jealously desires that others find their satisfaction and fullness in Christ rather than in a relationship with you on the basis of keeping certain standards of behavior.
March 14, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Joy wrote: And to me, that “little good” he implies seems to state that God is not all-powerful and dwelling on His throne!
I completely forgot about this in that talk I gave.
In the talk, someone actually interrupted me in the middle of the talk to ask whether I thought the patriarchy movement was Pelagian! I was just quoting influences and summarizing their beliefs at this point.
I answered in agreement, stating that it is so ironic that many of them actually consider themselves to be reformed.
Thanks for jogging my memory!
It is all ironic because there are so many contradictory things in their beliefs. They pick and choose doctrine and Scripture based on their preferences, not necessarily the Word. Pragmatic arguments are sin when they talk of feminism, but they are blind as can be when they make pragmatic arguments about looking like freaks or not voting or not sending their daughters off to school. They are not consistent at all.
March 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Ok…you lost me…Pelagian? What’s that? The term sounds so familiar but I can’t place it…
March 14, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I listened to the podcast with Family Life.
At least Bob and Dennis tried to inject some realness into the whole thing.
Soccer moms are exhausted but moms expecting their 9th child when their oldest one is only 10 and homeschools all of the children and runs a business and speaks and writes and is the neighborhood hangout and always has the doors of the home open for hospitality and sticks to a schedule and is always available whenever her husband wants her and has dinner on the table on time, cleans, sews, etc. are not exhausted?
“Bob: I’m hearing the “under the pile” alert buzzer going off in the back of my head. That’s the buzzer that I hear from the listener who is thinking to herself, “Okay, let’s see, we’re talking about the home-schooling mother of eight who is making mashed potatoes and roast beef and inviting the single woman from the neighborhood over and sharing Christ with her.”
Dennis: You forgot the green beans.
Bob: Okay, the green beans are there, too, and she just goes, “I don’t know where you get the time and the energy to do all of this. I mean, I am struggling just – I’ve got three kids, and they’re in school. I’m struggling just to keep up with today. I mean, these women must be supermom. There must be some genetic something or other that you got that I don’t have, because you’re doing it, but I can’t.”
Dennis: Barbara and I used to talk about these supermoms, and we said there are three-ring circus women, two-ring circus women, and one-ring, and God’s gifted different ones with different abilities. Now, tell the truth, Jennie, Stacy, if you had to pick which one you are, because you’re – we’ve got several hundred thousand listeners right now who know, Jennie, expecting your ninth, they know which one of those you are.
Bob: Three or more. You may be a six-ring circus woman.
Dennis: Yeah, exactly. Which one are you? Three?
Jennie: Well, definitely three with the trapeze artists overhead and the elephants dropping the balls.
Dennis: Yeah, there you go. And Stacy?
Stacy: Well, we definitely have a busy household, but Jennie is much more laid back than I am. God had to really bring me through some things to be able to function in our large household. Slowly, I had to give things up, because I wanted everything perfectly in order, and some of that you just have to give up because it can’t always be perfect, and people live in those homes. If it was an empty home, that would be one thing.
Bob: So are you saying that moms need to all learn how to be three-ring circus woman moms?
Stacy: Absolutely not, absolutely not.”
So, the interview focused on inviting neighbors to the home and extending hospitality to them. Is that really where the focus of hospitality is on in the patriarchal lifestyles? They allow their children to mix with the heathen neighborhood children from the neighborhood? Their homes are hangouts and their doors are open?
March 14, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Cindy, what an interesting perspective, that of the number of verses that warn us about false prophets and their behaviors. It brought to mind Jesus’ standard for TRUE disciples: John 13:35 “By this will all men know you are my disciples, that you have love for one another.”
March 14, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Prairie Muffins and showing hospitality:
I blogged about the idea that showing hospitality applies to our children, since they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and, as such, deserve to be the recipients of the “one anothers.” “Someone,” a Prairie Muffin, disagreed with me, anonymously, though I recognized the IP and moniker. Why is this a point of contention? Why shouldn’t showing hospitality to our children be important? Read it here:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/showing-hospitality-to-our-children/
March 14, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Corrie says:
“Stacy McDonald has just started a campaign against soft porn in our stores, namely concerning the recent edition of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.
While this is noble, I find it highly ironic.
Look at the way she signs her name to the letter she sends out. Not “a concerned stay at home mother” but “Editor-in-Chief”. Interesting. I thought that being a wife and mother was the highest and most noble calling? Why not use the title she is so proud of “housewife” to sign her name?
Also, she stated that the women have to battle this with the stores when a woman asked her why the men are not leading the culture war against soft porn. She said that if the men complained about the magazines to the store managers that they would be looked at as “freaks” or “perverts”.
I guess it is okay for her to lead cultural battles but when other women (ie., prohibition) do it they are called feminists.
The irony and inconsistency abounds.”
Corrie,
I found this all interesting on a variety of levels. First of all, I thought the entire premise of the Passionate Housewives book was to find our calling within the four walls of our home, reforming our culture through our children and to leave the rest of society to the men folk. I guess I didn’t get the updated memo.
Also, since she is now promoting this in the area where I live, promoting her campaign to “clean-up” Peoria from all its smut, I find it interesting that she chose the SI issue as her target, the one that made her livid, set her hair on fire, or whatever. I will admit that I was taken aback when I first saw it staring at me from the magazine rack. But when I thought about it, it is no worse than the Cosmopolitan covers, especially since those are usually accompanied by article blurbs that embarrass even a woman who has been married as long as I have been.
So I keep asking myself “why this topic, why now, why this particular magazine? Does anyone get it? As far as cleaning up Peoria, as she has talked about on our local homeschooling yahoo group, I don’t get that either. Peoria has lots of other places that are far more problematic when it comes to the exploitation of women and things that I believe are far more damaging to the family. First, there are the strip clubs. Big Al’s is known all over the world as a place of adult entertainment, only a couple blocks away from the Caterpillar Headquarters building in downtown Peoria. Then there are the other strip clubs, the adult book stores, the X-rated sections in all the movie stores, the unlimited porn online (did you know there are between 15,000 and 20,000 NEW porn sites put up online EVERY SINGLE DAY?), the Playboy magazines at all these stores, etc. In fact, I have a copy of a recent issue of a home decorating magazine that shows a completely nude woman squatting down on the back cover advertising some sort of body lotion.
So, again, I ask, why this particular magazine, why now?
Here is my take. I know I sound cynical, but from past experience, here is my hunch. Do you all remember the accusations that there were those people who were belittling homemakers? They were denigrating our jobs and our “roles” and were basically trash talking us? Then there were those who promoted “meology” all necessitating the publication of Passionate Housewives? (We never did see any proof of any of this, though we have asked for it.)
Then, there was the statement from the Botkins about how they couldn’t wait until they were older, until their views on daughters had been proven, they just HAD to publish it now? It was an emergency.
This is all like Al Gore’s crisis list during his run for the presidency. He would stand up and list all the things that struck a chord with his audience because there was an element of truth in much of what he said. But he turned each thing into a crisis that only HE had a solution for.
I see the same thing happening here, once again. Most prairie muffins will not be going into the X-rated section of the movie store or browsing online through porn sites. But they are already concerned about their husbands and sons (rightly so) and as Stacy has opened her comments sections on the “intimacy” threads on her blog over the past few months, we have seen these women pour out their hearts and hurts. This is a hot button for them but the only resource that might really push these women over the edge is seeing a common, everyday magazine in the aisle of the grocery store. If you make that the target, then you have the opportunity to be the one with the solution, whether it be a “new” ministry or a book or whatever. Since their ministry website says that a book for men is in the works, I would imagine this is part of the pre-book hype. We have seen it before. Is lust a problem with Christian men? Yes. But how do you resolve this?
My own opinion is that the emphasis needs to be on the demand side rather than on the supply side. Read here for my thoughts and some good comments that follow.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/the-supply-side-of-the-culture-war/
Also, I must concur with Corrie that the use of an official title rather than Mrs. was hilarious. But,Corrie, you have to realize that the rules, once again, do not apply to all of us!!!
March 14, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Joy,
The term loosely describes what would probably pass today as “open theism” which is funny because notable people at CBMW throw this around at we white washed feminists. (yawn)
Pelagius Morgan was a British fellow who taught in Rome in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. His teachings were deemed heretical by many counsils for some very obvious reasons.
He taught that man was basically very good and that the fall of man didn’t really occur. Adam’s sin and the effects were confined to Adam, and those who followed were not really born into sin with a sin nature. He taught that it was possible to meet the demands of the law through free will alone and that man did not require any divine intervention. It is essentially ultimate free will.
Other groups today are also called “semi-pelagian” if they have a great deal of faith in man’s ability (like the name and claim it crowd) but actually affirm the doctrine of the fallen nature of man stemming from Adam. I would describe most of the Pentecostal movement this way. Strong Calvinists classify Dispensationalists (those who believe that man chooses to receive God for salvation as opposed to the Calvinist election, limited atonement and total depravity) as semi-pelagian to some extent.
Take note that I didn’t know what any of this meant until I heard a Tape of the Month on it from RC Sproul about 15 years ago. I think that I kept it, too.
That was one thing that I really gleaned from RC Sr and guys like Kennedy. In the Assemblies of God and in the Word of Faith movement, I learned very little church history. I learned some in the Accellerated Christian Education curriculum in high-school, but I was blessed to learn most of my church history from Presbyterians. (My crowd spent too much time teaching eschatology and not the past.)
March 14, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Joy,
While I’m at it, I thought that I’d throw in Arminianism.
Jacob Arminius came later and essentially framed out the view of free will vs. determinism that describe the Westley Brothers and George Whitfield during the First Great Awakening.
I have heard people basically use semi-pelagianism and arminianism interchangably. Both focus on the goodness of the believer and the virtue that comes to man under the general revelation of God that Paul spoke of in Romans 1.
I could be wrong in this, but I believe that Arminianism applies more to issues of salvation and is at odds with Calvinism on why we choose Jesus. Arminianism says that man makes the choice and has the power within himself to choose salvation. The atonement was for all sin and all people.
Semi-pelagianism aims more at free will and issues of man’s sovereignty versus God’s soveregnty and is not specifically limited to salvation. Although because both affirm a belief in man’s free will, semi-pelagians are arminian. But you will hear people refer to both terms.
Calvinism argues that God must wake us up from our fallen state to realize our election, so man does not have the free-will to choose for himself. The atonement was not for the non-elect. (I always get upset over this because they change Fanny Crosby’s hymn in some of the Presby hymnals. In “To God Be the Glory” it says “and open the lifegate that all may go in.” In some Reformed churches, they change “all” to “we.”
So for the traditional Methodists, they might be arminian because of their stance on salvation but not necessarily semi-pelagian because they are not necessarily driven by seeking signs and wonders. Those who follow after the charismatic gifts are definitely both arminian and semi-pelagian.
March 14, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Oh, so to tie things up in regard to the Patriarchy movement.
There is a tremendous focus on Adam and Adam’s role and Adamic symbolism in marriage. Federal Vision talks so much about Adam as to authors like Palmer who I’ve quoted here before (wrote a book on family in 1876), that they essentially build a case for using Jesus as a catalyst that restores man to Adam’s state before the fall. Federal Vision has a whole chapter on how Adam’s sin was not willful disobedience but immaturity. Then we have all the Adamic symbolism in marriage and gender roles, and Ephesian’s symbolism of Christ and the church bride takes a back seat and is greatly misinterpreted to conform to Adamic symbolism in marriage.
It is like Pelagius, because he argued that man was basically good and focused on Adam in his teaching.
Patriarchy is also pelagian or semi-pelagian in that they focus so much on works and these ideals of utopian life. They want to recreate a type of utopia, be it like Eden or the Old South or the Puritan communities in the British Colonies before our independence. They teach that by following their moral imperatives, man has the ability (be it divine or other) to achieve a higher way of living and so avoid the messiness and some of the pain of living.
This is why it is so ironic that so many of the Family Integrated Churches and in patriarchy claim that they are Reformed. They are reformed in matters of salvation alone, but then they capitulate to eclectic people like Bill Gothard who teach that sanctification is a process that man participates in through works and correct attitude (which is really semi-pelagian).
Protestants believe that sanctification is governed completely by the Holy Spirit and the work of the Word of God in our inner man. Eventually, because of our faith, good works will be made manifest outwardly. Gothardism and the Patriarchy movement argue that sanctification is enhanced by works and attaining what they determine to be godly living. In the Revivalism of the early 20th century, Mark Noll quotes someone who states that “wholesome living was the unmediated agency of God.” Wholesome living is the eventual outward effect of our faith and salvation, not anything that helps bring it about, even though the effects of wholesome living may be beneficial to us as people.
It’s the same thing with this Prairie Muffin business. Those practices and ideals may be perfectly good, but they have nothing to do with our faith in Jesus, our sanctification (the ongoing process of the Holy Spirit, conforming us into Christ’s Holy Image) or who we are in Christ. Our standing before God and our ongoing faith is spiritual and not mediated by our works.
This is why some Protestants will term this system of works as “Romanist” because rather than buying the indulgences like the Catholic church once sold, people are lead to believe that they are partially buying their sanctification in cooperation with God through their good works and the moral imperatives that are declared by the movement. Working on the PM points to enhance holiness is essentially tantamount to working the Rosary so many times or buying so many indulgences.
And again, I am not anti-Catholic. This is just a distinction made between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is the difference between the religions: that sanctification is through faith alone regardless of works and apart from works for Protestants and the “Romanist” view holds that sanctification must require some works in cooperation with God to make us holy and fit for heaven. There are many Protestants who now hold to that term, but it ironic for those who do believe in participation in sanctification to call themselves “Reformed” because the reformation was largely over this issue of salvation and sanctification.
March 14, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Heee…thanks Cindy. I so did not want to go digging for my Christian History notes from college. I knew it sounded familiar!
Now I get why that was so ironic. At some point it is so pathetic it is almost funny, but in a ‘gallows humor’ sort of way.
March 14, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I tried to read the transcript of the podcast but was too turned off by the “look at all of the CHILDREN WE HAVE” conversation. It is one of the biggest problem with the whole movement (besides the fact it’s unbiblical). There is no room for childless women or single women. None.
Very interesting reading, Cindy! I’m still learning all of the ins and outs of this movement. It boggles the mind.
March 14, 2008 at 6:37 pm
“My own opinion is that the emphasis needs to be on the demand side rather than on the supply side. .”
BINGO! This thinking follows with the whole Patriarchy view that the man is not responsbile for his behavior or reactions. The focus of their teaching is on what women do or don’t do.
Even Mark Driscoll came dangerously close to this thinking when he blamed pastors wives for letting themselves go which made their husbands look elsewhere and precipitated their fall from grace.
But I agree with your overall post…sounds like a firing shot for setting up a new book or campaign of sorts.
but we all know the stores can take the magazines down from pressure but until we spread the full Gospel, not one heart will be changed.
March 14, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I like most of what Mark Driscoll preaches (despite his sometimes crass sense of humor) – his recent series that has included messages on birth control and dating/courtship, I felt were very balanced biblically and very well communicated for his target audience.
It’s pretty clear where Mark falls on the complementarian/egalitarian scale, and although it might not be anywhere near as extreme as Gothard or Vision Forum, he still has the positions of women not being in leadership at the church, being stay at home moms, favoring homeschooling, courtship, etc. However, he doesn’t think courtship necessarily works as a good model for adults who are already past their early twenties, on their own, etc.
He’s an interesting character. He makes me laugh a lot, get a little mad occasionally, sometimes get mad but realize there may be a point there. One thing is clear to me – I doubt I’d ever fall asleep during one of his sermons.
March 14, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I just listened to the Family Life interviews with the Passionate Housewives, and it’s just sad. Half of me wants to rant and the other half wants to cry.
I love kids and families and all of this stuff. I love encouraging people. And both of these women did some of that on these radio interviews. Some of the message is very encouraging, but not if you know what they are selling under the sugary coating.
The one thing that I thought was really interesting is how either Lepine or Rainey asked whether or not they really were against Mothers Day Out programs.
Neither Stacy nor Jennie answered the question and diverted the topic to another example without addressing what they were asked. You could argue that they got off on a tangent, and you could also say just as well that they may have avoided answering.
That conversation hinted at the section of the book that talked about the evils of daycare and the question was posed to Stacy about whether or not she thought day care or even Mothers Day Out were as bad as she implies in the book. For whatever reason, the question was never answered.
The single mom question and divorced mom question was morphed into a military mom with Dad away at war. That picture fits the model. It was redirected towards the VF acceptable model.
Those hurt. I mean I am saddened and grieved because we know that those populations (Moms who “leave” their children in a day care setting, the divorced, the single moms who were never married) are not received in their churches or in the lives of the patriarchy families.
There was also some mention of relying upon older women and grandparents to help younger women who needed encouragement. I know this is a problem in some of these churches because no one other than a woman of childbearing age is really all that welcome.
And I think, if they could just drop all of this unBiblical junk that they added into the Gospel, that program and their message would be a good one. And I wish I knew nothing about any of this.
When they talked about how many children and grandchildren they will have one day, one of the radio hosts did interject the idea of those who would receive Christ through faith as added to the actual godly seed they parented. That really broke my heart.
I remember pulling out my address book when someone prayed with me to receive Jesus. We don’t hear about that kind of thing, but we hear all about militant fecundity (not a term used in the interview, BTW).
March 14, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Where do these women get off talking about military wives? Stacy has several military wives on her group, and never once has she come off of her lofty perch to offer one word of encouragement. Oh wait, she is probably writing a book for them, and once they pay for her Titus 2 ministry, they can have her words of advice.
After all, a good businesswoman never offers for free, what she can get paid for.
March 15, 2008 at 12:20 am
“The one thing that I thought was really interesting is how either Lepine or Rainey asked whether or not they really were against Mothers Day Out programs.”
Lepine and Rainy? You mean the guys who teach this…
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/22/the-husband-as-king-over-the-wife/
March 15, 2008 at 1:41 am
“Those who follow after the charismatic gifts are definitely both arminian and semi-pelagian”
Uh, hang on a sec. I’m a charismatic who is also Calvinist and definitely NOT semi-pelagian or any type of pelagian. Took two semesters of theology from a Calvinist Charismatic instructor, so I’m pretty sure about that!
(Not that my type is all that common but there are some of us out here!)
March 15, 2008 at 1:59 am
The Pelegian and Armenian (sp?) discussion is interesting, but there are a good many patriarchy leaders who are full on Calvinists. Douglas Wilson, for one, and Mark Driscoll for another, and our friend Carmon Friedrich for a third. Just throwing that in to say I really don’t think that a root cause of Patriarchy is found in whether one is an A or a C.
March 15, 2008 at 2:34 am
Connie R wrote: Uh, hang on a sec. I’m a charismatic who is also Calvinist and definitely NOT semi-pelagian or any type of pelagian. Took two semesters of theology from a Calvinist Charismatic instructor, so I’m pretty sure about that!
Connie & Molly,
I didn’t say people who applied the terms were right!!!
I’m just commenting on how I’ve heard the terminology used. For this reason, the seminary that I attended would not teach systematic theology. They were really concerned about the dangers of pigeon-holeing people and ideas and doctrine, putting God and His works in a human box.
People apply that terminology, and some of the hard-line Calvinists (such as my old OPC pastor) classify them (us?) as semi-pelagian. Believe me, I’ve had the conversations with him and was just as wound up. (And they wondered why I didn’t want to join!) He said that it was impossible for me to rightfully embrace Spiritual gifts and be in right standing with God doctrinally. He felt that you couldn’t possibly hold to Calvinism and Spiritual gifts at the same time. (Not practice them in their sanctuary but just embrace their contemporary use.) It was a huge disappointment.
My mentor was a graduate of Lee College (now Univ) in Cleveland, TN which is definitely Charismatic/Pentecostal and they are most definitely Reformed. In fact, my mentor’s mentor is still on faculty as professor emeritus. They’ve had a strong Reformed presence on their faculty for more than 40 years, and REformed teachings are alive and well there from some current students that we know.
March 15, 2008 at 2:42 am
That is, to clarify,
that God uses Spiritual gifts, not that they are wielded by people necessarily.
For example, if God wants to drop a very thought in your head, isn’t that a word of knowledge? How many have had that happen? If God wants to heal someone, that is definitely the Charismata at work. At least in my book.
I’ve had way too many experiences of thinking about people almost obsessively out of nowhere, then contacted them to discover that they are very ill and in need of prayer, etc.
In discussion with this pastor, he said that these things were not the Holy Spirit and that these things ceased with the prophets. I never agreed with him. If they were not the workings of the Spirit and our Sovereign God, what were they?
That’s why it’s always a better plan to talk Gospel and not necessarily theology, but you all know that already!
March 15, 2008 at 3:17 am
uh…shifting toe to the side…
I’m a semi-pelegia-whata?
:O 
I agree- sometimes these theological boxes make no sense in the real world. And how in the world would I explain that to my friend I am trying to reach for Christ? Her eyes would glaze over!
And then Molleth goes off on her secret codes…
March 15, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Cindy,
Oooooohhhh….
I get what you were saying.
Mrs. Joy
876-*-rat325
(use the de-coder that comes in the Cheerios box to figure that one out, baby).
March 15, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Molly…bwahahahaha! I remember those! I felt so Nancy Drew-esque.
All joking aside though, I got to thinking about the whole theology thing. I think we’ve made these theological boxes sometimes because it is much easier to categorize and label something that it is to examine it closely. And on the other hand, living in one theological box has a ’safety’ to it. You know exactly what you think about a certain subject because it is exactly whatever Grudem or Edwards or whomever has said about it. Clearly, this is dangerous, as manipulation can be quite easy by these ‘well-respected’ authors. It means, too, that you don’t have to fully engage with whatever it is that you are dealing with. In short, you don’t have to be a Berean and think things through and decide if it is really what you believe. So while I think theology is important- there is nothing wrong with seeking to understand- it can also be a tremendous stumbling block in the Christian walk.
Perhaps I am just stating the obvious (we have been talking about this for a long time now
)- but it was just another aha! moment I had this morning.
March 16, 2008 at 2:55 am
Every once in a while something like this comes along to remind me why we keep pointing to the truth….
http://richgelina.blogspot.com/
Be sure to read the first few blog entries at least and then look at the t-shirt. Somebody else gets it.
Here is also a link to this man’s wife and she also has some insightful things to say.
http://thechosenchild.blogspot.com/
March 16, 2008 at 5:05 am
Wow, Karen. If you read the comments very carefully, you see the same shenanigans that we have seen played out.
People are catching on. I especially liked that someone else saw the “No Gossip” button for what it truly is.
I think these blogs made some very good points about how off some of these teachings really are.
http://thesparrowsnest.typepad.com/the_sparrows_nest/2008/03/walking-billboa.html#comments
This is the blog that kind of sparked those comments and it was mentioned in the comments section of the other two blogs you linked to.
March 16, 2008 at 11:20 am
Corrie, what hit me about the discussion on the “Walking Billboards” blog entry is that when we all made similar comments about it when it was first posted, we were vilified, too. And, though I haven’t gone back and looked, I think it was somehow linked with the white-washed feminist comments on the “contributors” page. On a personal level, I was rebuked by a woman who was defending Stacy’s position, being told that I was misrepresenting Stacy for seeing EXACTLY what Richard and his wife saw in this…measuring the spirituality of that young girl by her t-shirt.
March 16, 2008 at 11:21 am
14) Prairie Muffins have a sense of humor, even in the midst of trials.
March 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm
14) Prairie Muffins have a sense of humor, even in the midst of trials.
This is perhaps the most ironic thing of all. I’ve been stearing clear of the PMs, but I had a chance encounter with someone like this last weekend. (It always catches me by surprise.) They are all business, but try to be clever and often can be (think RC 2.0 and Wilson) which is very different from having a sense of humor.
Having attended church with many families who left for the greener grass at Doug Phillips BCA, wives in particular, strike me as “all business” and intensely so. There was one in particular (whose husband was as easy going as can be) who I always said was looking for a fight. Humor is not really tolerated.
This wasn’t true of everyone, but it is definitely something my husband notices and identifies as a marker.
March 16, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Here is also a link to this man’s wife and she also has some insightful things to say.
http://thechosenchild.blogspot.com/”
she nailed it. Especially about the misuse of scripture. That rankles me more than anything.
(And she figured out that any disagreement with Stacy is considered gossip. that just cracks me up. Now, who can ever tell her the truth?)
March 17, 2008 at 4:27 am
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/children-oppress-them-and-women-rule.html
Here is some food for thought. It is concerning the oft misused verse in Isaiah concerning children and women who rule. The patriarchalists use this verse as a proof-text for their notion that anytime a woman or child rules it is a bad thing. But, the Bible clearly doesn’t support such a notion since Josiah, the boy king, ruled over Israel and he was a blessing and Deborah ruled over Israel and she was a blessing while her rule lasted. We also have the Queen of Sheba who will judge the nations in the last days.
March 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm
http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=189
Interesting discussion.
March 18, 2008 at 1:25 am
Dr. Laura blames Eliot Spitzer’s wife and says that men who cheat are only repairing what’s damaged and feeding himself where he was starving.
Yeah right!
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/dr-laura-blames-spitzers-wife-for-scandal/
March 18, 2008 at 5:14 am
I excuse Dr. Laura, actually. She isn’t operating out of a Christian worldview. What I have more trouble stomaching is Christians who blame wives. I seem to recall Mark Driscoll opining that pastors wives “who let themselves go” bear some of the responsibility when their husbands commit adultery, for example.
March 18, 2008 at 11:13 am
15) Prairie Muffins do not become paralyzed by fears and worries; rather, they see God’s loving hand in all their circumstances.
March 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Psalmist,
I haven’t listened to Dr. Laura for years but I do remember some talk about her thinking about Christianity and converting to it. At the very least, she is Jewish and she espouses a Judeo-Christian ethic.
I do blame the Christians who promote Dr. Laura’s stuff. I haven’t come across a site where Christians are high-fiving her on her ridiculous statements but I wouldn’t be surprised if many Christians agree with her statements. She is all about “feeding” men and she seems to use this term a lot. Her advice sounds a lot like what one would do if they had a pet and almost demeaning to men.
I agree with you about Driscoll. I was appalled at his statements following Ted Haggard’s exposure of being a hypocrite (ie., having homosexual relations with a male prostitute). But, to blame it on a woman who has “let herself go”. As I dug more into what that meant to him, I saw things he said in other sermons about how he told his wife she looks too much like a “mom” and how he made her go shopping for some new clothes. I wondered what is wrong with looking like a “mom”? Surely she was fashionable and attractive (from what I saw), so it wasn’t like she was wearing polyester pants and sweatshirts. It was just that she looked too unsexy. He also spoke about how he likes to walk behind her when they grocery shop so he can look at her butt. Well, I suppose “mom clothes” might get in the way of getting complete satisfaction of viewing his wife’s backside while they shopped. So, maybe he wanted his wife to wear tighter pants and shirts and more sexy apparel that shows off more of her body. “Mom” clothing does’t have the same affect as sexy, teen wear, I suppose.
What these people say clearly shows their ignorance when it comes to why spouses cheat on one another. If “letting one’s self go” is the cause of cheating, then why are the husbands of the Hollywood starlets cheating on their wives? Who would cheat on Halle Barry? Nicole Kidmann? Or any of the other perfect specimens of women if “letting one’s self go” is one of the main causes of a man who cheats?
Also, how come it always seems like the wives who get cheated on are the wives who DO have sex with their husbands and are loyal and devoted?
Most of the men who cheat are perfectly willing to stay with their wives and they actually say they love their wives and that they are good wives to them. They just like the excitement of illicit, forbidden sex.
Maybe if people actually looked below the surface instead of the same old knee-jerk silliness, they would see that cheating spouses do it because they are drawn away by their OWN LUST.
What a novel concept.
March 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Prairie Muffins do not become paralyzed by fears and worries; rather, they see God’s loving hand in all their circumstances.
Okay, this one is better than most of the others (I think they are about 2 for 15 on the scale of what personally strikes me as reasonable.)
But this has some problems inherent in it. Seeing God’s loving hand in all our circumstances certianly promotes our peace when we cast our cares on Him. But this implies that we aren’t supposed to become paralyzed. Some personalities have this tendency and it isn’t always due to fears and worries but over perfection or an analytical nature.
Trauma can paralyze, too. “Freezing” can be a protective physiologic mechanism that God designed that hangs around without necessarily having much to do with willfully entertaining cares and worries.
I also know that in a recent season in my life, I was stripped of opportunity and ability to some extent through circumstances and illness. I often felt like God “held me down” like the hymn “He hideth my soul in the cleft of the rock…. in the depths of His love… and covers me there with his hand.” It was a weird and uncomfortable season, but “paralyzed” describes it well. I kept praying for God’s grace and His confidence to “stay up on God’s altar” until He was done doing what He was doing in me.
I am sensitive to the cookie cutter insinuations, but this does have the cookie cutter flavor to it for me. But that could be me. We might actually be trying to communicate the same thing. ???
March 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm
http://jamesdobson.wordpress.com/
Wow. Did you guys see this (“An Open Letter to James Dobson”)?
March 18, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“Prairie Muffins do not become paralyzed by fears and worries; rather, they see God’s loving hand in all their circumstances.”
I guess anyone with any kind of mental illness (like me) is automatically disqualified from the high office of Prairie Muffin.
Frankly, this one picks me off almost as much as any of the others. Just imagine the disconnect that exists in the mind of a Christian woman who trusts in Christ alone for her salvation, who knows that she belongs to Jesus Christ body and soul in life and in death, but who sometimes can’t even leave the house because she is so terrified of what she will face. That is probably the most frustrating thing about my anxiety/OCD… I know it doesn’t make sense in God’s World, and yet, there isn’t a whole lot I can do to make it stop on my own.
Thank God for Zoloft.
March 18, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I am starting to become very concerned about Grumden and his books. They are more widely read, studied and discussed on seminary campi than anything else I have seen in years. His books are promoted by many conservative big names in Theological Scholarship and celebrity pastors.
Any mention of his many errors is ignored. People love to follow men.
It is as if he has become the Protestant Pope.
March 19, 2008 at 2:49 am
{{{Cally}}},
I want YOU to know that I so appreciate your input and your wisdom in these discussions. Thank you for your honesty and openness. It puts all their false piety and faux humility and pseudo honesty to shame.
March 19, 2008 at 2:53 am
“15) Prairie Muffins do not become paralyzed by fears and worries; rather, they see God’s loving hand in all their circumstances.”
I’m wondering if the Prairie Muffin’s definition of “fears and worries” only includes how you’re going to feed your quiverfull family when your husband can’t bring in enough with his “ideal occupation”; the self-owned, entrepreneurial business.
Because the Prairie Muffin’s definition of “fear and worries” obviously doesn’t include what it is they feel about daughters going off to college. I don’t see many of them applying God’s loving hand in this circumstance, and those that do only do it reluctantly when their husbands aren’t “visionary” and insist on their daughters attending college.
What I’m trying to point out is the inconsistencies. They assume women can’t learn and thrive Biblically outside of their of the father’s immediate sight. Therefore I believe the “Prairie Muffin” does “worry” that their daughters will stray from what the parents believe. That is their “worry,” not that their daughters will fall away from God.
March 19, 2008 at 2:54 am
http://www.battleforcivilization.com/
Well, ladies, the battle for culture is for the men. Just one more thing we can cross off of our lists and not worry our pretty little heads about.
While the men watch the movie, we can make pies and talk about pantaloons. They will let us know how we can help them battle for the culture when they are done getting their vision from this documentary.
Isn’t it grand being a biblical woman? We can leave all the directives from the Bible to the men.
March 19, 2008 at 3:19 am
Here is a blurb from the blog at battle for civilization. Make sure you watch the trailer and the more info page to get a better “feel” for what this project is all about.
““Just as Francis Schaeffer’s “How Shall We Then Live” challenged a generation to take action, Geoffrey Botkin’s The Battle for Civilization will be heralded by future generations as a series that helped expose the efforts to emasculate Christendom through the instrument of history. The greatest heroes of history embodied a masculine faith that is rarely taught in either the church, or society, today. In recovering the real story, Botkin paves the way for the courageous reform America so desperately needs. In times of crisis, nations need great communicators and Geoffrey Botkin is certainly one of ours.”
Dr. T. E. Moffitt
Chairman, Family Policy Network
Adjunct Professor of School Law in the graduate program, Columbia International University”
Emasculated Christianity? “Masculine faith”?
Anyone know what those terms actually mean? We have a masculine faith as opposed to a feminine faith? I wonder where I could find that philosophy in scripture? Just a couple of verses from the NT will do.
Courage….is this the stuff of men? Is courage a masculine trait? Are men considered emasculated if they don’t line up with the Vision Forum view on the Bible?
John 6 shows us that Jesus hid Himself from the multitude because they were going to come and seize Him to make Him king. These people didn’t understand that this world was not His kingdom. They just didn’t get it. Jesus fed them with physical food and that is why they came after Him- for more physical food. But, they were supposed to see that He is the Bread of Life which came down from Heaven in order to give eternal life to all that the Father had given Him- to all who would believe. His kingdom is NOT of this world. That means our kingdom is NOT of this world, either. We are to be going out and making disciples of all nations. We are not told to go out and battle for the culture and form theonomic governments.
We are expecting the lost to live as if they are not lost. That makes no sense.
The people who didn’t get “it” thought that this earth/realm was where Jesus was to rule and reign. They didn’t get that He was constantly pointing them to His kingdom which is not of this earth.
I wonder how Botkin would assess Jesus’ battle for the culture? Not too effective according to his terms. I wonder if they would recognize Jesus or they would just think of Him as another emasculated Christian who was too wimpy and didn’t understand that they were to seize earthly dominion of THIS world. Something makes me think that these are the same people who wouldn’t get Jesus today.
Where exactly do we see this battle for the culture in the NT? I am lost because I can’t find any verses that tell me (that’s right, I am a woman) or men to battle for civilization. Do they not understand that God’s hand is on this world and it is the Holy Spirit in EACH Christian that is restraining the forces of evil from completely taking over?
A courageous man would have taken the culture by the you-know-whats and shown them who was boss. Now, that is masculine faith! None of that turn the other cheek, put away your sword, don’t defend yourself girly-man stuff.
Cue Tim Taylor’s “Home Improvement” grunt…
March 19, 2008 at 4:21 am
Cally wrote: I know it doesn’t make sense in God’s World, and yet, there isn’t a whole lot I can do to make it stop on my own.
Thank God for Zoloft.
Thank God for Zoloft indeed. I had a period of about 5 years where I was sick, kept injuring my back, had a constant sinus infection for about 2 1/2 years straight and on antibiotics and steriods, asthma and frequent migraines because of the sinus trigger. My allergies to anything like Aspirin or Ibuprophen became life threatening, including Ben Gay on my skin (or on my husband’s clothing if he wore it). So I can take tylenol only, and no one wanted to give me anything controlled. I had my back injected with steroid about 10 times in a year or two. My husband had I had 7 surgeries between us. This was all while my husband was in several car wrecks, lost his eye after several surgeries, on and off family/medical leave, had a horrible job, etc. And my mentor and two of my grandparents died. (That’s the short version…)
I was on Zoloft with Wellbutrin because that combination helps better with pain (a combo much like that new Cymbalta they advertise on TV now). Circumstances improved, and I eventually got off all meds (with the help of some natural health stuff and a cross country move). With the help of a trauma treatment called Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (78% reduction in depression without meds), I am a changed person. And I am still going weekly for that trauma therapy, BTW.
I don’t know how I would have made it without my good family doctor and those antidepressants that not only lifted my very low mood during that time, but they greatly helped to control my pain when I could not take anything that was effective.
God bless you and lift you up. He did it for me and continues, just as He promises every believer.
Email me any time you want a pep talk. Email me anyway.
March 19, 2008 at 4:25 am
Corrie wrote, http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=189
Interesting discussion.
In more ways than one. I commented over there this afternoon, and some people made comments about my comment, some favorable, others not so much. But tonight my comments started disappearing, and now even the first one is gone.
March 19, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Cynthia,
Mine, too. I guess the truth of the patriocentric connections to kinism are too much for some people. Its too bad, too, because you and I aren’t given to wild assertions….we can back up what we claim. Why is it that some people automatically scream “slander and libel” at the drop of a hat? Or should I say at the drop of a threatened law suit?
March 19, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Cally, ditto to what Corrie said. You bring so many great insights to this group and I always am excited when I see you are posting! We love you!
March 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm
“Well, ladies, the battle for culture is for the men. Just one more thing we can cross off of our lists and not worry our pretty little heads about.”
Unless,of course, we are getting rid of soft core porn like the latest issue of Sports Illustrated. That is women’s work and we are told that men could be thought of as weirdos and perverts if they are the ones that take on that issue. How DO these rules make it into the playbook?
March 19, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Also noticed that Colin Gunn is a big advocate of Geoffrey Botkin and his film making skills.
I wonder if Botkin will be as deceptive as Gunn was when he interviewed people for his Monstrous Regiment of Women film and didn’t tell them what they were being interviewed for? According to Carol Everett, Phyllis Schaftly’s spokesperson, and the Scottish professor who was interviewed, they were not told what these clips were being used for and were quite shocked to find out. In fact, Carol Everett was horrified. Is this the industry standard we have to look forward to? Has Colin learned his techniques from Geoffrey Botkin? Do these other men who have allowed their names to be used in order to solicit funding for this project know the teachings in the Botkin book? And if we ask, will we already have been painted as white-washed feminists, “local critics” or bitter women?
March 19, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Corrie, I also don’t understand the concept of a “masculine” faith. I can’t wait to see what Scripture that is based on. And,once again, why is everything so pink and blue?
March 19, 2008 at 1:35 pm
What is the recipe for revival? More masculine men? Men who are educated in revisionist history? More of the same old same old formula for ALL women a la the Botkins, Stacy McDonald, etc?
I don’t remember seeing that in the Bible. I do, however, remember reading all the fruits of the folly of taking matters into your own hands and attempting to do things according to your own agenda….anyone actually reading the Bible?
March 19, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Alisa,
You are correct. I see the child raising models within the patriocentric camps as based on fear. In fact, I once read Stacy’s testimony of why she does not allow her children to go anywhere without a parent, not even an adult daughter to the home of another church family. To sum it up, she was adopted as an infant and it was such a bad experience that she will do whatever it takes to prevent her daughters from an unplanned pregnancy so they are not allowed to go anywhere alone. Is that not based on fear?
March 19, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Thatmon wrote,
” I guess the truth of the patriocentric connections to kinism are too much for some people. Its too bad, too, because you and I aren’t given to wild assertions….we can back up what we claim. Why is it that some people automatically scream “slander and libel” at the drop of a hat? Or should I say at the drop of a threatened law suit?”
Karen, I just attempted to post the following comment (below) on CBE Scroll, but it wouldn’t post, even without my Blogger URL and using another email address. It looks as though they don’t want me around (sniffle…sob…)
The funny thing is, I mentioned no names, criticized no one, and did not allude to kinism in my original comment there — other people brought that stuff up after visiting my blog. Sheesh!
What DIDN’T post on CBE Scroll today:
“Hi there, Cynthia here…you will find that my original comment yesterday didn’t criticize ANY person directly or indirectly — I merely contradicted Stacey, who said, “This type of disregard for human life, women in particular, has occurred throughout history among the heathen nations. It is not reflective of a “patriarchal” mindset, but of nations who are at war with God.”
My original comment here stated that it was Christianity that first attempted to place restraints upon the extreme patriarchy common to the heathen nations and Judaism in the first century; and that extreme patriarchy tended to be a characteristic of fundamentalist religions, both Christian and non-Christian; I went on to note that the farther away a sect is from the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, the more likely they are to embrace extreme patriarchy, and I gave examples of such groups.
No personal references were made in my original comment here, because that’s not what the thread was about — other people brought that up later after visiting my blog, and when that happened, ThatMom and I answered their questions. Late last night, I did attempt to post a comment providing links, names, etc, which was disallowed; I also apologised to “Watcher” about the broken links on my blog, and that posted but later disappeared, along with all of my other comments here. I do not understand why my first comment was removed — was it the link to my blog which someone found offensive? Assuming that this is the case, I’ll remove my blog address from this and further postings, and use an alternate handle and email address which is not connected to my blog or to anything which I have posted online.”
March 19, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Cynthia, I would be interested in hearing from the blog owner as to why your comments were removed but why Donna was allowed to slander us and those comments remained? Too weird. Then again, you and I are not known for threatening law suits.
March 19, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“To sum it up, she was adopted as an infant and it was such a bad experience that she will do whatever it takes to prevent her daughters from an unplanned pregnancy so they are not allowed to go anywhere alone. Is that not based on fear?”
It’s also pretty insulting to her daughters.
March 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm
One other thought….people tend to not look at the big picture. The hierarchal views of race and gender go hand in hand. You cannot separate them, as much as the patriocentric would like to.
March 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Then again, you and I are not known for threatening law suits.”
LOL!!!! Ain’t it the truth — and I’m as poor as a churchmouse, so I need have no fear of anyone suing me. It’s wonderfully liberating, having little to lose.
March 19, 2008 at 1:53 pm
In more ways than one. I commented over there this afternoon, and some people made comments about my comment, some favorable, others not so much. But tonight my comments started disappearing, and now even the first one is gone.
Perhaps they got some serious pressure. After all, we have seen that before at Amazon and the Peoria Star Journal. Why not CBE?
March 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“Corrie, I also don’t understand the concept of a “masculine” faith. I can’t wait to see what Scripture that is based on. And,once again, why is everything so pink and blue?”
I could never get anyone to explain to me what they meant by ‘feminization of the church’. I heard this all the time in seeker/purpose driven churches across the US. This thinking is NOT just in Patriarchal circles but very vested in comp circles, too.
Let me ask a question. Why you all read the Beatitudes, do they sound masculine or feminine to you?
If we say, feminine, then what can we surmise about what the ‘culture’ has done to our thinking? Has compassion, love, humility, etc. become feminine traits?
March 19, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“Unless,of course, we are getting rid of soft core porn like the latest issue of Sports Illustrated. That is women’s work and we are told that men could be thought of as weirdos and perverts if they are the ones that take on that issue. How DO these rules make it into the playbook?”
Seriously… I have to wonder what their next target will be? A lot of magazines for women feature ads for skin-care products, etc, where the models are wearing very little clothing; also many women’s magazines (such as Vogue, Glamour, Elle, and Cosmopolitan)sometimes run articles alluding to sex, etc, and promote viewpoints that are definitely not in keeping with Christianity.
I don’t like those articles, anymore than I like Sports Illustrated, but they are NOT porn, and it worries me seeing a bunch of theonomist bullies attacking EVERYONE’S freedom of speech and getting away with it.
March 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Karen(thatmom) said:
To sum it up, she was adopted as an infant and it was such a bad experience that she will do whatever it takes to prevent her daughters from an unplanned pregnancy so they are not allowed to go anywhere alone. Is that not based on fear?
And I can’t help but note that it is in direct contradiction to the Scripture. I think there is a huge difference between teaching your children God’s law and healthy boundaries (no sex before marriage, for example *law* and avoid being alone with a person of the opposite sex when possible *boundary*) and chaperoning them everywhere (I can’t believe the home of another church family- how insulting!)
And Cally and Cindy…I agree with you that it totally discounts what we all struggle with to one level or another. I am so happy that you found help in medication. Thoreau once said that he found it ridiculous that people would care for their crops and jobs with excrutiating detail (first frost, what bug was invading the lettuce, best way to rid the bugs, etc.) yet let their health go in total decline without a thought or use the obvious tools at hand to deal with the health issue. I totally agree with him! My brother would be in a mental institution without meds- as such, he leads a relatively normal life on a cocktail of psychoactives like Cindy described. He’s also in therapy with a Christian counselor.
On a whim I looked up what the bible had to say about fear- it seems to directly contradict what Stacy was saying- essentially “I don’t trust God or my daughters enough…”
Psalms 34:9-Fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him lack nothing.
Psalms 111:10-The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;all who follow his precepts have good understanding.To him belongs eternal praise.
Proverbs 14:26-He who fears the LORD has a secure fortress, and for his children it will be a refuge.
Isaiah 11:2-4- (Referring to Jesus) The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,the Spirit of counsel and of power,the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD -
and he will delight in the fear of the LORD.
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,or decide by what he hears with his ears;
On the other hand:
Proverbs 29:25-Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.
Isaiah 51:11-13-“I, even I, am he who comforts you.Who are you that you fear mortal men,the sons of men, who are but grass,that you forget the LORD your Maker,who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth,that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction? For where is the wrath of the oppressor?
Isn’t that interesting?
March 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Corrie…your comments appear to be showing in full again:
———————————–
Comment by Corrie
March 16, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Mindy,
What a beautiful post and reminder of just a few of the many great women who showed great courage in the midst of their own particular society that looked down on them just for being born women.
I can’t wait to hear all the stats on your new little niece.
The women you highlighted would be cut down by those who push one mold for ALL women. There is a book, So Much More, which denigrates women like Mary Slessor and Amy Carmichael because they did not embrace their purpose and calling as a woman- wife and mother. Instead, they chose the path of singleness and whole-hearted devotion in service to the Lord and that is a patriarchal no-no. Since patriarchalists, like Stacy McDonald who HIGHLY promotes the book, So Much More, believe that all women are born for one purpose and that purpose is to be a wife and mother or to be forever in service to their father. In other words, women are to be serving their father or husband’s calling and vision and they are not to have a calling or vision of their own.
As I read our Lord’s words in Mark 10 concerning how He came to serve and not to be served, I am always amazed that patriarchalists don’t get how Ephesians 5:25 relates to the passage in Mark 10. They teach that women were put on this earth to serve men but the Bible teaches something quite different. Men are told to LOVE their wives. They are not told to lead, guide or direct their wives. They are told to love. How are they to love? Like Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? He came to SERVE and not to be served; He came to lay aside His own will and very life and wants and desires for His Bride.
Christ said that the pagans are concerned about who is in charge, who is the top-dog and who is in authority. Christ told His disciples that it shouldn’t be so among them. Christ told them that if they wish to be first they need to be the servant of all.
I believe that the patriarchal mindset to be exactly what Christ told His disciples to get rid of. Christ elevated a woman’s status to where it should be. Patriarchy, up until that point, had made sure that women were kept in subjugation. Stacy is wrong that wrong treatment of women is only found in heathen nations. All one has to do is crack open their Bibles and read in the Old Testament and see how women were often treated among God’s own people. For example: Lot’s treatment of his daughters was clearly reflective of the disregard and lower value assigned to women. The Levite and his concubine wife. He threw her out to a gang of perverts so that he could save his own….errr….skin. She died and he cut her up and started a war over something HE was responsible for. Esther and all the other women who were forcibly kidnapped and made to be part of the King’s stable. The thousands of years of polygamy among God’s people clearly showed that women were not valued and they were treated more like property than anything else. The way that men could divorce their wives for any little reason and were fully justified in doing so. The Jewish prayers thanking God that a man was not a woman. Oy! And then we could go on and read what some of our Church Fathers thought of women and we would clearly see that women were not looked upon favorably.
Yes, Christ elevated the treatment and value of women but patriarchy is hardly to be credited for this! Christianity and patriarchy are not interchangeable words as Stacy would have us believe.
——————————————–
Whoops. that appears to be the only one. Did you also respond as LMCC?
Sheesh, this is difficult. I don’t get why there is such a “fear” either.
March 19, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Yep, I responded but that one is gone and there was nothing inflammatory or derogatory about it.
I received a private letter that stated that this was about the birth announcement. Yes, I agree. But, it wasn’t I who came onto the blog and started the patriarchy vs. feminism discussion. In fact, the writer of that particular post wasn’t even talking about patriarchy nor did she blame patriarchy for anything.
Oh well. Some people can get away with just about anything.
March 19, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I didn’t even get that much of an explanation. But the CBE site appears to be allowing my comments again, and I just sucessfully posted a comment there asking them why my original comment there (the one that had NOTHING to do with kinism, but which dared to naysay Stacey) was removed.
Really, though, the page WAS supposed to be about the baby. Shame on Stacey for using it as a forum to promote her agenda, and shame on me for stooping to responging to her.
March 19, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Well, it may make me look foolish, but I’ve looked foolish before this — I just went back to CBE and apologised for my part in hijacking the Baby Jovie thread.
March 20, 2008 at 6:17 am
Just about all the comments there that weren’t about Baby Jovie have been removed. The sad thing is, Stacy cagily worded her comment (that started the whole ball rolling) so that the slam against biblical equality–which she equates with the term she actually used, “feminism”–remains right there, and no one can respond to the slam without it being off-topic.
The question is, how does Stacy MacDonald justify her reading, and commenting negatively, at a blog devoted to discussion of biblical equality? Isn’t this just more of the patriarchal trait of a double-standard of conduct: one for the patriarchalists, and a much higher one for everyone they despise?
March 20, 2008 at 10:27 am
“Isn’t this just more of the patriarchal trait of a double-standard of conduct: one for the patriarchalists, and a much higher one for everyone they despise?”
Yes… but I hope that we ALL aspire to a “highter standard of conduct” than that which is displayed by the patriarchals, and by the “patriarchistas”…..
March 20, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You’re right, Cindy, and it shouldn’t be very difficult to so so. It’s hard for me to trust that everyone who wishes to discern the truth is doing so and no one is really fooled about what is going on when things like this happen. I need to give people more credit for being able to tell truth from flawed agenda-mongering.
March 20, 2008 at 3:21 pm
test
March 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm
test
March 20, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Cynthia,
It seems to be working fine. Go ahead and repost it in this thread.
March 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Well, I just tried it again and it still won’t post. I’ll try breaking the link… remove the space to make the link work.
Going back to #6, “Prairie Muffins dress modestly and in a feminine manner.”
What happens when a decidedly nonChristian subculture decides to adopt Modest Dress (of the noticibly religious sort, such as denim jumpers or capedresses) and Christian Headcovering?
This thread is THREE PAGES LONG:
http: //0rz.com/?kJEbF
I’ve noticed mixed couples getting dirty looks from headcovering, modest, NON-mennonite families when they are out in public together, now I’m beginning to see why. So much for headcovering being a mark of “separation”, or perhaps I should ask, “separation” of what kind???
March 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Re #542:
Oh my word. Heaven help us.
I can’t even form rational response after reading that filth. I am going to be sick.
March 20, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Regarding #542, a few months ago, a woman in a forum I frequent, who follows the Pearls teachings and also wears a headcovering, made a comment about her niece marrying someone of another race, and it wasn’t so much a negative as a slight on “mixed” marriages. I didn’t realize that marrying outside your race was unbiblical (I’m being sarcastic) and that people in the church actually have a problem with it! I’m not naive, I realize that there are racist people out there, but I would be incredibly upset if someone had a problem with my marriage based on such a superficial thing.
I haven’t read the post there, but the idea that such things are still going on in the modern church is really disturbing to me.
I’ll add more after I read it.
March 20, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I think I’m actually more confused now than I was before I read it. I thought the one comment “We’re not muslims” was amusing, because the legalistic attitude is very much evident in orthodox Islam, such as head and face coverings and women being subordinate. I visited a Mosque in college and could not enter the building without a scarf, and the women were not even permitted on the floor (there was an upstairs) during the Friday services.
My husband is an Egyptian Christian (protestant), and has taught me as much as he can about Islam from the Christian middle eastern perspective. I have to say that as sad as that forum is, and many of the people who we are “up against” as far as legalistic attitudes, are so much more like the terrorist groups and the Taliban than they are like Christ. I hate to say it that way, but that’s what it feels like to me.
March 20, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Is there a trick to looking up that link? It’s not working for me (in regards to #542)
March 21, 2008 at 1:40 am
Take the space out of the link…between the colon and the forward slash…
March 21, 2008 at 1:55 am
Abby said:
I have to say that as sad as that forum is, and many of the people who we are “up against” as far as legalistic attitudes, are so much more like the terrorist groups and the Taliban than they are like Christ. I hate to say it that way, but that’s what it feels like to me.
I have to agree with that. And I think that’s what makes me so sick to my stomach, and so sad. “They will know we are Christians by our love…”
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
John 15:17 This is my command: Love each other.
I don’t know how the Scripture could be any clearer. Oh yeah, the extra biblical rules. I forgot. *sarcastic eye roll*
March 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm
16) Prairie Muffins are accomplished at organizing and delegating.
March 21, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Abby re: 545
I agree, this is appalling but the fact is that there are groups of people within the church who believe and are teaching white supremacy and that mixed marriages are sinful. We discussed this issue in December on the vision daughters threads and you can go back and read until you see the word “kinism” come up.
Sadly, this is all associated with the neo-confederate movement that is also a part of the patriocentric movement, hence the discussion here. Perhaps Cynthia Gee will cut and paste her findings in a nutshell for you here.
March 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm
It’s sickening to me that anyone could call themselves a Christian and support an organization responsible for beating, killing, and hanging men, women, and children just because they happened to be the “wrong” race. How does one even reconcile that in their mind?
Re: PM’s and organization: To me, this is just another area where aspiring PMs would just feel indequate. I DAILY struggle with being unorganized. I do think organization is important so I strive for it but it’s hard! I also think when you get into this area, it’s easy to maintain an image. This has happened on some of the blogs I frequented. “Oh, look at how effecient and organized she is!” the commenters would scream. Meanwhile, if you really read the posts, it would pretty obvious the blogger wasn’t at all. But it *appeared* to be so.
March 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm
PM’s and organization:
This just sounds like more June Cleaver and Donna Reed stuff to me. Doesn’t everyone aspire towards being organized? If you’ve got people to whom you can delegate, don’t you? Then again, delegation can easily be viewed as “me-ology.”
My best girlfriend was given a plaque by a dear lady in our church when she had one of her little ones. She proudly desplayed it as it described her. I don’t remember the whole thing, but the gist of it was that everything was pushed aside if it needed to be to take care of that little baby. It ended with something like–
So laundry stop fussing and dust go to sleep,
My baby needs rocking and babies wont keep
I’ve never felt more welcome or comfortable in someone else’s home than I did in her home. When the troops were still little, there were always sticky fingerprints all over the place in the kitchen. And who cares? The family served the kids, not the home. And frankly, this woman is the most organized and “get things done” people I know.
The poem on the plaque sounded like a manifesto that was quite opposite from the Prairie Muffin list and the “keep your elbows off the table” rules in some PM houses I’ve visited. But my friend was very “organic” and the how-to lists are anything but.
March 21, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Maybe it’s time to have a “True Woman” manifesto, in honor of this wonderful blog.
Just a fun thought.
Cindy, I like your story about the “babies don’t keep” poem. I’ve always liked that. I grew up in a home where you literally could have eaten from the sanitized floors. My brothers (twins) and I were 12.5 months apart in age, and this was a stepmother. She had the cleanest, neatest home you could imagine. And we ALL served the house. I can’t even call it a home, because there simply wasn’t any love. Children didn’t matter, husband didn’t matter, even she didn’t matter; what mattered was a clean house. It didn’t help that she resented us step-children and showed it in some awful ways, but that’s another issue. My point is, my stepmother idolized her house, and be damned to the people who lived there.
By contrast, the grandmother with whom we lived in our youngest years didn’t fuss a whole lot over housecleaning. Her house WAS clean, but she didn’t dust daily, the fingerprints on the switchplates might be there a few days before she cleaned them, toys were permitted in the living room, children could sit on any piece of furniture in the house, etc. We didn’t have to be afraid to be children in our grandmother’s house.
You probably don’t even need to guess which of my mother figures I consider the mother in my life.
Note of thanks to Lynn for cleaning up that awful series of attacks last night. I’m sure it was a major pain to do it. I, for one, appreciate it greatly!
March 21, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“Sadly, this is all associated with the neo-confederate movement that is also a part of the patriocentric movement, hence the discussion here. Perhaps Cynthia Gee will cut and paste her findings in a nutshell for you here.”
I’ll be glad to do that after Easter, say next week sometime? Is there anything specific that you want, or would you prefer an overview, links, etc?
March 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm
You know, I have a hard enough time loving and following the Law of GOD (aka, the Ten Commandments), let alone the law of Carmon Friedrich! Not only can I not be a biblical woman because I have a mental illness, but now I’m discounted because I’m a “messie” and not a “cleanie”.
I’m so glad I’ve come out of the PM mentality. Back then, reading this manifesto just heaped more burning coals on my head. And now, I understand the liberty I have in Christ… liberty that lets me wear pants, take Zoloft, and be disorganized. But I also understand the GRACE of the Lord and his mercy, and I learn each and every day to love HIS Law and desire to live it out of gratitude for the salvation granted to me through faith in Christ. I can’t think of anything more liberating! I guess that’s the point of the gospel, though, isn’t it? It is for FREEDOM that Christ set us FREE!
March 21, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Hey all,
If you look at the bottom of this conversation, Stacy Macdonald says that that not ever letting her daughters be alone thing was not true. Just noting. Of course I can see how any parent, not just a Christian homeschooling one, might be tempted to controlling behaviour. But I am glad to hear that Mrs. Macdonald does not in fact chaperone her daughters this way. I have enough beef with the little I’ve read of her writing and ideas, without freaking out over something that she may have done.
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2008/02/protecting-our-daughters.html
March 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Beatrice, it is good to hear that about Stacey.
You know, there is a danger in “crusading” against things like patriarchalism, because by definition, crusading guarantees that you will have opponents. When we hear something GOOD about those whom we oppose, and are able to be glad for them because of it, that is a very good thing, because as C.S.Lewis notes,
“The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad ass it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything – God and our friends and ourselves included – as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”
March 21, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Beatrice,
I will try to locate the article Stacy wrote where she describes this as their family policy. I will also tell you that I live about 30 miles from her and as of 8 months ago, according to people who invited their daughters to their home, this was still their family policy. Perhaps she has amended this.
March 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm
BEatrice,
I just went back and read through that article. Where does it say that the girls go unaccompanied?
March 21, 2008 at 6:29 pm
“I will also tell you that I live about 30 miles from her and as of 8 months ago, according to people who invited their daughters to their home, this was still their family policy.”
One wonders what motivates a policy like that. Do the McDonalds distrust their daughters, or do they believe that the people who issued the invitations don’t quite measure up as Christians and as human beings, and so do not trust their daughters to visit these people’s homes?
March 21, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Beatrice,
This is the problem with the McDonalds and with many others in the patriarchy movement. They want to do what they want, but they don’t want to take the heat for it.
This happened with someone who asked about voting. The Vision Forum crowd forbids women voting, and Stacy authored a book with one of the most outspoken people for VF on the subject. So someone emailed Stacy, and Stacy told them that she does vote. And her grown daughters vote. If she does vote, she’s not in compliance with the VF policy. How can you believe what is true?
They want and need to be all things to all people. They play to the audience, giving them what they want to hear. They need book sales. They need magazine sales. They need attention, apparently.
This came up again recently about dress. Stacy and their family wear the Prairie Muffin look which actually draws attention to them. They wear headcoverings in the services. But then when they go out in their garb, people look at them as if they’re odd. So she then writes about the hardships of looking odd to people. (Why don’t they amend their dress? Clothing can be modest but it need not be a style from 100 years ago to do so.) In effect, they are doing something that is the opposite of modesty.
There is a thing called internal consistency. To be credible, your message needs to be consistent and say the same thing in every venue. Most people who vary between venues will generally explain why they vary, without ever being asked. Of all the people in patriarchy, the McDonalds have the least bit of consistency of all the camps. From where I sit, they do whatever is politically expedient at the moment. And when the heat starts pouring on, they bail out. They hide, cover and obscure the truth about their actions in particular.
March 21, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Here is the quote from Stacy’s own testimonial about her adoption:
“Like XXXXX pointed
out, it would be near impossible for any of our daughters to become
pregnant, either by rape or otherwise. We don’t do youth group etc. and we
do things as a family. They are very protected and sheltered. They’re also
showered with love and affection by their father. Not the oooey-gooey kind,
but the respectful kind that shows a cherished kind of love. This is the
way God intended. I don’t believe young girls need to be out and about
unescorted. We have an example in Scripture of the dangers of this:
And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see
the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite,
prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled
her. Gen 34:1-2
March 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Cynthia Gee,
An overview with links would be terrific. I know you have done this before but I think it looks like we need to see it again! Thanks.
March 21, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see
the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite,
prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled
her. Gen 34:1-2″
Not to mention reading INTO a passage of scripture what YOU want to get out of it.
March 21, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Just more holding the woman responsible for the man’s sin. “If she just wasn’t out there visiting the other women, she wouldn’t have gotten raped.” Yes, that’s the way NOT to solve the problem of rape. Focus on sequestering the potential victim, rather than doing the harder work of addressing the root cause of violence against women: attitudes and upbringings that devalue and use women.
March 21, 2008 at 7:14 pm
When ANY woman, young or old, goes “out” she risks rape. When any man goes out, he risks being robbed or worse.
When we love, we risk being hurt; when we have children, we women risk our lives to bear them and both fathers and mothers risk hearts to raise them to adulthood and let them go.
When we love Jesus we risk ridicule and misunderstanding, and in some countries, even our lives.
Here’s to going “out”, and here’s to the One who taught us to risk it all.
March 21, 2008 at 7:19 pm
thatmom, or Mrs. Campbell, or Karen, (or whatever you like to be called), at the very bottom of the comment section she said it wasn’t true about the chaperoning thing.
Cynthia Gee, (557) I couldn’t agree with you more. The Lewis quote is awesome, of course. I struggle with this very much. Getting all worked up and against someone, not just their beliefs, is very addicting. I find myself wanting my friends who like the Botkins, ect, to dress wierd and act sheltered and extreme, just so I can feel better in looking down on them. Wrong.
I have come across Dinah’s story being used that way. I remember it being used in a way that would greatly discourage any young girl with an eager, exploring spirit. Our world is a harmful, twisted place, but it’s still a beautiful place. So I don’t like to see girls being taught only one side of the truth, and telling them they need to make sure they have protection (in a flawed, earthly human figure). This is not right. I know that if someone tried to rape me and my father was around, he would be fighting with all his might for me. But he’s not Superman, and our life and breath is not garunteed us for the next moment, much less our safety. I could quite possibly be raped tonight as I rest in my room! This does not mean I separated myself from “covering” or whatever. If I believed that reliance on another sinner determined my safety and well being in that way, I cannot imagine how warped my faith would be. And it ties into the whole idea that whenever someone has misfortune, they neccessarily sinned in some way that brought it on. Very harmful thinking that doesn’t understand living by faith.
March 21, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Cynthia, that’s it exactly!
We can’t exactly “go and make disciples,” except of those inside our own homes, if we don’t leave our own homes. The Great Commission is for all Christians, not just for those who gathered to witness the Ascension.
March 21, 2008 at 7:30 pm
About the McDonalds the whole attempt at plausible deniability.
I found a really good quote once, and later discovered more about the person who said it. Did that mean I gave a blanket endorsement to everyone who liked the quote? No. But when I used it thereafter, I qualified things saying that I didn’t advocate everything he ever wrote.
Here’s where things get sticky. We are talking about doctrine and things pertaining to the central elements of the Christian faith. So we’re not talking about Dorothy Sayers saying that “Brevity is the soul of lingere.” (an acutal quote off a quote a day calender I had once)
There is also a concept that is long forgotten in our society. “My name is my honor.” When I wrote to a few ministries, urging them to not broadcast Stacy McDonald and Jennie Chancey on their shows, part of that relates to the endorsement that the the ministries give to them. When these respected ministries lend their platform to someone, people look to the trusted platform with a certain degree of trust that the ministry has approved or accepted the them. Minstries and people don’t seem to care about that anymore, following along with a society that doesn’t care whether someone was sexually intimate with a president, for example. Those things don’t seem to matter. But they really do. I don’t care what anyone says about that. That still has a powerful effect on how others are received and perceived.
Stacy McDonald has a strong affiliation with Vision Forum. They’ve published her books. She’s helped market their other books and products. Now Stacy can bemoan all that she wants that she is not obligated to them, but she is. She absolutely is. They bear her name for her and she bears the name of Vision Forum for them. Given the degree of intimacy she has shared with that organization and with others, she now bears the responsibility for that connection.
There are many problems. First, Stacy and James don’t fit the Vision Forum paradigm, so they keep their history concealed. That is very inconsistent. They were both married and divorced, have a blended family, and this is seriously inconsistent with Phillip’s “vision.” So this is confusing.
Stacy said it herself in that clip on line from the Monstrous Regiment of Women. She said if women dress like their pregnant then they shouldn’t be surprised if people think they’re actually pregnant. If we dress immodestly, people will assume that we are immodest. They behave inconsistently and their statements, when brought to light contradict one another.
Look at the anti Sports Illustrated thing. Women are not to be in the public square, but when it suits them, they are in the public square. All of a sudden, it’s okay. That’s inconsistent, and it is contradictory.
Then they endorse someone’s book or someone’s ministry at a time and in a venue where it is expedient to do so. At a later time, that comes back to them and the working out of the fine details puts pressure on them. It also happened with Stacy regarding her own inconsistent statements in her own book.
But she is still responsible.
She might not like it, but she is still responsible.
Then something happens and they react. Someone says something here, and Stacy and James are both doing damage control to placate and mitigate what they have said somewhere else. And it happens over and over again.
What does that say of their name and of their honor?
Our names are our honor. Our consistency speaks to our honor. Our actions speak to our honor.
Why is it that Stacy does not talk about all the people that they have harassed in eccesial courts and tried to pull into church discipline situations over doctrinal disagreements outside of their belief system? In her blog article that’s referenced above, she talks about easy going Christians at the end of that blog piece? She says she prefers them, yet her past actions demonstrate that this is not true. Why does she not talk about how a ministry once threatened to sue her and her husband because they tried to turn Galatians 2 matters into Matthew 18 situations? Why doesn’t she talk about all the people they’ve threatened with legal action and such for things like refusing to give out their husband’s email address so they could start their algorhythm of discipline over a doctrinal difference? That doesn’t sound like an easy going Christian to me. Or how about crashing someone elses Yahoo group archives? I can’t believe she had the audacity to write such a thing, but why not? They’ve concocted just as many crazy tales about their own personal histories that are a much further stretch.
When your behavior contradicts your professions, or your professions contradict other professions (in the event that you haven’t recanted a view or position), that reflects on your honor.
If that doesn’t matter to most people anymore, then so be it. But it matters to me and I believe that it should still matter to the Body of Christ.
March 21, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Can someone please delete my last comment? #569
It’s all been said before. Why throw fuel on the fire? If people want to read stuff written by people who constantly talk out of two sides of their mouth and do things that contradict what they say and believe them, then more power to them. It’s their choice.
It’s America, and we can believe any fool crazy thing we want to believe.
March 21, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Hi Cindy,
Would you please clarify what “damage control” is? I think I have an intuition, but I’m sure you can explain it very well.
March 21, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Oh, sorry, Cindy if you didn’t want to talk about it anymore.
March 21, 2008 at 7:57 pm
“If people want to read stuff written by people who constantly talk out of two sides of their mouth and do things that contradict what they say and believe them, then more power to them. It’s their choice.
It’s America, and we can believe any fool crazy thing we want to believe.”
ROFLOL!!! true…. but the danger comes when people try to force everyone else into their own cock-eyed mold.
March 21, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Damage control was originally a naval term that they used to avoid getting hit by torpedos, if I recall correctly.
In cult exit counseling, it is frequently used to describe what groups and group leaders to to contain problems or counter dissent.
Stacy makes previous statements about how she and her husband to not leave their daughters out of the house unsupervised, even if the girls go together. This is true, but it would not be very good for their PR and book sales. So it is information that they don’t want to be common knowledge in the markets that they want to buy their books.
Someone who has knowledge of this says something about it elsewhere online. Another person reads it and goes back to the source and asks Stacy if this is true.
This is a break in milieu control and the unwanted information about them breaks through to the public. They then generally do “damage control” to either get the info that makes them look contradictory off the internet, usually by shmoozing or guilting the blog host. If that doesn’t work, they have more damage control to do (like a submarine trying to out maneuver a torpedo). The anti-gossip campaign a few months ago (that Stacy couldn’t hold to herself, so she did by giving everyone Dr. Seuss names), was another attempt at damage control. Get as many people as possible to believe that asking these legitimate questions is really a sin, so that the information is as contained as possible.
The next stage of damage control would be to discredit the source of the information through ad hominem attack. Depending on how sensitive the information is or how damaging to the group, a cult will go to a more agressive level.
I had this happen right after I put my first review of Passionate Housewives online, before someone complained and had it removed. A few days later, the patriospeak website appeared, wherein people who post on True Womanhood and others were identified as wolves or mischief makers. If you can’t contain the dissent and questions, keep people as far away from the information as possible.
For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses make it a policy that you cannot contact a former member that has left. This is damage control. I was just considering what happened to me at my church, when writing out a part of my testimony for someone. Our church didn’t have a policy about no contact with former members, but they did make up stories about them. They told people that a former member got into witchcraft so that people would be too terrified to contact her. She got exit counseling not witchcraft! It was a lie. She joined a Preby church. That’s damage control.
Deleting blog posts is a common damage control tactic in patriarchy. Like the 2003 revision of the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, where they call anything but homeschooling an outright sin and women working an outright sin. You can’t pull that up anywhere anymore, and they certainly don’t indicate that the document has been revised since then. They just pretend that it never existed.
March 21, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Well, Beatrice, I don’t know what to say.
That quote above is cut and pasted directly from her written testimony and sent to me a year ago. (Maybe “Anne” who posted here a couple weeks ago and look at the archive where it came from to confirm it.) Since it had been written several years ago, I wondered if she still believed that. A few months later, (which was last summer) I asked a woman I knew in their church if that was their practice. She said that she didn’t know but had suspected so because her own daughter had repeatedly invited the older (in their 20’s) McDonald girls to their home and to concerts etc. and was always turned down. So this woman asked Stacy if the girls would be allowed to go to lunch with her daughter. Stacy told her that the way they would allow it would be for both the mothers to go along and sit at a separate table while the girls had their lunch at another table but not the girls going alone. Again, we are not speaking of young girls or even teen but young ladies in their early 20’s.
Also, I chose to not post the entire article that Stacy wrote about her adoption because it was less than favorable and certainly a different take than portrayed more recently. But that quote about Dinah and that comment were in the context of her adoption story, which, I might add, was written, in part, to discourage some people from adopting. (I was quite interested in this since I, too, was adopted and am quite a promoter of adoption.
Beatrice, I do not have a problem with either of these views if that is what they choose for their own family. We each make our own choices regarding how we will raise our children. What I do have a problem with is the duplicity. Why did Stacy have to imply that we had lied and gossiped about her? Why couldn’t she just have stated that, yes, in fact, that was their family policy even as recently as last summer? Doesn’t she realize that her daughter and the other families who knew this had been their policy can see that she has not been honest?
I get weary, honestly I do, of pointing these things out. And Cindy is correct, people will believe what they want to believe. In fact, “they have such a nice family” often trumps the fact that people like this can dissemble language and not bat an eye and people overlook it. But the spiritual damage that is done to those who know the truth and see the dissembling and still abide it will be, in my opinion, truly devastating one of these days.
March 21, 2008 at 8:32 pm
FYI, the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy refer to Vision Forum. You can see the later revision of that document at http://www.visionforumministries.com. There is no hint of any problems with that earlier version or that their was an earlier version.
If you do read the intro to the document, it does say that they wrote the original document because so many people called their beliefs legalistic and hegemonic. Ha! It was actually that 2003 version of the “tenets” that caused nost all of that commotion. Vision Forum went seriously aggressive about that time, with the “tenets” as one example. This was probably around the same time they called people outside of their program “canaanites” and when other homeschoolers started calling them “homies” in response.
The statement before the current tenets is t