27) The letter “P” at the beginning of their names should be the only similarity between Prairie Mufffins and Pharisees. Never should the Prairie Muffin haughtily pray, “Thank God I am not like that…(fill in the blank).” Rather, she should always say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.
“I would really appreciate a thread devoted to the Pearls and a thread devoted to the Maxwells because I was so heavily into them for years, much to my sadness. Processing it with others who have been there would aid my healing although I’ve come a long ways!”
We have discussed the Pearls’ teachings on and off throughout the Visionary Daughters thread and Spunky and I discussed Created to Be His Helpmeet on a couple podcasts but I am not really familiar with the Maxwells. Should we open a new thread just for this discussion?
27) The letter “P” at the beginning of their names should be the only similarity between Prairie Mufffins and Pharisees. Never should the Prairie Muffin haughtily pray, “Thank God I am not like that…(fill in the blank).” Rather, she should always say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.
This is a lovely aspiration, in and of itself, but I have never seen this grace offered to those outside the circle of patriocentricity. Basically, all that has happened to me is a “looking down the nose” at me and some outright comments that equate to “thank God I’m not like that WWF or whatever.” Maybe they only think this applies to those who they deem acceptable based on limited atonement or something? It only applies to other PM’s???
I can’t find the original post that brought up the Maxwells. And, yes, Cindy, that is the same Maxwell as was brought up in the comment above.
I don’t know much about their teachings on patriarchy. But, if anyone has the book “Managers of Their Home” and noticed a “Corrie” with 6 children………that is me!
That was when Seth was a baby (he is now 10) and I nursed him while I taught school. I never had a separate nursing schedule (so you won’t see that in my schedule) for my babies. My oldest son (12 at the time) wasn’t traumatized as far as I can tell.
One of the concepts that I gained from that book that was helpful is to pair up an older one with a younger one so I could teach a couple of others for a block of time.
Now I am crying thinking about how fast time has flown by……….
Wow – take a short drive and there are a hundred more comments.
I remember another reason given on the PW list that pants were immodest: it shows a woman’s private parts.
Yikes! I hope not!
Hmmm. I’ll have to keep an eye out for those pants. I don’t want to accidentally purchase a pair of genitalia pants for my wife or son. Does this not make it obvious to everyone how unbalanced these people are?
Comment #601, previous threadStacy McD: “First we have to remember that modesty is an issue of the heart. Immodesty says, “Look at me!” Modesty says, “Look at Jesus.”
Richard, Maybe Stacy picked up some pointers from your blog post on modesty?
Somehow I doubt it. All of the answers in that interview were VERY carefully worded. I think Stacy’s answers to the questions she so obviously helped to choose (or wrote herself) are going through continual refinement (spin) to help make them more palatable to potential consumers of her products. I think Stacy quite likely watches various blogs and forums to see what the arguments are from the other side so that she can word things in a way that seem to say “that person was wrong about me.” But all one has to do to find the truth-to find her actual beliefs on these things-is to look at her blog. She does not believe that modesty has anything at all to do with this answer. She believes, according to her blog, that modesty is totally about which particular item of clothing you choose to wear.
I would say that if you walk into church wearing a gown with a train or some other sort of period costume, your clothes ARE going to say “look at me”.
This was actually the way I originally entered this general discussion about a year ago. A very nice lady from our church regularly wore Victorian outfits (complete with hats) to church-even to church picnics. At one of our picnics she asked if I had read her blogpost about modesty. I told her that according to the biblical definition of modesty, her Victorian outfit was immodest among all of the others who were wearing picnic garb (jeans and t-shirts). As the discussion progressed, I told her that you could not make a case that going to a beach topless (if that were the culturally appropriate thing to do) is immodest according to the Bible, unless the woman’s reason for going topless was to be noticed.
I know this will strike many as a terrible thing to say, and I am certainly not encouraging that. But at the same time, the Bible does not prohibit this. It calls us to dress in a way that points others to Christ. This is completely attitudinal. It does not put any stipulations on dress whatsoever. Of course, I believe the Holy Spirit will guide each person to dress properly as they seek to magnify Christ and to not draw unecessary attention to themselves.
MY VIDEO reviewing the belief systems and the development of the patriarchy movement is online on my updated website!!!
Very good presentation, Cindy. Without hijacking the thread, I wanted to comment on two things that jumped out at me.
1) Women in this movement cannot take communion unless the Patriarch (husband) gives them his blessing. MY GOODNESS!!! That is absolutely shocking.
2) Regarding militant fecundity … I understand the desire behind this. I have heard recently that Europe is heading toward a majority Muslim population due to the higher birthrates among Muslim women in comparison to others.
The problem with the thinking of the Patriarchy crowd is the same as was true for the Puritans. Covenant/peadocommunion concepts don’t always result in believing children. Try as you might, unless God regenerates the heart, you have a non-believing infidel for a child, who will grow up to be a non-believing adult. You simply cannot legislate Christianity. Christianity is a heart issue, not a legal issue (well, except for justification – but that’s another matter).
Oh … and one more:
3) It is a sin to educate your children in any way other than homeschooling.
My son’s medical condition requires education that I have never found available through private or Christian institutions. They are certainly not available through any homeschooling systems or programs I am aware of. He requires the assistance of the State. I think the greater sin would be for us to fail to educate him by attempting to do something at home that we cannot do.
I highly recommend Cindy’s site to everyone. It’s outstanding.
The truth is, in some way…SOME of these so-called “modest” women DO want to stand out.
They are just salivating waiting for some poor soul like me (in jeans) to ask, “Hey, why are you wearing that hat?” or “why are all your kids in matching dresses?” or what not.
Then they can say “Oh! We are Christians! We believe in Christian Modesty! We DOOOOON’T want our brothers to stumble so we would rather clothe ourselves modestly.” or some other apt answer
And they do it for the attention to holiness they get.
They don’t want to stand out, yet they do. It is such an oxymoron.
Richard,
No excoriation from me. I agree with you. Modesty does not call attention to us. It is immodesty that does so. So, as to your topless beach example, though I would just as soon not go to one , if it were culturally appropriate as in certain older Polynesian cultures for instance, then a covering would call attention to something that would otherwise go unnoticed.
‘I think the greater sin would be for us to fail to educate him by attempting to do something at home that we cannot do.’
I couldn’t agree more.
I think to be a good parent, we should want what is best for our children – and this will be different from child to child, and from family to family.
Chosing to mindlessly apply a stereotyped principle in an absolute manner will only result in DISservice to our families – regardless of whether the stereotyped view comes from the world or from human leaders in the church.
I also think it’s simplistic to assume that just because parents chose to send their children to school, they are not involved in their children’s education or that they are failing to train their children in the ways of the Lord.
There are no ‘one size fits all’ answers regarding how we should apply the Word of God to our daily lives.
“I must dress in a way that draws attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within me, rather than to my physical body.”
DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.
We are told that our adorning is to be inward, and not the sort that comes from clothing.
In other words, it is to be our good works, not our clothing, that shows that we have the heart and spirit of Christ.
This is one more example of how things have moved further down the pike than they were 20 years ago within homeschooling circles. I saw it coming a few years back but this recent term is pretty funny to me.
My husband and I had three children and hadn’t plan to have any more. Then we were introduced to the concept of trusting the Lord to give you the children He wanted you to have without interfering. This is quite a different concept than trying to have as many babies as possible for whatever reason, irregardless of the consequences to the health of the mother or the idea of stopping nursing an infant so you will get pregnant right away. Somehow I don’t see how these latter attempts show a faith in God’s sovereignty.
Long story short, we came to agree with the idea of using no birth control for our family and the Lord gave us three more babies and 3 more pregnancies that resulted in miscarriage. I never felt that I was in any race to procreate nor was I trying to build up any army. Sadly, I have known families where the mom’s health was in terrible danger because she was pregnant all the time and miscarrying left and right. I know one couple whose doctor finally told them, after 13 miscarriages, that they needed to stop even trying, which they did,thankfully.
Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?
Oops, I hit the send button too soon. I was going to say,
“I would add that modest does not call attention to us, modest calls attention to the God that we love and desire to glorify.
1 Tim 2:9~
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety.”
You can generally guess that a person is NOT a christian, if they are dressed very immodestly, but you cannot tell by a person’t modest clothes whether or not they are saved. Some Christians do wear “Modest Dress” but so do a lot of heretical cults. TRULY modest dress just sort of blends into the crowd — it is not obviously IMmodest, but nor is it noticably different from the dress of the culture in which it is found.
Modest clothing which calls attention to itself by virtue of its radical appearance is not modest. It draws attention first to the wearer, and secondarily to the wearer’s religion, but it does not show that the wearer is Christ-like. In other words, it may mark the wearer as being religious, but it says nothing about the wearer’s heart.
“…stopping nursing an infant so you will get pregnant right away. Somehow I don’t see how these latter attempts show a faith in God’s sovereignty.”
God designed a woman to nurse a baby for about 2-3 years, which prevents ovulation from occurring for at least part of that time. This protects the health of both the mother and the baby, and ensures the health of any future pregnancies by preventing them from occurring to soon.
Curtailing nursing so as to become pregnant again as soon as possible is unnatural. Whether or not it is a SIN, I couldn’t say, but it is not much different in intent than avoiding pregnancy artificially — both actions circumvent nature and allow one’s self-will, rather that God, to determine family size.
“Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?”
It’s already here, and not just in FundiMormon groups, but it’s pretty much “under the radar” so far. Keep an eye on the Carolinas and Appalachia.
Irene, the one on that list that actually shocked me was “Patronizing of Businesses.” I have heard of boycotts on occasion because of bad practices, but long distance providers and restaurants are a biblical issue? I think I have heard it all now!
On the issue of nursing, I nursed my daughter for 19 months (to the chagrin of many), and my doctor (OB/GYN) was actually quite impressed and–dare I say–proud that I had been nursing so long. He even encouraged me not to get pregnant right away after weaning to give my body “a break.” I got pregnant 10 months later, a sufficient amount of time, I think.
It disturbs me that anyone who believes breastfeeding is the right feeding choice would curtail it for the sake of having yet another baby. I would much rather have them spaced out 3-4 years apart than intentionally try to get pregnant after only a year (or a few months). My mom had my brother 11.5 months exactly after I was born. She had all sorts of trouble, pre-term labor, specifically, and I believe it was because she got pregnant again so soon (not on purpose). Everything turned out okay, but it just shows how dangerous it is to get pregnant quickly after having a baby. Your body NEEDS that time to heal, and I think it goes against the will of God to “make” it happen again so soon.
I also have a friend who, after his wife had two complicated pregnancies, and several bad miscarriages, took it upon himself to get a vasectomy (with her consent, of course), because he didn’t want to put her through the agony another time. (Talk about loving your wife the way Christ loves the church!) I would much rather hang out with that kind of Christian than one who believed that his wife should continue to suffer through just so they can have a full quiver.
Having lots of kids can be a great thing, but only when it’s done responsibly.
I shared our story on my now defunct blog, but in a nutshell…we have been pregnant 5 times.
Our first 2 babies died before birth. Our next one was perfectly healthy. Then our last 2 were born with a genetic disease that we know now my husband is a carrier of (sorry for bad grammar).
We have been thru testing time and time again. 50% of the time we will have a child with distal arthrogryposis multiplex congenita. Our type can be lethal, they think 70% of the time.
We decided it was too great a risk to put me and our family thru anymore. If we want more, we’ll adopt and be very happy about it. But honestly, I am very happy with the three children God has granted us with. I don’t see the need to adopt 10 more to prove my “militant fecundity” (or adoptivity or whatever)
Long story short, people CANNOT make decisions like we have unless they’ve walked in similar shoes. It is very easy to say you’re going to just have all the kids/pregnancies you get when life is good and health is good.
I have, sadly, run across blogs of families with medical problems similar to ours, and they choose to keep having babies over and over, many of which die or have very poor health and quality of life. I cannot choose for them, but I know what we’ve chosen to do. To some of these folks, the fact we abstain from more children because of medical issues is akin to abortion or something. It boggles my mind.
All I know is that my husband and I, and our children just cannot take losing another child. It was almost the death of me going thru our personal situation. I’ve made peace with it, moved on, and TREASURE the three I’ve been given to raise this side of heaven.
Lindsey, thank for sharing your very personal story. You hit the nail on the head….it is all personal and aside from those things that are clearly stated in Scripture regarding these things, we are people with minds and choices. I have heard this teachings to which you refer and they are so mean-spirited and lacking in any compassion whatsoever. Thank you again for being so transparent.
Cynthia Gee,
Those posts were absolultely fightening. Yikes!
They certainly prove the point that outward appearance has nothing at all to do with inward purity.
From #27 “This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.”
Didn’t Jesus say “My yoke is easy and my burden is light?” I see that as an invitation to something that doesn’t need ANY strength to carry. It’s not about us, is it?
She sort of misconstrues the entire verse here, and clearly misses the point. Jesus was comparing himself to the pharisees and how they place heavy burdens on people. Jesus says that there is no heavy burden with him, just follow him. Clearly, Carmon sees her faith as a rather heavy burden, thankfully, she sees that she cannot carry it alone. But that doesn’t change the fact that she needs someone to tell her that it doesn’t have to be this way.
I understand the part about “following God’s law” but this is another area where I think the patriarchs have got it all wrong (obviously!). We are not under the law, but grace, and Paul said it was wrong for us to continue to live as if we are under the law, because Jesus fulfilled it, meaning we no longer have to. This is the whole message of Romans.
I often wonder what would happen to some of the young women in this movement if they just picked up their Bibles and started reading them all on their own. Would they come to the startling conclusions that what they’ve been taught all along is wrong? I have a friend who grew up in sort of this situation, and she is now an atheist, because there was no grace in the churches her family attended. It was all about the law. And she can’t see how I can live as a Christian and not believe those things that were drilled into her head for 20 years. I’m finally coming to understand why it’s so hard for her to understand the passages in the Bible about grace and about freedom for women. She interprets them through a patriarchal lens, yet she rejects that ideology.
Cynthia, I am reading one of those threads you gave. It disturbs me that someone keeps referring to Jews in such a derogatory manner. Almost Nazi-like. But I guess I do need to consider the source.
I’m not sure how you meant that comment, but I will assure you that for myself, as a Christian, I highly revere the Bible and what it does and does not say.
I do not allow others to ADD to it or detract from it in order to “get their way.”
You are correct. It is a heart issue.
Marble countertops, organic baby food, and my tight fitting jeans are not addressed in the Bible. Thank God He saw it fit to give us our own minds and free will to exercise how we will walk out our lives before Him and all the world.
(and here is a huge shocker Trish—not every Christian adheres to a literal translation of every single word of the scriptures. We are all not fundamentalists or reformed, or whatever the label du-jour might be)
“(and here is a huge shocker Trish—not every Christian adheres to a literal translation of every single word of the scriptures. We are all not fundamentalists or reformed, or whatever the label du-jour might be)”
Normal Middle wrote:
“Marble countertops, organic baby food, and my tight fitting jeans are not addressed in the Bible. Thank God He saw it fit to give us our own minds and free will to exercise how we will walk out our lives before Him and all the world.”
1 Cor. 10:31~ Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Normal Middle, if in your heart your marble counter tops, organic baby food and tight fitting jeans glorify God, than you also are correct.
God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ, and so that is my ‘plumb line’. I always try to ask myself, “Does this please God? Is this what Christ Himself would do?”
If my answer is yes, I will proceed! If the answer is no, I need to address the issue and make a change.
Trish wrote: Normal Middle, if in your heart your marble counter tops, organic baby food and tight fitting jeans glorify God, than you also are correct.
God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ, and so that is my ‘plumb line’. I always try to ask myself, “Does this please God? Is this what Christ Himself would do?”
If my answer is yes, I will proceed! If the answer is no, I need to address the issue and make a change.
Most excellent points. Some things in Christianity are uniform and other things are left up to each man’s (or woman’s) discretion and the conviction of the heart. Romans 14 provides us this privelege and “wiggle room,” but the critical factor surrounds honoring God and fearing Him in all that we do.
‘DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.’
I would add that almost nothng written on this blog is ‘in’ the Bible! Again, it is all a matter of the heart.”
Trish, you have a point — we really should try to back up our points with scripture, and I was feeling rather under the weather this moring, so I neglected to do that.
Anyhow, here goes.
Jesus said three things about dress and grooming, and two of them are direct commandments to His followers:
First of all, Jesus says that we are not to worry about “raiment”:
“Luk 12:22 ¶ And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.”
ESPECIALLY, Jesus forbids His followers from dressing in such a way as to appear “religious”: “Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they(the Pharisees) bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not……. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,”
This goes along with Jesus’s one other commandment regarding dress and grooming, which prohibits His followers from allowing their outward appearance to a clue as to their religious activities: Mat 6:16 ¶ Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Mat 6:17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; Mat 6:18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.”
SO, we are absolutely forbidden from announcing our religion by adopting a distinctive Christian uniform.
This is underscored again in 1 Timothy:
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”
and in 1 Peter:
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 1Pe 3:4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Many see these verses as only forbidding he lavish, worldly sort of immodesty (back then it was lavish jewelry and “broidered hair” and nowadays that might translate to tight designer jeans and “bling”), which these verses do warn against, but the greater point in both 1 Timothy and 1Peter harks back to what Jesus said in Matthew 6 and 23, which is that our beauty and our COMMENDABILITY ought to come from our inward qualities, ie, the “hidden man of the heart,” an ornament which is a delight to God and not an outward garment put on to impress our fellow man.
So, again, it looks as though the word of God forbids from announcing our religion by adopting a distinctive Christian uniform. We are of course to avoid those things which are actively IMMODEST, but otherwise, we should look just like everyone else, and not wear clothing which announces our religiousness.
Ugh.. the grammar and spelling in that last posting is a mess — I’m taking meds which make me a little loopy — but I trust the message is clear. God Bless…
. . . that should be “homosexuality” of course, and I found the instruction in Leviticus. In 19:27, the NASB says “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.” Then in 21:5 it says “They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh.”
I can’t find the link to homosexuality, though; anyone help me out?
“Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?”
This article is about a sect of the LDS, but much of the dress, attitude, etc. is eerily similar to some of the patriarchal attitudes:
http: //news.yahoo .com/s/ap/20080408/
ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat
I don’t know why the reference to militant fecundity and PMM tenet 27 sparked these thoughts, but here goes:
I think that the home school community, accepting itself as normal will be an important first step in addressing the issues of radicalism in our movement.
We tell ourselves we are different, weird, separate, etc. and believing that we are weird contributes to the separatist nature of home schoolers and especially radical home schoolers. We’ve got to tell ourselves that we are normal people who made or were part of a family that made an acceptable lifestyle choice. It’s a lifestyle choice that society should accept, and should welcome. When we tell ourselves and the rest of the world that we are weird or special, it makes it easier for us to retreat into our own little home school world. That in turn breeds some of the radicalism and crazy ideas that come out of our movement.
When we classify ourselves as out of step with mainstream or different, we also make it easier for non-home schoolers to disregard us. When non-home schoolers disregard us, our voice is lost in the public square no matter how loudly we speak. When we feel marginalized in this way, it creates a fear of non-home school or worldly culture and its government.
The entire PMM is about celebrating the weirdness/differentness of Prairie Muffins. I think it’s ok to be a Prairie Muffin, if it is something you make an informed choice about. But I don’t think you should say, I’m a Prairie Muffin and therefore I’m weird. You’re still a human being – you might make different choices than non-PM’s or non-home schoolers, but you are still a normal, fully human person.
Finally, what is the real difference between saying, “There but for the grace of God” and “Thank God I am not like that”? I struggle to see a distinction.
A follow up – the reason I don’t see a distinction is both statements still place you in a position of otherness, usually with superiority, to the other person.
Sarah, post 41 I thought was really good. Good in a way I can especially appreciate. I grew up among Christian homeschoolers, being homeschooled. Many familes that I know in my circle are NOT legalistic, but wonderful, Gospel loving people who freely mingle with public and private schoolers. But weird literature circulates in our kind of circle, nonetheless, and I have been scarred by some of the ideas I came across, especially ones aimed at Christian homeschooling girls. I see stuff by VF, which is among the more hardcore crazinesss, getting more and more hardcore, and more and more popular. (Among people I know, too.) We need people like you to say stuff like this!!!!!!!!
Santefeboy,
You kinda remind me about the time that an entire town called me Eric’s mom because he was working as an evangelist in that small town and everyone knew him. I was asked to speak one night in the church he was working out of and introduced myself as “Eric’s Mom.”
I couldn’t agree with your assessment more Sarah. Like Beatrice, I was homeschooled; I am now a second generation homeschooler. I struggle with both extremes- I think NormalMiddle has it nailed with her ‘handle’. I would define myself in the normal middle too, and I get worried when someone says “homeschooler” and immediately thinks “Vision Forum/patriocentric”. I am also worried about how many of my friends (as Beatrice noted) are getting sucked into the VF paradigm. I get just as worried when someone says “oh, you’re one of those “crunchy” organic/make their own babyfood/bread/birkenstock mommas”. There are extremists in every crowd- but I cannot stand it when I, as a homeschooler, am defined by a snap-judgement, knee-jerk reaction based on an extreme. Yet, as a human, it’s so hard not to make those knee-jerk responses myself! It’s a huge struggle…
So you are saying that homeschooling has not always had the VF slant? That is not how one lady portrayed it. She said:
“For those of us who have homeschooled since
the mid eighties or more-it’s unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. This way of
thinking-what pw and others stand for- was the norm-*totally* . Now we
are odd and hyper-patriarchs? I just don’t want them to win and to
keep so many families from getting the support that they need to walk
the walk that’s true. The one that works and is Biblical for Christian
families. To me, it shows that we are all doing something right too.
Otherwise, why would anyone bother. Why do they want to ruin the
McDonalds, Vision Forum or whoever else, if they aren’t actually
succeeding in helping change the hearts, minds and characters of
Christian families. I’d encourage you not to give up on pw even if it
is harder to access. It’s not just about us, it’s about a movement and
a way of life. If we isolate ourselves, then we are more open to
defeat. We need one another. And if we don’t help share “the vision”
with other families who are just beginning, then what will
homeschooling or the Christian community be like in 10 more years? We
are on a down hill slope and this is an important issue. Don’t give up
the ship!”
I was under the impression that homeschoolers have always held to a VF belief. I am seeing that is not true.
Thank you for opening my eyes once again.
anne, I’m not sure I am best qualified to answer that question. Karen and Corrie and Lindsey could probably speak to that better. My perception is that there has always been a large contingent of home schoolers that were Christian and conservative, but that the VF/hyper-P crowd was a small part of that sub-crowd. I know that homeschooling today is 1)very much more mainstream and 2)there’s a distinct contingent of homeschoolers who are not “conservative Christians”. But because we homeschoolers are a pretty independent bunch, it’s hard to “nail” it down census wise as to who is homeschooling and why.
And not to beat a dead horse either, but Vision Forum (and Jennie Chancey and the MacDonalds, et al) make serious $$$$$$ in the home school circuit, so, no they don’t want to lose their market base!
Wow, Anne, thanks for posting that. I remember reading it a while back and it seemed very emotive but very light on substance. The patriarchal movement might have dominated the homeschool market but it choked out a LOT of people who disagreed who then went and formed their own conventions. Their vision is myopic if they think that their way is what most homeschoolers used to believe is the right way.
“It’s not just about us, it’s about a movement and a way of life.”
Yep, that about sums it up. It is a movement and a way of life but where does the Bible fit into all of it?
I went to the Peoria Homeschool convention last year and I had two couples strike up a conversation with me out of the blue. They were kind of new to homeschooling and had young families. Both of these couples, independently of one another (this happened at two separate times) told me how they were turned off by the whole VF thing when it was big at Peoria a couple of years ago. They didn’t go for a couple of years after Doug Phillips had come to speak there because, in their opinion, he was so extreme. The finally decided to try again last year and they were pleasantly surprised by the lack of hyper-patriarchal focus.
I think if we look around and see all of the other conventions cropping up we will see that people are PROTESTING the hyper-patriarchal infiltration of the major conventions. People do not want to be sold a lifestyle. They want to learn how to teach their kids math and grammar and how to organize their day. They are out of touch with what homeschoolers want. No one wants to sit there and be lectured about how their husbands should be there and that women should stop dominating the homeschool scene! And this is exactly what happened at one convention I went to where Doug Phillips keynoted. I was with a bunch of homeschooling moms from my church and they were totally having culture shock. They had no idea what all of the patriarchal sub-culture was about.
I am GLAD that conventions are waking up and starting to see the problems with peddling someone’s idea of how everyone should live.
I believe the Y2K debacle was the start of purging the conventions of these extreme elements. After all, I felt like I was held hostage to their hysteria in 1998 and 1999 and it dominated the conventions. All sorts of craziness being taught and basically any extremist was given a platform.
“I can’t find the link to homosexuality, though; anyone help me out?”
Andrea,
I know that I was joking on my part. But, I think the quote was from someone who was serious.
Of course there is no link between beard or no beard and homosexuality. But, I do think that this perfectly illustrates how the word of God can be twisted to say something it does not.
Besides, everyone knows that feminists are the reason why there are homosexuals in the first place! We all know that there was no such thing as homosexuality until women got the right to vote and then it all went down the toilet.
This reminds me of one patriarchalist who told me that the reason that Paul tells women to ask their husbands at home if they have a question is that it makes the husband feel good about himself. He told me that the reason why husbands are not good leaders or have no desire to study scripture is because their wives don’t ask them enough Bible questions. No lie.
I was thinking about the polygamy thing today, too.
All those little girls were taken from the compound.
But, would the patriarchalists say that the government has no right to interfere with a patriarch’s right to govern his family as he sees fit? I do wonder what the patriarchalists have to say about Warren Jeffs and the recent raid on his compound. A very BRAVE and COURAGEOUS 16 year old girl had called the police. She had been forced to marry some pervert at the age of 15 and she had already had one baby by the time she turned 16.
After all, polygamy is what most patriarchs engaged in. To be consistent, the patriarchal stance is built upon the same eisegesis and hermeneutics that the polygamists use to build their stance. I could argue for polygamy using the patriarchalists arguments. I would have to take a bath in hot water and bleach afterwards but I could do it if I had to in order to prove my point.
After all, patriarchs often married little girls, even when they were very old. Nothing perverted about a 50 some year old man taking a 15 year old girl as a wife, right? Especially when you have the idea that females were born just for your own personal needs, wants and desires and they were put on this earth to serve you and have your babies.
I will tell you what this WWF would do to any 50 year old man who would come near my 15 year old daughter in order to take her to be his wife. I would get my baseball bat and break his kneecaps. And then I would pray to stop in order to do no more harm to other parts of his body.
But, being in a cult will blind you to the truth and the saddest part in all of this is that mothers are NOT protecting their children. That natural born instinct has been sucked right out of them by the cult-mindset and false doctrine that has muted them and taken away their voice and right to protect their own children from perverts who would prey on them for their own perverted jollies. They give over their little lambs to be used and abused in the name of God because they have been rendered powerless.
The whole thing turns my stomach. God Bless that brave young girl who defied her “authorities” and exposed the sickness for what it is. All of those other innocent girls now have a chance because of her. Her innocence was ripped away from her by her father and her religious leaders.
I know several patriarchalists who believe that their young daughters at the age of 15 or 16 are ready to get married because they are menstruating thus making them a woman. They have also said that there is nothing wrong with an older man showing interest in their young daughters.
I thought the whole thing about beard/no beard came from the issue of men who are eunuchs not being allowed to be priests in the temple, rather than specific reference to homosexuality – it says somewhere, I think in Leviticus – that men who had one testicle crushed, (ouch – makes my eyes water just thinking about it, and I’m female: sorry, Richard and other guys who post here) or who were not ‘whole men’ in the area of genital endowment were prohibited from serving as priests.
Of course castration was quite a common way of dealing with P.O.Ws and making them good servants for their conqueror throughout that whole region: the Persians and, I believe, Hittites, and so on did it quite routinely for guards for women’s quarters.
Castration means that men don’t grow beards, so obviously if you didn’t want to be mistaken for a eunuch, and no patriarch would stand for that sort of thing, you had to grow a beard . . .
Thank you, Joanna, this was the instance I was thinking of. Eunuchs couldn’t grow beards, and eunuchs were forbidden from serving in the temple. Many eunuchs were also pagan temple prostitutes, so this is where the whole beardless = eunuch = homosexual came about.
Of course Jesus turned that one on its head, when He said,
“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].”
The Old Covenant was of the flesh, the New Covenant is of the Spirit.
It takes just as much “orchido-fortitude” to serve the Lord under the New Covenant as under the Old, but under the New Covenant, this is something that women and even eunuchs can have plenty of — just ask the three Marys, or Queen Candace’s servant!
There are actually people who believe polygamy is not a sin according to the Bible. If any of you are members of homeschoolalumni.org, you should check out several threads in their Marriage and Relationships forum!
And devotees of the goddess Cybele castrated themselves in her honour and also worked as temple prostitutes, as in Apuleius’ ‘The Golden Ass’ (which is written towards the end of the Cybele cult, but references centuries old practices) so there were clear cultural reasons behind the Jews wanting to make that distinction
Really like the phrase ‘orchido-fortitude – wonder how else it could be used . . .
Interesting that Jesus obviously recognised some sort of genetic sexual/gender issues: ’so born from their mother’s womb’
And of course a famous eunuch who was made a eunuch, and accepted it for the kingdom’s sake would be Peter Abelard, who was catrated by Canon Fulbert after his affair with Fulbert’s niece Heloise.
St Augustine recognised the need for his own ‘castration’ or denial of lust when he parayed ‘Lord, give me chastity – but not yet’
Sandy, good words. I am linking to your blog today. We need more Titus 2 women like you who actually think about what Scripture says and apply it with wisdom!
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and say that polygamy is one of those tricky things that the Bible doesn’t actually forbid. But then again, the Bible doesn’t forbid slavery either.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong, because often they are used to further man’s conquest of the world, in very sinful ways.
The important thing is that neither of those things (along with other things not expressly forbidden) is what God intended for us. They are the results of a corrupt world.
About the homeschool thing, I did a little research a while back, and found that homeschooling became quite popular in the 60’s and 70’s with hippy groups who didn’t want the government telling them how to educate their children. So homeschooling Christians may have started doing so around the same time, but they don’t have a corner on the market.
I’m a member of a home preschooling yahoo group, and it’s safe to say that 90% of those women are NOT Christians. And most of them create their own curriculum for their homeschoolers (preschool and school-age).
My personal views on homeschooling are very close to Sarah’s views. I think that every family has to make the decisions that are best for their family, and if that means working mom, public school, etc., then who am I to judge people’s hearts? I have so many friends who are public school teachers, and I have a great deal of respect for them, because the job is NOT easy.
This whole idea that there’s only “one way” to do the Christian life is so easy to get sucked into, but it bugs me to no end.
Ok,let me just say that when I saw that comment from the PW list about how those of us who are speaking out against patriocentricity within the homeschooling community are some kind of radical, new, big-tent homeschoolers, I laughed out loud.
And then it made me really mad BECAUSE there are many women on that list who could refute those claims and could TELL THE TRUTH but they didn’t. Instead, they not only allowed those assumptions to stand but they all sat back, wringing their hands together and then talked about how they needed to stop us. This was the same conversation where we were called radical feminist homeschoolers.
You know, once again, lies, lies, lies. And because the truth must be suppressed from these dear women in order to prop up the all-important paradigm, so many of those ladies will only hear what the PW powers that be want them to hear. So sad.
Here is my mini-history of the homeschooling movement, as I lived it…..
At the risk of sounding like my 86 year old mom, let me say “I remember back in the day….”
The first people I remember meeting who homeschooled were hippies who lived in our area. They had offered to do a workshop on homeschooling and since we were interested and had lots of hippy juice flowing through our own veins, we went to hear them talk. They were a tad too hippy for us but they had hearts of gold, loved their kids and were Christians who wanted to disciple their own children, (hey, NCFIC church gurus, did you hear that? Hippy Christians were discipling there own children nearly 30 years ago!!!!) They were probably what you would call unschoolers and were more loose than we preferred to be, but their children were great and educated.
When my husband was getting ready to get out of the army in the late 70’s, we began thinking about what we might want to do, where we wanted to live etc. We started reading Mother Earth News and one time when he was on a field exercise, he picked up a copy of Living on Five Acres at a used book store. We read it and thought we might like to be agrarians and part of that culture was homeschooling. But we didn’t come across any Christian homeschoolers in our readings until we met the ones I mentioned above and then when we heard Raymond Moore being interviewed by James Dobson. It took a few more years to convince us that this is what we wanted to do with our own children, so we began homeschooling in 1985. Homeschooling was alive and well long before then but we lived in the Midwest and hadn’t been exposed to it.
The first year we homeschooled, I sort of did my own thing with a variety of textbooks and real books. Then we enrolled in Bill Gothard’s ATI program which was just in its third year and the wisdom booklets were only partly finished. Looking back, I think one of the things that attracted us to this program was that they did have conferences and opportunities to hear speakers because it was pretty lonely. We were the only ones in our entire county who homeschooled for many years so we welcomed the fellowship!
We spent about 8 or 9 years in that program, but the last 3 or 4 were in the process of deprogramming and there were so many other materials available that the wisdom booklets seemed to lose their appeal. That and the fact that they began to be goofy. We went to local conferences and they had such a variety of speakers, most of who hadn’t yet been bitten by the patriarchy bug. In fact, that word was never used. And as I have said many times, Bill Gothard, as intense as his teachings were, really encouraged dads to be involved but in the early years wasn’t weird about girls being educated and he always made moms feel like their job was really important and that they were on a team with the dad.
At that time, the popular speakers were Greg Harris, Michael Farris, Mary Pride, Gary Fraley, Inge Cannon, Rob and Cindy from Greenleaf press, and a few others. The conferences were small and intimate and the vendor booths were few. But again I have to stress that the word patriarchy was never used and there was never an attitude of things revolving around the father or that girls only had one calling, etc. Never did we hear that the father was an intermediary for the rest of the family. The Teaching Home magazine and Mary Pride’s Practical Homeschooling were the standard bearers for Christian homeschoolers but there were lots of other publications for homeschoolers from a secular perspective.
We also heard Jonathan Lindvall one time and, frankly, he was the one guy who was way out there. As he admitted to all of us, he had taken some of Bill Gothard’s teachings and morphed them into what he was promoting which was total protection of girls and bethroyal, children not ever being alone with anyone but parents, etc. His views were so out there that he usually did his own conferences, though he did sometimes speak at conventions. But most of us thought he was out there.
Sometime after this period, Phil Lancaster came along and introduced the word “patriarchy” into this mix. It was during this time that people began preparing for Y2K and the homeschooling community was targeted as the group who really needed to hear about the coming end of civilization as we know it. Lancaster started his commune idea and Gary North began “proving” that the world as we knew it would end. I could tell you stories about what we experienced, but that would take too long.
The bottom line is this….after Y2K came and went with not so much as a burned out light bulb, I think there was a void just waiting to be filled by the likes of Doug Phillips et al. After all, most of these people were hoping that society would collapse because they could then take dominion….they had food, weapons, generators, and, of course, God would bless it. When it didn’t happen, and all these people were living in the void of no daily Gary North updates, something had to come along to get people back on track with taking over the world and so this was it….patriocentricity, a new, mutated form of family life that could guarantee God’s blessing because it is ”presuppositional, part of the grand sweep of revelation.”
So by 2003 when Doug Phillips offered Lancaster’s original Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy (Cindy, could you please post those original ones here?) it became the new vision. Look at all the conventions who hosted Doug Phillips that year. Look at the others who are part of the team, how suddenly they were the new homeschooling leaders. Look at how many state organizations had battles within their own ranks over issues like girls going to college or betrothal, issues that weren’t even on the radar in the past decade but now were being promoted as the norm. Suddenly there was a shift away from ENCOURAGING families to take ownership of their homes and to chart their own course to TELLING families what their homes should be and giving them the vision they were to have. And they were able to promote it by absconding away with other people’s mailing lists, thus giving them a voice to LOTS of people overnight. (Did you ever wonder how your name got on the Vision Forum mailing list?)
You have to ask yourself how this change happened. I think there several reasons for it this morning is off the top of my head….I would like to flush it out in more detail later. But here are some of my thoughts…
1. It sounds really good to have someone give you a vision and then offer you all the “tools” a la their booth or catalog to fulfill that vision. Add hot water, stir, voila, multi-generational families. It is even MORE effective when you create the problem first and then offer to sell someone a solution for it. Remember how we kept hearing about all those people out there, all those books and articles and websites that belittle homemakers? The moms were all primed and ready to buy Desperate Housewives. Shame, shame, shame on Jennie and Stacy for abusing homemakers in that way to sell books!
2. Many churches didn’t or don’t know what to do with homeschooling families. Sometimes the kids really know their stuff and it intimidates teachers and youth leaders. Or they are isolationists within the church, always judging the status quo. Sometimes homeschoolers are obnoxious and invite people to dislike them. Other times they are innocent and someone has an agenda to fix them. Either way, the NCFIC plan stepped in and offered a solution. I know this because I have been both obnoxious and innocent.
3. Most of the leaders within this movement are charismatic and persuasive. Remember that story Mary told a few weeks ago about women gathering around Doug Phillips like he was some rock star. I have an entire blog entry I am working on about the cult of personality within homeschooling circles. Brother.
4. Homeschoolers are just like everyone else and are becoming what they hate…..peer dependent. If the patriarchy train is leaving the station, you had better be on it or else…or else you are a white washed feminist? Brother again.
5. Lots more another day followed by brother X 10.
So now what?
Well, this new Multi-Generational 200 year plan is nothing new either. Same old same old but this is the new twist. They are feeling the heat from those who disagree with them. Some convention planners are shying away from them. (I think it started with R. C. Sproul Jr. was defrocked. Parents started questioning whether or not they really wanted their children to be exposed to a teacher who was in blatant rebellion to his own denomination, who was stripped of his credentials and who abused alcohol himself and offered it to children as well AND was in your face if you questioned him. And that was on top of the spiritual abuse and tax fraud he admitted to as well.) I think that was the beginning of people really taking a good, long look at the guys who were telling all the rest of us how to live. I remember being so sick and tired of hearing “Doug Phillips said this” or “R. C. said that” at my church that I finally asked: “How many reformed Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb? Only one but you have to check R.C.’s blog first to see how you do it.”
Then, Doug Phillips true colors started to show. And now there is all the deception with the McDonalds. And the connection to kinism and racism. And on and on the list goes. And those faithful people who questioned these aberrant teachings all along are finally being vindicated by the actions of the arrogant. Because these people have been so in your face in their behavior, so bound up in their persona, so unwilling to even discuss the fact that their detractors might be right about something, all their teachings are coming under intense scrutiny and are found wanting.
So they are couching it all in the terms now that it will take a long time to accomplish their goals and they are asking for 200 years. The rest of us who are normal (thank you, Sarah!) have become the enemy because we are no longer silent about the misuse of Scripture or the abuse of women or the belittling of mothers and fathers who really love their children and want to do right by them but who don’t subscribe to the patriarchal weirdness.
You know, what really bothered me so much about that comment, Anne, is that Stacy and her moderators sat there and allowed everyone to think that she was the one dreaming up this new way of life, these teachings, etc. Nothing, and I mean nothing, I have read that she has written is new. It is a feminized, mean-spirited version of Jonathan Lindvall and Bill Gothard all dolled up with Victorian charm and decorum and passed off to unsuspecting moms who would do a better job of blessing their husbands by spending his hard-earned paycheck on a Bible concordance and an online class on hermeneutics!
ThatMom – I’m glad you mentioned Michael Farris. I’ve been wondering where he stood in the whole mix of this. My wife and I met him at a conference in the early 90s and were quite impressed with him.
it says somewhere, I think in Leviticus – that men who had one testicle crushed, (ouch – makes my eyes water just thinking about it, and I’m female
Me too. I mean, makes my eyes water, not the part about being a female.
Oh, stop crying you big baby! Eat some hot peppers…it will put hair on your face!
I couldn’t help it. Your suggestion gave me a sudden inspiration. So, I made a sidebar banner for Vision Forum. I tried to post the link but for some reason the comment didn’t show up. I’m not sure if it’s in moderation. If anyone is interested in the banner, it’s on my blog posted on April 1, 2008.
Michael Farris appears to have embraced patriocentricity to some extent as he and his wife are promoting Passionate Housewives and Vision Forum. Remember, too, that Phillips got his start and his mentoring from Farris.
You commented and said that nothing on this blog is written in the Bible. I wholeheartedly disagree. There are passages referenced all the time, and most of the discussion involves discernment which is certainly written in the Bible. Are you concerned and are suggesting that we need to include more chapter and verse references? They do pop up, usually on a daily basis. Perhaps there were none today or yesterday, but I’ve seen many this past week and on this very thread. There are also many passages discussed that may not be directly referenced as well.
The other problem with all of this is involves the fact that patriarchy is primarily a cultural issue, and I’m sure that they would argue that they apply the full counsel of the Word (and their interpretation of it) to our contemporary culture. Therein lies the problem.
You may also see that we are not discussing doctrine but behavior. I’ve posted this a couple of times recently but will risk posting it here again:
Of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:
Very little of the patriarchy movement discusses doctrine and most of this discussion, the PMM included, discusses behavior and behavioral standards. Most people expect to discuss doctrine when they are talking about false teaching, but from this analysis of the numbers of verses alone, it seems that behavior is the primary issue.
Been a lurker for about 3 weeks now, reading through all the eye opening patriarchy stuff. Even though I’ve been homeschooling for a couple of years, I was not familiar with the patriarchy movement until recently. Since we attend a PCA church that is theologically conservative but contemporary in worship style, I haven’t personally encountered any folks in the patriarchy camp.
This comment brought me out of lurk-dom:
“I would really appreciate a thread devoted to the Pearls and a thread devoted to the Maxwells because I was so heavily into them for years, much to my sadness. Processing it with others who have been there would aid my healing although I’ve come a long ways!”
If you do start a thread on the Pearls, I would have something to add to that as some people introduced us to their newsletter in 1999 and we were into their materials for awhile. After awhile, enough red flags went up that we wrote and asked them to remove us from their mailing list. Debi’s helpmeet book certainly raised our eyebrows. (I’ve never heard of the Maxwells mentioned, though)
thatmom – I enjoyed your post #69 explaining the history of the homeschool/patriarchy movement. I especially had to laugh when you said, “Ever wonder how your name got on the Vision Forum mailing list?” YES. I had wondered. Other than seeing their booths at our homeschool convention, I had never bought any of their materials or signed up on their list.
I live in NC and our homeschool convention is huge, but fairly tame from what I’ve noticed. (as far as not promoting prairie muffin, patriarchy, Gothard or Pearl-esque teaching) I mean, there is “some” of it there (I do remember Doug Phillips and Voddie Bauchum have spoken in the past) but with such a wide variety of speakers and workshops at our convention, I’ve never felt like any “one” agenda was being pushed. We first attended about 4 years ago when we were in the stages of looking into whether or not to homeschool. I remembered having an idea of what the “attendees” would look like. I was expecting to see all the women in denim jumpers, etc. Much to my surprise, out of thousands of attendees, I could count the number of denim jumpers I saw on one hand. No lie. I was relieved to say the least.
I enjoy reading the comments of all you smart, thinking women. I may not have time to post much, but just wanted to come out of lurk-dom and say “HI”.
“Much to my surprise, out of thousands of attendees, I could count the number of denim jumpers I saw on one hand. No lie. I was relieved to say the least.”
Peachses, welcome and thanks for that laugh this morning! Corrie and I had just been talking about pulling out some of our pictures from our early days of homeschooling and posting them. Denim jumpers, hairbows, it all seems so funny now!
I remember being so excited to wear a maternity denim jumper to my first homeschooling convention in 1991 in Peoria, (with Karen, remember?)Yikes!…..these posts are so much fun, as I have been reliving the past years of homeschooling and thinking about all the influences and stages I have come through! God has been so faithful to us, to keep us from serious error! Thank you everyone, I too have been so edified by everyone who comments on this blog. Very thought provoking and helpful!
One of the reasons I loved that style back then was because you could be in any stage of pregnancy or no pregnancy and look…well, pregnant! I still love the old Laura Ashley look. Alas, my children have told me I needed to get with the times.
In terms of polygamy, while I am glad that the children are removed from that situation for the time being, I feel this raid was probably an over-reach of government power. Honestly, can you imagine the government raiding a trailer park in your community, or a gated neighborhood, and taking all the kids on one anonymous tip, albeit one that indicates terrible abuse?
I think of all the FLDS kids in other communities who are now locked in basements because their parents are terrified. These FLDS kids will now be even more afraid to approach authorities.
Karen,
Are you saying they copied other people’s mailing lists in order to promote their agenda?
We go to a lot of church conventions with my in-laws being “missionaries,” and I would think it is HIGHLY unethical to steal names of people who signed up for specific mailing lists just so that you could promote your OWN “ministry.”
Karen, thank you so much for your insightful comments!
“It sounds really good to have someone give you a vision and then offer you all the “tools” a la their booth or catalog to fulfill that vision. Add hot water, stir, voila, multi-generational families.”
This is what initially “attracted” me to this movement. Holiness in a can. Open it up, pour it in a pot, and stir. I was all for a list telling me what I should/shouldn’t do. How lazy of me. The Christian life is based on grace and liberty. It is NOT easy; following God never is.
“It is even MORE effective when you create the problem first and then offer to sell someone a solution for it. Remember how we kept hearing about all those people out there, all those books and articles and websites that belittle homemakers? ”
You know, being a SAHW w/o children right now, I’ve gotten my share of “oh…ok…” when I say that I’m a homemaker but I have never been ridiculed or abused in any way. I’m sure people wonder about it but they have never said anything hurtful, that I can recall. Although homemaking is not the fully “respected” profession it should be, I think the outcry against them has lessened some, simply because more moms are choosing to stay at home, at least for the first few of their child’s life. So, while I have had to endure the dreaded “What do you DO all day?” question, I wouldn’t call it abuse and often wondered where all this supposed abuse was taking place.
I went to the VF blog and read about the 200 year plan. You know, every time I see Doug Philips’ face, I get this eerie feeling that just runs through me. I always have; even when I was interested in the lifestyle and was ordering from them! Some of those pictures were downright creepy!
Sarah, you are so right about the extreme lengths that people are going to go to now in order to “protect” their children.
From the article, all I could figure was that there was AMPLE evidence that every child taken was being abused in some way.
My aunt is a social worker and had many foster kids while I was growing up, so this is a topic that I am interested in, not just children being taken from “cults” but abusive homes, etc. I’ve always been touched by the way a tv show might handle the issue of child sex slavery (which is essentially what is going on in this “ranch”), and you’re so right about parents hiding their children away now that this has come out.
The kids who grow up in that situation are probably going to never understand what happened, at least in the way the “outsiders” see it. I personally don’t think the government was out of bounds in doing this, because who else was going to speak up for these children? The mothers? No, because they are just as brainwashed as the children.
Someone at another forum mentioned that there are laws allowing children to get married at the age of 15-16 in some states, but that’s not exactly what happened here. Sure they were “married” but not in the eyes of the law/state, which makes these men child molesters, whether they see it that way or not.
What is sad to me is that things like this, and things like the bullying of that girl in Florida that was videotaped probably give Stacy McDonald & co. all the more fuel to promote their own views!
About the original “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy”….
I have them buried away in a bunch of other documentation right now, and I’m not sure where my floppy drive is…
I never had a copy of the very original version of the tenets, but I only had the 2003 version. They look like the current ones with a couple of exceptions.
The 2003 version stated that only homeschooling was valid and that any alternative was an outright sin.
It also stated that the training and working of women outside the home was sin because the roles were not normative.
What the original version looked like, I don’t know. I also have a huge file of discussions about the 2003 revision of the tenets as well, discussing women working outside the home as sin. These discussions prompted me to look at the Vision Forum website for the first time. (I had enough contact with the teachings through the discussions with homeschooling moms at our church in San Antonio…)
Abby wrote: Karen,
Are you saying they copied other people’s mailing lists in order to promote their agenda?
I think that the sharing (or possible selling) of mailing lists among these ministries goes without saying. I’ve been getting VF catalogs for years, and I’ve never had any correspondence with them or any homeschooling organizations. Why do I get a copy?
In the past, however, I supported American Vision, Chalcedon and several creation science ministries. I assume that I am on the VF mailing lists because of my past support of these organizations.
Vision Forum is touted to have obtained their original list from the HSDLA where Doug Phillips was employed just prior to the founding of Vision Forum. I’ve seen this dicussed on line before in more than one venue. So it was not only Family Reformation Ministries that had a running start getting their ministry started.
Whether groups sell this information or not is a mystery to me. Ministries might be willing to share these mailing lists with one another. I don’t know what their policies are, and I don’t recall ever reading any offline information on this.
“This is what initially “attracted” me to this movement. Holiness in a can. Open it up, pour it in a pot, and stir. I was all for a list telling me what I should/shouldn’t do. How lazy of me. The Christian life is based on grace and liberty. It is NOT easy; following God never is.”
Amen! Exactly!
Abby,
I have seen the coverage on the situation where the 16 year old girl was beaten to a pulp by about 6 other girls while 2 boys stood guard outside the door and would occasionally pop their heads in and tell them to keep it down.
It was disgusting and horrifying to watch and that was after the video that these girls made just for Youtube was cleaned up and sanitized. The police officers said that the girls in jail had absolutely no remorse for what they had done.
The grandmother of the one main ring leader was the one who took the video tape when she learned of it and turned it into the police, basically turning in her own granddaughter, which was the right thing to do.
If the patriarchalists use this event to promote their lifestyles and as another hammer to bludgeon the feminists with, then I will use the Warren Jeff’s/Jessop compound and sexual slavery and usery of young children as proof that the patriarchal lifestyle is wrong.
Same reasoning.
Really, CCC-Forum is probably already talking about this and how this has something to do with feminism. As if we couldn’t just call it what it is- violence and sin! What they don’t talk about is all the male violence in society since the beginning of time.
Hi,
I am a lurker and have tried to keep up with the discussion. I have learned quite a bit from everyone here.
I live in TX and the polygamist compund has just made me sick to my stomach. I feel so sad for those children and everytime I see them on tv boarding those busses, my heart just breaks. I’m just wondering about the men. Are they still at the compound?
I went to that homeschoolalumni site that someone posted. I can’t believe there are people that were against the raid to get those children out of there. I mean, the media is reporting they were malnourished and some of them were locked in closets. Just UGHHHHHHHHH.
I am with you. Ughh! My heart breaks for those children, too. But, I am also glad that they might have a fighting chance now they are away from the Satanic grip of their false religious authorities.
These girls are not choosing these child molesters for husbands. They are forced into it by their fathers and the “prophet” of that sect. They have no choice in the matter. I was just watching an interview of a woman who was married at the age of 15 to an older man and she spoke of how disgusting and terrifying the wedding night was. She had 8 children with him and then when her oldest (daughter) turned 14, her eyes were suddenly opened with the fact that some old pervert would be coming for her daughter next. That is when she fled the compound with her 8 children in tow.
Tell me, how many teenage girls are pining away for men who are of retirement age? Most teenage girls would think that was downright icky. This is not normal. Especially knowing that you are like the 7th “wife” (aka sex slave)? Yuck! It would be a horrifying and completely disgusting experience. Imagine having to endure this sort of thing as often as he wants it because your life and salvation depends upon it? Ick! What a nifty self-serving system they have set up there. A fresh crop of females every year just for their pickings!
Warren Jeffs had a LOT of wives. Like 50 or more. He also had sex with his sisters and his nephews. It seems that a never-ending supply of sex is NOT the cure for sexual perversion after all. As Romans 1 says, they were given over to a debased mind.
My girls are horrified whenever we watch Fiddler on the Roof and the one daughter is supposed to get hitched up with the butcher. I always threaten them that I know a nice old, fat butcher they WILL marry if they don’t shape up!
I wonder why our young girls put up posters of Orlando Bloom and not Walter Matthau on their walls? Could it be that they have sexual desires, too? Could it be that it is just not men who were given certain desires and that their desires are not dependent upon some man to unlock them for them?
I am glad they raided that ranch. This is clear-cut abuse from all that I have read. Anywhere else and these men would be locked up as sexual predators. But, they hide behind their “faith” to sanction their perversion and that is just not protected by the Law. And, if the stories of beatings of both women and children are true, that is more reason to get them out of there. The 50 year old husband of this 16 year old was already listed as a sexual predator or some such label.
I don’t think that the government has overstepped their boundaries in this. Sexual slavery and physical abuse and neglect and child molestation are still considered illegal in the U.S. And if their own mothers who should know better are too brainwashed and beaten down to do something in order to protect these children, then someone has to rescue the oppressed.
If it were Bible believing Christians, I don’t think they would have allowed it to go on as long as they have.
I just finished reading Shattered Dreams by Irene Spencer. It’s her account of life in fundamentalist Mormon polygamy, as the 2nd wife of 10. (She’s now out of the situation and a Christian). As I read the book, I was reminded many times of some of the patriarchal framing of things.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if we’re just a few steps away from polygamy being legalized. The current cultural attitudes of entitlement to whatever you desire regardless of how it affects others could easily be taken to this extreme, and all it would really take is a court decision or two.
Religious group or not, it’s disgusting. I think of what people would say if it was just a child sex ring without all the religious beliefs attached. Everyone would say the government did the right thing to step in. Religious beliefs should not have a bearing on whether or not the police come in to protect children from this.
If this were a Christian group and not the LDS or FLDS, I would be downright angry at the name they put on us. I would also be horrified.
I don’t know if anyone has studied this, but the Mormon church and Islam have a LOT of similar practices–polygamy and child brides included. It’s actually a little scary the similarities.
I have to wonder if these men at that YFZ Ranch are a bit scared and shaken now that their drug of choice has been taken from them? What will they do? They had a pretty good set-up but now where will they get their steady supply of young, nubile, virgin, brainwashed victims? When people are withdrawing from their addictions, especially ones as strong as sexually perverse addictions, they get pretty antsy. Some are claiming that this all about “religious persecution”. Sure it is! No, it really is a matter of those who are used to being entitled to anything they want getting their hands slapped by someone bigger than they are.
I have read that many of the women have decided to stay with their children and not return to the Ranch for the time being. I am praying that they will stay as long as it takes for their eyes to be opened to the truth and that they will not want to return to this corrupt system of religion.
Lori,
I don’t think what you have suggested to be that far out of the ballpark. HBO has a show called “Big Love” and it is all about polygamy. Kind of like the “Desperate Housewives” of polygamy.
Why not polygamy? Like I said, I could biblically defend it in the same way that others biblically defend the system of patriarchy.
I finished reading Escape by Carolyn Jessop last weekend… right before the raids started, actually. She was the fourth wife of Merrill Jessop, one of the higher-ups at the Texas compound. The FLDS is one screwed-up cult and I say its about darn time someone went in there to rescue those children. I wish the same thing would happen in Colorado City, the main residence of this branch of the FLDS.
What I found the most disturbing in reading Jessop’s book was how similar a lot of their practices are to hyper-patriarchy… refusing to have sex with your husband or using birth control is akin to committing adultery… betrothals… not educating the women so they won’t ask questions… not allowing them to drive or leave the city without their husband’s permission…absolute father-rule… its very disturbing.
As for “Big Love”… well, I love that show. Its a bit racy for my taste, but the stories and characters are interesting and its very well acted. But Big Lover certainly shows the nicer side of polygamy… the non-threatening side. Its very thought-provoking to say the least.
On the subject of a woman’s consent in the wedding, this verbiage at the Bayly Blog, by a fairly recently ordained Anglican (small off-shoot denomination) priest in Texas, posted at their blog, clarified for me just how dominated some of these patriarchalists believe women ought to be:
“One significant addition, however, has always served to redeem the custom of the father “giving away” the bride. For over 30 years now, the service proper has begun (after the procession) with the bride, groom, and bride’s father standing before the officiant, whereupon:
“1. The officient [sic] reads Numbers 30:3-4: ‘. . . if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth, 4 and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand.’
“2. Next, addressing the father, the officient [sic] says, ‘As the father of N___, do you affirm that the vows she shall make to G___ this day shall stand?’
“3. The father says, ‘I do.’ and takes the bride’s and groom’s hands and joins them together, before repairing to his place in the pews.”
The entire comment can be read (the commenter goes by the moniker “Fr. Bill”) here:
OK, I suspect I am really naive about this, but I never quite understood why I read people saying over and over that wide age differences in marriage and romance are creepy. When I was a little girl, I remember watching this King Arthur movie (I think it was First Knight but I’m not sure) and thinking that the relationship between Guinivere and King Arthur (Julia Ormond and a white haired Sean Connery) was very poignant and beautiful. I did not root for the young, sexy Lancelot at all. (I still don’t.)
But I’ve been thinking, and it seems to me that God meant sexual union to be between likeminded beings who want to grow ever closer. With this in mind, I can see why it seems healthier for a middle aged man to be interested in women his own age than young girls. The former hopefully means an interest in conpanionship and love, the latter sounds like he just wants mere sex. Have I understood why you ladies are getting creeped out? (I mean about the mere age difference issue. Those cult anecdotes and forced marriages are APPALLING and ABOMINABLE. I have NO problem understand why you are horrified at those at all.)
I don’t think anyone is saying that an age difference is creepy.
I love “First Knight”. It is one of my very favorite of movies.
Julia Ormond was not 15 but a full-grown woman who was mature and knew her own passions. If I remember right, she was to be married to Sean Connery but she did not love him. She did care for him, very deeply, but as a daughter cares for a father. You could tell that she was pained by the fact that she did not have those feelings for Connery and it was distressing for her because she did care for him. The kind of love that a marriage requires is not a father/daughter sort of love unless one thinks that the father-daughter couple in Australia is alright (blech!).
Julia Ormond loved Richard Gere’s character as a wife should love a husband. It was apparent in their body language and their eye contact and everything. That is the way it should be.
Who wants to be forced into a marriage where they do not have “those” sorts of feelings for the other person? But, there would be nothing wrong with a grown, adult, mature woman who CHOSE to marry a Sean Connery over a Richard Gere even if she was closer to Gere’s age (in the movie). I don’t think you could go wrong with either of those two!
Forcing young girls to marry old men and to be their 7th, 8th or whatever wife is really very yucky.
The reason why I am creeped out is because these polygamous men have older wives, middle-aged wives and very young wives. It is not that they fall in love with a younger woman and she with him. It is that they collect young women like they were objects created to fulfill their lustful desires. I am creeped out by the penchant for young flesh that these polygamists seem to have and they are breeding their own home-grown stock of young flesh for their future lusts.
I am creeped out that 15 year old girls are forced into marriage by perverted Patriarch Prophets and their patriarchal fathers all the while never having a word to say about it because if they protest, they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting into the kingdom. That is the threat that keeps them in line. Because, in their perverted system, only men get to go to the kingdom and women go only if the men think they are worthy.
I once dated a man 13 years older. I was 23 and he was 36. I chose to date him, I wasn’t forced into it. It wasn’t creepy. I was attracted to him and he was attracted to me. It was mutual.
It would have been creepy if my parents made me marry Elmer with 6 wives from down the street when I was a freshman in high school and Elmer was collecting social security, had a big gut, creepy eyes and had lost most of his hair. That is fine for Elmer’s first wife because they aged together as it should be but it is not fine for a young girl who finds having sex with “grandpa” very revolting.
This is the problem in patriarchy. They are so out of touch with what women actually desire. They think they are the only ones who desire attractive, young mates.
Now, turn it around. If a 58 year old woman had 7 husbands and was marrying a 15 year old boy, what would be the reaction?
Why is the 30 year old sexy-teacher in trouble for sleeping with her 13 year old student? Because, it is perverted. And she should be in trouble. She should be locked up because she can’t help herself because she has been given over to a debased mind. Her relationship can’t be consensual.
The same goes for a 50 some year old man who forces himself on a 15 year old girl. That is called rape. There is no way that these polygamous “marriages” are consensual when there is brainwashing and “grooming” involved. What they do to these young girls is no different than what child molesters do to their intended targets. They groom them, get their guard down, and scare them so that they have no way out.
I wished you lived near me. I would invite you over for a girls’ movie night with me and my older daughters. We could watch “First Knight” and have some popcorn!
Here is the story of the father/daughter couple who just had their second child together. Their first child died from a congenital defect which is not surprising at all considering that he is her biological father. It was completely nauseating watching the news cast of them together. Talk about creepy.
All they are asking for is some “respect and understanding”.
Really? I have neither to give and I am quite sure that I will never be able to muster up any respect or understanding, either. But, there is a ranch in Texas where many men might respect and understand what is going on with these two.
I think, again, Romans 1 tells us why these things happen. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the created instead of the Creator.
It sure is like Old Testament times on the news right now!
NOt all of the folks who are doing this stuff are Mormons. The people who own the Joshuah’s House site I linked to, are not Mormons. And there are several other polygamous groups operating in the Eastern half of the US that are not Mormons.
As far as May-December romances go, I wouldn’t choose that for myself, but if both parties have reached age of consent, then I say, they should “go for it”. My younger brother married a lady 18 years his senior, and they are still married today, almost 30 years later, so it CAN work, and very well.
And, regarding First Knight, I say that Connery is more attractive than Gere, hands down….. but then, MY guilty little Hollywood crush has always been Lorne Greene! Whatta man!
Does anyone remember that spoof website from a few months ago where you could arrange to marry 14 year olds?
Again, I don’t find age discrepancies a problem, it’s the marketing and sale of young women. There is physical growth that occurs in the body of a woman that is not complete until about age 20 (bone fusion and growth within the pelvis). If you use that as any kind of gauge, a young woman ought to wait until after that growth is completed in order to bear a child.
Our society has accepted age 18 to 21 as a standard, and that seems pretty reasonable. Prior to age 17 to 18, there is also rewiring in the reasoning center (prefrontal cortex) that takes place which is why teenagers seem like they’ve had a lobotomy. There is a lot of growth and laying down of new connections in the critical thought area of the brain. (When this does not function, you see symptoms of ADD/ADHD.)
Seems like good reasoning to postpone marriage until after this work is complete.
There was such a response to the video that I posted on line (a large file), it overloaded my bandwidth, even though I upgraded it. It looks like I had over 100 attempts to view it in only a few hours, so my site will be down for a day or so. In that time, I’m going to try to post the video in 10 minute bites on youtube as soon as I figure out how to use editing software.
Yeah! This means that people are interested in the subject, anyway.
I also got some feedback on some of the commentary concerning the Trinity which I may write about in a blog post. Of all the things about the movement, the militant fecundity (preferred that the church growth through birth and not evangelism of the lost) and some of the L&D practices, this Trinity business is deeply disturbing.
I love “First Knight”. It is one of my very favorite of movies.
It’s one of my favorites, too, but IMHO, Richard Gere was all wrong for that part. Now, Val Kilmer would have been perfect for the role.
Been gone to my 2 week part time job and haven’t had time to jump in.
Trish in response to my comment WAY above I meant exactly what I said. There are some Christians out there, like me, who do not believe in a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible. Some of it I think (and this is just me personally) is imagery and parables and not the literal Word of God. I know that offends some of you, but I don’t believe we’re supposed to stone adulterers and follow many of the laws to the letter in the OT.
So that is what I meant. When you said “most of what is written on this blog is not biblical” it hit a nerve, because we all have such different definitions of what “biblcal” means…
Ask some of the reformed fundie crowd, and they’ll tell you I’m not even a Christian because I don’t believe in things the exact way they do. I am a BIG TENT homeschooler (and soon to be homeschool drop out) afterall.
28) Prairie Muffins mind their own business. While that business may include encouraging other women “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored,” it most emphatically excludes encouraging other women to run ahead of or resist the authority of their husbands or elders in pursuit of any PM distinctive.
29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.
Peaches, I am in NC too…but I would disagree with you that our conference is mild.
NCHE is one of the biggest vision forum supporters I see. Doug, Voddie and their ilk have been in and out of the conference in the last 6 years. Each quarter when I get my greenhouse report, there is usually a FULL PAGE ad for whatever is Vision Forum’s conference of the moment (Father/Daughter, Family Integrated Church, Jamestown, 200 Year Vision, whatever the current flavor of the kool aid is)
I have contacted NCHE to complain of their overwhelming support of ultra conservatives like VF and Doug Phillips. I have been told by powers that be, that they will not be asked to be keynotes again due to the flak that resulted after Doug made some really anti-semite and anti-Catholic comments at the NCHE convention. But—NCHE will never walk away from the $$$ that Vision Forum throws their way.
Expect to see the men in the monkey suits and hats peddling their wares in May. VF wouldn’t miss an opportunity to sell 4 CD’s for $40!
Lindsey, I am glad you mentioned the price of CD’s. I had not idea what it cost to make CD’s and mail them until I started getting requests for the set of patriarchy podcasts. My husband put together a set….all 7 podcasts…..and it cost about $1.30. Then we added shipping costs and that was around $2.00 or $2.50. So I charged $4.00 a set. Then I had some other people ask about CD’s of other podcasts. So Clay experimented and was able to put the entire first year’s podcasts on one CD…..50 of them. So, I guess you might be able to say that I can offer a $500.00 package for $4.00…postage paid. Kind of blows your mind doesn’t it?
“I have been told by powers that be, that they will not be asked to be keynotes again due to the flak that resulted after Doug made some really anti-semite and anti-Catholic comments at the NCHE convention.”
Interesting, that.
You can always tell whether a group is serving Good or Evil, because sooner or later, the bad guys will always start denigrating and persecuting Catholics and Jews.
Cindy, THANK YOU for putting your patriocentricity workshop videos up on youtube. I would have had to download a plugin to view them on your site. I saw the first two, and your work, and your presentation, are outstanding. Thank you for doing all the hard work necessary to bring this crucial information to the Christian community. Plus, it was an absolute delight to see your face and hear your voice after just “knowing” you online.
On another note, do you have a sister named Ann in the greater Baltimore area? You are a dead ringer for her.
Someone just sent me the “Sin of Bathsheba” written by the “Anonymous Brother”. Does anyone remember that ditty that was first published in the Patriarch Magazine (Phil Lancaster) in the mid to late 90’s? I have always hoped that our anonymous “brother” would come forward and take ownership of what goes on in his mind on a Sunday morning.
Here is a quote from it:
“Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit
loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their legs and thighs and hips
and buttocks and crotch? Truly because it is the god of this world who inspires these styles,
and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a
man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s thighs and buttocks
and crotch. Your crotch-your “private part’s”-you ought by all means to keep carefully
concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting
skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to
conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your
knees. But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a
little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your
legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will
be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other
women wear.”
I sure he keeps HIS crotch carefully concealed, too. A woman’s thighs, crotch and buttocks are a “snare”? Well, there is a slang term that the world uses to describe a woman’s “crotch” that starts out like snare and means the same thing.
This was passed around all over for many years as the definitive proof for dresses-only.
Not only is the guy biblically wrong- Bathsheba didn’t sin by taking her mikvah bath on her roof because that is customary to have the bath there but he has a serious lust issue that he wants to pass off on women.
Rebecca Prewitt wrote a bit about it. She also did a spoof entitled “Sins of our Dining Brothers” which really drives home why this “Sin of Bathsheba” is off the mark.
“And, regarding First Knight, I say that Connery is more attractive than Gere, hands down….. but then, MY guilty little Hollywood crush has always been Lorne Greene! Whatta man!”
Here is a link for the full article- Sin of Bathsheba.
You will be happy to know that this man knows so much about women’s clothing that he highly recommends “culottes” for the more masculine activities that a woman might partake in.
“But, “any man who views women so must be perverted” Yes: be it known unto you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, and especially to the sin of lust. Sin easily besets us. (Heb.12:1) But understand, though all men are perverted from their original purity, and though the passions of all men, (except those perverted in a worse way), are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that the practices of all men are alike, or with the feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If you but dress right, and act right, and associate with the right kind of men, in the right kind of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable. But there will be great plenty of occasion for you to be careful, even in the presence of the best men. Why? Because though the godly “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts”, (Gal.5:24), and have renounced the unlawfulindulgence of those desires —yet the desires themselves remain. It is in the godly that “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit”. (vs.17) Men may strive hard to mortify those passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact, attested also by virtually universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent endeavors to mortify those passions are usually not very successful. The most of men, even the best of men, are likely to be overcome by those passions. (Job. 1:8, Job.31:1) It was a man of God who was overcome by the allurement of Bath-sheba. ”
and
“he battle is a hard one, and a man who is very strong spiritually, but who lacks this fulfillment, may in fact fare worse in the struggle than a much weaker man who has found the fulfillment which every man desires. David, we know, was a man of God, and through out the Old Testament histories he is held up as a standard of godliness by which all of his successors are judged. But the fact that he took many wives is a pretty sure indication that he had never found that complete satisfaction in ONE, which every man desires, and which is the strength of every man who possesses it. For this cause David was weak.”
So, David had to take a lot of wives because he couldn’t find complete satisfaction in one woman? Wow! Are we even supposed to find complete satisfaction in one person? Every man desires complete satisfaction in one woman and it is the strength of every man who “possesses it”? And wouldn’t every woman love to have complete satisfaction in one man?
But, alas that is not what we are supposed to be finding our “complete satisfaction” in. It is supposed to be God that we go to for that.
I am going to be posting the whole article so that it is here in one piece. The original link to the Patriarch Magazine is gone and now it is only found on various blogs. This is how it appeared in the Patriarch Magazine in 1996.
joshuashouse.com
“The Sin of Bath-sheba
Author: Anonymous
This anonymously published “Address to Christian Women” is included in this men’s
magazine for obvious reasons. Men need to instruct their wives and daughters concerning
modesty in dress and the effects their dress has upon men. Read it carefully and be honest
with yourself. Is not 90% (at least) of what this brother writes right on target? If so, we
Christian husbands and fathers have a big job to do in correcting the dress of our women.
Most of us will find some things in what follows to quibble over. (I don’t enforce
everything he suggests with my wife and girls-though I’ll think about it more carefully now!)
Let’s listen to this appeal not in order to find points of disagreement or to practice self-
justification. Let’s discuss these things with our wives and daughters. Let’s all ask the Lord
to help us learn what honors him in the area of clothing. (This article may be freely
distributed and reprinted.)
We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention the sin of
Bath-sheba. And it is true enough that David’s sin was very great, and Bath-sheba’s very
small. David’s sin was deliberate and presumptuous, Bath-sheba’s only a sin of ignorance.
David committed deliberate adultery and murder; Bath-sheba only carelessly and
undesignedly exposed herself before David’s eyes. We have no doubt that David’s sin was
great, and Bath-sheba’s small. Yet it remains a fact that Bath-sheba’s little sin was the cause
of David’s great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless exposure
of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame. “Behold how great a forest is
set aflame by such a small fire!” On the one side, only a little carelessness-only a little
thoughtless, unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David. But on the other
side, adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the loss of a husband, besides the death
in battle of other innocent men; great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme;
the shame of an illegitimate pregnancy, and the death of the child; the uprising and the
death of Absalom; the defiling of David’s wives in the sight of all Israel; the sword never
departing from David’s house (2 Sam. 12:11-18). Again I say, “Behold how great a forest is
set aflame by such a small fire!” None of this great evil would ever have taken place if Bath-
sheba had only been careful to not display her body in the sight of a man. Observe: she
neither designed nor foresaw any of this evil, yet she was the occasion of it all. She did not
display herself purposely or wantonly: she only did it ignorantly and thoughtlessly. Yet the
results of her little sin of ignorance were just the same as if it had been purposeful
wantonness. Now the reason for my writing all of the above is this: there are many
Christian women today who are guilty of the same carelessness as Bath-sheba was. Godly
women, who would recoil with horror from the very thought of wantonly displaying their
bodies, do nevertheless carelessly and thoughtlessly display themselves habitually, by the
manner in which they dress. I do not write to accuse them of intentional wantonness. I
believe they are as innocent of that as Bath-sheba was. But neither can I altogether excuse
them from blame in the matter. The whole world is well aware that certain kinds of
feminine dress are provocative and tempting to the eyes and heart of a man-and are
Christian women alone altogether naive and ignorant? This can hardly be; and yet I do not
write to blame you, but to instruct you-to provoke you to love and good works, to make
you thoughtful where you have been thoughtless before, to make you careful for the
spiritual welfare of the weakest of your brethren, where you were careless about it before,
to make you wise where before you were simple.
Nakedness Before Others Is Wrong
The first thing which must be understood is that nakedness before the eyes of others is
wrong. It is wrong in a man, and it is wrong in a woman. When Adam and Eve sinned, God
made “coats of skins, and clothed them.” The sole reason for his clothing them was to
cover their nakedness, as the Genesis account makes plain. Observe, he clothed them with
coats. They were already wearing aprons, which probably covered as much as, or more
than, much of the clothing which is worn today, yet in spite of their aprons they were still
naked in their own eyes and in God’s. And God did not clothe them with shorts, or
swimming suits, or tank tops, or halter tops, or anything of the sort-nor with jackets, either,
but with coats, long coats, or robes as the word might properly be translated. Observe
further, he clothed them with coats. He did not clothe Eve with a coat, and Adam with a
pair of shorts. He clothed them both with coats-whence we may assuredly gather that
nakedness is just as wrong in a man as it is in a woman. But if it is equally wrong for a man
to expose his nakedness as it is for a woman, it is not equally dangerous, for the passions of
women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man’s body-and many
women affirm, that the sight does not arouse them at all. A man therefore may (though he
ought not to) go three fourths naked, and not do much damage by it. But when a woman
exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who
sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because this is a fact, you are not at liberty
to dress any way you please. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you
have been bought with a price: Therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). But if
you dress in such a way as to expose your body, and if you fear God and love your
neighbor, your dare not use the temple of the Holy Spirit as an instrument of
unrighteousness to allure the eyes and tempt the hearts and tantalize the passions of men.
Many men are wicked, and will lust after you in spite of anything you can do to prevent it.
They have “eyes full of adultery and that never cease from sin” (2 Pet. 2:14). Should you
therefore help them to sin? Should you put further temptation in their way? Will God
excuse you if you do? Other men, godly men, are not wicked, but only weak. David was not
wicked. He was a man after God’s own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed woman,
he was weak-and it would be a rare man who was not. Your brethren in Christ are not
wicked, but they may be weak. And the devil does all he can do to weaken them further.
They are forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights which
are designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of
heart. And must Christian women help the devil to do his work? Must they make
themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the Congregation of God? Oh, that you
could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren, when you
arouse their desires by the careless display of your feminine beauty. Oh, that you could hear
their pleadings with God for help and deliverance from the power of those temptations.
Oh, that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has
overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would
you plead for your right to dress as you please. The fact is, you have no such right. You
have no right to destroy by your careless dress the brother for whom Christ died. You are
bought with a price and are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your
body, to clothe that body, not as you will, but as God wills. And a little real love for the
souls of your brethren would remove forever from your heart the desire to dress as you
please. “Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength
and not just please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his
edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of
those who reproached Thee fell upon Me.’” (Rom. 15:1-3). Christ was willing to deny
himself all of the glories of heaven, and bear the reproaches of the ungodly for your sake, in
order to save your soul, and will you plead for your right to please yourself in your dress?
Can you not deny yourself a little comfort to save another man’s soul? Can you not bear a
little reproach for being “old-fashioned” or “out of style,” in order to help your brother in
his battle against sin?
Take a Man’s Word for It
You may think I’m making too much of too little. You may suppose the case is not so
serious as I have represented it to be. But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience
the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s.
They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or
inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s. If you would
understand the workings of a man’s passions towards a woman, you must take a man’s
word for it. You cannot experience it yourself. And the plain fact is, a man’s passions are
easily excited by the sight of a woman’s body, as was plainly the case with David and Bath-
sheba, when he beheld her washing herself. Most men, it is true, will be better able to resist
your allurement than David did Bath-sheba’s. They will not go so far as to seduce or rape
you. But how do you know that they can resist the thought and desire of it? How do you
know that they do not sin with their eyes and heart and imagination? There is great pleasure
to a man in merely looking and lusting, even though he goes no further. You know very
well that the Bible says, “… everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed
adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28), and will you say that this is not a serious
matter? It is serious, for it is sin and sin is serious. Sin blights and deforms and ruins and
destroys and damns. And if you would know just how serious a matter this is, you need
only read the very next verse, which says, “And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it
out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish,
than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Here is probably the most solemn
statement in the Bible concerning the seriousness of sin, and it is spoken with reference to
the very sin which you may so lightly and thoughtlessly occasion by your careless dress.
This is not a light matter, and you dare not treat it lightly. At this point you may say,
“Amen: all true; but I do not need to hear it, for I dress modestly.” Are you quite sure of it?
If you follow the fashions and practices of this age, you assuredly do not dress modestly,
for modesty is ignored by many of them, and purposely thrown to the winds by many
others. And it may be that you, being a woman, and not able to see yourself through a
man’s eye, are unable to perceive that which may really be tempting and provocative in your
own dress. God would have you to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt.
10:16). But if you unthinkingly dress as the rest of the world does, you are assuredly neither
wise nor harmless. Not wise, for however ignorant and innocent you may be, you are
following a system of fashion which is designed by wicked men and devils to break down
and destroy the morals of men. Not harmless, for however little you may intend it, you
make yourself a fiery dart in the hands of the wicked one to tempt every man who sees you.
You will pardon my plain speaking, then, if I give you some specific instructions in order to
make you wise. That being done, I have confidence that the godliness of your own heart
will make you harmless. As said before, the obvious design of God in making clothing for
Adam and Eve was to cover their nakedness, and any clothing which fails to do so cannot
be right. Bare backs, bare midriffs, bare legs and thighs, are wrong-wrong in the sight of
that God who clothed Adam and Eve with coats to cover their bare bodies. Shorts, halter
tops, swimming suits, and anything and everything else which intentionally leave you
partially nude, have no place in the dress of a woman professing godliness. Whatever the
rest of the world may do, you are bond to do right. And whatever the rest of the church
may do, you are bound to do right. And the things which I have just mentioned are so
obvious and so flagrant a violation of the purpose of God in clothing you, that there ought
not to be a moments question as to what is right. But (alas) the standards of the church are
sunk so low in our day that there are actually Christians and preachers who will defend such
things. They will actually defend what they call “mixed bathing”-that is, men and women
freely mixing together in a state of almost nudity. Have they no shame? Have they no
sense? I do not believe they will defend such things when they stand before the judgment
seat of Christ. If they have no shame now, they will have some then. Meanwhile we need
say no more about forms of dress which so obviously thwart the purpose of God. Let us
turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant, nevertheless violate the evident
purpose of God. Let us turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant,
nevertheless violate the evident purpose of clothing.
Short Dresses
You need no one to tell you that these are wrong. The whole world knows that they are
provocative to a man’s eyes. But women who profess godliness, women who ought to
know better, will simply follow the current fashions of the world, whether long or short,
without any reference to what is right. Others will quibble about how short is too short.
Rather than making very sure their dresses are plenty long, they will make them as short as
they dare, while still persuading themselves that they are long enough. You may stand at
attention in front of your mirror, and persuade yourself that your too-short dress reveals
nothing, but only let you sit down, only let you bend over, only let you get in or out of a
car, and what a spectacle of nudity you present. And whether you design it or not, and
whether you like it or not, those nude legs and thighs of yours are provocation to lust in the
eyes of men. For the same reason you ought to have nothing to do with those skirts which
are slit half-way up the sides. Who cannot see that the design of such a fashion is to expose
your thighs to view? Or is it to enable you to walk? So much the worse if it is. If your skirt
is so tight that you cannot walk without cutting the sides, by all means throw it away, and
get something with a little more material. We shall have more to say about tight clothing
further along. Do you ask how long your dresses ought to be? See that your legs are well
covered below the knee, front and back, while you are bending over or sitting down, and
you will be safe enough. But be careful here: it is not enough that your legs should be
covered only from the vantage point of your own eyeballs. When you bend over or sit
down, the front of your dress will naturally hang lower, so as to cover more of your legs,
but the back will be drawn up so as to expose more of your legs. If you would be safe, your
dresses should cover you well below the knee in all postures.
Low Necklines
Again, the whole world knows very well that these are a great temptation to the eyes of a
man. And if you are a godly woman, no doubt you would never dream of purposely
wearing a neckline too low. But you may be doing it nevertheless, through thoughtlessness
or ignorance. It is not only low necklines which offend, but also large or loose ones. You
may stand erect in front of your mirror wearing a large or loose neckline, and think it
perfectly modest. But only bend over a little, so that the material of your blouse falls away
from your body, and immediately the most provocative and tempting part of your anatomy
is exposed to the view of any man who happens to be standing in front of you. The same is
true, of course, when you dress with the top two or three buttons of your blouse
unbuttoned. This looks provocative, even if nothing were actually exposed by it. It looks
seductive. It looks to a man as though you must design to expose yourself and tantalize his
passions. What else can he think? For what other purpose could you leave two of three
buttons of your blouse unbuttoned? Do you say it is for comfort? Because you cannot bear
a tight choking collar? I believe you could learn to bear it, as the men of the world do in
order to display their stylish neckties. But waive that. It may be legitimate to leave your
blouse open at the neck for comfort’s sake, and it may even be modest (depending upon
the garment), provided you unbutton one button only. There can be no possible reason of
excuse for leaving two or three buttons open. It will add nothing to your comfort. It is
simply following a wicked fashion of a wicked world. Your collar will no more choke you
with one button open than it will with three. One button open will always be a great plenty
for comfort’s sake, and with some blouses it will be too much. If you can leave your top
button open, yet not expose your breasts when you bend over and the material of your
blouse falls away from your bosom, very well. This may depend upon the nature of the
blouse, as well as the size of your bust. But if there is any danger of exposing yourself, you
had better button all your buttons. You can scarcely be too careful here, for there is no part
of a woman’s body so alluring to a man as her breasts, and when a man sees a woman with
the top two or three buttons of her blouse open, he will probably conclude that it is her
intention to tempt and tantalize men. Is this the impression you wish to give? If not, button
your buttons, snap your snaps, and zip your zippers. And if you happen to bend over a little
in front of a man, and he sees your breasts actually exposed because of your large, loose,
low, or open necklines, unless he is a very rare man, he will be tantalized by the sight,
whatever you may think or intend. Therefore you cannot do as the rest of the world does.
Let your neckline be high enough and small enough to be in fact a neckline, and not a chest
or shoulder line, and you will be safe. Note well: this means that if the neck hole of your
garment is large enough to slip over your head, it is probably too large.
Sleeveless Blouses
Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to understand it, you
underarms, and the parts of your chest and of your back which immediately adjoin them,
are very attractive to a man; and a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts. You
must also bear in mind that others will see you from all angles and in all positions, and the
armholes of a sleeveless blouse will often allow a man to see inside the blouse, especially
when your arms are uplifted or outstretched, thus displaying part of your chest, and
probably some of your breast. The same is true of a short-sleeved blouse which has very
large or loose sleeves. This may be perfectly modest as long as you keep your elbows at
your sides, but as soon as you raise your arms you create an opening through which a man
may see inside your blouse, and this is a great snare to his heart. Remember you are a
woman, and cannot see yourself as a man sees you. I am a man, and know what it is to be
tempted by such sights. And if only the weakest of your brethren might be tempted by your
sleeveless or loose-sleeve blouses, ought you not to deny yourself a little comfort or
fashion, and conceal your body a little better for his good?
Sheer Clothing
It ought to be unnecessary to say anything about clothing which is so light or so sheer that a
man may see through it. The obvious and undeniable design of such clothing is to thwart
the purpose of clothing, and expose your body rather than covering it. This you cannot help
but realize. Everyone else knows it also, and when a man sees you thus attired, what can he
think but that it is your intention to display your body to his sight? And yet so low are the
standards in the church today that it is not uncommon to see Christian women wearing see-
through clothing. If you have been guilty of this, your first business is to repent, to reject at
once everything which is obviously and purposely sheer. You ought to be careful also not
to wear any material which is so light or so thin that it may be seen through when you are in
direct light, such as in front of a window. Finally, reject any material of a very coarse weave:
wear clothing not netting.
Tight Clothing
Dress which explicitly reveals your form is as bad as that which reveals your nakedness. The
whole world knows that such dress is provocative-notoriously and proverbially so-and
when a man sees a woman dressed in tight clothing that reveals and displays every curve of
her form, his passions will certainly be excited by the sight-perhaps not so quickly or so
strongly as they would be by the sight of your naked form, but excited nonetheless. The
world calls tight clothing “revealing”, which is exactly what it is, and as such it is an obvious
violation of the purpose of God in clothing you. Every women who professes godliness,
therefore, ought religiously to refuse every form of dress which reveals and displays her
figure. Specifically, you must be cautious when wearing sweaters, sweat shirts, tee shirts, and
anything made of knit, stretchy, or soft, clinging material. It may be revealing unless
perhaps it is very loose. Woven material, with some stiffness and body to it, will conceal
your form much better. This is of the utmost importance, especially for a woman who is
large in the bust. There is no sight on earth which will surely attract a man’s eyes, and so
quickly inflame his passions, as the sight of a woman’s breasts-whether they are actually
exposed, or their form displayed by tight or clinging clothing. This is a fact which the world
knows very well. Twenty-five years ago the world was singing a popular song about the
pleasure of seeing a woman in a sweater and a tight skirt. The natures of man and woman
have not changed in twenty-five years. When a man looks at you he should see your
clothing, and not the shape and form of everything which is inside it. Sweaters, tee shirts,
and knit blouses in their very nature cling to your body and reveal and display the shape and
form of it. And you must take a man’s word for it that the shape and form of a woman’s
body, even though it is covered with clothing, will draw his eyes, inflame his passions, or
arouse his imagination, just about as quickly and surely as the sight of her actual skin. I do
not say that it is impossible for a woman to wear a sweater or knit top which is not too
revealing. What I do say is that the sweaters and knit tops which American women usually
wear are almost always too tight. They might do better if they would wear their sweater
several sizes larger than they usually do. A women who is very small in the bust may fairly
easily wear sweaters which are loose enough to conceal her form, but the larger her breasts
are, the more difficult this will become. A woman who is large in the bust had best avoid
knit clothing altogether. She will have a hard enough time of it to conceal her form without
wearing sweaters. I cannot emphasize this too much, or insist upon it too strongly. A
woman-especially a woman who is large in the bust-must understand, must take a man’s
word for it, that the sight of her bust may take away a man’s heart in a moment. If she
wishes to wear a sweater for warmth, she can easily wear a loose cotton blouse over (not
under) it, and be warmer yet. True this will not be stylish, but no matter about that. I am
writing for godly women, who would rather please God than the world. Understand also
that you will accomplish little by exchanging tight sweaters for tight blouses. A blouse of
woven material in its very nature will conceal your form better than a sweater, but it may
still be provocative enough if it is too tight. You ladies who are overweight often offend in
this, by wearing the same clothes you would if you were twenty or thirty pounds lighter.
And it is nothing but foolish pride which keeps you from wearing a larger size. Your blouse
should never be stretched tight across your bosom, but should have slack enough in the fit
that when a man looks at you he sees the blouse, and not the form of what is inside of it.
For this reason you should also learn to avoid provocative positions and postures. By this I
mean any position which makes your bust prominent, or stretches your clothing tight over
it-such as standing with your hands on your hips and your elbows thrown back, or yawning
and stretching with your back arched. You should likewise refuse dresses with what is called
an empress waistline-which girds the garment around your body immediately below the
bust, instead of at the waist. The unavoidable effect of this is to prominently display your
bust. Again I tell you, I am a man, and know very well what it is to be tempted by such
sights-and it may take only a moment’s involuntary sight to turn a man’s heart or
imagination into the wrong channels.
Slacks
Here we have come to a bone of contention which divides churches, families, and friends.
The background is this: historically in our culture, the men have worn pants, and the
women dresses. This is an undisputed fact, which is embodied in the proverbial expression
that a wife who runs the house “wears the pants in the family.” The feminist movement,
which is more than a century old, has sought to put the pants on all the women, figuratively
speaking. It has sought to “liberate” the woman from her God-anointed place of subjection
to the man, and to give her “equal rights” to do whatever the man may do. The spirit of this
movement has also put upon the woman’s body the man’s clothing-namely, slacks. And the
church has followed the world in so doing. Many of the older and stricter men of God, less
influenced by the world themselves, take a strong stand against women wearing pants.
Slacks, they say, are men’s clothing, and (on the basis of Deut. 22:5) it is an abomination for
a women to wear them. The younger set, most of whom have grown up with women
wearing slacks, and who probably know nothing of the historical background of the
question, can see no point in the stand which their elders take, and so regard it as narrow-
minded and petty. “The slacks which women wear,” they say, “were made for women and
are not men’s clothing.” On the one side it may be argued that God made neither slacks for
Adam nor a dress for Eve, but coats for both of them. Yet Deut. 22:5 certainly assumes
that the same clothing is not to be worn by both men women, and it is also certain that
historically in our country the slacks have been the men’s clothing. It may be argued that
the culture has changed, so that slacks are now acceptable clothing for women also. Yet
when we consider the sinister forces which have wrought to change our culture, we may
plead that the change is no way recognized by God, but is an abomination to him. I say no
more than this, for it is outside the purpose of this article to settle this controversy. I do not
ask here, is it wrong in the eyes of God for a woman to wear slacks? I ask, What effect are
her slacks likely to have on the eyes of men? And first, by their very nature slacks are apt to
reveal and display your form. Women contend for modest slacks, but who wears them? In
the very nature of the case, it is difficult to make a pair of modest slacks (especially for a
woman who has a full figure), and as a matter of fact, it is an extremely rare thing to see a
woman in slacks which are not too tight. Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit
loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their legs and thighs and hips
and buttocks and crotch? Truly because it is the god of this world who inspires these styles,
and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a
man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s thighs and buttocks
and crotch. Your crotch-your “private part’s”-you ought by all means to keep carefully
concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting
skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to
conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your
knees. But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a
little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your
legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will
be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other
women wear. So unless you are so thin that you have no form with which to attract a man,
or so fat that your form will only disgust him (and you are no competent judge of this), you
had best leave slacks alone. Though you may not be able to understand it (for the sight of a
man will probably not affect you in the same way), it is the sight of the form which will
arouse a man’s passions. What a man’s touch is to a woman, the sight of a woman is to a
man. This is plain enough in the Bible account of David and Bath-sheba, and every honest
man will tell you the same thing. You must believe it on the word of a man, though you
may not be able to understand it. The sight of the form of your thighs and buttocks and
crotch will tempt the heart of a man, and it is the nature of slacks to display the form of
those parts. Some, who believe it is wrong for a woman to wear slacks, but who wish to
accommodate their ladies for engagement in the more masculine type of activities,
recommend the wearing of culottes, which are sort of a cross between a skirt and slacks.
Our only question concerning them is, are they modest or immodest? They may be either,
depending upon several things. If they are fashioned so as to look like a loose-fitting skirt,
and are long enough, they may be as modest as a skirt. Unfortunately, many of them more
nearly resemble slacks, or even shorts, than a skirt. If yours are long enough and loose
enough to keep you well covered and concealed in all postures, they may be as acceptable as
a modest skirt.
Enough of specific instructions. We must next answer some objections.
Objections
(1) “WHAT RIGHT HAS THIS FELLOW TO PRESCRIBE ALL OF THESE
LEGALISTIC RULES FOR WOMEN?”
I answer, if we lived without sin in the garden of Eden, you could dress just as you please,
or not dress at all, and hurt no one by it. But in this world you cannot, and if you do you
will only be helping to swell the tide of sin. I write for godly women, who want to do what
is right, but who are not likely to know how to do right without some instruction from a
man. I seek only to give you some instruction, which only a man can give, concerning the
effects your dress will have an the men who see you. And I suppose that truly godly women
will be happy to receive such instruction. It is usually the worldly, who are not willing to do
right at any cost, who raise the cry of legalism.
(2) “THIS IS A SMALL MATTER, AND NOT WORTHY OF SO MUCH ADO.”
We ought to be occupied with the weightier matters of the law, the matters of the heart,
and not make such a fuss over little outward things. This may be an outward thing, but it is
not a little one. Can you read Matthew 5:28-29 and yet contend that this is a little matter?
But suppose it is a little matter: can you therefore lightly pass over it, or ignore it? Not so,
for “he who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is
unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10). The Lord does
not rebuke the Jews for attending to the small matters, but only because they did so to the
neglect of the weightier matters. “These [the weightier matters] are the things you should
have done without neglecting the others [the small matters]” (Luke 11:42).
(3) “ANY MAN WHO VIEWS WOMEN SO MUST BE PERVERTED.”
Yes: be it known unto you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine
purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, and especially the sin of
lust. Sin easily besets us (Heb. 12:1). But understand, though all men are perverted from
their original purity, and though the passions of all men (except those who are perverted in
a worse way) are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that
the practices of all men are alike, or with feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If
you but dress right, and act right, and associate with the right kind of men, in the right kind
of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable. But there
will great plenty of occasion for you to be careful, even in the presence of the best men.
Why? Because though the godly “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”
(Gal. 5:24), and have renounced the unlawful indulgence of those desires, yet the desires
themselves remain. It is in the godly that “the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit” (v.17).
Men may strive hard to mortify those passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact,
attested also by virtually universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent human
endeavors to mortify those passions are usually not very successful. It was a man of God
who was overcome by the allurement of Bath-sheba. To return to the original question:
whether men are “perverted” or not is really beside the point. To what extent his desires are
normal and right, or to what extent they are the result of his sinfulness, may be difficult to
determine. But what difference does it make? You must deal with the facts as they are, not
as you wish they were. The real fact is: many men are weak, and easily tempted by the sight
of the feminine form. Suppose that some men are so strong, that you could not tempt them
if you would-what then? The fact remains that many men are weak. With the strong you
need not concern yourself, but you are bound by duty (as you ought to be moved by love)
to “bear the weaknesses of the weak”-yes, even of the weakest-and not to put stumbling
blocks in their way (Rom.15:1; 14:13).
(4) “IF A MAN LOOKS UPON ME TO LUST, THAT IS HIS SIN NOT MINE.”
No-”you are no longer walking according to love. … It is good not to eat meat or to drink
wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles” (Rom. 14:15,21). David was made
weak, David was made to stumble, by Bath-sheba’s careless exposure of herself; and your
display of your feminine beauty will have the same effect upon your brethren. After reading
this article, you can hardly plead that you do not know this, and “to one who knows the
right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). If you were completely
ignorant of the effects undress might have upon a man, you might dress as you please
without sin, but not otherwise. Every man is fully responsible for his own sin, but you will
certainly be held in some sense responsible for another man’s sin, if you provoke him to it.
To Ezekiel God said, “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and
you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity,
but his blood I will require from your hand” (Ezek. 33:8). The wicked is fully responsible
for his own sin, and shall surely die for it. But the watchman is held accountable also,
merely because he failed to do what he could have done to turn the other man from his sin.
How much more will you be held accountable if you put stumbling blocks in another man’s
way, and actually provoke him to sin?
(5) “IF I WERE TO FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS I WOULD HAVE
TO BUY A WHOLE NEW WARDROBE, AND THAT I CANNOT AFFORD.”
My sister, you cannot afford to sin. If you are a real Christian, you came to Christ resolving
to forsake every sin, and do the whole will of God, at any cost. If you have a will to do
right, you will find a way-or cry to God to provide one. You can afford to change the way
you dress. You cannot afford to sin, or to provoke others to sin.
(6) “I AM NOT ATTRACTIVE OR SHAPELY. NO MAN IS LIKELY TO BE
TEMPTED BY A SIGHT OF ME. THEREFORE I MAY DRESS AS I PLEASE.”
In the first place, you are no proper judge of what is attractive to a man. It is of course true
that a shapely and beautiful woman is more likely to be a temptation to a man than a plain
woman, but it is also true that a woman who is not attractive to one man probably will be
to another, and even the homeliest will be attractive to somebody. But just suppose that
you are actually so ugly that no man would ever look twice at you. What about your
example to other women? What about your example to babes in Christ, who have dressed
improperly through all their ungodly life, and who may now be looking to you to teach
them and lead them in the right way? Do you want them to look at you, and excuse their
own improper dress on the basis of your example? Finally, some women are so naive, so
ignorant of the nature of men, that they suppose that because no men are actually making
advances or propositions to them, they must be no temptation to any man. Let them
understand that a man derives great pleasure-sinful pleasure-from looking at women, from
looking at any and every attractive woman. Why do you suppose that men spend millions of
dollars every year for pornographic pictures? Let the pictures be left out of pornographic
magazines, and see how many copies they would sell! What pleasure is it which men
continually purchase at so great an expense? What pleasure can pictures afford them, except
the pleasure of looking? It is looking at a woman’s body which inflames a man’s passions
and regales his imagination, and there is great pleasure in that looking. Most men will freely
indulge in that pleasure, with little or no restraint. They will feast their eyes upon the
feminine form wherever they may find it, and this of course will include your form if you
dress so as to expose and display it. Godly men will recognize that pleasure as sinful except
when it is confined to their own wife, and they will fight hard to resist the temptation and
conquer the sin. But because of the extreme strength and intensity of the male passions
they find this to be a very hard fight. The spirit is willing but, in the face of strong
temptations, the flesh is weak. To will is present with them, but sometimes how to perform
they find not. In spite of all their determination and praying and striving, they may find
their eye seemingly involuntarily drawn to the sight of a beautiful and shapely woman, and a
moment’s involuntary sight may be enough to take the heart away. A man who has gained
some mastery over this kind of temptation may easily resist the initial onslaught, but
constant exposure to such allurement may weaken even the strongest. Therefore we are
told to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22)-to flee from the very presence of such
temptations. But whither shall we flee in this wicked world? Must we flee from the very
congregation of God in order to keep our hearts pure? Shame! Shame! If we cannot find a
safe asylum there!
To conclude: There is nothing at all wrong or evil about your physical beauty. It is the
creation of God, and is, like all that God created, “very good.” It was designed by God for a
specific purpose: the woman was made “for the man” (1 Cor. 11:9). The perfectly obvious
design of your beauty is to ravish and satisfy the heart of a man-but a man, not of every
man. If God has joined you to that one man, then by all means, give that beauty to him
with all your heart, and say to him, “Hurry, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young stag
on the mountains of spices” (Song of Solomon 8:14). Let him be, as God commands him,
satisfied with your breasts at all times, and always ravished with your love (Prov. 5:19). Thus
satisfied, he will be less susceptible to the beauty and charms of other women. Thus used,
the beauty of your body will glorify the God who gave it to you, and serve the man for
whom it was given. But if you put it on display, and prostitute it to the gaze of the whole
world, you only glorify yourself and serve the devil.
Postscript
If you are as most women are, much of the material in this article may be new and strange
to you. You may not be able to understand it, and may be reluctant to believe it. Some of
the women who have read the manuscript can scarcely be persuaded to believe that the
male passions are as I represented them, but the men to whom I have submitted it have
fully endorsed it. One of them (a godly man and a preacher) said, “I wish I had about two
million copies.” I beg you therefore to believe these things, though you may not he able to
understand them. Secondly, I beg you to not be content with a single reading of this paper,
but rather to study it thoroughly several times through, so that you may fully grasp and
remember all that it says. Then, by all means, act upon what it teaches you. And finally, do
everything in your power to teach these things to your sisters in Christ.
In so doing you will very much oblige,
Your Brother in Christ”
That should be “Joshuahshouse.com” . And it looks like it is a polygamous site, too.
Wow, polygamists have more in common with patriarchalists than I thought. I am truly amazed. Even the articles are the same. The teachings are almost identical and so are the buzzwords they use.
Is it just me or are there a lot of men out there who are just bitter with women because Eve gave the fruit to Adam? I mean, they definitely take Adam’s side when it comes to the whole “blameshifting” game.
Or maybe I’m just a horrible person because God saw it fit to create me as a woman. This really grinds my nerves!
This whole Joshuah’s House thing creeps me out, because in our church, the young adult service is called Joshua House. The two are NOT related, but it’s amazing how people can twist something to their own whims.
“But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other women wear.”
And men’s pants do the very same thing when THEY bend over. What none of these dresses-only folks are ever willing to explain is, if pants are immodest for women for this reason, why are they not also immodest for men?
The dresses-only crowd is quick to point oput that the sight of a man’s form does not inflame the passions of a woman as the sight of a woman does a man, but what about men inflaming the passions of other men? There are a LOT of men out there who are straight in practice, but who struggle with homosexual thoughts. If the mere outline of a derriere is such a temptation to a male, shouldn’t they all wear robes so as to avoid tempting weaker brothers to perversion, or don’t the souls of those weaker brothers matter?
“That should be “Joshuahshouse.com” . And it looks like it is a polygamous site, too.
Wow, polygamists have more in common with patriarchalists than I thought. I am truly amazed. Even the articles are the same. The teachings are almost identical and so are the buzzwords they use.”
They had a yahoo group as wel, that they used to recruit like-minded people to their group, and another website as well, that was taken down after being infiltrated. They are quite fond of VisionForum, to say the least.
One thing they leave out of the “Bathseba sinned” argument (of which I disagree) is that if David had been where he was supposed to be–with his army–the sin would not have happened in the first place. He would not have on his roof walking around, only to look down and see Bathseba. I would imagine, since kings went off to battle with their armies, that she assumed that is where David was and felt comfortable taking a bath on top of her own home. This is in line with the modern day thought of “well, she asked for it” when a woman in a short skirt is raped.
“29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.”
And then the PM’s “spiritual head” can deem her pure of heart and motives and that will be the end of it.
Where is this train of correction in Scripture? Shouldn’t we all be open to receive correction from each other? Where does Scripture say that we have to take a rebuke from another sister or brother to our “authorities”? Matthew 18 doesn’t seem to indicate this at all.
Up until now, I wasn’t aware that now there is some heirarchal chain of command in order for a female to receive correction or rebuke from another brother or sister in Christ.
What she should do is consider it and listen to what the person is saying to her and if they are right, she should apologize and repent for her offense. There is no middle-man in the process unless the rebuke is groundless and she is unable to show that to the person rebuking her. Even then, she doesn’t necessarily have to bring in some male authority. She could bring in someone else who knows much more about the situation to help her resolve it.
I think it’s kind of sad that people just seem to miss the obvious: IF David had merely SEEN Bathsheba, we wouldn’t even have the story in the Bible, most likely. She was fulfilling a commandment, and he was idly up on the roof when he was supposed to have been with the army. Be that as it may, he saw her. So what? He’s the one that pushed things. He was the king, whose word was law, who demanded to lie with another man’s wife, then even had the husband killed in war so that he could marry his wife…he who already had many wives! “Bathsheba could have refused.” Theoretically. But a king who was so determined to sin with a woman not his wife, would have engineered things so that no one could have intervened. He did things secretly, on purpose. “She wouldn’t have taken her bath on the roof.” She wasn’t necessarily ON the roof. She was someplace where the king on HIS roof, looking down, could see her. That’s all we know. And he demanded sexual relations with her, his subject.
So really, the seeing of a naked woman was not the point. The point was that this man, who already had his predecessor’s harem and more power than any other person in the entire kingdom, decided to sin based on a sight that he wouldn’t have seen but for his own neglect of his responsibilities.
And as usual, the blame is pawned off on the woman. But notice who the BIBLE blames…
The other thing about the Bathsheba incident is that not only did God punish them by taking their first baby, he took 3 more of David’s sons by other women. If Bathsheba was entirely at fault, then there’s no reason God would punish David for it. As it were, DAVID bears the punishment, NOT Bathsheba (except for the first baby). And isn’t it interesting that Solomon was ALSO a son of Bathsheba???
Do people even BOTHER to read their Bibles anymore, or do they just make it up to fulfill their own crazy fantasies about how the world ought to be?
I read The Sin of Bathsheba several times when I was in my early teens. I had NO discernment whatsoever.
And that statement “the passions of
women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man’s body-” and also “But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience
the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s.
They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or
inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s.”
Right. Ha. Seriously, that must have been one of the most harmful things I read as a young girl. I don’t know lots, but I think I can say this is NOT something to tell a young girl who is starting to mature. It does not prepare for her for growing up and dealing with her own unique body and emotions, and also it gives a somewhat simplistic view of men in general. Don’t get me started on the assumptions that there are certain things that MUST arouse, either. We already talked about the legalistic rule things actually creating lust, and the points you ladies made were very good. Also, this man just cannot speak for every man in the authoritive way he presumes to.
Do these fundies really think all men and women ever think about is sex?
I mean come on. I see attractive men every day and I do not have an “urge” to think about them in that way. My husband works with several beautiful women, and he does not have the “urge” to think about them in that way all the time
Maybe it is just us latent feminist types and big tent-ers that don’t struggle with sexual issues all the time. In their imaginary-like little world, there are boobs and butts everywhere, I guess. Maybe I’m jaded but I don’t LOOK at this stuff half the time. I don’t go around examining other people’s clothing options and choices to see what kind of thrill it rises in me or not.
That article Corrie posted about the sin of Bath-sheba is annoying to me. It is so backwards, it is not even funny! They really teach these things to their daughters?
How about teaching MEN and BOYS a little self-discipline of thoughts and actions?
I know a couple girls with eating disorders, and I think the attitude that women’s bodies are a source of sin contributes big time. When you are constantly told to cover up your body, or your body is made a focal point as you mature, you are ashamed of it. You may wish to retain as child-like a figure as possible. Further, for some girls in very bad patriarchal situations, their weight is the only thing they can control.
Sarah, you make a good point. I had a very hard time learning to like and enjoy “married relations” with my husband. For 6 years before we were married we were told how bad, naughty, wrong, etc it was.
I had to really shift my thinking to go from “no-no” to “oh you should really enjoy this.”
I could see how eating disorders would play in with this sin-stained women’s bodies teaching.
This article makes our out husbands and fathers and sons and brothers to be little better than a troop of hormone-crazed chimpanzees, and frankly I feel insulted on their behalf.
And, if it’s true that “you are a woman and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s. They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s”, then doesn’t that make MAN the “weaker vessel”???
If men are so easily led astray by their brute passions, why are they deemed more fit to be in positions of authority? (For that matter, why are they even allowed to run around LOOSE?)
Talk about trying to have your patrio-cake and eat it too….
Abby wrote: Is it just me or are there a lot of men out there who are just bitter with women because Eve gave the fruit to Adam? I mean, they definitely take Adam’s side when it comes to the whole “blameshifting” game.
Or maybe I’m just a horrible person because God saw it fit to create me as a woman. This really grinds my nerves!
This is really hard for me to read. When I was preparing for that “YouTube thing, I worked through a bunch of material from both John MacArthur and Bruce Ware who teach (contrary to what Paul says explicitly) that sin actually entered the world through Eve and not Adam. I have NEVER heard anything like this except from a faction of Catholics. The other thing that cut through me like a knife was the statements of many of the pagan-minded, new age (many of them very Catholic and mystical) people I trained with when I learned hypnotherapy. They were ALL very feminist, and this is all that they said about men — and they sounded just like Abby’s statement here. To hear this coming from a minister and a former Dean at a seminary that I once fantasized about attending for medical ethics just sickens me deeper than you can know. THEY ARE MAKING FEMINISTS’ ARGUMEMNTS FOR THEM, and I can’t say that I can blame these new age feminists. How can I dare tell them that this is not so, when MacAruthur and Ware (with their titles and stature) provide such blatant evidence that proves their case?
I believe that when you go to the Word without any preconceived notions about what it means (perhaps one of the greatest challenge of good Christian scholarship), it means that Eve didn’t have full understanding of what she was doing… She was so guileless that she was decieved and she was held accountable for her disobedience, but Adam knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway. This is why I was taught that Adam had to be circumstised, to trim away the sign of sin and why Jesus could not come through Adam. A woman experiences something similar when she is first initmate, but her “circumcision” is one of purity. It’s interesting too, because there is nothing in the account prior to the fall that states that Adam and Eve were sexually intimate. It’s funny because many people in Covenant Theology labor over the children Adam and Eve had if they hadn’t run over to the Tree of Knowledge so quickly to partake. Well, we don’t have any idea how long they were in the garden — it could have been years — and we are not told whether they are intimate. These are all arguments from silence and ignorance and mere “speculation.”
Cynthia Gee wrote: This article makes our out husbands and fathers and sons and brothers to be little better than a troop of hormone-crazed chimpanzees, and frankly I feel insulted on their behalf.
Cynthia, this is a major point that people gloss right over. In their seeking to be so pious, they actually fall right into Social Darwinism. This happens with all these issues of lust and it happens with their evil, karmic twist on election (survival of the fittest). There’s not a bit of Jesus in there and not a bit of grace for anyone, really.
Oh, and I think these articles are disgusting and suggestive. If men all men are so given over to lust, why on earth is it appropriate to write this kind of thing for mixed company. It’s as foul as the immodesty that they claim is offensive.
This is really sweet of you to say. And it’s a good thing that your sister didn’t have any major health problems like open heart surgery, or I might have met up with her in the ICU at U of M! Moonlighted at Hopkins, too, just for kicks and extra money with which to start a home business and break the monotony. I lived not to far from BWI for five years, and I loved it there.
I wish I had known how easy it was to just used YouTube to start with, but the whole things was so packed with info, I figured that I would need to do it in one big file. But Raphael who did the video did such an awesome job on capturing the powerpoint on the film, it is easy to follow, even on a small screen playback. (I never, even a week ago, would have dreamed that I would end up on YouTube and I am mortified!) But the topic is not about me at all, and the fact that they demean the Lord Jesus so much (and only 5 or so Christian ministries or persons seem disturbed about this), I’m willing to do it. I’m mortified, but this is what I signed up for, right?
God bless Raphael of http://www.spiritwatch.org who did all this fine work producing the whole video as a labor of love.
Another thing these dresses-only folks never want to talk about is the fact that most dirty old men who like to bother young girls, prefer them in DRESSES.
When I was about 14, there was a certain school administrator that the girls knew to stay away from. If you got into trouble and were called into his office for any reason, he would come across as very kind and sympathetic, ask about your home situation and your relationship with your father, etc, etc. He would tell you how pretty you were, and how much prettier you would look in skirts, instead of the jeans that most of us girls wore, and he would say that he wanted to see you in a nice skirt the next time you visited his office. Then he would suggest that all you needed was more affection, and give you a big hug and send you ion your way. If you were dumb enough to wear a skirt to school after that, he would call you into his office for another little talk, still very proper and fatherly, except that the hug would last longer, and be less platonic, and of course, you would leave with an appointment to see him again for personal counselling, and you would be asked to wear a nice, feminine skirt on that day…
Many young women were molested by that old goat, before someone blew the whistle on him…
Cindy, I’m not sure if I understood what you were saying about my earlier comment, but I wasn’t referring to all men in general, just the patriocentric attitude. And I was being a bit sarcastic, because the whole “sin of Bathsheba” thing just seemed so ridiculous.
Other than that, I don’t think it’s all that important to make a distinction between who sinned first, it happened practically at the same time (he was WITH her–he LET it happen and didn’t say a word), so are people really going to get all theological over a few seconds? The fact that they both sinned is what’s important, not who sinned first or who gave whom the fruit!
And you’re so right, the Bible does clearly place the blame for sin entering the world on Adam, yet men throughout the ages have made a case for Adam being an innocent bystander. The David/Bathsheba thing is just another example of people intentionally misinterpreting the Bible, placing blame on the woman.
I find it really strange that the whole “Harlot in the streets” thing (Proverbs) keeps coming up, because if I recall correctly, Wisdom–also personified as a woman–ALSO went up and down the streets calling to men. Is Wisdom a harlot, too? And the patriocentric men need to really consider the fact that throughout the Bible almost everything is personified as a WOMAN–including the church, Israel, etc.
Cindy, about Adam and Eve not having relations pre-Fall … that reminds me a little of Augustine’s contention that sex is a result of the Fall, and never would have existed in a sinless world. Which is a disturbing thought, but anyway … doesn’t God tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful before the Fall … they’d have to do certain things to obey that command!
And don’t forget the girl in the Song of Songs:
Sgs 5:6 ¶ I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, [and] was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
Sgs 5:7 The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
Sgs 5:8 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I [am] sick of love.
This is really sweet of you to say. And it’s a good thing that your sister didn’t have any major health problems like open heart surgery, or I might have met up with her in the ICU at U of M! Moonlighted at Hopkins, too, just for kicks and extra money with which to start a home business and break the monotony. I lived not to far from BWI for five years, and I loved it there.
Actually, Cindy, I was asking if YOU had a sister. You look and sound just like someone else I know in this area. (I’m about 30 minutes away from BWI, by the way.) Having Johns Hopkins and U of M so close to us is a tremendous blessing – so many people I know have been blessed by their skills!
Of course, I know you only said that we don’t KNOW for sure … but Augustine kind of went crazy with some of that line of thought … and the “be fruitful” command does seem to indicate otherwise to me … though again, the Bible doesn’t say Adam knew Eve until after the Fall.
Light: Actually, Cindy, I was asking if YOU had a sister. You look and sound just like someone else I know in this area.
This is what I get for getting so little sleep! I have two friends here who both have sisters in Baltimore… Weird, sleepy wires crossed…
I have no sibilings (gasp!). (Does that make me a multi-generational faithful, white washed feminist, I wonder?) I just have that East Coast, touch of Appalachia/PA Dutch, grew up an hour away from Philadelphia syntax! [Every now and then, I hear a little Baltimore "Hon" in their, too.]
Abby,
I was trying to point out that your partially sarcastic comment is actually very similar for what passes for Christian doctrine… who actually give the feminists a lot of good material.
I just have that East Coast, touch of Appalachia/PA Dutch, grew up an hour away from Philadelphia syntax!
Cindy, are we twins separated at birth? I lived all my teen years in Berks County, PA, and my family is still there. How ’bout you? What part of PA Dutch country?
Oooh, Oooh! I was closer to Rodale Press… I grew up on top of South Mountain in Allentown. I went to church in Emmaus, where there are still some people that are so Dutchified that even I can barely understand their English. I can even make bubashenckel (an Amish dish)! I went to Gwynedd Mercy College in Montgomery County and did most all my nursing clinical in Philadelphia.
I have a TON of friends in Kutztown and used to sing in a group with friends there. We did some regular gigs at a coffee house there back in the early eighties. I went to church there for awhile, too. (But I no longer say “say” soliciting an affirmative response after rhetorical questions. That went over like a lead balloon when I lived Louisiana.) It’s almost like the Canadian “ehay” with a Yiddish flare.
How much Baltimore Yiddish can you pick up on? Some of it is identical to Dutch.
Now, we have to figure out how I can be your twin separated at birth and how I can also be Corrie’s who came from Wisconsin? There are lots of Germans out there in Wisconsin! Maybe it’s the sausage that does something to the brain?
Cindy, I got it now! I do agree with you there, as my atheist/feminist friend uses every argument from patriocentric attitudes against me. The sad thing is that I can’t convince her that this is a warped view, and that it isn’t in fact biblical. I realized after several months of email discussion that I was probably using the wrong tactics with her, and just pray for her on a daily basis now that she will at some point go back to the Bible and read it without such biases. I still believe in miracles!
29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.
This whole statement really bugs me. Who in the Bible ever mentioned “proper authorities” being the only ones who can rebuke you?
I think about how Paul rebuked Peter–Paul had no earthly authority over Peter, one could make a case for the opposite being true since Paul was not an original apostle.
This is so anti-Matthew 18, it shocks me. And the other part that I think bothers me is what was mentioned a while back about how Carmon often talks down to women who comment on her blog, as if she has authority over them simply because they come and read her “thoughts.” Having a blog that people come and ask you questions on doesn’t give you authority over them any more than having a Bible study group and being teacher for the day does.
Frightening thought–It really does seem like they have created their own “Western” religion, straight from the annals of history, rather than looking at what the Bible says. I don’t really know how you can call yourself a Bible-believing Christian if you so oppose what Scripture ACTUALLY says. (Whether you interpret it literally or figuratively or both)
It’s a wonder to me how a patriocentric person could get away with going against scripture, while at the same time saying that WE are doing it. The scriptures violated there are far more critical than the ones we might or might not be violating–is the man/woman/husband/wife relationship really the *center* of our faith? Why make it such, when we have more important things to be doing with our God-given time?
Psalmist,
“But a king who was so determined to sin with a woman not his wife, would have engineered things so that no one could have intervened. He did things secretly, on purpose. “She wouldn’t have taken her bath on the roof.” She wasn’t necessarily ON the roof. She was someplace where the king on HIS roof, looking down, could see her. That’s all we know. And he demanded sexual relations with her, his subject.”
The sin of David also contained the sin of the abuse of power/authority. Another inconsistency I see in the patriarchal view point is that we women should consider our “weaker” brothers and dress accordingly so as not to tempt them into sin, yet help foster a system which leads to temptation for abuse of power/authority. Why is one temptation worse than others? Is sex more tempting than power? I believe it was a desire for authority/power which comes from pride which caused satan to fall, was it not?
Sandy wrote: Another inconsistency I see in the patriarchal view point is that we women should consider our “weaker” brothers and dress accordingly so as not to tempt them into sin, yet help foster a system which leads to temptation for abuse of power/authority. Why is one temptation worse than others? Is sex more tempting than power?
Is sex more tempting than power?
Maybe, but abuse of power is harder to pin down and easier to justify than sexual sin. Scripture about power is easy to exploit, but you cant very well do that with sexual sin.
But they are certainly preoccupied with issues of sex, just in the form of this gender debate. It’s just a different way of entertaining the topic. And then we have the voyuer factor to consider, too.
“Is sex more tempting than power?
Maybe, but abuse of power is harder to pin down and easier to justify than sexual sin. Scripture about power is easy to exploit, but you cant very well do that with sexual sin.”
Hyperpatriarchy is ALL ABOUT abuse of power, using sex as the vehicle for that abuse.
Yes, the scrambling for and the abuse of power is one major–perhaps THE major–category of sin. I think that’s one reason that women can stomach patriarchy; the guys get the REAL power, but there’s signifcant power for the women to jockey for, as well. Women can then smugly claim that power is nothing to them; why, it’s their MEN who have the power, and the women find their identity in submitting to that power. (Never mind that SCRIPTURALLY, we’re to submit TO ONE ANOTHER, not to whatever power or position or authority the other supposedly has — that’s another subject for another time!) But then look at the shrill finger-pointing and rule-making, all under the auspices of “Titus 2″ and “Proverbs 31″ tutelage, by those self-appointed women who would presume to tell all others what their “sacred calling” must and must not entail.
Sorry. It’s ALL about power-mongering. I refuse to play that game. Fortunately, as a single woman, it’s easy to opt out of it. To most of the power-women, I don’t exist anyway. Single, Christian, egalitarian…they don’t even consider me a part of the body of Christ, so to h*ll with me. I’m glad, actually. It frees me up a whole lot to please God, rather than play games with them.
Do these fundies really think all men and women ever think about is sex?
NormalMiddle: Could I ask you to stop using the perjorative “fundies.” I’d be one of those, and I think we agree on just about everything we’ve posted in here (except for our view of scripture–I would hold to verbal, plenary inspiration). I’m not upset with you, just a little tired of being grouped with the wacko fringe.
Theoretically, we are all fundamentalists if we agree upon the fundamentals of the faith and do not fall for the pejorative/connotative use of the term. It’s sad that fringe groups have redefined it all.
That’s right, Cindy. Although I think I would define fundamentalism more by the Evangelical Fundamentalist Movement’s self-definition, which included a little bit more, including the sufficiency and verban, plenary inspiration of scripture, as well as the commitment to standing up outspokenly against those who would pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have at times rejected the label, but in the context of the current discussion about Patriocentricity and McDonaldland, I feel inclined to claim the name of Fundamentalist. And in all actuality, I am a historic Fundamentalist, although I would not fit in with most Fundamental Baptists or Presbyterians these days.
Richard, if you offend that easily, I’ll just go back to my old moniker: fundie frootloops, and drop the fundie part alone so you don’t feel singled out. I’m really only talking about the ultra-conservative-my-way-or-the-highway-you-are-always-wrong-fundamentalists.
I’m not a fundamentalist, so I will have to disagree on that level. But hey, we don’t all have to agree on everything.
Yes, Normal – it’s okay to disagree. I don’t really offend easily, I just think the way you were using the term was somewhat distracting to the discussion. I don’t view Phillips, the McDonalds, Carmon, the Botkin twins, Gothard, or any of those in that camp Fundamentalists. They are a breed apart. And traditional (historic) Fundamentalists would stand strongly against them due to some serious heresy they are proclaiming.
And to address something you said earlier that probably contributed to my not wanting to be tainted by the perjorative was that some fundies would consider you to be non-Christian (context indicating that they would reject your Christianity because of your view of scripture). I certainly would not consider your view of scripture to be indicative of your standing with God. From my Fundamentalist paradigm (all dogma must spring from scripture and nothing else), the only thing necessary to salvation is belief in Jesus Christ. And from your comments here, I believe that you fall into the saved camp. When we get to heaven, you and I can ask Jesus about it (although in heaven I’m sure you’ll realize that I’m right).
Here are a couple more sites if you are still interested in the polygamy topic. It seems like everyone is talking about this right now and this was posted in a homeschooling group where I read…defending it!
This is just quick run-down of Scriptural PROOFs of the truth of Christian Polygamy (polygyny-only).
This page here is provided in short, “sound-bite” format.
* Malachi 3:6a-b and Hebrews 13:8 — God does not change (nor would He, therefore, “tolerate” sin, as some mistakenly assert).
* Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 — “One wife” — mia is the Greek word (for the word, one, in those passages) may also be translated as first, as it is, for example so translated in the phrases, “first day of the week” in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7. Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow’s “one man” is not mia but the Greek word “heis”, meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of “first”. (There is so much more to this particular matter here than that which this “sound-bite” here can address, but is addressed throughout various places throughout this web-site. The fact is, no one can INSIST that these three “one wife” verses can NOT be instead translated as “first wife”, which makes more sense to translate those verses as “first wife” anyway.)
* Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment against Adultery in Exodus 20:14.
* Malachi 2:14-15 — “wife of thy youth” is a man’s first wife, the wife with whom he grew and learned how to so love, bless, and edify any wife.
* 1 Corinthians 7:27-28d is ONLY about married men (whether or not a previous wife has departed). If a man marries another wife, he and the new wife have not sinned.
* 1_Corinthians 7:10-11 is a Commandment of God that, when a previously-departed wife returns, her husband and his new wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.
* 1_Kings 11:3-4: Solomon multiplied wives (up to 1,000!) which was prohibited and prophesied that a king would do in Deuteronomy 17:17. But that passage in 1_Kings 11:3-4 says his father David’s heart was “perfect”. Indeed, where Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added his 18+ wives. (In Genesis 25:1, “Then AGAIN Abraham took a wife… Keturah”. The word,”AGAIN”, there translates to add –or “augment”– in the Hebrew. And, indeed, Abraham was adding his third wife Keturah to himself.) So, Solomon’s sin was multiplying wives while his father David had simply added wives.
* Deuteronomy 21:15-17: this is a specific instruction in the Law Itself to any man with “two wives”.
* 1_Corinthians 5:1: A son had fornicated with his “father’s wife”. This does NOT refer to the man’s mother. Indeed, the term, “father’s wife”, is a very specific term. Leviticus 18:8 refers to “father’s wife” as specifically separate from “mother” in the previous verse of Leviticus 18:7. Note that the “nakedness” of a “mother” is referred to as her own “nakedness” while the “nakedness” of a “father’s wife” is referred to as the FATHER’s “nakedness”. This same differentiation is observed again in Deuteronomy 27:20,16. In fact, what the fornicator had done as per 1_Corinthians 5:1 was the same sin as that of Jacob/Israel’s firstborn son. Reuben had committed the identical sin with Jacob/Israel’s wife, Bilhah, in Genesis 35:22. (Yes, Bilhah was Jacob’s wife ; see Genesis 37:2.) And for Reuben’s act of “uncovering his father’s nakedness” by fornicating with his “father’s wife”, Bilhah, Reuben lost his birthright as firstborn. 1_Chronicles 5:1 reveals that this was because Reuben had “defiled his father’s bed”. Indeed, the reference to “father’s wife” in 1_Corinthians 5:1 does reveal an actual polygamist identified in the New Testament, i.e., the father of the mentioned fornicator.
* Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus simply repeats the Deuteronomy 24:1 “as it had been in the beginning” when it was written. In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees were asking about “every” reason for divorcing, but Jesus returned back with the only one allowed reason (the woman’s “fornication/uncleanness”), as per Deuteronomy 24:1.
* “ADULTERY” — na`aph (pronounced: naw-af’) in the Hebrew means, “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”. This applies to that same (as just above) Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in that verse) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, see above, in putting her away so as to “replace her”) that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty. He had CAUSED his first wife to “break her wedlock contract”. And of course, that first wife for “breaking her wedlock contract” with her first husband, and the “second husband” for particiapting in that act, are both guilty too. But notice, the SECOND WIFE is not guilty of anything. And if the first husband had not put away his first wife, but instead kept her as well as marrying the second wife, he would not have CAUSED his first wife to “break her wedlock contract”. Hence, he would not have been guilty of any Adultery in any way. Indeed, Adultery simply and only means “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”.
* “ONE FLESH” — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31. A man is “one flesh” with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married man, who is therefore already “one flesh” with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being “one flesh” with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be “one flesh” even with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become “one flesh” with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be “one flesh” with more than one woman, without negating his being “one flesh” with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being “one flesh” with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e., 1_Corinthians 6:17: “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” As EACH Christian is joined as “one spirit” with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as “one spirit” with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as “one flesh” with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original “one flesh” verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as “one flesh”. For context, it is exegetically important to note that the “one flesh” verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was “one flesh” with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term, “one flesh”, could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be “one flesh” with more than one woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses’ being “one flesh” with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what “one flesh” meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be “one flesh” with more than one woman.
* 1_Timothy 4:1-3a: the “Spirit speaketh expressly” and prophesied of the time of “forbidding to marry”. Today’s churches, (some unwittingly) “speaking lies in hypocrisy”, would forbid the marriages of Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses, Gideon, and David —not to mention forbidding how God described Himself in Polygamist terms in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23, and how Christ the perfect Saviour did likewise when He referred to Himself as the Polygamist Bridegoom in the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13). Indeed, such churches would not even allow such holy ones in the Scriptures to bring their families into their churches. And yet, clearly, the Spirit expressly foretold of this in 1_Timothy 4:1-3a.
Karen,
“* “ADULTERY” — na`aph (pronounced: naw-af’) in the Hebrew means, “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”. ”
Don’t you just love it that for the pro-polygamists, it’s always polygany never polyandry? Not to say I espouse that either. It’s just another problem I have with the whole thing. Only women can commit adultery. So… even if a man visits a prostitute, I guess that would be okay in these men’s eyes.
Karen, thanks for putting all those here! I will have to refer back to it at some point.
I would have to say that it could really contribute to a very convincing argument that polygamy is “okay” but the difference between something being “okay” and “the norm” is not something those polygamous cultic groups seem to understand.
It is sad to me that people can so easily use these as proof-text, but the Pharisees and Sadducees basically did the same thing to Jesus when they asked him about Moses and the certificate of divorce. They ignored the prophet who stated clearly that “God HATES divorce” and Jesus turned the law against them, pointing all the way back to Genesis and adding “and what God has joined together…”
I don’t have a Bible in front of me, but from what I can remember (from this incident with Jesus), just because the law had “provision” for something doesn’t mean that it was acceptable to God for us to do those things. Is it acceptable to God to kill another human–even if that human is your slave?
I have heard patriocentrists teach that only women can commit adultery, too. The only time that these patriocentrists said that a man can commit adultery is when he has sex with someone else’s wife. IOW, adultery is predicated on the woman’s marital status not the man’s marital status. I remember this being discussed on a couple of lists I used to be on.
“And men’s pants do the very same thing when THEY bend over. What none of these dresses-only folks are ever willing to explain is, if pants are immodest for women for this reason, why are they not also immodest for men?”
Cynthia,
For this very reason, pants would also be immodest for men.
“The dresses-only crowd is quick to point out that the sight of a man’s form does not inflame the passions of a woman as the sight of a woman does a man,”
I am not a man, so I can only speak for myself but they shouldn’t be so quick to say such things. There are plenty of women who find the male form very attractive and enticing, especially when the jeans fit right in all of the right places and the shirt is tight in all of the right places. I was once told on a patriarchal list that women who say that they are turned on by the sight of a nice looking man comes from being influenced by the feminists. I was told that feminists put those thoughts into our heads making us believe that women actually have lustful thoughts, too.
” but what about men inflaming the passions of other men? There are a LOT of men out there who are straight in practice, but who struggle with homosexual thoughts. If the mere outline of a derriere is such a temptation to a male, shouldn’t they all wear robes so as to avoid tempting weaker brothers to perversion, or don’t the souls of those weaker brothers matter?”
Exactly! Funny how all these rules only apply to women but they would never think of applying them to their own persons.
I also wonder how they can explain the Song of Solomon and the Bride’s total enthrallment with her Lover’s body? Maybe she was just a lusty anomoly?
“Accordingly, the teachings of “love-not-force” answer the commonly asked question, “How does one help a ‘first wife’ willingly embrace the idea of polygamy?”
Very carefully? What a patronizing and ridiculous question!
A man helps his wife “willingly embrace” the idea of another woman sharing their bed in the same manner that she would help him “willingly embrace” the idea of another man sharing their bed.
Basically, how does a man brainwash his wife into thinking that he “needs” another wife by twisting the Bible to suit his own carnal desires?
So, Corrie, were you able to place that Sin of Bathsheba article, where it has been published before, and who wrote it? It sounds so familiar to me that I am sure that I have read it before.
It is okay Richard. I just find it odd that out of the MONTHS I’ve spent on this discussion, over many different threads and literally THOUSANDS of comments, and the MANY rabbit trails this discussion has taken at various times—-that you would pick my use of the word “fundie” as distracting.
Just kind of funny that you would even take the time to point out something like that makes me chuckle, after everywhere we’ve been and all we’ve tackled here.
So forgive my shock. It totally took me aback to see you criticize my use of the word fundie. And just for the record, most of the church abuses of power I’ve suffered personally HAVE come from died in the wool fundamentalists, not exactly patriarchalists. I went to a fellowship that was filled with more fundies than the likes of Doug Phillips.
So basically I am sorry that my personal experience offended you? I get so tired of the easily-bruised, easily-offended stuff. It makes discussion moot, in my opinion.
“So what can a Christian lady do ? Leave college ? Well, certainly you planned on doing that anyway at some point, with a degree, though it might be worth considering if you really need that degree. Did you ever think about the fact that a career is nothing but indentured servitude, nothing but selling yourself to someone and “slaving away” for them, instead of giving your energy and creativity to your own family ? Will your degree help your family grow into a strong godly family, lead by a responsible and godly husband ? Will your degree help you be a good help meet to your husband, a good mother to your children, a good home schooler for them ? Just some thoughts to consider while sitting there in class.
So when you are ready finally to leave college, one way or the other, where are you going to live ?
We at Joshuah’s House think that the countryside is certainly the best place to live for a multi-generational, plural marriage family with many children, preferably mountainous and far off from “civilization”, i.e., the filth of modern day society. Self sufficiency is an important factor here, starting with simplicity of housing, life style and clothing, and growing your own food to a large degree – your experiences with growing tomatoes and peppers will come in handy. ”
Looks like this polygamist is looking for a college girl…
The “Sin of Bathsheba” was written by an “Anonymous Brother” and it was first published in “Patriarch Magazine” (Phil Lancaster, editor) in 1996. I do not know who the person is who wrote that article. I do understand why he didn’t use his real name and why he hid behind the “anonymous” term.
A lot of people, at one time or another, have housed it on their site, including the McDonalds on their now defunct “Patriarch’s Path” site, if I remember correctly. I do know it is a favorite of the women on the patriarchal type lists.
That Bathsheba article is everywhere — you can find it on nearly every site that promotes the modesty meme (or sells modest clothing — funny how the two seem to coincide), and you can find it on Protestant, Anabaptist, Apostolic Pentecostal and even on a few Catholic sites.
In every instance the author is listed as anonymous, except here, where David Huston claims authorship; however if you follow the link to the article the author is agan listed as “anonymous”:
The writing style and level of “scholarship” found in the article is similar to what is found here, in these articles by an Anabaptist author, Brother Merle Ruth:
Several weeks ago, while shopping in a grocery store, my wife was approached by a woman who appeared to be very refined — very courteous manner. She indicated that she had a question that possibly she could answer. She and her husband had observed that some women wear coverings similar to the one that my wife was wearing. Why are they worn? Her husband’s opinion was that it signifies marriage. She herself did not concur with that opinion. But why DO you wear it? That was her question. In response, my companion assured her that the wearing of the headcovering is a Biblical teaching recorded in 1 Corinthians 11. To her that was news. She seemingly was not aware that this was a Bible teaching, and with gratitude in her voice, she promised to go home and read for herself from 1 Corinthians 11.
A hundred years ago, an occurrence like that here in Lebanon county would have been unlikely. Why? Because a hundred years ago, this practice was still being observed in numerous non-Mennonite circles. The widespread loss of this practice demonstrates what can happen in no more than a hundred years. Whether that woman was a church member or not, I don’t know. I do know that today, in many church circles, this teaching is either omitted, or explained away, or twisted so as to make the hair the only needed covering.
But, it’s not my primary calling to condemn other church groups. Right within our own circles we have a big enough job to keep this practice alive and to keep it moving in the right direction. In order to get that job done requires giving periodic attention to this teaching. That’s why I’ve chosen to dwell on that subject this morning. My record shows that it’s been a little over 5 years ago that I devoted an entire message to this subject. That’s a pretty long interval – maybe too long.
I’ve already named the Bible passage in which this teaching is found, so let’s turn in our Bibles to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. The content of this chapter revolves around 2 items: the headcovering, and the Lord’s supper. Because of their nature, we believe that they both fall in the category of an “ordinance”. This is in agreement with the language of verse 2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” The now-popular approach to this chapter throws away the first of these practices, the headcovering, but retains the second, the Lord’s supper. In my opinion, there is no valid ground for that kind of selectivity. Nonetheless, it’s being done. And that’s one reason why there are people around us like that lady who approached my wife.
In a few moments, I’m going to be reading 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5 and 6. Those verses serve as home base for both the doctrine and the practice of the headcovering. But all of the first 16 verses relate to the subject in one way or another. All right, let’s listen now to verses 4-6:
“(4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
Those last four words in verse 6 are my text: “Let her be covered.”
That is a straightforward command. It’s comparable to other commands that are stated in a similar way. “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body.” “Let no man deceive you.” “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” “Let your light so shine.” Now the command in view here is no less binding than these other commands.
The framework for the message this morning will consist of a series of questions revolving around this command: “Let her be covered.”
The first of these questions is: “To whom is this command addressed?”
Now that’s a very simple question. In your opinion, perhaps, it’s too elementary to even raise. Your answer might be, “Why, it’s addressed, of course, to the Corinthians!” and that’s right. They were the initial recipients of it. Does that mean, then, that it was exclusively for them? Does that mean that what was enjoined upon them is not binding upon us? Have the teachings of the epistles been generally understood in that way? Among Christian people, is the Bible usually viewed as “out of date”? No! The Bible has been studied and applied because it is believed to be relevant for today.
If 1 Corinthians was intended only for the Corinthians, then we might as well close our doors and go out of business. A very few would take so radical a stand as that. The continued observance of the communion ordinance is evidence of the widespread conviction that not the Corinthians only, but we, too, are being addressed in this epistle. But, as was pointed out earlier, it’s unfortunate that, in that larger group, there are those who, at certain points, draw back from that position in order to escape the reproach of Christ. And so you have this practice of teaching one part of the chapter, but not the part of the chapter that might make you unpopular.
In answer to this question, there are yet other lines of evidence that ought to be looked at. The book of Revelation, in chapters 2 and 3, records individual messages sent by the ascended Christ to seven churches. At the conclusion of each of those letters, this familiar refrain is repeated: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches” – plural. Each of those letters, in addition to being for one particular church, was to be heeded also by all the churches. “Let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches”. And so it is, too, with the Corinthian epistle. It’s for us, too, even though it was for them initially.
To further reinforce this fact, let’s go to the very beginning of this epistle, 1 Corinthians chapter 1, and listen to verses 1 and 2 for a possible clue to this answer, for a possible answer to the question: “ (1) Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, (2) unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” There you have it again. The writer, God’s chosen servant, declares himself that he’s addressing not only the Corinthians, but also ALL that in EVERY place call upon the Lord.
There is, however, still more that ought to be added to this answer. Remember the question is: “To whom is this command addressed?”
Was this portion of the letter for sisters only? They very much are in focus here. It surely relates to them. But, are they being addressed directly, or indirectly? Well, back again in chapter 11, I find in verses 2 and 3 a clue to that answer. “Now I praise you, BRETHREN, that YE remember me in all things and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to YOU. But I would have YOU know that the head of every man is Christ” and so on. Let’s not overlook this! Obviously, brethren are to be in charge – both in the church and in the home. It’s their responsibility to teach God’s headship order, and to see that that order is maintained. Even though it may have been the Corinthian women who were pushing at the fence, God viewed it as a problem that rested on the shoulders of the brethren — fathers, husbands, church leaders. I, myself, very much need to face up to this fact. And so do you, brethren. When wrong trends appear in covering styles or covering sizes, brethren, let’s not blame one another. Let’s work TOGETHER at correcting the problem, for this is addressed to US. Let’s be willing to admit that an irregularity in relation to the headcovering is seldom a sister’s problem only. It usually involves more than just the sister. I think we’re ready now to move to another question.
That question, number 2, is this: “With what is this practice associated?”
Some persons make much of the fact that, among the women of that day, this was the then-existing practice. And they immediately jump to the conclusion that on that basis it’s not obligatory today. But that line of reasoning ignores completely verse 3 and the obvious link between verse 3 and all that follows, for I am of the opinion that verse 3 is the KEY to the whole passage. Notice now again how verse 3 brings into focus something far more authoritative than a local practice: “I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” God wants it to be known that there is a divinely established arrangement for working relations within the divine human economy. This is otherwise known as God’s headship order. Better than anyone else, God knows that in every sphere of life there needs to be leadership and respect for leadership. God wants this fact known. He wants it known that on the human level God has assigned that leadership to the man. “I would have you know that the head of the woman is the man.” God wants that fact KNOWN. Wherever a church or a family departs from this arrangement, it steps outside of the will of God, and it exchanges the best arrangement for an inferior arrangement. which will inevitably lead to confusion.
We have now our answer to question number 2: “With what is this practice associated?” It’s associated with God’s permanently existing headship order. Those verses that I read, verses 4-6, follow immediately upon the disclosure of this headship arrangement. Those verses 4-6 outline the God-prescribed way of preserving an awareness of this God-established headship order. The fact that the women of that day and place veiled their heads is to their credit, but it’s simply an incidental factor. It’s by no means the foundation on which this teaching is built. Incidentally, for the Jewish men of that day, the embracing of Christianity did require breaking their custom. It may not have required a breaking of their custom on the part of the women, but on the part of the Jewish men they had to discontinue what they had been doing. So, please don’t allow anyone to ever convince you that this passage is merely a call to fit in with their culture.
I’m moving now to question number 3: “But doesn’t this practice destroy the woman’s equality with man in Christ? Doesn’t it do that?”
It is true that, more than anything else, Christianity elevated the status of womanhood. In Christ, the Christian woman stands before God on a footing equal to that of man. That is the input of a verse like Galatians 3:28, in which it is declared that “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” In relation to salvation, man and woman are equal. It may be, however, that in Corinth especially, this newfound liberty may have been interpreted too broadly. So broadly as to obliterate the headship order. Perhaps it’s in order to correct any such thinking that Paul is led to include in this passage evidence of the fact that the headship arrangement dates back, not only to the fall, but beyond the fall. It dates back to the time of the creation. That shows that it was meant to be a permanently existing thing in the earthly order.
Verses 8 and 9 speak to that point. Let’s listen now to verse 8: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” That speaks of man’s priority in the sequence of creation. The fact that man was created first was not simply incidental, that was by divine design. Now verse 9: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” This brings into focus the Creator’s purpose. Eve was created for the purpose of being Adam’s helper.
Now, the evident purpose for the inclusion of these facts is to emphasize that redemption does not cancel out headship. Headship remains intact in the reckoning of God. And so, the answer to our question is “NO”, this practice does NOT destroy woman’s equality with man in Christ. In the reckoning of God, man’s continuing to function as the administrative head of the race is altogether compatible with woman’s spiritual equality with the man in matters pertaining to Christian experience. Both concepts need to be promoted. There is no conflict between them. The man and the woman are equal in spiritual privilege, but they are not equal in authority.
Now, let’s recall again the text: “Let her be covered.” That is God’s decree.
All right, let who be covered?
That is question number 4. “Who is to be covered?”
If this is for Mennonites only, as some wrongly suppose, then it ought to read “let every Mennonite sister be covered.” But the text has in it no such limitation. This is not a denominational teaching. This is a Bible teaching.
Already in verse 3 we are being prepared to think in a much broader scope, for there, where the principle is in focus, it is stated that the head of EVERY man is Christ. No exception is made. Christ is the authority figure for every man, whether or not he obeys Him, Christ is his head. And, by the same token, man remains woman’s God-appointed head, whether or not she submits. And then when we come to the application, verses 4-6, again it’s EVERY woman and EVERY man, indicating the widest possible application, conveying the idea that this practice is intended to be universal. There’s also no reference here to marriage, which eliminates the idea that this is applicable only to women who are married. You may sometime be confronted with that idea. Really, the headship of man over woman is an aspect of God’s government in this world. And, as such, it is not limited only to life in the Kingdom of God. But, since judgment begins at the house of God, Paul is here singling out an instance that would constitute a violation in the context of church life.
I’m driven to the conclusion that EVERY woman who wants to take her God-assigned place under man is duty-bound to signify that purpose of heart by being covered. “Who is to be covered?” SHE is to be covered — the woman who recognizes and submits to her God-ordained place in God’s arrangement.
Growing out of this is a fifth question: “With what shall she be covered?”
An increasing number of voices are responding to this question with this easy answer: “With her hair. Let her be covered with her hair.” But this answer simply cannot survive close scrutiny. To begin with, at the time of this writing [of 1 Corinthians 11] there was practically no need in Christian circles for a plea to retain the hair covering. Long hair had been the long-accepted practice, and to my knowledge was not even being challenged.
Furthermore, those who claim that this passage has in view no other covering but the hair are knowingly discrediting about 1900 years of Christian practice and Biblical scholarship. For that long of time, the wearing of an additional covering was taught and practiced on a very wide scope. Those who argue for the hair only are thereby implying that in respect to this issue the Christian church started out wrong and has been wrong for most of her history. I’m not ready to believe that.
Verse 15 does speak of long hair as “A” covering, nature’s covering, but it’s not “THE” covering called for in verses 5-6. And that conclusion is substantiated by the fact that, in the Greek, the word for covering in verses 5-6 is not the same word as is used in verse 15. And this difference comes to light in a number of the more reliable modern versions. They actually use the term “veil” in verses 5-6. But a careful reading of verse 6, even in the King James Version, should convince anyone that another covering beside the hair is in view. Let’s right now take a moment to look at that verse. Verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered”. Let’s stop right there. If, as some claim, the hair is the only covering in view, than this clause would envision a woman whose hair has been removed, right? “For if the woman be not covered.” That envisions a case where the hair has been removed, if the hair is the covering called for. Now, look at the next clause: “Let her also be shorn.” Now you have a problem on your hands, for how can you remove something that has already been removed? How can there be two successive removals of the same thing? What the statement really means is this: a woman ought to wear both the hair covering and the sign covering, or none at all. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace: that of being shorn.
And here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God’s will.
Now remember the question was “With what shall she be covered?” Here are possible ways of stating the simple answer. She is to voluntarily cover her head with a material covering. It ought to be distinguishable from protection coverings. It ought to be identifiable as one that carries religious significance. To think of it only as a symbol allows for it to become too small. The terminology employed here requires that it be also a covering, that which “covers”. Although it is a symbol, it must be a symbol that covers.
And now I raise question number 6: “When is she to be covered?”
And in response to this, I can imagine someone saying, “Well that’s an easy one, your answer’s right there in the text. ‘Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head’. There’s your answer – she’s to be covered when she prays or prophesies.” As far as it goes that’s an acceptable answer, but I don’t think the evidence is conclusive that this practice is to be limited to such times. That would reduce it to a “devotional covering” or a “worship covering”, when actually the larger context supports the view that it’s primarily a “headship covering”. And, since the headship of man extends to all of life, and since the world so much needs the awareness that the covering creates, isn’t it logical to conclude that the wearing of the covering should be constant?
But why does Paul single out times of praying and prophesying? That is a valid question. Although we can’t know for sure, it may be that those were the occasions when the Corinthian women were beginning to think that they would be justified in throwing off their veil in the name of their newfound Christian liberty. I’m simply suggesting that Paul might have received reports of violations occurring at such times. If so, that would explain why he would name these specific times.
Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the words of my text, “Let her be covered,” are in the present active imperative form, so that, by grammatical structure, it really means “let her continue to be covered.”
In relation to this question, I would conclude with these remarks. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that “here is a soul that is presently praying or prophesying.” Rather, it signifies that “here is a woman who seeks to honor God in all of life.” So, it’s not really a prayer veiling, but a woman’s veiling, worn to show that the wearer is in God’s order. Let’s think of it in those terms. Not a “devotional covering”. Not a “worship covering”. But a “woman’s covering”. A “headship covering”. That, I think, is the main thrust of the passage as a whole.
Again, let’s call attention to our text: “Let her be covered.”
One more question: “Why?”
Well, I hope that some answers have already gotten through to you. To all that, I would add this: Wear the headcovering because you know God wants you to! I cannot supply you with a more valid reason for the performance of any deed than simply to know that God wants you to do it. Can you? Can you think of a more valid reason to motivate any action? For every pliable saint, what God has written right here should be enough to settle the matter.
It is here made apparent that God wants to preserve an awareness of His divinely established order. That is urgently needed in today’s society. Furthermore, he wants YOU to have a part in that, not only the sisters, but also the brethren. He wants both Christian men and Christian women to give visible evidence of their pledge to abide by that order. For the man, that visible witness is given by the non-wearing of a religiously significant covering. For the woman that witness is given by the wearing of a religiously significant covering. The God-supplied long hair will not suffice for this because it is not a personally supplied witness. It doesn’t necessarily reflect a personal endorsement of God’s arrangement. It doesn’t convey the clear signal that “I’m voluntarily submitting to man’s leadership.” The humanly supplied covering should be worn to convey that signal. To all who see it, it proclaims this message: “I will not attempt to dominate, I will not attempt to manipulate my head. I submit to God’s plan.”
Now, to all of this, the response of the critic might be: “So what? There is no salvation in it!” That is as much beside the point as to say that there’s no salvation in baptism or in any other of the ordinances. We don’t keep the ordinances to become saved, rather being saved we gladly keep those commandments. “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.”
It’s very obvious that some portions of this passage have not been touched on in this message. Perhaps they can be touched on some other occasion.
Before I close, I wish to add some remarks bearing on the more practical side of this practice. We as church leaders try to monitor changes in covering styles and covering sizes, but changes can be made so gradually that we may not always be abreast of what is happening. Little by little, you can make your covering smaller and smaller, and you may suppose that no one else notices it, but God knows it, and you know it, and very likely more people take notice of that than you realize. You may never know. If you take that course, you may never know how many other sisters are influenced to do likewise. Now you may take that course if you choose, but that will not build the kind of church life that I think you want. It will not build the kind of church life that you want for your children.
I’m glad for the healthy signs among us. It’s a healthy sign when daughters appear with coverings as large as their mother’s. That’s something to rejoice over and thank God for. Really, anything less than that will lead in the wrong direction. If, in successive generations, the daughter’s covering every time is just a little smaller than the mother’s, it will only be a few generations until the covering is lost. I don’t think you want that to happen here, so I plead with you to help to keep it from happening.
Shall we come before the Lord in prayer?
The Significance of the
Christian Woman’s Veiling
by Merle Ruth
This article revolves around an ordinance that many segments of the professing church have lost. This state of affairs has given to the practice, in the eves of some, the appearance of a peculiar denominational tradition. That is a misconception that we unitedly ought to challenge and correct.
Most of you know that a keystone is the wedge-shaped stone that is put in the top center of the arch and thus gives strength and solidarity to the whole structure. The practice we are about to examine has about it something that makes it a keystone in the whole structure of Christian nonconformity. A study of the history of church groups would reflect the fact that when once this practice falls by the way, it is only a matter of time until every other mark of Christian nonconformity becomes extinct. Let us therefore never become apologetic about teaching and practicing the Christian Woman’s Head Veiling.
We ought to appreciate this title: “The Significance of the Christian Woman’s Veiling.” The significance of anything is its meaning. God is concerned that we keep alive the meaning behind His ordinances. In connection with the first Passover, God said, “When your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, “thus and thus. When a Bible-taught practice is continued, after its meaning has been largely lost, it becomes subject to all kinds of abuse. At that point someone is likely to suggest it be discontinued–”Why continue a meaningless practice?” But that is walking right into the devil’s trap. It is surely better to continue the practice and try in every way possible to revive its meaning so it becomes again the meaningful expression God meant it to be. That is reason number one for frequent teaching on this subject. We face the challenge of keeping alive, from generation to generation, not only the practice but also its meaning.
Another reason for teaching repeatedly on this subject lies in the circumstances alluded to at the beginning. This once widespread practice is, in many groups, now viewed as nonessential. Even among those who still retain the Mennonite label, there are many who have lost all appreciation for this practice. It has been said that the most important bolt on a train is the one that is loose; for that reason it needs immediate attention. That has its parallel in the life of the church. The church at Sardis received from heaven this mandate: “Strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die.” That means that a practice once it becomes neglected, ought to receive more attention than it otherwise would, and this is obviously a neglected practice.
In the nonprofessing world there are likewise circumstances that make this form of witness an urgently needed witness. There is wholesale disregard for God’s headship arrangement. Sex distinction is becoming blurred, almost to the point of extinction. If we who claim to be the church do not give a clear witness concerning God’s order, where else will this bewildered world find it!
To find the reasons for this practice, we do not go to some source book on proper etiquette. Neither do we go to a denominational handbook. Rather, we go to man’s highest court of appeal, that supremely authoritative Book of books, that Word by which all men shall be judged in the last day. We turn now, in that Book, to I Corinthians 11:1-16.
The first verse is in the form of a plea. “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Paul, the writer of this passage, was a divinely chosen vessel. He was on intimate terms with Christ. The instructions that come to us through him have their source in heaven. The Anointed of God, when He walked among men, had said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” When He came back to earth on the Day of Pentecost in the Person of the Holy Spirit, He began to impart to men those things. Under His direction the New Testament came into being, and that is now our rule for faith and life. Thus it was that this man Paul could rightfully say in this same Corinthian letter, “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
In the second verse Paul commends the Corinthians for the recognition and respect they have shown him and for their observance of the ordinances. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
I would now like to call attention to the beginning of the next verse, verse 3. It begins, as you see, with the word but, a word that usually serves to introduce a contrasting condition. Evidently, on this one point Paul was led to depart from his commending them and seek instead to clarify and possibly correct. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This might be termed the theological premise underlying the practice that is to be outlined in the following verses. We are here being introduced to God’s arrangement for working relations within the divine-human economy. This is otherwise known as God’s order of headship. It is a God designated line of responsibility. Furthermore, it is a permanently existing arrangement.
This verse names three relationships in which the principle of headship is in effect by divine decree: (1) the head of Christ is God, (2) the head of man is Christ, and (3) the head of woman is man. The meaning of headship for the man-woman relationship can be arrived at by examining the God-Christ relationship. Jesus once said: “I and my Father are one,” That speaks of equality, On another occasion, He said this, at least, in substance: “I am not alone in what I am doing.” That speaks of cooperation. On a third occasion, Jesus said, “I do always those things that please him [the Father],” That speaks of the Father’s leadership. By way of summary, one could then say that in the Father-Son relationship there is a blending of equality and cooperation along with a mutual awareness that ultimate authority resides with the Father. Or, stated otherwise, functional priority belongs to the Father. If then, in a relationship that is wholly divine, headship or leadership is needful and good, how much more so in the human, man-woman relationship. Both men and women need to recognize, therefore, that there is for each of them a God-appointed place and function and that they make their greatest contribution and reach their highest glory when cheerfully serving in that capacity.
Suppose a railroad locomotive could speak. It might say, “I’m tired of following the same old tracks and going through the same old towns.” And suppose the locomotive would then leave its tracks and start across the open fields. Would it improve its lot? Would it find greater liberty? Would it increase its usefulness? Of course not. In one way or another, it would eventually get stuck. The locomotive is most useful when it follows the tracks for which it was designed. In this day of supposed liberation for women, that lesson is urgently needed. We make our greatest contribution when we function in our God-designated sphere.
God has chosen to employ visible means to preserve awareness of this divinely conceived arrangement whereby both the man and the woman have their own sphere of operation. It is this employment of a visible sign that puts the practice into the category of an ordinance. Both the Christian man and Christian woman are involved in giving this visible witness. And, it is a two-fold witness from yet another standpoint, for it involves the giving of both a divinely supplied witness and a humanly supplied witness. The divinely supplied witness is the witness of nature. At a later point in this discussion, Paul indicates that the endowments and dictates of nature bear witness to a God-planned distinction between the sexes. Accordingly, woman’s long hair is nature’s covering, supplied by God. The humanly supplied witness is the one whereby the individual gives his or her personal endorsement of God’s arrangement. God wants both Christian men and women to give visible evidence of their acceptance of His arrangement and their pledge to harmonize their lives with that order. In verses 4 and 5, the God-prescribed form for this humanly supplied witness comes into view. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
It is obvious that these two verses take the negative approach; that is, they visualize a violation rather than a compliance. Nevertheless, what God expects is here clearly implied. The only possible correct deduction one can make is this: For men, the divinely prescribed headship sign is given by the man having his head uncovered; that is free of any covering having a religious connotation, such as is worn by Jewish men and certain of the Catholic clergy. Our wearing of the hat is not a violation of this Scripture, for the hat is primarily a protectional covering. For women, the God-called-for witness is given by having the head covered. The word cover, as employed in verses 4-7, is derived from the Greek Katakalupto and means “veil.” Consequently, some Bible versions properly use here the terms veiled and unveiled. The expression, “Woman’s Veiling” is therefore altogether proper. The disregard of this practice is said to dishonor one’s head. Which head? The head here in view is most likely one’s spiritual head, which in the case of the man is Christ and in the case of the woman is man. The woman who refuses to wear the veil, by that act, projects herself into man’s position, usurping authority over him and, at the same time, repudiating that divine authority under which he stands. It would take a great deal of audacity to say, “God, don’t mind my disobedience; just answer my prayer.” But really, if you knowingly disregard this regulation, that is what your actions say.
In the remaining verses a number of related factors are brought forward to further substantiate both the principle of headship and the practice by which it is kept alive.
Let us look now at verse 6. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This further explains the concluding portion of verse 5. By going unveiled, a woman brings upon herself the same measure of shame that would accompany the shaving of her head. The divine verdict is that if her head is uncovered, that is even all one as if she were shorn or shaven, and it is strongly implied that no one should challenge the fact that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. The grammatical construction in the Greek would permit this rendering: “Since it is a shame.” Incidently, in that time and place, for a woman to cut her hair was regarded as a shame. That can be said to their credit and to the discredit of today’s society. Shorn hair, that is cut hair, obviously is longer than hair that has been shaven, but it is here represented as equally shameful. Notice the expression “shorn or shaven.” Both are put into the same package; both are put into the category of the shameful. On top of that is this fact: The nonwearing of the covering is equally as shameful. Here is a divine verdict that no amount of human defiance can reverse.
Let us move now to verses 7 through 9. Here attention is called to the fact that this headship arrangement dates back all the way to the time of the Creation. “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” (verse 7). This seems to imply that God created man to be His visible representative here on earth. Since there is no head above God, man, His representative, is to be uncovered in order to reflect God’s supreme headship.
The next two verses focus on two more factors related to the Creation, which indicate that man’s headship over woman was in the mind of God from the very beginning. Verse 8 speaks of man’s priority in the process of creation. “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” That should be self-explanatory: Eve was created from Adam. Verse 9 speaks of God’s purpose in creation. “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Eve was meant to be Adam’s helper. Thus the designs of the Creator have been shown to substantiate what has been said about the man-woman relationship.
In the ancient world the status of womanhood was very low. This had its reflections even in Jewish circles. It is claimed that by the time of Christ, in the Jewish morning prayer, a man thanked God for not making him “a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.” Christianity, more than anything else, has corrected that view. Paul taught that in Christ a woman has spiritual privileges equal to a man. It may be that at Corinth this new-found liberty was on the verge of being interpreted so broadly as to cancel the headship order. It seems as though the emphasis given here was aimed at correcting that kind of false conclusion. These verses reaffirm that the creation order remains intact. In the reckoning of God, man continues to be the administrative head.
Another support for this practice is brought forward in verse 10. “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” The good angels are always represented as being in full subjection to God. In Isaiah 6:2, the seraphim are said to cover their faces in the presence of God. In numerous other places in the Scriptures, angels are represented as constant observers of the human scene and as helpers of the saints. This verse seems to imply that the presence of these unseen heavenly observers constitutes another reason that the woman wants to manifest submission to spiritual leadership. Her covered head is a sign even to the angels that she is qualified to pray and eligible for their ministry and protection.
Let us move now to verses 11 and 12. “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” These verses speak of the need that men and women have for each other and of their mutual dependence on the Lord. Very likely, this note was injected to keep the man from becoming a proud, arrogant head. Headship ought to be viewed not as something to be proud of but worthy of.
Now an appeal is made to human judgment. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” (verse 13). Evidently, the predominating opinion with regard to this matter was then still in alignment with God’s will. The very fact that today this appeal might meet with a weak response in many circles should open our eyes to the decline in moral judgment that has occurred since that day.
Next, attention is focused on the fact that God teaches through nature the same truth He here teaches by revelation. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (verses 14 and 15). God put into the human makeup a built-in sense of propriety that opposes long hair for men and endorses long hair for women. The fact that today many women cut their hair betrays the character of our time. We must conclude that they are doing it contrary to nature as God made it. It is a perversion similar to perversions that characterize our time. When obedient to the dictates of nature, the man with his short hair appears uncovered; the woman with her long hair appears covered. By this arrangement, God has shown what He expects. He expects the man to be unveiled, the woman veiled. Please note that her hair is said to be given her for a covering. But while it is a covering, it is not the covering called for in the preceding verses. Those who claim that the hair is the only covering in view ignore the fact that in this instance the word covering comes from a different Greek word. The word translated covering in verse 15 is not Katakalupto, as in the earlier verses, but Peribolaion. If in God’s reckoning the hair is the veiling, we could rightfully expect this statement to read thus: “Her hair is given her for a Katakalupto” (veil). That it does not say this is consistent with everything else in the passage. Likewise, a careful reading of verse 6 will confirm the fact that two coverings are in view. We find there this statement: “If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.” If one maintains the hair is the covering, then he is faced with an impossibility, namely, two successive removals of the hair. If the hair is the covering and she is uncovered, then the hair has already been removed. Why then add, “Let her also be shorn?” What would be left to cut off? What the statement really means is this: A woman ought to wear both (the hair covering and the sign covering) or none. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace. Here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God’s stated will.
There remains yet one verse, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (verse 16). In effect, Paul is saying, “It would be strange indeed for anyone to challenge a practice that is being observed universally.” The fact that this practice is not mentioned in letters to other churches is very understandable in the light of this verse. Apparently, it was faithfully being observed as verse 16 would suggest. The exception was here at Corinth, where possibly there was the threat of a departure. Whatever the situation, it called forth this teaching.
Is it not significant that Paul says, “If any man . . . be contentious?” And did you notice in verse 2 the “brethren” are specifically named. The preservation or loss of this practice hinges largely upon the brethren. Our sisters need the support that comes from fathers and brothers who likewise readily show their colors. Daughters who have covering problems and hair problems need fathers and church leaders who are gracefully insistent.
Let us turn now to some remaining loose ends. No precise specifications are given for the veiling. Some allowance can therefore be made relative to the details of its construction. But there are limits beyond which variation cannot properly go. Obviously, it must be of such a nature that it conveys a religious connotation; that means it must be distinguishable from any form of protecting headgear. In view of the comparison drawn in this passage between the hair and the veil, it seems obvious that the veil ought to cover the larger part of the head. The God-required sign is not the veil alone, but the veil-covered head. Consequently, when the veil becomes too small, the practice loses its significance.
Again, this passage does not state precisely how the hair is to be arranged under the covering. But, obviously, the Lord’s covering will not fit properly on the devil’s hairdo. Any “fixing” of the hair that is born of pride militates against the meaning of the veil. Some sisters wear their hair too far down on the neck; consequently, only the back of the head is covered by the veil. Others wear their hair too far down on the forehead. Why not keep the hair within the natural hairline?
A thoughtful person will recognize that the policy of having the church recommend a uniform-type covering has definite advantages over the policy of leaving the matter to the judgment of the individual. The latter policy results in such a variation of practice that soon there is little resemblance of unity in this area of witness and great difficulty in distinguishing between the headgear that was intended to serve as a sign covering and headgear that was not so intended.
When, or how constantly shall the covering be worn? In some circles,the covering has become, by default, merely a worship veil. The attempt is then made to show that this passage has in view only times of public worship. That is a very poorly substantiated conclusion. Please note that in verse 18, where Paul is entering into another matter, he indicates that now he has in view an abuse that manifested itself when they came together in the church. Would this not suggest that he had in view a broader that point?
To speak of the covering as a “prayer veiling” is incorrect. Even the term “devotional covering” has likely militated against God’s intention by restricting the wearing of it to one phase of life’s activities, whereas God’s plan for the man-woman relationship is as broad as life itself. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that here is a soul at prayer. Rather, it signifies that here is a woman who seeks to honor God in all of life. So it is not really a prayer veiling but a woman’s veiling worn to show that the wearer is in God’s order. A sister ought to know she wears the veiling primarily because she is a woman, not simply because she periodically prays and teaches. It is true that verses 4 and 5 speak of the practice in relation to times of praying and prophesying. But it is highly probable that those were the occasions when possibly the Corinthians had begun to feel this practice might be context prior to it omitted in the name of Christian liberty. It is only natural that the correction would first be applied to the point of violation. Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the clause, “let her be covered,” is the present, active, imperative form, so that by its grammatical structure it means, “let her continue to be veiled.”
Again and again we have been told that the value of Bible study lies in making present-day applications, and that is right. But many, who supposedly are Biblical experts, change their tune when they come to this passage. This supposedly does not apply today. But as many of you know, the latter part of this chapter has Paul correcting abuses relating to another ordinance Communion. When these supposed experts move from the first part of the chapter to the latter part, they betray their inconsistency. They would not think of arguing that Communion was meant to be observed only by the Corinthian Christians of that day. But how can one generalize the latter part of the chapter, giving it universal application for all churches of all times and then limit the first part to a particular church for a particular period? It simply cannot honestly be done. This epistle is not addressed to the Corinthians exclusively. The salutation indicates that this letter is meant for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Those who want to belittle this practice have given it derogatory labels such as “a purely cultural practice,” and “an ancient oriental custom.” An oft-heard argument runs like this: Since in Corinth the local sign of a harlot was the uncovered head, Paul is asking the Corinthian women to avoid all appearance of evil by covering their heads: and since a woman’s uncovered head no longer necessarily signifies what it once did, the practice is no longer relevant. But that is misrepresenting the thrust of this passage, Nowhere in this chapter are women told to wear the veiling in order to distinguish themselves from harlots. True, it does that, but that is a result of the practice and not the basic reason underlying the practice.
Again, in review, let us recognize that this practice is rooted deeply in God’s unchanging headship order. Sister, your veiled head is the sign of a spiritual relationship that remains totally unaffected by the changing customs of society.
Can God use us to keep alive this neglected, belittled, yet vitally important practice? That is the challenge we face. That also may be a part of the unique mission of the truly Mennonite brotherhood.
I am not a man, so I can only speak for myself but they shouldn’t be so quick to say such things. There are plenty of women who find the male form very attractive and enticing, especially when the jeans fit right in all of the right places and the shirt is tight in all of the right places. I was once told on a patriarchal list that women who say that they are turned on by the sight of a nice looking man comes from being influenced by the feminists. I was told that feminists put those thoughts into our heads making us believe that women actually have lustful thoughts, too.
I am a man and I can predict with reasonable accuracy that no one would be enflamed with passion if they say my 47-year-old figure pressing against a tight shirt or pants in any of the right or wrong places.
The writing style and level of “scholarship” found in the article is similar to what is found here, in these articles by an Anabaptist author, Brother Merle Ruth:
Okay – Now I understand the problems with “men this…” and “women that…” in that article. “Brother Ruth” – it seems there may be some gender uncertainty there. Perhaps Brother Ruth is trying to hide his own psychological self-flaggelation under a smoke-n-mirrors modesty tirade.
It totally took me aback to see you criticize my use of the word fundie. And just for the record, most of the church abuses of power I’ve suffered personally HAVE come from died in the wool fundamentalists, not exactly patriarchalists. I went to a fellowship that was filled with more fundies than the likes of Doug Phillips.
Here, with apologies in advance for the length seems to me what has to be the answer to both the author of the Bathsheba article and ‘Brother Ruth’: two passages from Matthew with a commentary by Matthew Henry.
The Bathsheba article is pure prurience, a lip-smacking pornographic reverie. I read in some articles that the VF types have a major problem with the men viewing internet pornography – guess this is the same sort of thing really.
Matthew, Chapter 23
Pharisaism Exposed
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 “But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
Eight Woes
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 [“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ 19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 “Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
23:13-33 The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to the gospel of Christ, and therefore to the salvation of the souls of men. It is bad to keep away from Christ ourselves, but worse also to keep others from him. Yet it is no new thing for the show and form of godliness to be made a cloak to the greatest enormities. But dissembled piety will be reckoned double iniquity. They were very busy to turn souls to be of their party. Not for the glory of God and the good of souls, but that they might have the credit and advantage of making converts. Gain being their godliness, by a thousand devices they made religion give way to their worldly interests. They were very strict and precise in smaller matters of the law, but careless and loose in weightier matters. It is not the scrupling a little sin that Christ here reproves; if it be a sin, though but a gnat, it must be strained out; but the doing that, and then swallowing a camel, or, committing a greater sin. While they would seem to be godly, they were neither sober nor righteous. We are really, what we are inwardly. Outward motives may keep the outside clean, while the inside is filthy; but if the heart and spirit be made new, there will be newness of life; here we must begin with ourselves. The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was like the ornaments of a grave, or dressing up a dead body, only for show. The deceitfulness of sinners’ hearts appears in that they go down the streams of the sins of their own day, while they fancy that they should have opposed the sins of former days. We sometimes think, if we had lived when Christ was upon earth, that we should not have despised and rejected him, as men then did; yet Christ in his Spirit, in his word, in his ministers, is still no better treated. And it is just with God to give those up to their hearts’ lusts, who obstinately persist in gratifying them. Christ gives men their true characters.
Matthew’s Gospel Chapter 7:
Judging Others
1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults, while they allow themselves in greater ones. Some sins are as motes, while others are as beams; some as a gnat, others as a camel. Not that there is any sin little; if it be a mote, or splinter, it is in the eye; if a gnat, it is in the throat; both are painful and dangerous, and we cannot be easy or well till they are got out. That which charity teaches us to call but a splinter in our brother’s eye, true repentance and godly sorrow will teach us to call a beam in our own. It is as strange that a man can be in a sinful, miserable condition, and not be aware of it, as that a man should have a beam in his eye, and not consider it; but the god of this world blinds their minds. Here is a good rule for reprovers; first reform thyself.
Says it all really – first reform thyself, and judge not.
Sorry, I know this is terribly nit-picky and very English but it’s ‘dyed-in-the-wool’. Fine cloth was dyed as spun woollen thread and then woven, not dyed as woven cloth. Woven cloth shed dye more easily than cloth that was dyed as woollen thread . . .
Thanks for reminding us of those verses, Joanna. I just don’t see how I couldn’t see the problems with that Sin of Bathsheba book when I was younger. Why didn’t I get it? Why didn’t I listen to that sinking feeling of anguish that screamed “No! Following God is something so much different than all of this!”? Also, the book was published by a man who also published other books, and some of the other books said things like if churches allow women to not wear head coverings or to wear pants, and if they allow anyone to watch tv or go to the movies, they are disobedient, and there’s no room for disagreement on this stuff PERIOD. He had written some of this stuff, and he wrote it in a very caustic, and I must say, a spiritually abusive manner. Reading his stuff really, really scarred my faith.
But … Christ hates us to bear heavy, useless burdens. He wants us to care about HIM. That’s all we need to do, and that fufills the heart of the Law. As Calamity Jean has said, it’s just so simple. Christ’s way is really, simply, and only love.
Yep, it’s post #215, Corrie. Here is a brief quote from the opening (the article is fairly lengthy):
“We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention
the sin of Bathsheba. And it is true enough that David’s sin was very great,
and Bathsheba’s very small. David’s sin was deliberate and presumptuous,
Bathsheba’s only a sin of ignorance. David committed deliberate adultery and
murder; Bathsheba only carelessly and undesignedly exposed herself before
David’s eyes. We have no doubt that David’s sin was great, and Bathsheba’s
small.
Yet it remains a fact that Bathsheba’s little sin was the cause of David’s
great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless
exposure of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame.”
They are overlooking or ignoring several things. According to 2 Samuel 11:1. In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
In the spring when kings went off to war, where was David? He stayed home. It seems that his first sin was not being where he was supposed to be. Would he have seen Bathsheba bathing on the roof had he not stayed home?
His other sins followed. He saw, thought, lusted, persued, acted, and covered up the deed by murder.
Perhaps Bathsheba was intimadated by his position as king, perhaps she was being submissive because that is what she thought she was supposed to do. Or perhaps not. Those who lay the bulk of the sin at her feet are reading into scripture.
You know, Bathsheba was bathing as part of a ritual purification, as required by the Law. She uncovered herself in the service of the Lord.
So I wonder… was David also sinning when he danced befor the Lord, and “uncovered himself in front of the servant girls”, in this story, below?
2Sa 6:14 And David danced before the LORD with all [his] might; and David [was] girded with a linen ephod.
2Sa 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 2Sa 6:16 ¶ And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.
2Sa 6:17 And they brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. 2Sa 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts. 2Sa 6:19 And he dealt among all the people, [even] among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece [of flesh], and a flagon [of wine]. So all the people departed every one to his house.
2Sa 6:20 ¶ Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
2Sa 6:21 And David said unto Michal, [It was] before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. 2Sa 6:22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
Oops, sorry CJ, you did give a link to that article — the first link in your comment — and I mistook what you did copy in (the second link) to be what you meant by giving the first link.
If everybody wants to read that “anonymous brother’s” article — it may be freely copied and pasted here, but I don’t recommend it.
Personally, I think the whole problem with that article is in the opening, and the rest of that article gets so detailed about what turns a man on, there is an “ick” factor in reading it.
Cynthia, I read both those articles, but it wasn’t until I read Mr Ruth’s that I really got a chuckle out of it. It was the “Lord’s covering won’t fit over the devil’s hairdo” bit that got me, I’m afraid . . . first it was the idea that the devil has a signature style, and then I just kept envisioning people trying to fashion a scarf to hide an ungainly pair of horns, and the hilarity flowed (actually, traditional Japanese brides would wear a wedding covering to hide their “horns of jealousy” from their future mothers-in-law . . . but somehow I doubt Mr Ruth was thinking along those lines).
I was also very sad, however, at his treatment of the “does not nature teach” bit. I know it’s been mentioned here before but I do have to bring it up again– nature teaches us that, in fact, men’s hair and women’s grow in exactly the same fashion. One young man I went to University with grew his hair out for Locks of Love, an organisation that accepts donations of hair to fashion wigs for children who have suffered medically-related hair loss and cannot afford a hairpiece. In the four years I knew this man, I watched his hair grow from his collar down to his waist, and it was not only some of the loveliest, healthiest hair I’ve ever seen (more than one girl certainly envied him it!) but it was also one of the most gracious and selfless everyday acts I’ve ever witnessed. I don’t know how much teasing he put up with for his choice, since his hair in the end was much longer than that of many girls, but there was nothing unnatural or unseemly about it. Nature not only teaches us that a man’s hair may grow at the same speed and with the same beauty as a woman’s hair, it also teaches us that people, in their arrogance, will look for anything to mock.
I wonder if Mr Ruth knows that Paul himself would have had long hair . . ?
Finally, Joanna, thank you for posting that commentary. It deals perfectly with this sort of “holier than thou” attitude, and on top of that your remark on the Bathsheba article’s being a “lip-smacking pornographic reverie” is not only poetic but terribly apt! I was very uncomfortable reading the detailed prose examinations of the various “tempting” parts of a woman’s body . . . it felt (to me) as though the author had spent a little too much time doing his “research.”
“It was the “Lord’s covering won’t fit over the devil’s hairdo” bit that got me, I’m afraid . . . first it was the idea that the devil has a signature style, and then I just kept envisioning people trying to fashion a scarf to hide an ungainly pair of horns, and the hilarity flowed..”
It begins with some of the Proverbs 31 verses, and then says this: “It’s impossible to talk about the virtuous wife without talking some about her duties at home. Notice that the bulk of Proverbs 31 involves decribing those duties.”
Now, this contention is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. James McDonald made it recently too, in that ‘pink link’ article that was discussed here a while back. Lots of good criticisms were made of it, but I don’t think there was much talk about this: “[S]he [the Proverbs 31 Woman] is first a wife and a mother—a faithful keeper of her home”
Now, this got me thinking. The idea both posts are promoting is that the 21st century lives they lead, are the ones that most closely resemble that of the Proverbs 31 women. But I’m just not seeing it. In fact, I think that saying that the Proverbs 31 woman’s life revolves around her home is just not true.
Here are the relevant verses (not necessary to remind you all I’m sure, but it’s handy to refer to and it’s one of my favourite passages, so I will anyway!)
Proverbs 31:10-31
10 A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Now, I am not seeing a Prairie Muffin here. Just consider how many verses deal directly with being:
A wife – 6 (v.10,11,12,23,28,29)
A mother – 1 (!) (v.28) Although we could take v.26 to refer to homeschooling (although this is a STRETCH – in biblical times this referred to wise management of her servants. Similarly v.21 and v.27 – this is about being a good, fair, and caring mistress to her servant girls. I spent part of my childhood in Africa, and have some thoughts on this to add to the GNAP thread when I get a chance!)
Work which definitely takes her outside the home: 5 (v.14,16,18,24,31)
Work which is definitely home-focussed: 2 (v.22,27)
Work which could be at home, or outside the home: 5 (v.13,15,17,19,20)
Total verses which refer to her work: 12
I hope I haven’t miscounted or miscategorised anything here. But actually looking at what these verses are talking about – this is NOT a woman whose sole (or even primary) sphere is the home. She moves from managing her household to trading with the merchants seamlessly – in fact, isn’t it so interesting that there’s not even a mention of how these spheres are different? They blend together. So much for the biblicality of men outside, women inside.
Rereading the quotes I posted at the top – I wonder how these writers can honestly contend that the Proverbs 31 woman was all about being a ‘keeper at home’. She kept her house (OF COURSE she did, all her work was for her household. But it doesn’t hold that any time a woman leaves the house she has to be beating herself up and wishing she was back home. Proverbs 31 Woman proactively looked for ways to be productive (v.16). I am struck by one very popular patriarchal blogger, who regularly condemns ‘me time’ and insists that her weekly trip to a coffee shop is ONLY made because it HELPS her family and she doesn’t enjoy being away from them at all. Proverbs 31 woman went in and out of her home without any sense that she should be guilty or that the outside/inside time was more or less valuable than the rest.)
Anyway, I just wanted to show that when Families Against Feminism contends that “the bulk” of Proverbs 31 “describes her duties at home” – that is incorrect.
It’s also wrong when she says, “Notice, though, that it is all done within the domain of her home and family life; she does not neglect home all day and report to another man for work.” References to a ‘domain’ of home vs. a ‘domain’ of outside are not in evidence anywhere in this passage. Are there verses elsewhere in the Bible that could support such a view? And again, we see the feting of self-employment (note: I am self-employed and work full-time in my home with my husband on our business, so obviously I think self-employment is great, but I’m not saying people who don’t do exactly as I do aren’t Biblical). And the idea that Proverbs 31 never worked with men is wrong. Many if not all of her vineyard workers would have been men. And while the merchants she supplied with sashes were not directly ‘bosses’, she certainly had to answer to them in doing business with them.
How do they resolve verse 14 “She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar” and verse 31 “Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate” with the idea that Proverbs 31 is all about the home? Her house is never even mentioned – as I said, her ‘household’ is the people in the house who are dependent on her – her servants, their families, and her children.
Anyway, lots of thoughts. Sorry for the super-long post AGAIN! I hope it’s not all horribly jumbled. There is more to dissect in the Families Against Feminism post as well, but it strays totally into opinion and I just wanted to correct the BIBLICAL inaccuracies.
Well……….I think the correct definition of long hair means it blows in the wind (I think Gordon Clark did a good job defining this). Whoever thinks Paul had long hair should go to the Christian History site and read the firsthand account of someone who saw Paul as a Christian. He was fat, bald, and had a big nose. Sounds pretty typical of an aging man, but it doesn’t really matter what he looked like outwardly because that’s what man looks at. God sees the inner and left us His beautiful love story, and surely we can see that inside Paul was beautiful and it showed outwardly.
the “Paul had long hair” remark that I made stems from an earlier discussion here concerning the vow mentioned in Acts 18 that Paul is to have taken, which is generally held to have been the Nazarite vow. This was a vow that bound those who took it against the consumption of wine, strong drink and grape products, close contact with dead bodies, and cutting their hair during the period encompassed by the vow. This certainly doesn’t mean Paul had long hair forever; I believe only a few people in the Bible are understood to have been Nazarites for life, John the Baptist among them. Paul wasn’t one for life; in fact, in Acts 18:18 we see that the period that particular vow encompassed seems to have ended, for he then cut his hair. It does mean, though, that for a period of time –the period of time for which his vow lasted– he did indeed let his hair grow.
(I believe that there is also a mention of him having taken the vow later in Acts, around the time of the Pentecost; for all we know he had taken it many times throughout his life! Those are the only two mentioned in Scripture that I’m aware of, though)
The nazirite vow can be taken for a long time, or a short time, if Paul was balding or bald, chances are, there wasn’t much “growth” going on, but I think we can safely say that the length of one’s hair is not a factor in your piousness.
Think about women who’ve lost hair to chemotherapy, are they sinning because their hair fell out without their control? Other women have very thin hair that falls out naturally, and some end up bald because of that as well. It goes along with every other situation that is out of our control. The rules in place in the OT just don’t “fit” Christian society. They were there for a reason, but that reason has been fulfilled, and we live under grace. I don’t care if a man has 12 feet of hair or a woman has a shaved head, because that is such a superficial thing (as are pants, skirts, etc.).
It is really sad to see that people can be so narrow-minded, especially when confronted with specific objections that literally collapse their argument in front of them, yet they choose to continue to focus on such unimportant things.
“It is really sad to see that people can be so narrow-minded, especially when confronted with specific objections that literally collapse their argument in front of them, yet they choose to continue to focus on such unimportant things.”
Carnal thinking is like that, unfortunately.
Under the old Law of Moses, a man whose reproductive parts were missing could not be part of the Hebrew congregation, and yet under the New Covenant the Ethiopian eunuch was baptised into the body of Christ with ease.
Under the New Law, a person whose hair is not the correct length (something which wasn’t an issue even under the Law of Moses) is liable to be judged unworthy of full membership in some congregations.
…..why don’t they just write their own Bible and have done with it!
[...] of Tulip Girl’s observations [in the comments on this TW thread] gleaned from living abroad as missionaries, “One of the things the the Lord did in my life [...]
Claire, thanks for posting those links and commenting….I hadn’t read those for a while and was struck, once again, by the purposeful confusion. After reading the tenets Family Reformation, the only conclusion that can be made is that there is only one role for women, being keepers at home, wives, and mothers. Everything else is “non-normative” or “outside the prescriptive will of God.” Am I correct? If I missed the caveat, please point it out to me. But, repeatedly both James and Stacy back pedal in other places on their blog, in Stacy’s interviews, etc. Could some one please explain what I am missing?
“Think about women who’ve lost hair to chemotherapy, are they sinning because their hair fell out without their control? Other women have very thin hair that falls out naturally, and some end up bald because of that as well.”
This sort of thing will help some see 1 Corinthians 11 in a whole new light. This happened to a friend of mine undergoing chemo who lost all her hair. She finally saw that Paul was giving women a choice of covering or not and it was a passage that was actually freeing women. (Note in the passage Paul is ASSUMING women are praying and prophesying in the Body)
This passage is not a legalistic command nor a passage to put women in a subordinate position in the Body of believers. I cannot tell you the tears that flowed from her when she read this in the light of the Holy Spirit who illuminated truth to her.
She was astounded to realize that ’symbol of’ (authority0 was NEVER in the original Greek. The authority on her head is Jesus Christ!
Just a quick comment about the long hair thing. This mandate is completely Caucasian-centric, as it excludes many women of color, whose natural hair texture precludes the “long hair” that is being referenced. I have also read on several websites and blogs that to be truly godly, a woman’s hair must meet the standard of being long enough to “wipe the feet of Jesus,” like the repentant woman who bathed Christ’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. Talk about another example of making something prescriptive that the Bible intends as descriptive!
30) “Home, Sweet Home” is more than just a sentimental saying for the Prairie Muffin. Her home is the center of the Prairie Muffin’s activities. Of course, she needs to occasionally go away from home to engage in various activities related to her calling, but her focus is on making home a haven for her husband and children and using it to glorify God in whatever ministry to others He may call her. She is content in her home and does not see it as a prison from which she constantly must escape. She wisely rules over her domain by keeping busy in her full-time calling as homekeeper. Chocolate bon-bons may be a rare indulgence, but Prairie Muffins don’t have the time or inclination to waste their lives on soap operas or other inane and inappropriate entertainment.
31) While Prairie Muffins try to be women who make plans and stick with them, so that they use their time wisely and reach the goals they and their Prairie Dawgs have determined for their families, they also know they must be flexible and be prepared to meet whatever circumstances fall into their laps, sometimes at a moment’s notice, responding with grace and calm.
“A woman’s place is in the home” would sum up #30 a lot better than that. I can guess why she didn’t put it that way, though.
I read Carmon’s blog recently, and she made some snide comment about escaping her “domestic prison”–she was being sarcastic, but it drove me crazy. It was almost as if she was intentionally trying to annoy her opponents. That doesn’t seem very kind to me.
“Just a quick comment about the long hair thing. This mandate is completely Caucasian-centric, as it excludes many women of color, whose natural hair texture precludes the “long hair” that is being referenced.”
Yes, and this is one of the clearest indications I know of that that whole mindset IS NONSENSE. If something is so serious as to be a spiritual, sin/non-sin issue, it has to be something that can apply to all people everywhere.
In the Old Testament, God dealt with humanity through one nation, Israel. After Jesus came and died and rose, He grafted ALL nations and cultures in the spiritual tree of Israel, and the Gentiles were not required to adopt the Jewish culture or keep the Law to be part of His family.
These modernday Pharisees believe that western Anglo-Saxon culture is the acme of Christianity — they have said so again and again in their writings and sermons — and they teach that the norms of this culture determine what is normative in the Kingdom of God.
This, at its heart, is the spiritual essence of British Israelitism and Christian Identity – not all of these cultural elitists believe that people of Saxon or Celtic extraction are the honest-to-goodness physical descendents of the Lost Tribes of Israel(though many DO), but they do believe and teach that the English-speaking nations and their culture are the truest expression, if not the only correct expression, of Christianity in the world today.
“I have also read on several websites and blogs that to be truly godly, a woman’s hair must meet the standard of being long enough to “wipe the feet of Jesus,” like the repentant woman who bathed Christ’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.”
Somebody ought to comment on those blogs, and remind whoever wrote that, that the repentant woman who wiped Jesus’s feet was considered to have been a woman of ill repute.
Nothing against her, certainly, but the long-hair only crowd ought to remember that most hookers have long hair too.
LOL, I should have held off on my super-long Proverbs 31 comment at #201 until I read PM Manifesto point 30!
Here, again, another patriarchialist is talking about how “home is the center of the PM’s activities” and how it’s “her domain”.
This might belong over on the GNAP thread, but as I said in #201, I just don’t see how a view of ’separate domains’ – that is outside/inside the house – is scriptural.
‘Separate spheres’ is a nineteenth century concoction. Prior to industrialisation, the public and the private spheres weren’t clearly marked out. If you were poor, everybody in the family worked, either in the fields or in somebody else’s home. If you were wealthier, say a craftsman or a merchant, your business was run entirely from your home. Though usually the only way a woman could run a business herself was if her husband died and there was a shortage of that particular craft in the town (which was a reasonably frequent occurrence). The apprentices lived with the master in his house and the mistress of the house was in charge of them.
But, with industrialisation, suddenly work is taken out of the home. And there’s lots of competition for work, because women can be paid less. In the social upheaval, there’s a great appetite for instruction – for manuals telling people how they should be behaving now. So works like Mrs Beeton get published and are extremely popular. And the notion of ’separate spheres’ develops – that women should be inside the home, and men conducting business outside of it. This is also the time that the first feting of housewives begins, which I’m sure I don’t need to point out here because it was of course called the doctrine of true womanhood! And it promoted a Victorian ideal of quiet, pious, gentle, passive womanhood – a Victorian Prairie Muffin, if you will! And so the “angel in the house” was born.
(My very dear friend at university wrote her undergraduate thesis on the ‘angel in the house’ idea, and I’m going off my memory of proofreading it for her now, but I can easily get more information and reading recommendations if anyone’s interested).
It has NO biblical basis. Such a concept could never have even existed in pre-industrialised society, which didn’t have the luxury of separating home and work. But the Prairie Muffins are devoted to it. Does anyone know of any bible verses that could back it up?
Re: ThatMom’s question:We have discussed the Pearls’ teachings on and off throughout the Visionary Daughters thread and Spunky and I discussed Created to Be His Helpmeet on a couple podcasts but I am not really familiar with the Maxwells. Should we open a new thread just for this discussion?
I haven’t read all the comments in this discussion…but I would certainly be interested in a thread discussing specifically the teaching of the Pearls.
Just a thought I’ve had concerning the ‘a woman’s place is in the home and ONLY in the home’ teaching.
To the best of my understanding, within hyper-Patriarchal circles, the teaching that is advocated is that it is not ‘normative’for a woman to work (or study) outside the home, at ANY time (while single, married, widowed etc).
One of the reasons for the above view (again to the best of my understanding) is that women should not go out into the world, in order to BE PROTECTED FROM THE EVIL THAT IS IN THE WORLD and TO BE PROTECTED FROM FALLING INTO TEMPTATIONS ONCE THEY ARE IN A WORLDLY ENVIRONMENT(i.e. college or a workplace).
As far as I understood, this was the premise underlying the Botkins’ sisters view that young women who moved out of their parents’ homes prior to marriage were displaying the same characteristics as the Proverbs harlot whose ‘feet did not REMAIN at home’.
Much is made in the writings of some in hyper-patriarchal circles of the dangers and evils that attend college life, for eg. exposure to dangerous views and philosophies, the potential to ‘get into bad company’, in short, EXPOSURE TO A VARIETY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND HARMFUL INFLUENCES.
To get to the point I’m trying to make (sorry this is so long), I think it’s ironic that hyper-Patriarchy sees the potential for dangerous influences only OUTSIDE the home.
A VERY large amount of the ladies in hyper-P circles seem to be very much into electronic communication and other aspects of the Internet. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with this – obviously, I’m into the Internet myself.
But I do think it’s ironic that they understand that it’s possible to use the Internet for the purpose of blogs, e-mail groups,promoting a home-business etc, WITHOUT getting involved in other aspects of ‘Internet life’ which definitely have the potential to be dangerous and harmful.
Would it be reasonable to forbid Christian women access to the Internet because of the POTENTIAL that they might be tempted to become materialistic (online shopping?), be influenced by deviant teachings (the sites and blogs of cults?)or fall prey to the filth of pornography etc?
We expect both men and women (I’m not referring to children here) to employ their wisdom and judgement when selecting WHAT to read online, how long to spend online etc.
Similarly, I think it’s unreasonable to forbid adult Christian women access to college and the workplace on the grounds that they would come under bad influences. Obviously, discernment and sound judgement come into play here, as in all aspects of life.
I think it’s so important to NOT treat adult women like children, or else we risk throwing out several very worthwhile ‘babies’ with the bathwater.
This article is about a sect of the LDS, but much of the dress, attitude, etc. is eerily similar to some of the patriarchal attitudes:
http: //news.yahoo .com/s/ap/20080408/
ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat
I hope I never see this in “normal” society.
I recently found an article about a woman who escaped from a Mormon polygamist group. The pictures of the women of this group remind me so much of the what the modesty-was-only-ever-demonstrated-by -the-Victorians crowd promote as ideal.
Hmm… you know, most of the women who did anything worthwhile in the Bible had feet that did not remain at home. There’s Ruth, there’s Deborah, there’s the Queen of Sheba, there’s the girl in the Song of Songs, there’s Lydia ….. and especially “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.”
Heaven knows what the HyperPharisees said about them….
Irene wrote: I think it’s ironic that hyper-Patriarchy sees the potential for dangerous influences only OUTSIDE the home.
Staying within the home is no guarantee of freedom from evil influence.
II Tim 3:6 says that these evil influences creep inside of homes and entrap gullible women with load sins and lusts.
Titus chapter 1 talks about the same types of influences that the Judaizers promoted that seriously disrupted family life through Jewish fables and the commandments of men.
Revisiting the subject of polygamy for just a moment…Kevin Swanson’t broadcast this morning was critical to the state of Texas for rushing in to take those children out of the compound. He doesn’t really defend polygamy but obviously feels that the state had no business there.
Well, it seems to me Laura Ingalls and Almanzo Wilder, being married sixty-four years– must have been doing something right! When I think of ‘helpmeet’, the real Laura is one of the first people who comes to mind. Feminine and tough– I’d love to hear what she’d have to say not only about the ‘PM Manifesto’, but about the fundamentalists who take her fictionalized world as biblical gospel.
@ comment 183-I guess I was “sinning” when I shaved my head because the long locks were annoying and never stayed in my ponytail and it was just easier all around because I played sports …..
Are there groups who believe that women should NEVER cut their hair? I have seen some women with very very long hair dressed very “modestly” in the past, and I am curious about this. I’ve never heard of a specific church that teaches this, maybe it’s certain congregations?
I would be ashamed to keep my hair so very long and never cut it, because there are so many people who could benefit from my long locks. I’ve donated to Locks of Love, and plan on doing it again in the near future–I can’t imagine that women *need* such long hair, especially if they cover their heads, too.
Yes, many groups have this belief. Most of Conservative Mennonites believe this, the United Pentecostals teach it as well, as do various little independent Baptist churches.
They get this idea from 1Cor 11:15, where Paul says “if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her”, and 1 Cor 11:6, which reads “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
Paul says that a woman’s hair is her glory, and he says that IF being shaved is viewed with disfavor, she should cover her head in church, but NOWHERE does the Bible say that being shaven is wrong in God’s eyes, or that a woman must not cut her hair or that her hair must be of a certain length (and in fact, women in the OT who took the Nazirite vow were instructed to cut off their hair upon completion of their vow.)
This is pure extrapolation — just something that certain people who like long hair on women read into 1 Corinthians 11:6.
In my opinion, their extrapolation regarding hair is on a par with that of certain Southern churches who read Mark 16:18(“They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”) and find in it a mandate for snakehandling as part of Divine Worship.
Cythia, I’d never noticed that ‘if’ before and had wondered about the true meaning of this scripture. What was the point Paul was making? I shall go investigate, thanks.
Since the Texas compound story was brought up; I’m curious, does anyone know why they are calling the men “polygamous”? Were they legally married in the state’s eyes? Or were they simply “living together” from the state’s perspective because no marriage license was sought or issued? Or does Texas have a common law marriage? I understand the allegation of criminal activity surrounding the 15 year old girl which brought in the federal government, but that is one charge against one man. If these men weren’t legally married to these women and they were all over 18, what’s different about compound versus Hugh Hefner’s mansion? Except that these women chose to concieve a child?
If these men were simply promiscuous and fathered many children as a result and all the women were in agreement that this arrangement was okay, what makes it appropriate for the state to come in and raid the compound and take the children from their mothers? The daughter’s allegation was against one man, what grounds did the state have to take all of the children? (Note: please don’t think I approve of this compound’s arrangement. I don’t. But my disapproval stems from my biblical convictions.)
I didn’t hear Kevin Swanson’s broadcast, but he might have a point on this one. If the state can raid a compound based on the allegation how far fetched is it for us to consider that they might move beyond just physical proximity in alleging criminal activity, to church affiliation or educational choice?
I’m not saying there wasn’t justification for the raid because all the facts are not yet known, but there is also a reason to be a bit concerned about this situation on a multitude of levels.
These are all questions I have because I just retold a story for the next issue of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine where a family was visited by CPS amid a trumped up charge based on a infant’s stool sample. When CPS visited the home the family was told by the social worker that they were there in part because they homeschooled and no one was keeping an eye on the children, which would be the case if they were in a traditional school situation.
I’m not advocating a paranoia about this, but at the same time let’s not be too quick to dismiss the concerns that this situation brings to us simply because we reject the lifestyle of the people involved.
“If these men were simply promiscuous and fathered many children as a result and all the women were in agreement that this arrangement was okay, what makes it appropriate for the state to come in and raid the compound and take the children from their mothers?”
Because these girls were being forced to marry the men — they weren’t given a choice in the matter.
Spunky, I think you are right about not knowing all the facts, and maybe the truth will come out. Sure, this one girl was being abused and called the police, but I guess from the original article I read, it sounded like they had been monitoring it for a while, and just needed someone to actually come out and say it. The girls weren’t the only subjects of abuse, either, from the article, but again, the facts and the fiction aren’t all clear to me.
I think that Cynthia’s assessment about them being forced into these arrangements is really saying that the girls were being sexually abused at a rather young, and in our culture, inappropriate age–since they weren’t “technically” married–by much older men.
Maybe the state just didn’t want another Koresh compound on their hands, and were trying to stop something worse from happening. Sadly, with children involved, the full extent of the story may never be known, mainly because children are so fearful to talk about it, rather than being able to tell their story. I read a statistic that said that only about 5% (or less) of sex abuse cases against children are ever even reported because children are so afraid of what might happen to them. It’s really sad.
Hi Spunky,
I would normally agree with you if this really concerned only consenting adults BUT many of these young women were forced to marry, taught that they will go to hell if they do not, etc. Also, as I was researching the kids and the foster care crisis in TX, many of the articles said many of the teen girls are either pregnant or are expecting. These girls are under 18 so clearly are not adults, let alone able to consent. Many of these girls were forced to marry at 13 or 14.
I’ve been following this story for a couple of years and some of the men involved have prevously been charged with incest, rape, beatings of minors, etc. The “prophet” of this group, Warren Jeffs, is currently serving time as an accomplice to rape in regards to a 14 year old girl in order to force her to marry a 1st cousin. He’s also awaiting charges in AZ for incest and sexual molestation of a minor.
In regards to the raid in Texas, while we don’t yet have all the facts about the current situation, we do have witnesses that escaped from this group. Carolyn Jessop (linked in an article above) wrote a book about her experience. She was forced to marry a much older man who already had many wives and daughters her own age (even at the time that they were married).
While many of these women probably would say they believe in the tenets of the faith, they also have very little choice in their living circumstances. Jessop was witness to child abuse (beatings) as well. While this doesn’t necessarily have anything (that we know of yet-just allegations) to do with this current situation, the state has been watching this group for awhile.
I don’t have a problem with the raid, in so far as they did seem to have a reason (allegations of child abuse) to go in. I do not like this turn of events, of taking the children away from their mothers, although I’m not sure what the proper course of action should be. This would be traumatizing to anyone, but to take children from their mothers as well just doesn’t seem right.
Another thing about the polygamy. While it’s true that in the eyes of the state, technically these men are married to one women and living with many more (the men in that sect would sometimes take the wives of a dead man-several at a time-like they were acquiring cattle at an auction), I don’t think it’s a small point that the women truly believe they are married to the men. Also, I could be mistaken, but I think Carolyn Jessop had to get a divorce from her husband and she was not the first wife. (it was in a different state though.)
(I would recommend her book, Escape. And I’m glad she’s getting more media b/c of this raid. I hope her book continues to sell.)
I feel sorry for the woman and especially the children involved in this. They all have a hard life ahead of them and I’m sure many of these women will eventually go back. There is so much brainwashing. But it breaks my heart that those kids can’t even be with their moms. Even if their Moms are messed up.
Another disgusting point about Warren Jeffs (who’s currently serving time), he married his father’s wives. Think about that. Some of them were old and some very young (and his father was old when he died.) None of them had a choice in the matter.
“Another disgusting point about Warren Jeffs (who’s currently serving time), he married his father’s wives. Think about that. Some of them were old and some very young (and his father was old when he died.) None of them had a choice in the matter.”
Sort of like this situation…
1Cr 5:1 It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Glad you are here. (Not that I’m not glad everyone else is, too. And Spunky’s back — Hibernating thru the winter? It wasn’t all that cold this year, was it?)
Here are a couple things that occurred to me after looking at some of those Christian-polygamy sites:
There may be no legally married women in that compound. These people may only recognize a “spiritual” marriage. On one of the sites I read, the author’s views were that it is the sexual union that makes a marriage and not the vows. He believed that men don’t actually commit adultery unless they have intercourse with a married woman.
So a polygamist can have as many wives as he wishes as long as they were all virgins when he “married” them. This could explain some of the inter workings of the group in Texas.
It is interesting to note that there are Christians who are also advocating the “no state marriage license” idea. Kent Hovind taught this at a homeschooling conference a few years ago. I remember being shocked when my very-impressionable 16 year old son came home and waxed eloquent about Hovind’s view on the subject. (Of course, look where those anti-government views have landed Mr. Hovind.)
Also, I think I remember one article saying that the women had the option to stay with their children. Is that correct, Sandy? Instead they chose to remain at the compound while the children were taken. If that is the case, what does that say about the mind control over the women?
I think this all brings up an interesting question….does the state have any compelling interest in children? Is it ever appropriate for them to investigate? Are parents sovereign over their children? Where is the line drawn?
Thanks Cindy, for the link. I agree that if the daughters were under age and forced to marry that some action needed to be taken.
Rachel, It was the separating of their children from their mothers that was actually the most troubling aspect to me. For the state to come separate them without some sort of due process just doesn’t seem right. The state may have had probable cause to go into the compound but what is the point of separating them from their mother without some sort of futher investigative work. I’m sure I’m still missing facts that will be revealed over time, but it is so sad to see mothers who were once children themselves forced into marriage and then lose their own children on top of it.
I think part of the issue with separating children from mothers was that, due to the unorthodox living arrangements on the compound, it wasn’t immediately clear who each child’s mother actually was.
About twenty children could consider each other ‘brother and sister’, despite only sharing one parent, and the woman who was their primary caregiver wasn’t necessarily the woman who gave birth to them.
So the separation must have been very different to manage. Keeping ‘family’ groups together would have meant keeping maybe as much as thirty or even forty people together. It’s unsurprising that the logistics of that took some time to work out, and that wherever the families were housed (was it a military base? I forget?) may not have been able to accommodate so many people.
I am reminded of an excellent blog post you wrote a while ago ThatMom – about the importance of ‘policing our own’ and making sure that there are good safeguards in place to prevent such egregious child abuse. I think there is a danger of getting caught entirely up in the rights of parents to do as they wish with their children, forgetting that the children’s basic rights need protecting also. Though I’ve done a lot of charity work with abused children, and that may colour my perspective somewhat. I’m sure that my knowing of more children viciously abused (intentionally or misguidedly) by their own parents, than families persecuted by the state for ‘unconventional’ practices, skews my opinion here.
This is a Texas Child Protective Services case, the largest in state history. CPS intervenes when there is a reasonable suspicion that children are being harmed, and they generally remove all children from that household and then sort out what happened. This is the general process for CPS. In this case, they found children locked in closets and children having food withheld from them, both obviously abusive treatment. They had reason to believe that there was sexual abuse occurring; the reported age of the girl who called was part of that evidence. Many details are not currently released, which is also typical for child abuse cases.
IMO, CPS had more than sufficient cause to remove the children from that environment. Polygamy IS illegal, as is sexual activity with minors and child abuse. All these crimes were occurring at the “ranch” (one of the women I watched in a TV interview was incensed that people would call it a “compound”). The adult women were complicit in the crimes, though it’s quite likely many if not most were themselves married while they were still minors. By doing and saying nothing about it, they were condemning their daughters to the same fate. There are also very disturbing stories about what happens to boys as they approach adulthood in polygamous communities. Yes, I’m sure they’re very concerned about their children NOW, but seem very ostrich-like about their children’s future.
This is a terrible situation all the way around, with no easy answers. What is interesting is that two other states Utah and Arizona have known about this situation for some time but chose to look the other way. Children should be properly cared for by their parents, the challenge in a free society is to make sure that this occurs while at the same time not infringing upon the liberties provided by our Constitution. The parents who are charged and convicted of a crime, would obviously stand to be separated from their children. But what if no charges have been filed and no conviction gained? Are we a country where we are innocent until proven guilty or is that belief suspended when children are involved?
Those are not easy questions and I don’t have the answers, but if all it takes is an allegation of abuse for a parent to be separated from their child, I think there is cause for some concern. Do we want to give the state that much power, where a allegation alone allows this type of action from the state? Then it moves to what constitutes abuse or neglect.
Policing our own sounds nice but what does that look like? We get into the messy issues of devising a standard for what a Christian family should do and not do. And we all see that there is not a whole lot of agreement there! Should we go with the Doug Phillips standard, Spunky’s standard, or someone else’s? And if we do manage to agree upon a basic set of principles, then what do we do with families who don’t meet this standard but their behavior doesn’t rise to the level of “criminal” activity? Again, these are challenging questions with no easy answers.
I think that calling the women “complicit in the crimes” doesn’t embrace the whole fact that they have been taught that this is acceptable behavior. I’m not justifying their complicity, rather, I fear that this makes the moms look just as guilty as the husbands, when in reality, they were victims themselves at some point.
I think about “unintentional” sin and how it was dealt with in the OT, that people still had to make atonement for any accidental sin that they may not have been aware of. Well, obviously these women were unintentionally breaking the law by allowing this, but I do believe that the government would have leniency with them, because of their own status in this community.
It does worry me to think that the women who stayed will just have more children, and this will all recur in 15-20 years. The devil really does have a foothold with them, and that saddens me as much as the behavior of the men who have put them in this place.
Spunky, in the case of child abuse, even if we’re trying to follow “innocent until proven guilty,” Children’s Services has a duty to children to keep them safe. If there is suspected abuse, they will not leave a child with the suspected abuser until they can prove guilt or innocence. My aunt is a social worker, and with probable cause, HAS to remove a child until the situation can be investigated. I don’t think it’s about suspending proof, but I wouldn’t want a child to be left in a possibly (probably) abusive situation until I could prove the abuse, I would take them out immediately. Apologies can be made (obviously this would have a high price), but leaving a child in possible danger, I think, would be foolish. And it is really rare that a child would say there was abuse when there wasn’t.
I’ll have to find the link to a site that shows sex abuse report stats.
If all CPS needs is “probable cause” to remove a child from a family, we ought to be removing children from quite a few public school in my area. There are enough cases of sexual abuse and misconduct to demonstrate that the children are in “possible danger” by both teachers and other students! We’ve had several cases in our local schools (both public and private) of sexual misconduct with adults and minor children. And a quick Google search shows that these are not exactly “rare” occurances. I’ve also known of young ladies who were in situations where the teacher had issues, but because of the teachers union they were able to move him to another school and never deal with the situation. So “probable cause” and “possible danger” seems insufficient to remove a child from a parent.
Again, I don’t want to come across as defending what these families were doing, but at the same time I don’t want to just give the authorities a pass either and unwittingly hand them more authority than they rightly possess.
I know that different locales have varying standards and protocol for removing children from suspected abusive homes. In my town, only a few blocks from my house, a 5 year old little girl lived with her mother, 2 siblings, and her mom’s uncle. The uncle obviously has disabilities of some sort and the mother was determined to be emotionally 6 or 7 years of age.
One evening, the uncle repeatedly tripped the little girl, causing her to fall head first into a wall. When she passed out, they call 911. The next morning she died from a fracture to the skull. Both the mom and uncle were charged with crimes, not sure exactly which ones, but the uncle was given life in prison. (The day of his sentence, he killed himself with anti-depressants he had been saving in his jail cell.)
When the adults were taken into custody, there were TV cameras and protester all around the courthouse and it took several days for the DA to bring charges against the mother, which outraged everyone. But the public defender for this woman is a friend of mine and he made what I thought was an excellent point as we talked about it. He asked where all the protester were when this family was in danger. He also pointed out that repeatedly the teachers as her school had contacted DCFS and asked for someone who could legally intervene to do so.
As Christians, are we our brother’s keepers? How far should/can we go in these sorts of matters? These ARE hard questions.
Here is an interesting video taped recently acquired by a local reporter in our area which reveals what went on in the interrogation of a 13 year boy in regards to an allegation of sexual misconduct by the father.
The tapes are disturbing. The child has Aspergers Syndrome and the fact that he was there alone without legal counsel makes for a very intimidating situation. He was told by the questioner that his “body language” suggested that he was not being completely honest about what he knew. After that, they lie to him and tell him they have evidence which already suggests his father’s guilt and points to his own involvement in sexual abuse; evidence which does not exist. In the final segment, the boy says that he no longer sees his father as trustworthy.
The father, it turns out was unjustly accused. This is a sad ordeal, and shows when state officials that the end result “protecting children” justifies any means necessary to do so. According to the reporter investigating the story, “The deceptive and coercive tactics on display in the video obtained by the Free Press are part of a well-established protocol for interviewing adults suspected of criminal activity.” The child was subjected to what is normally done to a accused criminal to illicit a confession. The police defended the interrogator,
“”He didn’t mean to harm anyone,” Fuhs said. “The bottom line here is that the detective was trying to get to the truth. I don’t know whether he went over the line or not.”
It makes one wonder what the children in Texas will be subjected to, since Texas CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the separation was made after they decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around. But who is watching the state to make sure that possible abuse does not occur as it did with this young man. Had this not been on video tape, there would have been no record of the abuse. And in many cases, there is no such tape made during the questioning and the children do not have legal counsel present.
“It does worry me to think that the women who stayed will just have more children, and this will all recur in 15-20 years. The devil really does have a foothold with them, and that saddens me as much as the behavior of the men who have put them in this place.”
Well, there is one solution — ENFORCE the anti-polygamy laws and the child-molestation laws, and do not permit “religious” groups who believe in doing such things to form communes where they can indulge their taste for illegal activities “under the radar”.
If these guys were practicing some sort of goofy pagan religion, and were practicing polyANDRY instead of polyGYNY, and were doing things like going naked and sacrificing animals in the town square instead of wearing ankle-length dresses and worshipping in a spiffy white temple, you can bet there would be a hue and cry raised until the government and local law enforcement came in and shut them down. But instead, bacause they look outwardly Christian, there are those who wonder whether we ought to give them some sort of a pass.
“Since the Texas compound story was brought up; I’m curious, does anyone know why they are calling the men “polygamous”? Were they legally married in the state’s eyes? ”
I have read a few books about this cult and other Mormon cults over the past few years that explained the complicated structure. One was “Under the Banner of Heaven” and the other was by a woman who escaped the Warren Jeff cult. I cannot remember the title of the book.
They are not in civil marriages. Some fathers give their 14 year old daughters over to old men in marriage. It is all arranged. The woman, whose book I read, was even sent away by her husband to work in one of his businesses out of state away from her children. The other wives were raising them…so to speak and yes, there was abuse. There is constant jealousy among the wives and the kids seem to be much neglected and abused.
The other book was about Park City, Utah and a murder in that cult. The reporter was stunned to find out the intricate structure of the whole cult coming from one patriarch. It seems the entire city was a part of it and those in the cult were part of the police force and other gov agencies. This made it impossible for anyone to escape or complain. the marriages were not civil so men with multiple wives had them apply for food stamps and other welfare as single moms. He found that city had the highest welfare numbers!
This is NOT about religious freedom. They are breaking our civil laws which protect individuals. Polygamy is illegal. Many of the marriages could be defined as statutory rape. The fathers who give these daughter to marriage ought to be in prison!
If we want to argue religious freedom here we best be prepared for Sharia law to be practiced here, too.
“If we want to argue religious freedom here we best be prepared for Sharia law to be practiced here, too.”
It IS quite a test case for that, isn’t it?
And your mention of Sharia law brings to mind Gary North and his merriy band of crazies, who believe in public stoning for adultery and for “impurity before marriage” and whipping, indenturement, etc, for lesser offenses.
I wonder if we might have started to see such “lesser” punishments meted out at certain patriarchal Y2K communes, had they not broken up after Y2K didn’t happen.
April 8, 2008 at 9:54 am
27) The letter “P” at the beginning of their names should be the only similarity between Prairie Mufffins and Pharisees. Never should the Prairie Muffin haughtily pray, “Thank God I am not like that…(fill in the blank).” Rather, she should always say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.
April 8, 2008 at 10:02 am
“I would really appreciate a thread devoted to the Pearls and a thread devoted to the Maxwells because I was so heavily into them for years, much to my sadness.
Processing it with others who have been there would aid my healing although I’ve come a long ways!”
We have discussed the Pearls’ teachings on and off throughout the Visionary Daughters thread and Spunky and I discussed Created to Be His Helpmeet on a couple podcasts but I am not really familiar with the Maxwells. Should we open a new thread just for this discussion?
April 8, 2008 at 10:46 am
27) The letter “P” at the beginning of their names should be the only similarity between Prairie Mufffins and Pharisees. Never should the Prairie Muffin haughtily pray, “Thank God I am not like that…(fill in the blank).” Rather, she should always say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.
This is a lovely aspiration, in and of itself, but I have never seen this grace offered to those outside the circle of patriocentricity. Basically, all that has happened to me is a “looking down the nose” at me and some outright comments that equate to “thank God I’m not like that WWF or whatever.” Maybe they only think this applies to those who they deem acceptable based on limited atonement or something? It only applies to other PM’s???
April 8, 2008 at 11:09 am
http://www.titus2.com/corners/5-05-m.htm
Is this the same Maxwell as mentioned in an above post?
April 8, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I can’t find the original post that brought up the Maxwells. And, yes, Cindy, that is the same Maxwell as was brought up in the comment above.
I don’t know much about their teachings on patriarchy. But, if anyone has the book “Managers of Their Home” and noticed a “Corrie” with 6 children………that is me!
That was when Seth was a baby (he is now 10) and I nursed him while I taught school. I never had a separate nursing schedule (so you won’t see that in my schedule) for my babies. My oldest son (12 at the time) wasn’t traumatized as far as I can tell.
One of the concepts that I gained from that book that was helpful is to pair up an older one with a younger one so I could teach a couple of others for a block of time.
Now I am crying thinking about how fast time has flown by……….
April 8, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Wow – take a short drive and there are a hundred more comments.
I remember another reason given on the PW list that pants were immodest: it shows a woman’s private parts.
Yikes! I hope not!
Hmmm. I’ll have to keep an eye out for those pants. I don’t want to accidentally purchase a pair of genitalia pants for my wife or son. Does this not make it obvious to everyone how unbalanced these people are?
Comment #601, previous threadStacy McD: “First we have to remember that modesty is an issue of the heart. Immodesty says, “Look at me!” Modesty says, “Look at Jesus.”
Richard, Maybe Stacy picked up some pointers from your blog post on modesty?
Somehow I doubt it. All of the answers in that interview were VERY carefully worded. I think Stacy’s answers to the questions she so obviously helped to choose (or wrote herself) are going through continual refinement (spin) to help make them more palatable to potential consumers of her products. I think Stacy quite likely watches various blogs and forums to see what the arguments are from the other side so that she can word things in a way that seem to say “that person was wrong about me.” But all one has to do to find the truth-to find her actual beliefs on these things-is to look at her blog. She does not believe that modesty has anything at all to do with this answer. She believes, according to her blog, that modesty is totally about which particular item of clothing you choose to wear.
I would say that if you walk into church wearing a gown with a train or some other sort of period costume, your clothes ARE going to say “look at me”.
This was actually the way I originally entered this general discussion about a year ago. A very nice lady from our church regularly wore Victorian outfits (complete with hats) to church-even to church picnics. At one of our picnics she asked if I had read her blogpost about modesty. I told her that according to the biblical definition of modesty, her Victorian outfit was immodest among all of the others who were wearing picnic garb (jeans and t-shirts). As the discussion progressed, I told her that you could not make a case that going to a beach topless (if that were the culturally appropriate thing to do) is immodest according to the Bible, unless the woman’s reason for going topless was to be noticed.
I know this will strike many as a terrible thing to say, and I am certainly not encouraging that. But at the same time, the Bible does not prohibit this. It calls us to dress in a way that points others to Christ. This is completely attitudinal. It does not put any stipulations on dress whatsoever. Of course, I believe the Holy Spirit will guide each person to dress properly as they seek to magnify Christ and to not draw unecessary attention to themselves.
(Go ahead – I’m ready for the excoriation.)
April 8, 2008 at 2:49 pm
MY VIDEO reviewing the belief systems and the development of the patriarchy movement is online on my updated website!!!
Very good presentation, Cindy. Without hijacking the thread, I wanted to comment on two things that jumped out at me.
1) Women in this movement cannot take communion unless the Patriarch (husband) gives them his blessing. MY GOODNESS!!! That is absolutely shocking.
2) Regarding militant fecundity … I understand the desire behind this. I have heard recently that Europe is heading toward a majority Muslim population due to the higher birthrates among Muslim women in comparison to others.
The problem with the thinking of the Patriarchy crowd is the same as was true for the Puritans. Covenant/peadocommunion concepts don’t always result in believing children. Try as you might, unless God regenerates the heart, you have a non-believing infidel for a child, who will grow up to be a non-believing adult. You simply cannot legislate Christianity. Christianity is a heart issue, not a legal issue (well, except for justification – but that’s another matter).
Oh … and one more:
3) It is a sin to educate your children in any way other than homeschooling.
My son’s medical condition requires education that I have never found available through private or Christian institutions. They are certainly not available through any homeschooling systems or programs I am aware of. He requires the assistance of the State. I think the greater sin would be for us to fail to educate him by attempting to do something at home that we cannot do.
I highly recommend Cindy’s site to everyone. It’s outstanding.
April 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm
The truth is, in some way…SOME of these so-called “modest” women DO want to stand out.
They are just salivating waiting for some poor soul like me (in jeans) to ask, “Hey, why are you wearing that hat?” or “why are all your kids in matching dresses?” or what not.
Then they can say “Oh! We are Christians! We believe in Christian Modesty! We DOOOOON’T want our brothers to stumble so we would rather clothe ourselves modestly.” or some other apt answer
And they do it for the attention to holiness they get.
They don’t want to stand out, yet they do. It is such an oxymoron.
April 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Richard,
, if it were culturally appropriate as in certain older Polynesian cultures for instance, then a covering would call attention to something that would otherwise go unnoticed.
No excoriation from me. I agree with you. Modesty does not call attention to us. It is immodesty that does so. So, as to your topless beach example, though I would just as soon not go to one
April 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Richard,
‘I think the greater sin would be for us to fail to educate him by attempting to do something at home that we cannot do.’
I couldn’t agree more.
I think to be a good parent, we should want what is best for our children – and this will be different from child to child, and from family to family.
Chosing to mindlessly apply a stereotyped principle in an absolute manner will only result in DISservice to our families – regardless of whether the stereotyped view comes from the world or from human leaders in the church.
I also think it’s simplistic to assume that just because parents chose to send their children to school, they are not involved in their children’s education or that they are failing to train their children in the ways of the Lord.
There are no ‘one size fits all’ answers regarding how we should apply the Word of God to our daily lives.
April 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Sandy wrote:
“No excoriation from me. I agree with you. Modesty does not call attention to us.”
I would add that modest does not call attention to us, modest calls attention to the God that we love and desire to glorify.
1 Tim 2:9~
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety.
I must dress in a way that draws attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within me, rather than to my physical body.
It is all a matter of the heart. One must live in the constant, conscious recognition of the presence of God, and dress and act accordingly.
Trish
April 8, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Found a very good article on legalism, over at Bible Bulettin Board.
It’s by Hardy Carey, called ‘Walking the Thin Line. Combating legalism in the church’.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1019CDNotes.htm
The list of areas in Christian life around which believers sometimes develop legalistic ideas is really something to think about.
April 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“I must dress in a way that draws attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within me, rather than to my physical body.”
DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.
We are told that our adorning is to be inward, and not the sort that comes from clothing.
In other words, it is to be our good works, not our clothing, that shows that we have the heart and spirit of Christ.
April 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“Regarding militant fecundity ”
This is one more example of how things have moved further down the pike than they were 20 years ago within homeschooling circles. I saw it coming a few years back but this recent term is pretty funny to me.
My husband and I had three children and hadn’t plan to have any more. Then we were introduced to the concept of trusting the Lord to give you the children He wanted you to have without interfering. This is quite a different concept than trying to have as many babies as possible for whatever reason, irregardless of the consequences to the health of the mother or the idea of stopping nursing an infant so you will get pregnant right away. Somehow I don’t see how these latter attempts show a faith in God’s sovereignty.
Long story short, we came to agree with the idea of using no birth control for our family and the Lord gave us three more babies and 3 more pregnancies that resulted in miscarriage. I never felt that I was in any race to procreate nor was I trying to build up any army. Sadly, I have known families where the mom’s health was in terrible danger because she was pregnant all the time and miscarrying left and right. I know one couple whose doctor finally told them, after 13 miscarriages, that they needed to stop even trying, which they did,thankfully.
Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?
April 8, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Oops, I hit the send button too soon. I was going to say,
“I would add that modest does not call attention to us, modest calls attention to the God that we love and desire to glorify.
1 Tim 2:9~
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety.”
You can generally guess that a person is NOT a christian, if they are dressed very immodestly, but you cannot tell by a person’t modest clothes whether or not they are saved. Some Christians do wear “Modest Dress” but so do a lot of heretical cults. TRULY modest dress just sort of blends into the crowd — it is not obviously IMmodest, but nor is it noticably different from the dress of the culture in which it is found.
Modest clothing which calls attention to itself by virtue of its radical appearance is not modest. It draws attention first to the wearer, and secondarily to the wearer’s religion, but it does not show that the wearer is Christ-like. In other words, it may mark the wearer as being religious, but it says nothing about the wearer’s heart.
Case in point:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/modest-womens-head-coverings-464943p3.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=437294&highlight=head+covering
April 8, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“…stopping nursing an infant so you will get pregnant right away. Somehow I don’t see how these latter attempts show a faith in God’s sovereignty.”
God designed a woman to nurse a baby for about 2-3 years, which prevents ovulation from occurring for at least part of that time. This protects the health of both the mother and the baby, and ensures the health of any future pregnancies by preventing them from occurring to soon.
Curtailing nursing so as to become pregnant again as soon as possible is unnatural. Whether or not it is a SIN, I couldn’t say, but it is not much different in intent than avoiding pregnancy artificially — both actions circumvent nature and allow one’s self-will, rather that God, to determine family size.
April 8, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?”
It’s already here, and not just in FundiMormon groups, but it’s pretty much “under the radar” so far. Keep an eye on the Carolinas and Appalachia.
April 8, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Comment stuck in moderation…
April 8, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Irene, the one on that list that actually shocked me was “Patronizing of Businesses.” I have heard of boycotts on occasion because of bad practices, but long distance providers and restaurants are a biblical issue? I think I have heard it all now!
On the issue of nursing, I nursed my daughter for 19 months (to the chagrin of many), and my doctor (OB/GYN) was actually quite impressed and–dare I say–proud that I had been nursing so long. He even encouraged me not to get pregnant right away after weaning to give my body “a break.” I got pregnant 10 months later, a sufficient amount of time, I think.
It disturbs me that anyone who believes breastfeeding is the right feeding choice would curtail it for the sake of having yet another baby. I would much rather have them spaced out 3-4 years apart than intentionally try to get pregnant after only a year (or a few months). My mom had my brother 11.5 months exactly after I was born. She had all sorts of trouble, pre-term labor, specifically, and I believe it was because she got pregnant again so soon (not on purpose). Everything turned out okay, but it just shows how dangerous it is to get pregnant quickly after having a baby. Your body NEEDS that time to heal, and I think it goes against the will of God to “make” it happen again so soon.
I also have a friend who, after his wife had two complicated pregnancies, and several bad miscarriages, took it upon himself to get a vasectomy (with her consent, of course), because he didn’t want to put her through the agony another time. (Talk about loving your wife the way Christ loves the church!) I would much rather hang out with that kind of Christian than one who believed that his wife should continue to suffer through just so they can have a full quiver.
Having lots of kids can be a great thing, but only when it’s done responsibly.
April 8, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I shared our story on my now defunct blog, but in a nutshell…we have been pregnant 5 times.
Our first 2 babies died before birth. Our next one was perfectly healthy. Then our last 2 were born with a genetic disease that we know now my husband is a carrier of (sorry for bad grammar).
We have been thru testing time and time again. 50% of the time we will have a child with distal arthrogryposis multiplex congenita. Our type can be lethal, they think 70% of the time.
We decided it was too great a risk to put me and our family thru anymore. If we want more, we’ll adopt and be very happy about it. But honestly, I am very happy with the three children God has granted us with. I don’t see the need to adopt 10 more to prove my “militant fecundity” (or adoptivity or whatever)
Long story short, people CANNOT make decisions like we have unless they’ve walked in similar shoes. It is very easy to say you’re going to just have all the kids/pregnancies you get when life is good and health is good.
I have, sadly, run across blogs of families with medical problems similar to ours, and they choose to keep having babies over and over, many of which die or have very poor health and quality of life. I cannot choose for them, but I know what we’ve chosen to do. To some of these folks, the fact we abstain from more children because of medical issues is akin to abortion or something. It boggles my mind.
All I know is that my husband and I, and our children just cannot take losing another child. It was almost the death of me going thru our personal situation. I’ve made peace with it, moved on, and TREASURE the three I’ve been given to raise this side of heaven.
April 8, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Cynthia, did you see this at that link?
“I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.”
Finally, an admonition to men!
April 8, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Lindsey, thank for sharing your very personal story. You hit the nail on the head….it is all personal and aside from those things that are clearly stated in Scripture regarding these things, we are people with minds and choices. I have heard this teachings to which you refer and they are so mean-spirited and lacking in any compassion whatsoever. Thank you again for being so transparent.
April 8, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Cynthia Gee,
Those posts were absolultely fightening. Yikes!
They certainly prove the point that outward appearance has nothing at all to do with inward purity.
April 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm
From #27 “This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.”
Didn’t Jesus say “My yoke is easy and my burden is light?” I see that as an invitation to something that doesn’t need ANY strength to carry. It’s not about us, is it?
She sort of misconstrues the entire verse here, and clearly misses the point. Jesus was comparing himself to the pharisees and how they place heavy burdens on people. Jesus says that there is no heavy burden with him, just follow him. Clearly, Carmon sees her faith as a rather heavy burden, thankfully, she sees that she cannot carry it alone. But that doesn’t change the fact that she needs someone to tell her that it doesn’t have to be this way.
I understand the part about “following God’s law” but this is another area where I think the patriarchs have got it all wrong (obviously!). We are not under the law, but grace, and Paul said it was wrong for us to continue to live as if we are under the law, because Jesus fulfilled it, meaning we no longer have to. This is the whole message of Romans.
I often wonder what would happen to some of the young women in this movement if they just picked up their Bibles and started reading them all on their own. Would they come to the startling conclusions that what they’ve been taught all along is wrong? I have a friend who grew up in sort of this situation, and she is now an atheist, because there was no grace in the churches her family attended. It was all about the law. And she can’t see how I can live as a Christian and not believe those things that were drilled into her head for 20 years. I’m finally coming to understand why it’s so hard for her to understand the passages in the Bible about grace and about freedom for women. She interprets them through a patriarchal lens, yet she rejects that ideology.
April 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Cynthia, I am reading one of those threads you gave. It disturbs me that someone keeps referring to Jews in such a derogatory manner. Almost Nazi-like. But I guess I do need to consider the source.
April 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Cynthia Gee wrote:
‘DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.’
I would add that almost nothng written on this blog is ‘in’ the Bible! Again, it is all a matter of the heart.
April 8, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Trish,
I’m not sure how you meant that comment, but I will assure you that for myself, as a Christian, I highly revere the Bible and what it does and does not say.
I do not allow others to ADD to it or detract from it in order to “get their way.”
You are correct. It is a heart issue.
Marble countertops, organic baby food, and my tight fitting jeans are not addressed in the Bible. Thank God He saw it fit to give us our own minds and free will to exercise how we will walk out our lives before Him and all the world.
(and here is a huge shocker Trish—not every Christian adheres to a literal translation of every single word of the scriptures. We are all not fundamentalists or reformed, or whatever the label du-jour might be)
April 8, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Normal Middle,
I don’t understand your last statement:
“(and here is a huge shocker Trish—not every Christian adheres to a literal translation of every single word of the scriptures. We are all not fundamentalists or reformed, or whatever the label du-jour might be)”
Can you explain further what you mean?
Thanks.
April 8, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Normal Middle wrote:
“Marble countertops, organic baby food, and my tight fitting jeans are not addressed in the Bible. Thank God He saw it fit to give us our own minds and free will to exercise how we will walk out our lives before Him and all the world.”
1 Cor. 10:31~ Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Normal Middle, if in your heart your marble counter tops, organic baby food and tight fitting jeans glorify God, than you also are correct.
God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ, and so that is my ‘plumb line’. I always try to ask myself, “Does this please God? Is this what Christ Himself would do?”
If my answer is yes, I will proceed! If the answer is no, I need to address the issue and make a change.
Trish
April 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Trish wrote: Normal Middle, if in your heart your marble counter tops, organic baby food and tight fitting jeans glorify God, than you also are correct.
God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ, and so that is my ‘plumb line’. I always try to ask myself, “Does this please God? Is this what Christ Himself would do?”
If my answer is yes, I will proceed! If the answer is no, I need to address the issue and make a change.
Most excellent points. Some things in Christianity are uniform and other things are left up to each man’s (or woman’s) discretion and the conviction of the heart. Romans 14 provides us this privelege and “wiggle room,” but the critical factor surrounds honoring God and fearing Him in all that we do.
April 8, 2008 at 7:08 pm
‘Cynthia Gee wrote:
‘DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.’
I would add that almost nothng written on this blog is ‘in’ the Bible! Again, it is all a matter of the heart.”
Trish, you have a point — we really should try to back up our points with scripture, and I was feeling rather under the weather this moring, so I neglected to do that.
Anyhow, here goes.
Jesus said three things about dress and grooming, and two of them are direct commandments to His followers:
First of all, Jesus says that we are not to worry about “raiment”:
“Luk 12:22 ¶ And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.”
ESPECIALLY, Jesus forbids His followers from dressing in such a way as to appear “religious”:
“Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they(the Pharisees) bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not……. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,”
This goes along with Jesus’s one other commandment regarding dress and grooming, which prohibits His followers from allowing their outward appearance to a clue as to their religious activities:
Mat 6:16 ¶ Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Mat 6:17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; Mat 6:18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.”
SO, we are absolutely forbidden from announcing our religion by adopting a distinctive Christian uniform.
This is underscored again in 1 Timothy:
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”
and in 1 Peter:
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 1Pe 3:4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Many see these verses as only forbidding he lavish, worldly sort of immodesty (back then it was lavish jewelry and “broidered hair” and nowadays that might translate to tight designer jeans and “bling”), which these verses do warn against, but the greater point in both 1 Timothy and 1Peter harks back to what Jesus said in Matthew 6 and 23, which is that our beauty and our COMMENDABILITY ought to come from our inward qualities, ie, the “hidden man of the heart,” an ornament which is a delight to God and not an outward garment put on to impress our fellow man.
So, again, it looks as though the word of God forbids from announcing our religion by adopting a distinctive Christian uniform. We are of course to avoid those things which are actively IMMODEST, but otherwise, we should look just like everyone else, and not wear clothing which announces our religiousness.
April 8, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Ugh.. the grammar and spelling in that last posting is a mess — I’m taking meds which make me a little loopy — but I trust the message is clear. God Bless…
April 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Cynthia Gee…yes, your message is clear and we are on the same page. Hope you are better soon!
Trish
April 8, 2008 at 7:21 pm
“Hope you are better soon!
Trish”
Thanks, I hope so too. Intestinal flu or whatever this bug is, is no fun AT ALL…
April 8, 2008 at 8:33 pm
““I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.””
Amen, preach it!!!!
April 8, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.”
Where is this found in the Bible?
April 8, 2008 at 8:50 pm
“I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.”
Where is this found in the Bible?”
I’ll get back to you on that…
April 8, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I didn’t know it was considered a sign of homosexulaity, but didn’t one of the Levitical laws warn men against clipping the sides of their beards?
April 8, 2008 at 9:08 pm
. . . that should be “homosexuality” of course, and I found the instruction in Leviticus. In 19:27, the NASB says “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.” Then in 21:5 it says “They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh.”
I can’t find the link to homosexuality, though; anyone help me out?
April 8, 2008 at 10:32 pm
“Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?”
This article is about a sect of the LDS, but much of the dress, attitude, etc. is eerily similar to some of the patriarchal attitudes:
http: //news.yahoo .com/s/ap/20080408/
ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat
I hope I never see this in “normal” society.
April 9, 2008 at 12:03 am
I don’t know why the reference to militant fecundity and PMM tenet 27 sparked these thoughts, but here goes:
I think that the home school community, accepting itself as normal will be an important first step in addressing the issues of radicalism in our movement.
We tell ourselves we are different, weird, separate, etc. and believing that we are weird contributes to the separatist nature of home schoolers and especially radical home schoolers. We’ve got to tell ourselves that we are normal people who made or were part of a family that made an acceptable lifestyle choice. It’s a lifestyle choice that society should accept, and should welcome. When we tell ourselves and the rest of the world that we are weird or special, it makes it easier for us to retreat into our own little home school world. That in turn breeds some of the radicalism and crazy ideas that come out of our movement.
When we classify ourselves as out of step with mainstream or different, we also make it easier for non-home schoolers to disregard us. When non-home schoolers disregard us, our voice is lost in the public square no matter how loudly we speak. When we feel marginalized in this way, it creates a fear of non-home school or worldly culture and its government.
The entire PMM is about celebrating the weirdness/differentness of Prairie Muffins. I think it’s ok to be a Prairie Muffin, if it is something you make an informed choice about. But I don’t think you should say, I’m a Prairie Muffin and therefore I’m weird. You’re still a human being – you might make different choices than non-PM’s or non-home schoolers, but you are still a normal, fully human person.
Finally, what is the real difference between saying, “There but for the grace of God” and “Thank God I am not like that”? I struggle to see a distinction.
April 9, 2008 at 12:10 am
A follow up – the reason I don’t see a distinction is both statements still place you in a position of otherness, usually with superiority, to the other person.
April 9, 2008 at 1:45 am
Sarah, post 41 I thought was really good. Good in a way I can especially appreciate. I grew up among Christian homeschoolers, being homeschooled. Many familes that I know in my circle are NOT legalistic, but wonderful, Gospel loving people who freely mingle with public and private schoolers. But weird literature circulates in our kind of circle, nonetheless, and I have been scarred by some of the ideas I came across, especially ones aimed at Christian homeschooling girls. I see stuff by VF, which is among the more hardcore crazinesss, getting more and more hardcore, and more and more popular. (Among people I know, too.) We need people like you to say stuff like this!!!!!!!!
April 9, 2008 at 1:52 am
WAAAAHHH! I can’t grow a beard. How am I going to tell my wife that I’m a homosexual?
WAAAAAHHHHHH!
April 9, 2008 at 1:54 am
Hey – That santafeboy has to go. I’m sorry folks. Once again, I was signed into my son’s blog.
April 9, 2008 at 2:10 am
Santefeboy,
You kinda remind me about the time that an entire town called me Eric’s mom because he was working as an evangelist in that small town and everyone knew him. I was asked to speak one night in the church he was working out of and introduced myself as “Eric’s Mom.”
April 9, 2008 at 2:30 am
Sarah, Re #41,42 and Beatrice#43-
I couldn’t agree with your assessment more Sarah. Like Beatrice, I was homeschooled; I am now a second generation homeschooler. I struggle with both extremes- I think NormalMiddle has it nailed with her ‘handle’. I would define myself in the normal middle too, and I get worried when someone says “homeschooler” and immediately thinks “Vision Forum/patriocentric”. I am also worried about how many of my friends (as Beatrice noted) are getting sucked into the VF paradigm. I get just as worried when someone says “oh, you’re one of those “crunchy” organic/make their own babyfood/bread/birkenstock mommas”. There are extremists in every crowd- but I cannot stand it when I, as a homeschooler, am defined by a snap-judgement, knee-jerk reaction based on an extreme. Yet, as a human, it’s so hard not to make those knee-jerk responses myself! It’s a huge struggle…
Lindsey- BIG TENT Homeschooler, BABY!
April 9, 2008 at 3:19 am
So you are saying that homeschooling has not always had the VF slant? That is not how one lady portrayed it. She said:
“For those of us who have homeschooled since
the mid eighties or more-it’s unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. This way of
thinking-what pw and others stand for- was the norm-*totally* . Now we
are odd and hyper-patriarchs? I just don’t want them to win and to
keep so many families from getting the support that they need to walk
the walk that’s true. The one that works and is Biblical for Christian
families. To me, it shows that we are all doing something right too.
Otherwise, why would anyone bother. Why do they want to ruin the
McDonalds, Vision Forum or whoever else, if they aren’t actually
succeeding in helping change the hearts, minds and characters of
Christian families. I’d encourage you not to give up on pw even if it
is harder to access. It’s not just about us, it’s about a movement and
a way of life. If we isolate ourselves, then we are more open to
defeat. We need one another. And if we don’t help share “the vision”
with other families who are just beginning, then what will
homeschooling or the Christian community be like in 10 more years? We
are on a down hill slope and this is an important issue. Don’t give up
the ship!”
I was under the impression that homeschoolers have always held to a VF belief. I am seeing that is not true.
Thank you for opening my eyes once again.
April 9, 2008 at 3:28 am
anne, I’m not sure I am best qualified to answer that question. Karen and Corrie and Lindsey could probably speak to that better. My perception is that there has always been a large contingent of home schoolers that were Christian and conservative, but that the VF/hyper-P crowd was a small part of that sub-crowd. I know that homeschooling today is 1)very much more mainstream and 2)there’s a distinct contingent of homeschoolers who are not “conservative Christians”. But because we homeschoolers are a pretty independent bunch, it’s hard to “nail” it down census wise as to who is homeschooling and why.
April 9, 2008 at 3:31 am
And, I can’t say I am suprised by that letter at all.( I am assuming that it was posted on the PW list by what it refers to?)
I’ll be curious to hear what Karen has to say about it!
April 9, 2008 at 3:34 am
And not to beat a dead horse either, but Vision Forum (and Jennie Chancey and the MacDonalds, et al) make serious $$$$$$ in the home school circuit, so, no they don’t want to lose their market base!
April 9, 2008 at 3:57 am
Wow, Anne, thanks for posting that. I remember reading it a while back and it seemed very emotive but very light on substance. The patriarchal movement might have dominated the homeschool market but it choked out a LOT of people who disagreed who then went and formed their own conventions. Their vision is myopic if they think that their way is what most homeschoolers used to believe is the right way.
“It’s not just about us, it’s about a movement and a way of life.”
Yep, that about sums it up. It is a movement and a way of life but where does the Bible fit into all of it?
I went to the Peoria Homeschool convention last year and I had two couples strike up a conversation with me out of the blue. They were kind of new to homeschooling and had young families. Both of these couples, independently of one another (this happened at two separate times) told me how they were turned off by the whole VF thing when it was big at Peoria a couple of years ago. They didn’t go for a couple of years after Doug Phillips had come to speak there because, in their opinion, he was so extreme. The finally decided to try again last year and they were pleasantly surprised by the lack of hyper-patriarchal focus.
I think if we look around and see all of the other conventions cropping up we will see that people are PROTESTING the hyper-patriarchal infiltration of the major conventions. People do not want to be sold a lifestyle. They want to learn how to teach their kids math and grammar and how to organize their day. They are out of touch with what homeschoolers want. No one wants to sit there and be lectured about how their husbands should be there and that women should stop dominating the homeschool scene! And this is exactly what happened at one convention I went to where Doug Phillips keynoted. I was with a bunch of homeschooling moms from my church and they were totally having culture shock. They had no idea what all of the patriarchal sub-culture was about.
I am GLAD that conventions are waking up and starting to see the problems with peddling someone’s idea of how everyone should live.
I believe the Y2K debacle was the start of purging the conventions of these extreme elements. After all, I felt like I was held hostage to their hysteria in 1998 and 1999 and it dominated the conventions. All sorts of craziness being taught and basically any extremist was given a platform.
April 9, 2008 at 3:59 am
Richard,
“WAAAAHHH! I can’t grow a beard. How am I going to tell my wife that I’m a homosexual?
WAAAAAHHHHHH!”
Oh, stop crying you big baby! Eat some hot peppers…it will put hair on your face!
April 9, 2008 at 4:07 am
“I can’t find the link to homosexuality, though; anyone help me out?”
Andrea,
I know that I was joking on my part. But, I think the quote was from someone who was serious.
Of course there is no link between beard or no beard and homosexuality. But, I do think that this perfectly illustrates how the word of God can be twisted to say something it does not.
Besides, everyone knows that feminists are the reason why there are homosexuals in the first place! We all know that there was no such thing as homosexuality until women got the right to vote and then it all went down the toilet.
This reminds me of one patriarchalist who told me that the reason that Paul tells women to ask their husbands at home if they have a question is that it makes the husband feel good about himself. He told me that the reason why husbands are not good leaders or have no desire to study scripture is because their wives don’t ask them enough Bible questions. No lie.
April 9, 2008 at 4:09 am
Cynthia,
Maybe that quote about beards came from this post?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?s=8f81a5dacda737a8482caa6ce5e029f1&p=5232630&postcount=23
April 9, 2008 at 4:28 am
Abby,
I was thinking about the polygamy thing today, too.
All those little girls were taken from the compound.
But, would the patriarchalists say that the government has no right to interfere with a patriarch’s right to govern his family as he sees fit? I do wonder what the patriarchalists have to say about Warren Jeffs and the recent raid on his compound. A very BRAVE and COURAGEOUS 16 year old girl had called the police. She had been forced to marry some pervert at the age of 15 and she had already had one baby by the time she turned 16.
After all, polygamy is what most patriarchs engaged in. To be consistent, the patriarchal stance is built upon the same eisegesis and hermeneutics that the polygamists use to build their stance. I could argue for polygamy using the patriarchalists arguments. I would have to take a bath in hot water and bleach afterwards but I could do it if I had to in order to prove my point.
After all, patriarchs often married little girls, even when they were very old. Nothing perverted about a 50 some year old man taking a 15 year old girl as a wife, right? Especially when you have the idea that females were born just for your own personal needs, wants and desires and they were put on this earth to serve you and have your babies.
I will tell you what this WWF would do to any 50 year old man who would come near my 15 year old daughter in order to take her to be his wife. I would get my baseball bat and break his kneecaps. And then I would pray to stop in order to do no more harm to other parts of his body.
But, being in a cult will blind you to the truth and the saddest part in all of this is that mothers are NOT protecting their children. That natural born instinct has been sucked right out of them by the cult-mindset and false doctrine that has muted them and taken away their voice and right to protect their own children from perverts who would prey on them for their own perverted jollies. They give over their little lambs to be used and abused in the name of God because they have been rendered powerless.
The whole thing turns my stomach. God Bless that brave young girl who defied her “authorities” and exposed the sickness for what it is. All of those other innocent girls now have a chance because of her. Her innocence was ripped away from her by her father and her religious leaders.
I know several patriarchalists who believe that their young daughters at the age of 15 or 16 are ready to get married because they are menstruating thus making them a woman. They have also said that there is nothing wrong with an older man showing interest in their young daughters.
I just canNOT fathom such a mindset.
April 9, 2008 at 4:35 am
Trish,
“I would add that almost nothng written on this blog is ‘in’ the Bible! Again, it is all a matter of the heart.”
Really?
April 9, 2008 at 4:46 am
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/07/texas.ranch/#cnnSTCVideo
I think this guy is talking about the “normal middle”. He makes some excellent points that could be applicable to a lot of things we discuss here.
April 9, 2008 at 7:16 am
I thought the whole thing about beard/no beard came from the issue of men who are eunuchs not being allowed to be priests in the temple, rather than specific reference to homosexuality – it says somewhere, I think in Leviticus – that men who had one testicle crushed, (ouch – makes my eyes water just thinking about it, and I’m female: sorry, Richard and other guys who post here) or who were not ‘whole men’ in the area of genital endowment were prohibited from serving as priests.
Of course castration was quite a common way of dealing with P.O.Ws and making them good servants for their conqueror throughout that whole region: the Persians and, I believe, Hittites, and so on did it quite routinely for guards for women’s quarters.
Castration means that men don’t grow beards, so obviously if you didn’t want to be mistaken for a eunuch, and no patriarch would stand for that sort of thing, you had to grow a beard . . .
Would anyone like to tell Doug Philips that?
April 9, 2008 at 8:12 am
Thank you, Joanna, this was the instance I was thinking of. Eunuchs couldn’t grow beards, and eunuchs were forbidden from serving in the temple. Many eunuchs were also pagan temple prostitutes, so this is where the whole beardless = eunuch = homosexual came about.
Of course Jesus turned that one on its head, when He said,
“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].”
The Old Covenant was of the flesh, the New Covenant is of the Spirit.
It takes just as much “orchido-fortitude” to serve the Lord under the New Covenant as under the Old, but under the New Covenant, this is something that women and even eunuchs can have plenty of — just ask the three Marys, or Queen Candace’s servant!
April 9, 2008 at 10:16 am
There are actually people who believe polygamy is not a sin according to the Bible. If any of you are members of homeschoolalumni.org, you should check out several threads in their Marriage and Relationships forum!
April 9, 2008 at 10:30 am
And devotees of the goddess Cybele castrated themselves in her honour and also worked as temple prostitutes, as in Apuleius’ ‘The Golden Ass’ (which is written towards the end of the Cybele cult, but references centuries old practices) so there were clear cultural reasons behind the Jews wanting to make that distinction
Really like the phrase ‘orchido-fortitude – wonder how else it could be used . . .
Interesting that Jesus obviously recognised some sort of genetic sexual/gender issues: ’so born from their mother’s womb’
And of course a famous eunuch who was made a eunuch, and accepted it for the kingdom’s sake would be Peter Abelard, who was catrated by Canon Fulbert after his affair with Fulbert’s niece Heloise.
St Augustine recognised the need for his own ‘castration’ or denial of lust when he parayed ‘Lord, give me chastity – but not yet’
April 9, 2008 at 10:31 am
Sorry, typos. Fatigue.
April 9, 2008 at 10:58 am
For those of you interested in the polygamy, I posted an article on my new blog over the pawst weekend about it.
runwithpatience.wordpress.com.
Let me know what you think
April 9, 2008 at 11:57 am
Sandy, good words. I am linking to your blog today. We need more Titus 2 women like you who actually think about what Scripture says and apply it with wisdom!
April 9, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Karen, Thank you
April 9, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and say that polygamy is one of those tricky things that the Bible doesn’t actually forbid. But then again, the Bible doesn’t forbid slavery either.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong, because often they are used to further man’s conquest of the world, in very sinful ways.
The important thing is that neither of those things (along with other things not expressly forbidden) is what God intended for us. They are the results of a corrupt world.
April 9, 2008 at 1:07 pm
About the homeschool thing, I did a little research a while back, and found that homeschooling became quite popular in the 60’s and 70’s with hippy groups who didn’t want the government telling them how to educate their children. So homeschooling Christians may have started doing so around the same time, but they don’t have a corner on the market.
I’m a member of a home preschooling yahoo group, and it’s safe to say that 90% of those women are NOT Christians. And most of them create their own curriculum for their homeschoolers (preschool and school-age).
My personal views on homeschooling are very close to Sarah’s views. I think that every family has to make the decisions that are best for their family, and if that means working mom, public school, etc., then who am I to judge people’s hearts? I have so many friends who are public school teachers, and I have a great deal of respect for them, because the job is NOT easy.
This whole idea that there’s only “one way” to do the Christian life is so easy to get sucked into, but it bugs me to no end.
April 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Anne and Joy,
Ok,let me just say that when I saw that comment from the PW list about how those of us who are speaking out against patriocentricity within the homeschooling community are some kind of radical, new, big-tent homeschoolers, I laughed out loud.
And then it made me really mad BECAUSE there are many women on that list who could refute those claims and could TELL THE TRUTH but they didn’t. Instead, they not only allowed those assumptions to stand but they all sat back, wringing their hands together and then talked about how they needed to stop us. This was the same conversation where we were called radical feminist homeschoolers.
You know, once again, lies, lies, lies. And because the truth must be suppressed from these dear women in order to prop up the all-important paradigm, so many of those ladies will only hear what the PW powers that be want them to hear. So sad.
Here is my mini-history of the homeschooling movement, as I lived it…..
At the risk of sounding like my 86 year old mom, let me say “I remember back in the day….”
The first people I remember meeting who homeschooled were hippies who lived in our area. They had offered to do a workshop on homeschooling and since we were interested and had lots of hippy juice flowing through our own veins, we went to hear them talk. They were a tad too hippy for us but they had hearts of gold, loved their kids and were Christians who wanted to disciple their own children, (hey, NCFIC church gurus, did you hear that? Hippy Christians were discipling there own children nearly 30 years ago!!!!) They were probably what you would call unschoolers and were more loose than we preferred to be, but their children were great and educated.
When my husband was getting ready to get out of the army in the late 70’s, we began thinking about what we might want to do, where we wanted to live etc. We started reading Mother Earth News and one time when he was on a field exercise, he picked up a copy of Living on Five Acres at a used book store. We read it and thought we might like to be agrarians and part of that culture was homeschooling. But we didn’t come across any Christian homeschoolers in our readings until we met the ones I mentioned above and then when we heard Raymond Moore being interviewed by James Dobson. It took a few more years to convince us that this is what we wanted to do with our own children, so we began homeschooling in 1985. Homeschooling was alive and well long before then but we lived in the Midwest and hadn’t been exposed to it.
The first year we homeschooled, I sort of did my own thing with a variety of textbooks and real books. Then we enrolled in Bill Gothard’s ATI program which was just in its third year and the wisdom booklets were only partly finished. Looking back, I think one of the things that attracted us to this program was that they did have conferences and opportunities to hear speakers because it was pretty lonely. We were the only ones in our entire county who homeschooled for many years so we welcomed the fellowship!
We spent about 8 or 9 years in that program, but the last 3 or 4 were in the process of deprogramming and there were so many other materials available that the wisdom booklets seemed to lose their appeal. That and the fact that they began to be goofy. We went to local conferences and they had such a variety of speakers, most of who hadn’t yet been bitten by the patriarchy bug. In fact, that word was never used. And as I have said many times, Bill Gothard, as intense as his teachings were, really encouraged dads to be involved but in the early years wasn’t weird about girls being educated and he always made moms feel like their job was really important and that they were on a team with the dad.
At that time, the popular speakers were Greg Harris, Michael Farris, Mary Pride, Gary Fraley, Inge Cannon, Rob and Cindy from Greenleaf press, and a few others. The conferences were small and intimate and the vendor booths were few. But again I have to stress that the word patriarchy was never used and there was never an attitude of things revolving around the father or that girls only had one calling, etc. Never did we hear that the father was an intermediary for the rest of the family. The Teaching Home magazine and Mary Pride’s Practical Homeschooling were the standard bearers for Christian homeschoolers but there were lots of other publications for homeschoolers from a secular perspective.
We also heard Jonathan Lindvall one time and, frankly, he was the one guy who was way out there. As he admitted to all of us, he had taken some of Bill Gothard’s teachings and morphed them into what he was promoting which was total protection of girls and bethroyal, children not ever being alone with anyone but parents, etc. His views were so out there that he usually did his own conferences, though he did sometimes speak at conventions. But most of us thought he was out there.
Sometime after this period, Phil Lancaster came along and introduced the word “patriarchy” into this mix. It was during this time that people began preparing for Y2K and the homeschooling community was targeted as the group who really needed to hear about the coming end of civilization as we know it. Lancaster started his commune idea and Gary North began “proving” that the world as we knew it would end. I could tell you stories about what we experienced, but that would take too long.
The bottom line is this….after Y2K came and went with not so much as a burned out light bulb, I think there was a void just waiting to be filled by the likes of Doug Phillips et al. After all, most of these people were hoping that society would collapse because they could then take dominion….they had food, weapons, generators, and, of course, God would bless it. When it didn’t happen, and all these people were living in the void of no daily Gary North updates, something had to come along to get people back on track with taking over the world and so this was it….patriocentricity, a new, mutated form of family life that could guarantee God’s blessing because it is ”presuppositional, part of the grand sweep of revelation.”
So by 2003 when Doug Phillips offered Lancaster’s original Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy (Cindy, could you please post those original ones here?) it became the new vision. Look at all the conventions who hosted Doug Phillips that year. Look at the others who are part of the team, how suddenly they were the new homeschooling leaders. Look at how many state organizations had battles within their own ranks over issues like girls going to college or betrothal, issues that weren’t even on the radar in the past decade but now were being promoted as the norm. Suddenly there was a shift away from ENCOURAGING families to take ownership of their homes and to chart their own course to TELLING families what their homes should be and giving them the vision they were to have. And they were able to promote it by absconding away with other people’s mailing lists, thus giving them a voice to LOTS of people overnight. (Did you ever wonder how your name got on the Vision Forum mailing list?)
You have to ask yourself how this change happened. I think there several reasons for it this morning is off the top of my head….I would like to flush it out in more detail later. But here are some of my thoughts…
1. It sounds really good to have someone give you a vision and then offer you all the “tools” a la their booth or catalog to fulfill that vision. Add hot water, stir, voila, multi-generational families. It is even MORE effective when you create the problem first and then offer to sell someone a solution for it. Remember how we kept hearing about all those people out there, all those books and articles and websites that belittle homemakers? The moms were all primed and ready to buy Desperate Housewives. Shame, shame, shame on Jennie and Stacy for abusing homemakers in that way to sell books!
2. Many churches didn’t or don’t know what to do with homeschooling families. Sometimes the kids really know their stuff and it intimidates teachers and youth leaders. Or they are isolationists within the church, always judging the status quo. Sometimes homeschoolers are obnoxious and invite people to dislike them. Other times they are innocent and someone has an agenda to fix them. Either way, the NCFIC plan stepped in and offered a solution. I know this because I have been both obnoxious and innocent.
3. Most of the leaders within this movement are charismatic and persuasive. Remember that story Mary told a few weeks ago about women gathering around Doug Phillips like he was some rock star. I have an entire blog entry I am working on about the cult of personality within homeschooling circles. Brother.
4. Homeschoolers are just like everyone else and are becoming what they hate…..peer dependent. If the patriarchy train is leaving the station, you had better be on it or else…or else you are a white washed feminist? Brother again.
5. Lots more another day followed by brother X 10.
So now what?
Well, this new Multi-Generational 200 year plan is nothing new either. Same old same old but this is the new twist. They are feeling the heat from those who disagree with them. Some convention planners are shying away from them. (I think it started with R. C. Sproul Jr. was defrocked. Parents started questioning whether or not they really wanted their children to be exposed to a teacher who was in blatant rebellion to his own denomination, who was stripped of his credentials and who abused alcohol himself and offered it to children as well AND was in your face if you questioned him. And that was on top of the spiritual abuse and tax fraud he admitted to as well.) I think that was the beginning of people really taking a good, long look at the guys who were telling all the rest of us how to live. I remember being so sick and tired of hearing “Doug Phillips said this” or “R. C. said that” at my church that I finally asked: “How many reformed Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb? Only one but you have to check R.C.’s blog first to see how you do it.”
Then, Doug Phillips true colors started to show. And now there is all the deception with the McDonalds. And the connection to kinism and racism. And on and on the list goes. And those faithful people who questioned these aberrant teachings all along are finally being vindicated by the actions of the arrogant. Because these people have been so in your face in their behavior, so bound up in their persona, so unwilling to even discuss the fact that their detractors might be right about something, all their teachings are coming under intense scrutiny and are found wanting.
So they are couching it all in the terms now that it will take a long time to accomplish their goals and they are asking for 200 years. The rest of us who are normal (thank you, Sarah!) have become the enemy because we are no longer silent about the misuse of Scripture or the abuse of women or the belittling of mothers and fathers who really love their children and want to do right by them but who don’t subscribe to the patriarchal weirdness.
You know, what really bothered me so much about that comment, Anne, is that Stacy and her moderators sat there and allowed everyone to think that she was the one dreaming up this new way of life, these teachings, etc. Nothing, and I mean nothing, I have read that she has written is new. It is a feminized, mean-spirited version of Jonathan Lindvall and Bill Gothard all dolled up with Victorian charm and decorum and passed off to unsuspecting moms who would do a better job of blessing their husbands by spending his hard-earned paycheck on a Bible concordance and an online class on hermeneutics!
April 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Corrie said: Oh, stop crying you big baby! Eat some hot peppers…it will put hair on your face!
Okay … I couldn’t resist. Click here
April 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm
ThatMom – I’m glad you mentioned Michael Farris. I’ve been wondering where he stood in the whole mix of this. My wife and I met him at a conference in the early 90s and were quite impressed with him.
it says somewhere, I think in Leviticus – that men who had one testicle crushed, (ouch – makes my eyes water just thinking about it, and I’m female
Me too. I mean, makes my eyes water, not the part about being a female.
Oh, stop crying you big baby! Eat some hot peppers…it will put hair on your face!
I couldn’t help it. Your suggestion gave me a sudden inspiration. So, I made a sidebar banner for Vision Forum. I tried to post the link but for some reason the comment didn’t show up. I’m not sure if it’s in moderation. If anyone is interested in the banner, it’s on my blog posted on April 1, 2008.
April 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Michael Farris appears to have embraced patriocentricity to some extent as he and his wife are promoting Passionate Housewives and Vision Forum. Remember, too, that Phillips got his start and his mentoring from Farris.
April 9, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Trish,
You commented and said that nothing on this blog is written in the Bible. I wholeheartedly disagree. There are passages referenced all the time, and most of the discussion involves discernment which is certainly written in the Bible. Are you concerned and are suggesting that we need to include more chapter and verse references? They do pop up, usually on a daily basis. Perhaps there were none today or yesterday, but I’ve seen many this past week and on this very thread. There are also many passages discussed that may not be directly referenced as well.
The other problem with all of this is involves the fact that patriarchy is primarily a cultural issue, and I’m sure that they would argue that they apply the full counsel of the Word (and their interpretation of it) to our contemporary culture. Therein lies the problem.
You may also see that we are not discussing doctrine but behavior. I’ve posted this a couple of times recently but will risk posting it here again:
Of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (13%) concern Motives
21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine
Very little of the patriarchy movement discusses doctrine and most of this discussion, the PMM included, discusses behavior and behavioral standards. Most people expect to discuss doctrine when they are talking about false teaching, but from this analysis of the numbers of verses alone, it seems that behavior is the primary issue.
April 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Been a lurker for about 3 weeks now, reading through all the eye opening patriarchy stuff. Even though I’ve been homeschooling for a couple of years, I was not familiar with the patriarchy movement until recently. Since we attend a PCA church that is theologically conservative but contemporary in worship style, I haven’t personally encountered any folks in the patriarchy camp.
This comment brought me out of lurk-dom:
Processing it with others who have been there would aid my healing although I’ve come a long ways!”
“I would really appreciate a thread devoted to the Pearls and a thread devoted to the Maxwells because I was so heavily into them for years, much to my sadness.
If you do start a thread on the Pearls, I would have something to add to that as some people introduced us to their newsletter in 1999 and we were into their materials for awhile. After awhile, enough red flags went up that we wrote and asked them to remove us from their mailing list. Debi’s helpmeet book certainly raised our eyebrows. (I’ve never heard of the Maxwells mentioned, though)
thatmom – I enjoyed your post #69 explaining the history of the homeschool/patriarchy movement. I especially had to laugh when you said, “Ever wonder how your name got on the Vision Forum mailing list?” YES. I had wondered. Other than seeing their booths at our homeschool convention, I had never bought any of their materials or signed up on their list.
I live in NC and our homeschool convention is huge, but fairly tame from what I’ve noticed. (as far as not promoting prairie muffin, patriarchy, Gothard or Pearl-esque teaching) I mean, there is “some” of it there (I do remember Doug Phillips and Voddie Bauchum have spoken in the past) but with such a wide variety of speakers and workshops at our convention, I’ve never felt like any “one” agenda was being pushed. We first attended about 4 years ago when we were in the stages of looking into whether or not to homeschool. I remembered having an idea of what the “attendees” would look like. I was expecting to see all the women in denim jumpers, etc. Much to my surprise, out of thousands of attendees, I could count the number of denim jumpers I saw on one hand. No lie. I was relieved to say the least.
I enjoy reading the comments of all you smart, thinking women. I may not have time to post much, but just wanted to come out of lurk-dom and say “HI”.
April 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“Much to my surprise, out of thousands of attendees, I could count the number of denim jumpers I saw on one hand. No lie. I was relieved to say the least.”
Peachses, welcome and thanks for that laugh this morning! Corrie and I had just been talking about pulling out some of our pictures from our early days of homeschooling and posting them. Denim jumpers, hairbows, it all seems so funny now!
April 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm
What about the big hair?
April 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I remember being so excited to wear a maternity denim jumper to my first homeschooling convention in 1991 in Peoria, (with Karen, remember?)Yikes!…..these posts are so much fun, as I have been reliving the past years of homeschooling and thinking about all the influences and stages I have come through! God has been so faithful to us, to keep us from serious error! Thank you everyone, I too have been so edified by everyone who comments on this blog. Very thought provoking and helpful!
April 9, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Kim, weren’t we so cute?
One of the reasons I loved that style back then was because you could be in any stage of pregnancy or no pregnancy and look…well, pregnant! I still love the old Laura Ashley look. Alas, my children have told me I needed to get with the times.
Oh,Cindy, yes the big 80’s hair WITH a hairbow!
April 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm
In terms of polygamy, while I am glad that the children are removed from that situation for the time being, I feel this raid was probably an over-reach of government power. Honestly, can you imagine the government raiding a trailer park in your community, or a gated neighborhood, and taking all the kids on one anonymous tip, albeit one that indicates terrible abuse?
I think of all the FLDS kids in other communities who are now locked in basements because their parents are terrified. These FLDS kids will now be even more afraid to approach authorities.
April 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Karen,
Are you saying they copied other people’s mailing lists in order to promote their agenda?
We go to a lot of church conventions with my in-laws being “missionaries,” and I would think it is HIGHLY unethical to steal names of people who signed up for specific mailing lists just so that you could promote your OWN “ministry.”
Yuck.
April 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Karen, thank you so much for your insightful comments!
“It sounds really good to have someone give you a vision and then offer you all the “tools” a la their booth or catalog to fulfill that vision. Add hot water, stir, voila, multi-generational families.”
This is what initially “attracted” me to this movement. Holiness in a can. Open it up, pour it in a pot, and stir. I was all for a list telling me what I should/shouldn’t do. How lazy of me. The Christian life is based on grace and liberty. It is NOT easy; following God never is.
“It is even MORE effective when you create the problem first and then offer to sell someone a solution for it. Remember how we kept hearing about all those people out there, all those books and articles and websites that belittle homemakers? ”
You know, being a SAHW w/o children right now, I’ve gotten my share of “oh…ok…” when I say that I’m a homemaker but I have never been ridiculed or abused in any way. I’m sure people wonder about it but they have never said anything hurtful, that I can recall. Although homemaking is not the fully “respected” profession it should be, I think the outcry against them has lessened some, simply because more moms are choosing to stay at home, at least for the first few of their child’s life. So, while I have had to endure the dreaded “What do you DO all day?” question, I wouldn’t call it abuse and often wondered where all this supposed abuse was taking place.
I went to the VF blog and read about the 200 year plan. You know, every time I see Doug Philips’ face, I get this eerie feeling that just runs through me. I always have; even when I was interested in the lifestyle and was ordering from them! Some of those pictures were downright creepy!
April 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Sarah, you are so right about the extreme lengths that people are going to go to now in order to “protect” their children.
From the article, all I could figure was that there was AMPLE evidence that every child taken was being abused in some way.
My aunt is a social worker and had many foster kids while I was growing up, so this is a topic that I am interested in, not just children being taken from “cults” but abusive homes, etc. I’ve always been touched by the way a tv show might handle the issue of child sex slavery (which is essentially what is going on in this “ranch”), and you’re so right about parents hiding their children away now that this has come out.
The kids who grow up in that situation are probably going to never understand what happened, at least in the way the “outsiders” see it. I personally don’t think the government was out of bounds in doing this, because who else was going to speak up for these children? The mothers? No, because they are just as brainwashed as the children.
Someone at another forum mentioned that there are laws allowing children to get married at the age of 15-16 in some states, but that’s not exactly what happened here. Sure they were “married” but not in the eyes of the law/state, which makes these men child molesters, whether they see it that way or not.
What is sad to me is that things like this, and things like the bullying of that girl in Florida that was videotaped probably give Stacy McDonald & co. all the more fuel to promote their own views!
April 9, 2008 at 5:10 pm
About the original “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy”….
I have them buried away in a bunch of other documentation right now, and I’m not sure where my floppy drive is…
I never had a copy of the very original version of the tenets, but I only had the 2003 version. They look like the current ones with a couple of exceptions.
The 2003 version stated that only homeschooling was valid and that any alternative was an outright sin.
It also stated that the training and working of women outside the home was sin because the roles were not normative.
What the original version looked like, I don’t know. I also have a huge file of discussions about the 2003 revision of the tenets as well, discussing women working outside the home as sin. These discussions prompted me to look at the Vision Forum website for the first time. (I had enough contact with the teachings through the discussions with homeschooling moms at our church in San Antonio…)
April 9, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Abby wrote: Karen,
Are you saying they copied other people’s mailing lists in order to promote their agenda?
I think that the sharing (or possible selling) of mailing lists among these ministries goes without saying. I’ve been getting VF catalogs for years, and I’ve never had any correspondence with them or any homeschooling organizations. Why do I get a copy?
In the past, however, I supported American Vision, Chalcedon and several creation science ministries. I assume that I am on the VF mailing lists because of my past support of these organizations.
Vision Forum is touted to have obtained their original list from the HSDLA where Doug Phillips was employed just prior to the founding of Vision Forum. I’ve seen this dicussed on line before in more than one venue. So it was not only Family Reformation Ministries that had a running start getting their ministry started.
Whether groups sell this information or not is a mystery to me. Ministries might be willing to share these mailing lists with one another. I don’t know what their policies are, and I don’t recall ever reading any offline information on this.
April 9, 2008 at 6:28 pm
JohannaS,
“This is what initially “attracted” me to this movement. Holiness in a can. Open it up, pour it in a pot, and stir. I was all for a list telling me what I should/shouldn’t do. How lazy of me. The Christian life is based on grace and liberty. It is NOT easy; following God never is.”
Amen! Exactly!
Abby,
I have seen the coverage on the situation where the 16 year old girl was beaten to a pulp by about 6 other girls while 2 boys stood guard outside the door and would occasionally pop their heads in and tell them to keep it down.
It was disgusting and horrifying to watch and that was after the video that these girls made just for Youtube was cleaned up and sanitized. The police officers said that the girls in jail had absolutely no remorse for what they had done.
The grandmother of the one main ring leader was the one who took the video tape when she learned of it and turned it into the police, basically turning in her own granddaughter, which was the right thing to do.
If the patriarchalists use this event to promote their lifestyles and as another hammer to bludgeon the feminists with, then I will use the Warren Jeff’s/Jessop compound and sexual slavery and usery of young children as proof that the patriarchal lifestyle is wrong.
Same reasoning.
Really, CCC-Forum is probably already talking about this and how this has something to do with feminism. As if we couldn’t just call it what it is- violence and sin! What they don’t talk about is all the male violence in society since the beginning of time.
Violence begets violence.
April 9, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hi,
I am a lurker and have tried to keep up with the discussion. I have learned quite a bit from everyone here.
I live in TX and the polygamist compund has just made me sick to my stomach. I feel so sad for those children and everytime I see them on tv boarding those busses, my heart just breaks. I’m just wondering about the men. Are they still at the compound?
I went to that homeschoolalumni site that someone posted. I can’t believe there are people that were against the raid to get those children out of there. I mean, the media is reporting they were malnourished and some of them were locked in closets. Just UGHHHHHHHHH.
April 9, 2008 at 6:48 pm
KES,
Very interesting link! Thank you! I am reading through the thread on polygamy right now.
April 9, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Hi Kelli,
I am with you. Ughh! My heart breaks for those children, too. But, I am also glad that they might have a fighting chance now they are away from the Satanic grip of their false religious authorities.
These girls are not choosing these child molesters for husbands. They are forced into it by their fathers and the “prophet” of that sect. They have no choice in the matter. I was just watching an interview of a woman who was married at the age of 15 to an older man and she spoke of how disgusting and terrifying the wedding night was. She had 8 children with him and then when her oldest (daughter) turned 14, her eyes were suddenly opened with the fact that some old pervert would be coming for her daughter next. That is when she fled the compound with her 8 children in tow.
Tell me, how many teenage girls are pining away for men who are of retirement age? Most teenage girls would think that was downright icky. This is not normal. Especially knowing that you are like the 7th “wife” (aka sex slave)? Yuck! It would be a horrifying and completely disgusting experience. Imagine having to endure this sort of thing as often as he wants it because your life and salvation depends upon it? Ick! What a nifty self-serving system they have set up there. A fresh crop of females every year just for their pickings!
Warren Jeffs had a LOT of wives. Like 50 or more. He also had sex with his sisters and his nephews. It seems that a never-ending supply of sex is NOT the cure for sexual perversion after all. As Romans 1 says, they were given over to a debased mind.
My girls are horrified whenever we watch Fiddler on the Roof and the one daughter is supposed to get hitched up with the butcher. I always threaten them that I know a nice old, fat butcher they WILL marry if they don’t shape up!
I wonder why our young girls put up posters of Orlando Bloom and not Walter Matthau on their walls? Could it be that they have sexual desires, too? Could it be that it is just not men who were given certain desires and that their desires are not dependent upon some man to unlock them for them?
I am glad they raided that ranch. This is clear-cut abuse from all that I have read. Anywhere else and these men would be locked up as sexual predators. But, they hide behind their “faith” to sanction their perversion and that is just not protected by the Law. And, if the stories of beatings of both women and children are true, that is more reason to get them out of there. The 50 year old husband of this 16 year old was already listed as a sexual predator or some such label.
I don’t think that the government has overstepped their boundaries in this. Sexual slavery and physical abuse and neglect and child molestation are still considered illegal in the U.S. And if their own mothers who should know better are too brainwashed and beaten down to do something in order to protect these children, then someone has to rescue the oppressed.
If it were Bible believing Christians, I don’t think they would have allowed it to go on as long as they have.
April 9, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I just finished reading Shattered Dreams by Irene Spencer. It’s her account of life in fundamentalist Mormon polygamy, as the 2nd wife of 10. (She’s now out of the situation and a Christian). As I read the book, I was reminded many times of some of the patriarchal framing of things.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if we’re just a few steps away from polygamy being legalized. The current cultural attitudes of entitlement to whatever you desire regardless of how it affects others could easily be taken to this extreme, and all it would really take is a court decision or two.
April 9, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Amen, Corrie!
Religious group or not, it’s disgusting. I think of what people would say if it was just a child sex ring without all the religious beliefs attached. Everyone would say the government did the right thing to step in. Religious beliefs should not have a bearing on whether or not the police come in to protect children from this.
If this were a Christian group and not the LDS or FLDS, I would be downright angry at the name they put on us. I would also be horrified.
I don’t know if anyone has studied this, but the Mormon church and Islam have a LOT of similar practices–polygamy and child brides included. It’s actually a little scary the similarities.
April 9, 2008 at 7:21 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348148,00.html
Here is one news article detailing what goes on in these polygamous compounds.
April 9, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I have to wonder if these men at that YFZ Ranch are a bit scared and shaken now that their drug of choice has been taken from them? What will they do? They had a pretty good set-up but now where will they get their steady supply of young, nubile, virgin, brainwashed victims? When people are withdrawing from their addictions, especially ones as strong as sexually perverse addictions, they get pretty antsy. Some are claiming that this all about “religious persecution”. Sure it is! No, it really is a matter of those who are used to being entitled to anything they want getting their hands slapped by someone bigger than they are.
I have read that many of the women have decided to stay with their children and not return to the Ranch for the time being. I am praying that they will stay as long as it takes for their eyes to be opened to the truth and that they will not want to return to this corrupt system of religion.
Lori,
I don’t think what you have suggested to be that far out of the ballpark. HBO has a show called “Big Love” and it is all about polygamy. Kind of like the “Desperate Housewives” of polygamy.
Why not polygamy? Like I said, I could biblically defend it in the same way that others biblically defend the system of patriarchy.
April 9, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I finished reading Escape by Carolyn Jessop last weekend… right before the raids started, actually. She was the fourth wife of Merrill Jessop, one of the higher-ups at the Texas compound. The FLDS is one screwed-up cult and I say its about darn time someone went in there to rescue those children. I wish the same thing would happen in Colorado City, the main residence of this branch of the FLDS.
What I found the most disturbing in reading Jessop’s book was how similar a lot of their practices are to hyper-patriarchy… refusing to have sex with your husband or using birth control is akin to committing adultery… betrothals… not educating the women so they won’t ask questions… not allowing them to drive or leave the city without their husband’s permission…absolute father-rule… its very disturbing.
As for “Big Love”… well, I love that show. Its a bit racy for my taste, but the stories and characters are interesting and its very well acted. But Big Lover certainly shows the nicer side of polygamy… the non-threatening side. Its very thought-provoking to say the least.
April 9, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Regarding polygamy, and patriarchy:
http://www.joshuahshouse.com/index.html
http://joshuahshouse.blogspot.com/
April 9, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Regarding polygamy, and patriarchy, my comment and links are awaiting moderation…..
April 9, 2008 at 10:06 pm
On the subject of a woman’s consent in the wedding, this verbiage at the Bayly Blog, by a fairly recently ordained Anglican (small off-shoot denomination) priest in Texas, posted at their blog, clarified for me just how dominated some of these patriarchalists believe women ought to be:
“One significant addition, however, has always served to redeem the custom of the father “giving away” the bride. For over 30 years now, the service proper has begun (after the procession) with the bride, groom, and bride’s father standing before the officiant, whereupon:
“1. The officient [sic] reads Numbers 30:3-4: ‘. . . if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth, 4 and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand.’
“2. Next, addressing the father, the officient [sic] says, ‘As the father of N___, do you affirm that the vows she shall make to G___ this day shall stand?’
“3. The father says, ‘I do.’ and takes the bride’s and groom’s hands and joins them together, before repairing to his place in the pews.”
The entire comment can be read (the commenter goes by the moniker “Fr. Bill”) here:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/04/the-westminster.html
April 9, 2008 at 10:14 pm
OK, I suspect I am really naive about this, but I never quite understood why I read people saying over and over that wide age differences in marriage and romance are creepy. When I was a little girl, I remember watching this King Arthur movie (I think it was First Knight but I’m not sure) and thinking that the relationship between Guinivere and King Arthur (Julia Ormond and a white haired Sean Connery) was very poignant and beautiful. I did not root for the young, sexy Lancelot at all. (I still don’t.)
But I’ve been thinking, and it seems to me that God meant sexual union to be between likeminded beings who want to grow ever closer. With this in mind, I can see why it seems healthier for a middle aged man to be interested in women his own age than young girls. The former hopefully means an interest in conpanionship and love, the latter sounds like he just wants mere sex. Have I understood why you ladies are getting creeped out? (I mean about the mere age difference issue. Those cult anecdotes and forced marriages are APPALLING and ABOMINABLE. I have NO problem understand why you are horrified at those at all.)
April 9, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Hi Beatrice,
I don’t think anyone is saying that an age difference is creepy.
I love “First Knight”. It is one of my very favorite of movies.
Julia Ormond was not 15 but a full-grown woman who was mature and knew her own passions. If I remember right, she was to be married to Sean Connery but she did not love him. She did care for him, very deeply, but as a daughter cares for a father. You could tell that she was pained by the fact that she did not have those feelings for Connery and it was distressing for her because she did care for him. The kind of love that a marriage requires is not a father/daughter sort of love unless one thinks that the father-daughter couple in Australia is alright (blech!).
Julia Ormond loved Richard Gere’s character as a wife should love a husband. It was apparent in their body language and their eye contact and everything. That is the way it should be.
Who wants to be forced into a marriage where they do not have “those” sorts of feelings for the other person? But, there would be nothing wrong with a grown, adult, mature woman who CHOSE to marry a Sean Connery over a Richard Gere even if she was closer to Gere’s age (in the movie). I don’t think you could go wrong with either of those two!
Forcing young girls to marry old men and to be their 7th, 8th or whatever wife is really very yucky.
The reason why I am creeped out is because these polygamous men have older wives, middle-aged wives and very young wives. It is not that they fall in love with a younger woman and she with him. It is that they collect young women like they were objects created to fulfill their lustful desires. I am creeped out by the penchant for young flesh that these polygamists seem to have and they are breeding their own home-grown stock of young flesh for their future lusts.
I am creeped out that 15 year old girls are forced into marriage by perverted Patriarch Prophets and their patriarchal fathers all the while never having a word to say about it because if they protest, they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting into the kingdom. That is the threat that keeps them in line. Because, in their perverted system, only men get to go to the kingdom and women go only if the men think they are worthy.
I once dated a man 13 years older. I was 23 and he was 36. I chose to date him, I wasn’t forced into it. It wasn’t creepy. I was attracted to him and he was attracted to me. It was mutual.
It would have been creepy if my parents made me marry Elmer with 6 wives from down the street when I was a freshman in high school and Elmer was collecting social security, had a big gut, creepy eyes and had lost most of his hair. That is fine for Elmer’s first wife because they aged together as it should be but it is not fine for a young girl who finds having sex with “grandpa” very revolting.
This is the problem in patriarchy. They are so out of touch with what women actually desire. They think they are the only ones who desire attractive, young mates.
Now, turn it around. If a 58 year old woman had 7 husbands and was marrying a 15 year old boy, what would be the reaction?
Why is the 30 year old sexy-teacher in trouble for sleeping with her 13 year old student? Because, it is perverted. And she should be in trouble. She should be locked up because she can’t help herself because she has been given over to a debased mind. Her relationship can’t be consensual.
The same goes for a 50 some year old man who forces himself on a 15 year old girl. That is called rape. There is no way that these polygamous “marriages” are consensual when there is brainwashing and “grooming” involved. What they do to these young girls is no different than what child molesters do to their intended targets. They groom them, get their guard down, and scare them so that they have no way out.
April 9, 2008 at 11:27 pm
OK, you explained that well, Corrie. I see what you all are really and only objecting to perfectly clearly now.
So these are Mormons that we are talking about? They really do believe that women can’t go to heaven on their own, right?
April 9, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Beatrice,
I wished you lived near me. I would invite you over for a girls’ movie night with me and my older daughters. We could watch “First Knight” and have some popcorn!
April 9, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Oh! That is so sweet! Me too.
April 9, 2008 at 11:46 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347368,00.html
Here is the story of the father/daughter couple who just had their second child together. Their first child died from a congenital defect which is not surprising at all considering that he is her biological father. It was completely nauseating watching the news cast of them together. Talk about creepy.
All they are asking for is some “respect and understanding”.
Really? I have neither to give and I am quite sure that I will never be able to muster up any respect or understanding, either. But, there is a ranch in Texas where many men might respect and understand what is going on with these two.
I think, again, Romans 1 tells us why these things happen. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the created instead of the Creator.
It sure is like Old Testament times on the news right now!
April 9, 2008 at 11:59 pm
NOt all of the folks who are doing this stuff are Mormons. The people who own the Joshuah’s House site I linked to, are not Mormons. And there are several other polygamous groups operating in the Eastern half of the US that are not Mormons.
April 10, 2008 at 12:07 am
As far as May-December romances go, I wouldn’t choose that for myself, but if both parties have reached age of consent, then I say, they should “go for it”. My younger brother married a lady 18 years his senior, and they are still married today, almost 30 years later, so it CAN work, and very well.
And, regarding First Knight, I say that Connery is more attractive than Gere, hands down….. but then, MY guilty little Hollywood crush has always been Lorne Greene! Whatta man!
April 10, 2008 at 1:00 am
Does anyone remember that spoof website from a few months ago where you could arrange to marry 14 year olds?
Again, I don’t find age discrepancies a problem, it’s the marketing and sale of young women. There is physical growth that occurs in the body of a woman that is not complete until about age 20 (bone fusion and growth within the pelvis). If you use that as any kind of gauge, a young woman ought to wait until after that growth is completed in order to bear a child.
Our society has accepted age 18 to 21 as a standard, and that seems pretty reasonable. Prior to age 17 to 18, there is also rewiring in the reasoning center (prefrontal cortex) that takes place which is why teenagers seem like they’ve had a lobotomy. There is a lot of growth and laying down of new connections in the critical thought area of the brain. (When this does not function, you see symptoms of ADD/ADHD.)
Seems like good reasoning to postpone marriage until after this work is complete.
April 10, 2008 at 1:04 am
BTW,
There was such a response to the video that I posted on line (a large file), it overloaded my bandwidth, even though I upgraded it. It looks like I had over 100 attempts to view it in only a few hours, so my site will be down for a day or so. In that time, I’m going to try to post the video in 10 minute bites on youtube as soon as I figure out how to use editing software.
Yeah! This means that people are interested in the subject, anyway.
I also got some feedback on some of the commentary concerning the Trinity which I may write about in a blog post. Of all the things about the movement, the militant fecundity (preferred that the church growth through birth and not evangelism of the lost) and some of the L&D practices, this Trinity business is deeply disturbing.
April 10, 2008 at 1:58 am
I love “First Knight”. It is one of my very favorite of movies.
It’s one of my favorites, too, but IMHO, Richard Gere was all wrong for that part. Now, Val Kilmer would have been perfect for the role.
April 10, 2008 at 2:11 am
Light,
” Now, Val Kilmer would have been perfect for the role.”
Preach it, sister!
April 10, 2008 at 2:13 am
… with long dark hair, like he had in “Willow” …
April 10, 2008 at 2:17 am
Ok…Willow is one of MY all time favorite movies, probably because I thought val Kilmer was perfect for that part.
April 10, 2008 at 2:50 am
Val Kilmer… I can see it. But I think Lorne Greene would have made a great Arthur….
April 10, 2008 at 8:30 am
Alright,
The videos are now online on my YouTube channel that I named “Patriocentricity.”
http://www.youtube.com/user/patriocentricity
I also have the videos (all seven of them) featured on my blog with clarifications listed below each entry.
My website (www.UnderMuchGrace.com) is offline until further notice.
April 10, 2008 at 9:34 am
This reminds me of the Little Women debate my daughter and I have always had….she preferred Lorie and i preferred the professor!
April 10, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Been gone to my 2 week part time job and haven’t had time to jump in.
Trish in response to my comment WAY above I meant exactly what I said. There are some Christians out there, like me, who do not believe in a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible. Some of it I think (and this is just me personally) is imagery and parables and not the literal Word of God. I know that offends some of you, but I don’t believe we’re supposed to stone adulterers and follow many of the laws to the letter in the OT.
So that is what I meant. When you said “most of what is written on this blog is not biblical” it hit a nerve, because we all have such different definitions of what “biblcal” means…
Ask some of the reformed fundie crowd, and they’ll tell you I’m not even a Christian because I don’t believe in things the exact way they do. I am a BIG TENT homeschooler (and soon to be homeschool drop out) afterall.
April 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm
28) Prairie Muffins mind their own business. While that business may include encouraging other women “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored,” it most emphatically excludes encouraging other women to run ahead of or resist the authority of their husbands or elders in pursuit of any PM distinctive.
29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.
April 10, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Peaches, I am in NC too…but I would disagree with you that our conference is mild.
NCHE is one of the biggest vision forum supporters I see. Doug, Voddie and their ilk have been in and out of the conference in the last 6 years. Each quarter when I get my greenhouse report, there is usually a FULL PAGE ad for whatever is Vision Forum’s conference of the moment (Father/Daughter, Family Integrated Church, Jamestown, 200 Year Vision, whatever the current flavor of the kool aid is)
I have contacted NCHE to complain of their overwhelming support of ultra conservatives like VF and Doug Phillips. I have been told by powers that be, that they will not be asked to be keynotes again due to the flak that resulted after Doug made some really anti-semite and anti-Catholic comments at the NCHE convention. But—NCHE will never walk away from the $$$ that Vision Forum throws their way.
Expect to see the men in the monkey suits and hats peddling their wares in May. VF wouldn’t miss an opportunity to sell 4 CD’s for $40!
April 10, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Lindsey, I am glad you mentioned the price of CD’s. I had not idea what it cost to make CD’s and mail them until I started getting requests for the set of patriarchy podcasts. My husband put together a set….all 7 podcasts…..and it cost about $1.30. Then we added shipping costs and that was around $2.00 or $2.50. So I charged $4.00 a set. Then I had some other people ask about CD’s of other podcasts. So Clay experimented and was able to put the entire first year’s podcasts on one CD…..50 of them. So, I guess you might be able to say that I can offer a $500.00 package for $4.00…postage paid. Kind of blows your mind doesn’t it?
April 10, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“I have been told by powers that be, that they will not be asked to be keynotes again due to the flak that resulted after Doug made some really anti-semite and anti-Catholic comments at the NCHE convention.”
Interesting, that.
You can always tell whether a group is serving Good or Evil, because sooner or later, the bad guys will always start denigrating and persecuting Catholics and Jews.
April 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Cindy, THANK YOU for putting your patriocentricity workshop videos up on youtube. I would have had to download a plugin to view them on your site. I saw the first two, and your work, and your presentation, are outstanding. Thank you for doing all the hard work necessary to bring this crucial information to the Christian community. Plus, it was an absolute delight to see your face and hear your voice after just “knowing” you online.
On another note, do you have a sister named Ann in the greater Baltimore area? You are a dead ringer for her.
April 10, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Someone just sent me the “Sin of Bathsheba” written by the “Anonymous Brother”. Does anyone remember that ditty that was first published in the Patriarch Magazine (Phil Lancaster) in the mid to late 90’s? I have always hoped that our anonymous “brother” would come forward and take ownership of what goes on in his mind on a Sunday morning.
Here is a quote from it:
“Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit
loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their legs and thighs and hips
and buttocks and crotch? Truly because it is the god of this world who inspires these styles,
and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a
man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s thighs and buttocks
and crotch. Your crotch-your “private part’s”-you ought by all means to keep carefully
concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting
skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to
conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your
knees. But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a
little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your
legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will
be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other
women wear.”
I sure he keeps HIS crotch carefully concealed, too. A woman’s thighs, crotch and buttocks are a “snare”? Well, there is a slang term that the world uses to describe a woman’s “crotch” that starts out like snare and means the same thing.
This was passed around all over for many years as the definitive proof for dresses-only.
Not only is the guy biblically wrong- Bathsheba didn’t sin by taking her mikvah bath on her roof because that is customary to have the bath there but he has a serious lust issue that he wants to pass off on women.
April 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm
http://blogmuse.blogspot.com/2006/02/logic-modesty-and-sin.html
Rebecca Prewitt wrote a bit about it. She also did a spoof entitled “Sins of our Dining Brothers” which really drives home why this “Sin of Bathsheba” is off the mark.
April 10, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“And, regarding First Knight, I say that Connery is more attractive than Gere, hands down….. but then, MY guilty little Hollywood crush has always been Lorne Greene! Whatta man!”
ROFLOL!!!!!
April 10, 2008 at 2:20 pm
http://www.momof9splace.com/sinof.html
Here is a link for the full article- Sin of Bathsheba.
You will be happy to know that this man knows so much about women’s clothing that he highly recommends “culottes” for the more masculine activities that a woman might partake in.
“But, “any man who views women so must be perverted” Yes: be it known unto you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, and especially to the sin of lust. Sin easily besets us. (Heb.12:1) But understand, though all men are perverted from their original purity, and though the passions of all men, (except those perverted in a worse way), are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that the practices of all men are alike, or with the feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If you but dress right, and act right, and associate with the right kind of men, in the right kind of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable. But there will be great plenty of occasion for you to be careful, even in the presence of the best men. Why? Because though the godly “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts”, (Gal.5:24), and have renounced the unlawfulindulgence of those desires —yet the desires themselves remain. It is in the godly that “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit”. (vs.17) Men may strive hard to mortify those passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact, attested also by virtually universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent endeavors to mortify those passions are usually not very successful. The most of men, even the best of men, are likely to be overcome by those passions. (Job. 1:8, Job.31:1) It was a man of God who was overcome by the allurement of Bath-sheba. ”
and
“he battle is a hard one, and a man who is very strong spiritually, but who lacks this fulfillment, may in fact fare worse in the struggle than a much weaker man who has found the fulfillment which every man desires. David, we know, was a man of God, and through out the Old Testament histories he is held up as a standard of godliness by which all of his successors are judged. But the fact that he took many wives is a pretty sure indication that he had never found that complete satisfaction in ONE, which every man desires, and which is the strength of every man who possesses it. For this cause David was weak.”
So, David had to take a lot of wives because he couldn’t find complete satisfaction in one woman? Wow! Are we even supposed to find complete satisfaction in one person? Every man desires complete satisfaction in one woman and it is the strength of every man who “possesses it”? And wouldn’t every woman love to have complete satisfaction in one man?
But, alas that is not what we are supposed to be finding our “complete satisfaction” in. It is supposed to be God that we go to for that.
April 10, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I am going to be posting the whole article so that it is here in one piece. The original link to the Patriarch Magazine is gone and now it is only found on various blogs. This is how it appeared in the Patriarch Magazine in 1996.
joshuashouse.com
“The Sin of Bath-sheba
Author: Anonymous
This anonymously published “Address to Christian Women” is included in this men’s
magazine for obvious reasons. Men need to instruct their wives and daughters concerning
modesty in dress and the effects their dress has upon men. Read it carefully and be honest
with yourself. Is not 90% (at least) of what this brother writes right on target? If so, we
Christian husbands and fathers have a big job to do in correcting the dress of our women.
Most of us will find some things in what follows to quibble over. (I don’t enforce
everything he suggests with my wife and girls-though I’ll think about it more carefully now!)
Let’s listen to this appeal not in order to find points of disagreement or to practice self-
justification. Let’s discuss these things with our wives and daughters. Let’s all ask the Lord
to help us learn what honors him in the area of clothing. (This article may be freely
distributed and reprinted.)
We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention the sin of
Bath-sheba. And it is true enough that David’s sin was very great, and Bath-sheba’s very
small. David’s sin was deliberate and presumptuous, Bath-sheba’s only a sin of ignorance.
David committed deliberate adultery and murder; Bath-sheba only carelessly and
undesignedly exposed herself before David’s eyes. We have no doubt that David’s sin was
great, and Bath-sheba’s small. Yet it remains a fact that Bath-sheba’s little sin was the cause
of David’s great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless exposure
of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame. “Behold how great a forest is
set aflame by such a small fire!” On the one side, only a little carelessness-only a little
thoughtless, unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David. But on the other
side, adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the loss of a husband, besides the death
in battle of other innocent men; great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme;
the shame of an illegitimate pregnancy, and the death of the child; the uprising and the
death of Absalom; the defiling of David’s wives in the sight of all Israel; the sword never
departing from David’s house (2 Sam. 12:11-18). Again I say, “Behold how great a forest is
set aflame by such a small fire!” None of this great evil would ever have taken place if Bath-
sheba had only been careful to not display her body in the sight of a man. Observe: she
neither designed nor foresaw any of this evil, yet she was the occasion of it all. She did not
display herself purposely or wantonly: she only did it ignorantly and thoughtlessly. Yet the
results of her little sin of ignorance were just the same as if it had been purposeful
wantonness. Now the reason for my writing all of the above is this: there are many
Christian women today who are guilty of the same carelessness as Bath-sheba was. Godly
women, who would recoil with horror from the very thought of wantonly displaying their
bodies, do nevertheless carelessly and thoughtlessly display themselves habitually, by the
manner in which they dress. I do not write to accuse them of intentional wantonness. I
believe they are as innocent of that as Bath-sheba was. But neither can I altogether excuse
them from blame in the matter. The whole world is well aware that certain kinds of
feminine dress are provocative and tempting to the eyes and heart of a man-and are
Christian women alone altogether naive and ignorant? This can hardly be; and yet I do not
write to blame you, but to instruct you-to provoke you to love and good works, to make
you thoughtful where you have been thoughtless before, to make you careful for the
spiritual welfare of the weakest of your brethren, where you were careless about it before,
to make you wise where before you were simple.
Nakedness Before Others Is Wrong
The first thing which must be understood is that nakedness before the eyes of others is
wrong. It is wrong in a man, and it is wrong in a woman. When Adam and Eve sinned, God
made “coats of skins, and clothed them.” The sole reason for his clothing them was to
cover their nakedness, as the Genesis account makes plain. Observe, he clothed them with
coats. They were already wearing aprons, which probably covered as much as, or more
than, much of the clothing which is worn today, yet in spite of their aprons they were still
naked in their own eyes and in God’s. And God did not clothe them with shorts, or
swimming suits, or tank tops, or halter tops, or anything of the sort-nor with jackets, either,
but with coats, long coats, or robes as the word might properly be translated. Observe
further, he clothed them with coats. He did not clothe Eve with a coat, and Adam with a
pair of shorts. He clothed them both with coats-whence we may assuredly gather that
nakedness is just as wrong in a man as it is in a woman. But if it is equally wrong for a man
to expose his nakedness as it is for a woman, it is not equally dangerous, for the passions of
women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man’s body-and many
women affirm, that the sight does not arouse them at all. A man therefore may (though he
ought not to) go three fourths naked, and not do much damage by it. But when a woman
exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who
sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because this is a fact, you are not at liberty
to dress any way you please. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you
have been bought with a price: Therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). But if
you dress in such a way as to expose your body, and if you fear God and love your
neighbor, your dare not use the temple of the Holy Spirit as an instrument of
unrighteousness to allure the eyes and tempt the hearts and tantalize the passions of men.
Many men are wicked, and will lust after you in spite of anything you can do to prevent it.
They have “eyes full of adultery and that never cease from sin” (2 Pet. 2:14). Should you
therefore help them to sin? Should you put further temptation in their way? Will God
excuse you if you do? Other men, godly men, are not wicked, but only weak. David was not
wicked. He was a man after God’s own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed woman,
he was weak-and it would be a rare man who was not. Your brethren in Christ are not
wicked, but they may be weak. And the devil does all he can do to weaken them further.
They are forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights which
are designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of
heart. And must Christian women help the devil to do his work? Must they make
themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the Congregation of God? Oh, that you
could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren, when you
arouse their desires by the careless display of your feminine beauty. Oh, that you could hear
their pleadings with God for help and deliverance from the power of those temptations.
Oh, that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has
overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would
you plead for your right to dress as you please. The fact is, you have no such right. You
have no right to destroy by your careless dress the brother for whom Christ died. You are
bought with a price and are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your
body, to clothe that body, not as you will, but as God wills. And a little real love for the
souls of your brethren would remove forever from your heart the desire to dress as you
please. “Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength
and not just please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his
edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of
those who reproached Thee fell upon Me.’” (Rom. 15:1-3). Christ was willing to deny
himself all of the glories of heaven, and bear the reproaches of the ungodly for your sake, in
order to save your soul, and will you plead for your right to please yourself in your dress?
Can you not deny yourself a little comfort to save another man’s soul? Can you not bear a
little reproach for being “old-fashioned” or “out of style,” in order to help your brother in
his battle against sin?
Take a Man’s Word for It
You may think I’m making too much of too little. You may suppose the case is not so
serious as I have represented it to be. But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience
the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s.
They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or
inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s. If you would
understand the workings of a man’s passions towards a woman, you must take a man’s
word for it. You cannot experience it yourself. And the plain fact is, a man’s passions are
easily excited by the sight of a woman’s body, as was plainly the case with David and Bath-
sheba, when he beheld her washing herself. Most men, it is true, will be better able to resist
your allurement than David did Bath-sheba’s. They will not go so far as to seduce or rape
you. But how do you know that they can resist the thought and desire of it? How do you
know that they do not sin with their eyes and heart and imagination? There is great pleasure
to a man in merely looking and lusting, even though he goes no further. You know very
well that the Bible says, “… everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed
adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28), and will you say that this is not a serious
matter? It is serious, for it is sin and sin is serious. Sin blights and deforms and ruins and
destroys and damns. And if you would know just how serious a matter this is, you need
only read the very next verse, which says, “And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it
out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish,
than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Here is probably the most solemn
statement in the Bible concerning the seriousness of sin, and it is spoken with reference to
the very sin which you may so lightly and thoughtlessly occasion by your careless dress.
This is not a light matter, and you dare not treat it lightly. At this point you may say,
“Amen: all true; but I do not need to hear it, for I dress modestly.” Are you quite sure of it?
If you follow the fashions and practices of this age, you assuredly do not dress modestly,
for modesty is ignored by many of them, and purposely thrown to the winds by many
others. And it may be that you, being a woman, and not able to see yourself through a
man’s eye, are unable to perceive that which may really be tempting and provocative in your
own dress. God would have you to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt.
10:16). But if you unthinkingly dress as the rest of the world does, you are assuredly neither
wise nor harmless. Not wise, for however ignorant and innocent you may be, you are
following a system of fashion which is designed by wicked men and devils to break down
and destroy the morals of men. Not harmless, for however little you may intend it, you
make yourself a fiery dart in the hands of the wicked one to tempt every man who sees you.
You will pardon my plain speaking, then, if I give you some specific instructions in order to
make you wise. That being done, I have confidence that the godliness of your own heart
will make you harmless. As said before, the obvious design of God in making clothing for
Adam and Eve was to cover their nakedness, and any clothing which fails to do so cannot
be right. Bare backs, bare midriffs, bare legs and thighs, are wrong-wrong in the sight of
that God who clothed Adam and Eve with coats to cover their bare bodies. Shorts, halter
tops, swimming suits, and anything and everything else which intentionally leave you
partially nude, have no place in the dress of a woman professing godliness. Whatever the
rest of the world may do, you are bond to do right. And whatever the rest of the church
may do, you are bound to do right. And the things which I have just mentioned are so
obvious and so flagrant a violation of the purpose of God in clothing you, that there ought
not to be a moments question as to what is right. But (alas) the standards of the church are
sunk so low in our day that there are actually Christians and preachers who will defend such
things. They will actually defend what they call “mixed bathing”-that is, men and women
freely mixing together in a state of almost nudity. Have they no shame? Have they no
sense? I do not believe they will defend such things when they stand before the judgment
seat of Christ. If they have no shame now, they will have some then. Meanwhile we need
say no more about forms of dress which so obviously thwart the purpose of God. Let us
turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant, nevertheless violate the evident
purpose of God. Let us turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant,
nevertheless violate the evident purpose of clothing.
Short Dresses
You need no one to tell you that these are wrong. The whole world knows that they are
provocative to a man’s eyes. But women who profess godliness, women who ought to
know better, will simply follow the current fashions of the world, whether long or short,
without any reference to what is right. Others will quibble about how short is too short.
Rather than making very sure their dresses are plenty long, they will make them as short as
they dare, while still persuading themselves that they are long enough. You may stand at
attention in front of your mirror, and persuade yourself that your too-short dress reveals
nothing, but only let you sit down, only let you bend over, only let you get in or out of a
car, and what a spectacle of nudity you present. And whether you design it or not, and
whether you like it or not, those nude legs and thighs of yours are provocation to lust in the
eyes of men. For the same reason you ought to have nothing to do with those skirts which
are slit half-way up the sides. Who cannot see that the design of such a fashion is to expose
your thighs to view? Or is it to enable you to walk? So much the worse if it is. If your skirt
is so tight that you cannot walk without cutting the sides, by all means throw it away, and
get something with a little more material. We shall have more to say about tight clothing
further along. Do you ask how long your dresses ought to be? See that your legs are well
covered below the knee, front and back, while you are bending over or sitting down, and
you will be safe enough. But be careful here: it is not enough that your legs should be
covered only from the vantage point of your own eyeballs. When you bend over or sit
down, the front of your dress will naturally hang lower, so as to cover more of your legs,
but the back will be drawn up so as to expose more of your legs. If you would be safe, your
dresses should cover you well below the knee in all postures.
Low Necklines
Again, the whole world knows very well that these are a great temptation to the eyes of a
man. And if you are a godly woman, no doubt you would never dream of purposely
wearing a neckline too low. But you may be doing it nevertheless, through thoughtlessness
or ignorance. It is not only low necklines which offend, but also large or loose ones. You
may stand erect in front of your mirror wearing a large or loose neckline, and think it
perfectly modest. But only bend over a little, so that the material of your blouse falls away
from your body, and immediately the most provocative and tempting part of your anatomy
is exposed to the view of any man who happens to be standing in front of you. The same is
true, of course, when you dress with the top two or three buttons of your blouse
unbuttoned. This looks provocative, even if nothing were actually exposed by it. It looks
seductive. It looks to a man as though you must design to expose yourself and tantalize his
passions. What else can he think? For what other purpose could you leave two of three
buttons of your blouse unbuttoned? Do you say it is for comfort? Because you cannot bear
a tight choking collar? I believe you could learn to bear it, as the men of the world do in
order to display their stylish neckties. But waive that. It may be legitimate to leave your
blouse open at the neck for comfort’s sake, and it may even be modest (depending upon
the garment), provided you unbutton one button only. There can be no possible reason of
excuse for leaving two or three buttons open. It will add nothing to your comfort. It is
simply following a wicked fashion of a wicked world. Your collar will no more choke you
with one button open than it will with three. One button open will always be a great plenty
for comfort’s sake, and with some blouses it will be too much. If you can leave your top
button open, yet not expose your breasts when you bend over and the material of your
blouse falls away from your bosom, very well. This may depend upon the nature of the
blouse, as well as the size of your bust. But if there is any danger of exposing yourself, you
had better button all your buttons. You can scarcely be too careful here, for there is no part
of a woman’s body so alluring to a man as her breasts, and when a man sees a woman with
the top two or three buttons of her blouse open, he will probably conclude that it is her
intention to tempt and tantalize men. Is this the impression you wish to give? If not, button
your buttons, snap your snaps, and zip your zippers. And if you happen to bend over a little
in front of a man, and he sees your breasts actually exposed because of your large, loose,
low, or open necklines, unless he is a very rare man, he will be tantalized by the sight,
whatever you may think or intend. Therefore you cannot do as the rest of the world does.
Let your neckline be high enough and small enough to be in fact a neckline, and not a chest
or shoulder line, and you will be safe. Note well: this means that if the neck hole of your
garment is large enough to slip over your head, it is probably too large.
Sleeveless Blouses
Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to understand it, you
underarms, and the parts of your chest and of your back which immediately adjoin them,
are very attractive to a man; and a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts. You
must also bear in mind that others will see you from all angles and in all positions, and the
armholes of a sleeveless blouse will often allow a man to see inside the blouse, especially
when your arms are uplifted or outstretched, thus displaying part of your chest, and
probably some of your breast. The same is true of a short-sleeved blouse which has very
large or loose sleeves. This may be perfectly modest as long as you keep your elbows at
your sides, but as soon as you raise your arms you create an opening through which a man
may see inside your blouse, and this is a great snare to his heart. Remember you are a
woman, and cannot see yourself as a man sees you. I am a man, and know what it is to be
tempted by such sights. And if only the weakest of your brethren might be tempted by your
sleeveless or loose-sleeve blouses, ought you not to deny yourself a little comfort or
fashion, and conceal your body a little better for his good?
Sheer Clothing
It ought to be unnecessary to say anything about clothing which is so light or so sheer that a
man may see through it. The obvious and undeniable design of such clothing is to thwart
the purpose of clothing, and expose your body rather than covering it. This you cannot help
but realize. Everyone else knows it also, and when a man sees you thus attired, what can he
think but that it is your intention to display your body to his sight? And yet so low are the
standards in the church today that it is not uncommon to see Christian women wearing see-
through clothing. If you have been guilty of this, your first business is to repent, to reject at
once everything which is obviously and purposely sheer. You ought to be careful also not
to wear any material which is so light or so thin that it may be seen through when you are in
direct light, such as in front of a window. Finally, reject any material of a very coarse weave:
wear clothing not netting.
Tight Clothing
Dress which explicitly reveals your form is as bad as that which reveals your nakedness. The
whole world knows that such dress is provocative-notoriously and proverbially so-and
when a man sees a woman dressed in tight clothing that reveals and displays every curve of
her form, his passions will certainly be excited by the sight-perhaps not so quickly or so
strongly as they would be by the sight of your naked form, but excited nonetheless. The
world calls tight clothing “revealing”, which is exactly what it is, and as such it is an obvious
violation of the purpose of God in clothing you. Every women who professes godliness,
therefore, ought religiously to refuse every form of dress which reveals and displays her
figure. Specifically, you must be cautious when wearing sweaters, sweat shirts, tee shirts, and
anything made of knit, stretchy, or soft, clinging material. It may be revealing unless
perhaps it is very loose. Woven material, with some stiffness and body to it, will conceal
your form much better. This is of the utmost importance, especially for a woman who is
large in the bust. There is no sight on earth which will surely attract a man’s eyes, and so
quickly inflame his passions, as the sight of a woman’s breasts-whether they are actually
exposed, or their form displayed by tight or clinging clothing. This is a fact which the world
knows very well. Twenty-five years ago the world was singing a popular song about the
pleasure of seeing a woman in a sweater and a tight skirt. The natures of man and woman
have not changed in twenty-five years. When a man looks at you he should see your
clothing, and not the shape and form of everything which is inside it. Sweaters, tee shirts,
and knit blouses in their very nature cling to your body and reveal and display the shape and
form of it. And you must take a man’s word for it that the shape and form of a woman’s
body, even though it is covered with clothing, will draw his eyes, inflame his passions, or
arouse his imagination, just about as quickly and surely as the sight of her actual skin. I do
not say that it is impossible for a woman to wear a sweater or knit top which is not too
revealing. What I do say is that the sweaters and knit tops which American women usually
wear are almost always too tight. They might do better if they would wear their sweater
several sizes larger than they usually do. A women who is very small in the bust may fairly
easily wear sweaters which are loose enough to conceal her form, but the larger her breasts
are, the more difficult this will become. A woman who is large in the bust had best avoid
knit clothing altogether. She will have a hard enough time of it to conceal her form without
wearing sweaters. I cannot emphasize this too much, or insist upon it too strongly. A
woman-especially a woman who is large in the bust-must understand, must take a man’s
word for it, that the sight of her bust may take away a man’s heart in a moment. If she
wishes to wear a sweater for warmth, she can easily wear a loose cotton blouse over (not
under) it, and be warmer yet. True this will not be stylish, but no matter about that. I am
writing for godly women, who would rather please God than the world. Understand also
that you will accomplish little by exchanging tight sweaters for tight blouses. A blouse of
woven material in its very nature will conceal your form better than a sweater, but it may
still be provocative enough if it is too tight. You ladies who are overweight often offend in
this, by wearing the same clothes you would if you were twenty or thirty pounds lighter.
And it is nothing but foolish pride which keeps you from wearing a larger size. Your blouse
should never be stretched tight across your bosom, but should have slack enough in the fit
that when a man looks at you he sees the blouse, and not the form of what is inside of it.
For this reason you should also learn to avoid provocative positions and postures. By this I
mean any position which makes your bust prominent, or stretches your clothing tight over
it-such as standing with your hands on your hips and your elbows thrown back, or yawning
and stretching with your back arched. You should likewise refuse dresses with what is called
an empress waistline-which girds the garment around your body immediately below the
bust, instead of at the waist. The unavoidable effect of this is to prominently display your
bust. Again I tell you, I am a man, and know very well what it is to be tempted by such
sights-and it may take only a moment’s involuntary sight to turn a man’s heart or
imagination into the wrong channels.
Slacks
Here we have come to a bone of contention which divides churches, families, and friends.
The background is this: historically in our culture, the men have worn pants, and the
women dresses. This is an undisputed fact, which is embodied in the proverbial expression
that a wife who runs the house “wears the pants in the family.” The feminist movement,
which is more than a century old, has sought to put the pants on all the women, figuratively
speaking. It has sought to “liberate” the woman from her God-anointed place of subjection
to the man, and to give her “equal rights” to do whatever the man may do. The spirit of this
movement has also put upon the woman’s body the man’s clothing-namely, slacks. And the
church has followed the world in so doing. Many of the older and stricter men of God, less
influenced by the world themselves, take a strong stand against women wearing pants.
Slacks, they say, are men’s clothing, and (on the basis of Deut. 22:5) it is an abomination for
a women to wear them. The younger set, most of whom have grown up with women
wearing slacks, and who probably know nothing of the historical background of the
question, can see no point in the stand which their elders take, and so regard it as narrow-
minded and petty. “The slacks which women wear,” they say, “were made for women and
are not men’s clothing.” On the one side it may be argued that God made neither slacks for
Adam nor a dress for Eve, but coats for both of them. Yet Deut. 22:5 certainly assumes
that the same clothing is not to be worn by both men women, and it is also certain that
historically in our country the slacks have been the men’s clothing. It may be argued that
the culture has changed, so that slacks are now acceptable clothing for women also. Yet
when we consider the sinister forces which have wrought to change our culture, we may
plead that the change is no way recognized by God, but is an abomination to him. I say no
more than this, for it is outside the purpose of this article to settle this controversy. I do not
ask here, is it wrong in the eyes of God for a woman to wear slacks? I ask, What effect are
her slacks likely to have on the eyes of men? And first, by their very nature slacks are apt to
reveal and display your form. Women contend for modest slacks, but who wears them? In
the very nature of the case, it is difficult to make a pair of modest slacks (especially for a
woman who has a full figure), and as a matter of fact, it is an extremely rare thing to see a
woman in slacks which are not too tight. Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit
loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their legs and thighs and hips
and buttocks and crotch? Truly because it is the god of this world who inspires these styles,
and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a
man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s thighs and buttocks
and crotch. Your crotch-your “private part’s”-you ought by all means to keep carefully
concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting
skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to
conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your
knees. But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a
little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your
legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will
be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other
women wear. So unless you are so thin that you have no form with which to attract a man,
or so fat that your form will only disgust him (and you are no competent judge of this), you
had best leave slacks alone. Though you may not be able to understand it (for the sight of a
man will probably not affect you in the same way), it is the sight of the form which will
arouse a man’s passions. What a man’s touch is to a woman, the sight of a woman is to a
man. This is plain enough in the Bible account of David and Bath-sheba, and every honest
man will tell you the same thing. You must believe it on the word of a man, though you
may not be able to understand it. The sight of the form of your thighs and buttocks and
crotch will tempt the heart of a man, and it is the nature of slacks to display the form of
those parts. Some, who believe it is wrong for a woman to wear slacks, but who wish to
accommodate their ladies for engagement in the more masculine type of activities,
recommend the wearing of culottes, which are sort of a cross between a skirt and slacks.
Our only question concerning them is, are they modest or immodest? They may be either,
depending upon several things. If they are fashioned so as to look like a loose-fitting skirt,
and are long enough, they may be as modest as a skirt. Unfortunately, many of them more
nearly resemble slacks, or even shorts, than a skirt. If yours are long enough and loose
enough to keep you well covered and concealed in all postures, they may be as acceptable as
a modest skirt.
Enough of specific instructions. We must next answer some objections.
Objections
(1) “WHAT RIGHT HAS THIS FELLOW TO PRESCRIBE ALL OF THESE
LEGALISTIC RULES FOR WOMEN?”
I answer, if we lived without sin in the garden of Eden, you could dress just as you please,
or not dress at all, and hurt no one by it. But in this world you cannot, and if you do you
will only be helping to swell the tide of sin. I write for godly women, who want to do what
is right, but who are not likely to know how to do right without some instruction from a
man. I seek only to give you some instruction, which only a man can give, concerning the
effects your dress will have an the men who see you. And I suppose that truly godly women
will be happy to receive such instruction. It is usually the worldly, who are not willing to do
right at any cost, who raise the cry of legalism.
(2) “THIS IS A SMALL MATTER, AND NOT WORTHY OF SO MUCH ADO.”
We ought to be occupied with the weightier matters of the law, the matters of the heart,
and not make such a fuss over little outward things. This may be an outward thing, but it is
not a little one. Can you read Matthew 5:28-29 and yet contend that this is a little matter?
But suppose it is a little matter: can you therefore lightly pass over it, or ignore it? Not so,
for “he who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is
unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10). The Lord does
not rebuke the Jews for attending to the small matters, but only because they did so to the
neglect of the weightier matters. “These [the weightier matters] are the things you should
have done without neglecting the others [the small matters]” (Luke 11:42).
(3) “ANY MAN WHO VIEWS WOMEN SO MUST BE PERVERTED.”
Yes: be it known unto you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine
purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, and especially the sin of
lust. Sin easily besets us (Heb. 12:1). But understand, though all men are perverted from
their original purity, and though the passions of all men (except those who are perverted in
a worse way) are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that
the practices of all men are alike, or with feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If
you but dress right, and act right, and associate with the right kind of men, in the right kind
of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable. But there
will great plenty of occasion for you to be careful, even in the presence of the best men.
Why? Because though the godly “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”
(Gal. 5:24), and have renounced the unlawful indulgence of those desires, yet the desires
themselves remain. It is in the godly that “the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit” (v.17).
Men may strive hard to mortify those passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact,
attested also by virtually universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent human
endeavors to mortify those passions are usually not very successful. It was a man of God
who was overcome by the allurement of Bath-sheba. To return to the original question:
whether men are “perverted” or not is really beside the point. To what extent his desires are
normal and right, or to what extent they are the result of his sinfulness, may be difficult to
determine. But what difference does it make? You must deal with the facts as they are, not
as you wish they were. The real fact is: many men are weak, and easily tempted by the sight
of the feminine form. Suppose that some men are so strong, that you could not tempt them
if you would-what then? The fact remains that many men are weak. With the strong you
need not concern yourself, but you are bound by duty (as you ought to be moved by love)
to “bear the weaknesses of the weak”-yes, even of the weakest-and not to put stumbling
blocks in their way (Rom.15:1; 14:13).
(4) “IF A MAN LOOKS UPON ME TO LUST, THAT IS HIS SIN NOT MINE.”
No-”you are no longer walking according to love. … It is good not to eat meat or to drink
wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles” (Rom. 14:15,21). David was made
weak, David was made to stumble, by Bath-sheba’s careless exposure of herself; and your
display of your feminine beauty will have the same effect upon your brethren. After reading
this article, you can hardly plead that you do not know this, and “to one who knows the
right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). If you were completely
ignorant of the effects undress might have upon a man, you might dress as you please
without sin, but not otherwise. Every man is fully responsible for his own sin, but you will
certainly be held in some sense responsible for another man’s sin, if you provoke him to it.
To Ezekiel God said, “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and
you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity,
but his blood I will require from your hand” (Ezek. 33:8). The wicked is fully responsible
for his own sin, and shall surely die for it. But the watchman is held accountable also,
merely because he failed to do what he could have done to turn the other man from his sin.
How much more will you be held accountable if you put stumbling blocks in another man’s
way, and actually provoke him to sin?
(5) “IF I WERE TO FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS I WOULD HAVE
TO BUY A WHOLE NEW WARDROBE, AND THAT I CANNOT AFFORD.”
My sister, you cannot afford to sin. If you are a real Christian, you came to Christ resolving
to forsake every sin, and do the whole will of God, at any cost. If you have a will to do
right, you will find a way-or cry to God to provide one. You can afford to change the way
you dress. You cannot afford to sin, or to provoke others to sin.
(6) “I AM NOT ATTRACTIVE OR SHAPELY. NO MAN IS LIKELY TO BE
TEMPTED BY A SIGHT OF ME. THEREFORE I MAY DRESS AS I PLEASE.”
In the first place, you are no proper judge of what is attractive to a man. It is of course true
that a shapely and beautiful woman is more likely to be a temptation to a man than a plain
woman, but it is also true that a woman who is not attractive to one man probably will be
to another, and even the homeliest will be attractive to somebody. But just suppose that
you are actually so ugly that no man would ever look twice at you. What about your
example to other women? What about your example to babes in Christ, who have dressed
improperly through all their ungodly life, and who may now be looking to you to teach
them and lead them in the right way? Do you want them to look at you, and excuse their
own improper dress on the basis of your example? Finally, some women are so naive, so
ignorant of the nature of men, that they suppose that because no men are actually making
advances or propositions to them, they must be no temptation to any man. Let them
understand that a man derives great pleasure-sinful pleasure-from looking at women, from
looking at any and every attractive woman. Why do you suppose that men spend millions of
dollars every year for pornographic pictures? Let the pictures be left out of pornographic
magazines, and see how many copies they would sell! What pleasure is it which men
continually purchase at so great an expense? What pleasure can pictures afford them, except
the pleasure of looking? It is looking at a woman’s body which inflames a man’s passions
and regales his imagination, and there is great pleasure in that looking. Most men will freely
indulge in that pleasure, with little or no restraint. They will feast their eyes upon the
feminine form wherever they may find it, and this of course will include your form if you
dress so as to expose and display it. Godly men will recognize that pleasure as sinful except
when it is confined to their own wife, and they will fight hard to resist the temptation and
conquer the sin. But because of the extreme strength and intensity of the male passions
they find this to be a very hard fight. The spirit is willing but, in the face of strong
temptations, the flesh is weak. To will is present with them, but sometimes how to perform
they find not. In spite of all their determination and praying and striving, they may find
their eye seemingly involuntarily drawn to the sight of a beautiful and shapely woman, and a
moment’s involuntary sight may be enough to take the heart away. A man who has gained
some mastery over this kind of temptation may easily resist the initial onslaught, but
constant exposure to such allurement may weaken even the strongest. Therefore we are
told to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22)-to flee from the very presence of such
temptations. But whither shall we flee in this wicked world? Must we flee from the very
congregation of God in order to keep our hearts pure? Shame! Shame! If we cannot find a
safe asylum there!
To conclude: There is nothing at all wrong or evil about your physical beauty. It is the
creation of God, and is, like all that God created, “very good.” It was designed by God for a
specific purpose: the woman was made “for the man” (1 Cor. 11:9). The perfectly obvious
design of your beauty is to ravish and satisfy the heart of a man-but a man, not of every
man. If God has joined you to that one man, then by all means, give that beauty to him
with all your heart, and say to him, “Hurry, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young stag
on the mountains of spices” (Song of Solomon 8:14). Let him be, as God commands him,
satisfied with your breasts at all times, and always ravished with your love (Prov. 5:19). Thus
satisfied, he will be less susceptible to the beauty and charms of other women. Thus used,
the beauty of your body will glorify the God who gave it to you, and serve the man for
whom it was given. But if you put it on display, and prostitute it to the gaze of the whole
world, you only glorify yourself and serve the devil.
Postscript
If you are as most women are, much of the material in this article may be new and strange
to you. You may not be able to understand it, and may be reluctant to believe it. Some of
the women who have read the manuscript can scarcely be persuaded to believe that the
male passions are as I represented them, but the men to whom I have submitted it have
fully endorsed it. One of them (a godly man and a preacher) said, “I wish I had about two
million copies.” I beg you therefore to believe these things, though you may not he able to
understand them. Secondly, I beg you to not be content with a single reading of this paper,
but rather to study it thoroughly several times through, so that you may fully grasp and
remember all that it says. Then, by all means, act upon what it teaches you. And finally, do
everything in your power to teach these things to your sisters in Christ.
In so doing you will very much oblige,
Your Brother in Christ”
April 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm
That should be “Joshuahshouse.com” . And it looks like it is a polygamous site, too.
Wow, polygamists have more in common with patriarchalists than I thought. I am truly amazed. Even the articles are the same. The teachings are almost identical and so are the buzzwords they use.
April 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Is it just me or are there a lot of men out there who are just bitter with women because Eve gave the fruit to Adam? I mean, they definitely take Adam’s side when it comes to the whole “blameshifting” game.
Or maybe I’m just a horrible person because God saw it fit to create me as a woman. This really grinds my nerves!
April 10, 2008 at 2:34 pm
This whole Joshuah’s House thing creeps me out, because in our church, the young adult service is called Joshua House. The two are NOT related, but it’s amazing how people can twist something to their own whims.
April 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other women wear.”
And men’s pants do the very same thing when THEY bend over. What none of these dresses-only folks are ever willing to explain is, if pants are immodest for women for this reason, why are they not also immodest for men?
The dresses-only crowd is quick to point oput that the sight of a man’s form does not inflame the passions of a woman as the sight of a woman does a man, but what about men inflaming the passions of other men? There are a LOT of men out there who are straight in practice, but who struggle with homosexual thoughts. If the mere outline of a derriere is such a temptation to a male, shouldn’t they all wear robes so as to avoid tempting weaker brothers to perversion, or don’t the souls of those weaker brothers matter?
April 10, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“That should be “Joshuahshouse.com” . And it looks like it is a polygamous site, too.
Wow, polygamists have more in common with patriarchalists than I thought. I am truly amazed. Even the articles are the same. The teachings are almost identical and so are the buzzwords they use.”
They had a yahoo group as wel, that they used to recruit like-minded people to their group, and another website as well, that was taken down after being infiltrated. They are quite fond of VisionForum, to say the least.
April 10, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Ah, the Sin of Bathsheba… a true classic among the dresses-only articles out there. My best friend wrote a FANTASTIC response to this article:
http://ourhomeschoolfaith.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/the-sin-of-bathsheba/
The comments that follow are interesting as well…
April 10, 2008 at 3:19 pm
One thing they leave out of the “Bathseba sinned” argument (of which I disagree) is that if David had been where he was supposed to be–with his army–the sin would not have happened in the first place. He would not have on his roof walking around, only to look down and see Bathseba. I would imagine, since kings went off to battle with their armies, that she assumed that is where David was and felt comfortable taking a bath on top of her own home. This is in line with the modern day thought of “well, she asked for it” when a woman in a short skirt is raped.
April 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.”
And then the PM’s “spiritual head” can deem her pure of heart and motives and that will be the end of it.
Where is this train of correction in Scripture? Shouldn’t we all be open to receive correction from each other? Where does Scripture say that we have to take a rebuke from another sister or brother to our “authorities”? Matthew 18 doesn’t seem to indicate this at all.
Up until now, I wasn’t aware that now there is some heirarchal chain of command in order for a female to receive correction or rebuke from another brother or sister in Christ.
What she should do is consider it and listen to what the person is saying to her and if they are right, she should apologize and repent for her offense. There is no middle-man in the process unless the rebuke is groundless and she is unable to show that to the person rebuking her. Even then, she doesn’t necessarily have to bring in some male authority. She could bring in someone else who knows much more about the situation to help her resolve it.
April 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I think it’s kind of sad that people just seem to miss the obvious: IF David had merely SEEN Bathsheba, we wouldn’t even have the story in the Bible, most likely. She was fulfilling a commandment, and he was idly up on the roof when he was supposed to have been with the army. Be that as it may, he saw her. So what? He’s the one that pushed things. He was the king, whose word was law, who demanded to lie with another man’s wife, then even had the husband killed in war so that he could marry his wife…he who already had many wives! “Bathsheba could have refused.” Theoretically. But a king who was so determined to sin with a woman not his wife, would have engineered things so that no one could have intervened. He did things secretly, on purpose. “She wouldn’t have taken her bath on the roof.” She wasn’t necessarily ON the roof. She was someplace where the king on HIS roof, looking down, could see her. That’s all we know. And he demanded sexual relations with her, his subject.
So really, the seeing of a naked woman was not the point. The point was that this man, who already had his predecessor’s harem and more power than any other person in the entire kingdom, decided to sin based on a sight that he wouldn’t have seen but for his own neglect of his responsibilities.
And as usual, the blame is pawned off on the woman. But notice who the BIBLE blames…
April 10, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The other thing about the Bathsheba incident is that not only did God punish them by taking their first baby, he took 3 more of David’s sons by other women. If Bathsheba was entirely at fault, then there’s no reason God would punish David for it. As it were, DAVID bears the punishment, NOT Bathsheba (except for the first baby). And isn’t it interesting that Solomon was ALSO a son of Bathsheba???
Do people even BOTHER to read their Bibles anymore, or do they just make it up to fulfill their own crazy fantasies about how the world ought to be?
April 10, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Oh, WOW. MEMORIES. DE JA VU.
I read The Sin of Bathsheba several times when I was in my early teens.
I had NO discernment whatsoever.
And that statement “the passions of
women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man’s body-” and also “But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience
the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s.
They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or
inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s.”
Right. Ha. Seriously, that must have been one of the most harmful things I read as a young girl. I don’t know lots, but I think I can say this is NOT something to tell a young girl who is starting to mature. It does not prepare for her for growing up and dealing with her own unique body and emotions, and also it gives a somewhat simplistic view of men in general. Don’t get me started on the assumptions that there are certain things that MUST arouse, either. We already talked about the legalistic rule things actually creating lust, and the points you ladies made were very good. Also, this man just cannot speak for every man in the authoritive way he presumes to.
April 10, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Okay y’all, but forgive me a bit.
Do these fundies really think all men and women ever think about is sex?
I mean come on. I see attractive men every day and I do not have an “urge” to think about them in that way. My husband works with several beautiful women, and he does not have the “urge” to think about them in that way all the time
Maybe it is just us latent feminist types and big tent-ers that don’t struggle with sexual issues all the time. In their imaginary-like little world, there are boobs and butts everywhere, I guess. Maybe I’m jaded but I don’t LOOK at this stuff half the time. I don’t go around examining other people’s clothing options and choices to see what kind of thrill it rises in me or not.
That article Corrie posted about the sin of Bath-sheba is annoying to me. It is so backwards, it is not even funny! They really teach these things to their daughters?
How about teaching MEN and BOYS a little self-discipline of thoughts and actions?
April 10, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I know a couple girls with eating disorders, and I think the attitude that women’s bodies are a source of sin contributes big time. When you are constantly told to cover up your body, or your body is made a focal point as you mature, you are ashamed of it. You may wish to retain as child-like a figure as possible. Further, for some girls in very bad patriarchal situations, their weight is the only thing they can control.
April 10, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Sarah, you make a good point. I had a very hard time learning to like and enjoy “married relations” with my husband. For 6 years before we were married we were told how bad, naughty, wrong, etc it was.
I had to really shift my thinking to go from “no-no” to “oh you should really enjoy this.”
I could see how eating disorders would play in with this sin-stained women’s bodies teaching.
Gotta go to work!
April 10, 2008 at 4:31 pm
This article makes our out husbands and fathers and sons and brothers to be little better than a troop of hormone-crazed chimpanzees, and frankly I feel insulted on their behalf.
And, if it’s true that “you are a woman and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s. They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s”, then doesn’t that make MAN the “weaker vessel”???
If men are so easily led astray by their brute passions, why are they deemed more fit to be in positions of authority? (For that matter, why are they even allowed to run around LOOSE?)
Talk about trying to have your patrio-cake and eat it too….
April 10, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I meant, “This article makes our husbands and fathers and sons and brothers out to be little better than…” sheesh…
April 10, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Abby wrote: Is it just me or are there a lot of men out there who are just bitter with women because Eve gave the fruit to Adam? I mean, they definitely take Adam’s side when it comes to the whole “blameshifting” game.
Or maybe I’m just a horrible person because God saw it fit to create me as a woman. This really grinds my nerves!
This is really hard for me to read. When I was preparing for that “YouTube thing, I worked through a bunch of material from both John MacArthur and Bruce Ware who teach (contrary to what Paul says explicitly) that sin actually entered the world through Eve and not Adam. I have NEVER heard anything like this except from a faction of Catholics. The other thing that cut through me like a knife was the statements of many of the pagan-minded, new age (many of them very Catholic and mystical) people I trained with when I learned hypnotherapy. They were ALL very feminist, and this is all that they said about men — and they sounded just like Abby’s statement here. To hear this coming from a minister and a former Dean at a seminary that I once fantasized about attending for medical ethics just sickens me deeper than you can know. THEY ARE MAKING FEMINISTS’ ARGUMEMNTS FOR THEM, and I can’t say that I can blame these new age feminists. How can I dare tell them that this is not so, when MacAruthur and Ware (with their titles and stature) provide such blatant evidence that proves their case?
I believe that when you go to the Word without any preconceived notions about what it means (perhaps one of the greatest challenge of good Christian scholarship), it means that Eve didn’t have full understanding of what she was doing… She was so guileless that she was decieved and she was held accountable for her disobedience, but Adam knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway. This is why I was taught that Adam had to be circumstised, to trim away the sign of sin and why Jesus could not come through Adam. A woman experiences something similar when she is first initmate, but her “circumcision” is one of purity. It’s interesting too, because there is nothing in the account prior to the fall that states that Adam and Eve were sexually intimate. It’s funny because many people in Covenant Theology labor over the children Adam and Eve had if they hadn’t run over to the Tree of Knowledge so quickly to partake. Well, we don’t have any idea how long they were in the garden — it could have been years — and we are not told whether they are intimate. These are all arguments from silence and ignorance and mere “speculation.”
April 10, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“Sins of our Dining Brothers”
Unfortunately, I can’t take credit for that hilarious spoof. Wish I still had a copy of it!
April 10, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Cynthia Gee wrote: This article makes our out husbands and fathers and sons and brothers to be little better than a troop of hormone-crazed chimpanzees, and frankly I feel insulted on their behalf.
Cynthia, this is a major point that people gloss right over. In their seeking to be so pious, they actually fall right into Social Darwinism. This happens with all these issues of lust and it happens with their evil, karmic twist on election (survival of the fittest). There’s not a bit of Jesus in there and not a bit of grace for anyone, really.
April 10, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Oh, and I think these articles are disgusting and suggestive. If men all men are so given over to lust, why on earth is it appropriate to write this kind of thing for mixed company. It’s as foul as the immodesty that they claim is offensive.
April 10, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Light,
This is really sweet of you to say. And it’s a good thing that your sister didn’t have any major health problems like open heart surgery, or I might have met up with her in the ICU at U of M! Moonlighted at Hopkins, too, just for kicks and extra money with which to start a home business and break the monotony. I lived not to far from BWI for five years, and I loved it there.
I wish I had known how easy it was to just used YouTube to start with, but the whole things was so packed with info, I figured that I would need to do it in one big file. But Raphael who did the video did such an awesome job on capturing the powerpoint on the film, it is easy to follow, even on a small screen playback. (I never, even a week ago, would have dreamed that I would end up on YouTube and I am mortified!) But the topic is not about me at all, and the fact that they demean the Lord Jesus so much (and only 5 or so Christian ministries or persons seem disturbed about this), I’m willing to do it. I’m mortified, but this is what I signed up for, right?
God bless Raphael of http://www.spiritwatch.org who did all this fine work producing the whole video as a labor of love.
April 10, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Another thing these dresses-only folks never want to talk about is the fact that most dirty old men who like to bother young girls, prefer them in DRESSES.
When I was about 14, there was a certain school administrator that the girls knew to stay away from. If you got into trouble and were called into his office for any reason, he would come across as very kind and sympathetic, ask about your home situation and your relationship with your father, etc, etc. He would tell you how pretty you were, and how much prettier you would look in skirts, instead of the jeans that most of us girls wore, and he would say that he wanted to see you in a nice skirt the next time you visited his office. Then he would suggest that all you needed was more affection, and give you a big hug and send you ion your way. If you were dumb enough to wear a skirt to school after that, he would call you into his office for another little talk, still very proper and fatherly, except that the hug would last longer, and be less platonic, and of course, you would leave with an appointment to see him again for personal counselling, and you would be asked to wear a nice, feminine skirt on that day…
Many young women were molested by that old goat, before someone blew the whistle on him…
April 10, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Oh, creepy … he sounds almost unreal. Yeah, some people like skirts on women for OBVIOUS reasons.
April 10, 2008 at 5:17 pm
He was real alright.
April 10, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Cindy, I’m not sure if I understood what you were saying about my earlier comment, but I wasn’t referring to all men in general, just the patriocentric attitude. And I was being a bit sarcastic, because the whole “sin of Bathsheba” thing just seemed so ridiculous.
Other than that, I don’t think it’s all that important to make a distinction between who sinned first, it happened practically at the same time (he was WITH her–he LET it happen and didn’t say a word), so are people really going to get all theological over a few seconds? The fact that they both sinned is what’s important, not who sinned first or who gave whom the fruit!
And you’re so right, the Bible does clearly place the blame for sin entering the world on Adam, yet men throughout the ages have made a case for Adam being an innocent bystander. The David/Bathsheba thing is just another example of people intentionally misinterpreting the Bible, placing blame on the woman.
I find it really strange that the whole “Harlot in the streets” thing (Proverbs) keeps coming up, because if I recall correctly, Wisdom–also personified as a woman–ALSO went up and down the streets calling to men. Is Wisdom a harlot, too? And the patriocentric men need to really consider the fact that throughout the Bible almost everything is personified as a WOMAN–including the church, Israel, etc.
April 10, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Cindy, about Adam and Eve not having relations pre-Fall … that reminds me a little of Augustine’s contention that sex is a result of the Fall, and never would have existed in a sinless world. Which is a disturbing thought, but anyway … doesn’t God tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful before the Fall … they’d have to do certain things to obey that command!
So glad you’ve got your lectures up!
April 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm
And don’t forget the girl in the Song of Songs:
Sgs 5:6 ¶ I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, [and] was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
Sgs 5:7 The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
Sgs 5:8 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I [am] sick of love.
April 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm
This is really sweet of you to say. And it’s a good thing that your sister didn’t have any major health problems like open heart surgery, or I might have met up with her in the ICU at U of M! Moonlighted at Hopkins, too, just for kicks and extra money with which to start a home business and break the monotony. I lived not to far from BWI for five years, and I loved it there.
Actually, Cindy, I was asking if YOU had a sister.
You look and sound just like someone else I know in this area. (I’m about 30 minutes away from BWI, by the way.) Having Johns Hopkins and U of M so close to us is a tremendous blessing – so many people I know have been blessed by their skills!
April 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Of course, I know you only said that we don’t KNOW for sure … but Augustine kind of went crazy with some of that line of thought … and the “be fruitful” command does seem to indicate otherwise to me … though again, the Bible doesn’t say Adam knew Eve until after the Fall.
April 10, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Light: Actually, Cindy, I was asking if YOU had a sister. You look and sound just like someone else I know in this area.
This is what I get for getting so little sleep! I have two friends here who both have sisters in Baltimore… Weird, sleepy wires crossed…
I have no sibilings (gasp!). (Does that make me a multi-generational faithful, white washed feminist, I wonder?) I just have that East Coast, touch of Appalachia/PA Dutch, grew up an hour away from Philadelphia syntax! [Every now and then, I hear a little Baltimore "Hon" in their, too.]
Abby,
I was trying to point out that your partially sarcastic comment is actually very similar for what passes for Christian doctrine… who actually give the feminists a lot of good material.
April 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I just have that East Coast, touch of Appalachia/PA Dutch, grew up an hour away from Philadelphia syntax!
Cindy, are we twins separated at birth? I lived all my teen years in Berks County, PA, and my family is still there. How ’bout you? What part of PA Dutch country?
April 10, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Light,
Oooh, Oooh! I was closer to Rodale Press… I grew up on top of South Mountain in Allentown. I went to church in Emmaus, where there are still some people that are so Dutchified that even I can barely understand their English. I can even make bubashenckel (an Amish dish)! I went to Gwynedd Mercy College in Montgomery County and did most all my nursing clinical in Philadelphia.
I have a TON of friends in Kutztown and used to sing in a group with friends there. We did some regular gigs at a coffee house there back in the early eighties. I went to church there for awhile, too. (But I no longer say “say” soliciting an affirmative response after rhetorical questions. That went over like a lead balloon when I lived Louisiana.) It’s almost like the Canadian “ehay” with a Yiddish flare.
How much Baltimore Yiddish can you pick up on? Some of it is identical to Dutch.
Now, we have to figure out how I can be your twin separated at birth and how I can also be Corrie’s who came from Wisconsin? There are lots of Germans out there in Wisconsin! Maybe it’s the sausage that does something to the brain?
April 10, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Cindy, I got it now! I do agree with you there, as my atheist/feminist friend uses every argument from patriocentric attitudes against me. The sad thing is that I can’t convince her that this is a warped view, and that it isn’t in fact biblical. I realized after several months of email discussion that I was probably using the wrong tactics with her, and just pray for her on a daily basis now that she will at some point go back to the Bible and read it without such biases. I still believe in miracles!
April 10, 2008 at 7:01 pm
29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.
This whole statement really bugs me. Who in the Bible ever mentioned “proper authorities” being the only ones who can rebuke you?
I think about how Paul rebuked Peter–Paul had no earthly authority over Peter, one could make a case for the opposite being true since Paul was not an original apostle.
This is so anti-Matthew 18, it shocks me. And the other part that I think bothers me is what was mentioned a while back about how Carmon often talks down to women who comment on her blog, as if she has authority over them simply because they come and read her “thoughts.” Having a blog that people come and ask you questions on doesn’t give you authority over them any more than having a Bible study group and being teacher for the day does.
Frightening thought–It really does seem like they have created their own “Western” religion, straight from the annals of history, rather than looking at what the Bible says. I don’t really know how you can call yourself a Bible-believing Christian if you so oppose what Scripture ACTUALLY says. (Whether you interpret it literally or figuratively or both)
It’s a wonder to me how a patriocentric person could get away with going against scripture, while at the same time saying that WE are doing it. The scriptures violated there are far more critical than the ones we might or might not be violating–is the man/woman/husband/wife relationship really the *center* of our faith? Why make it such, when we have more important things to be doing with our God-given time?
April 10, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Psalmist,
“But a king who was so determined to sin with a woman not his wife, would have engineered things so that no one could have intervened. He did things secretly, on purpose. “She wouldn’t have taken her bath on the roof.” She wasn’t necessarily ON the roof. She was someplace where the king on HIS roof, looking down, could see her. That’s all we know. And he demanded sexual relations with her, his subject.”
The sin of David also contained the sin of the abuse of power/authority. Another inconsistency I see in the patriarchal view point is that we women should consider our “weaker” brothers and dress accordingly so as not to tempt them into sin, yet help foster a system which leads to temptation for abuse of power/authority. Why is one temptation worse than others? Is sex more tempting than power? I believe it was a desire for authority/power which comes from pride which caused satan to fall, was it not?
April 10, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Sandy wrote: Another inconsistency I see in the patriarchal view point is that we women should consider our “weaker” brothers and dress accordingly so as not to tempt them into sin, yet help foster a system which leads to temptation for abuse of power/authority. Why is one temptation worse than others? Is sex more tempting than power?
Is sex more tempting than power?
Maybe, but abuse of power is harder to pin down and easier to justify than sexual sin. Scripture about power is easy to exploit, but you cant very well do that with sexual sin.
But they are certainly preoccupied with issues of sex, just in the form of this gender debate. It’s just a different way of entertaining the topic. And then we have the voyuer factor to consider, too.
April 10, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“Is sex more tempting than power?
Maybe, but abuse of power is harder to pin down and easier to justify than sexual sin. Scripture about power is easy to exploit, but you cant very well do that with sexual sin.”
Hyperpatriarchy is ALL ABOUT abuse of power, using sex as the vehicle for that abuse.
April 10, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Yes, the scrambling for and the abuse of power is one major–perhaps THE major–category of sin. I think that’s one reason that women can stomach patriarchy; the guys get the REAL power, but there’s signifcant power for the women to jockey for, as well. Women can then smugly claim that power is nothing to them; why, it’s their MEN who have the power, and the women find their identity in submitting to that power. (Never mind that SCRIPTURALLY, we’re to submit TO ONE ANOTHER, not to whatever power or position or authority the other supposedly has — that’s another subject for another time!) But then look at the shrill finger-pointing and rule-making, all under the auspices of “Titus 2″ and “Proverbs 31″ tutelage, by those self-appointed women who would presume to tell all others what their “sacred calling” must and must not entail.
Sorry. It’s ALL about power-mongering. I refuse to play that game. Fortunately, as a single woman, it’s easy to opt out of it. To most of the power-women, I don’t exist anyway. Single, Christian, egalitarian…they don’t even consider me a part of the body of Christ, so to h*ll with me. I’m glad, actually. It frees me up a whole lot to please God, rather than play games with them.
April 10, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Do these fundies really think all men and women ever think about is sex?
NormalMiddle: Could I ask you to stop using the perjorative “fundies.” I’d be one of those, and I think we agree on just about everything we’ve posted in here (except for our view of scripture–I would hold to verbal, plenary inspiration). I’m not upset with you, just a little tired of being grouped with the wacko fringe.
April 10, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Theoretically, we are all fundamentalists if we agree upon the fundamentals of the faith and do not fall for the pejorative/connotative use of the term. It’s sad that fringe groups have redefined it all.
April 11, 2008 at 12:04 am
That’s right, Cindy. Although I think I would define fundamentalism more by the Evangelical Fundamentalist Movement’s self-definition, which included a little bit more, including the sufficiency and verban, plenary inspiration of scripture, as well as the commitment to standing up outspokenly against those who would pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have at times rejected the label, but in the context of the current discussion about Patriocentricity and McDonaldland, I feel inclined to claim the name of Fundamentalist. And in all actuality, I am a historic Fundamentalist, although I would not fit in with most Fundamental Baptists or Presbyterians these days.
April 11, 2008 at 12:24 am
Richard, if you offend that easily, I’ll just go back to my old moniker: fundie frootloops, and drop the fundie part alone so you don’t feel singled out. I’m really only talking about the ultra-conservative-my-way-or-the-highway-you-are-always-wrong-fundamentalists.
I’m not a fundamentalist, so I will have to disagree on that level. But hey, we don’t all have to agree on everything.
April 11, 2008 at 12:37 am
Yes, Normal – it’s okay to disagree. I don’t really offend easily, I just think the way you were using the term was somewhat distracting to the discussion. I don’t view Phillips, the McDonalds, Carmon, the Botkin twins, Gothard, or any of those in that camp Fundamentalists. They are a breed apart. And traditional (historic) Fundamentalists would stand strongly against them due to some serious heresy they are proclaiming.
And to address something you said earlier that probably contributed to my not wanting to be tainted by the perjorative was that some fundies would consider you to be non-Christian (context indicating that they would reject your Christianity because of your view of scripture). I certainly would not consider your view of scripture to be indicative of your standing with God. From my Fundamentalist paradigm (all dogma must spring from scripture and nothing else), the only thing necessary to salvation is belief in Jesus Christ. And from your comments here, I believe that you fall into the saved camp. When we get to heaven, you and I can ask Jesus about it (although in heaven I’m sure you’ll realize that I’m right).
April 11, 2008 at 12:49 am
Richard, you use too many big words for me to understand well
I’m sorry I contributed to making the discussion unclear. I’ll head back to my rock and stay there.
April 11, 2008 at 12:50 am
Excuse me, make that I’m sorry for making the discussion “distracted.”
Sheesh.
April 11, 2008 at 1:02 am
LOL – Normal, don’t hide on account of me. I’m a Teddy Bear. I just roar a bit too loud at times. I think it’s the ADD.
April 11, 2008 at 1:21 am
Here are a couple more sites if you are still interested in the polygamy topic. It seems like everyone is talking about this right now and this was posted in a homeschooling group where I read…defending it!
http://www.truthbearer.org/
http://www.lovenotforce.com/
April 11, 2008 at 1:24 am
And yet one more:
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/
April 11, 2008 at 1:26 am
Here is what they call their “spiritual exegesis”
This is just quick run-down of Scriptural PROOFs of the truth of Christian Polygamy (polygyny-only).
This page here is provided in short, “sound-bite” format.
* Malachi 3:6a-b and Hebrews 13:8 — God does not change (nor would He, therefore, “tolerate” sin, as some mistakenly assert).
* Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 — “One wife” — mia is the Greek word (for the word, one, in those passages) may also be translated as first, as it is, for example so translated in the phrases, “first day of the week” in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7. Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow’s “one man” is not mia but the Greek word “heis”, meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of “first”. (There is so much more to this particular matter here than that which this “sound-bite” here can address, but is addressed throughout various places throughout this web-site. The fact is, no one can INSIST that these three “one wife” verses can NOT be instead translated as “first wife”, which makes more sense to translate those verses as “first wife” anyway.)
* Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment against Adultery in Exodus 20:14.
* Malachi 2:14-15 — “wife of thy youth” is a man’s first wife, the wife with whom he grew and learned how to so love, bless, and edify any wife.
* 1 Corinthians 7:27-28d is ONLY about married men (whether or not a previous wife has departed). If a man marries another wife, he and the new wife have not sinned.
* 1_Corinthians 7:10-11 is a Commandment of God that, when a previously-departed wife returns, her husband and his new wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.
* 1_Kings 11:3-4: Solomon multiplied wives (up to 1,000!) which was prohibited and prophesied that a king would do in Deuteronomy 17:17. But that passage in 1_Kings 11:3-4 says his father David’s heart was “perfect”. Indeed, where Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added his 18+ wives. (In Genesis 25:1, “Then AGAIN Abraham took a wife… Keturah”. The word,”AGAIN”, there translates to add –or “augment”– in the Hebrew. And, indeed, Abraham was adding his third wife Keturah to himself.) So, Solomon’s sin was multiplying wives while his father David had simply added wives.
* Deuteronomy 21:15-17: this is a specific instruction in the Law Itself to any man with “two wives”.
* 1_Corinthians 5:1: A son had fornicated with his “father’s wife”. This does NOT refer to the man’s mother. Indeed, the term, “father’s wife”, is a very specific term. Leviticus 18:8 refers to “father’s wife” as specifically separate from “mother” in the previous verse of Leviticus 18:7. Note that the “nakedness” of a “mother” is referred to as her own “nakedness” while the “nakedness” of a “father’s wife” is referred to as the FATHER’s “nakedness”. This same differentiation is observed again in Deuteronomy 27:20,16. In fact, what the fornicator had done as per 1_Corinthians 5:1 was the same sin as that of Jacob/Israel’s firstborn son. Reuben had committed the identical sin with Jacob/Israel’s wife, Bilhah, in Genesis 35:22. (Yes, Bilhah was Jacob’s wife ; see Genesis 37:2.) And for Reuben’s act of “uncovering his father’s nakedness” by fornicating with his “father’s wife”, Bilhah, Reuben lost his birthright as firstborn. 1_Chronicles 5:1 reveals that this was because Reuben had “defiled his father’s bed”. Indeed, the reference to “father’s wife” in 1_Corinthians 5:1 does reveal an actual polygamist identified in the New Testament, i.e., the father of the mentioned fornicator.
* Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus simply repeats the Deuteronomy 24:1 “as it had been in the beginning” when it was written. In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees were asking about “every” reason for divorcing, but Jesus returned back with the only one allowed reason (the woman’s “fornication/uncleanness”), as per Deuteronomy 24:1.
* “ADULTERY” — na`aph (pronounced: naw-af’) in the Hebrew means, “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”. This applies to that same (as just above) Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in that verse) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, see above, in putting her away so as to “replace her”) that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty. He had CAUSED his first wife to “break her wedlock contract”. And of course, that first wife for “breaking her wedlock contract” with her first husband, and the “second husband” for particiapting in that act, are both guilty too. But notice, the SECOND WIFE is not guilty of anything. And if the first husband had not put away his first wife, but instead kept her as well as marrying the second wife, he would not have CAUSED his first wife to “break her wedlock contract”. Hence, he would not have been guilty of any Adultery in any way. Indeed, Adultery simply and only means “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”.
* “ONE FLESH” — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31. A man is “one flesh” with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married man, who is therefore already “one flesh” with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being “one flesh” with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be “one flesh” even with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become “one flesh” with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be “one flesh” with more than one woman, without negating his being “one flesh” with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being “one flesh” with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e., 1_Corinthians 6:17: “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” As EACH Christian is joined as “one spirit” with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as “one spirit” with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as “one flesh” with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original “one flesh” verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as “one flesh”. For context, it is exegetically important to note that the “one flesh” verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was “one flesh” with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term, “one flesh”, could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be “one flesh” with more than one woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses’ being “one flesh” with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what “one flesh” meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be “one flesh” with more than one woman.
* 1_Timothy 4:1-3a: the “Spirit speaketh expressly” and prophesied of the time of “forbidding to marry”. Today’s churches, (some unwittingly) “speaking lies in hypocrisy”, would forbid the marriages of Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses, Gideon, and David —not to mention forbidding how God described Himself in Polygamist terms in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23, and how Christ the perfect Saviour did likewise when He referred to Himself as the Polygamist Bridegoom in the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13). Indeed, such churches would not even allow such holy ones in the Scriptures to bring their families into their churches. And yet, clearly, the Spirit expressly foretold of this in 1_Timothy 4:1-3a.
April 11, 2008 at 2:10 am
Karen,
“* “ADULTERY” — na`aph (pronounced: naw-af’) in the Hebrew means, “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”. ”
Don’t you just love it that for the pro-polygamists, it’s always polygany never polyandry? Not to say I espouse that either. It’s just another problem I have with the whole thing. Only women can commit adultery. So… even if a man visits a prostitute, I guess that would be okay in these men’s eyes.
April 11, 2008 at 2:18 am
Karen, thanks for putting all those here! I will have to refer back to it at some point.
I would have to say that it could really contribute to a very convincing argument that polygamy is “okay” but the difference between something being “okay” and “the norm” is not something those polygamous cultic groups seem to understand.
It is sad to me that people can so easily use these as proof-text, but the Pharisees and Sadducees basically did the same thing to Jesus when they asked him about Moses and the certificate of divorce. They ignored the prophet who stated clearly that “God HATES divorce” and Jesus turned the law against them, pointing all the way back to Genesis and adding “and what God has joined together…”
I don’t have a Bible in front of me, but from what I can remember (from this incident with Jesus), just because the law had “provision” for something doesn’t mean that it was acceptable to God for us to do those things. Is it acceptable to God to kill another human–even if that human is your slave?
April 11, 2008 at 4:18 am
I have heard patriocentrists teach that only women can commit adultery, too. The only time that these patriocentrists said that a man can commit adultery is when he has sex with someone else’s wife. IOW, adultery is predicated on the woman’s marital status not the man’s marital status. I remember this being discussed on a couple of lists I used to be on.
It sure is a convenient system, isn’t it?
April 11, 2008 at 4:24 am
“And men’s pants do the very same thing when THEY bend over. What none of these dresses-only folks are ever willing to explain is, if pants are immodest for women for this reason, why are they not also immodest for men?”
Cynthia,
For this very reason, pants would also be immodest for men.
“The dresses-only crowd is quick to point out that the sight of a man’s form does not inflame the passions of a woman as the sight of a woman does a man,”
I am not a man, so I can only speak for myself but they shouldn’t be so quick to say such things. There are plenty of women who find the male form very attractive and enticing, especially when the jeans fit right in all of the right places and the shirt is tight in all of the right places. I was once told on a patriarchal list that women who say that they are turned on by the sight of a nice looking man comes from being influenced by the feminists. I was told that feminists put those thoughts into our heads making us believe that women actually have lustful thoughts, too.
” but what about men inflaming the passions of other men? There are a LOT of men out there who are straight in practice, but who struggle with homosexual thoughts. If the mere outline of a derriere is such a temptation to a male, shouldn’t they all wear robes so as to avoid tempting weaker brothers to perversion, or don’t the souls of those weaker brothers matter?”
Exactly! Funny how all these rules only apply to women but they would never think of applying them to their own persons.
I also wonder how they can explain the Song of Solomon and the Bride’s total enthrallment with her Lover’s body? Maybe she was just a lusty anomoly?
April 11, 2008 at 4:35 am
Karen,
This is from the “Love Not Force” site:
“Accordingly, the teachings of “love-not-force” answer the commonly asked question, “How does one help a ‘first wife’ willingly embrace the idea of polygamy?”
Very carefully? What a patronizing and ridiculous question!
A man helps his wife “willingly embrace” the idea of another woman sharing their bed in the same manner that she would help him “willingly embrace” the idea of another man sharing their bed.
Basically, how does a man brainwash his wife into thinking that he “needs” another wife by twisting the Bible to suit his own carnal desires?
April 11, 2008 at 11:11 am
So, Corrie, were you able to place that Sin of Bathsheba article, where it has been published before, and who wrote it? It sounds so familiar to me that I am sure that I have read it before.
April 11, 2008 at 11:18 am
It is okay Richard. I just find it odd that out of the MONTHS I’ve spent on this discussion, over many different threads and literally THOUSANDS of comments, and the MANY rabbit trails this discussion has taken at various times—-that you would pick my use of the word “fundie” as distracting.
Just kind of funny that you would even take the time to point out something like that makes me chuckle, after everywhere we’ve been and all we’ve tackled here.
So forgive my shock. It totally took me aback to see you criticize my use of the word fundie. And just for the record, most of the church abuses of power I’ve suffered personally HAVE come from died in the wool fundamentalists, not exactly patriarchalists. I went to a fellowship that was filled with more fundies than the likes of Doug Phillips.
So basically I am sorry that my personal experience offended you? I get so tired of the easily-bruised, easily-offended stuff. It makes discussion moot, in my opinion.
April 11, 2008 at 11:19 am
“So what can a Christian lady do ? Leave college ? Well, certainly you planned on doing that anyway at some point, with a degree, though it might be worth considering if you really need that degree. Did you ever think about the fact that a career is nothing but indentured servitude, nothing but selling yourself to someone and “slaving away” for them, instead of giving your energy and creativity to your own family ? Will your degree help your family grow into a strong godly family, lead by a responsible and godly husband ? Will your degree help you be a good help meet to your husband, a good mother to your children, a good home schooler for them ? Just some thoughts to consider while sitting there in class.
So when you are ready finally to leave college, one way or the other, where are you going to live ?
We at Joshuah’s House think that the countryside is certainly the best place to live for a multi-generational, plural marriage family with many children, preferably mountainous and far off from “civilization”, i.e., the filth of modern day society. Self sufficiency is an important factor here, starting with simplicity of housing, life style and clothing, and growing your own food to a large degree – your experiences with growing tomatoes and peppers will come in handy. ”
Looks like this polygamist is looking for a college girl…
http://www.joshuahshouse.com/simple-living-in-the-countryside.html
April 11, 2008 at 11:50 am
Karen,
The “Sin of Bathsheba” was written by an “Anonymous Brother” and it was first published in “Patriarch Magazine” (Phil Lancaster, editor) in 1996. I do not know who the person is who wrote that article. I do understand why he didn’t use his real name and why he hid behind the “anonymous” term.
A lot of people, at one time or another, have housed it on their site, including the McDonalds on their now defunct “Patriarch’s Path” site, if I remember correctly. I do know it is a favorite of the women on the patriarchal type lists.
April 11, 2008 at 12:07 pm
That Bathsheba article is everywhere — you can find it on nearly every site that promotes the modesty meme (or sells modest clothing — funny how the two seem to coincide), and you can find it on Protestant, Anabaptist, Apostolic Pentecostal and even on a few Catholic sites.
In every instance the author is listed as anonymous, except here, where David Huston claims authorship; however if you follow the link to the article the author is agan listed as “anonymous”:
http://www.gloriouschurch.com/Apostolic-Free-Library.asp
The writing style and level of “scholarship” found in the article is similar to what is found here, in these articles by an Anabaptist author, Brother Merle Ruth:
http://www.wendysmodestdress.com/id17.htm
Let Her Be Covered
By Bro. Merle Ruth
——————————————————————————–
Several weeks ago, while shopping in a grocery store, my wife was approached by a woman who appeared to be very refined — very courteous manner. She indicated that she had a question that possibly she could answer. She and her husband had observed that some women wear coverings similar to the one that my wife was wearing. Why are they worn? Her husband’s opinion was that it signifies marriage. She herself did not concur with that opinion. But why DO you wear it? That was her question. In response, my companion assured her that the wearing of the headcovering is a Biblical teaching recorded in 1 Corinthians 11. To her that was news. She seemingly was not aware that this was a Bible teaching, and with gratitude in her voice, she promised to go home and read for herself from 1 Corinthians 11.
A hundred years ago, an occurrence like that here in Lebanon county would have been unlikely. Why? Because a hundred years ago, this practice was still being observed in numerous non-Mennonite circles. The widespread loss of this practice demonstrates what can happen in no more than a hundred years. Whether that woman was a church member or not, I don’t know. I do know that today, in many church circles, this teaching is either omitted, or explained away, or twisted so as to make the hair the only needed covering.
But, it’s not my primary calling to condemn other church groups. Right within our own circles we have a big enough job to keep this practice alive and to keep it moving in the right direction. In order to get that job done requires giving periodic attention to this teaching. That’s why I’ve chosen to dwell on that subject this morning. My record shows that it’s been a little over 5 years ago that I devoted an entire message to this subject. That’s a pretty long interval – maybe too long.
I’ve already named the Bible passage in which this teaching is found, so let’s turn in our Bibles to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. The content of this chapter revolves around 2 items: the headcovering, and the Lord’s supper. Because of their nature, we believe that they both fall in the category of an “ordinance”. This is in agreement with the language of verse 2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” The now-popular approach to this chapter throws away the first of these practices, the headcovering, but retains the second, the Lord’s supper. In my opinion, there is no valid ground for that kind of selectivity. Nonetheless, it’s being done. And that’s one reason why there are people around us like that lady who approached my wife.
In a few moments, I’m going to be reading 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5 and 6. Those verses serve as home base for both the doctrine and the practice of the headcovering. But all of the first 16 verses relate to the subject in one way or another. All right, let’s listen now to verses 4-6:
“(4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
Those last four words in verse 6 are my text: “Let her be covered.”
That is a straightforward command. It’s comparable to other commands that are stated in a similar way. “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body.” “Let no man deceive you.” “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” “Let your light so shine.” Now the command in view here is no less binding than these other commands.
The framework for the message this morning will consist of a series of questions revolving around this command: “Let her be covered.”
The first of these questions is: “To whom is this command addressed?”
Now that’s a very simple question. In your opinion, perhaps, it’s too elementary to even raise. Your answer might be, “Why, it’s addressed, of course, to the Corinthians!” and that’s right. They were the initial recipients of it. Does that mean, then, that it was exclusively for them? Does that mean that what was enjoined upon them is not binding upon us? Have the teachings of the epistles been generally understood in that way? Among Christian people, is the Bible usually viewed as “out of date”? No! The Bible has been studied and applied because it is believed to be relevant for today.
If 1 Corinthians was intended only for the Corinthians, then we might as well close our doors and go out of business. A very few would take so radical a stand as that. The continued observance of the communion ordinance is evidence of the widespread conviction that not the Corinthians only, but we, too, are being addressed in this epistle. But, as was pointed out earlier, it’s unfortunate that, in that larger group, there are those who, at certain points, draw back from that position in order to escape the reproach of Christ. And so you have this practice of teaching one part of the chapter, but not the part of the chapter that might make you unpopular.
In answer to this question, there are yet other lines of evidence that ought to be looked at. The book of Revelation, in chapters 2 and 3, records individual messages sent by the ascended Christ to seven churches. At the conclusion of each of those letters, this familiar refrain is repeated: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches” – plural. Each of those letters, in addition to being for one particular church, was to be heeded also by all the churches. “Let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches”. And so it is, too, with the Corinthian epistle. It’s for us, too, even though it was for them initially.
To further reinforce this fact, let’s go to the very beginning of this epistle, 1 Corinthians chapter 1, and listen to verses 1 and 2 for a possible clue to this answer, for a possible answer to the question: “ (1) Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, (2) unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” There you have it again. The writer, God’s chosen servant, declares himself that he’s addressing not only the Corinthians, but also ALL that in EVERY place call upon the Lord.
There is, however, still more that ought to be added to this answer. Remember the question is: “To whom is this command addressed?”
Was this portion of the letter for sisters only? They very much are in focus here. It surely relates to them. But, are they being addressed directly, or indirectly? Well, back again in chapter 11, I find in verses 2 and 3 a clue to that answer. “Now I praise you, BRETHREN, that YE remember me in all things and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to YOU. But I would have YOU know that the head of every man is Christ” and so on. Let’s not overlook this! Obviously, brethren are to be in charge – both in the church and in the home. It’s their responsibility to teach God’s headship order, and to see that that order is maintained. Even though it may have been the Corinthian women who were pushing at the fence, God viewed it as a problem that rested on the shoulders of the brethren — fathers, husbands, church leaders. I, myself, very much need to face up to this fact. And so do you, brethren. When wrong trends appear in covering styles or covering sizes, brethren, let’s not blame one another. Let’s work TOGETHER at correcting the problem, for this is addressed to US. Let’s be willing to admit that an irregularity in relation to the headcovering is seldom a sister’s problem only. It usually involves more than just the sister. I think we’re ready now to move to another question.
That question, number 2, is this: “With what is this practice associated?”
Some persons make much of the fact that, among the women of that day, this was the then-existing practice. And they immediately jump to the conclusion that on that basis it’s not obligatory today. But that line of reasoning ignores completely verse 3 and the obvious link between verse 3 and all that follows, for I am of the opinion that verse 3 is the KEY to the whole passage. Notice now again how verse 3 brings into focus something far more authoritative than a local practice: “I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” God wants it to be known that there is a divinely established arrangement for working relations within the divine human economy. This is otherwise known as God’s headship order. Better than anyone else, God knows that in every sphere of life there needs to be leadership and respect for leadership. God wants this fact known. He wants it known that on the human level God has assigned that leadership to the man. “I would have you know that the head of the woman is the man.” God wants that fact KNOWN. Wherever a church or a family departs from this arrangement, it steps outside of the will of God, and it exchanges the best arrangement for an inferior arrangement. which will inevitably lead to confusion.
We have now our answer to question number 2: “With what is this practice associated?” It’s associated with God’s permanently existing headship order. Those verses that I read, verses 4-6, follow immediately upon the disclosure of this headship arrangement. Those verses 4-6 outline the God-prescribed way of preserving an awareness of this God-established headship order. The fact that the women of that day and place veiled their heads is to their credit, but it’s simply an incidental factor. It’s by no means the foundation on which this teaching is built. Incidentally, for the Jewish men of that day, the embracing of Christianity did require breaking their custom. It may not have required a breaking of their custom on the part of the women, but on the part of the Jewish men they had to discontinue what they had been doing. So, please don’t allow anyone to ever convince you that this passage is merely a call to fit in with their culture.
I’m moving now to question number 3: “But doesn’t this practice destroy the woman’s equality with man in Christ? Doesn’t it do that?”
It is true that, more than anything else, Christianity elevated the status of womanhood. In Christ, the Christian woman stands before God on a footing equal to that of man. That is the input of a verse like Galatians 3:28, in which it is declared that “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” In relation to salvation, man and woman are equal. It may be, however, that in Corinth especially, this newfound liberty may have been interpreted too broadly. So broadly as to obliterate the headship order. Perhaps it’s in order to correct any such thinking that Paul is led to include in this passage evidence of the fact that the headship arrangement dates back, not only to the fall, but beyond the fall. It dates back to the time of the creation. That shows that it was meant to be a permanently existing thing in the earthly order.
Verses 8 and 9 speak to that point. Let’s listen now to verse 8: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” That speaks of man’s priority in the sequence of creation. The fact that man was created first was not simply incidental, that was by divine design. Now verse 9: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” This brings into focus the Creator’s purpose. Eve was created for the purpose of being Adam’s helper.
Now, the evident purpose for the inclusion of these facts is to emphasize that redemption does not cancel out headship. Headship remains intact in the reckoning of God. And so, the answer to our question is “NO”, this practice does NOT destroy woman’s equality with man in Christ. In the reckoning of God, man’s continuing to function as the administrative head of the race is altogether compatible with woman’s spiritual equality with the man in matters pertaining to Christian experience. Both concepts need to be promoted. There is no conflict between them. The man and the woman are equal in spiritual privilege, but they are not equal in authority.
Now, let’s recall again the text: “Let her be covered.” That is God’s decree.
All right, let who be covered?
That is question number 4. “Who is to be covered?”
If this is for Mennonites only, as some wrongly suppose, then it ought to read “let every Mennonite sister be covered.” But the text has in it no such limitation. This is not a denominational teaching. This is a Bible teaching.
Already in verse 3 we are being prepared to think in a much broader scope, for there, where the principle is in focus, it is stated that the head of EVERY man is Christ. No exception is made. Christ is the authority figure for every man, whether or not he obeys Him, Christ is his head. And, by the same token, man remains woman’s God-appointed head, whether or not she submits. And then when we come to the application, verses 4-6, again it’s EVERY woman and EVERY man, indicating the widest possible application, conveying the idea that this practice is intended to be universal. There’s also no reference here to marriage, which eliminates the idea that this is applicable only to women who are married. You may sometime be confronted with that idea. Really, the headship of man over woman is an aspect of God’s government in this world. And, as such, it is not limited only to life in the Kingdom of God. But, since judgment begins at the house of God, Paul is here singling out an instance that would constitute a violation in the context of church life.
I’m driven to the conclusion that EVERY woman who wants to take her God-assigned place under man is duty-bound to signify that purpose of heart by being covered. “Who is to be covered?” SHE is to be covered — the woman who recognizes and submits to her God-ordained place in God’s arrangement.
Growing out of this is a fifth question: “With what shall she be covered?”
An increasing number of voices are responding to this question with this easy answer: “With her hair. Let her be covered with her hair.” But this answer simply cannot survive close scrutiny. To begin with, at the time of this writing [of 1 Corinthians 11] there was practically no need in Christian circles for a plea to retain the hair covering. Long hair had been the long-accepted practice, and to my knowledge was not even being challenged.
Furthermore, those who claim that this passage has in view no other covering but the hair are knowingly discrediting about 1900 years of Christian practice and Biblical scholarship. For that long of time, the wearing of an additional covering was taught and practiced on a very wide scope. Those who argue for the hair only are thereby implying that in respect to this issue the Christian church started out wrong and has been wrong for most of her history. I’m not ready to believe that.
Verse 15 does speak of long hair as “A” covering, nature’s covering, but it’s not “THE” covering called for in verses 5-6. And that conclusion is substantiated by the fact that, in the Greek, the word for covering in verses 5-6 is not the same word as is used in verse 15. And this difference comes to light in a number of the more reliable modern versions. They actually use the term “veil” in verses 5-6. But a careful reading of verse 6, even in the King James Version, should convince anyone that another covering beside the hair is in view. Let’s right now take a moment to look at that verse. Verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered”. Let’s stop right there. If, as some claim, the hair is the only covering in view, than this clause would envision a woman whose hair has been removed, right? “For if the woman be not covered.” That envisions a case where the hair has been removed, if the hair is the covering called for. Now, look at the next clause: “Let her also be shorn.” Now you have a problem on your hands, for how can you remove something that has already been removed? How can there be two successive removals of the same thing? What the statement really means is this: a woman ought to wear both the hair covering and the sign covering, or none at all. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace: that of being shorn.
And here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God’s will.
Now remember the question was “With what shall she be covered?” Here are possible ways of stating the simple answer. She is to voluntarily cover her head with a material covering. It ought to be distinguishable from protection coverings. It ought to be identifiable as one that carries religious significance. To think of it only as a symbol allows for it to become too small. The terminology employed here requires that it be also a covering, that which “covers”. Although it is a symbol, it must be a symbol that covers.
And now I raise question number 6: “When is she to be covered?”
And in response to this, I can imagine someone saying, “Well that’s an easy one, your answer’s right there in the text. ‘Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head’. There’s your answer – she’s to be covered when she prays or prophesies.” As far as it goes that’s an acceptable answer, but I don’t think the evidence is conclusive that this practice is to be limited to such times. That would reduce it to a “devotional covering” or a “worship covering”, when actually the larger context supports the view that it’s primarily a “headship covering”. And, since the headship of man extends to all of life, and since the world so much needs the awareness that the covering creates, isn’t it logical to conclude that the wearing of the covering should be constant?
But why does Paul single out times of praying and prophesying? That is a valid question. Although we can’t know for sure, it may be that those were the occasions when the Corinthian women were beginning to think that they would be justified in throwing off their veil in the name of their newfound Christian liberty. I’m simply suggesting that Paul might have received reports of violations occurring at such times. If so, that would explain why he would name these specific times.
Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the words of my text, “Let her be covered,” are in the present active imperative form, so that, by grammatical structure, it really means “let her continue to be covered.”
In relation to this question, I would conclude with these remarks. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that “here is a soul that is presently praying or prophesying.” Rather, it signifies that “here is a woman who seeks to honor God in all of life.” So, it’s not really a prayer veiling, but a woman’s veiling, worn to show that the wearer is in God’s order. Let’s think of it in those terms. Not a “devotional covering”. Not a “worship covering”. But a “woman’s covering”. A “headship covering”. That, I think, is the main thrust of the passage as a whole.
Again, let’s call attention to our text: “Let her be covered.”
One more question: “Why?”
Well, I hope that some answers have already gotten through to you. To all that, I would add this: Wear the headcovering because you know God wants you to! I cannot supply you with a more valid reason for the performance of any deed than simply to know that God wants you to do it. Can you? Can you think of a more valid reason to motivate any action? For every pliable saint, what God has written right here should be enough to settle the matter.
It is here made apparent that God wants to preserve an awareness of His divinely established order. That is urgently needed in today’s society. Furthermore, he wants YOU to have a part in that, not only the sisters, but also the brethren. He wants both Christian men and Christian women to give visible evidence of their pledge to abide by that order. For the man, that visible witness is given by the non-wearing of a religiously significant covering. For the woman that witness is given by the wearing of a religiously significant covering. The God-supplied long hair will not suffice for this because it is not a personally supplied witness. It doesn’t necessarily reflect a personal endorsement of God’s arrangement. It doesn’t convey the clear signal that “I’m voluntarily submitting to man’s leadership.” The humanly supplied covering should be worn to convey that signal. To all who see it, it proclaims this message: “I will not attempt to dominate, I will not attempt to manipulate my head. I submit to God’s plan.”
Now, to all of this, the response of the critic might be: “So what? There is no salvation in it!” That is as much beside the point as to say that there’s no salvation in baptism or in any other of the ordinances. We don’t keep the ordinances to become saved, rather being saved we gladly keep those commandments. “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.”
It’s very obvious that some portions of this passage have not been touched on in this message. Perhaps they can be touched on some other occasion.
Before I close, I wish to add some remarks bearing on the more practical side of this practice. We as church leaders try to monitor changes in covering styles and covering sizes, but changes can be made so gradually that we may not always be abreast of what is happening. Little by little, you can make your covering smaller and smaller, and you may suppose that no one else notices it, but God knows it, and you know it, and very likely more people take notice of that than you realize. You may never know. If you take that course, you may never know how many other sisters are influenced to do likewise. Now you may take that course if you choose, but that will not build the kind of church life that I think you want. It will not build the kind of church life that you want for your children.
I’m glad for the healthy signs among us. It’s a healthy sign when daughters appear with coverings as large as their mother’s. That’s something to rejoice over and thank God for. Really, anything less than that will lead in the wrong direction. If, in successive generations, the daughter’s covering every time is just a little smaller than the mother’s, it will only be a few generations until the covering is lost. I don’t think you want that to happen here, so I plead with you to help to keep it from happening.
Shall we come before the Lord in prayer?
——————————————–
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/japostle/veiling.html
The Significance of the
Christian Woman’s Veiling
by Merle Ruth
This article revolves around an ordinance that many segments of the professing church have lost. This state of affairs has given to the practice, in the eves of some, the appearance of a peculiar denominational tradition. That is a misconception that we unitedly ought to challenge and correct.
Most of you know that a keystone is the wedge-shaped stone that is put in the top center of the arch and thus gives strength and solidarity to the whole structure. The practice we are about to examine has about it something that makes it a keystone in the whole structure of Christian nonconformity. A study of the history of church groups would reflect the fact that when once this practice falls by the way, it is only a matter of time until every other mark of Christian nonconformity becomes extinct. Let us therefore never become apologetic about teaching and practicing the Christian Woman’s Head Veiling.
We ought to appreciate this title: “The Significance of the Christian Woman’s Veiling.” The significance of anything is its meaning. God is concerned that we keep alive the meaning behind His ordinances. In connection with the first Passover, God said, “When your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, “thus and thus. When a Bible-taught practice is continued, after its meaning has been largely lost, it becomes subject to all kinds of abuse. At that point someone is likely to suggest it be discontinued–”Why continue a meaningless practice?” But that is walking right into the devil’s trap. It is surely better to continue the practice and try in every way possible to revive its meaning so it becomes again the meaningful expression God meant it to be. That is reason number one for frequent teaching on this subject. We face the challenge of keeping alive, from generation to generation, not only the practice but also its meaning.
Another reason for teaching repeatedly on this subject lies in the circumstances alluded to at the beginning. This once widespread practice is, in many groups, now viewed as nonessential. Even among those who still retain the Mennonite label, there are many who have lost all appreciation for this practice. It has been said that the most important bolt on a train is the one that is loose; for that reason it needs immediate attention. That has its parallel in the life of the church. The church at Sardis received from heaven this mandate: “Strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die.” That means that a practice once it becomes neglected, ought to receive more attention than it otherwise would, and this is obviously a neglected practice.
In the nonprofessing world there are likewise circumstances that make this form of witness an urgently needed witness. There is wholesale disregard for God’s headship arrangement. Sex distinction is becoming blurred, almost to the point of extinction. If we who claim to be the church do not give a clear witness concerning God’s order, where else will this bewildered world find it!
To find the reasons for this practice, we do not go to some source book on proper etiquette. Neither do we go to a denominational handbook. Rather, we go to man’s highest court of appeal, that supremely authoritative Book of books, that Word by which all men shall be judged in the last day. We turn now, in that Book, to I Corinthians 11:1-16.
The first verse is in the form of a plea. “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Paul, the writer of this passage, was a divinely chosen vessel. He was on intimate terms with Christ. The instructions that come to us through him have their source in heaven. The Anointed of God, when He walked among men, had said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” When He came back to earth on the Day of Pentecost in the Person of the Holy Spirit, He began to impart to men those things. Under His direction the New Testament came into being, and that is now our rule for faith and life. Thus it was that this man Paul could rightfully say in this same Corinthian letter, “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
In the second verse Paul commends the Corinthians for the recognition and respect they have shown him and for their observance of the ordinances. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
I would now like to call attention to the beginning of the next verse, verse 3. It begins, as you see, with the word but, a word that usually serves to introduce a contrasting condition. Evidently, on this one point Paul was led to depart from his commending them and seek instead to clarify and possibly correct. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This might be termed the theological premise underlying the practice that is to be outlined in the following verses. We are here being introduced to God’s arrangement for working relations within the divine-human economy. This is otherwise known as God’s order of headship. It is a God designated line of responsibility. Furthermore, it is a permanently existing arrangement.
This verse names three relationships in which the principle of headship is in effect by divine decree: (1) the head of Christ is God, (2) the head of man is Christ, and (3) the head of woman is man. The meaning of headship for the man-woman relationship can be arrived at by examining the God-Christ relationship. Jesus once said: “I and my Father are one,” That speaks of equality, On another occasion, He said this, at least, in substance: “I am not alone in what I am doing.” That speaks of cooperation. On a third occasion, Jesus said, “I do always those things that please him [the Father],” That speaks of the Father’s leadership. By way of summary, one could then say that in the Father-Son relationship there is a blending of equality and cooperation along with a mutual awareness that ultimate authority resides with the Father. Or, stated otherwise, functional priority belongs to the Father. If then, in a relationship that is wholly divine, headship or leadership is needful and good, how much more so in the human, man-woman relationship. Both men and women need to recognize, therefore, that there is for each of them a God-appointed place and function and that they make their greatest contribution and reach their highest glory when cheerfully serving in that capacity.
Suppose a railroad locomotive could speak. It might say, “I’m tired of following the same old tracks and going through the same old towns.” And suppose the locomotive would then leave its tracks and start across the open fields. Would it improve its lot? Would it find greater liberty? Would it increase its usefulness? Of course not. In one way or another, it would eventually get stuck. The locomotive is most useful when it follows the tracks for which it was designed. In this day of supposed liberation for women, that lesson is urgently needed. We make our greatest contribution when we function in our God-designated sphere.
God has chosen to employ visible means to preserve awareness of this divinely conceived arrangement whereby both the man and the woman have their own sphere of operation. It is this employment of a visible sign that puts the practice into the category of an ordinance. Both the Christian man and Christian woman are involved in giving this visible witness. And, it is a two-fold witness from yet another standpoint, for it involves the giving of both a divinely supplied witness and a humanly supplied witness. The divinely supplied witness is the witness of nature. At a later point in this discussion, Paul indicates that the endowments and dictates of nature bear witness to a God-planned distinction between the sexes. Accordingly, woman’s long hair is nature’s covering, supplied by God. The humanly supplied witness is the one whereby the individual gives his or her personal endorsement of God’s arrangement. God wants both Christian men and women to give visible evidence of their acceptance of His arrangement and their pledge to harmonize their lives with that order. In verses 4 and 5, the God-prescribed form for this humanly supplied witness comes into view. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
It is obvious that these two verses take the negative approach; that is, they visualize a violation rather than a compliance. Nevertheless, what God expects is here clearly implied. The only possible correct deduction one can make is this: For men, the divinely prescribed headship sign is given by the man having his head uncovered; that is free of any covering having a religious connotation, such as is worn by Jewish men and certain of the Catholic clergy. Our wearing of the hat is not a violation of this Scripture, for the hat is primarily a protectional covering. For women, the God-called-for witness is given by having the head covered. The word cover, as employed in verses 4-7, is derived from the Greek Katakalupto and means “veil.” Consequently, some Bible versions properly use here the terms veiled and unveiled. The expression, “Woman’s Veiling” is therefore altogether proper. The disregard of this practice is said to dishonor one’s head. Which head? The head here in view is most likely one’s spiritual head, which in the case of the man is Christ and in the case of the woman is man. The woman who refuses to wear the veil, by that act, projects herself into man’s position, usurping authority over him and, at the same time, repudiating that divine authority under which he stands. It would take a great deal of audacity to say, “God, don’t mind my disobedience; just answer my prayer.” But really, if you knowingly disregard this regulation, that is what your actions say.
In the remaining verses a number of related factors are brought forward to further substantiate both the principle of headship and the practice by which it is kept alive.
Let us look now at verse 6. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This further explains the concluding portion of verse 5. By going unveiled, a woman brings upon herself the same measure of shame that would accompany the shaving of her head. The divine verdict is that if her head is uncovered, that is even all one as if she were shorn or shaven, and it is strongly implied that no one should challenge the fact that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. The grammatical construction in the Greek would permit this rendering: “Since it is a shame.” Incidently, in that time and place, for a woman to cut her hair was regarded as a shame. That can be said to their credit and to the discredit of today’s society. Shorn hair, that is cut hair, obviously is longer than hair that has been shaven, but it is here represented as equally shameful. Notice the expression “shorn or shaven.” Both are put into the same package; both are put into the category of the shameful. On top of that is this fact: The nonwearing of the covering is equally as shameful. Here is a divine verdict that no amount of human defiance can reverse.
Let us move now to verses 7 through 9. Here attention is called to the fact that this headship arrangement dates back all the way to the time of the Creation. “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” (verse 7). This seems to imply that God created man to be His visible representative here on earth. Since there is no head above God, man, His representative, is to be uncovered in order to reflect God’s supreme headship.
The next two verses focus on two more factors related to the Creation, which indicate that man’s headship over woman was in the mind of God from the very beginning. Verse 8 speaks of man’s priority in the process of creation. “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” That should be self-explanatory: Eve was created from Adam. Verse 9 speaks of God’s purpose in creation. “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Eve was meant to be Adam’s helper. Thus the designs of the Creator have been shown to substantiate what has been said about the man-woman relationship.
In the ancient world the status of womanhood was very low. This had its reflections even in Jewish circles. It is claimed that by the time of Christ, in the Jewish morning prayer, a man thanked God for not making him “a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.” Christianity, more than anything else, has corrected that view. Paul taught that in Christ a woman has spiritual privileges equal to a man. It may be that at Corinth this new-found liberty was on the verge of being interpreted so broadly as to cancel the headship order. It seems as though the emphasis given here was aimed at correcting that kind of false conclusion. These verses reaffirm that the creation order remains intact. In the reckoning of God, man continues to be the administrative head.
Another support for this practice is brought forward in verse 10. “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” The good angels are always represented as being in full subjection to God. In Isaiah 6:2, the seraphim are said to cover their faces in the presence of God. In numerous other places in the Scriptures, angels are represented as constant observers of the human scene and as helpers of the saints. This verse seems to imply that the presence of these unseen heavenly observers constitutes another reason that the woman wants to manifest submission to spiritual leadership. Her covered head is a sign even to the angels that she is qualified to pray and eligible for their ministry and protection.
Let us move now to verses 11 and 12. “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” These verses speak of the need that men and women have for each other and of their mutual dependence on the Lord. Very likely, this note was injected to keep the man from becoming a proud, arrogant head. Headship ought to be viewed not as something to be proud of but worthy of.
Now an appeal is made to human judgment. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” (verse 13). Evidently, the predominating opinion with regard to this matter was then still in alignment with God’s will. The very fact that today this appeal might meet with a weak response in many circles should open our eyes to the decline in moral judgment that has occurred since that day.
Next, attention is focused on the fact that God teaches through nature the same truth He here teaches by revelation. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (verses 14 and 15). God put into the human makeup a built-in sense of propriety that opposes long hair for men and endorses long hair for women. The fact that today many women cut their hair betrays the character of our time. We must conclude that they are doing it contrary to nature as God made it. It is a perversion similar to perversions that characterize our time. When obedient to the dictates of nature, the man with his short hair appears uncovered; the woman with her long hair appears covered. By this arrangement, God has shown what He expects. He expects the man to be unveiled, the woman veiled. Please note that her hair is said to be given her for a covering. But while it is a covering, it is not the covering called for in the preceding verses. Those who claim that the hair is the only covering in view ignore the fact that in this instance the word covering comes from a different Greek word. The word translated covering in verse 15 is not Katakalupto, as in the earlier verses, but Peribolaion. If in God’s reckoning the hair is the veiling, we could rightfully expect this statement to read thus: “Her hair is given her for a Katakalupto” (veil). That it does not say this is consistent with everything else in the passage. Likewise, a careful reading of verse 6 will confirm the fact that two coverings are in view. We find there this statement: “If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.” If one maintains the hair is the covering, then he is faced with an impossibility, namely, two successive removals of the hair. If the hair is the covering and she is uncovered, then the hair has already been removed. Why then add, “Let her also be shorn?” What would be left to cut off? What the statement really means is this: A woman ought to wear both (the hair covering and the sign covering) or none. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace. Here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God’s stated will.
There remains yet one verse, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (verse 16). In effect, Paul is saying, “It would be strange indeed for anyone to challenge a practice that is being observed universally.” The fact that this practice is not mentioned in letters to other churches is very understandable in the light of this verse. Apparently, it was faithfully being observed as verse 16 would suggest. The exception was here at Corinth, where possibly there was the threat of a departure. Whatever the situation, it called forth this teaching.
Is it not significant that Paul says, “If any man . . . be contentious?” And did you notice in verse 2 the “brethren” are specifically named. The preservation or loss of this practice hinges largely upon the brethren. Our sisters need the support that comes from fathers and brothers who likewise readily show their colors. Daughters who have covering problems and hair problems need fathers and church leaders who are gracefully insistent.
Let us turn now to some remaining loose ends. No precise specifications are given for the veiling. Some allowance can therefore be made relative to the details of its construction. But there are limits beyond which variation cannot properly go. Obviously, it must be of such a nature that it conveys a religious connotation; that means it must be distinguishable from any form of protecting headgear. In view of the comparison drawn in this passage between the hair and the veil, it seems obvious that the veil ought to cover the larger part of the head. The God-required sign is not the veil alone, but the veil-covered head. Consequently, when the veil becomes too small, the practice loses its significance.
Again, this passage does not state precisely how the hair is to be arranged under the covering. But, obviously, the Lord’s covering will not fit properly on the devil’s hairdo. Any “fixing” of the hair that is born of pride militates against the meaning of the veil. Some sisters wear their hair too far down on the neck; consequently, only the back of the head is covered by the veil. Others wear their hair too far down on the forehead. Why not keep the hair within the natural hairline?
A thoughtful person will recognize that the policy of having the church recommend a uniform-type covering has definite advantages over the policy of leaving the matter to the judgment of the individual. The latter policy results in such a variation of practice that soon there is little resemblance of unity in this area of witness and great difficulty in distinguishing between the headgear that was intended to serve as a sign covering and headgear that was not so intended.
When, or how constantly shall the covering be worn? In some circles,the covering has become, by default, merely a worship veil. The attempt is then made to show that this passage has in view only times of public worship. That is a very poorly substantiated conclusion. Please note that in verse 18, where Paul is entering into another matter, he indicates that now he has in view an abuse that manifested itself when they came together in the church. Would this not suggest that he had in view a broader that point?
To speak of the covering as a “prayer veiling” is incorrect. Even the term “devotional covering” has likely militated against God’s intention by restricting the wearing of it to one phase of life’s activities, whereas God’s plan for the man-woman relationship is as broad as life itself. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that here is a soul at prayer. Rather, it signifies that here is a woman who seeks to honor God in all of life. So it is not really a prayer veiling but a woman’s veiling worn to show that the wearer is in God’s order. A sister ought to know she wears the veiling primarily because she is a woman, not simply because she periodically prays and teaches. It is true that verses 4 and 5 speak of the practice in relation to times of praying and prophesying. But it is highly probable that those were the occasions when possibly the Corinthians had begun to feel this practice might be context prior to it omitted in the name of Christian liberty. It is only natural that the correction would first be applied to the point of violation. Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the clause, “let her be covered,” is the present, active, imperative form, so that by its grammatical structure it means, “let her continue to be veiled.”
Again and again we have been told that the value of Bible study lies in making present-day applications, and that is right. But many, who supposedly are Biblical experts, change their tune when they come to this passage. This supposedly does not apply today. But as many of you know, the latter part of this chapter has Paul correcting abuses relating to another ordinance Communion. When these supposed experts move from the first part of the chapter to the latter part, they betray their inconsistency. They would not think of arguing that Communion was meant to be observed only by the Corinthian Christians of that day. But how can one generalize the latter part of the chapter, giving it universal application for all churches of all times and then limit the first part to a particular church for a particular period? It simply cannot honestly be done. This epistle is not addressed to the Corinthians exclusively. The salutation indicates that this letter is meant for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Those who want to belittle this practice have given it derogatory labels such as “a purely cultural practice,” and “an ancient oriental custom.” An oft-heard argument runs like this: Since in Corinth the local sign of a harlot was the uncovered head, Paul is asking the Corinthian women to avoid all appearance of evil by covering their heads: and since a woman’s uncovered head no longer necessarily signifies what it once did, the practice is no longer relevant. But that is misrepresenting the thrust of this passage, Nowhere in this chapter are women told to wear the veiling in order to distinguish themselves from harlots. True, it does that, but that is a result of the practice and not the basic reason underlying the practice.
Again, in review, let us recognize that this practice is rooted deeply in God’s unchanging headship order. Sister, your veiled head is the sign of a spiritual relationship that remains totally unaffected by the changing customs of society.
Can God use us to keep alive this neglected, belittled, yet vitally important practice? That is the challenge we face. That also may be a part of the unique mission of the truly Mennonite brotherhood.
–Annville, Pa.
April 11, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Big fat comment with three links and two articles, stuck in moderation.
April 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I am not a man, so I can only speak for myself but they shouldn’t be so quick to say such things. There are plenty of women who find the male form very attractive and enticing, especially when the jeans fit right in all of the right places and the shirt is tight in all of the right places. I was once told on a patriarchal list that women who say that they are turned on by the sight of a nice looking man comes from being influenced by the feminists. I was told that feminists put those thoughts into our heads making us believe that women actually have lustful thoughts, too.
I am a man and I can predict with reasonable accuracy that no one would be enflamed with passion if they say my 47-year-old figure pressing against a tight shirt or pants in any of the right or wrong places.
April 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm
the word “say” in the above comment should have been “saw” — further evidence of a passionless existence.
April 11, 2008 at 2:53 pm
The writing style and level of “scholarship” found in the article is similar to what is found here, in these articles by an Anabaptist author, Brother Merle Ruth:
Okay – Now I understand the problems with “men this…” and “women that…” in that article. “Brother Ruth” – it seems there may be some gender uncertainty there. Perhaps Brother Ruth is trying to hide his own psychological self-flaggelation under a smoke-n-mirrors modesty tirade.
April 11, 2008 at 2:56 pm
It totally took me aback to see you criticize my use of the word fundie. And just for the record, most of the church abuses of power I’ve suffered personally HAVE come from died in the wool fundamentalists, not exactly patriarchalists. I went to a fellowship that was filled with more fundies than the likes of Doug Phillips.
Me too, Normal, me too.
April 11, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Here, with apologies in advance for the length seems to me what has to be the answer to both the author of the Bathsheba article and ‘Brother Ruth’: two passages from Matthew with a commentary by Matthew Henry.
The Bathsheba article is pure prurience, a lip-smacking pornographic reverie. I read in some articles that the VF types have a major problem with the men viewing internet pornography – guess this is the same sort of thing really.
Matthew, Chapter 23
Pharisaism Exposed
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 “But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
Eight Woes
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 [“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ 19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 “Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
23:13-33 The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to the gospel of Christ, and therefore to the salvation of the souls of men. It is bad to keep away from Christ ourselves, but worse also to keep others from him. Yet it is no new thing for the show and form of godliness to be made a cloak to the greatest enormities. But dissembled piety will be reckoned double iniquity. They were very busy to turn souls to be of their party. Not for the glory of God and the good of souls, but that they might have the credit and advantage of making converts. Gain being their godliness, by a thousand devices they made religion give way to their worldly interests. They were very strict and precise in smaller matters of the law, but careless and loose in weightier matters. It is not the scrupling a little sin that Christ here reproves; if it be a sin, though but a gnat, it must be strained out; but the doing that, and then swallowing a camel, or, committing a greater sin. While they would seem to be godly, they were neither sober nor righteous. We are really, what we are inwardly. Outward motives may keep the outside clean, while the inside is filthy; but if the heart and spirit be made new, there will be newness of life; here we must begin with ourselves. The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was like the ornaments of a grave, or dressing up a dead body, only for show. The deceitfulness of sinners’ hearts appears in that they go down the streams of the sins of their own day, while they fancy that they should have opposed the sins of former days. We sometimes think, if we had lived when Christ was upon earth, that we should not have despised and rejected him, as men then did; yet Christ in his Spirit, in his word, in his ministers, is still no better treated. And it is just with God to give those up to their hearts’ lusts, who obstinately persist in gratifying them. Christ gives men their true characters.
Matthew’s Gospel Chapter 7:
Judging Others
1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults, while they allow themselves in greater ones. Some sins are as motes, while others are as beams; some as a gnat, others as a camel. Not that there is any sin little; if it be a mote, or splinter, it is in the eye; if a gnat, it is in the throat; both are painful and dangerous, and we cannot be easy or well till they are got out. That which charity teaches us to call but a splinter in our brother’s eye, true repentance and godly sorrow will teach us to call a beam in our own. It is as strange that a man can be in a sinful, miserable condition, and not be aware of it, as that a man should have a beam in his eye, and not consider it; but the god of this world blinds their minds. Here is a good rule for reprovers; first reform thyself.
Says it all really – first reform thyself, and judge not.
April 11, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Sorry, I know this is terribly nit-picky and very English but it’s ‘dyed-in-the-wool’. Fine cloth was dyed as spun woollen thread and then woven, not dyed as woven cloth. Woven cloth shed dye more easily than cloth that was dyed as woollen thread . . .
Please forgive the pedantry.
April 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Corrie, the article you are looking for is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianWomensIssues/message/215
April 11, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for reminding us of those verses, Joanna. I just don’t see how I couldn’t see the problems with that Sin of Bathsheba book when I was younger. Why didn’t I get it? Why didn’t I listen to that sinking feeling of anguish that screamed “No! Following God is something so much different than all of this!”? Also, the book was published by a man who also published other books, and some of the other books said things like if churches allow women to not wear head coverings or to wear pants, and if they allow anyone to watch tv or go to the movies, they are disobedient, and there’s no room for disagreement on this stuff PERIOD. He had written some of this stuff, and he wrote it in a very caustic, and I must say, a spiritually abusive manner. Reading his stuff really, really scarred my faith.
But … Christ hates us to bear heavy, useless burdens. He wants us to care about HIM. That’s all we need to do, and that fufills the heart of the Law. As Calamity Jean has said, it’s just so simple. Christ’s way is really, simply, and only love.
April 11, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Corrie, just go to your WomensIssues list, search “Phil Lancaster,” and you will find the article. I think it is post number 215, but I’ll recheck.
April 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Yep, it’s post #215, Corrie. Here is a brief quote from the opening (the article is fairly lengthy):
“We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention
the sin of Bathsheba. And it is true enough that David’s sin was very great,
and Bathsheba’s very small. David’s sin was deliberate and presumptuous,
Bathsheba’s only a sin of ignorance. David committed deliberate adultery and
murder; Bathsheba only carelessly and undesignedly exposed herself before
David’s eyes. We have no doubt that David’s sin was great, and Bathsheba’s
small.
Yet it remains a fact that Bathsheba’s little sin was the cause of David’s
great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless
exposure of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame.”
April 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Yet it remains a fact that Bathsheba’s little sin was the cause of David’s
great sin.
Some things never change. “It was that woman you gave me …”
April 12, 2008 at 2:58 am
They are overlooking or ignoring several things. According to 2 Samuel 11:1. In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
In the spring when kings went off to war, where was David? He stayed home. It seems that his first sin was not being where he was supposed to be. Would he have seen Bathsheba bathing on the roof had he not stayed home?
His other sins followed. He saw, thought, lusted, persued, acted, and covered up the deed by murder.
Perhaps Bathsheba was intimadated by his position as king, perhaps she was being submissive because that is what she thought she was supposed to do. Or perhaps not. Those who lay the bulk of the sin at her feet are reading into scripture.
April 12, 2008 at 3:42 am
You know, Bathsheba was bathing as part of a ritual purification, as required by the Law. She uncovered herself in the service of the Lord.
So I wonder… was David also sinning when he danced befor the Lord, and “uncovered himself in front of the servant girls”, in this story, below?
2Sa 6:14 And David danced before the LORD with all [his] might; and David [was] girded with a linen ephod.
2Sa 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 2Sa 6:16 ¶ And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.
2Sa 6:17 And they brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. 2Sa 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts. 2Sa 6:19 And he dealt among all the people, [even] among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece [of flesh], and a flagon [of wine]. So all the people departed every one to his house.
2Sa 6:20 ¶ Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
2Sa 6:21 And David said unto Michal, [It was] before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. 2Sa 6:22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
April 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Oops, sorry CJ, you did give a link to that article — the first link in your comment — and I mistook what you did copy in (the second link) to be what you meant by giving the first link.
If everybody wants to read that “anonymous brother’s” article — it may be freely copied and pasted here, but I don’t recommend it.
Personally, I think the whole problem with that article is in the opening, and the rest of that article gets so detailed about what turns a man on, there is an “ick” factor in reading it.
April 12, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Cynthia, I read both those articles, but it wasn’t until I read Mr Ruth’s that I really got a chuckle out of it. It was the “Lord’s covering won’t fit over the devil’s hairdo” bit that got me, I’m afraid . . . first it was the idea that the devil has a signature style, and then I just kept envisioning people trying to fashion a scarf to hide an ungainly pair of horns, and the hilarity flowed
(actually, traditional Japanese brides would wear a wedding covering to hide their “horns of jealousy” from their future mothers-in-law . . . but somehow I doubt Mr Ruth was thinking along those lines).
I was also very sad, however, at his treatment of the “does not nature teach” bit. I know it’s been mentioned here before but I do have to bring it up again– nature teaches us that, in fact, men’s hair and women’s grow in exactly the same fashion. One young man I went to University with grew his hair out for Locks of Love, an organisation that accepts donations of hair to fashion wigs for children who have suffered medically-related hair loss and cannot afford a hairpiece. In the four years I knew this man, I watched his hair grow from his collar down to his waist, and it was not only some of the loveliest, healthiest hair I’ve ever seen (more than one girl certainly envied him it!) but it was also one of the most gracious and selfless everyday acts I’ve ever witnessed. I don’t know how much teasing he put up with for his choice, since his hair in the end was much longer than that of many girls, but there was nothing unnatural or unseemly about it. Nature not only teaches us that a man’s hair may grow at the same speed and with the same beauty as a woman’s hair, it also teaches us that people, in their arrogance, will look for anything to mock.
I wonder if Mr Ruth knows that Paul himself would have had long hair . . ?
Finally, Joanna, thank you for posting that commentary. It deals perfectly with this sort of “holier than thou” attitude, and on top of that your remark on the Bathsheba article’s being a “lip-smacking pornographic reverie” is not only poetic but terribly apt! I was very uncomfortable reading the detailed prose examinations of the various “tempting” parts of a woman’s body . . . it felt (to me) as though the author had spent a little too much time doing his “research.”
April 12, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“It was the “Lord’s covering won’t fit over the devil’s hairdo” bit that got me, I’m afraid . . . first it was the idea that the devil has a signature style, and then I just kept envisioning people trying to fashion a scarf to hide an ungainly pair of horns, and the hilarity flowed..”
ROFLOL…. The Devil wears Prada, donchaknow….
April 12, 2008 at 4:25 pm
There is a post up a ‘Families Against Feminism’ (a site linked to by LAF) about the duties of a virtuous wife.
It’s here: http://heartsforfamily.blogspot.com/2008/04/she-seeks-wool-and-flax-and-works.html
It begins with some of the Proverbs 31 verses, and then says this:
“It’s impossible to talk about the virtuous wife without talking some about her duties at home. Notice that the bulk of Proverbs 31 involves decribing those duties.”
Now, this contention is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. James McDonald made it recently too, in that ‘pink link’ article that was discussed here a while back. Lots of good criticisms were made of it, but I don’t think there was much talk about this:
“[S]he [the Proverbs 31 Woman] is first a wife and a mother—a faithful keeper of her home”
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/searching-for-the-missing-pink-link/
Now, this got me thinking. The idea both posts are promoting is that the 21st century lives they lead, are the ones that most closely resemble that of the Proverbs 31 women. But I’m just not seeing it. In fact, I think that saying that the Proverbs 31 woman’s life revolves around her home is just not true.
Here are the relevant verses (not necessary to remind you all I’m sure, but it’s handy to refer to and it’s one of my favourite passages, so I will anyway!)
Proverbs 31:10-31
10 A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Now, I am not seeing a Prairie Muffin here. Just consider how many verses deal directly with being:
A wife – 6 (v.10,11,12,23,28,29)
A mother – 1 (!) (v.28) Although we could take v.26 to refer to homeschooling (although this is a STRETCH – in biblical times this referred to wise management of her servants. Similarly v.21 and v.27 – this is about being a good, fair, and caring mistress to her servant girls. I spent part of my childhood in Africa, and have some thoughts on this to add to the GNAP thread when I get a chance!)
Work which definitely takes her outside the home: 5 (v.14,16,18,24,31)
Work which is definitely home-focussed: 2 (v.22,27)
Work which could be at home, or outside the home: 5 (v.13,15,17,19,20)
Total verses which refer to her work: 12
I hope I haven’t miscounted or miscategorised anything here. But actually looking at what these verses are talking about – this is NOT a woman whose sole (or even primary) sphere is the home. She moves from managing her household to trading with the merchants seamlessly – in fact, isn’t it so interesting that there’s not even a mention of how these spheres are different? They blend together. So much for the biblicality of men outside, women inside.
Rereading the quotes I posted at the top – I wonder how these writers can honestly contend that the Proverbs 31 woman was all about being a ‘keeper at home’. She kept her house (OF COURSE she did, all her work was for her household. But it doesn’t hold that any time a woman leaves the house she has to be beating herself up and wishing she was back home. Proverbs 31 Woman proactively looked for ways to be productive (v.16). I am struck by one very popular patriarchal blogger, who regularly condemns ‘me time’ and insists that her weekly trip to a coffee shop is ONLY made because it HELPS her family and she doesn’t enjoy being away from them at all. Proverbs 31 woman went in and out of her home without any sense that she should be guilty or that the outside/inside time was more or less valuable than the rest.)
Anyway, I just wanted to show that when Families Against Feminism contends that “the bulk” of Proverbs 31 “describes her duties at home” – that is incorrect.
It’s also wrong when she says, “Notice, though, that it is all done within the domain of her home and family life; she does not neglect home all day and report to another man for work.” References to a ‘domain’ of home vs. a ‘domain’ of outside are not in evidence anywhere in this passage. Are there verses elsewhere in the Bible that could support such a view? And again, we see the feting of self-employment (note: I am self-employed and work full-time in my home with my husband on our business, so obviously I think self-employment is great, but I’m not saying people who don’t do exactly as I do aren’t Biblical). And the idea that Proverbs 31 never worked with men is wrong. Many if not all of her vineyard workers would have been men. And while the merchants she supplied with sashes were not directly ‘bosses’, she certainly had to answer to them in doing business with them.
How do they resolve verse 14 “She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar” and verse 31 “Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate” with the idea that Proverbs 31 is all about the home? Her house is never even mentioned – as I said, her ‘household’ is the people in the house who are dependent on her – her servants, their families, and her children.
Anyway, lots of thoughts. Sorry for the super-long post AGAIN! I hope it’s not all horribly jumbled. There is more to dissect in the Families Against Feminism post as well, but it strays totally into opinion and I just wanted to correct the BIBLICAL inaccuracies.
April 12, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Well……….I think the correct definition of long hair means it blows in the wind (I think Gordon Clark did a good job defining this). Whoever thinks Paul had long hair should go to the Christian History site and read the firsthand account of someone who saw Paul as a Christian. He was fat, bald, and had a big nose. Sounds pretty typical of an aging man, but it doesn’t really matter what he looked like outwardly because that’s what man looks at. God sees the inner and left us His beautiful love story, and surely we can see that inside Paul was beautiful and it showed outwardly.
Blessings!
April 12, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Anonymous,
the “Paul had long hair” remark that I made stems from an earlier discussion here concerning the vow mentioned in Acts 18 that Paul is to have taken, which is generally held to have been the Nazarite vow. This was a vow that bound those who took it against the consumption of wine, strong drink and grape products, close contact with dead bodies, and cutting their hair during the period encompassed by the vow. This certainly doesn’t mean Paul had long hair forever; I believe only a few people in the Bible are understood to have been Nazarites for life, John the Baptist among them. Paul wasn’t one for life; in fact, in Acts 18:18 we see that the period that particular vow encompassed seems to have ended, for he then cut his hair. It does mean, though, that for a period of time –the period of time for which his vow lasted– he did indeed let his hair grow.
(I believe that there is also a mention of him having taken the vow later in Acts, around the time of the Pentecost; for all we know he had taken it many times throughout his life! Those are the only two mentioned in Scripture that I’m aware of, though)
April 13, 2008 at 1:06 am
The nazirite vow can be taken for a long time, or a short time, if Paul was balding or bald, chances are, there wasn’t much “growth” going on, but I think we can safely say that the length of one’s hair is not a factor in your piousness.
Think about women who’ve lost hair to chemotherapy, are they sinning because their hair fell out without their control? Other women have very thin hair that falls out naturally, and some end up bald because of that as well. It goes along with every other situation that is out of our control. The rules in place in the OT just don’t “fit” Christian society. They were there for a reason, but that reason has been fulfilled, and we live under grace. I don’t care if a man has 12 feet of hair or a woman has a shaved head, because that is such a superficial thing (as are pants, skirts, etc.).
It is really sad to see that people can be so narrow-minded, especially when confronted with specific objections that literally collapse their argument in front of them, yet they choose to continue to focus on such unimportant things.
April 13, 2008 at 1:16 am
I have had a super-long comment in moderation since this morning, it would be lovely if it could be approved? Thanks!
April 13, 2008 at 3:22 am
“It is really sad to see that people can be so narrow-minded, especially when confronted with specific objections that literally collapse their argument in front of them, yet they choose to continue to focus on such unimportant things.”
Carnal thinking is like that, unfortunately.
Under the old Law of Moses, a man whose reproductive parts were missing could not be part of the Hebrew congregation, and yet under the New Covenant the Ethiopian eunuch was baptised into the body of Christ with ease.
Under the New Law, a person whose hair is not the correct length (something which wasn’t an issue even under the Law of Moses) is liable to be judged unworthy of full membership in some congregations.
…..why don’t they just write their own Bible and have done with it!
April 13, 2008 at 7:42 am
[...] of Tulip Girl’s observations [in the comments on this TW thread] gleaned from living abroad as missionaries, “One of the things the the Lord did in my life [...]
April 13, 2008 at 11:06 am
Whoever thinks Paul had long hair should go to the Christian History site and read the firsthand account of someone who saw Paul as a Christian.
? eh ?
I understand the need for anonymity. The cognitive dissonance is ringing so loud I’m afraid it might wake up my family.
April 13, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Claire, thanks for posting those links and commenting….I hadn’t read those for a while and was struck, once again, by the purposeful confusion. After reading the tenets Family Reformation, the only conclusion that can be made is that there is only one role for women, being keepers at home, wives, and mothers. Everything else is “non-normative” or “outside the prescriptive will of God.” Am I correct? If I missed the caveat, please point it out to me. But, repeatedly both James and Stacy back pedal in other places on their blog, in Stacy’s interviews, etc. Could some one please explain what I am missing?
April 13, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“Think about women who’ve lost hair to chemotherapy, are they sinning because their hair fell out without their control? Other women have very thin hair that falls out naturally, and some end up bald because of that as well.”
This sort of thing will help some see 1 Corinthians 11 in a whole new light. This happened to a friend of mine undergoing chemo who lost all her hair. She finally saw that Paul was giving women a choice of covering or not and it was a passage that was actually freeing women. (Note in the passage Paul is ASSUMING women are praying and prophesying in the Body)
This passage is not a legalistic command nor a passage to put women in a subordinate position in the Body of believers. I cannot tell you the tears that flowed from her when she read this in the light of the Holy Spirit who illuminated truth to her.
She was astounded to realize that ’symbol of’ (authority0 was NEVER in the original Greek. The authority on her head is Jesus Christ!
April 14, 2008 at 5:29 am
Just a quick comment about the long hair thing. This mandate is completely Caucasian-centric, as it excludes many women of color, whose natural hair texture precludes the “long hair” that is being referenced. I have also read on several websites and blogs that to be truly godly, a woman’s hair must meet the standard of being long enough to “wipe the feet of Jesus,” like the repentant woman who bathed Christ’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. Talk about another example of making something prescriptive that the Bible intends as descriptive!
April 14, 2008 at 12:11 pm
30) “Home, Sweet Home” is more than just a sentimental saying for the Prairie Muffin. Her home is the center of the Prairie Muffin’s activities. Of course, she needs to occasionally go away from home to engage in various activities related to her calling, but her focus is on making home a haven for her husband and children and using it to glorify God in whatever ministry to others He may call her. She is content in her home and does not see it as a prison from which she constantly must escape. She wisely rules over her domain by keeping busy in her full-time calling as homekeeper. Chocolate bon-bons may be a rare indulgence, but Prairie Muffins don’t have the time or inclination to waste their lives on soap operas or other inane and inappropriate entertainment.
31) While Prairie Muffins try to be women who make plans and stick with them, so that they use their time wisely and reach the goals they and their Prairie Dawgs have determined for their families, they also know they must be flexible and be prepared to meet whatever circumstances fall into their laps, sometimes at a moment’s notice, responding with grace and calm.
April 14, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“A woman’s place is in the home” would sum up #30 a lot better than that. I can guess why she didn’t put it that way, though.
I read Carmon’s blog recently, and she made some snide comment about escaping her “domestic prison”–she was being sarcastic, but it drove me crazy. It was almost as if she was intentionally trying to annoy her opponents. That doesn’t seem very kind to me.
April 14, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“Just a quick comment about the long hair thing. This mandate is completely Caucasian-centric, as it excludes many women of color, whose natural hair texture precludes the “long hair” that is being referenced.”
Yes, and this is one of the clearest indications I know of that that whole mindset IS NONSENSE. If something is so serious as to be a spiritual, sin/non-sin issue, it has to be something that can apply to all people everywhere.
In the Old Testament, God dealt with humanity through one nation, Israel. After Jesus came and died and rose, He grafted ALL nations and cultures in the spiritual tree of Israel, and the Gentiles were not required to adopt the Jewish culture or keep the Law to be part of His family.
These modernday Pharisees believe that western Anglo-Saxon culture is the acme of Christianity — they have said so again and again in their writings and sermons — and they teach that the norms of this culture determine what is normative in the Kingdom of God.
This, at its heart, is the spiritual essence of British Israelitism and Christian Identity – not all of these cultural elitists believe that people of Saxon or Celtic extraction are the honest-to-goodness physical descendents of the Lost Tribes of Israel(though many DO), but they do believe and teach that the English-speaking nations and their culture are the truest expression, if not the only correct expression, of Christianity in the world today.
April 14, 2008 at 1:18 pm
LOL!!!! I just noticed something else:
“I have also read on several websites and blogs that to be truly godly, a woman’s hair must meet the standard of being long enough to “wipe the feet of Jesus,” like the repentant woman who bathed Christ’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.”
Somebody ought to comment on those blogs, and remind whoever wrote that, that the repentant woman who wiped Jesus’s feet was considered to have been a woman of ill repute.
Nothing against her, certainly, but the long-hair only crowd ought to remember that most hookers have long hair too.
April 14, 2008 at 1:48 pm
LOL, I should have held off on my super-long Proverbs 31 comment at #201 until I read PM Manifesto point 30!
Here, again, another patriarchialist is talking about how “home is the center of the PM’s activities” and how it’s “her domain”.
This might belong over on the GNAP thread, but as I said in #201, I just don’t see how a view of ’separate domains’ – that is outside/inside the house – is scriptural.
‘Separate spheres’ is a nineteenth century concoction. Prior to industrialisation, the public and the private spheres weren’t clearly marked out. If you were poor, everybody in the family worked, either in the fields or in somebody else’s home. If you were wealthier, say a craftsman or a merchant, your business was run entirely from your home. Though usually the only way a woman could run a business herself was if her husband died and there was a shortage of that particular craft in the town (which was a reasonably frequent occurrence). The apprentices lived with the master in his house and the mistress of the house was in charge of them.
But, with industrialisation, suddenly work is taken out of the home. And there’s lots of competition for work, because women can be paid less. In the social upheaval, there’s a great appetite for instruction – for manuals telling people how they should be behaving now. So works like Mrs Beeton get published and are extremely popular. And the notion of ’separate spheres’ develops – that women should be inside the home, and men conducting business outside of it. This is also the time that the first feting of housewives begins, which I’m sure I don’t need to point out here because it was of course called the doctrine of true womanhood! And it promoted a Victorian ideal of quiet, pious, gentle, passive womanhood – a Victorian Prairie Muffin, if you will! And so the “angel in the house” was born.
(My very dear friend at university wrote her undergraduate thesis on the ‘angel in the house’ idea, and I’m going off my memory of proofreading it for her now, but I can easily get more information and reading recommendations if anyone’s interested).
It has NO biblical basis. Such a concept could never have even existed in pre-industrialised society, which didn’t have the luxury of separating home and work. But the Prairie Muffins are devoted to it. Does anyone know of any bible verses that could back it up?
April 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I haven’t read all the comments in this discussion…but I would certainly be interested in a thread discussing specifically the teaching of the Pearls.
April 14, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Consider the Internet….
Just a thought I’ve had concerning the ‘a woman’s place is in the home and ONLY in the home’ teaching.
To the best of my understanding, within hyper-Patriarchal circles, the teaching that is advocated is that it is not ‘normative’for a woman to work (or study) outside the home, at ANY time (while single, married, widowed etc).
One of the reasons for the above view (again to the best of my understanding) is that women should not go out into the world, in order to BE PROTECTED FROM THE EVIL THAT IS IN THE WORLD and TO BE PROTECTED FROM FALLING INTO TEMPTATIONS ONCE THEY ARE IN A WORLDLY ENVIRONMENT(i.e. college or a workplace).
As far as I understood, this was the premise underlying the Botkins’ sisters view that young women who moved out of their parents’ homes prior to marriage were displaying the same characteristics as the Proverbs harlot whose ‘feet did not REMAIN at home’.
Much is made in the writings of some in hyper-patriarchal circles of the dangers and evils that attend college life, for eg. exposure to dangerous views and philosophies, the potential to ‘get into bad company’, in short, EXPOSURE TO A VARIETY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND HARMFUL INFLUENCES.
To get to the point I’m trying to make (sorry this is so long), I think it’s ironic that hyper-Patriarchy sees the potential for dangerous influences only OUTSIDE the home.
A VERY large amount of the ladies in hyper-P circles seem to be very much into electronic communication and other aspects of the Internet. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with this – obviously, I’m into the Internet myself.
But I do think it’s ironic that they understand that it’s possible to use the Internet for the purpose of blogs, e-mail groups,promoting a home-business etc, WITHOUT getting involved in other aspects of ‘Internet life’ which definitely have the potential to be dangerous and harmful.
Would it be reasonable to forbid Christian women access to the Internet because of the POTENTIAL that they might be tempted to become materialistic (online shopping?), be influenced by deviant teachings (the sites and blogs of cults?)or fall prey to the filth of pornography etc?
We expect both men and women (I’m not referring to children here) to employ their wisdom and judgement when selecting WHAT to read online, how long to spend online etc.
Similarly, I think it’s unreasonable to forbid adult Christian women access to college and the workplace on the grounds that they would come under bad influences. Obviously, discernment and sound judgement come into play here, as in all aspects of life.
I think it’s so important to NOT treat adult women like children, or else we risk throwing out several very worthwhile ‘babies’ with the bathwater.
April 14, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I am returned.
abby:
I recently found an article about a woman who escaped from a Mormon polygamist group. The pictures of the women of this group remind me so much of the what the modesty-was-only-ever-demonstrated-by -the-Victorians crowd promote as ideal.
Forced to marry a 50 year old…
It is quite terrifying really.
Must dash…
April 14, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hmm… you know, most of the women who did anything worthwhile in the Bible had feet that did not remain at home. There’s Ruth, there’s Deborah, there’s the Queen of Sheba, there’s the girl in the Song of Songs, there’s Lydia ….. and especially “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.”
Heaven knows what the HyperPharisees said about them….
April 14, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Irene wrote: I think it’s ironic that hyper-Patriarchy sees the potential for dangerous influences only OUTSIDE the home.
Staying within the home is no guarantee of freedom from evil influence.
II Tim 3:6 says that these evil influences creep inside of homes and entrap gullible women with load sins and lusts.
Titus chapter 1 talks about the same types of influences that the Judaizers promoted that seriously disrupted family life through Jewish fables and the commandments of men.
April 14, 2008 at 5:04 pm
What’s a “load sin’? Is that like a Chris steak from Ruth’s Chris Steak House?
There’s my brain thinking faster than I can type….
These evil influences creep inside homes and entrap gullible women with sins and lusts, loading them down with them…
April 14, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Revisiting the subject of polygamy for just a moment…Kevin Swanson’t broadcast this morning was critical to the state of Texas for rushing in to take those children out of the compound. He doesn’t really defend polygamy but obviously feels that the state had no business there.
April 14, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Opps did my comment get eaten…or did I say something wrong?
April 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm
…oh I see it now, awaiting moderation…
April 15, 2008 at 2:56 am
Well, it seems to me Laura Ingalls and Almanzo Wilder, being married sixty-four years– must have been doing something right! When I think of ‘helpmeet’, the real Laura is one of the first people who comes to mind. Feminine and tough– I’d love to hear what she’d have to say not only about the ‘PM Manifesto’, but about the fundamentalists who take her fictionalized world as biblical gospel.
April 15, 2008 at 11:06 am
@ comment 183-I guess I was “sinning” when I shaved my head because the long locks were annoying and never stayed in my ponytail and it was just easier all around because I played sports …..
April 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Are there groups who believe that women should NEVER cut their hair? I have seen some women with very very long hair dressed very “modestly” in the past, and I am curious about this. I’ve never heard of a specific church that teaches this, maybe it’s certain congregations?
I would be ashamed to keep my hair so very long and never cut it, because there are so many people who could benefit from my long locks. I’ve donated to Locks of Love, and plan on doing it again in the near future–I can’t imagine that women *need* such long hair, especially if they cover their heads, too.
April 15, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Yes, many groups have this belief. Most of Conservative Mennonites believe this, the United Pentecostals teach it as well, as do various little independent Baptist churches.
They get this idea from 1Cor 11:15, where Paul says “if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her”, and 1 Cor 11:6, which reads “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
Paul says that a woman’s hair is her glory, and he says that IF being shaved is viewed with disfavor, she should cover her head in church, but NOWHERE does the Bible say that being shaven is wrong in God’s eyes, or that a woman must not cut her hair or that her hair must be of a certain length (and in fact, women in the OT who took the Nazirite vow were instructed to cut off their hair upon completion of their vow.)
This is pure extrapolation — just something that certain people who like long hair on women read into 1 Corinthians 11:6.
In my opinion, their extrapolation regarding hair is on a par with that of certain Southern churches who read Mark 16:18(“They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”) and find in it a mandate for snakehandling as part of Divine Worship.
April 15, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Cythia, I’d never noticed that ‘if’ before and had wondered about the true meaning of this scripture. What was the point Paul was making? I shall go investigate, thanks.
April 15, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I found a very interesting article on 1 Cor 11:
http://williamwelty.com/william/docs/essays/rethinking_the_veil.pdf
April 16, 2008 at 1:33 am
Since the Texas compound story was brought up; I’m curious, does anyone know why they are calling the men “polygamous”? Were they legally married in the state’s eyes? Or were they simply “living together” from the state’s perspective because no marriage license was sought or issued? Or does Texas have a common law marriage? I understand the allegation of criminal activity surrounding the 15 year old girl which brought in the federal government, but that is one charge against one man. If these men weren’t legally married to these women and they were all over 18, what’s different about compound versus Hugh Hefner’s mansion? Except that these women chose to concieve a child?
If these men were simply promiscuous and fathered many children as a result and all the women were in agreement that this arrangement was okay, what makes it appropriate for the state to come in and raid the compound and take the children from their mothers? The daughter’s allegation was against one man, what grounds did the state have to take all of the children? (Note: please don’t think I approve of this compound’s arrangement. I don’t. But my disapproval stems from my biblical convictions.)
I didn’t hear Kevin Swanson’s broadcast, but he might have a point on this one. If the state can raid a compound based on the allegation how far fetched is it for us to consider that they might move beyond just physical proximity in alleging criminal activity, to church affiliation or educational choice?
I’m not saying there wasn’t justification for the raid because all the facts are not yet known, but there is also a reason to be a bit concerned about this situation on a multitude of levels.
These are all questions I have because I just retold a story for the next issue of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine where a family was visited by CPS amid a trumped up charge based on a infant’s stool sample. When CPS visited the home the family was told by the social worker that they were there in part because they homeschooled and no one was keeping an eye on the children, which would be the case if they were in a traditional school situation.
I’m not advocating a paranoia about this, but at the same time let’s not be too quick to dismiss the concerns that this situation brings to us simply because we reject the lifestyle of the people involved.
April 16, 2008 at 1:57 am
“If these men were simply promiscuous and fathered many children as a result and all the women were in agreement that this arrangement was okay, what makes it appropriate for the state to come in and raid the compound and take the children from their mothers?”
Because these girls were being forced to marry the men — they weren’t given a choice in the matter.
April 16, 2008 at 2:12 am
Spunky, I think you are right about not knowing all the facts, and maybe the truth will come out. Sure, this one girl was being abused and called the police, but I guess from the original article I read, it sounded like they had been monitoring it for a while, and just needed someone to actually come out and say it. The girls weren’t the only subjects of abuse, either, from the article, but again, the facts and the fiction aren’t all clear to me.
I think that Cynthia’s assessment about them being forced into these arrangements is really saying that the girls were being sexually abused at a rather young, and in our culture, inappropriate age–since they weren’t “technically” married–by much older men.
Maybe the state just didn’t want another Koresh compound on their hands, and were trying to stop something worse from happening. Sadly, with children involved, the full extent of the story may never be known, mainly because children are so fearful to talk about it, rather than being able to tell their story. I read a statistic that said that only about 5% (or less) of sex abuse cases against children are ever even reported because children are so afraid of what might happen to them. It’s really sad.
April 16, 2008 at 2:20 am
Hi Spunky,
I would normally agree with you if this really concerned only consenting adults BUT many of these young women were forced to marry, taught that they will go to hell if they do not, etc. Also, as I was researching the kids and the foster care crisis in TX, many of the articles said many of the teen girls are either pregnant or are expecting. These girls are under 18 so clearly are not adults, let alone able to consent. Many of these girls were forced to marry at 13 or 14.
Link for this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-compound9apr09,0,4429232.story
I’ve been following this story for a couple of years and some of the men involved have prevously been charged with incest, rape, beatings of minors, etc. The “prophet” of this group, Warren Jeffs, is currently serving time as an accomplice to rape in regards to a 14 year old girl in order to force her to marry a 1st cousin. He’s also awaiting charges in AZ for incest and sexual molestation of a minor.
April 16, 2008 at 3:31 am
In regards to the raid in Texas, while we don’t yet have all the facts about the current situation, we do have witnesses that escaped from this group. Carolyn Jessop (linked in an article above) wrote a book about her experience. She was forced to marry a much older man who already had many wives and daughters her own age (even at the time that they were married).
While many of these women probably would say they believe in the tenets of the faith, they also have very little choice in their living circumstances. Jessop was witness to child abuse (beatings) as well. While this doesn’t necessarily have anything (that we know of yet-just allegations) to do with this current situation, the state has been watching this group for awhile.
I don’t have a problem with the raid, in so far as they did seem to have a reason (allegations of child abuse) to go in. I do not like this turn of events, of taking the children away from their mothers, although I’m not sure what the proper course of action should be. This would be traumatizing to anyone, but to take children from their mothers as well just doesn’t seem right.
Another thing about the polygamy. While it’s true that in the eyes of the state, technically these men are married to one women and living with many more (the men in that sect would sometimes take the wives of a dead man-several at a time-like they were acquiring cattle at an auction), I don’t think it’s a small point that the women truly believe they are married to the men. Also, I could be mistaken, but I think Carolyn Jessop had to get a divorce from her husband and she was not the first wife. (it was in a different state though.)
(I would recommend her book, Escape. And I’m glad she’s getting more media b/c of this raid. I hope her book continues to sell.)
I feel sorry for the woman and especially the children involved in this. They all have a hard life ahead of them and I’m sure many of these women will eventually go back. There is so much brainwashing. But it breaks my heart that those kids can’t even be with their moms. Even if their Moms are messed up.
Another disgusting point about Warren Jeffs (who’s currently serving time), he married his father’s wives. Think about that. Some of them were old and some very young (and his father was old when he died.) None of them had a choice in the matter.
April 16, 2008 at 3:37 am
“Another disgusting point about Warren Jeffs (who’s currently serving time), he married his father’s wives. Think about that. Some of them were old and some very young (and his father was old when he died.) None of them had a choice in the matter.”
Sort of like this situation…
1Cr 5:1 It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
April 16, 2008 at 4:33 am
Sandy,
XXXOOO
Glad you are here. (Not that I’m not glad everyone else is, too. And Spunky’s back — Hibernating thru the winter? It wasn’t all that cold this year, was it?)
April 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Here are a couple things that occurred to me after looking at some of those Christian-polygamy sites:
There may be no legally married women in that compound. These people may only recognize a “spiritual” marriage. On one of the sites I read, the author’s views were that it is the sexual union that makes a marriage and not the vows. He believed that men don’t actually commit adultery unless they have intercourse with a married woman.
So a polygamist can have as many wives as he wishes as long as they were all virgins when he “married” them. This could explain some of the inter workings of the group in Texas.
It is interesting to note that there are Christians who are also advocating the “no state marriage license” idea. Kent Hovind taught this at a homeschooling conference a few years ago. I remember being shocked when my very-impressionable 16 year old son came home and waxed eloquent about Hovind’s view on the subject. (Of course, look where those anti-government views have landed Mr. Hovind.)
Also, I think I remember one article saying that the women had the option to stay with their children. Is that correct, Sandy? Instead they chose to remain at the compound while the children were taken. If that is the case, what does that say about the mind control over the women?
I think this all brings up an interesting question….does the state have any compelling interest in children? Is it ever appropriate for them to investigate? Are parents sovereign over their children? Where is the line drawn?
April 16, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Thanks Cindy, for the link. I agree that if the daughters were under age and forced to marry that some action needed to be taken.
Rachel, It was the separating of their children from their mothers that was actually the most troubling aspect to me. For the state to come separate them without some sort of due process just doesn’t seem right. The state may have had probable cause to go into the compound but what is the point of separating them from their mother without some sort of futher investigative work. I’m sure I’m still missing facts that will be revealed over time, but it is so sad to see mothers who were once children themselves forced into marriage and then lose their own children on top of it.
April 16, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think part of the issue with separating children from mothers was that, due to the unorthodox living arrangements on the compound, it wasn’t immediately clear who each child’s mother actually was.
About twenty children could consider each other ‘brother and sister’, despite only sharing one parent, and the woman who was their primary caregiver wasn’t necessarily the woman who gave birth to them.
So the separation must have been very different to manage. Keeping ‘family’ groups together would have meant keeping maybe as much as thirty or even forty people together. It’s unsurprising that the logistics of that took some time to work out, and that wherever the families were housed (was it a military base? I forget?) may not have been able to accommodate so many people.
I am reminded of an excellent blog post you wrote a while ago ThatMom – about the importance of ‘policing our own’ and making sure that there are good safeguards in place to prevent such egregious child abuse. I think there is a danger of getting caught entirely up in the rights of parents to do as they wish with their children, forgetting that the children’s basic rights need protecting also. Though I’ve done a lot of charity work with abused children, and that may colour my perspective somewhat. I’m sure that my knowing of more children viciously abused (intentionally or misguidedly) by their own parents, than families persecuted by the state for ‘unconventional’ practices, skews my opinion here.
April 16, 2008 at 2:51 pm
This is a Texas Child Protective Services case, the largest in state history. CPS intervenes when there is a reasonable suspicion that children are being harmed, and they generally remove all children from that household and then sort out what happened. This is the general process for CPS. In this case, they found children locked in closets and children having food withheld from them, both obviously abusive treatment. They had reason to believe that there was sexual abuse occurring; the reported age of the girl who called was part of that evidence. Many details are not currently released, which is also typical for child abuse cases.
IMO, CPS had more than sufficient cause to remove the children from that environment. Polygamy IS illegal, as is sexual activity with minors and child abuse. All these crimes were occurring at the “ranch” (one of the women I watched in a TV interview was incensed that people would call it a “compound”). The adult women were complicit in the crimes, though it’s quite likely many if not most were themselves married while they were still minors. By doing and saying nothing about it, they were condemning their daughters to the same fate. There are also very disturbing stories about what happens to boys as they approach adulthood in polygamous communities. Yes, I’m sure they’re very concerned about their children NOW, but seem very ostrich-like about their children’s future.
April 16, 2008 at 3:01 pm
This is a terrible situation all the way around, with no easy answers. What is interesting is that two other states Utah and Arizona have known about this situation for some time but chose to look the other way. Children should be properly cared for by their parents, the challenge in a free society is to make sure that this occurs while at the same time not infringing upon the liberties provided by our Constitution. The parents who are charged and convicted of a crime, would obviously stand to be separated from their children. But what if no charges have been filed and no conviction gained? Are we a country where we are innocent until proven guilty or is that belief suspended when children are involved?
Those are not easy questions and I don’t have the answers, but if all it takes is an allegation of abuse for a parent to be separated from their child, I think there is cause for some concern. Do we want to give the state that much power, where a allegation alone allows this type of action from the state? Then it moves to what constitutes abuse or neglect.
Policing our own sounds nice but what does that look like? We get into the messy issues of devising a standard for what a Christian family should do and not do. And we all see that there is not a whole lot of agreement there! Should we go with the Doug Phillips standard, Spunky’s standard, or someone else’s? And if we do manage to agree upon a basic set of principles, then what do we do with families who don’t meet this standard but their behavior doesn’t rise to the level of “criminal” activity? Again, these are challenging questions with no easy answers.
April 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I think that calling the women “complicit in the crimes” doesn’t embrace the whole fact that they have been taught that this is acceptable behavior. I’m not justifying their complicity, rather, I fear that this makes the moms look just as guilty as the husbands, when in reality, they were victims themselves at some point.
I think about “unintentional” sin and how it was dealt with in the OT, that people still had to make atonement for any accidental sin that they may not have been aware of. Well, obviously these women were unintentionally breaking the law by allowing this, but I do believe that the government would have leniency with them, because of their own status in this community.
It does worry me to think that the women who stayed will just have more children, and this will all recur in 15-20 years. The devil really does have a foothold with them, and that saddens me as much as the behavior of the men who have put them in this place.
April 16, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Spunky, in the case of child abuse, even if we’re trying to follow “innocent until proven guilty,” Children’s Services has a duty to children to keep them safe. If there is suspected abuse, they will not leave a child with the suspected abuser until they can prove guilt or innocence. My aunt is a social worker, and with probable cause, HAS to remove a child until the situation can be investigated. I don’t think it’s about suspending proof, but I wouldn’t want a child to be left in a possibly (probably) abusive situation until I could prove the abuse, I would take them out immediately. Apologies can be made (obviously this would have a high price), but leaving a child in possible danger, I think, would be foolish. And it is really rare that a child would say there was abuse when there wasn’t.
I’ll have to find the link to a site that shows sex abuse report stats.
April 16, 2008 at 3:30 pm
If all CPS needs is “probable cause” to remove a child from a family, we ought to be removing children from quite a few public school in my area. There are enough cases of sexual abuse and misconduct to demonstrate that the children are in “possible danger” by both teachers and other students! We’ve had several cases in our local schools (both public and private) of sexual misconduct with adults and minor children. And a quick Google search shows that these are not exactly “rare” occurances. I’ve also known of young ladies who were in situations where the teacher had issues, but because of the teachers union they were able to move him to another school and never deal with the situation. So “probable cause” and “possible danger” seems insufficient to remove a child from a parent.
Again, I don’t want to come across as defending what these families were doing, but at the same time I don’t want to just give the authorities a pass either and unwittingly hand them more authority than they rightly possess.
April 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I know that different locales have varying standards and protocol for removing children from suspected abusive homes. In my town, only a few blocks from my house, a 5 year old little girl lived with her mother, 2 siblings, and her mom’s uncle. The uncle obviously has disabilities of some sort and the mother was determined to be emotionally 6 or 7 years of age.
One evening, the uncle repeatedly tripped the little girl, causing her to fall head first into a wall. When she passed out, they call 911. The next morning she died from a fracture to the skull. Both the mom and uncle were charged with crimes, not sure exactly which ones, but the uncle was given life in prison. (The day of his sentence, he killed himself with anti-depressants he had been saving in his jail cell.)
When the adults were taken into custody, there were TV cameras and protester all around the courthouse and it took several days for the DA to bring charges against the mother, which outraged everyone. But the public defender for this woman is a friend of mine and he made what I thought was an excellent point as we talked about it. He asked where all the protester were when this family was in danger. He also pointed out that repeatedly the teachers as her school had contacted DCFS and asked for someone who could legally intervene to do so.
As Christians, are we our brother’s keepers? How far should/can we go in these sorts of matters? These ARE hard questions.
April 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Here is an interesting video taped recently acquired by a local reporter in our area which reveals what went on in the interrogation of a 13 year boy in regards to an allegation of sexual misconduct by the father.
The tapes are disturbing. The child has Aspergers Syndrome and the fact that he was there alone without legal counsel makes for a very intimidating situation. He was told by the questioner that his “body language” suggested that he was not being completely honest about what he knew. After that, they lie to him and tell him they have evidence which already suggests his father’s guilt and points to his own involvement in sexual abuse; evidence which does not exist. In the final segment, the boy says that he no longer sees his father as trustworthy.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/NEWS03/80316001/0/COL04
The father, it turns out was unjustly accused. This is a sad ordeal, and shows when state officials that the end result “protecting children” justifies any means necessary to do so. According to the reporter investigating the story, “The deceptive and coercive tactics on display in the video obtained by the Free Press are part of a well-established protocol for interviewing adults suspected of criminal activity.” The child was subjected to what is normally done to a accused criminal to illicit a confession. The police defended the interrogator,
“”He didn’t mean to harm anyone,” Fuhs said. “The bottom line here is that the detective was trying to get to the truth. I don’t know whether he went over the line or not.”
It makes one wonder what the children in Texas will be subjected to, since Texas CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the separation was made after they decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around. But who is watching the state to make sure that possible abuse does not occur as it did with this young man. Had this not been on video tape, there would have been no record of the abuse. And in many cases, there is no such tape made during the questioning and the children do not have legal counsel present.
April 16, 2008 at 4:30 pm
[...] 4th part Prairie Muffin Manifesto- most recent post for comments [...]
April 16, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“It does worry me to think that the women who stayed will just have more children, and this will all recur in 15-20 years. The devil really does have a foothold with them, and that saddens me as much as the behavior of the men who have put them in this place.”
Well, there is one solution — ENFORCE the anti-polygamy laws and the child-molestation laws, and do not permit “religious” groups who believe in doing such things to form communes where they can indulge their taste for illegal activities “under the radar”.
If these guys were practicing some sort of goofy pagan religion, and were practicing polyANDRY instead of polyGYNY, and were doing things like going naked and sacrificing animals in the town square instead of wearing ankle-length dresses and worshipping in a spiffy white temple, you can bet there would be a hue and cry raised until the government and local law enforcement came in and shut them down. But instead, bacause they look outwardly Christian, there are those who wonder whether we ought to give them some sort of a pass.
April 16, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“Since the Texas compound story was brought up; I’m curious, does anyone know why they are calling the men “polygamous”? Were they legally married in the state’s eyes? ”
I have read a few books about this cult and other Mormon cults over the past few years that explained the complicated structure. One was “Under the Banner of Heaven” and the other was by a woman who escaped the Warren Jeff cult. I cannot remember the title of the book.
They are not in civil marriages. Some fathers give their 14 year old daughters over to old men in marriage. It is all arranged. The woman, whose book I read, was even sent away by her husband to work in one of his businesses out of state away from her children. The other wives were raising them…so to speak and yes, there was abuse. There is constant jealousy among the wives and the kids seem to be much neglected and abused.
The other book was about Park City, Utah and a murder in that cult. The reporter was stunned to find out the intricate structure of the whole cult coming from one patriarch. It seems the entire city was a part of it and those in the cult were part of the police force and other gov agencies. This made it impossible for anyone to escape or complain. the marriages were not civil so men with multiple wives had them apply for food stamps and other welfare as single moms. He found that city had the highest welfare numbers!
This is NOT about religious freedom. They are breaking our civil laws which protect individuals. Polygamy is illegal. Many of the marriages could be defined as statutory rape. The fathers who give these daughter to marriage ought to be in prison!
If we want to argue religious freedom here we best be prepared for Sharia law to be practiced here, too.
April 16, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“If we want to argue religious freedom here we best be prepared for Sharia law to be practiced here, too.”
It IS quite a test case for that, isn’t it?
And your mention of Sharia law brings to mind Gary North and his merriy band of crazies, who believe in public stoning for adultery and for “impurity before marriage” and whipping, indenturement, etc, for lesser offenses.
I wonder if we might have started to see such “lesser” punishments meted out at certain patriarchal Y2K communes, had they not broken up after Y2K didn’t happen.