Our last thread was getting too slow to download so we are continuing here. Since someone mentioned that the Ladies Against Feminism site, a patriocentric website, recommends Helen Andelin’s book Fascinating Womanhood,and given her wide influence with conservative Christian women, we will be looking at some of her teachings as well.
May 28, 2008
6th part of prairie muffin and other patriocentric discussion (Karen)
Posted by millenniumwoman under 1[538] Comments
May 28, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I imagine that someone has made this point before me, but what struck me about the core message of Helen Andelin’s book is that it is essentially manipulative. Now, there is nothing wrong with treating our husbands with respect, keeping a tidy home and dressing in a feminine manner, or indeed dressing to please our husbands, but to do this so our husband rewards us with love’n'kisses, presents, kindness and so on is manipulative and dishonest and more than a little sad.
If a male writer were to advise husbands who want a little more “action” in the bedroom to tell their wives that they looked slim (whether they were looking slim or not)women would be up in outrage. No-one likes to be manipulated. I find it all a bit demeaning to men…I really like men, they tend to value honesty (huge sweeping statement there!) and I don’t think too many of them would like to be manipulated using Mrs Andelin’s methods.
May 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm
karen,
I would love to continue discussing Helen Andelin’s books…When I am not at work I will pull my copy out and post some more quotes that I have highlighted.
When I was in Jr high and high school these books were presented as a “Christian” guidbook for teens. Even though I personally thought that the concept was silly many years later after I was married I had to step back and look at some of my ideas about men and marriage and I realized that I was really influenced by the ideas in the book. Talk about a slap in my feminist face!! All of that to say, I think that is why these types of books are so dangerous, they not only teach the reader how to manipulate the reader is unknowlingly being manipulated herself.
May 28, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Dulce Domum wrote: I imagine that someone has made this point before me, but what struck me about the core message of Helen Andelin’s book is that it is essentially manipulative.
My husband and I listened to an audio download yesterday featuring Russell Moore, CJ Mahaney, Randy Stinson and Mark Dever. Someone sent me a link that appeared on the CCC Forum or whatever it is (Bayly and Mouser affiliated).
Russell Moore says this: And that’s what Scripture commends: not just women who have just the right ideas, but women who do so in the right spirit. A quiet spirit is something that, so often you’ll see women in our churches who may be doctrinally correct on this issue, but their kind of Evangelical Ann Coulters. I mean, just very aggressive and harsh. That is exactly opposite of what the Apostle Peter is commending through the Holy Spirit.
(CJ Mahaney is in the background whisper-moaning “Yes, yes!” as Moore talks…)
My husband said, “In other words, they want women to only have one kind of personality.” He then went on, after that section (before popping in his own Ipod headphones) that they are naieve and do not realize that so often, their wives with their quiet spirits and gentle answers are also manipulating the daylights out of them. Personality/manner and spirit are not synonymous or obvious.
My husband and I use assertive communication with one another and do not manipulate. If I do manipulate, I usually preface it as manipulation! “I really want you to do X, and that is my thought and my desire. I want X because I feel A and think B. Choose whether you want to comply. I will be disappointed if you choose something different like Y or Z.” Can this approach be considered gentle and sweet?
May 28, 2008 at 2:40 pm
OOpps.
Moore quotes from this audio (add the www.)
resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070501/d2de20cd-e931-4593-9ba8-71907cc50ce0.aspx
May 28, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“Now, there is nothing wrong with treating our husbands with respect, keeping a tidy home and dressing in a feminine manner, or indeed dressing to please our husbands, but to do this so our husband rewards us with love’n’kisses, presents, kindness and so on is manipulative and dishonest and more than a little sad.”
I’m not so sure about that. I mean, if you treat people (and husbands are people) with love and consideration, they will generally reciprocate, and treating your husband like a king will genarally result in a happy hubby who treats you like a queen.
IMO, there’s nothing wrong with that. This is the honest, one-hand-washes-the-other sort of “non-manipulation” that is the basis for most human and even animal societies, and it is reflected in every moral system that has ever existed, including our own.
Where Andelin’s book goes wrong, I think, is in going way beyond this, advising women to ACT stupid, to ACT like little girls, etc.
It is Andelin’s admonition to engage in ACTING, to feign weakness, helplessness, etc and so elicit a response in men, that makes her advice in “Fascinating Womanhood” ring so falsely……and it is amusing to note that this false note is reflected in the very etymology of the word “fascinate”.
Our English word, “fascinate” is from the Latin word “fascinre”, meaning “to cast a spell on”, and from “fascinum”, meaning “an evil spell, or a phallic-shaped amulet.”
In ancient times, it was generally agreed upon that manipulation of THIS sort was the stock-in-trade of witches and WHORES, not honest women.
May 28, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Dulce said:
“Now, there is nothing wrong with treating our husbands with respect, keeping a tidy home and dressing in a feminine manner, or indeed dressing to please our husbands, but to do this so our husband rewards us with love’n’kisses, presents, kindness and so on is manipulative and dishonest and more than a little sad.”
Cynthia Gee replied:
“I’m not so sure about that. I mean, if you treat people (and husbands are people) with love and consideration, they will generally reciprocate, and treating your husband like a king will genarally result in a happy hubby who treats you like a queen.”
I guess I agree with both of you in a sense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with treating our husbands with respect and there is absolutely everything right about it! As a matter of fact, we’re commanded to do so in scripture. But our main motive for doing all the right things should simply be because we want to obey our Lord. When we are first and foremost doing it for our Lord it becomes easier to do especially if a husband is living in a way that is much less deserving of it.
I think what Cynthia said about people reciprocating is true too. We have a much better chance (not guaranteed of course) of our husbands treating us in kind when we treat them with love and respect. I think it’s our job to obey the Lord with thanksgiving and leave the results to him. Even if a husband is so hard that he doesn’t respond in kind, we are much more apt ourselves to have peace and be free from resentment and bitterness because we’re obeying our Father.
I think any teaching that encourages women to act stupid, etc. is unbecoming a Christian woman and as Cynthia pointed out more likely to be the actions of a harlot. As a matter of fact, it’s the harlot wife of Proverbs 7:21 who is given to us as an example of false flattery. “With her many persuasions she entices him; with her flattering lips she seduces him.”
May 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I should point out too, that any decent man can see right through false flattery. It’s the foolish man that fails to heed God’s wisdom that falls for the false flattery of the harlot.
May 28, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Cindy, that’s just complete garbage coming from Moore and Mahaney. Garbage and filth. And the church wonders why its women are depressed and unhappy. Wow. It raises my ire so much, I probably ought not write any more until I calm down.
May 28, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hi Cindy K
I agree. The day I learned to speak plainly and honestly to my husband, the day I learned that he wasn’t a mind-reader, the happier our marriage became.
Hi Cynthia
Yes, I agree with you. I perhaps wasn’t presenting my ideas quite properly. You made a good point that sound relationships are based on reciprocation, I suppose I was trying to get across the difference between innocently expecting reciprocation and waiting for the outcome of intentional manipulation.
May 28, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Back from my internet break, and it’s crazy how fast this all moves…
Denise said in #679 of Prairie Muffin Thread 5 that:
t’s a very sad day in Christianity when professing Christian parents feel such dire need for so many outside resources when God has given us everything we need pertaining to life and godliness in His Word!
This bears repeating over and over again. In my time away I did not read my email except for once a week. I did not visit blogs (although I did update my own or the grandparents would have gotten quite vocal about the lack of grandkid news). I went as far as to go on a complete media fast. I think it lasted about 3 weeks total. (It started when my computer crashed, and I felt led to just let it all go for awhile). I did spend a lot of time in the Word.
I was struck by all the mental clutter I had laying around. Don’t get me wrong, I love my bloggy friends. I missed TW while I was gone. I find a lot of inspiration for what I do as a graphic designer from visually based things like the net and magazines. I’ve been inspired and led to go deeper with God because of some of my favorite bloggers.
BUT…and this is a big BUT…it is exceedingly dangerous when one fails to depend on the Bible for sustenance. I was so convicted of that in my time away from media! I kept hearing in my heart God was saying. “I AM.” not “I AM + the latest parenting book.” Not “I AM + the latest greatest musician that makes stunning worship music”. Not “I AM + a to do list”.
I want to scream this at the patriocentric crowd, but I know I need to deal with the plank in my own eye. But either ALL scripture is true. Or none of it is true. You cannot have it both ways. And without the inspired Word of God being true, then there is no God. That is a dangerous, blasphemous place to be.
2 Timothy 3:
13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Climbing off my soapbox now. I just…Cindy K called it Patriocentric voodoo, and that’s exactly how I feel…like I need to take a shower or something…I often spend a lot of time in prayer and scripture reading after observing patriocentric blogs and email lists as if to cleanse myself…reminding myself of what God has said. And that God has never been wrong before, so why start now?
I’ve missed every one of you! I can’t believe I missed the numerous Austen and Shakespeare discusssions. You know I can talk a piece about that!
*Waves to fellow rebellious daughter Beatrice…*
May 28, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Cindy K. said:
“My husband and I use assertive communication with one another and do not manipulate. If I do manipulate, I usually preface it as manipulation! “I really want you to do X, and that is my thought and my desire. I want X because I feel A and think B. Choose whether you want to comply. I will be disappointed if you choose something different like Y or Z.” Can this approach be considered gentle and sweet?”
Honestly, not being assertive enough is one of the things my husband has gently prodded me on. He wants me to speak my mind, directly and clearly. If I don’t like something he’s planning/saying/doing, he wants me to tell him about it loudly and insistently. If I have an idea for how our family should do something, he wants me to say it/do it/plan it/etc.
He would absolutely hate it if I tried to manipulate him by being helpless, or didn’t tell him my mind because I needed to be a “submissive” wife.
So in our marriage, for me to submit means that I am unsubmissive in the stereotypical patriarchal sense. Kind of paradoxical in a way.
May 28, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“And that’s what Scripture commends: not just women who have just the right ideas, but women who do so in the right spirit. A quiet spirit is something that, so often you’ll see women in our churches who may be doctrinally correct on this issue, but their kind of Evangelical Ann Coulters. I mean, just very aggressive and harsh. That is exactly opposite of what the Apostle Peter is commending through the Holy Spirit.
My husband said, “In other words, they want women to only have one kind of personality.”
Well, your husband hit the nail on the head. First of all, I am assuming Moore was referring to 1 Peter 3 and if so, he is taking it out of context. That verse is for women married to unbelievers and the culture it was written is very important as Molleth explained a few comments ago.
We must be so vigilant today. So much of our precious scrpture is being hijacked to prop up a new religion just for women. And it is being hijacked by men with lots of initials behind their names and people are following them.
Wonder if they can tell us which “depraved sinner-male-saved by Grace-just-like-a woman”, gets to decide if a woman is in her right ’spirit’? Who sets and defines this standard of quiet spirit for us? Another mere mortal?
Well, if it is NOT the Holy Spirit, then it does not matter, does it? But then, the Holy Spirit may just convict her to be BOLD for the Name of Christ.
May 28, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I have absolutely nothing smart to add except that the only FASCINATING fact of the book is that they know diddly-squat about real WOMANHOOD.
Back to the intelligent discussion and I’ll stand by and nod my head and smile!
May 28, 2008 at 7:49 pm
*Waves back to Joy* We missed you!
Loving the thoughts about the Fascinating Womanhood book. It sounds somewhat like what I’ve heard about Created To Be His Helpmeet. Has anyone here read both and are they alike?
May 28, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Beatrice,
Ugh! Created to Be His Helpmeet vs Fascinating Womanhood? They are both doctrinally UNsound. CBHM is much more dangerous, imho. It is very formulaic and gives stories that spell trouble for most women. There is one story about a woman who stayed in a marriage with a man who tried to kill her with a knife. Basically, it was all her fault. I guess this was a real couple in the Pearl’s church but can’t find any firsthand testimonies from the actual couple anywhere on the internet and I even asked Rebekah Pearl to have “Sunny” tell her story.
Then there is the weird Visionary, Command and Mr. Steady personalities assigned to men. Debbie likens them to the 3 aspects of God which is bunk. God is not irresponsible (Visionary) nor is he a tyrant (Command). She also says that women are not the direct image of God as men are; women are muted or once-removed when it comes to imaging God so these 3 so-called personalities are “muted” in women.
Then there is the story about Mr. Pearl took out the garbage while strutting about while Debbie oohed and ahhed over his manly prowess. Then he launched the garbage bag into the dumpster and missed it (what does it say about pride going before a fall??). Mr. Pearl then did the manly thing, turned around and walked away to leave Mrs. Pearl to clean up his mess. Later in the kitchen, Mr. Pearl manhandles Mrs. Pearl and carries her off to the bedroom to show her how manly he really is.
Both of these books instruct women to appeal the fleshy pride and ego of a man as if a man having a large ego and being full of himself is a godly thing? Totally NOT like Christ at all.
May 28, 2008 at 10:18 pm
(what does it say about pride going before a fall??)
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs, somewhere.
Yup, that was one of many disturbing scenes in a very disturbing book.
May 28, 2008 at 10:22 pm
“She also says that women are not the direct image of God as men are; women are muted or once-removed when it comes to imaging God so these 3 so-called personalities are “muted” in women.”
That reminds of me of this quote from Knox’s Monstrous Regiment. Knox is quoting Augustine.
“To the question how she can be the image of God, he answers as follows: “Woman,” says he, “compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him,”
I guess this stuff has always been going on in Christendom. Doesn’t excuse it though.
May 28, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I saw Spunky’s review some time back of Debi Pearl’s book where she retold the story of that couple in the book. I cannot believe Mrs. Pearl actually rebuked the young woman for telling other people about her husband’s abuse. When your spirit has been crushed and your life has been put in danger, you NEED to talk to someone. What profoundly dehumanising advice.
May 28, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Never heard this explanation of betrothal before. I was also wondering why the young couple was never really touching in the photos. Now I know why.Some of those pictures look REALLY goofy IMO, but that’s just me.
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2008/05/to-betroth-or-not-to-betroth.html
May 28, 2008 at 10:55 pm
“Then he launched the garbage bag into the dumpster and missed it (what does it say about pride going before a fall??). Mr. Pearl then did the manly thing, turned around and walked away to leave Mrs. Pearl to clean up his mess. Later in the kitchen, Mr. Pearl manhandles Mrs. Pearl and carries her off to the bedroom to show her how manly he really is.”
Could be he needs glasses.
Let us hope, for Mrs. Pearl’s sake, that Mr. Pearl is more adept at romance than at he is at garbage-launching.
May 28, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Stacey wrote,
“And thus the betrothal begins—a time when they learn to love one another. They grow together emotionally and hearts are bound together. A commitment is made that is not to be broken.”
Considering that the McDonalds feel that betrothal is as binding as marriage, I would think that the young couple should learn to love each other BEFORE vowing to marry. This business of waiting until marriage before kissing or even holding hands is pure, unadulterated HOGWASH, and it is not a teaching of ANY orthodox branch of Christianity.
I’m not advocating that “courting” couples have sex, or anything remotely close to it, but I was taught (by our very conservative parish priest, no less, and back in the early 70’s) that courting couples ought to engage in chaste kissing and hand-holding before moving on to a more serious relationship, to learn if that “spark” of attraction lies between them.
Some people who do fine as good friends are just not attracted to one another romantically, and while there are worse fates than a lifetime of marriage to one’s best friend, romantic love ought to be a part of every marriage.
May 28, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Cynthia,
Yep. I have tried to think of a nice way of putting it and you did. I don’t advocate sex before marriage, but my goodness…no hand holding or pecks on the cheek and what not?
No wonder brides to be can’t turn off the “sex is bad” voice in their head presto-chango when the vows are made. I had a horrible time with this. Honestly it took me about 2 years into our marriage before I learned to be comfortable and quit looking at it as a bad, dirty, wrong thing.
May 28, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Cynthia,
re: comment 21, as much as my limited experience permits, I wholeheartedly agree! I do wonder though if that might just be poor word choice on Stacy’s part, and possibly not what she actually meant. I’ve learned both as a writer and when working in our university’s writing centre, helping students edit their papers, that trying to put a flowery or intellectual spin on one’s writing can have the unintended effect of changing or at least obscuring the original meaning.
My personal sticking point with the post was the photography! Speaking on principle, I love the idea of having a family member take engagement (or betrothal) photos, for sure, since a photographer who knows the subjects so well can often capture personalities with greater adroitness. However, I get the impression that in this case the young couple were rather too aware of the camera, lending a stiff and staged feeling to the scenes. It makes me want to grab my own camera, put them both in some lovely garden or a field or anywhere they could feel at ease and tell them to just get to KNOW each other; I’d ask them to chat, dream, plan, laugh . . . and not mind me in the least!
May 28, 2008 at 11:23 pm
(um, for my comment in 23, “limited” refers only to my knowledge of engagements and such. If we’re talking about sex, you can just go on ahead and switch that to “nonexistant” lol!)
May 29, 2008 at 12:28 am
Why does Mrs. Macdonald say “I am NOT prescribing what everyone else do with their family” and then proceed to imply that anyone who enters into a breakable engagement is influenced by a worldly culture of noncommital? I know she’s still leaving leeway for how to interpret things and go about life, but just how much?
May 29, 2008 at 12:35 am
Beatrice, I wondered that myself. I actually snorted/smirked when I read that line. If she’s anything, she’s inconsistently consistent in her broad brushes of how ‘things should be done’ and ‘what she thinks of those not like her’.
May 29, 2008 at 12:41 am
I had a fairly normal homeschooled childhood, but even reading the blurbs,ect, cirling around for books and teachings on emotional purity and courtship clued me in on enough weird ideas to drive me nuts. Now I am still nervous about hugging guys unless they are very close family members. I say this not to shift any blame off of my obssesive self that takes up any stupid burden she can find, but just to say – not helpful!
About this no kissing or holding hands till marriage – this is really worldly. I mean, to so imbue all touch with sexual connotation – that’s just wrong! Robin Philips in his wonderful book about the courtship movement says that it denigrates all touch between a couple to the level of foreplay. Now think about how many chaste couples that suddenly demonises, how much poetry and literature is suddenly R-rated! (Romeo and Juliet’s meeting, anyone?) The fact is, that there’s just more going on here than sex – touch is a wonderful thing God gave to all humans, not just married ones, and romance and love are mysteries.
May 29, 2008 at 12:44 am
This is interesting too:
From Your Sacred Calling, To Betroth, or Not to Betroth, Wednesday, May 28, 2008:
I see betrothal as a covenant promise between a man and a woman to marry. It is a covenant commitment that should not be broken, except in the case of death or sexual unfaithfulness. Thus, in the case of Tiffany and Jared, they have decided to move from the non-binding courtship phase to the binding betrothal phase.
To those with a secular postmodern mind, the concept of betrothal may seem foreign, archaic, and constricting. In a culture where marriage is redefined to include perverted homosexual unions, and couples divorce because they “fell out of love,” how in the world can the postmodern mind grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage?
Who decides the ’sexual unfaithfullness’ I wonder? Particularly in the husband? I think they would bring this quick to bear on the woman if it was even remotely suspected that she was doing anything. But I don’t think I am too far off to think that a woman who has discovered her husband is unfaithful (in the patriocentric paradigm) would have extreme difficulty in establishing that. Or being granted a divorce or separation.
May 29, 2008 at 12:45 am
My personal take on the whole no kissing/hand holding/touching before marriage is that parents use it as just another way to control their children through threats and condemnation. I know that some parents tell their kids God will curse their marriage if they kiss before the wedding, etc. Other threats are used, not to mention social/church/home school culture condemnation.
May 29, 2008 at 12:52 am
“I see betrothal as a covenant promise between a man and a woman to marry. It is a covenant commitment that should not be broken, except in the case of death or sexual unfaithfulness.”
They sure do like to throw around that word ‘covenant’. It is a shame they do not understand the NEW Covenant.
May 29, 2008 at 1:05 am
“They sure do like to throw around that word ‘covenant’. It is a shame they do not understand the NEW Covenant.”
May 29, 2008 at 1:06 am
Just to be clear – I think the actual article was written by James McDonald, and posted by his wife on her blog.
I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising this piece, since it deals with something incredibly personal about two very young people. Even if the details have been (unwisely, IMO) posted by one of the party’s own parents.
So all I have to say is that for a post that begins “[Betrothal] is our application of the biblical precepts found in Scripture.” There is a great big lack of ANY Scripture in the article.
Betrothal is supposedly the biblical way to do things, and they don’t have a single Bible verse to back that up? It’s all “I see betrothal as..” and “the McDonald version”. What are the Bible verses that led James McDonald to his conclusions?
May 29, 2008 at 1:07 am
“I know that some parents tell their kids God will curse their marriage if they kiss before the wedding, etc.”
Sarah, have you known anyone personally who was told this? If so, could you tell me what denomination their parents are?
I’d sure like to get a handle on where this no-kissing garbage is coming from.
I have a good idea where it originated, but I’d like to know for sure. This much I do know, though — it didn’t originate with any orthodox-believing branch of Christianity.
May 29, 2008 at 1:08 am
Do you think their understanding of the New Covenant is just warped a lot, or that they truly don’t get it?
May 29, 2008 at 1:09 am
“What are the Bible verses that led James McDonald to his conclusions?”
Excellent point Claire! I would genuinely be interested in knowing the verses too.
May 29, 2008 at 1:09 am
“What are the Bible verses that led James McDonald to his conclusions?”
The Book of Joshua (Harris)?
May 29, 2008 at 1:39 am
Three guesses who wrote the following:
“Do you think that you should give your first kiss to your eternal spouse or to some other playboy?….. Even holding hands and giving your heartistic embrace should be only for your first love.”</i?
…..from The Ten Commandments Part II
Practical Plan for World Peace
(remove the @@)
http@@://www.divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_ch1.pdf
And then there’s this:
(remove the @@)
http@@://www.divineprinciple.com/1_patriarchy/patriarchy_book_apr10.pdf
May 29, 2008 at 1:40 am
Claire, I agree. I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising this piece as well, because it is such a personal thing and a personal decision.
I do find it interesting/mildly funny that Stacy [oh, apparently Mr. McDonald] says something to that effect [betrothal being a personal decision] but then goes on and on about how “biblical” their approach is. [And summarily implying that anyone who doesn't see it her/their way is well, class? Un Biblical.]
I have often wondered if we split hairs here at TW…but then I come back to the fact that this patriocentric stuff is so deceptive and can enmesh and shackle many a good intentioned Christian in extraBiblical laws. Cindy K mentioned the book unChristian back on thread 5 and it applies so much to all that has been discussed over a year now on TW—and yet another reason why I feel the splitting hairs is necessary- I don’t want the McDonalds/Chanceys/Phillips/Botkins and their myriad underlings representing my faith.
It’s like (I think) Karen and Corrie have mentioned before- many of us here are conservative. Many of us are homeschooled/homeschoolers. Many of us on this thread by appearances would “appear” to be patriocentric. But we aren’t, and we are extremely concerned that we would be represented in such a way. The stuff going on with HLSDA concerns me. I picked up the Homeschooling Today (it’s now produced out of Abingdon, Sproul Jr’s stomping ground, but correct me if I am wrong, didn’t the McDonald’s used to control it?) and the basic gist of the most current issue at the library was that
[paraphrase] Now that homeschooling is entering it’s second generation and is becoming more “culturally acceptable” many are going to start homeschooling for more cultural reasons (i.e. the “cool”"most scholastically advantageous” option, not for religious reasons) that the “true” reasons for Homeschooling and the homeschooling culture are in danger of being “watered down” and/or “contaminated”[end rough paraphrase]
***I can’t get my hands on the copy I got from the library-it’s around somewhere- I am typing from memory.When I find it, I’ll pull the quotes I am thinking of.***
May 29, 2008 at 1:42 am
comment in moderation…. and I broke the links, too.
May 29, 2008 at 1:56 am
+whoops, it posted before I finished the thought.+
I just sat there shocked as I was reading it. The vitriol against those who do not hold to a NCFIC Reformed theology was shocking to me. And this is a magazine you can pick up at any newsstand…this isn’t some obscure blog in the sphere. People curious (perhaps not Christian either) about homeschooling will pick/have picked this up looking for resources and answers.
Maybe I am not-Normal (;) at Lindsey), but as a second generation homeschooler, I homeschool for many of the same reasons as the first generation…but at the end of the day, the question on my mind is (in addition to the discipling of my children) how have I served the Lord today? Have I ministered to those around me? Have I reached out to someone and shared the Gospel?
Never in my mind is the thought: “I wonder how many people have ‘dirtied my clothes’ or my ‘homeschool culture’?!?!? Did they follow my checklist for a ‘good’Christian?’”
Again I go back to Matthew 25. James 1:27.
Sorry to yell, but
WHERE DO THOSE VERSES FIT IN THE PATRIOCENTRIC PARADIGM?
*hangs head in tears*
May 29, 2008 at 2:15 am
Would they say this way of finding a wife is ‘biblical’:
Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. – (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
Find a prostitute and marry her. – (Hosea 1:1-3)
Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. – Moses (Ex 2:16-21)
Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. – Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. – Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you.- Adam (Gen 2:19-24)
Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman’s hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That’s right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife. – Jacob (Genesis 29:15-30)
Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife – David (I Samuel 18:27)
Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you’ll definitely find someone. (It’s all relative, of course.) – Cain (Genesis 4:16-17)
Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest. – Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)
When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, “I have seen a … woman; now get her for me.” If your parents question your decision, simply say, “Get her for me. She’s the one for me.” – Samson (Judges 14:1-)
Kill any husband and take HIS wife (Prepare to lose four sons, though). – David (2 Samuel 11)
Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It’s not just a good idea; it’s the law.) – Onana and Boaz (Deuteronomy or Leviticus, example in Ruth)
Don’t be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity. – Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)
This list is one reason I do not mind questioning their public teachings. They say what they are doing is biblical. Where? Give us all the passages.
My guess is that they are reading the Talmud or Jane Austin.
)
May 29, 2008 at 2:32 am
Ok, James (my husband, not Mr. McDonald!
)
found it.
A couple of articles speak about what I paraphrased:
“Raising Children to Be More Faithful Than We Have Been” by Stephen Warhurst. Homeschooling Today, May/June 2008, pp. 22-36.
—He talks about the need to “indoctrinate” our children in our faith, and continues to use the same word over and over, also stating that a Western Civ approach is paramount, and anything less, is well, less.
And of course, “Home Missions” by RC Sproul, Jr. Homeschooling Today, May/June 2008, pp. 67-68.
Pull quote: “There is, I’m afraid to concede, a growing divide within the homeschooling community. We are becoming, sad as it may seem, victims of our own success. As homeschooling has become more socially acceptable, more people are homeschooling for social reasons. As homeschooling has become more safe, more people are homeschooling safely. As homeschooling has become more successful, more people are homeschooling for success. We need to get busy checking our motives.” He also states rather sardonically that “the only beating I’ve received has been to my reputation” (comparing himself to a foreign ministry friend who had had his car stolen and been beaten). He also states: “It is a wicked parochialism that sees the perishing souls on a distant continent as somehow less valuable that others. It is a cruel trick of the devil to see them as more valuable than our own, and those of our children. We have been sent, sent to see the deadly earnest business of raising up godly seed, or raising our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
May 29, 2008 at 3:00 am
IMHO, there is no difference between what the McDonalds call “betrothal” and what I call engagement.
May 29, 2008 at 3:22 am
Cindy K, you said,
“CJ Mahaney is in the background whisper-moaning “Yes, yes!” as Moore talks”
CJ Mahaney is practically quoted left and right at the FIC my family has attended. His books are sold at the church book table and he is very reverenced by many of the young generation of graduated homeschoolers. He has an interesting background himself.
May 29, 2008 at 3:22 am
I meant to say, “he is very revered”, not reverenced.
May 29, 2008 at 3:25 am
OK, this has been stuck in moderation for a while, let’s try posting it again:
….Three guesses who wrote the following:
“Do you think that you should give your first kiss to your eternal spouse or to some other playboy?….. Even holding hands and giving your heartistic embrace should be only for your first love.”
…..from The Ten Commandments Part II
Practical Plan for World Peace
(remove the @@)
http@@://www.divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_ch1.pdf
And then there’s this:
(remove the @@)
http@@://www.divineprinciple.com/1_patriarchy/patriarchy_book_apr10.pdf
May 29, 2008 at 3:26 am
Third try’s a charm, this has been stuck in moderation for a while, let’s try posting it yet again:
….Three guesses who wrote the following:
“Do you think that you should give your first kiss to your eternal spouse or to some other playboy?….. Even holding hands and giving your heartistic embrace should be only for your first love.”
…..from The Ten Commandments Part II
Practical Plan for World Peace
divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_ch1.pdf
And then there’s this:
divineprinciple.com/1_patriarchy/patriarchy_book_apr10.pdf
May 29, 2008 at 3:44 am
Cynthia, these statements regarding kissing and physical contact pre-marriage come from your standard non-denominational home school parents with the usual influences – Nee, Lindvall, Harris, Gothard and his progeny, etc.
Courtship isn’t clearly Biblical and there’s no Biblical direction or mandate in terms of the way the courtship concept started or evolved in the home school community (although it’s not necessarily unbiblical either). The upshot – a fearful, controlling home school parent can use the concept to their own ends however they choose.
May 29, 2008 at 3:47 am
I have never understood the analogy that you are giving away a piece of your heart everytime you kiss somebody before marriage….That is what my boyfriends youth minister taught…it was a non-denominational church that hosted Bill Gothards Institute of Basic Life Principles Seminars.
“I know that some parents tell their kids God will curse their marriage if they kiss before the wedding, etc.”
I don’t know that any of the parents told their kids those exact words but it was more than implied. I know of one girl who was kissed by a boy and the shame and guilt that she felt was unimaginable. She felt that she had let down her parents and future husband. I am not sure what her parents had taught her but it was enough to issue a lifetime of guilt.
“What are the Bible verses that led James McDonald to his conclusions?”
The Book of Joshua (Harris)?
When Josh Harris wrote “I kissed Dating Goodbye” I used to joke with my mom that I was going to write a book for homeschoolers titled “How to hold hands and hold onto your heart”
May 29, 2008 at 3:51 am
I also want to add that I looked at Stacy’s new blog post and I felt sad for Tiffany and Jared. This is such a special time in their lives and I think that instead of letting them enjoy it they are being held up as an example for all of the homeschooling patriarchial families. That has to be so much preassure for them!!
May 29, 2008 at 5:03 am
Joy, welcome back
Regarding Stacy McDonald’s “I-don’t-mean-to-meddle” statements: “Beatrice, I wondered that myself. I actually snorted/smirked when I read that line. If she’s anything, she’s inconsistently consistent in her broad brushes of how ‘things should be done’ and ‘what she thinks of those not like her’.”
I’m starting to see/hear more and more people within the homeschooling/courtship/patrio movement teaching things as the “best” or “biblical” way, and then try to say it might be just right for their family and for families who want to succeed in life.
Well, how would you feel if you actually listened to those words and started to look at your own family’s life and realized you’re not doing it the “biblical” or “best” way? It puts you in a state of vulnerability to “leaders” teaching. They have you open for indoctrination or for some, like me, it feels like a stumblingblock. It also discourages people. I’m not seeing the Gospel preached, but preferences, like “Yes, I know Jesus died and rose again for my sins, but THIS is the practical way to live your life,” or some such theme.
May 29, 2008 at 5:41 am
Lin, in comment #40 — I love your “biblical” examples.
Lindsey said,
“I just sat there shocked as I was reading it. The vitriol against those who do not hold to a NCFIC Reformed theology was shocking to me. And this is a magazine you can pick up at any newsstand…this isn’t some obscure blog in the sphere. People curious (perhaps not Christian either) about homeschooling will pick/have picked this up looking for resources and answers.”
You should read up on how the modern homeschool movement came to be. Read about the “Four Pillars” and how in the early 1980’s there were some ambitious homeschool marketeers just making an impact on the scene. They wanted to set aside some hard work done by early “pioneers” just to make a an evangelical alliance of homeschool leaders. They involve some of the biggest names out there in Homeschool land.
What seems to be happening is that it’s getting more and more exclusive in some of these groups that have morphed over the decades, to where these courtship/betrothal (Lindvall, J.Harris) and patrio lifestyles are becoming more prevalent in the teachings and books/merchandise.
What I find most ironic is that originally, homeschoolers wanted a choice in educating their children, but now choice is not good enough. We all have to conform to someone’s “biblical” standards (defined by men or women with vested interests oftentimes) or be left on the sidelines as not really working in the best interests of God’s Kingdom somehow. For example, I just read some conference notes posted on a local homeschool networking site, that HSLDA really opposes homeschool public charter schools. They really don’t want homeschoolers to participate, and put forth some real pressure for homeschoolers to not conform to that standard here locally. What happened to choice in education?
May 29, 2008 at 6:12 am
Agreed. I thought the charter programs were baaaad, back when I listened to HSLDA.
Bah.
Hello, why is it BAD that the government has started waking up to the fact that homeschooling is a valid way to educate children, and is willing to give us (Alaskans) a share of the tax-payer dollars allotted to education?
We get around 1,400-1,800 a year, per kid, depending on the homeschooling program we sign up with, to help with educational curriculum, sports, and fine arts costs!!!! It’s been awesome for us. I only wish I would have done it right away, instead of waiting two years assuming that the charter schools were the devil. *sigh* More of that idiotic fear-mongering stuff going on, and it’s a far cry from what’s actually happening in REALITY where the rest of the world dwells.
Btw, if the homeschooling programs ever DID try to take away homeschooling freedoms, I’d pull out in a heartbeat and so would ever other homeschooler I know. But right now, they couldn’t be more ideal. They ask very VERY very little of us, and in return, we get to purchase and do a lot of cool educational things with our children that we’d never be able to afford otherwise.
May 29, 2008 at 8:12 am
Cynthia Gee’s mystery quote: “Do you think that you should give your first kiss to your eternal spouse or to some other playboy?….. Even holding hands and giving your heartistic embrace should be only for your first love.”
Correction: Spouse’s aren’t “eternal”. Only temporal. Nobody is married in Heaven. False dichotomy.
Cally said: “I also want to add that I looked at Stacy’s new blog post and I felt sad for Tiffany and Jared. This is such a special time in their lives and I think that instead of letting them enjoy it they are being held up as an example for all of the homeschooling patriarchial families. That has to be so much preassure for them!!”
I feel the same way.
If you haven’t already figured it out, this is every patriocentric parent’s dream – to be able to hold up their child’s courtship and show just how successfully they are conducting it.
What made me wonder the most in Stacy’s article was this: “I see betrothal as a covenant promise between a man and a woman to marry. It is a commitment that should not be broken, except in the case of death or sexual unfaithfulness. [I would add that if there were some other bizarre undisclosed situation (insanity, major undisclosed sin, etc.) that was discovered at this point, it would also be a legitimate reason for not progressing to the actual marriage]”
I’m just wondering… if betrothal is the Biblical thing to do because it’s how it was done in the Bible, then how come we are allowed to add other deal-breakers to the list when in Biblical times it was JUST THE TWO reasons for a betrothal-divorce? It was my understanding that it was only the first two she mentioned: death or infidelity (a la Joseph quietly divorcing Mary because she was found to be with child). So if we’re really going to be doing things the “biblical” way, then let’s stick to original rules here. In order to do that, the other issues like “insanity or major undisclosed sin” must be explored and discovered prior to the betrothal, because neither one meets the Biblical qualifications of betrothal-breakers.
““What are the Bible verses that led James McDonald to his conclusions?”
The Book of Joshua (Harris)?”
It’s been a long time since I’ve read his books, but I always liked him WAAYYYYY more than any other courtship proponent (with the possible exception of the Ludy’s, though I’m not sure it they use the terminology of “courtship”).
Joshua Harris always seemed to be about the HEART; honestly seeking what we believe will please God, not necessarily a bunch of rules. In Boy Meets Girl, he refused to give a list of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” forms of physical tough while engaged, but said it was up to each person to seek God for His will for them in their life in this area. He did share what he and Shannon did, and I think he probably really encouraged accountability, but I’m not sure that that’s such a bad idea, really.
Plus, he was brutally honest about how human he was/is, something that I think took a lot of courage. He may be thoroughly entrenched in Complementarian theology, but he never came close to the arrogance and pharisaism of the more patriarchal people.
Can someone tell me if I remember correctly… did Joshua Harris intern or work for CJ Mahaney?
Also, I had no idea that HSLDA was getting so fringe. Where else have they wandered into Patrio-land? I had always liked the Farris’ too, but have they started to lean that way as well?
May 29, 2008 at 9:15 am
Try http://www.sgmsurvivors.com for a current discussion on “courtship”. Many references to CJ and Harris.
May 29, 2008 at 12:08 pm
This excerpt, I think, is very revealing:
“To those with a secular postmodern mind, the concept of betrothal may seem foreign, archaic, and constricting. In a culture where marriage is redefined to include perverted homosexual unions, and couples divorce because they “fell out of love,” how in the world can the postmodern mind grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage?
“Against the postmodern mind stands the authoritative Word of God. . . .”
Notice how it’s only to “those with a secular, postmodern mind” that “the concept of betrothal may seem foreign, archaic, and constricting.” Nobody, it appears, except those religious modernist thinkers (vs. the aforementioned “secular postmodernist” thinkers) whose opinions coincide with the McDonalds’ (apparently unanimous within their family–no dissenters?) opinions, can “grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage.”
Sorry, but I think that’s blatantly dishonest and deliberately pugilistic.
Why is it, I wonder, that so many Christians feel free to blast “liberals” and “postmodernists” and other non-patriarchalists, non VF-ists, non-betrothalists, non-whatever is the preferred religiously-popular fad is being propped up?
I figure, if it takes broad-brush painting of everybody else as “secular” or some other slam, maybe the principle they’re trying to prop up is neither as biblical nor as holy as they’re making it out to be. Maybe, just maybe, it’s merely THEIR PREFERENCE. And in this case, it’s highly controlling. Hardly surprising, when support of patriarchal principles is at stake.
May 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Kathleen, I made the comment about the vitriol in Homeschooling Today…
Just owning my words.
For a second generation homeschooler, I should know a lot more about how it started. All I know is that I used to have a lot of respect for Mike Farris. Until I found out he was associating with Doug Phillips. I also had a lot of respect for the Forester’s (of Doorposts fame)- I still do to some extent. But I am greatly troubled by their association with Vision Forum. I don’t know. It’s troublesome, no matter which way you slice it.
I also think it’s interesting how some homeschooling conventions/associations are highly patriocentric in nature and others you’d have to dig pretty deep to find anything in that line. Take TN for example, where I live. They are more main line, normal middle…but the VA convention, which I’ll be attending next week, is over the top deep into the patriocentric stuff (Doug Phillips spoke last year, and the Botkins are there this year).
May 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“Notice how it’s only to “those with a secular, postmodern mind” that “the concept of betrothal may seem foreign, archaic, and constricting.” Nobody, it appears, except those religious modernist thinkers ….. can “grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage.”
Sorry, but I think that’s blatantly dishonest and deliberately pugilistic.”
You bet your boots it’s dishonest. Back in the earier part of the twentieth century, the ‘teens, 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s, MOST people stayed pure before marriage — ie, they didn’t have sex until the wedding night — and most marriages stayed together.
Most people also dated a number of people before settling down, and they kissed, and held hands, and even “went steady” without having sex, until they found the RIGHT partner and got engaged and married.
DATING worked, it wasn’t until the free-love movement of the late sixties, seventies and eighties that everything got all screwed up (pun intended.)
All this patriocentric movement is, is a bunch of twenty, thirty and forty something rebels acting out against their parents’ loose moral code, but in their youthful zeal they have confused their parents’ amoral “dating” system with that of their grandparents and great grandparents.
I think that there’s an element of pride here, too — just as the free-love proponents of the sixties proposed to reinvent society, the family, and religion by turning the existing social mores upside down, so their children are doing today by inventing a religion based on marriage and sex-worship, complete with a “courtship” meme that they pretend is return to tradition but which is in reality a brand new thing, something that would be unrecognisable to their grandparents, their great-grandparents, or to anyone prior to 1980…..except, of course, for Mr. Moon, who hass been preaching this same line of heretical bunk since 1954, when he left the Presbyterian Church (why is it always the EX-Presbys who turn into the worst nut-cases?) to found his own denomination.
May 29, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“All this patriocentric movement is, is a bunch of twenty, thirty and forty something rebels acting out against their parents’ loose moral code, but in their youthful zeal they have confused their parents’ amoral “dating” system with that of their grandparents and great grandparents.
I think that there’s an element of pride here, too — just as the free-love proponents of the sixties proposed to reinvent society, the family, and religion by turning the existing social mores upside down, so their children are doing today by inventing a religion based on marriage and sex-worship, complete with a “courtship” meme that they pretend is return to tradition but which is in reality a brand new thing, something that would be unrecognisable to their grandparents, their great-grandparents, or to anyone prior to 1980…..”
Oh, wow. That just might hit the nail on the head.
I do have no reason to think that a patriarchal believer into a lot of this stuff we’ve discussed would not indeed be Christ’s, just by virtue of the junk the person was into. But anytime we idolise family or having babies or anything as THE WAY, THE THING that helps us to serve God, that characterises our Christian identity, that does seem to be “invented religion”.
I think we all have some amount of invented religion clinging to us, because of our sin. But let’s cling to a Person in faith, not to religion.
Just wondering, what is the NCFIC? I can guess that the FIC part means Family Integrated Church, but the NC part?
May 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm
There’s something here I must be missing. If “betrothal” is binding – seemingly just as binding as marriage, then why not just march right over to the church and get it done? What is it that we are waiting for? Is it just to bide enough time to plan a Jane Austin style wedding?
May 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm
re #40
“It’s like (I think) Karen and Corrie have mentioned before- many of us here are conservative. Many of us are homeschooled/homeschoolers. Many of us on this thread by appearances would “appear” to be patriocentric. But we aren’t, and we are extremely concerned that we would be represented in such a way. The stuff going on with HLSDA concerns me. I picked up the Homeschooling Today (it’s now produced out of Abingdon, Sproul Jr’s stomping ground, but correct me if I am wrong, didn’t the McDonald’s used to control it?) and the basic gist of the most current issue at the library was that
[paraphrase] Now that homeschooling is entering it’s second generation and is becoming more “culturally acceptable” many are going to start homeschooling for more cultural reasons (i.e. the “cool””most scholastically advantageous” option, not for religious reasons) that the “true” reasons for Homeschooling and the homeschooling culture are in danger of being “watered down” and/or “contaminated”[end rough paraphrase]
***I can’t get my hands on the copy I got from the library-it’s around somewhere- I am typing from memory.When I find it, I’ll pull the quotes I am thinking of.***”
Joy, R.C. Sproul Jr. calls his brand of homeschoolers “movement homeschoolers.” I, too, am grieved that this stuff is being passed off as mainstream homeschooling. In fact, it makes me downright angry.
BTW, it is SOOOOO good to have you back, Joy!
May 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm
re *51:
“Well, how would you feel if you actually listened to those words and started to look at your own family’s life and realized you’re not doing it the “biblical” or “best” way? It puts you in a state of vulnerability to “leaders” teaching. They have you open for indoctrination or for some, like me, it feels like a stumblingblock. It also discourages people. I’m not seeing the Gospel preached, but preferences, like “Yes, I know Jesus died and rose again for my sins, but THIS is the practical way to live your life,” or some such theme.”
Kate, exactly. This is a huge concern that I have with these people. They make broad, sweeping statements about “biblical” this and that and at the same time say they choose to do such and such and don’t want to imply that everyone must do it their way. But look at what James says about those who choose another way…they are postmodernists! So what about the parents in his church who might have another ideal way of walking through the dating/courtship/engagement/bethroyal waters with their own children? He has basically proclaimed that those parents are unbiblical postmodernists. All without any Scriptural support.
May 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm
re:53
“insanity”
Well, pleading insanity might be a good “out” if you got into a betrothal with a patriocentric family and soon realized what your life was going to be like.
May 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm
NCFIC= National Center for Family Integrated Churches
I just want to be very specific, because, although they call themselves Reformed, they are not Reformed in the ‘traditional’ sense, as I believe Cally Tyrol pointed out if my memory serves me correctly. I want to be as specific as possible so that there is not accusations of stereotyping or “lumping together”—we’ve (TW) has been accused of that in the past. If you want to know more about the NCFIC, check this link (broken for ease):
visionforumministries.@@@org/projects/ncfic/
May 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm
You are right Karen. This ‘movement’ homeschoolers business makes me angry as well. I have homeschooled since 1989 and will be still homeschooling, Lord willing, for another 16 years.
Lets see, thats longer than jrRC,Doug,Kevin,James….
Maybe we should come up with a term for ourselves. If they want to be called movement surely we can define our own term.geez……
May 29, 2008 at 2:41 pm
You know, I got to thinking:
Using a cultural reference of the earlier part of 1900 (she wrote from 1920ish to the late part of the 1940s from what I can find)
Grace Livingston Hill novels.
In almost every book- you know, the heroine has strong faith- she eventually meets and marries a wonderful amazing Christian man.
Most of the plot is driven by the heroines/girls being faithful to God’s calling in order to reach that end point of meeting that great guy. Often this meant working, cleaning, etc. Stuff of everyday life.
But there are hands held, there is an occasional kiss before an engagement,etc. And it isn’t called a betrothal.
So this “betrothal is cultural” arguement is bosh. A cultural reference read and loved by thousands during “The Greatest Generation” points another direction: Common Sense.
May 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
#41 Lol Lin, I did it all wrong…if only my hubby had bought me I’d feel a lot more in line with God’s Word for my life
Joking aside, and in reference to the courting comments, it all depends on self control, if, for example, you had a daughter who you knew had very little self-control in the romance department you would be more likely to use a chaperone and more rules on dating than with a daughter who had very strong opinions on chastity and who had strong self-control. My eldest is six so I haven’t yet got to making a decision on courting and dating. I do wonder though, why are so many Christian parents so frightened of everything, more frightened than secular parents? We like to make rules rather than rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I know, I know, of course children need rules and boundaries, and protecting; but they shouldn’t be fenced in by fear. Fear of ‘getting it wrong’ and fear of the world.
May 29, 2008 at 2:54 pm
#1 *waves at Dulce right up at the top* I totally agree. Although a lot of men do love the fluttering eyelashes, etc. I had a friend at university whose flirting technique was so act a bit dipsy, flutter her eyelashes a lot, and to laugh at the men’s jokes. It worked, like moths to a flame the men were.
I suppose (though I haven’t read the book) that Helen Andelin is playing on those men who like this type of behaviour which is flattering and a signal that the woman is attracted to the man.
It is of course all rather demeaning and must be hard work. I remember trying to act like my friend, and it worked I did get lots of attention…but after a bit it was all rather unwanted and I got tired of ‘playing the game’.
I’d rather my hubby liked me for me, not for who he wants me to be. I hope I make him feel good about himself of course…but not by my pretending to be a little girl lost.
May 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm
…Helen Andelin is Mormon isn’t she? Is traditional Mormon teaching (aside from the old polygamy teaching) rather like patriocentric teaching on marriage?
May 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm
RE: #65
We really ought to think about a term for ourselves. How about
“relationship homeschoolers.” That says it all…we seek to encourage our children in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and to have as our goal building strong relationships with our children in every aspect of their discipleship,inclduing their education, and to do so by practicing the one anothers of Scripture.
I think I will write something up and maybe make a button we can place in the sidebars on our blogs to identify ourselves as something other than “movement” homeschoolers.
May 29, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Gah … I went to a church that was with the NCFIC stuff for a while! I just checked to make sure that was the same thing. I had to go to keep the peace with my parents. But I didn’t like it all … the people were wonderful and believers I have no doubt … but it just felt so different from normal Christianity … I felt very uncomfortable. This is partly why I don’t reveal my identity here, or have my own blog or anything yet … things might get sticky.
May 29, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Karen, I love “relationship” homeschoolers!Perfect description….and a button would be wonderful!
May 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Beatrice…
Why I am hearing the tune for “Secret Agent” playing in my head reading 71?
he he he
Your secret is safe with us, dearie. I’m glad you come ‘over to the dark side’ and hang with us!
May 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Looked at the link Joy shared …
Hmm there are MANY people who believe in Sola Scripture and know ALL about it, but who don’t share Scott Brown’s philosophy of ministry. I think it’s interesting that he proceeds to introduce the concept as if no one reading has heard of it, then goes on to his own stuff. It’s kind of like Jennie Chancey in an anti college article going on and on about how we must let the Word inform us, not our feelings. Duh, I thought every Christian knew that! So the real thrust is not to educate the believer on solid doctrine, but to reeducate them into thinking that they cannot hold to certain important aspects of the faith unless they agree with so and so too.
I don’t like that fear mongering about kids who have walked down aisles and gone to youth groups and never been saved … kids in a family drenched in father rule and family devotions can grow up unsaved too. It might be even harder to tell whether they were unsaved. I agree with Brown’s suspicion of some cheap methods that churches use to reach the young … but a certain philosophy of family ministry is going to be any more reliable than they are at assuring kids end up with the Lord.
I’m not Reformed anymore (I try to be sensitive because I know many of the people here are Reformed), but from my knowledge of the theology, this stuff actually doesn’t match up with it. I must have missed what Cally said about them not really being reformed, but here is my take – Scott Brown suggests that children in familes with Christian fathers are more likely to convert than other children … is conversion or the likelihood of conversion something we can measure with statistics? Real Reformed theology would say that conversion only comes from the Spirit of God, not any setting or method or whatever, right? Now all of these theological issues are really hard to sort out, so I may be wrong on that or wrong on seeing a discrepancy, but I tried to throw this out anyway.
May 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Oh, thanks so much, Joy!
And I am so glad I had you guys to help me start processing things I never would have though of.
May 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Whoops, I meant “but a certain philosophy of family ministry is NOT going to be any more reliable than they are at assuring kids end up with the Lord.”
May 29, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Mr McDonald has half-responded to a question on his betrothal blog post. Unfortunately, there are still NO Scriptural verses to explain why he feels betrothal is biblical. Just lots of ‘feelings’ – I thought hyper-pats despised those when they come from feminists and postmodernists and egalitarians?
Anyway, here are the questions and answers:
“Henrietta: HI, I kind of got the impression that the courtship period was quite short, given the purposes and aims you set out above. Did they know each other well before they were officialy courting?
And – have you had to turn down (m)any unsuitable men?
We hear a lot about courtship when it works, but what when it doesn’t – in that one person*does* want to become betrothed and the other doesn’t; I am sure that can leave a lot of heartache or bitterness with the whole concept.
But I don’t think I’ve ever seen it acknowledged that it doesn’t always work. (I know you said this wasn’t a recipe . .!)
Here’s hoping courtship will always be a blessing to you and yours
Kind regards
H
James McDonald: Hi Henrietta,
There is no official time limit for the courtship period. We do believe that the time to come to a decision should be relatively quick. If it is extended, hearts get entwined.
We have had other men “knock” on the door. But none of these went to the courtship period.
Blessings to all,”
So that’s why the couple courted for less than two months. I just find this whole idea bizarre – you can’t fall in love until you decide you’re going to get married, and once you’ve made that decision you can’t back out of it, unless they’ve sinned and haven’t told you. WHAT are the Bible verses that support this??
And no response to the very reasonable question of what happens when the process doesn’t work out? When two months isn’t enough to decide if you would be happy married to someone for the rest of your life? Or when one party is in love but the other isn’t? Or when parents and children disagree? Is falling in love during courtship a sin? Is NOT falling in love during betrothal a sin? Is love totally irrelevant to marriage, and just my (and the Song of Solomon, and Proverbs 5, and Ephesians 5, and so on and so on…) crazy unBiblical postmodern thinking?
May 29, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“Whoops, I meant “but a certain philosophy of family ministry is NOT going to be any more reliable than they are at assuring kids end up with the Lord.” ”
Exactly. You can baptise them into the Church as babies, and raise them to know the Lord, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but they won’t really know Jesus until the day when He calls and they respond, and make the choice to follow Him THEMSELVES.
No amount of parental urging can take the place of the Holy Spirit. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”
May 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Beatrice,
I just want to say that you are so very well-spoken and can see these issues very clearly and I truly appreciate your input. I think you are wise to keep your identity hidden.
I hope my daughters can model your wisdom in seeing the issues that they will face.
May 29, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Thanks, Corrie.
That encourages me so much.
May 29, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Claire,
Maybe James can share his own “courtship” story? Did he court his first wife? Did he court his second wife, Stacy? What is the difference between the two and what things did he do wrong? Did he have feelings of love and sexual attraction to either one of his wives before he asked them to marry him?
After all, most people share real life stories from their own lives when they presume to be teachers and experts on family “reformation”. Or are we just one big experiment?
I am sorry but sexual attraction and falling in love before one is officially “betrothed” or whatever term you want to use is normal.
As if the official pronouncement of courtship magically allows the couple to fall in love? Silly!
People are NOT being honest about their feelings if you ask me.
I don’t think you are displaying any crazy, unbiblical sentiments but then you must consider the source.
May 29, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Speaking of “Sola Scriptura” and Beatrice’s comment #74.
It drives me BONKERS that they run around and shout that from the rooftops all the time, but very very rarely actually use scripture in their “teachings”. Most of the articles on the visionforumministry.org website are so “half and half”— that is they are very admandant and dogmatic about a certain point (supposedly Scriptural) but if they actually use Scripture to proof text it, the Scripture they use seems to have no context or bearing on what they are actually talking about. Or, conversely, they will only use on part of one verse as the whole fantastic basis of an extremely long, wordy dogmatic, legalisic rant, and when confronted on other places in Scripture that also apply to whatever it is they are talking about, they cry “hey ho!” and “persecution!” and block comments.
But we know all this. THE WHOLE WORD OF GOD. That is what Sola Scriptura means. Not cherry picked legalistic madness.
May 29, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“As if the official pronouncement of courtship magically allows the couple to fall in love? Silly!”
I think that that they downplay “falling in love” on purpose. Remember, these guys plan things multi-generationally.
If people get used to the idea of two-month courtships and falling in love AFTER the wedding, the next generation will more easily accept the idea of arranged marriages where the couple don’t even have to know each other before the ceremony.
May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Okay, Claire, maybe you are just woefully post-modern?
After some words about how there is no right way to do it, we are treated to this teaching. This is what I call “double-speak”. Really, if you don’t do it their way (we are not talking about having a Pride and Prejudice party) then you are post-modern and not in line with the authoritative word of God.
I wonder what makes them the experts in this area? I, personally, find their whole stance offensive. They are NOT qualified, imho. If they want to talk about how they screwed up and the things NOT to do, that would be more appropriate but they are certainly NOT experts nor do they have authority from on High to be the ones who people flock to for courtship/betrothal advice.
And, where is the mother of these girls? Why isn’t she involved in the whole courtship process and marriage preps? This seems tragic to me. Especially since we know how Stacy feels about her own adoption and how she is against it and how she was afforded the “luxury” of getting to know her birth family.
I am wondering why these four children do not mention their mother nor do they want a relationship with her, especially in these important experiences of life.
Oh, well. I am probably too woefully post-modern to understand it all. After all, there are so many people who don’t seem to care what the story or truth really is. It reminds me of the frog who boils to death.
This is from Stacy’s blog:
“To those with a secular postmodern mind, the concept of betrothal may seem foreign, archaic, and constricting. In a culture where marriage is redefined to include perverted homosexual unions, and couples divorce because they “fell out of love,” how in the world can the postmodern mind grasp the beauty and purity of faithfulness before marriage?
Against the postmodern mind stands the authoritative Word of God. As a Christian family, we strive to make sure that the way we live and think is directed by the Words of Scripture. Of course, we often fall woefully short, but God is gracious to help us learn from the mistakes and sins of the past – to live more faithfully today. And, Lord willing, our children will learn to live even closer to the mark than we have.
Most of us did not understand courtship and betrothal when we were young. Perhaps, like me, you had never even heard of it. We grew up in the world. And in the world, after a period of dating, sometimes dating more than one person at a time, you may have become “engaged.”
Now, from the world’s perspective, engagement and betrothal are interchangeable. Both may be viewed as a semi-commitment where an announcement is made of an intended wedding and “save the date” cards are sent. But it is not binding – there is no real commitment. It can be broken at any time by either party for any reason. Just as you can break a dinner engagement, you can break a marriage engagement. In fact, if the engagement is broken, most people breathe a heavy sigh of relief. The idea is that it is better to break things off before marriage, so you can save the lawyer’s fees in a future divorce.”
May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm
re # 54 comment
Alisa,
Josh Harris interned/trained and then took over when CJ “retired” as Senior Pastor of SG.
I agree with you that Harris is more about the heart and much less a “just follow my perfect program type” like the other patriarchal gurus.
May 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Cynthia,
That makes sense. Again, the frog boiling in the water.
May 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Sorry…time away from this has made me even angrier and more upset than usual. My heart aches, passionately aches, for the people entrapped by this. I can’t believe I came so close…I can’t believe the tremendous amount of pain this has caused people (like Molleth) but I must, must trust that God works everything together for good. And that He is in control.
[preaching to myself. Sorry, off the soapbox for me today.]
May 29, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Cynthia,
This is why I think the Federal Vision teaching is so entwined with the patriocentrists. This philosophy really does teach baptismal regeneration.
May 29, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Corrie,
“Maybe James can share his own “courtship” story? Did he court his first wife? Did he court his second wife, Stacy? What is the difference between the two and what things did he do wrong? Did he have feelings of love and sexual attraction to either one of his wives before he asked them to marry him?
After all, most people share real life stories from their own lives when they presume to be teachers and experts on family “reformation”. Or are we just one big experiment?
I am sorry but sexual attraction and falling in love before one is officially “betrothed” or whatever term you want to use is normal.
As if the official pronouncement of courtship magically allows the couple to fall in love? Silly!
People are NOT being honest about their feelings if you ask me.”
My thoughts exactly. There’s so much “more scope for the imagination” if they would just come clean. Share with us your mistakes and what you learned.
The first commenter on James blog laments not knowing these rules/this courtship program when she was young and that she struggled in her marriage. I’m thinking, good! You struggled, you learned to work it out, you probably cried out to the LOrd, you can see HIs hand in your life… and now you perhaps are stronger individually and as a couple because of overcoming. What’s wrong with that?
May 29, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“This is why I think the Federal Vision teaching is so entwined with the patriocentrists. This philosophy really does teach baptismal regeneration.”
So does Catholicism, Anglicanism (to a point), and Eastern Orthodoxy. (Heck, I believe in baptismal regeneration — it’s supported by nearly 2000 years of Christian tradition!)
But these traditional churches also teach that the person must take action to follow Jesus when he comes of age, if his baptism is going to do him any good. The “call” to follow Jesus comes from God, and your parents can’t cally you for Him or follow Him for you, once you are old enough to do it on your own.
May 29, 2008 at 4:41 pm
re: #10
Joy,
“I was struck by all the mental clutter I had laying around. Don’t get me wrong, I love my bloggy friends. I missed TW while I was gone. I find a lot of inspiration for what I do as a graphic designer from visually based things like the net and magazines. I’ve been inspired and led to go deeper with God because of some of my favorite bloggers.
BUT…and this is a big BUT…it is exceedingly dangerous when one fails to depend on the Bible for sustenance. I was so convicted of that in my time away from media! I kept hearing in my heart God was saying. “I AM.” not “I AM + the latest parenting book.” Not “I AM + the latest greatest musician that makes stunning worship music”. Not “I AM + a to do list”.
I want to scream this at the patriocentric crowd, but I know I need to deal with the plank in my own eye. But either ALL scripture is true. Or none of it is true. You cannot have it both ways. And without the inspired Word of God being true, then there is no God. That is a dangerous, blasphemous place to be.
2 Timothy 3:
13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Thank you, thank you for sharing. I’m on a similar path. And I keep coming down to the same admonition- Just READ the Bible for yourself and meditate on verses like “Be still and KNOW that I am God” Psalm 46:10 All facets of our world are so very loud these days. I think we need more quiet time than ever.
May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Some of the teachings of harris and the Ludy’s have been very helpful in formulating our own guidelines for our children and dating. One thing we stressed was not dating until they were actually ready to make a commitment to someone.So dating in high school or jr high was out.Once they were in college, we trusted that they were able to make good decisions for themselves in this matter.The way we look at this…we had 18 years to raise them in these values and in a relationship with the Lord.We trust them to come to us for advice as they need it.They are responsible, intelligent people…and we are there to support, encourage and guide as needed.
May 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm
@Beatrice #74- They (VF, Doug Phillips, the Chanceys, Scott Brown, Voddie Baucham) are not Reformed because they do not practice infant baptism. They are Calvinists, to be sure, but they do not hold to any of the Reformed creeds, confessions or catechisms (as much as they like to throw around the Westminster standards when it fits their purposes). The McDonalds are probably the exception in that they are Presbyterian. HTH!!
I just want to ditto everything that you ladies have said regarding this betrothal stuff. Betrothal is just a fancy, ancient word for engagement. Like “marriage”, the world has take then concept of “engagement” and made it mean something a little less formal. To most people, engagement means that a couple has committed to marry the other person and is forsaking other people even before the wedding. Sounds an awful lot like betrothal to me.
I don’t like the idea of not being able to get out of this “betrothal” if one changes one’s mind. How terrifying! I get that they want betrothal to be taken seriously, but its not like Tiffany would be in sin if she broke off the engagement because she changed her mind. I guess I missed that bit in the Bible where betrothal was commanded by God.
May 29, 2008 at 6:06 pm
If anybody’s curious, I just updated the blog with a post that sort of fleshes out a bit more my comment #10- regarding my time away…
(click my name, it’ll take you there)
May 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I’ve been reading the sgmsurvivors site and some of the commenters there are having the same type of discussion we’re having here at TW. It’s about the leaders (Mahaney) and their emphasis on authority and their submission teachings. As a side note — the church that Mahaney and J.Harris came from is being blogged against here locally for its wacky over-emphasis on submission to leadership, and they’re a pentacostal or charismatic church (City Bible Church, AKA Bible Temple).
On the sgmsurvivors site, one commenter had some good insight:
“I mean, if submission is stressed above all else, then the people are primed and ready for deception, should it come along.
I won’t put words in Mahaney’s mouth, because he didn’t actually get around to saying this, but if I had to guess, I’d bet that his answer to my question (”How can you know if your leaders are trustworthy?”) would be if they’re teaching correct doctrines. He sort of alludes to this toward the beginning of the message.
And I’d say that he’s right, in a sense.
Yet…if you’ve been so trained, so brainwashed, to accept EVERYTHING that comes down the pike from your leaders, and to reject ANY questioning of your leaders with knee-jerk accusations of “slander,” then I believe your ability to discern when your leaders might veer into incorrect doctrine will be seriously diminished.
Cult leader Jim Jones started out as a preacher of the Gospel, after all. I’m sure his early followers weren’t all brainless, zoned-out groupies. Yet somewhere along the way, they lost their capacity to discern.
Another aspect of Mahaney’s emphasis on submission is that when leaders have been honored and revered the way that Mahaney and company currently are, how realistic is it to believe your average Joe will feel at all empowered to approach them to offer up correction?
If someone genuinely believed that a leader like Mahaney or Josh Harris were in error (and trust me, I’m NOT saying that either one of them is!), is it at all likely that they’d be open and approachable for a conversation? Isn’t it far more likely that they have surrounded themselves with other totally submitted leaders who have – because of this overemphasis on submission – become “yes men”?”
found here: http:@@@//www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=20
(remove the @@@ for link)
We need to be Bereans like Joy and Susan T and so many others here have said and go to the actual Scriptures, with a teachable spirit and ask God for wisdom. That means everyone, not just our “prophets, priests and kings” of our households or our elders/leaders.
May 29, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I meant that Joy and Susan T and others have encouraged us to be Bereans by the fact that they used the Scriptures to point us back to the Scriptures. Not that they necessarily said to be Bereans
Thanks for all the encouragement everyone!
May 29, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“We need to be Bereans like Joy and Susan T and so many others here have said and go to the actual Scriptures, with a teachable spirit and ask God for wisdom. That means everyone, not just our “prophets, priests and kings” of our households or our elders/leaders.”
Exactly.
The Bible says to submit to i>one another, not to some self styled “Fearless Leader”, and the leaders are supposed to submit to one another as well, “trying the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world”: this ensures balance and accountability in the leadership.
As for the leaders, Jesus said,
” Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.”
May 29, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I just had a read over at Stacy’s blog.
I got to thinking maybe they choose to call it betrothal because engagement has lost it’s true meaning in some circles.
Getting engaged seems to be a competition for the biggest, most expensive ring, given in the most romantic way. Maybe they want to separate themselves from that.
Maybe they use the term courtship to separate themselves from the “dating game” culture.
I didn’t grow up in America. In the city where I lived there was a school for missionary kids (mostly American). Rumor had it during my teen years, that “everyone had been with everyone”. My American friends talked a lot more about dating than my Spanish friends. Even one pastor of our church (American missionary) confessed to having dated 5 girls at once.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
Personally, I think that an engagement (or betrothal) is a step further in the commitment, but it can’t be considered as binding as the MacDonald’s make it to be. Especially if the courtship is short.
May 29, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I can totally understand using the term to give a more “set-apart” connonation than what it currently means in American culture. But at the same time, that doesn’t translate across to other cultures, like Madame’s.
and the whole “biblical” question without one iota of actual Scripture to define what “betrothal” is????
So, what then?
It’s like many other “teachings” of the NCFIC- it doesn’t apply across time and different cultures that aren’t American and middle class.
May 29, 2008 at 7:10 pm
“It’s like many other “teachings” of the NCFIC- it doesn’t apply across time and different cultures that aren’t American and middle class.”
…and that’s just one more one way that you can tell the true Church that Jesus founded, from the cheap, man-made imitations.
May 29, 2008 at 7:10 pm
“It’s like many other “teachings” of the NCFIC- it doesn’t apply across time and different cultures that aren’t American and middle class.”
Totally agree.
In fact, I thought about the word differentiation a bit more, and realized that the Spanish language has only one word that is currently used. There is the old fashioned one, but nobody uses it. Maybe the patrio world in Spanish speaking countries will use it!
In German, you have only one word, and it’s the one that shows up when you type “betrothal”, for engagement, you get a word that nobody uses with the meaning of engaged to be married.
Funny!
May 29, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Thanks for pointing this out, Kate.
from Kathleen’s post from SGM Survivors:
I won’t put words in Mahaney’s mouth, because he didn’t actually get around to saying this…
Here again is the big problem with these cultic groups. The unwritten laws are generally always communicated through unstated assumptions and vague inference. They can essentially say everything that any reasonable person would interpret to be consistent with “doctrine A” but then deny that they are advocating A or that they believe A, calling it B. It’s subtle, because they are so careful, either intentionally or unintentionally, so that they can state that “I never said A and I denounce A. I believe B.” This is what Federal Vision did when they said they still believed in election but that they figured out that their were two types of election. Election and what everyone believes is election but turns out to be non-election. How is this different from Dispensationalism then? It ceases to be election.
They did it with imputation. Imputation is traditionally understood in the Protestant church to mean all our sin was imputed to Christ and we are imputed with His own righteousness. They started saying “that isn’t what imputation SURELY means. Then it degrades into a discussion about how we can’t possibly be credited with the benefit of Christ’s works. But Christ’s works are an essential component of fulfilling the law, so you can’t separate this out and call it imputation. It is a vital component of imputation that would make our salvation incomplete. So they separate out this element and say that we don’t benefit from it because I can’t say that I raised myself actually raise Lazarus from the dead. It’s like saying the baking soda in the cake I baked was not imputed to me, but it is because it’s part of the cake. Did I eat baking soda and receive part of the benefit of it when I age the cake? I sure did.
…but if I had to guess, I’d bet that his answer to my question…
Provided that he’s thought about your question at all… Many of these men have not, as our great fathers in the faith have done, thought out all of the logical conclusions to their paradigms. They see a component of a more complex issue and then ignore the other elements of it (eg. Federal Vision’s imputation of works which simplifies and degrades salvation/justification/sanctification). So then the component is assumed to be representative of the whole issue in fullness, whatever is discussed. You get a simplistic answer that’s supposed to solve everything. And if you don’t see it simply, then it is your own deficiency caused your failure to understand.
(”How can you know if your leaders are trustworthy?”) would be if they’re teaching correct doctrines. He sort of alludes to this toward the beginning of the message.
And I’d say that he’s right, in a sense.
And again — how do those stats break down about how many verses talk about what concerning false teachers?
Of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, abusive leaders 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
Remembering back to the early ’90s when Bush the senior was running for re-election when someone said “It’s about the economy, Stupid.” Well, here, it’s only remotely about doctrine (10%) and it’s primarily about actions/behaviors (78%). Yet people say that you can only talk about doctrine to be fair. (That, folks, is being politically correct, not Scriptural. That’s man’s tradition.)
Yet…if you’ve been so trained, so brainwashed, to accept EVERYTHING that comes down the pike from your leaders, and to reject ANY questioning of your leaders with knee-jerk accusations of “slander,” then I believe your ability to discern when your leaders might veer into incorrect doctrine will be seriously diminished.
The funny thing about spiritual abuse and cults and thought reform and manipulation is that because they are taking advantage of both the good and bad in human nature, people essentially train themselves into their role of non-discernment. You can see from the person who posted the comment that they are still in process (along with the rest of us). They know something’s wrong with the idea of things being about doctrine, but they haven’t quite fully realized the rest of the dynamics at work. Them crying “slander” is essentially saying “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
This is all the same stuff, just a different dress. This is the same stuff that the patriarchs do. It’s what the FLDS does. The Moonies. The Nazis. Etc.
These problems in our churches are not coming primarily from bad doctrine, though that certainly grows and takes shape over time. These dynamics aren’t unique to churches but are common to all humanity. These are the traditions of men that are fallen. It is His statutes that are altogether right and good and pure and just, not ours. This stuff invades our churches, not because of doctrine but because of our fallen human natures.
Christians need to get this. Knowledge of the Word and solid doctrine do not insulate one from our human depravity. Paul wrote about his thorn in the flesh and his own internal struggles. John wrote of this in his epistles. It’s harder after your conversion, not easier.
May 29, 2008 at 7:19 pm
There is no official time limit for the courtship period. We do believe that the time to come to a decision should be relatively quick. If it is extended, hearts get entwined. (so says James McD)
WOW. That is good. Because we wouldn’t want people’s hearts to be entwined before marriage now would we?
What happens when hearts don’t get entwined AFTER marriage either? You’re stuck in a loveless (but Godly!) marriage riddled with guilt and shame and all that lovely stuff.
May 29, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“It’s like many other “teachings” of the NCFIC- it doesn’t apply across time and different cultures that aren’t American and middle class.”
I mentioned over on “thatmom” under the great divide thread about how Scott Brown mentored his 13 year old son to build a home on his property. They’ve commenced building now that his son is 16. How many people have property to give their son, time to oversee a project of this magnitude and money to pay for it. Could this be classified and considered as an object lesson for the NCFIC’s and a business expense?
How is the average Joe supposed to come up with the funds to underwrite a homeschooling project or a discipleship experience like this?
May 29, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Cindy K said (#102):
Christians need to get this. Knowledge of the Word and solid doctrine do not insulate one from our human depravity. Paul wrote about his thorn in the flesh and his own internal struggles. John wrote of this in his epistles. It’s harder after your conversion, not easier.
Amen! Amen!
May 29, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Comment 81, Corrie,
Very true.
You can’t push a button and “fall in love”, or push a button and “switch off feelings”.#
Dh and I met at a very traditional Bible school in Germany. We weren’t allowed to date during the first 18 months of school, but dh and I fell in love in my 3rd month. He had passed the 18 month line, I had 15 more months to go before we could start a relationship!
I tried to switch him off. I prayed. I told myself all sorts of stuff. But the feelings were there, and we wanted to talk and spend time together, so we did.
We didn’t touch for months, but one night, it’s like my whole body was aching to feel closer to him. We had been talking about our childhoods, comparing similarities and differences, and we both wanted to hug each other and I was going to go to my dorm. We ended up kissing, and the thought of it and having definitely broken the rule tortured me night after night. I ended up leaving when my first year was over.
I think that denying any physical touch is not a BAD thing, but it can make a slip into a huge issue. Imagine he strokes her cheek, she likes it, but flinches back because she feels they should wait for the wedding night.
Why not teach them to have self respect and respect for each other?
In Lisa Bevere’s book “kissed the girls and made them cry” she says “don’t do something you wouldn’t do in front of your father”.
A kiss, a hug, holding hands, head on shoulder, etc.. are all very pure signs of affection. Passionate kissing, well… I would tell couples to wait, or be very careful, simply because it’s more powerful than they think it is.
Can I say this is Biblical? Not really. The Bible isn’t specific.
Song of Songs does say “not to awaken love before the right time” or something like that.
They do throw around that term “biblical” very liberally….
May 29, 2008 at 7:36 pm
“The first commenter on James blog laments not knowing these rules/this courtship program when she was young and that she struggled in her marriage. I’m thinking, good! You struggled, you learned to work it out, you probably cried out to the LOrd, you can see HIs hand in your life… and now you perhaps are stronger individually and as a couple because of overcoming. What’s wrong with that?”
Susan,
Nothing at all! Also, it presumes that couples who go through “courtship” or “betrothal” (TRADITION!!!!) or whatever is pronounced biblical these days will never go through struggles in their own marriages.
I am quite sure that the Fairy Tale ends and real life begins even in these sensationalized courtships.
And I wonder why James couldn’t give a straight answer? What about all the courtships that haven’t worked out?
These patriocentric Pharisees need to write their own Talmud in order to keep their rules straight.
May 29, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Corrie wrote: These patriocentric Pharisees need to write their own Talmud in order to keep their rules straight.
They don’t need a Talmud, they need a new Roman-style catechism. The Torah talks to much of setting things apart unto God through works, but they did not get mystical spiritual edification points as a result of keeping the law. The priesthood was limited to the Levites.
What they need is their version of the Roman Catholic priesthood where every home has it’s own resident male priest(and a chicken in every pot). Then you have someone to make intercession for you in the privacy of your own home without having to truck over to church to attend mass. Also, by following the works, you get grace points. By going through all the motions and not necessarily the attitude of heart, you gain grace through the gender-related sacraments because all gender reflects on God’s identity directly.
Don’t forget baptismal regeneration, too. That augments the resident home priest sacrament.
They can put an order form in the catechism and the website for ordering sacramental bed sheets and that sacramental natural health supplement for male fertility, “Patriarch’s Pal.”
And then it won’t sound so overtly wrong. It will just sound liturgical and that’s vogue.
May 29, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It would be interesting to do a survey among several couples from a dating-engagement-marriage relationship, in which they had done the usual things before getting married like showing affection, holding hands or kissing, not necessarily thinking so much about their “future roles” but believing in love to hold them together. Then do one among couples of the courtship-betrothal-marriage relationship that waited for touching until marriage, focused on their future roles, and believing the right hierarchical relationship will hold them together.
If the second paradigm gives significantly better results than the first one, maybe it would be worth examining it for what it’s worth. Otherwise, it just sounds like nostalgic longing to go back to some time in the past.
May 29, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Madame, I think you are onto something with a survey idea.
My husband and I for one, despite being raised in good and moral (not necessarily Christianesque moral) homes still ended up being far too sinful for most patrio’s liking and despite it all—we have a most wonderful and passionate and healthy marriage.
Why?
God comes first in our marriage. Period.
You can be a total screw up and still have a sanctified, loving, wonderful, God-blessed marriage if you have Christ as the center of it all…even if Christ enters in post-wedding vows and all.
The patrios forget this. Which makes me think of something! You’d think Stacy and James would be CLAMORING to tell their story to all who would listen to show how a divorced couple were redeemed and sanctified and brought together because of Christ.
One would think so, unless as the saying goes, they have something to hide.
May 29, 2008 at 8:28 pm
This discussion of the role of romantic feelings in courtship and betrothal hits close to home for me. I was raised on similar “courtship” principles, in which romantic feelings were so distrusted that they were not considered even an appropriate accompanying factor in making decisions about ones life partner. So when someone wanted to court me, I thought that it shouldn’t matter that, not only did I not know him very well, I didn’t even like him particularly (I didn’t DISlike him, but felt a generally friendly sort of indifference). What mattered was that he met all the right external criteria, so I felt obligated to “give him a chance” to court me. It was a horribly frustrating experience that ended with both of us having our feelings terribly hurt. He thought alternately that I was not giving him a real chance and that I was stringing him on, which I suppose I was, in a way, but with the best of motives. Once the romantic feelings are disallowed as a factor, it’s hard to find a good reason to decline someone who is apparently “suitable” in every other way.
I think a lot of these short-courtship couples are already attracted to each other, no matter what they say about the appropriate timing of emotional bonding. And someone needs to admit that that is okay; and that saying you just don’t like him or her enough to go through with it is also okay, without the loads of guilt that attach not just to physical touch, but to normal casual emotional attractions and the lack thereof.
Of course I don’t advocate rampant emotionalism, either. This is another example of the need for balance and relationship that you all have talked about so eloquently on many occasions. If I can bring in another Jane Austen reference… the Elinor types need to be encouraged to express and validate their feelings, and the Marianne types need to be encouraged to consider rational factors as well. You can’t do either with a single set of courtship rules.
I also think it is sad and short-sighted how thoroughly this system is being embraced, usually by people who have not themselves experienced such a relationship, and proposed as a solution for all romantic risks–and embraced so absolutely, with no real Scriptural support for the system, and very little if any empirical evidence that it works better in the long run. The general principles they claim, of purity, seriousness, and family input, can be practised equally well in … dare I say?.. in a traditional dating relationship.
May 29, 2008 at 8:29 pm
They can essentially say everything that any reasonable person would interpret to be consistent with “doctrine A” but then deny that they are advocating A or that they believe A, calling it B. It’s subtle, because they are so careful, either intentionally or unintentionally, so that they can state that “I never said A and I denounce A. I believe B.”
Where I come from, we call that “LYING.”
“Them crying “slander” is essentially saying “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” This is all the same stuff, just a different dress. This is the same stuff that the patriarchs do. It’s what the FLDS does. The Moonies. The Nazis. Etc.”
That’s called lying too, all grown up and going under the names, “FRAUD”, “FLIM-FLAM”, “SCAM”, and “HYPOCRISY”.
And the Father of all these Lies is….
May 29, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I went and read the courtship story, and will I be forever banned from this blog if I say that I did not find it weird?
But then, I am not American and we have different ways. I am from India and where I come from, this is the way couples are during betrothal time. Except that it is a lot more strict. Things are changing now and people are doing things differently. The way it used to be (and largely is even now for the most part) was there is never more than a 3 months betrothal. Our parents say it just invites trouble.
The couples pretty much don’t see each other these months although they talk and email. And I am going to be very unpopular here, but I think this whole falling in love deal is very overrated. I did not have a traditional Indian wedding/marraige, but there are days and times I have to CHOOSE to love my husband. Because at times, he is irritating, imperfect, unloving and very much like someone I know – ME.
So there are cultures where betrothal, no touching before wedding etc are still practiced. I am not sure if we call it Biblical, maybe we do. But it is very much the cultural expectation. The culture and society I grew up in is not overly sexual, but we are taught to control our emotions before marriage.
Oh, and please I am not judging anyone’s choice or preferences here, just sharing a cultural perspective. Trust me, in patrio circles, I will be called quite the feminist
May 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“I won’t put words in Mahaney’s mouth, because he didn’t actually get around to saying this, but if I had to guess, I’d bet that his answer to my question (”How can you know if your leaders are trustworthy?”) would be if they’re teaching correct doctrines. He sort of alludes to this toward the beginning of the message.
And I’d say that he’s right, in a sense.”
Oh, I agree that doctrine is important but also believe what Cindy writes about scripture defining behaviors as most important in scritpure. Why? Because all correct doctrine should be lived out in consistent behavior. Doctrine is simply a means to an end.
However, we should also define what doctrine we are talking about. One thing guys like Mahaney, Moore and Mohler do is focus on secondary doctrines and make them as important as primary doctrine. They aren’t. One can be saved and be an egalitarian. One can be saved and be a cessationist.
I would also argue that their views on earthly authorities are NOT scriputural at all and I also believe that one’s views on what consitutes an earthly authority for Christians is an essential doctrine that has implications on one’s interpretation of scripture from Genesis to Rev. Unless we look to Jesus Christ and His Word as our ONE true teacher, we are in trouble and may not be lead by the Holy Spirit.
We do have earthly authorities but ironically, they most likely are not Christians
“Yet…if you’ve been so trained, so brainwashed, to accept EVERYTHING that comes down the pike from your leaders, and to reject ANY questioning of your leaders with knee-jerk accusations of “slander,” then I believe your ability to discern when your leaders might veer into incorrect doctrine will be seriously diminished.”
This is the reason their teaching on authority in church, home, etc has become so vital to them. It is the foundation for all their earthly success and power. Don’t ever forget this is how they make their living. I hate to be so blunt but it is true.
May 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“What they need is their version of the Roman Catholic priesthood …… By going through all the motions and not necessarily the attitude of heart, you gain grace through the gender-related sacraments because all gender reflects on God’s identity directly.”
Cindy, I do wish you wouldn’t compare this partiarchal malarkey to Roman Catholicism. Catholics are NOT supposed to believe that just “going through the motions” of the sacraments is enough. Many Catholics, being ignorant, believe exactly that, but Catholic doctrine teaches the opposite.
May 29, 2008 at 8:57 pm
“You’d think Stacy and James would be CLAMORING to tell their story to all who would listen to show how a divorced couple were redeemed and sanctified and brought together because of Christ.”
So true. In an era and culture when the church’s divorce statistics mirror those of the world, and half of all intact marriages are reported to be unhappy, one would think that a Christian couple, each coming from a divorce, would be only too willing to share with others about God’s wonderful grace and healing in such circumstances.
I myself was surprised to learn of the MacDonalds’ past marriages, having read it here first. I think it’s truly deceitful to set yourself up as teachers of marriage and family life without being forthright about your past. Marriage in the western world is under attack from all angles and the church today appears to have little to offer. A couple like the MacDonalds would have so much to offer if they shared there story. I just don’t get it.
May 29, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“A couple like the MacDonalds would have so much to offer if they shared there story. I just don’t get it.”
I do — in Patrio-land, it is imperative to put up a “front” so that everyone thinks that you are perfect and norm-al. Truth takes a back seat to appearances.
It’s enough to make you feel sorry for the McDonalds and the other folks trapped in such a devilish, deceitful system.
May 29, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“I do — in Patrio-land, it is imperative to put up a “front” so that everyone thinks that you are perfect and norm-al.”
Yup. And then it’s all about who decides what’s ‘normal’.
“It’s enough to make you feel sorry for the McDonalds and the other folks trapped in such a devilish, deceitful system.”
So true.
May 29, 2008 at 9:09 pm
But you know, it’s one thing if they want to ‘keep up appearances’ and another thing when they’re making money off of people who are completely in the dark regarding the reality of their former marriages and their qualifications (or lack thereof) regarding family life. That’s what really rubs me the wrong way. They’re making a living off of this stuff!
May 29, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Annie,you have a great point in that too- in your culture it’s the opposite of the American viewpoint (on the definition of betrothal). I think what concerns us in any case is that the McDonalds are pushing it as “the only way to be a “good Christian”. It is interesting to note that they have no problem with others who consider betrothal, saying that ‘how you choose to do this in your own family is up to you’ but then make the sudden jump to those who do not choose the betrothal way of doing things as secular post-modernists (and subtly implying that those Christians who do not hold to a betrothal point of view are less than Christian).
May 29, 2008 at 10:24 pm
(….subtly implying that those Christians who do not hold to a betrothal point of view are less than Christian.)
Including, I wonder, their own Christian parents and grandparents? This betrothal craze is less than thirty years old.
May 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm
EEEK!
Cynthia,
Better than their Christian parents?!? I didn’t even think of that! OUCH!
May 29, 2008 at 10:29 pm
You know, all these “bright young things” in the Pat Movement remind me of two passages from scripture:
1Ki 12:6 ¶ And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? 1Ki 12:7 And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.
1Ki 12:8 But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, [and] which stood before him…
AND
Isa 3:4 And I will give children [to be] their princes, and babes shall rule over them. Isa 3:5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.
Isa 3:6 When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, [saying], Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and [let] this ruin [be] under thy hand:
May 29, 2008 at 10:49 pm
You know, it’s gonna come up again. The McDonald’s, et al, are going to claim that ‘they didn’t say that!’
But take this view point on betrothal. A logical arguement/viewpoint, followed to it’s logical conclusion…should be true in all circumstances. You can’t say one point of view like they are doing in this instance, and not follow the argument to it’s logical inference/conclusion. They don’t have to “say” it.
I am not brushed up on logic and arguement, but this seems obvious to me. Maybe somebody else can explain it in more succinct academic terms.
May 30, 2008 at 12:25 am
Lin: “One can be saved and be an egalitarian.”
Phew. Thanks Lin, I was starting to worry about my eternal soul.
May 30, 2008 at 12:36 am
Cynthia Gee wrote: Cindy, I do wish you wouldn’t compare this partiarchal malarkey to Roman Catholicism. Catholics are NOT supposed to believe that just “going through the motions” of the sacraments is enough. Many Catholics, being ignorant, believe exactly that, but Catholic doctrine teaches the opposite.
Cynthia,
I am sorry, but I have studied and studies and studied this issue. The patriarchy movement displaces sanctification partially upon works, creating sacraments that are not Biblical in the least. They seek sanctification through works of the law to a certain degree as if outward works can affect some grace in the inner man. Roman Catholicism will come up because Roman Catholic Doctrine teaches this, even Vatican II. What is all that Council of Trent all about then? Anathema. I didn’t write it.
I don’t know what the average contemporary Roman Catholic in the pew understands, but that is what Roman Catholic Theology teaches. Do I believe that there are Roman Catholics galore that are saved through faith in Christ? Absolutely. Are most Roman Catholics aware of this theology? Do they believe it? I don’t think that many have thought about it. I went to a Catholic college and asked millions of questions of the Vatican II nuns and served on campus ministry. I was engaged to a young man for a short time who recently converted from Catholicism and converted back when I could not marry him because of some of these differences. I’m not reading tripe out of Readers Digest and drawing goofy conclusions that are not reflective of Roman Catholic Theology. It is my experience that most Catholics do not know what their own Church teaches and when they ask their priests, they often get into trouble.
So understand, I am not saying that Roman Catholics are not born of the Spirit because they do not believe as I do. I am not saying that the system prevents one from being a Christian. All that is needed for one to become born of the Spirit is that one confesses with one’s mouth and believes in one’s heart that God raised Christ from the dead then they are saved. We share that same salvation in Christ through faith. But the sacramental system and the system of authority that is required for the sacraments is partially mediated from works and the works can be apart from faith. The works have salvific synergy with the Spirit but apart from the works of sacrament, there cannot be salvation or grace imparted per Roman Catholic Theology.
I did not create this and I did not arrive at bizarre conclusions based on
The opus operanti says that an element of saving grace and holiness is imparted to the inner man even if there is no faith or belief in the person who merely follows the ritual. That is Roman Catholic theology. The sacraments must also involve a human mediator to be salvific in the form of a Roman Catholic priest. That is Roman Catholic theology.
Both those elements were cause for Martin Luther to break from the Roman Catholic Church. That is what is written in the history of Europe and in the blood of many martyrs.
We can agree to disagree on this, but I will bring it up if it’s warranted because that’s what the official Roman Catholic Doctrine teaches. If you want to demonstrate to me off line that I am in error with documentation, then we can certainly do that. But I cannot and will not cease to make this distinction.
If it is of that great a matter of concern here to you, I will cease to post here before I will cease to make the distinction. And again, this is not to say that Catholics are not born of the Spirit through the Blood of the Lamb, because I don’t believe that if they have faith in their hearts and confess Jesus as their Redeemer and Lord. But in terms of how sanctification is mediated, I believe that the parallels between the two groups, in terms of sanctification only, are absolutely accurate and warranted.
Here I stand. God help me.
May 30, 2008 at 1:07 am
Cindy, there are different kinds of grace. Only sanctifying grace has to do with salvation, and it is unearned. Give me a couple of days, and I’ll explain it better.
May 30, 2008 at 1:45 am
Annie,
Thanks for your perspective!
Tell if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve seen/heard about the Indian betrothal process, I had the impression that the single adults gave their consent to be placed in an arranged or betrothed marriage. Is that correct or is it forced on them?
Besides the fact that this Western Christian idea of Courtship is being declared the only Biblical way to find a spouse, my main concern is that these young people are given NO OTHER OPTIONS. This is it. Their life is that controlled; if they wanted to go another route… well, it’s just not pretty.
Thanks for your input, Annie!
May 30, 2008 at 1:46 am
Annie,
Thanks for your perspective!
Tell if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve seen/heard about the Indian betrothal process, I had the impression that the single adults gave their consent to be placed in an arranged or betrothed marriage. Is that correct or is it forced on them?
Besides the fact that this Western Christian idea of Courtship is being declared the only Biblical way to find a spouse, my main concern is that these young people are given NO OTHER OPTIONS. This is it. Their life is that controlled; if they wanted to go another route… well, it’s just not pretty.
Thanks for your input, Annie!
May 30, 2008 at 1:53 am
Cynthia,
I understand the distinctions between different types of grace as separate from sanctifiying grace. But there is one sacrament that is required by the Roman Catholic church for salvation: the sacrament of baptism for baptismal regeneration.
I went on a four day retreat at an off campus convent for Protestants to learn about RC theology. I took two undergraduate classes with Sister Marie Michelle at Gwynedd Mercy College in Gwynedd Valley, Pa. One was an overview class on Roman Catholicism. The other was a class called Theology of Suffering where we talked about death and dying which is where I learned the most about Vatican II.
I spent well over an hour with Sister Honora to find out about participation on the campus ministry team, reviewing all these elements. And several times per year, the resident priest came for a discussion group. I always went. This is where I first learned about Baptismal Regeneration, baptism being a sacrament. I asked him specifically and he told me that without the mass going on every day and without participation in the sacraments with their priests, he directly told me that it was the official position of the church that apart from the sacraments, that one cannot attain saving grace. He said that he believed otherwise (isn’t that sweet) and that it would be between me and God what my fate was because God might make allowances for my salvation because I did have faith and practiced sacraments. But that was not the official position of the church under Vatican I. They followed Vatican II which considered me to be Christian, but for me to have privileges as a Catholic, I would have to convert and participate in the sacraments.
Why is it that Pope Ratzenburger recently declared all Protestants to no longer be considered separated brethren and to be considered pagan and of no difference than Islam? He also talks about purgatory.
May 30, 2008 at 1:55 am
Cynthia,
I understand the distinctions between different types of grace as separate from sanctifiying grace. But there is one sacrament that is required by the Roman Catholic church for salvation: the sacrament of baptism for baptismal regeneration.
I went on a four day retreat at an off campus convent for Protestants to learn about RC theology. I took two undergraduate classes with Sister Marie Michelle at Gwynedd Mercy College in Gwynedd Valley, Pa. One was an overview class on Roman Catholicism. The other was a class called Theology of Suffering where we talked about death and dying which is where I learned the most about Vatican II.
I spent well over an hour with Sister Honora to find out about participation on the campus ministry team, reviewing all these elements. And several times per year, the resident priest came for a discussion group. I always went. This is where I first learned about Baptismal Regeneration, baptism being a sacrament. I asked him specifically and he told me that without the mass going on every day and without participation in the sacraments with their priests, he directly told me that it was the official position of the church that apart from the sacraments, that one cannot attain saving grace. He said that he believed otherwise (isn’t that sweet) and that it would be between me and God what my fate was because God might make allowances for my salvation because I did have faith and practiced sacraments. But that was not the official position of the church under Vatican I. They followed Vatican II which considered me to be Christian, but for me to have privileges as a Catholic, I would have to convert and participate in the sacraments.
Why is it that Pope Ratzenburger recently declared all Protestants to no longer be considered separated brethren and to be considered pagan and of no difference than Islam? He also talks about purgatory.
May 30, 2008 at 1:57 am
Cynthia,
I understand the distinctions between different types of grace as separate from sanctifiying grace. But there is one sacrament that is required by the Roman Catholic church for salvation: the sacrament of baptism for baptismal regeneration.
I went on a four day retreat at an off campus convent for Protestants to learn about RC theology. I took two undergraduate classes with Sister Marie Michelle at Gwynedd Mercy College in Gwynedd Valley, Pa. One was an overview class on Roman Catholicism. The other was a class called Theology of Suffering where we talked about death and dying which is where I learned the most about Vatican II.
I spent well over an hour with Sister Honora to find out about participation on the campus ministry team, reviewing all these elements. And several times per year, the resident priest came for a discussion group. I always went. This is where I first learned about Baptismal Regeneration, baptism being a sacrament. I asked him specifically and he told me that without the mass going on every day and without participation in the sacraments with their priests, he directly told me that it was the official position of the church that apart from the sacraments, that one cannot attain saving grace. He said that he believed otherwise (isn’t that sweet) and that it would be between me and God what my fate was because God might make allowances for my salvation because I did have faith and practiced sacraments. But that was not the official position of the church under Vatican I. They followed Vatican II which considered me to be Christian, but for me to have privileges as a Catholic, I would have to convert and participate in the sacraments.
Why is it that Pope Ratzenburger recently declared all Protestants to no longer be considered separated brethren and to be considered pagan and of no difference than Islam? He also talks about purgatory.
May 30, 2008 at 2:33 am
I am glad that Annie brought up the cultural aspects of different “ways” of getting from single to wedded couple. She made some excellent points. Thanks!
My annoyance with the patrios does NOT come from doing something different than dating. It’s the message that godly people, “Biblical” people, wise people, will do it their way (ie, God’s way). It’s that fundamentalist vitriol that gets annoying, NOT the decision to do things differently.
And it’s often the way it’s packaged, the “if you do it this way, you will be blessed/spared-from-pain” that is also troublesome. Whenever you think that by following a formula (something we’re talking about on my blog right now), you’ll somehow escape the normal complexities of learning to relate and grow in a relationship, then you’re in for a real rough ride.
Cindy K,
I always wince when the Catholic stuff is brought up negatively, myself. The topic is patriarchy, and the people this movement is affecting are many, Catholics included. Your opinion about Catholics is one, but there are many others.
There are Protestant groups who believe that baptism is a saving ordinance—-I was just talking to a WELS Lutheran about that very thing, in fact. So do a series on Catholicism on your blog, etc, because by all means, you should be able to share your opinions and what you see as dangerous. But I really do think that this is not the most appropriate place for drawing those kind of lines in the sand. (That is said with the full knowledge that this is NOT my blog–haha!—so it’s just one reader/commenters opinion). Protestant theology is just as run amuck, and is no less out of the doghouse when it comes to the patrio world. I’d like us to keep the door open to Christians from all persuations (Prot, Cath, EO) here, because the patrio world is trying to get it’s slimy mitts on all of us.
My humble thoughts!
May 30, 2008 at 2:41 am
Cynthia,
I understand the difference between sanctifying grace and infused grace. Apart from certain sacraments, I was taught in a four day retreat through my Catholic College for Protestants to get informed about Catholicism, an undergrad RC intro class and in a class called the Theology of Suffering (death, dying, evil), one cannot be properly redeemed and stay redeemed apart from the priesthood and the sacrament of baptism. And the sacraments require mediation on behalf of a priest.
And say that there was no such thing as saving grace through a sacrament. That salvation was apart from any sacrament and was by faith alone (though I don’t know then why that was one of the cries of the Reformation if that was not an issue). You are still then maintaining that there is an infusion of a different type of grace that the other sacraments promote. I was taught that this was the grace that accompanies ongoing sanctification through participation in the sacraments that must have an RC priest participating. Participation in sacraments infuse that grace you need as an RC to keep one sanctified. I was told that directly by the college priest. Participating in the sacraments essentially keeps one in good standing with God by ongoing infusion of other grace by participation in the that is not saving grace. I was told by our campus priest that abandonment of the sacraments would eventually nullify one’s faith. He told me that directly.
I also don’t identify that there is, under the Protestant faith, different grace between saving grace for salvation and the ongoing process of salvation that is termed sanctification. There are not multiple types of grace that come from God. Salvation is not just a wiping clean of one’s heart, but a continual, ongoing process completely apart from works. There is no saving grace and non-saving grace. It’s all grace and it’s all unmerited and it is completely apart from works.
Sacraments impart grace. The sacraments involve and are most appropriately mediated through the action or participation (a work) that results in the infusion of a type of grace that was not imparted unto the worshiper prior to the sacrament. It is this then that I am talking about. Whether it is not the wiping clean of the slate of one’s heart and spirit for the first time unto salvation or whether it is like a booser shot of grace or mysterious blessing, it is still a work that results in a blessing of some type.
I am saying (and this is taught by Bill Gothard) that works impart grace and favor from God is merited, just like the sacraments that are not necessarily salvific are in Roman Catholicism. One does something through an action and one gets something from God that makes one spiritually better than he was just before the sacrament. It is this, something Gothard teaches is a participation with God and a part of ongoing sanctification, that Roman Catholicism shares with patriarchy. It is the idea that doing a particular sanctified work (like birthing godly seed) imparts grace and favor on the believer. It infuses grace into the spirit and person.
So in that sense, the patriarch are doing what the Roman Catholic church does. The also have the added element that requires a priesthood, but in patriarhcy, the priest is the male head. So whether you want to call it saving grace or non-saving grace doesn’t really matter. One does something to merit something from God. That’s what patriarchy is all about. That is the commonality that is shared with Roman Catholicism.
Protestants don’t merit grace but embrace it through faith. I believe, not based on anything that I’ve been told is true but through my own study that the RC church equivocates and talks out of two sides of its mouth when they deny salvation by works because of what is written in their own theology. They are word games to me. I don’t find the arguments that you mention to be valid based on the fact that if one fails to participate in the sacraments that one looses right standing with God.
And the other interesting development is that the Pope has declared all Prostestants to be excommunicated bretheren. We are no longer separated brethren but we are pagans and to be esteemed no differently than Islam. Pope Ratzenburger also speaks of purgatory.
So I don’t doubt that there are lots of versions of Catholicism out there. But the Pope says what I have as a Protestant is pagan, and he has papal authority so he’s right. Nothing that I’ve done in Christ by grace through faith counts for anything.
May 30, 2008 at 2:43 am
Something really weird was going on with my computer and I thought that the previous post did not go through. So I did not mean to inflame anyone in excess of any previous inflammation.
Sorry.
May 30, 2008 at 2:59 am
“But the Pope says what I have as a Protestant is pagan, and he has papal authority so he’s right. Nothing that I’ve done in Christ by grace through faith counts for anything.”
Not wanting to go into this much further, but could you show me where he says that? I can’t find the quote.
May 30, 2008 at 3:07 am
Oh, great. And that first post went up three different times, no less.
Molly,
I really disagree with you here because of the issues surrounding the infusion of grace and favor and mysterium are central to these teachings.
I did not condemn any Catholic. I did not say anything of the sort. I affirm and embrace my Catholic brethren.
The Roman Catholic Theology that I studied taught the same thing about grace after one is saved that the patrios teach and it is not Protestant and it is not Reformed. That is the primary point: Roman Catholicism and Reformed Theology cannot be the same thing because of sanctification and because of papal authority.
All the people we discussed in the movement are Reformed specifically for the most part. And many of those are known to vehemently hate Roman Catholics.
So if this discussion here is inappropriate, in my mind the doctrine of the patriocentrics (including many within the SBC) as compared to Roman Catholic doctrine is very significant in terms of sanctification. I completely understand that the practices within are very different. I am not comparing practices. I’m talking about sanctification.
We also have the Federal Vision issues that are very significant to patriarchy and I am not the only person in Protestant circles who makes these parallel criticisms. Because they are so related, I dont’ see any way that I can not talk about the similarities between these two groups. I apparently did it today without even realizing it. I don’t know how I can separate that from my understanding and with that consideration, I wont be able to avoid it.
May 30, 2008 at 3:32 am
Hi Alisa,
Single adults give the consent to be placed in an arranged marriage because thats how it usually works out. There is not much boy-girl interaction encouraged, when we are kids we are expected to study, get into good colleges, get good jobs etc. We normally do not think of marriages until girls are 22 and guys 27 (sweeping statement here). But who has time for getting into relationships anyway, we are in a rat race to get the best jobs. There are billions of us, the competition is insane.
And if you meet and fall in love, most parents don’t have a problem as long as other things work out. But India is a huge country with a lot of diverse languages, customs, and ensuing complications. So to answer your question Alisa, it is very dependent on individual families. Men and women used to be forced into marriages earlier, but these days that doesn’t happen much to the best of my knowledge.
Our divorce rate is very low mainly I believe due to low expectations that the man and the women come to marraige with. I could write a novel about that, but hubs and I are in training now to do the half dome hike and I can hardly type due to terrible bodily aches and pains.
May 30, 2008 at 4:21 am
Okay, I understand. Sorry, I’m probably a little too sensitive. I come from a “Pope is the Antichrist” background where Catholics are friends of the devil. I tend to get defensive when I hear stuff that sounds like they’re being lumped out of Christianity. Thanks for explaining, chicka!
May 30, 2008 at 4:22 am
(Sorry, that last comment was in response to #137)
May 30, 2008 at 4:51 am
Hi Dana,
” He thought alternately that I was not giving him a real chance and that I was stringing him on, which I suppose I was, in a way, but with the best of motives. Once the romantic feelings are disallowed as a factor, it’s hard to find a good reason to decline someone who is apparently “suitable” in every other way.”
What a great point! And so sad that there might be people who go ahead with these marriages just because they are suitable in every other way. Stacy and James do say that insanity is one of the reasons to break off an engagement. One could always plead insanity, I suppose?
Most people don’t want someone “suitable”. I will be honest, I was looking for passion as one of the main factors. Suitability without passion would not do for me. If I couldn’t feel passionate with about that person BEFORE I say “yes”, then there would be no use entering into a “betrothal” or “engagement”. I would rather stay single if it was only about finding someone that was “suitable” for me. It sounds dreadfully mediocre and utilitarian.
“I think a lot of these short-courtship couples are already attracted to each other, no matter what they say about the appropriate timing of emotional bonding. And someone needs to admit that that is okay; and that saying you just don’t like him or her enough to go through with it is also okay, without the loads of guilt that attach not just to physical touch, but to normal casual emotional attractions and the lack thereof.”
Exactly. That is why I said that they are probably not being honest. This is what bondage does to people, it makes them deny their true feelings and causes them to pretend that things are one way when they are not. The whole idea that there is an “appropriate time for bonding” is absurd.
Have they never heard of “love at first sight”?
May 30, 2008 at 5:03 am
I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic schools, the whole deal. As a young adult, I heard the Gospel in a new way and converted to Protestantism.
Since then, I’ve gotten a small amount of grief from my family for being a Protestant, but I’ve heard a whole lot of ugly over the years from my Protestant sisters and brothers about Catholics: Catholic-bashing as sport. It grieves me so much. I no longer share the Catholic doctrines, but the faith remains a part of my history and heritage.
I just ask that everyone be very, very careful here. This discussion about Catholic theology has been above-board so far, but I get very nervous when this sort of thing comes up because it can get ugly and hurtful in a hurry.
Please remember and be sensitive to the Catholic ladies who contribute to this website, ladies I have no doubt are our full sisters in Christ.
May 30, 2008 at 5:06 am
Molly,
Thanks for posting that. I get really upset because I am not that type at all. And I get really, really confused here because I do not ever have any problems like this outside of blogging about patriarchy.
Most of the nurses I’ve worked with have been Catholic with whom, due to the nature of the work, I have far more intimate relationships with than I do with most Protestants. A bunch of us even discussed the film “Lady Jane” with Bonham Carter when it came out, at work among a group that was primarily Catholic. (Heavens sakes, I played guitar and sang at mass on campus. My mother was mortified.)
I even discussed this information with Jeanette who has posted here a few times, a Roman Catholic who contacted me after finding the patriarchy workshop video online. She was well versed in the doctrines of her faith, but she did not get remotely offended as I related my views about patriarchy on sanctification to her. And I’ve been in much contact with her since that time and have not had any of these issues.
I am also confused because I did actually study these things with both Protestants and from Catholics when away at college. I drove the campus priest a little nuts, I think, with questions and such.
So I don’t really know how to process some of the things that are said to me about this issue in this forum most of the time.
I also apparently can’t discern when and what subject matter will cause offense because I do see the sanctification aspects of the sacramental system and the patriocentrists as so very similar.
May 30, 2008 at 5:15 am
“I also apparently can’t discern when and what subject matter will cause offense because I do see the sanctification aspects of the sacramental system and the patriocentrists as so very similar.”
You didn’t offend me, Cindy. I’m just not sure you quite understand the Catholic view of sanctification (heck, sometimes I’m not even sure I understand it myself, and I studied Catholic theology at a Benedictine-run Catholic college!)
May 30, 2008 at 5:24 am
Hi Annie,
Thank you for your insight. I agree with you that it is not weird. I am concerned about the duplicitous nature of saying that all people don’t have to do it their way but then immediately saying that people who don’t do it their way have been suckered into some post-modern way of thinking instead of obeying the “authoritative word of God”.
My beef is with the teachers, themselves, and the totally OBVIOUS way that they talk out of both sides of their mouth.
We all know that women who don’t see biblical womanhood as they do are “white-washed feminists” so when they tell us that they don’t require people to believe and live as they do, many of us know this to be a lie.
The OB that delivered my first 6 children was from India. LOVED her! I learned a lot from her about that culture and I have been fascinated with Indian culture for a long time now.
I think culture is just fine. It is when the Patrios make everything in our culture out to be evil and from the pit but they adopt lots of things from other cultures and then put a “biblical” stamp of approval on that certain CULTURAL practice.
Culture is Culture. They just don’t understand that it is nothing more and nothing less. It is basically nothing unless it clearly violates the EXPRESS word of God.
Betrothel is cultural. It is either here nor there. What matters is if we obey God’s express will. Just because the Bible used cultural examples of betrothal does not mean that it is prescriptive for all people in all times.
What is prescriptive is the charge to be holy as God is holy. To possess our own vessels with sanctification. To be self-controlled. To be pure.
May 30, 2008 at 5:36 am
Debbie in CA,
I didn’t see your post till my previous one went up.
Where am I going wrong?
I honestly do believe that many Reformed Baptists (some of whom I know detest Catholics) carry out their gender practices as if they are sacraments. And we have Federal Vision which is basically Catholic syncretism, per the commentary from others far greater than I am. The expose book on Bill Gothard also pointed out these distinctions same distinctions about his theology.
I was told my use of the term Romanist was a pejorative even though I did not use it nor heard it ever used as a pejorative but as a short version of RC theology. So I have sworn off the term on the internet because I do not want to be offensive.
Is there a way to make these distinctions of the Vision Forum Sacraments and sacerdotalism without offending a Roman Catholic?
Is this just a matter of Catholics getting offended because they feel disgusted when it is pointed out that these beliefs are so similar to those in patriarchy, and they just find that realization offensive?
What specifically am I doing that is potentially hurtful? How can I properly make this point (a point I believe needs to be made) without offending my Roman Catholic brethren? (Or is that not possible?)
May 30, 2008 at 5:54 am
Cindy K.
That is a very good question. I would normally jump in and reply to this, but my whole household is in the middle of this shift change thing, and I need my bed. I do believe there in an answer in there, but let me ponder on this and get back to you in the morning.
(And just to be clear, since we now have two Annies, this is the one from Oregon, not India.
)
May 30, 2008 at 6:04 am
Oh, dear Cindy, you have not offended me! Truth be told, I actually agree with you on much of what you say.
I’m mostly fearful of where this type of discussion often leads–I’ve seen it happen way too often. Red flags start flying so fast in front of my face I can barely see. Maybe I just need to skip through these particular discussions, I don’t know.
Mostly I’m just calling for caution on everyone’s part in this area so that it doesn’t veer off-course. I’ve not seen that happen on this website yet, thank goodness. I would be so sad if it ever did.
I don’t mean to single you out either, you just happen to be the one who brought up a sensitive topic for me personally!
I have learned so much from you and so many of the other women on this website and am grateful to you.
May 30, 2008 at 7:13 am
I just listened to a terrifically inspiring lecture on the life of Sarah Edwards (wife of Jonathan Edwards) that I thought you ladies might find interesting:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConference/3/1656_Sarah_Edwards_Jonathans_Home_and_Haven/
May 30, 2008 at 7:29 am
Alright Annie and Debbie from out West,
(I feel like I’m swinging shfts. I’m having seasonal asthma and if I can hold out for two more weeks, I’ll make it through without steriod. But I’m sleeping in intervals the past two weeks.)
So here I am awake.
I seriously and sincerely appreciate your prayers and thoughts on this. I don’t want to offend, yet I want to be true to Ephesians 2:8-9 and the Word and those who died to put it in my hands.
First off, I am an equal opportunity offender. I have plenty of Southern Baptists quite upset with me now, far beyond my wildest imagination or expectations.
Here’s another way of looking at the theology of sanctification and these concerns for someone who is Roman Catholic:
The patriocentrists who make everything a sacrament diminish the other 7 sacraments and thus cheapen the value of the ones that are sacraments.
They make every blooming thing “Biblical” to the point that so much is Biblical that it’s insane to me. If they don’t say Biblical then they say beautiful. It’s like a slap in the face to all things Biblical and sacramental as well. If those works are precious and set apart, when everything having to do with gender is made out to be also, the few are lost in a sea of insignificance (or certainly much less).
The other significant element of this and in some sense, it’s usefulness: some of the WORST Catholic bashers are in these patrio camps. So for the patrios, there is an ironic twist to making the point about ongoing sanctification that should cause them to both think and to be convicted. It’s almost like their own hatred has turned against them and is likely a reaping of what they’ve sown. It’s trenchant, that’s for sure. If there is any pejorative nature or intent in it, it would be aimed at patriarchy, not at the Catholic Church.
And there is a priesthood for them too, and again, if you are Roman Catholic, this cheapens the priesthood as it is a limited office (more limited all the time, in fact). Likewise, for the true stewards and elders and deacons in the Protestant church, their double honor is diminished in a similar way.
Patriarch then, from that vantage, really cheapens both of our faiths and we might actually have more common concerns than conflicting ones. Our faiths are then both offended, but for somewhat different reasons.
But considering that more of the patriocentrists actually call themselves “Reformed,” is is “not reformed at all.” The irony is tragic.
May 30, 2008 at 7:31 am
Forgot to say -
I do thank you for considering all of this. Teach me a better way if there is one. If there isn’t, I’m going to hammer away as best I can without stepping on too many land mines.
May 30, 2008 at 8:54 am
Speaking as a Catholic born and convent-schooled child who now attends an anglican church – my comment for what it’s worth:
Please don’t worry too much about offending (at any rate) MY Catholic sensitivities. In my experience, Catholics can be extremely robust about criticism of the theological foundations of their faith, in the same way that they can be quite pleasantly irreverant about their priesthood and hierarchy, and in both cases more robust, and more irreverant than Protestants.
There’s a certain tough attitude that says – yes, well we all know that the CHURCH says . . . but we all know they can be a lot of old (wo)men, so we’ll do it our own way, thanks, because we can all read what Jesus said!
As Voltaire said, and continues to say to many Catholics ‘Dieu me pardonners – c’est son metier’ (God will forgive me – it’s his job) for my defects and deficiencies, but I’m pretty sure he’ll pardon me sooner for not believing in a little man made doctirne than for being unloving, uncharitable and unfaithful
Individual catholics may believe in sanctification by grace or sanctification by works, the former advocated by St Paul, the latter based on a church perversion of St James; what ‘The Catholic Church’ believes and preaches is often ignored by Catholic believers who are not ignorant, but just pragmatically cynical about the lack of clean biblical verity in the official teachings after too many hierarchically minded, power-hungry men have adapted scripture to serve their own purposes.
Oh, sorry – yes,I was talking about the Catholics there – or was it the hyper-patriarchalists? Wherever there is a power structure that can be abused there will be people to abuse it, and that is obvious from both Catholic and hyper-patriarchalists.
Popes through the centuries have acted as conquering warlords in the name of Jesus, aggressive proselytisers in the interests of financial gain, corrupt bureaucrats for the sake of personal aggrandisement, and chauvinistic oppressors of women out of an atavistic understanding that good stud animals keep control of their females’ reproductive appetites.
Hyper-patriarchalists are simply replicating their errors, without the bells and smells, in slightly more modern language, and without the pretty trappings of luxuriant cloth and priceless silver, angelic choirboys singing rapturous music, and impressive buildings built with the toil of the faithful, unwashed, poor and uneducated masses.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. The more it changes, as the French say, the more it’s the same thing.
Difference between CJ Mahaney and Ratzinger? In some respects merely a matter of a purple robe.
Differences between shunning for not following the Sovereign Grace Ministries line exactly and excommunication? Probably merely a form of words: overall effect identical.
Oppression is oppression whatever it wears, whatever theology it espouses, and wherever it preaches.
True grace resides in the spirit, and as far as this website goes I see an earnest attempt to attain true grace here. You – or we, if I include myself as a member: I know I don’t post much but I have so little time – are all trying to understand God’s word, and trifling differences are nothing to be concerned about, so, Debbie, Cindy, Cynthia, Molly – I don’t see you or Catholics who’ll read this as the type of people who are going to throw emotional dummies out of theological prams over tiny issues.
There are definite similarities between hyper-patriarchal and Catholic ‘doctrines’. It’s because they can both arrive at the same place from cultures of obsessive control, tight-fisted fear, and hatred of the ‘Other’ Equally there are Catholics and Protestants alike who both struggle with being victims of abusive churches.
We are a on the same side basically – I think we all see that!
Nice to be back – even if only briefly!
May 30, 2008 at 9:08 am
And as for Helen Andelin, going back to the topic of the thread – sorry but her stuff is really, really vile. Manipulation is manipulation, polish it how you choose: direct discourse and courteous negotiation is the mark of the adult of either sex. What she advocates demeans men as much as it demeans women.
May 30, 2008 at 11:30 am
Oh, Joanna-from-England, what an awesome response to this topic! I have missed your incredibly insightful comments!!!
May 30, 2008 at 11:33 am
We are all grown-ups here and really do want to edify and build one another up. As long as that is our goal, I think we can safely discuss all these things! Cindy, you have shown yourself to be gracious and loving, as have all these sisters. Thank you for your comments.
May we all be slow to take offense, even when it might be our own doctrinal, personal, pet issue toes that are being stepped on!!
May 30, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Joanna-from-England, I like your brain, may I borrow it for a while?
May 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Annie, in comment 113, expressed some of my thoughts. Whenever there is a discussion of courtship, it strikes me as being so — excuse the term — ethnocentric.
My first exposure to something that was even stricter than the modern homeschooling courtship model was in college, when a Mexican friend of mine explained his relationship with a young woman he intended to marry. I found it odd at the time (he talked to this parents, who talked to hers, who talked to her, and then this all went back the other way; most of their courtship took place at her house, with the excuse that he was tutoring her in Math; finally he was allowed to take her out, accompanied by her sister and mother; etc.) but he insisted that “all the good families” from his home town in Mexico did the same exact thing. He found American dating bizarre.
Being raised in a multi-cultural extended family, and hearing a variety of courtship/marriage stories, I have to admit that I always found American dating to be a new-fangled and odd experiment.
I see nothing odd with not kissing before marriage. My husband and I didn’t kiss before engagement. We didn’t do this because of Josh Harris; that was almost 25 years ago! It just seemed, to us, the thing to do.
Also, it seems odd to me when people defend dating over other cultural practices — it’s not like the American institution of marriage is a model of health, longevity, and purity. I can understand why people look at our cultural norms concerning dating and marriage and think, “This way of doing things is obviously a disaster — let’s find a different way.”
May 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“Most people don’t want someone “suitable”. I will be honest, I was looking for passion as one of the main factors. Suitability without passion would not do for me. If I couldn’t feel passionate with about that person BEFORE I say “yes”, then there would be no use entering into a “betrothal” or “engagement”. I would rather stay single if it was only about finding someone that was “suitable” for me. It sounds dreadfully mediocre and utilitarian.”
Corrie, this is why I think it’s so important to recognize our differences and not have a one-size-fits-all approach to courtship and marriage.
I was not looking for passion because, quite frankly, when I was in my 20s, I could be swept away by passionate feelings for just about anyone, including the mailman. (Well, not quite…)
What I was looking for was suitability. So far that had been the missing ingredient with every man I’d fallen head over heels for.
All these years later, I think I chose, for me, the better thing. Passion can come and go. At least for me!
I used to joke with my brother about what I called the “Thanksgiving test” — could I imagine this guy at our extended family’s Thanksgiving dinner? Would he fit in? The two of us nixed more potential husbands that way! Obviously my husband passed the test.
May 30, 2008 at 5:06 pm
This is a really deep conversation. There are things that disturb me a lot about Catholicism and I am very much a Protestant. (And I do see some of the connections Cindy is pointing out with patriarchy, so much that I do wonder how long some of these types will indentify themselves as Protestant.) But even so, I have moved from thinking anyone in the Catholic Church was necessarily unsaved or in danger … and God has even broadened me so that I even see a whole different and valuable perspective coming from Roman Catholics, as each denomination that holds God’s people has. This all may sound contradictory, but it’s where I am. Anyways, I appreciate everyone’s input here, especially Joanna-from-England’s.
And I love your very different but valuable perspectives on the whole finding-a-mate thing, Corrie and Rebecca. It’s true, we are all SO different.
May 30, 2008 at 5:15 pm
For any of you curious about the Roman Catholic view of grace, a very good and comprehensive explanation (with Biblical citations) can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp
May 30, 2008 at 5:15 pm
If there’s anything we can glean from scripture about finding a mate, it’s that there isn’t a single right way … and that some ways can be downright bizarre. Culture will of course have a huge influence on the ways in which we meet our spouses. As long as it isn’t anything dishonorable, so what? I myself met my husband through a dating service (22 years ago, well before the days of e-harmony).
May 30, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Well, Light, that explains a lot. Just kidding!
Some of the longest and most loving marriages I’ve known met under some circumstances some might think odd:
1. At a USO dance
2. The man first met the woman’s married sister and thought her only flaw was that she was already married.
3. At a train station.
4. On a blind date.
5. While conducting business.
6. While rushing the woman to the hospital.
May 30, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Light, what a good point. It’s like that post Lin put up earlier…I mean look at the crazy stuff poor Jacob had to go through to marry Rebekah…talk about in law problems. Sheesh…when you really get to thinking about it, a lot of the marriages wouldn’t fit into a nice neat little patriocentric box, would they?
Annie (from India)—I am really enjoying your insight on the whole betrothal thing.
And Johanna-from-England: (as a former Roman Catholic myself) Couldn’t have said it better.
Cindy, I totally got what you were trying to say.
I think we just all want to be careful!
And for what it’s worth (to all in general) does anybody else get a little lost in all the theological ‘this and that’? I for one have come across things and gone ‘that’s what my church/denomination believes?’ It all gets confusing. For example, until I started hanging out at TW, I had no idea what complimentarianism and egalitarianism were…and of course now I see it everywhere (there was an interesting write up/debate in this month’s Christianity Today) and “get it”….
But am I just the odd one out here?
May 30, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I can tie in Roman Catholicism and meeting your mate into one post! I met my husband more than twenty odd years ago at a local Roman Catholic Church Bazaar.
Before we were married we were both drawn to Christ and His salvation and left the Roman Church. You can imagine what our families thought of us, even the threats of not attending our wedding because it wasn’t going to be in a Catholic church. I’m happy to report our families did end up attending and we will celebrate our 20th anniversary this summer!
May 30, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I recently heard a good ‘how I met my mate’ story. A local Christian police officer pulled over a woman for speeding and when he was giving her the ticket he noticed her passenger had a Bible on her lap. He ended up marrying that passenger and they now have two children. Just thought that was a neat little story.
On with the conversation…
May 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Lovely responses, everyone. Truly.
You know, I never should have been worried about this topic being addressed on this particular website. You women are filled with grace and with love. So refreshing.
May 30, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Joanna-from-England wrote: the type of people who are going to throw emotional dummies out of theological prams over tiny issues.
Joanna,
This is priceless.
I appreciate your eloquent response to all this.
You state a point that is essential here as well and I just assume is obvious: it’s the spiritually abusive leadership that can make a living hell out of any lovely garden by trying to make it a perfect Eden through adversarial authoritarianism. I guess I expect that to be a given.
It’s oxymoronic for me to consider this patriocentricity thing, largely composed of leaders who claim the Reformation and the London Baptist Confession which basically necessitates a belief in the principles of Calvinism which includes limited atonement.
One of the most relevant passages that supports this is Ephesians chapter two:
1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins…
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)…
And I was taught that verses 8 and 9 were pivotal ones for Martin Luther who through them recognized what he had sought in works and could never find — always coming to emptiness in himself:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
He had an epiphany, and Eph 2:8-9 became the basis of the “Cry of the Reformation”:
sola scriptura: By the Scriptures alone (inspired source sufficient for salvation without a human mediator)
sola fide: verse 8 By faith alone (not of works should any man boast of salvation or grace from God)
sola gratia: verse 8 By grace alone (no differentiation between types of God’s grace or a way of meriting it through anything other than faith as echoed in the Gospel red letters and in other places throughout the New Testament
solus Christus: verse 5 Christ alone (not through a mediary of any human agency because the salvation started with Christ’s saving work while we were still sinners and dead in our trespasses and sins)
sola Deo gloria: verses 5 & 8 To the glory of God alone (salvation comes only through God’s work and action, so it is only to His glory and not even to the man who is the recipient of God’s grace)
So I think it’s pretty, well, for the patriocentrists to lay claim to the Protestant Reformation and particularly to Calvinism so strongly as well because they are so heavily entrenched in a works-based mentality and issue rules that are not “by Scripture alone,” mixing so much extra-Biblical practice into their belief system. Failure to abide by their elitist mentality and rigid moral imperatives results in terrible consequences for followers and often ostracism. You get the “Disease, Death and Divorce” declarations as Karen was told by her pastor for “departing from their faith” by leaving their church against leadership’s wishes. They often will voice personal disdain for all those outside their group, but particularly against the group that was “protested,” originally by Martin Luther. Yet they are blind to the similarities between them and the very thing that they would tell you they hated, hate and aggression as two notable fruits that those outside their belief systems are quick to note.
The main thrust of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is that gender is not an intramural debate but is a central doctrine to the Christian faith. By rejecting their own, often narrow, interpretations of many gender-relevant texts in light of their presuppositions, they state that the Gospel is rendered largely impotent, our churches and all our efforts to live effective Christian lives and advance the cause of Christ in our churches and communities will be barely effective or fruitless altogether without their version of patriarchy. (Moore and Stinson state it clearly in that audio that provoked this whole discussion to start with and Phillip Lancaster states this directly in “Family Man, Family Leader.”) They’ve raised their gender practice to another “sola.”
The other issue is that of sacerdotalism (or the idea of an exalted priesthood with special spiritual power, authority and a superior mystical connection with God) figures so significantly in their views and practices. There is no centralized leader after a type of pope in patriocentricity, but it appears that there are a host of demi-bishops who find themselves infallible. We’ve seen a parade of leaders that sin with both impunity and a sense of entitlement, often at the expense of their sheep for their own personal gain of power or resources. The circus of their “casting off the cords” of their own leadership is quite notable (get thrown out of one denomination — Well, it’s America so you can go across the street and start your own). And the pontification should be blatantly obvious. I’m surprised at how they’ve closed ranks/circled wagons for one another to the degree that many different ministries have done without major sparks flying as of yet. The egos are so big and the self-esteem stature so short among the major leaders, I’m shocked that there haven’t been more problems than we’ve seen. (I’ve read previous blogs where people have speculated an inevitable and unavoidable falling out between Sproul, Jr./McDonald/Wilson and Phillips over alcohol and paedocommunion and liturgical forms of worship. And then there’s the ever provocative kinism factor, too.)
May 30, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Denise…how funny…and how cool! (re #164)
May 30, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Some of the longest and most loving marriages I’ve known met under some circumstances some might think odd
Rebecca, I love hearing “how we met” stories. Here are a few more.
My dad died 18 years ago. While he was terminally ill, my brother came home from another state and helped care for him. In the evenings, my youngest brother would go out to a local bar. In the midst of all this difficulty and sorrow, he met his wife at the bar, and they have been happy together ever since.
A couple years after my dad died, my mom remarried. Her new husband had two grown kids. My other brother (not the one above) ended up marrying one of them.
If we insist there is only one “right” or “biblical” way to meet a spouse, we could potentially be closing off God’s plans for us. It’s like the old joke about a man on his roof during a flood, who turns away a boat and a helicopter because “God will provide.” He has one picture in his mind as to how that will work, and in his mind nothing else is of God.
May 30, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“And as for Helen Andelin, going back to the topic of the thread – sorry but her stuff is really, really vile. Manipulation is manipulation, polish it how you choose: direct discourse and courteous negotiation is the mark of the adult of either sex. What she advocates demeans men as much as it demeans women.”
Johanna,
Amen!
I think this is what bothers me most. It truly does demean men. It makes them seem like just a bunch of meatheads who are too dumb to tell when someone is manipulating them in order to get their way.
Rebecca,
Good point about the passion in our 20s! I can totally relate.
I like the Thanksgiving test. I will tell my daughters that so they can use it.
I agree with you that this is not a one size fits all sort of thing. Each individual should be considered when it comes to choosing a mate.
May 30, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Oh, I missed typing “oxymoronic” for some unknown reason in my previous comment — it’s oxymoronic that the patriocentrists, claiming to be staunchly Reformed, preach a works-heavy doctrine of family oriented practice and also formulate their own systems of infallibility and hierarchy (following a form of church government that is more RC in form that exceeds that of most Roman Catholic Churches).
I also appreciate the comments from women here and some in real life who express such frustration with Protestant patriarchy that they may as well return to Catholicism becuase it makes life simpler. The system is well established and people generally leave you alone. You go and worship, get more involved if that is your heart, and you get to worship God peacefully without being pounded on the head with someone’s latest teaching of the mongering of so much shame and fear. (Catholicism is more consistent and less emotionally cumbersome, and there is an expression of reverence for God that is grossly lacking in some FICs and in many Evangelical churches.) For those who grew up it the Catholic church, at least for practical reasons, it’s easier than jumping through patriocentric performance hoops like a trained animal. And I think that they have a very valid point. And I can relate — I never would have dreamed to find myself enjoying fellowship at a liturgical church, so I have effectively done something very similar.
May 30, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“Oppression is oppression whatever it wears, whatever theology it espouses, and wherever it preaches.”
Johanna,
Again, well said!
I grew up Catholic and left the Catholic church in my mid-twenties. I come from a huge extended family made up of many very devout Catholics. I truly appreciate your input on this issue and it has been my experience, also.
My Grandmother, who is 84, is a very devout Catholic but can better explain the grace of God than I can ever hope to.
May 30, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I think what Rebecca said (158) about not having a one size fit all approach is very important. And I loved the term ethnocentric that you used. And the example of the mexican couple you gave…thats how it works for us too. I don’t find not kissing and not holding hands before marriage bizzare at all. I guess we are a more private people.:) The couples don’t kiss at the end of the wedding ceremony either. It is so true that the way we do things is so influence by where we are from. What I think the problem is that when we do things differently from the crowd, we need some kind of validation, and what better way of validation than putting a “biblical” spin on things?
I came to US 5 years ago on a grad school scholarship. Only recently have I come across these different teachings on women being KAH, SAHD etc. I have been a Christian since age 8. But the more I learn, the more I question a lot of things which were taught as black and white back home. And the more I agree with that song…”Heart of the matter is a matter of the heart”
I kind of rambled on, my thoughts are incoherent, sorry about that. I wish I could copy paste my thoughts directly onto the screen. It would probably make better sense then.
May 30, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I meant comment 158 from Rebecca, I don’t know what that smiley is doing there.
May 30, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I think an important thing to remember is that we’re all made up with different personality traits too, and we need to consider that on top of the cultural influences and norms in regions all over the world.
I’m a very outgoing, loud, busy, happy-go-lucky, opinionated person. I’ve been this way since birth. (perhaps this is why the patrio stuff didn’t sit long with me, even though I really tried to be a hidden woman, I promise I did). Will you all fall over and die when I tell you that by age 15 I had kissed about 5 different boys? And, I was a GOOD GIRL! I just tend to be more outgoing, less shy, and grab life by the seat of my pants. A game of spin the bottle as a tweenager didn’t ruffle my feathers one bit. It isn’t the best way to be—it has oftentimes gotten me into trouble—but it is who I am. I’m the one who is reaching out to grab my husband’s hand in the movie theater and I’m the one who is more vocal, and well…most would say that I tend to “wear the pants in the family.” My husband thinks it is wonderful. When I tried to be the hidden woman via patrio-style, he hated it. He wanted his old Lindsey back. He is not weak at all (though I thought he was based on the patrio teachings). He just likes a woman who knows what she wants and how to get it.
I have friends who are much more private and shy and they would never kiss a boy or even their husband in public. My inlaws, who have been married for 40 years now and I’ve known them for 20+ years, I’ve NEVER SEEN THEM KISS. Ever. We even lived with them for 4 months. They are loving and very happy, yet very, very private.
Personality fits into all this talk.
I have a problem when some boy or girl is forced to be someone God did NOT create them to be in order to fulfil a prescription or model.
I for one would be a failure and a floozy by their standards in a courtship setting.
May 30, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Readers might be amused by this short video called ‘Women Know Your Limits’:
http://www.nastyhobbit.org/player.php?clip=women-know-your-limits
Well, it made me giggle anyway
May 30, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Has anyone see the book “Yummy Mummy Manifesto” – it was mentioned on another blog that I read. You can look it up on Amazon. It would be interesting to discuss this secular mommy manifesto.
May 30, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Amanda,
Thank you for posting that link. It brought up for me just how nearly identical Bill Gothard’s views on ongoing sanctification to the Roman Catholic view. I attended a workshop by Don Veinot (one of the authors of the Gothard expose book) in March, reviewing all of this. That article describes the issues perfectly.
Again, in this situation, if Gothard wants to hold to a novel interpretation of the Bible, he can, but this is problematic if he then calls himself Protestant or Baptist when his theology does not conform to those statements of faith. That is also the point that I hope to make and why I bring it up. (Doug Phillips has a working relationship with Gothard and has spoken with him at Gothard conferences. Phillips trains Gothard’s law student interns.)
Grace, in Greek is a “kindly attitude” (not a power, a substance or a spirit). The only instance where “charis” (grace) is used by the Greeks of the years preceeding the NT in reference to anything having to do with any religious is in Promethius Bound where Aeschylus uses it as “favor (grace)of the Gods,” but not as a central feature or in religious or physical terms.
Gothard defines faith as “visualizing what God wants to do in your life” that follows the inital point at which a person is justified and redeemed (born-again of the Spirit). This is not consistent with a Reformed view of “faith” but is his own novel definition. Grace, a component of faith, is viewed as a spirit or force or substance that is imparted. Components of his teaching of sanctification, God’s work in the life of the believer and the process of visualizing faith involve:
1.) Infused righteousness (must be continually acquired and added to through grace and not a declaration by God based on the Word that is attained only through faith and beliefin the promise)
From the article Amanda posted: But that isn’t the Catholic view. We believe souls really are cleansed by an infusion of the supernatural life.
2.) Grace is merited (works and attitude “God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble”)
This is nearly identical to what is explained in the article: But you can become re-justified by having the supernatural life renewed in your soul, and you can do that by responding to the actual graces God sends you.
3.) Justification (process of MAKING sinners righteous through works that confer grace)
From the article: Once you have supernatural life, once sanctifying grace is in your soul, you can increase it by every supernaturally good action you do: receiving Communion, saying prayers, performing the corporal works of mercy.
This article that Amanda links to here describes very well what Bill Gothard professes himself to believe.
Gothard met with Don Veinot and a few others once per week for six weeks of discussion — because as a fellow Protestant, the view that Gothard holds to is basically not Protestant and more in line with Catholicism. The hope was to persuade Gothard to come to a more cogent Protestant view, but this never took place. Veinot relates that during the course of these discussions that Gothard said to him that “Rome was not wrong on everything” in response to the discussion of how sanctification is mediated.
So I am confused when I am told to refrain from making these comparisons when they have already been well-established. This article along with the copious literature that Bill Gothard had produced already makes the case. I’m just pointing out the similarities in patriocentricity that are not unlike what has already been noted about Gothard’s views.
Again, I am not saying that one cannot be a Christian and be justified and sanctified, but Roman Catholic Theology and Protestant Theology bear significant differences here concerning the mechanics of salvation. The great irony is, again, that so many pats go so far as to claim that they are not only Protestant but also serious about being Reformed. It’s even more hypocrisy added on to their already growning hypocrisy.
May 30, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The “infusion” concept comes from the writings of Aquinas, BTW.
May 30, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“So I think it’s pretty, well, for the patriocentrists to lay claim to the Protestant Reformation and particularly to Calvinism so strongly as well because they are so heavily entrenched in a works-based mentality and issue rules that are not “by Scripture alone,” mixing so much extra-Biblical practice into their belief system.”
I will get booed for this one for sure. But, if you really think about it, neither Calvin or Luther were ’scripture alone’ or Christ alone. They still bought into extra biblical doctrines such as magistrates, state church, infant baptism, etc.
We make a HUGE mistake when we look to man for scriptural understanding when we have the ONLY REAL teacher which is Jesus Christ.
Unfortuantly, the Pats love the extra biblical stuff.
May 30, 2008 at 9:03 pm
This may be extremely immature and unintelligent, but I keep my very basic salvation theology at this:
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved.
(I think it is Acts 16:30-31?)
Every thing else is just gravy and adds to the beauty, at least for me.
May 30, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Lindsey,
Move over on the “extremely immature and unintelligent” bench because that is the heart of things and what I believe.
“To Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved,” I’d add what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37-39 – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind” (the first and great commandment. And the second is like it “Love your neighbor as yourself. On those two hang the whole Old Testament.
If anyone needed a litmus test for faith (which argues for works as evidence of faith and the outward working of the forensic faith/justification/sanctification blah, blah, blah), I’d add from James near the end of chapter 1: “True religion, pure and undefiled, before the Father is this: to visit the widows and the fatherless in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
Them’s the basics, and the rest can either be icing on the cake or drop off into strangeness depending on our human twists and spins of interpretation. I have a good friend who decided that she could only read the “red letters” in the NT because everything became too complicated. That’s a great plan, if you wanted to take a step back and reorient.
But then it is satisfying to take a legal approach to a bunch of legalists to show how they are actually and very strikingly much like a group that they claim to oppose.
May 31, 2008 at 12:11 am
Lin said:
“I will get booed for this one for sure. But, if you really think about it, neither Calvin or Luther were ’scripture alone’ or Christ alone. They still bought into extra biblical doctrines such as magistrates, state church, infant baptism, etc.”
You won’t get booed by me, Lin. You obviously know your church history. Many people automatically equate Christianity with Protestantism. Although I agree with many of the teachings of these men you mentioned, I don’t believe their ‘protest’ went all the way and they did bring a lot of baggage of the state church with them. I’m a believer but not Protestant. I align myself with the baptists. Notice the little ‘b’ there. I know there are so many branches (too many to count) of baptist these days it’s hard to know which ones believe what. I line up with the baptist teaching that is most follows the set up and teaching of the New Testament church.
You also said: “We make a HUGE mistake when we look to man for scriptural understanding when we have the ONLY REAL teacher which is Jesus Christ.”
Amen. I was taught very early in my Christian walk to “follow no man further than he follows Christ”. Fleshing that out hasn’t always been the case for me but I’ve certainly learned from the mistake of looking to men before or beyond Christ.
So, no boos here. I offer you cheers instead for having the courage to say what you did!
May 31, 2008 at 3:43 am
Cindy, I really appreciate all your research. When I started reading Gothard’s teaching, by way of Don Veinot’s articles, the yahoo Gothard discussion, and from his big Red Book that a Gothard family loaned me at church when I started asking them questions, I read the foreign definition of grace that Gothard defines in his article or book. It was astonishing. It was another gospel, not the one I was familiar with after reading so many Scriptures on grace ( “It is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God so that no one can boast” ) .
You are so right when it comes to comparisons within patriarchy (I have done a lot of that since being caught in some extremist patriarchy in the past). There is a very interesting and lesser-know “patriarch” that is steeped in anti-pope teachings, and despises that catholic church. It was a part of nearly every article and sermon he wrote online (the story of how I got involved in his teachings is long, but suffice it to say, I actually found the ACTUAL teachings/Scriptures on God’s grace during the same time I was reading a lot of that guy’s teachings — Michael Bunker, friend of the Pearl’s, kindred spirit with Degenhart, the Southern successionist movement, etc. — I was completely unaware of the lion’s den I was studying in at the time.
He was staunchly anti-catholic, and was very, very adamant about authority and a woman keeping silent, literally, and “to train up a child” by the rod and keeping the Sabbath — that was a non-negotiable. His extreme law-keeping had me scratching my head in confusion after I had received the understanding of Grace and Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for my sins (book of Hebrews explaining there is no more sacrifice for sin). God must have been showing me the extremes of even how proud, truly “reformed” folks can be so enmeshed with a works and FEAR-based gospel, which, IMO, is adding to the pure Gospel.
Back to Gothard: fast-forward to when I came back to my FIC and started learning more about what true walking with the Lord was and discerning His Word, and when I asked my elder at church what he thought of Gothard and his teachings. He said he considered Gothard a Christian brother (I had already read the articles by Veinot) and wondered if he had actully taken the time to read what Gothard actually teaches. I felt that he should be more informed especially since there are so many Gothard families, loyal ones, who attend the FIC.
My concern is that the pure Gospel is being “leavened” with false teaching. The patriarchs like to demand that women follow 1 Peter 3 about modest apparel and keeping silent, though it’s defining the inward quiet spirit of the inward heart. Yet they don’t turn a couple of pages over to 2 Peter 2, which exhorts all to beware of false teachers, who, “through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you”. If someone has a paradigm or lifestyle to push, and all it takes is $45.00 at the door for the life-changing conference, or $16.95 for the book to challenge our post-modern feminist ways, then the 2 Peter verse bears careful consideration (tongue in cheek there). I can’t believe that Christ’s blood-saved brethren in third world countries where oppression of authority is the norm can only be saved if women and men just figured out gender roles properly. Obviously, that’s the logical conclusion of many of the modern patriarchs’ teachings, IMO.
May 31, 2008 at 3:44 am
Lin said: “I will get booed for this one for sure. But, if you really think about it, neither Calvin or Luther were ’scripture alone’ or Christ alone. They still bought into extra biblical doctrines such as magistrates, state church, infant baptism, etc.”
Calvin and Luther were ’scripture alone’ and “Christ alone”, as touching salvation.
But every church needs organization, and Peter, Paul, and the other leaders of the very early church similarly added to the teachings of Jesus by giving instructions to the churches under their authority, permitting the baptizing of infants, telling people to obey local magistrates in all that was not sin, forbidding foods sacrificed to idols, etc.
Jesus gave the apostles and the bishops who would succeed them the authority to do that, when He said,
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
AND
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
May 31, 2008 at 4:37 am
Linnet:
(Comment 176) I love those videos! A friend showed me one a few weeks ago— and the firdt thing I thought of was “Fascinating Womanhood”. They are FW in pracice– which makes the videos even more funny.
May 31, 2008 at 9:58 am
Lol, funny isn’t it? It was made my Harry Enfiled and Steve Whitehouse in England.
If you liked that one you will love this one, which isn’t a parody like the other.
It’s 1930’s prediction of fashion in 2000:
http://www.maniacworld.com/1930-prediction-on-2000-fashion.html
I love the way the man’s outfit is so ‘useful’ and I worry for the woman in the aluminium outfit during a lightening storm
Back to the discussion in hand and the conversations about denomination and protestantism/catholicism and what various theology big-wigs believed/didn’t believe. I reckon Normal Middle has it right…it’s all about Jesus, simply. Tony Campolo calls himself a ‘red letter Christian’ a term that was coined by a person whose name escapes my mind to describe Christians who above all else try live by the teachings of Jesus (often in red-print in Bibles). Who cares what Luther/Calvin etc believed? It’s all about Jesus and our faith in Him.
Lin has said it already of course:We make a HUGE mistake when we look to man for scriptural understanding when we have the ONLY REAL teacher which is Jesus Christ.
May 31, 2008 at 11:15 am
Linnet:
“OOOhhh, swish!”
“Candy for cuties.”
My 17 year old son and I are still laughing as he repeatedly quotes that swish line!”
May 31, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Hey Cynthia Gee,
You wrote: I studied Catholic theology at a Benedictine-run Catholic college!)
BINGO! Sort version: I went to a Jesuit one holding to a different theology.
I ran back over this discussion to copy the good discussion into a blog post in my ongoing effort to figure out how to be a better apologist on this topic as I really don’t want to go around like a bull in a china shop — since we are ordered to give an account of our Hope with meekness and patience. And when we run into this, it makes me a little nutz because I know what I studied and what I was taught — and I am relating these concepts accurately. So then I really get confused when we knock heads on this, because either we are grossly miscommunicating or one of us is wrong. Neither of us is wrong: it’s a Benedictine vs Jesuit thing.
I missed this comment from you (that I much appreicate and didn’t see unitl this morning). I’m so glad that you posted it, as it put even more into perspective from me, connecting the significance of some things from my college days. I’m so glad that I went back to copy sections of this discussion! Whew!
I figured out what was going on with us after discussing all this with my husband. (It put so much of this in perspective.) Benedictines do not follow the same philosophical basis as most other Roman Catholics and are closer to Anglicans in their theology. They are opposed to the Jesuits for the most part.
Whenever there is a debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants, usually the RCC will appoint a Jesuit, the order that is essentially the “RC doctrine police.” They are much more arminian (free willism)/semi-pelagian (man is basically good) than Benedictines as well. But the Jesuits are generally considered to be the intellectual and doctrinal experts in comparison to other orders. Gwynedd Mercy is Jesuit in it’s theology, and when my husband mentioned this and offered some “You know this: don’t you remember X, Y, Z…” I recalled some things that happened when I was in school about this very issue.
I had a sister in my “senior summer” session who was Benedicine who used to say that her order didn’t agree with the mainline RCC doctrine. Then I remember that the campus was occassionally overtaken by men in their robes with ropes around their waists when the campus would host these mini Roman Catholic theology round-tables. And the girls on my floor in the dorm (as opposed to the rest of the 96% female student body) would just say “because we are Jesuit.” I never really appreciated that to me because it was just a “different shade of grey” to me. It was all just a different twist on a doctrine different than mine anyway.
Oh, that makes so much more sense.
Another point: I used to think that John Paul II (? on the #, the most recent pope not the current one) was born-again until he seemed to get old and less sharp after getting shot. He said more things that made more sense to me — but he was not Jesuit. I don’t know if he was Benedictine. My husband said that Benedictus Ratzenberger is Jesuit. (how ironic).
May 31, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“But every church needs organization, and Peter, Paul, and the other leaders of the very early church similarly added to the teachings of Jesus by giving instructions to the churches under their authority, permitting the baptizing of infants, telling people to obey local magistrates in all that was not sin, forbidding foods sacrificed to idols, etc.
Jesus gave the apostles and the bishops who would succeed them the authority to do that, when He said, ”
Sorry Cynthia, We will have to agree to disagree on Apostalic succession and the interpretation of those sciptures. I cannot believe they “added to” the scriptures when it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I agree with the need for organization to a certain degree. The ecclesia was never meant to bring in the Roman-Jew-Greek, worldly system of ‘hierarchies’. There are only functions in the church based on giftings of the Holy Spirit, not offices. That word was added later to translations. All believers are anointed (1 John) and all are ministers in the Holy Priesthood. Jesus Christ is in charge of the Body and works through us with the Holy Spirit.
If I took your view then I would have to believe in either Apostalic succession or that anyone with the title of elder/bishop can make up rules for the church today.
There is NO clear example or teaching of infant baptism in the NC except what is read into accounts. There is NO ‘covenant’ salvation for babies. Each person much have faith, repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.
There is no such concept as ‘laity’ in the NC. That is man made all the way.
I know we are way off topic but this kind of thinking is what leads people to following the rules and teachings of mere men instead of Christ. That is my pain and I weep for it.
May 31, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Cindy,
You have referred to Pope Benedict several times as Pope Ratzenburger” and above as “Benedictus Ratzenburger”. I am assuming this is simpply an error on your part since, of course, his name is not “Ratzenburger” but Joseph Alois Ratzinger. And your husband is incorrect; he is not a Jesuit.
Also, I am totally puzzled about this statement: “Whenever there is a debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants, usually the RCC will appoint a Jesuit, the order that is essentially the “RC doctrine police.” First, I don’t know what debates you are referring to but there is not some grand Catholic “speaker’s bureau” that sends out Jesuits “whenever there is a debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants”. Quite to the contrary, Pope Benedict has fairly recently publicly reminded of their vow of obedience to the Church because of widespread concern over many of their members’ divergence from official Church teachings.
May 31, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Neither of us is wrong: it’s a Benedictine vs Jesuit thing.”
Yep, sure is…
“Benedictines do not follow the same philosophical basis as most other Roman Catholics and are closer to Anglicans in their theology. They are opposed to the Jesuits for the most part.”
ROFLOL!!!!!
And how!!!! Of course it’s a friendly disagreement, between brothers, dontchaknow, but they do butt heads, and it can get heated.
That’s probably why monasteries don’t have rugby teams… then again, maybe they should!
But I think you’re taking Pope Ratzinger, who is a Benedictine, (nanny nanny boo-boo to the Jesuits!
) the wrong way.
He didn’t say that Protestants are the same as pagans, he said (basically) that they are Christians but that those denominations whose ministers are not part the Apostolic Sucession and those groups who believe that the Sacraments are merely symbolic are houses of prayer but are not valid churches, in that the Transubstantiation does not occur in their Communion services. But whether they recognise the Real Presence or not, he didn’t say that members of these denominations are not Christians.
May 31, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“There is NO clear example or teaching of infant baptism in the NC except what is read into accounts.”
Actually a few documents exist which show that infant baptism dates back to the time of the Apostles. I haven’t wanted to get into that subject on this list, because we all agree to disagree on certain things here and so coexist peaceably, LOL, but if you like, I will try to dig the documentation up, and show it to you.
May 31, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Oh my. I did this again. I know a Ratzenberger. I did the same thing with Rushdoony and Rushdooney. So I am again an equal opportunity offender, showing equal lack of attention to spelling of words in general, and on spelling and getting names wrong. A Myers-Briggs INTP failing of mine.
There is (or at least was) in fact, a functional “grand speakers bureau” or at least there was one where I grew up and when I was concerned about these things. They have to get permission and approval from their Cardinal. Or at least that was true of the East Coast in their eccumenical council when I was living around this in a Catholic college on the outskirts of Philadelphia where Cardinal Kroll ruled pretty heavily. So who went where to do and say what was at the discretion of the eccumenical council and I assume that if it was of the interest of the Cardinal overseeing that area, as it apparently was to Cardinal Kroll, then there was a “grand Catholic speakers bureau” in Philadelphia, when Cardinal Kroll was alive, at least.
I did improperly type that about the new pope being Jesuit — so tickled that I’ve finally figured out what the disconnect was between Cynthia Gee and I — of deep concern to me for almost a whole year now. He is not Jesuit which makes this so provocative — Was he not John Paul’s advisor on doctrine who improperly fired the head of the Jesuit order which only the College of the Cardinals can do? So as you say, Quite to the contrary, Pope Benedict has fairly recently publicly reminded of their vow of obedience to the Church because of widespread concern over many of their members’ divergence from official Church teachings. So that makes perfect sense. So with your assistance, can you help me plug in these details so that I can have a solid understanding of the landscape?
The other problem is that John Paul was definitely more eccumenical than Pope Benedict. Is that accurate? (BTW, the rector where I have attended worship — not Catholic — in the Anglican church recently says “Benedictus,” and refers to him regularly in conversation after services as such.) And it seems that Pope Benedict is far, far less eccumenical since he has declared that all Protestants are to be considered pagan? Is it accurate that he is then more of a doctrinal purist than John Paul?
So, I am sorry for calling the current Pope who is Pope Benedict Ratzinger “Benedictus Ratzenberger.” I also apologize to all Chalcedon Foundation torch carriers for frequently mispelling “Rushdoony.” I show equally poor attention to names of US presidents and all sorts of other persons of historical significance and is my own, very human failing. I mean no offense and ask for forgiveness. As a function of my personality (as I understand to be INTP), and as a function of being a “perciever” and not a “judger,” I am more concerned about the overview being accurage and the ideas being accurate rather than the specifics of spelling and the exact details. People are usually kind to help me clarify as I aspire towards total accuracy. I mean no disrespect, and I do demonstrate this in person which does not communicate via the internet.
And I also apologize for anyone that I have offended by misrepresenting any function of the Roman Catholic Church as it stands now. Let me clarify that, having attended a college just a 30 minute drive away from Cardinal Kroll’s headquarters on the outskirts of Philadelphia within his see, and during the time of his office, it is upon this that I derive my understanding. At my college, during this time, there was a great deal of eccumenical council activity. So I am a vetted source and guilty of the cult of the amateur and thus earnestly repent. I draw what I have represented here from my experience of the activities at my college which I either rightly or wrongly assume to be representative of the activities of the current Roman Catholic Church.
May 31, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Laughing hysterically at my grammatical and spelling errors in the post!!!
I mean no disrespect to anyone. In person, I am very gracious and very respectful which does not communicate via the net.
I really do appreicate this discourse and I sincerely do not want to misrepresent any faith or any belief, though with due study and when warranted, I reserve the right to have an opinion about things and disagree with others. Again, within the commonalities with my Catholic brethren, I celebrate and rejoice in that fellowship, though I do not downplay the vital differences between our doctrines either. We interpret certain Scriptures differently, and I do not do so by a vicarious aborption of someone else’s view, neither do I repent of those differences.
May 31, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Cynthia Gee: But whether they recognise the Real Presence or not, he didn’t say that members of these denominations are not Christians.
To be forensic, he said that we are no longer separated brethren. He essentially repudiated Vatican II concerning Protestants and how Roman Catholics should esteem Protestants. On the heels of that, there were statements made about Islam.
Did he actually utter the words “Protestants are pagans?” No. But what does “no longer separated brethren” mean to a Protestant? It means that I am effectively pagan. He used and conveyed an unstated assumption IMO. If I’m not brethren or separated brethren, what am I? Pagan.
Another thing that the current Pope has said that disturbs me because it is against Vatican II concerns purgatory. So is it forensic to say that the Pope is against Vatican II? If he recinded the “separated brethren” distinction and if he affirms purgatory, I have good reason to believe that he does not believe that Vatican II is right and absolute. But until he comes out and directly says “I oppose Vatican II,” if I say that he does oppose it, I’m bound to get into trouble.
So we can split hairs about what was exactly stated and get into forensic roundabouts, but what is understood? I understand that I am now pagan.
May 31, 2008 at 2:55 pm
CG: But I think you’re taking Pope Ratzinger, who is a Benedictine, (nanny nanny boo-boo to the Jesuits! ) the wrong way.
That makes even more sense that he dismissed the head of the Jesuit order while serving under Pope John Paul as doctrinal advisor (the title of his office I do not know — another detail).
That makes so much more sense.
What a fine mess we make of things…
May 31, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Lin, I don’t want to get into the issue of infant baptism on this list either, but please know that there are those of us who believe that it is clearly taught in Scripture when looking at the whole counsel of God, namely, the Old and New Testaments. Its a doctrine that I happen to hold very dear to my heart (and know Scripturally pretty well in my head too
The Reformed do NOT teach infant salvation through baptism (the Lutheran view, I believe) or that baptism washes away original sin (the Roman view), but simply that baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant and that covenant has been given to us and to our children. Baptism doesn’t make one a Christian anymore than circumcision made a Jew a believer in the Promised Messiah and Calvin never taught that it did. So please, think twice before you lump that doctrine in with having a state church.
May 31, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Thanks, all, for this interesting discussion!
You are all handling it well.
On matters of theology, there is a place where we have to “agree to disagree,” or we become like the patrio’s, only fellowshipping with people who practice the same style of group-think that we do.
I think majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors is a good idea. For example, the Lutherans baptise their babies, but just because a baby is baptised does not mean he/she does not make an adult-level decision to follow Christ. In my opinion, that makes it a minor opinion. There is Scriptural support for the concept of infant baptism (no direct Scriptures, but still enough body of thought that make it a possibility). I can respect that believe, even while not baptising my own babies.
Praying to the saints is another one. The saints are not actually prayed TO, they are asked to pray FOR us, in the same way that we ask eachother to pray for our needs. I don’t pray to the saints, but upon understanding the doctrine and viewing the Scriptural support (such as the “great clous of witnesses” observing us, spoken of in Heb. 11, the throng of martyrs before God’s throne in Revelation beseeching Him, etc), I can respect that doctrine even while not quite seeing it the same way. I mean, hey, it fits into Christian thought to have the dead still be alive—-we, after all, believe that death has lost it’s sting—and it doesn’t take away from the depth of what Christ has done for us.
(There are many more, but those are two strong examples that I think are interesting to discuss, yes, but not “big” enough to part a fellowship that is based on Christ).
In fact, patriachy presents a similar challenge. In those areas where it falls into “minor” issues, I can respect it even while disagreeing with it (okay, well, I’m still a little raw, but there are areas where I *try* to respect it, ahem).
Where it falls into a major for me is where it sets up mediators between women and their God. When women need a male voice to speak for them and to them in regards to the matters of the faith, taught that they can’t trust themselves (being “easily decieved” “weaker vessels”), taught that they need a male authority to represent them before the throne, then something is amiss.
May 31, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#187 Opps that’s Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse
#188 That Mom: lol, yes ‘Candy for cuties’ is a rather disturbing line!
Thinking about the heirarchy in the early church it is written in 1 Clement 42 (traditionally thought to have been written around 95AD):
“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.”
Thus at least in the church at Rome it is fairly obvious that they considered the bishops and deacons to be the successors of the Apostles; it sounds that the church was becoming more organised and that the smaller churches administration was becoming more centralised – well it sounds that way to me at least. It seems that this is a later development from when Paul wrote to the Romans, here there is only the indication of a number of house churches.
As John Drane writes: “Instead of the community of the Spirit that it had originally been, the church came to be seen as a vast organisation. Instead of relying on the Spirit’s direct guidance, it was controlled by a hierarchy of ordained men following strict rules and regulations which covered every conceivable aspect of belief and behaviour…”
“It is important to realise that the movement towards a more authoritarian church hierarchy also originated in the fight against unacceptable beliefs. At a time when Gnostics were claiming a special authority because of their alleged endowment with the Spirit, it was important for the mainstream church to have its on clear source of power. It was of little practical use for the church’s leaders to claim – even if it may have been true – that they, rather than their opponents, were truly inspired by the Spirit. They needed something more than that – and they found it in the apostles. In the earliest period, supreme authority had rested with them. So, they reasoned, anyone with recognised authority in the church must be succeeding to the position once held by the apostles. They were the apostles’ successors, and could trace their office back in a clear line of descent from the very earliest times. They stood in an ‘apostolic succession’.
May 31, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“In fact, patriachy presents a similar challenge. In those areas where it falls into “minor” issues, I can respect it even while disagreeing with it (okay, well, I’m still a little raw, but there are areas where I *try* to respect it, ahem).
Where it falls into a major for me is where it sets up mediators between women and their God. When women need a male voice to speak for them and to them in regards to the matters of the faith, taught that they can’t trust themselves (being “easily decieved” “weaker vessels”), taught that they need a male authority to represent them before the throne, then something is amiss.”
Molly, I am in complete agreement. I have been a member of both Baptist and Presbyterian churches and can make a case for either paedo or believer baptism.
I, too, feel a little raw sometimes but try to remember how we are all on the sanctification path and have much to learn. However, I do draw the line at the reinvention of Christ’s atonement.
Cally,there are Reformed believers who believe in baptismal regeneration and I would contend that those who hold to the Federal Vision perspective, which I learned is also called Neo-Legalism, do believe this.
May 31, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Now that my husband has me literally barricaded in the living room with books, looking for his “Rules of the Benedictine Order,” I’m held captive here.
This has been a good discussion, I think, and I’ve learned quite a lot in a few days. We should all be able to articulate our faith and have or be willing to learn a good basic framework of the faith of others with whom we interract.
Within Protestantism, we have all sorts of issues, what to do with Isreal, who is the church in the natural and spiritual sense, what does that mean, what is our eschatology and our tradition, what of predestination vs free willism and where are you on the continuum. These considerations all have major implications on the whole of our faith.
But bottom line is that men are fallible. No man is going to get it right and people in history, if they are men, have missed something somewhere by virtue of being human. (Unless you are Roman Catholic and that means that there is one infallible human in his leading of the church — and if that is another misrepresentation, I apologize for that!)
So from the Protestant view (on a thread talking about a group that calls themselves Protestant some of whom may or may not practice infant baptism), we are all fallible.
My personal take on it is that in the grand summation of my life, I hope to be much less heretical and carnal and much more orthodox and Christ-like than I was when I embarked upon this endeavor (whether I am reading off a predestined script or whether I am free wheeling through life by my own choice or suffering from a delusion that I am doing so)! When I get it right, this is Jesus and to Him be all the glory and credit. When I get it wrong, that’s 100% Cindy, not all that I once was and not yet all that I will be. So I long to see Him and will be like Him for then I shall see Him as He is.
Along the way, am I calling a thin-gummy a thin-gummy, and if it’s not a thin-gummy, can I figure out what it is well enough to name it correctly and properly distinguish it from a whatchamacallit? On the way to figure it out, can I be as respectful and as non-offensive to the devotees to the whatchamacallit on the way and should I?
I guess what upsets me is that when I say “I believe A and not B” (when it is widely established that A and B are different in half of their aspects) that people assume that I mean “People that believe B are bad.” Or if I wrote “A” and not “a” that I am being abusive.
Again, I like Joanna-from-England’s concept that what our main focus here on this thread is the issue of the abuse of power and falling into error through legalism and authoritarianism. Thinking of Zimbardo’s analogy, we have a bad barrel in patriarchy, and it makes for bad apples that were likely not any more bad than any other apple. The system that is responsible for the maintenance of the barrel is really bad.
May 31, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Preach it.
While I think theology is involved, the fact that SO MANY from so many walks of life and theological positions are falling for this tells me that theology is not necessarily the main issue. Often times falling into the patriarchal camp causes a “re-writing” of ones theology to more closely align the patrio version.
I think some of the KEY issues in why people fall for patriarchy are:
1. View of authority that predisposes them to think that one group/person can mediate for another group/person (whether the word “mediate” is actually used or not, and it’s usually not).
2. Probably the *most* crucial: Inability to interpret the Scriptures except as if they were a computer instruction book. Ie, interpeting the Scriptures *without* taking into account that they were written to real people in real time (ie, reading them “literally,” assuming that they are rules for all people for all time, and feeling that NOT to assume such is to disrespect the Scriptures).
[THis is not to say that we can't allow for differences of opinion when we interpret. What I am complaining about is the fact that the patrios teach that taking into account the cultural background when it comes to the "women passages" is "not taking the Scriptures seriously," etc.]
3. Deep desire to follow God and/or NOT to follow the current culture’s ideal (not saying either of those are wrong, but just that the desire then makes you vulnerable to people claiming to have “the answer” to your desire).
Anyone have any other foundational issues?
Heresy and legalism are not new things. This has been going from the beginning. It’s something that believers in every age must gaurd against.
May 31, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“Actually a few documents exist which show that infant baptism dates back to the time of the Apostles. I haven’t wanted to get into that subject on this list, because we all agree to disagree on certain things here and so coexist peaceably, LOL, but if you like, I will try to dig the documentation up, and show it to you.”
Thanks for the offer, Cynthia but I will pass. Unless it comes from the Inspired Word, it would not make a difference to me. Blessings.
May 31, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“Probably the *most* crucial: Inability to interpret the Scriptures except as if they were a computer instruction book. Ie, interpeting the Scriptures *without* taking into account that they were written to real people in real time (ie, reading them “literally,” assuming that they are rules for all people for all time, and feeling that NOT to assume such is to disrespect the Scriptures). “
May 31, 2008 at 4:43 pm
oops, hit sent too soon..
Was going to say that I do not understand why understanding the scriptures as they were written to people in that time is so hard for people to get. That very same scripture even for that time has so much to teach us. Some of what it has to teach us is to see a ‘progressive realization’ of truth. Example: A few hundred years ago, some Christians decided to ACT upon the truth that slavery was not God’s best for us and that slave holders were twisting God’s Word for personal gain. They did something about it.
I have always found it odd that the same people will ignore the headcoverings in 1 Corin 11 but insist that women cannot speak in church. they only use it as a technical manual when it suits and they have to ignore a whole lotta ‘don’t lord it over’ type verses to get there.
May 31, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I just got back from having my convertible aluminum dress hammered out, and picking up my invisible net dress from the dry cleaners (comment #187).
This conversation here among thinking and believing women who are fleshing out their walk and faith with/in Jesus is healthy. In some of the circles I’ve associated with where women aren’t as “vocal” shall we say, these kinds of subjects are not encouraged. I’ve brought these kinds of theological topics up at group gatherings of believers, but the women mostly want to chat about food, their baby birthing, etc., and actually express they aren’t interested in doctrine.
Now, don’t get me wrong; I enjoyed hearing and sharing many aspects of mothering over the years, but my children are teens now and I’ve often tried to find others who are in my stage of life wanting to discuss more than those things. I don’t find an avenue usually — except here! I’m constantly going to the Scriptures and independent research on many of the subjects discussed here. The idea of a silent woman at all times, deferring to only the men to discuss doctrinal issues is just foreign to my make-up. As I look back at my life, even when my firstborn son was born, I was digging into the Bible to see what everything meant. God planted me in His Word early on (22 years ago) and I’ve never lost sight of the importance of God’s Word as being authoritative, as in “God-breathed”.
What Lin and Molleth have recently explained is good to keep in mind when reading the Scriptures; they were written for our edification, and the epistles were often addressing very specific congregational issues that needed to be dealt with. As I study and pray for wisdom, I’m reminded more and more of the wisdom of God and His great truth as revealed like a precious cut diamond. As the Light is reflected off of the diamond, you see an amazing aspect of its beauty that you may not have seen by just staring at it from one perspective.
The truth “is”, but we humans are fallen and need His Spirit to guide us into His truth, even in His own written Word. It’s spiritually discerned, and to rely on only man (or a celebrity, like many of the Patriarchal teachers out there) to tell us “like it is” and how it should be, according to their interpretation, is ignoring the Spirit of the Living God that “abides in you” (1John 2:27).
So much good has been shared here over the last few days to encourage us to dig and mine the Word of God for it’s precious truth. I’m thankful for the avenue to discuss these things and to come and reason together. Many places IRL, I’m sad to say, don’t afford people, especially women at times and across the globe, the ability to share and learn. We are the “weaker vessles”, tempted to evil interpretations because of our curse in the Fall (according to Bunker, patriarchs, et. al). The sad logical conclusion to that kind of thinking is often the FLDS women, the poor women and girls trapped in India and Pakistan who are not worth educating because they’re only useful for becoming wives and women(betrothed when they’re 12!) in polygamist arrangement.
Thanks for letting me read, learn and share.
May 31, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“Anyone have any other foundational issues?”
I think an overall “aura” shall we say is one of fearfulness and and the need to control your environment. What I have never understood is how you can be postmil and reconstructionist AND have your own culture.
May 31, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“(Unless you are Roman Catholic and that means that there is one infallible human in his leading of the church — and if that is another misrepresentation, I apologize for that!)”
ROFL! No need to apologise — a lot of Catholics share that misconception. Caholics do not (or at least are not supposed to) hold the Pope to be infallible — he sins just like everybody else, and he puts on his pants one leg at a time every morning.
It is only when he makes an official papal pronouncement, speaking ex cathedra as the leader of Christ’s church on earth, that his words — not the Pope himself — are considered to be infallible.
The doctrine of “papal infallibility” teaches that the Holy Spirit preserves the Pope from error when he solemnly declares that a teaching on faith or morals is contained or at least is intimately connected to divine revelation. All such infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable — ie, that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.
May 31, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“When I get it right, this is Jesus and to Him be all the glory and credit. When I get it wrong, that’s 100% Cindy, not all that I once was and not yet all that I will be.”
Amen! And praise be, we are saved by the blood of Jesus, and not by our having a perfect intellectual undersatnding of how it all works.
“Along the way, am I calling a thin-gummy a thin-gummy, and if it’s not a thin-gummy, can I figure out what it is well enough to name it correctly and properly distinguish it from a whatchamacallit?”
I hope so… and if you DO figure out a sure-fire method for telling which is which, please share it with me. I can’t tell my thin-gummy from a whatchamacallit half of the time anyway….
May 31, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I think you’re right about the “aura” in patriarchal or rigid teachings. The fear factor is prevalent and it causes many to doubt their own inner promptings of what’s right for their own families/persons. It’s evident in the rigid boundaries in such teachings as Gothardism, and the authority to discern apart from “approved” leaders.
I know that many in the patriarchal-leaning teachings have been influenced by reconstructionist ideas, but I’m not sure I understand the postmil/reconstructionist connection in relation to having their own culture dilemma you posed. I do see them as wanting to form a “more perfect union” so to speak, by way of infiltrating the political and governmental offices. They want to often reconstruct the culture by way of the “church” reshaping it. So, if they believe that Jesus’ return will be after all things “fall apart” in other words, doesn’t that mean that even their man-made hieararchies within christianity, where leaders lead and congregations follow and men and women know their proper roles — that this too shall pass? I guess I’m trying to understand.
May 31, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Lin wrote: Was going to say that I do not understand why understanding the scriptures as they were written to people in that time is so hard for people to get.
See, this too is hermeneutics, but not everyone accepts the same hermeneutic. I go for the grammatico-historal version. Like a particular FIC someone recently told me about, they go off only the Scripture, so they say you don’t need formal, peer reviewed seminaries because no one went to school. And this is very poorly informed. Paul was a Pharisee and thus had gone to school. What was Jesus studying in the temple? Who was he studying with? The janitor? What were the scribes doing? What were the Levites?
There will always (and should) be a great deal of tension between Protestants and Catholics, between Covenant Theologians and Dispensationalists — and New Covenant Theologians in contrast with them all. To say that there will not be and recognizing when that comes up is absolutely vital.
So what are the terms here? I would hope that we at least agree that Protestants are not Roman Catholics and that patriocentricity, either by design or mistake, had elements of both in different respects.
And as someone who does not aspire and resists absorbing someone else’s version of truth and regurgitating it, in the June 2007 “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church,” based on my own reading of what was written, I believe that Vatican’s Doctrine of Faith Congregation or whatever it was did not come out and say that I am pagan in those terms, but they further distanced Protestants from Catholics. They also distanced themselves from the other non-RC catholic/Eastern/Greek/Russian/etc. Orthodox Churches for rejecting two fundamentals that have always been fundamental to them: Rome’s papacy and sacraments. I believe that there are varied forms of both of these at work in patriocentricity.
So what can we do? Get entrenched in a pitting of one against the other? They are different. The lines of distinction have been further clarified by the current Pope. The lines have been further obscured between both Protestant and R. Catholic belief by Federal Vision in particular and, to a lesser extent, the emergent church. I mean, if we want to get into that or into Covenant Theology versus New Covenant or Dispensationalism, we can do that, too. So where do people what to take that, jumping off from here?
As an instigating factor in this, where are we going or where do we want to go with this thread? I believe that I’ve defended my thesis pretty well concerning why Gothardism (not at all dissimilar from patriocentrism) corresponds to a Roman Catholic view of grace and sanctification after intial confession of faith, coming to right-standing with God through the Blood of Christ Jesus. If I have not done that adequately, please let me know where I have not. If I have not demonstrated that it is relevant to the discussion, please let me know. If I have to do more work to demonstrate the soundness of my hermeneutics and presuppositions, please let me know. We are trying to elucidate points about the Prarie Muffin way, right?
I also apologize again for spelling errors and for getting names wrong. Again, I honestly meant no offense or lack of due respect. I apologize if I have mischaracterized the whole of contemporary Roman Catholicism by my knowledge of eccumenical council activities under the late Cardinal Kroll. I apologize for not discerning the correct name and exact doctrinal affiliation of the current Pope.
There are all kinds of other discussion groups where these topics are debated and could be opened up to wider discussion such as ibelieve.com where I’ve participated before. They debate the different Protestant Theology aspects there as well. If they need to be debated, should we take those aspects of that debate over to those forums designed to support them with closer moderation because that is closer to their mission and not the mission of True Womanhood?
Where does this thread need to go? I really, really don’t want to see this get into infant baptism. And now that I’ve explained my reasoning on these sanctification issues and am reasonably happy with the clarifications I’ve been able to make, I will crawl back into my hole.
What are the “reformed” (ha, ha) objectives of this thread?
May 31, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hey CG,
I was taking for granted that I was speaking about the ex cathedra concept. When he speaks as the pope on matters of the church, he is infalible.
May 31, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“When he speaks as the pope on matters of the church, he is infalible.”
Only if he declares it to be so officially. In the last 150 years, popes have spoken as popes on all kinds of church matters, but an ex cathedra declatation has only happened once, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary in 1950.
May 31, 2008 at 8:07 pm
See, this too is hermeneutics, but not everyone accepts the same hermeneutic. I go for the grammatico-historal version.”
Ironically, seminary graduates will tell you they use this same hermeneutic and claim they can prove women have specific roles (other than the obvious physical ones) in scripture and other such extra biblical things we have proved otherwise on this blog using scripture.
I believe that we must take the whole scope of scripture into account before interpreting any verse or passage. This means we must, all of us, immerse ourseleves in the Word and forget what we have been taught by mere mortals and beg the Holy Spirit to teach us as we read. I believe Kate said it earlier..we must have the Holy Spirit to really understand scripture. It is a constant thing to be in prayer and supplication about. We are so blessed to be alive at a time we have access to Greek, Hebrew, Lexicons and interlinear bibles!
I believe this blog is really about what mere mortals have taught us from scripture that is extra biblical or proof texted. That should tell us all to be Bereans.
May 31, 2008 at 8:08 pm
“Cally,there are Reformed believers who believe in baptismal regeneration and I would contend that those who hold to the Federal Vision perspective, which I learned is also called Neo-Legalism, do believe this.”
True, but those who believe that deviate from the Reformed confessions (Westminster, Three Forms of Unity) which decidedly do not teach this baptismal regeneration. There’s a whole in-house debate about what to do with these people. They keep leaving their denominations and starting new ones… more of that whole authority issue…
I really want to sit and read all these AMAZING comments and interact with them, but I just don’t have it in me today. I’m not well and could use your prayers.
May 31, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Kathleen wrote: I know that many in the patriarchal-leaning teachings have been influenced by reconstructionist ideas, but I’m not sure I understand the postmil/reconstructionist connection in relation to having their own culture dilemma you posed. I do see them as wanting to form a “more perfect union” so to speak, by way of infiltrating the political and governmental offices. They want to often reconstruct the culture by way of the “church” reshaping it.
I know that Lynn has spent a great deal of time thinking about this. I have from a little different perspective.
I think this is rooted in Covenant Theology, whether the church is integrally connected to the OT (with the OT being the same “animal” as the NT church) and whether God deals with the church in the same ways. It seems subtle and bookish but I think there is an element of it at work here. If you think, as in Covenant Theology, that we are Israel and as much Israel as those faithful in the OT, it shapes your identity and how you view the rest of Christendom. There is that element of Israel and non-Isreal, and I believe that elements of the OT then carry over.
If you believe that the NT church is a new creature that is apart from the OT faithful Israel, then I don’t think that there is such a huge drive to police things and everybody and draw all these rigid lines. With much study of this for personal reasons and deep questions of my own, I believe that those who are deep in Covenant Theology are identifying with “Israel” from the beginning and not primarily with the “ecclesia” (church) in the New Testament. There’s a hint of legal concern about purity that you just don’t find in other groups like Dispys and New Covenant folks. There is not this “you’re not God’s elect” focus in Dispy and New CT like there is in Covenant Theology. For me, as I primarily come to this from a New CT perspective (mostly but not entirely), though the skeleton of my beliefs are more like Calvinism, there is not this huge drive for IDENTITY that I see in CT.
“We are the New Israel.” “We are the Kingdom.” “We are God’s elect.” “We are Biblical Manhood.” The outcome of this when you put it in the hands of men who have identity issues and self-image issues or gender issues is that it gets out of balance. If you are on the outside of this is “You are not Israel” “You are not elect.” “You are rebelling against Kingdom architecure.” “You are a feminist.”
I just don’t see Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians getting wound up in labeling everybody and then pushing that as an agenda.
A theory only and mine (which could be 100% Cindy and totally messed up)!
Thoughts?
May 31, 2008 at 9:17 pm
““We are the New Israel.” “We are the Kingdom.” “We are God’s elect.” “We are Biblical Manhood.” The outcome of this when you put it in the hands of men who have identity issues and self-image issues or gender issues is that it gets out of balance.”
Yes, Hitler comes to mind, when let go to the extreme. Didn’t he have a bit of problems with identity issues?
May 31, 2008 at 9:19 pm
How tall was Hilter?
May 31, 2008 at 9:25 pm
He was 5′8″. I just found it… (what can’t you find on this internet?)
I guess I’ve watched too many British comedy bits that make him out to be short!
Hmmm.
May 31, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Regarding comment #207—you’re correct about discussion of theology amongst women being discouraged (or downright outlawed!) in ultra-conservative & patrio circles. I remember questioning things and being asked, “what does your husband think? Have you asked him?” Which is sincere but rather funny because anyone who knows my husband and I knows he’s the happy-go-lucky one who doesn’t like to debate and I’m the one who really digs for meat about certain theological issues. It doesn’t make him less of a Christian. He’s just a very “still waters run deep” type of personality.
Anyhow. No, the patrio crowd (and some of the staunch southern baptists for that matter) really discourage discussion and debate about theology. It makes them too uncomfortable, I guess. That whole thinking woman thing……..which leads us to this blog…….Praise God for it!
June 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
So what would you all say to a woman like me, whose background in theology is woeful? I could see how it could be dangerous on one hand (the lack of knowledge) and used against me- but on the other hand, I’m the type to go “say what? That doesn’t sound like the Bible I read”…and start looking into the Scriptures to see if what so and so said about such and such is true. But I realize not everyone is like that either, and we can all see how this is dangerous for women of faith…
I just think it’s interesting…because sometimes (like right now) you all are making me google like crazy to know what you are talking about!
Am I making any sense?
Maybe it’s because my entire adult life has been spent in a non-denom and while I was confirmed…I’d say I was a pretty tepid Roman Catholic…my parents stopped going around my eighth birthday…
What Molly is saying in #203- I think it’s true- I totally “get” what she’s “getting at” without having the denominational background- it almost nails on the head why me and my husband almost “fell into” patriocentricity.
I think the “check-list” aspect of it is very attractive: it means you don’t have to work out/work with your faith- you just have to check of a list.
June 1, 2008 at 12:27 am
Hugs, Cally…sorry you’re feeling rough. Hope you feel better soon! Praying…
June 1, 2008 at 4:14 am
Kate wrote:
“This conversation here among thinking and believing women who are fleshing out their walk and faith with/in Jesus is healthy. In some of the circles I’ve associated with where women aren’t as “vocal” shall we say, these kinds of subjects are not encouraged. I’ve brought these kinds of theological topics up at group gatherings of believers, but the women mostly want to chat about food, their baby birthing, etc., and actually express they aren’t interested in doctrine.”
I noticed a few days back on Stacy’s blog how she gushed about the wonderful talk about theology when she hosted whatever the “presbytery” event was (I put that word in quotes because of the question of the legitimacy of that particular organization). She just loved it when the men sat around discussing theology; men are such “deep thinkers,” I believe was the way she put it.
I submit that if women in various circles aren’t deep thinkers or competent theologians (I mean as lay people ought to be, not necessarily as professional ministers/pastors/professors of theology, which takes further professional study), it’s because they’re either not taking advantage of opportunities for study, or such study is either discouraged or outright forbidden to them by those they permit to be “authorities over them.” There is nothing about women’s brains that makes us ill-suited to theological study, and I feel somewhat ill when I read women abdicate this aspect of the renewing of the mind that is our right and our responsibility as mature Christians.
I really do appreciate the community I find here; thinking is not only encouraged, but expected. In Christian circles (of women), unfortunately, that’s too rare an experience.
June 1, 2008 at 4:31 am
Cally, I sure hope you’re feeling much better very soon.
Joy, it sounds to me as though you’re doing things the right way. You’re examining truth claims (made by others) against truth that you know to be reliable (Scripture), and you’re being careful to apply the Scriptures with integrity (not ripping verses out of context or relying of pet interpretations that can’t stand up to a contextual reading). There are plenty of “theologians” who don’t do as well–hence patriarchy, federal (en)vision, eternal subordinationism, just to name a few anti-biblical “biblical” teachings being force-fed to unwitting babes in Christ.
Please, keep on being the Berean you so obviously are!
June 1, 2008 at 4:45 am
Prayers for you, Cally. Hope you get to feeling better.
June 1, 2008 at 5:59 am
I love this site – the knowledge of theology is awesome, and makes me wish I had time to study more. I know so little compared to some of you – only scraps and patchwork picked up through reading.
My academic self wants to know more!
A couple of thoughts, however, on the conversation:
Does it ever strike you how small we all are? And how limited we are in our understanding of what Christ surely wanted?
We get given a teacher who tells us to love God and to love our neighbour. He also tells us that perfect love casts out fear, and that by believing in Him, and in His Father’s message we will be saved.
It’s a very simple message, but it’s also incredibly frightening. Just think of all the questions it raises. What is love? What is it to love my neighbour? Who is my neighbour? How do I believe and be saved? Does that mean I can do what I want and still be saved, if I just love? What else do I have to do? It can’t be that simple, surely? Isn’t there something else? Can I have a rule book? Where’s the rule book?
Can I please have some guidelines here? How much love, exactly? Where does it stop?
Does it stop? Do I ever get to stop? (Loving, that is!) Help. I need help. God? Are you there? Perhaps I’d better ask someone else what they think . . .
It is a simply enormous concept, clean, pure, fiercely liberating, piercing to the heart, awesome in the real sense of the word. And immense in its implications for our lives, our conduct, our choices.
And almost beyond our understanding of its true meaning, which is perhaps why Christ was so gentle with the people he taught, and perhaps why He came to the simplest and most unlearned of men – after all, go figure, He could have gone to the learned doctors, the scholars, the men capable of doctrinal exegesis. Except, perhaps, He knew what would happen if He did. So He went to simple hearts, uncluttered by academic preconceptions, to spread the message in the way He wanted.
Because He must have known that once the message came, we would struggle with its immensity, setting boundaries on it to confine it within our spiritual littleness, controlling it with our own innate weakness, lessening it by our fear and lack of trust.
Even the men we revere as teachers and preachers, and whose writing is now part of our belief – Paul, John, Peter – came to the message of God with the understanding of men. (Humans, rather than males, to be precise: it really annoys me that we don’t have the equivalent of the Greek anthropos (person, human being) and aner (male) or that if we do in the use of the terms ‘human’ or ‘man’, we don’t use it.)
They too brought to it their own fears and doubts, Paul/Saul’s prejudices, Peter’s Jewish background, John’s poetic mysticism, their own cultural prejudices, their own humanity, to shape the message and to make it more comprehensible to us, because it was too hard for us to understand divine love in all its terrifying goodness.
To Him we are all children – but even the best of us don’t want to be: ‘When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I believed as a child. But now I am a man . . .’ (I’m so much better!) Except that we ARE still children, trying to grow, to match up, to be perfect, to be ‘men’.
And there is our error. Christ said that ‘Unless ye become as little children ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.’ If only we could stop priding ourselves on believing as ‘men’, and strive to become the children that He wanted, with a childlike faith, trust, hope love and awe. We need the faith and love that those of us who have children see that our own children have in us; the paradigm of how we too should love and trust.
‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven’
We’ve come a long way from that, down the centuries of human frailty, human muddle, human weakness, human greed and selfishness and vested interests, and territorial ambition. The message has acquired subtexts, designed for control, for serving interests. It’s acquired glosses, deliberately twisted to serve other ends that Christ’s. It’s acquired alternative versions, deduced or inferred because of linguistic change, textual inadequacy or political expediency.
Isn’t it a testimony to God’s greatness that the message still shines as our beacon, despite our attempts to obscure it?
Pehaps that’s the true tragedy of Vision Forum, and Covenant Life Church, and Sovereign Grace Ministries and any number of umnumberable and unnameable sects and sections of believers, all corseted in doctrinal purity, tight-collared and stifling in their own private, punitive, legalistic hells-on-earth in the belief that it’s what Jesus wanted.
How can they imprison the message of the Christ who came to set us free? The tragedy is that so many of us choose chains, and even try to sing in them . . .
The promise is still there for all of us though, no matter how weak or deceived, or misguided or error-prone we are – ‘for now we see as through a glass, darkly, but then we shall see face to face; we shall know as we are known.’
June 1, 2008 at 6:10 am
YES.
That is so right where I’m at, Joanna, right smack in the middle of what I’m mulling over. Good stuff.
June 1, 2008 at 6:12 am
Off to early service now – will say some prayers for you, Cally. And for all of us.
June 1, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Johanna (227)
That’s it! That’s it exactly. “Fiercely liberating…” My husband once likened it to breathing stale oxygen from a mask, and taking the mask off and breathing full deep gasps of fresh air…
June 1, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Joanna from England,
This is beautiful.
There is a film made by a British comedy team who I will not even name here because I don’t want to encourage anything. Anyway, in that film, there is a scene of a religious worship service held at a boys “public” school (what the Brits call a private boarding school). They make fun of certain aspects of the church in that scene, but I would guess that most people would miss all of the subtle jokes woven into it which is a sad commentary on Christianity itself.
But in making fun of elaborate and eloquent prayer that many of those in the comedy team likely sat through in an earlier stage in their lives, they hit on something very deep. If people have seen the movie and it’s appropriate to the discussion at hand, I always say that the satirical prayer starts out as one of the wisest prayers I’ve ever heard, silly though it may be.
One of the headmasters prays “Oooh Lord. Oooew, You are so big. You are so absolutely huge. We are all really impressed down here, I can tell you.”
And I believe that he is right. If we as Christians could get that much through our heads that are so full of human hubris, I think we’d be a whole lot better off. Sometimes in my own, private worship and experience when I feel “undone” in God’s presence, I think of that prayer and do pray it. “Lord, I am so small and You are so big. You are so absolutely huge, and I am so glad that You are, for I certainly am not.” There is such great wisdom in it.
(And if you know what movie I’m referring to, I think that many of the points they make in that film are fantastic, but the vehicle is often far to irreverant and often needlessly obscene to recommend it. I wish they’d done a tamer version.)
June 1, 2008 at 7:27 pm
BTW, though I like the “Valley of Vision,” I am no Puritan!
June 1, 2008 at 11:18 pm
“I love this site – the knowledge of theology is awesome, and makes me wish I had time to study more. I know so little compared to some of you – only scraps and patchwork picked up through reading.
My academic self wants to know more!”
Joanna, your comment, #227, is one of the loveliest things I have ever read. I wish I knew as much as you, and could express it even half as beautifully.
June 1, 2008 at 11:56 pm
This website appears to have just been launched:
http://www.prairiemuffin.org/
Contributing bloggers are Jennie Chancey, Stacy McDonald, Kelly Crawford and Carmon Friedrich. It’s very quiet right now but I’m sure it shall be very interesting…
June 2, 2008 at 12:15 am
And there are some videos of Jennie Chancey up:
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/multimedia/video/passionatehousewives/play2.asp?size=large&segment=00
They are mostly focussed on Hillary Clinton (bit late, since she’s going to be dropping out of the race any day now!) An interesting quote from the first one:
“I think Hillary Clinton needs to learn a lesson, and that is that the most we can do, and the best we can do, is in the sphere that God has assigned to us as women”.
Running for political office “isn’t available for women” as women don’t have the skills to do such things (like men do) “and that’s the way God made the world”. Running for political office is “trying to be exactly like a man”. Men and women each have “their own unique spheres”.
This is fast becoming my biggest theological gripe with patriarchalists. There is NO verse or chapter in the Bible that divides the world into the ‘domestic’ sphere (for women) and the ‘outer’ sphere (economics, politics, missionary work, public speaking.. for men). There is NOTHING.
The ’separate spheres’ theory is both totally extrabiblical and relatively new. It was invented by the Victorians as a response to the rapid changes to society brought about by industrialisation. People in early modern, medieval, and Biblical times had NO concept of ‘inner and outer’ spheres. And it PERMEATES patriarchal thinking. It isn’t Biblical! God hasn’t assigned women to domestic spheres – the very idea of this is NOWHERE in the Bible. Remember Proverbs 31, moving effortlessly and guiltlessly from her tasks within and without the home? THAT is what womanhood is supposed to look like.
There are other quotes about how Hillary Clinton is trying to become a man (yes, really) and how women should be nursing babies – how a woman in her 60s whose child is grown is supposed to do that, I don’t know.
June 2, 2008 at 2:14 am
Re: the new Prairie Muffin site…
Check out the “About Us” write-up. More of that “no gossip” stuff… well, if you don’t want your PUBLIC writings to be discussed publicly then maybe you shouldn’t keep a blog.
And that whole Hillary Clinton thing on the VF website- its just silly and, frankly, petty. She’s not going to get the nom so why post that stuff now?
June 2, 2008 at 2:23 am
Been busy all day, but I just saw 227 and am floored. That is the most eloquent, searing things I’ve seen in a long time.
June 2, 2008 at 2:58 am
“And that whole Hillary Clinton thing on the VF website- its just silly and, frankly, petty. She’s not going to get the nom so why post that stuff now?”
Don’t know, but if you ask me, it’s because they’re jealous, pure and simple.
They are a group of strong women, who labor under the conviction that God has forbidden them from any type of leadership which would give them authority over men.
They assuage their frustration by trying to exercise authority over everyone and everything else BUT their men, by writing books and pontificating to other women, and dictating to their sisters just what they can and cannot do if they hope to remain in good standing with the Almighty.
What it boils down to is that these women are chafing under the constraints of their own legalistic system, and so must lash out at anyone who is NOT bound by such beliefs. I don’t much care for Hillary Clinton myself, but to gals like Stacey or Carmon, the fact that Hillary is running for President is like salt in an open wound.
June 2, 2008 at 3:42 am
re: the prairie muffin site…absolutely not one single new thought on there so far….
June 2, 2008 at 11:42 am
Karen wrote: re: the prairie muffin site…absolutely not one single new thought on there so far….
Why Karen,
You should know that new thought is a cult.
Oh, wait… That’s “New Thought”…. aka Unity
What was I thinking?
June 2, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Haha, I was just telling my husband all about this Hillary thing, and he agreed that it was bizarre to tell a 60 year old woman she should be having babies. Then he said, “and I’m really surprised this patriarchal crowd is upset at what she’s doing, because she’s basically just getting involved in the family business!” LOL!
June 2, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Ah, yes, all of us in our 50’s and 60’s should be having babies!
I’ve noticed that many of those who like to go on and on about “women’s roles” and our “sphere” don’t really know what to do with those of us who are…ahem…a bit more mature than they are. Oh, they may murmur something about having a Titus 2 ministry, but they seem stuck in the “women should be having babies and staying home with their babies” mode. Beyond that, they haven’t yet figured out what on earth we should be doing — it’s all about what we SHOULDN’T be doing.
The other thing that galls me a bit as an older woman is how quick these young patriarchs are to ignore the passages in the Bible about treating older people with respect. In a way, I can understand that their worldview does not allow them to treat women with respect, no matter what the age of the woman. That’s hard to take, but it’s even harder to take when these young whippersnappers refuse to be mentored, discipled, or disciplined by men far more wise then themselves, but when they act as if they are the first “righteous generation”. The disrespect to the men who should be their spiritual fathers is shocking at times.
June 2, 2008 at 2:30 pm
After scanning that new website I found this-
“Care to disagree? You are more than welcome. However, all we ask is that you take up your case directly with the author. Please don’t go an say nasty things over on your site (or anyone else’s)…that’s just not very Christian. We don’t allow comments to be posted on the site, but you are more than welcome to address your concerns with the author.”
I had a kind of dumbfounded, speechless feeling when I read this, like I didn’t know what to say and that what they were asking was perfectly reasonable, but there was something still struggling inside me not happy at all. After a while of feeling this feeling I know that it usually signals I’m being manipulated. After a little thought on what exactly they were asking -
If everyone who taught a controversial doctrine or position asked this, there could be no free thought or inquiry going on about what to believe! Imagine a site devoted to Federal Vision, for instance, saying that those who disagreed should only talk to the people on the site about it, and not to breathe a word on their own blog or whatnot. Saying something harsh but sincere such as “I’m concerned that Federal Vision theology is ahistorical, and blurs the line between Catholicism and Protestantism,” (Don’t know much about FV but that is the impression I myself have gotten.) suddenly is no longer honest thought for the thinking to ponder, but “saying something nasty on your site”.
We just can’t live like this! This is WAY too much to ask! I don’t believe this site or any other is pefect, and we all being sinners can easily veer into nastiness when we should just be thoughtful or firm. But there is a difference between being able to express your own thoughts in a space of your choosing and really being nasty. If everyone did what they asked, then we would be able to disagree silently, and not buckle under ourselves, but not able to present our thoughts to others. And what if we have stuff that others need to hear? (As I believe we all sometimes do.)
June 2, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Beatrice, you are spot on.
And of course, they can say anything they want about us in a blog post on their site, but heaven forbid they come and interact with the ideas stated here. Its two-faced.
June 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Beatrice, they are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
This ‘don’t discuss what you read here elsewhere’ and ‘no gossip’ are, let’s face it, aimed entirely at True Womanhood and the discussion going on here. It seems quite plain that this is their idea of a response to our discussion of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto – basically, they are pulling up the drawbridge. They don’t want to engage in discussion of their ideas – they are RIGHT, the PM manifesto is RIGHT, and we are WRONG and sinning to even discuss them.
On a positive note, I don’t think they’re convincing anyone. I actually giggled when I saw the four names involved in ‘Prairie Muffin’. This is a movement getting narrower in every way, and many, many people see through them. Their comments on ‘gossip’ and ‘no talking about what we write!’ are red flags to anybody sensible. They’re trying to blacken our names, but the fact is that what they are asking is so ridiculous, anyone can see it’s extrabiblical.
“Care to disagree? You are more than welcome. However, all we ask is that you take up your case directly with the author. Please don’t go an say nasty things over on your site (or anyone else’s)…that’s just not very Christian. We don’t allow comments to be posted on the site, but you are more than welcome to address your concerns with the author.”
Essentially, they want to able to preach away on their blog, stop any comments and discussion from taking place, and dub any discussion of what they write elsewhere as ‘nasty’. But there’s no justification in Scripture for this and any reasonable person reading it will have exactly the same reaction you did, Beatrice.
June 2, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“We don’t allow comments to be posted on the site, but you are more than welcome to address your concerns with the author.””
Simply…it is just a control function and they are dressing it up with fake Christian makeup. (Just label it as gossip)
Think for a moment…Did Paul publicly rebuke Peter without going to him privately first? Yes. There are other examples in scripture not to mention publicly defending the truth of scripture against false teachers!
They want carte blanche to teach whatever they want and for people to feel guilty about disagreeing and if they do, it must be private where the teacher can control the situation.
Perfect formula for cults and people fall for it!
June 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm
The topic shifted just as I was thinking about posting this (to a very interesting topic, don’t get me wrong), but I did want to still commend every single one of you regular posters on here! I am a frequent reader and admirer but don’t really feel like I’m intelligent or well versed enough in theology or doctrine to contribute. I can’t tell you all how impressed I am by the reasonable discourse – especially the understanding and love towards Catholics – that I’ve experienced here. If there was some award, you ladies (and infrequent men) would certainly get it.
June 2, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Oh dear.
Would someone please explain to me the difference in “spheres?” How is it that Chancey can have her little role on the video but Hillary can’t? I mean—aren’t they both trying to do the same thing in just seperate arenas? they’re both trying to sway a person’s opinion, they’re both “in the public eye” but in seperate-but-selfsame spheres.
It makes NO sense to me.
Heck, I marketed a bumper sticker that said “Anyone But Hillary” so I have no love for Hillary myself. But she is not deserving of what Chancey has put out there.
I would vote for a woman as president—Hillary is just not my choice of that woman.
Could we please send these folks off to some lost country somewhere and let them live their victorianeqsue lifestyles and be prairie muffins and let the rest of us be normal people?
Compound them off from the rest of America, maybe?
June 2, 2008 at 3:03 pm
And why ban comments? If they’re happy to discuss what they write privately, why not make it public, so that others with similar questions can see and learn too? It makes no sense. No respected theologian demands this. It’s silly.
June 2, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“If everyone who taught a controversial doctrine or position asked this, there could be no free thought or inquiry going on about what to believe! Imagine a site devoted to Federal Vision, for instance, saying that those who disagreed should only talk to the people on the site about it, and not to breathe a word on their own blog or whatnot.”
Just goes to show you that these people are all about control, repression, and censorship. Pray to God that they are NEVER allowed to become the majority in either our country or in the church, because if that should ever happen, freedom of speech will go right out the window.
June 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“And why ban comments? If they’re happy to discuss what they write privately, why not make it public, so that others with similar questions can see and learn too?”
Would you like the secular answer or the Biblical answer? The secular answer is, because by keeping things private, they are accountable to no one. They are free to ignore you, intimidate you, or to give any kind of cockamamie answer they please, with no witnesses to gainsay them.
As for the Biblical answer, well:
Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
June 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“Ah, yes, all of us in our 50’s and 60’s should be having babies!”
Well, I’m about to turn 50, and I’d love to have another baby before I hit menopause, but God hasn’t seen fit to grant that wish yet.
“I’ve noticed that many of those who like to go on and on about “women’s roles” and our “sphere” don’t really know what to do with those of us who are…ahem…a bit more mature than they are. Oh, they may murmur something about having a Titus 2 ministry, but they seem stuck in the “women should be having babies and staying home with their babies” mode. Beyond that, they haven’t yet figured out what on earth we should be doing — it’s all about what we SHOULDN’T be doing.”
That’s because they’re making a new-fangled religion, and they’re making it up as they go along — the silly kids haven’t thought that far ahead yet.
As for me, I think I’ll stick with traditional Christianity. It’s been around longer, and it has stood the test of time.
June 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Visited the Prairie Muffin blog…
One, it’s pretty funny that it’s a WordPress blog.
Two, I could help but thinking after reading this:
Additionally, you will find that these articles strongly oppose the feminist agenda. Looking for gossip? You won’t find it here. Contributing authors are committed to stop the spread of gossip. So yes, you may see the feminist agenda attacked, but hopefully you won’t see attacks on individuals. If you do, please let us know (in a kind and gentle manner).
to be prepared for more “Cindy Loo Hoos” and “The Cat in the Hat” again!
It is also pretty funny that they aren’t even writing for the blog…they are just copying and pasting from their own sites.
Oh egads, I think I am growing cynical. But the whole idea of it just made me laugh. Do they honestly think that their hand-slapping is going to stop intelligent discussion of their theology and viewpoints? Oh wait, I forgot who we were talking about.
June 2, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Regarding the comments about preaching to the older women and ‘inventing religion’
I have often thought that the age spread here on True Womanhood is quite rare…and I love it! I mean, ya got us young’ns (knudge at Beatrice) and then we’ve got some Grandmas (thatmom), we’ve got some with kids, some without kids. Some single, some married. Some widowed. Some divorced. We’ve got (I’m pretty sure) every strand of faith here: Reformed, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Jewish…
we even have men!
Sorry. Just reveling in the diversity.
June 2, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Perhaps someone here should start a blog called the White Washed Feminist.
June 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“We’ve got (I’m pretty sure) every strand of faith here: Reformed, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Jewish…
we even have men!”
(waving hand)…and Anglican!
June 2, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Whoops…
Feel free to continue adding…
I knew that.
June 2, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Cynthia Gee said, “That’s because they’re making a new-fangled religion, and they’re making it up as they go along — the silly kids haven’t thought that far ahead yet.
As for me, I think I’ll stick with traditional Christianity. It’s been around longer, and it has stood the test of time.”
Yes, I’m there with you on that one (speaking as a grandma, retired homeschooler, working outside the home, post menopausal, Baptist, white washed feminist who also loves the diversity here on this blog.
)
June 2, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Rebecca,
Being a woman in that “older woman” season of life, I agree with you whole-heartedly. It seems like we are in limbo, finished having babies and not yet in the “widow in deed” category. And though we are older women, who ought to be teaching the younger women, as Scripture teaches, our counsel is ignored. Funny how that works and how the counsel must keep to the code, as it were.
June 2, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“Perhaps someone here should start a blog called the White Washed Feminist.”
What? I thought that was our subtitle!!
June 2, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“Do they honestly think that their hand-slapping is going to stop intelligent discussion of their theology and viewpoints”
I thought it was pretty funny, too, and for the same reasons. First of all, they aren’t allowing comments and warn against commenting about their site on other sites….as if we don’t know that is a direct warning. And as if that will stop us.
Secondly, the gossip stuff is pure tripe. Look at Stacy’s recent article about Alice Walker and her daughter. Not only is she entertaining “gossip” but she is encouraging the dishonoring of parents, a clear violation of the 10 commandments.
This doesn’t even mention the clear violations of all their rules that happens on the PW list!
June 2, 2008 at 4:49 pm
About the new PrairieMuffin blog….
Who is Kelly Crawford?
And, isn’t it fun to drive the agenda of the patriarchalists?
Anyone notice that True Womanhood and ThatMom direct the paths that the patriarchalists take?
So predictable but very amusing all at the same time.
As far as the gossip? Please. These Muffins gossip all the time. They just couch it under spiritual terms like “sharing”. It is just one more game of make-believe and pretend we are not exactly the things we accuse others of being.
They use the word “gossip” in a spiritually abusive way. They use it to shut down honest and forthright communication.
We ask where James McDonald was ordained (hey! he is the one who told the RPCGA he was ordained and he is the one who goes around telling others he was ordained) and we get accused of “gossiping”. See how it works?
And the drinkers of koolaid just keep on drinking….
Hopefully people will start taking a hard look at the FACTS and cut through all the smelly rhetoric in order to see that things are not as they seem in Patrioland.
If you ask me, if someone can’t answer a very simple and reasonable question, it must mean they are lying.
June 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“And though we are older women, who ought to be teaching the younger women, as Scripture teaches, our counsel is ignored. Funny how that works and how the counsel must keep to the code, as it were.”
You know, you’re right. Many of us here ARE older women, and we are obeying Titus 2 right here on this blog, by counselling the younger women here and by pointing out the errors of PM-hood.
The PMs are mostly younger women who are practicing a new-fangled take on religion and who are counselling other young women to do the same. Older women, who practice traditional Christianity who try to point out the errors of Patrioheresy are reviled as being “feminists.”
“Anyone notice that True Womanhood and ThatMom direct the paths that the patriarchalists take?
So predictable but very amusing all at the same time.”
Well, that’s to be expected. The PMs and the patrios may have started out as a reaction against secular feminism, but early on, their movement became a reaction against traditional Christianity and modern western Christian culture.
WE are the older women whose religious standards these youngsters are rebelling AGAINST — their movement is, in large part, a reaction against US, and the faith of their mothers, grandmothers, and great grandmothers.
June 2, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Kelly Crawford writes the ‘Familes Against Feminism’ blog that Ladies Against Feminism links to. She lives near Jennie Chancey and hosted her baby shower.
Here’s her blog: http://heartsforfamily.blogspot.com/
June 2, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Joanna,
Your thoughts in comment #227 were beautiful, and really put my thoughts on theology in perspective. The simplicity of the Gospel and the beauty of Christ’s love expressed therein is what is missing in man’s preferential teachings.
The prairiemuffin “blog” is laughable to me. Cindy’s probably right; they seem to be “instructing” so many women and men on the essentials of life, when that is really a man’s job to do in their lifestyle. Somebody really ought to help loosen their corsett’s a bit.
Some of those women on that blog are very dedicated to certain political candidates (or at least they have been in the past). What are they going to do when they find a good male political candidate someday that holds their values but who has a wife who has also run for public office and won(such as Mike Huckabee’s wife, and Huckabee having been instructed in Gothard’s teaching)? Will they hold their noses and vote for them? Just a random thought. I’ve just been pondering all these narrow limits some of these people have placed on women’s “sphere” of influence.
June 2, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Amanda – there’s no qualification that I can see for posting here – other than honesty, courtesy, and truthfulness! Go ahead – I was really glad I dipped my toe in the water here, it’s great.
I like your definition, Sandy – I’m a happy wife, mother of teenage daughters at girls’ school, working as a teacher, never homeschooled other than preschool, or alternatively always homeschooled through strewing and conversation, slightly menopausal, ex-Catholic, current Anglican, trying to be Christian, complementarian, egalitarian, and also enjoying the diversity here.
With regard to the Prairie Muffin site the following points occur to me:
This site has nailed its Colours to the mast of its theological flagship.
Nailing Colours (or insignia)to the mast, in the English Royal Navy of Nelson and other great admirals (not forgetting the great American admirals who whipped us soundly in 1812) meant that no matter what the odds against you, and no matter how badly the battle was going against you, and no matter how beaten you felt, or in fact how many plain stupid decisions you had made, you could no longer give the order to haul down your Colours and surrender, because no one could use the signal halliard to get them down – they were fixed.
It was the mark not of the brave, but of the desperate commander, of poor seamanship
and inadequate, to say the least, concern for the men under your command, who then had no option but to die for your mistakes.
Brave commanders knew when the odds were stacked against them. They did not cry ‘Mutiny – put down the ringleaders’ when things went against them and their errors were pointed out by other commanders, nor did they blindly risk and sacrifice their able seamen, the crew of their ship. They did not condemn to death the young, the old, the maimed, the feeble-minded, even the criminals who made up their crew for the sake of an idea – the noble goal of ‘NO surrender!’
However one thing these most of these unfortunate commanders did do, wrong as they may have been in deciding never to surrender, was that they at least had the guts to stand and fight by their Colours.
They did not sit in their cabins commenting on how unpleasant and unregenerate the enemy was but refusing to engage that same enemy with the sword, nor did they leave it to their subordinate seamen to do all the dirty work of fighting the enemy. (The fact that if they had done they would have been quietly tipped over the side in the thick of the fighting by some infuriated senior officer is by the by
)
I make no further comment but simply submit the analogy for your perusal.
I believe that if you have beliefs, you should be prepared to argue for them. Otherwise, what is the value of your beliefs?
However perhaps I should not even have made this comment, since to do so may be ‘gossip’
June 2, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“What are they going to do when they find a good male political candidate someday that holds their values but who has a wife who has also run for public office and won(such as Mike Huckabee’s wife, and Huckabee having been instructed in Gothard’s teaching)? Will they hold their noses and vote for them?”
Well, they hold their noses and defend the FLDS’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion, even though they believe in neither Mormonism nor the Constitutional right to freedom of religion, except insofar as it will help them to further their own interests and their dream of establishing a theocracy based on OT Law.
June 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“So yes, you may see the feminist agenda attacked, but hopefully you won’t see attacks on individuals. If you do, please let us know (in a kind and gentle manner).”
Anyone ever been corrected by a Muffin? It has been my experience that the correction from a Muffin makes one’s blood turn to ice. Oh, sure, it seems to be couched in sweet-sounding language but there are certain Muffins that make me terrified with all their kindness and gentleness.
“Something factually incorrect on the site? Please let us know.
Care to disagree? You are more than welcome.”
Yeah, sure. Been there. Done that. Have the t-shirt.
“However, all we ask is that you take up your case directly with the author.”
Good luck with that. It is hard to get an answer out of some of these self-described “godly” authors.
“Please don’t go an [sic] say nasty things over on your site (or anyone else’s)…that’s just not very Christian. We don’t allow comments to be posted on the site, but you are more than welcome to address your concerns with the author.”
Nasty as in………the discussion of public teachings? Or questioning the credentials of those who have made themselves leaders of God’s flock but refuse to enter through the gate?
June 2, 2008 at 5:41 pm
And, here on TW, we DO allow comments. Why won’t any of the Prairie Muffins come here and discuss their teachings? We don’t bite, after all, at least not like this
We who post on TW have posted on their blogs from time to time, but they won’t discuss anything in depth there, if a commenter happens to disagree with them.
June 2, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“And, here on TW, we DO allow comments. Why won’t any of the Prairie Muffins come here and discuss their teachings? We don’t bite, after all, at least not like this”
Wow, there were some biting personal insults buried in that post. No wonder she closed comments.
Wonder if she ever retracts those claws?
June 2, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Or this non-gossip about Ryan Dobson and even calling Dr. Dobson’s family advice a mixture of “moral” principles mixed with “psychobabble”?
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=967
Wouldn’t that be considered gossip and saying nasty things about others on their own blogs? Or is it justified only when they critique things?
Can anyone understand why some are just slightly confused about their rules when it seems that they do not practice what they preach?
Jesus told the disciples to do as the Pharisees say and not as they do. I wonder if that is the advice we should follow?
June 2, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“Well, they hold their noses and defend the FLDS’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion, even though they believe in neither Mormonism nor the Constitutional right to freedom of religion, except insofar as it will help them to further their own interests and their dream of establishing a theocracy based on OT Law.”
EXCELLENT, Cynthia.
You are right when you say they do not believe in the right to freedom of religion. If they had their way and they could turn the US into a theocracy, we would soon see many of our freedoms stripped from us as evidenced by their own writings.
It is their way or it is banishment to the wilderness or even maybe death.
June 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Watching the video clips on the VF blog….
Basically, she asserted, that a female President shows us that the chief end of woman is to become a man. I don’t understand how the one follows the other? A female President means that being a homemaker is not important? I don’t think so. Who said that becoming President means true success?
Shall we use that same logic for men? Does that mean that a man who doesn’t become President isn’t successful in a man’s world on a man’s terms?
Not all can be President, can they?
Also, she seems to say that a woman can’t both have children AND then one day be President? I guess God messed up when He made Deborah ruler over Israel?
“Would someone please explain to me the difference in “spheres?” How is it that Chancey can have her little role on the video but Hillary can’t? I mean—aren’t they both trying to do the same thing in just seperate arenas? they’re both trying to sway a person’s opinion, they’re both “in the public eye” but in seperate-but-selfsame spheres.”
Normal,
I agree. These women are very much in the public sphere and the public eye. Why not leave these things for their men to do? Wouldn’t that be more consistent? Aren’t the men supposed to be leading?
June 2, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I could really care less if a woman becomes or ever becomes President. Does that make me a “young feminist”?
Truly, I want the man OR woman that GOD chooses for that office. And we all know that God chooses women at times to fill these sorts of offices. It isn’t a fluke or a judgment or a shame when He does it, either.
If a conservative woman ran for the office of President, I would vote for her if she was the best *person* for the job, all the mumbo-jumbo about roles and spheres, not withstanding.
If normative is so biblical, why did God use the non-normative to accomplish His purposes in such a big way? That seems really weird to me because there is a HUGE chasm between the patriarchalists tell us and what the Bible portrays.
I assume that any woman who runs for President will no longer be of the age of bearing children or even having young children in the home. I don’t see what the problem is if she has already been faithful to raise her children. Phyllis Schlafley had six children, was an accomplished lawyer and practiced all the way through and was very MUCH in the frontlines of government during her children’s formative years. I believe she even worked in an armory after marriage and she is very proud of that fact.
June 2, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I keep thinking about this, and I’m not sure I should even have posted my analogy earlier. I don’t like to be unkind.
Do I comment? If I comment adversely on this silly manifesto I stand condemned simply for commenting adversely, no matter how ‘graciously’ I try to express concern or dissent. (Although I do not personally care about any disapproval that may come my way.)
If I am blunt – and certainly I find myself more inclined to be nastily blunt about their weasel words than I’ve ever found myself inclined to be about anything on THIS blog – then I fulfil their expectations that I am malicious, a slanderer, the spawn of the devil etc. (Even if I am simply blunt, rather than malicious.)
If I ignore the fact that this rather sad and inane little blog exists, and make no comment at all, then by it could be said that by silence I have assented to their point of view. (And I do not assent.)
If I am silent I can either seethe internally – bad for the spleen, the blood pressure and the moral fibre, or be indifferent. (And indifference ill becomes a good Christian.)
And if I agree with any old meretricious clap-trap purporting to be scriptural teaching then my intellectual and spiritual integrity is shot to a fare-thee-well. (So I have to disagree where I do disagree.)
No comments can be posted, but it is possible to ‘contact’ the writer to disagree. (‘Contact us at “host {at} PrairieMuffin {dot} org”. We’d love to hear from you!’) Guess I’ll have to do that
then. Is there any point?
Alternatively I could just ignore the entire site unless or until provocation becomes extreme . . .
But why, why no comments? Don’t they want to defend their faith?
June 2, 2008 at 7:45 pm
On the “Doe it take a Village….” clip
Who teaches that a woman has no influence unless she is AWAY from the home and family?
Also, what is the difference between Hillary’s “it takes a village to raise a child” and Scott Brown’s “it takes older men who love young boys and become best friends with them in order to disciple them and make them into what God expects them to be”?
Also, are politicians “eager” to take women away from their families? I am not aware of these politicians.
Now, I certainly don’t agree with Hillary’s politics but I am listening to these clips and wondering what they have to do with Hillary? I feel no pressure to leave my home so that I can be an influence. I don’t know any politicians that are trying to pressure me away from my home. I really must live a sheltered life or something?
Who is this video aimed at? Are patriarchalist women in danger of voting for Hillary? I hardly even think us white-washed feminists are in danger of voting for Hillary, so I wonder who she is directing these videos at? What is her audience?
June 2, 2008 at 7:52 pm
From that link in which Carmon Friedrich criticises Ryan Dobson’s “scary biker look” – in the comments, she goes on to say that
“I am not going to write a letter rebuking Ryan Dobson or Joyce Meyer or any other person I have a disagreement with regarding their life or approach to the Bible. That is not my place.”
Riiiight. She’s just going to criticise his choices on her blog. And insist that anyone who criticises HER choices, write her a letter and never say anything in public.
June 2, 2008 at 7:59 pm
““I am not going to write a letter rebuking Ryan Dobson or Joyce Meyer or any other person I have a disagreement with regarding their life or approach to the Bible. That is not my place.”
Riiiight. She’s just going to criticise his choices on her blog. And insist that anyone who criticises HER choices, write her a letter and never say anything in public.”
Claire,
LOL! Touche.
Here are Jesus’ words about those who expect others to follow rules but refuse to follow their own. His words are very instructive and I think they are very fitting.
” 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2″The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5″Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’”
June 2, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Here is a quote from Patriospeak(dot)wordpress(dot)com:
“Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highlyesteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men’s side. So God is wellpleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, “I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands. This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women. (Men, Women, and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1992], pp. 3536.)”
Does any of that sound familiar?
Would the PM’s disagree with any of the above? Would they disagree that a woman was “only” an accessory to man, “only” created for the man and therefore must direct her whole life toward him? That men are the channels that God causes His grace to stream down on women?
June 2, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highlyesteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men’s side. ”
I think Jenny can stop looking for the reason why women think that true success is to be like a man.
June 2, 2008 at 8:54 pm
As one who has had my issues with Dobson, they are not personal but about what he says. He really disappointed me in that book he wrote about 15 years ago about suffering. He sounded humanistic to me which was something I didn’t expect. It had a “man is basically good” flavor about it that I may have noted only because of my healthcare background. A dear, sweet wonderful friend of mine who reminds me of Karen Campbell almost lost consciousness when I said sarcastically that I thought I’d been listening to a secular humanist when I listened to that week of broadcasts on the topic of suffering. The poor woman and poor me for saying it to her because she loves him and I was angry.
But I don’t condemn him or his ministry, and I’ve been blessed by him and many of his earlier writings. Though I wish that I’d never heard of “Gentle Spirit” on his show, I’ve learned so much and connected with so many other believers through his ministry. And here’s the kicker: I can both disagree with him and not hate him. I can be disappointed in him and not declare him to be a meanace to fear that puts the whole of the Body of Christ in jepoardy every time he gets on the air. And I don’t need to get a website denouncing him. I bless him and pray for his prosperity in every way.
But not so with the cookie cutter types. Dobson is too worldly for them. He does things pragmatically too (not a movement homeschooler — a term that makes me think of bodily functions — how ironic). We’re called to be Bereans and to bless one another, though we are permitted to disagree. And if they didn’t so rudely and cruely condemn those who disagree…
June 2, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Corrie,
When I first saw this post here about the PM site, I had one singular thought, though no concrete evidence: patriospeak.com.
This site appeared right after some of us posted unfavorable book reviews on Amazon about the “Housewives” book. And after some time, the response died down. (That was hysterical. I connected personally with two nationally known ministers because they saw me listed as a sheep in wolves’ clothing. I also picked up much more web traffic as a result, so it seemed to have a rebound effect. It also demonstrated the high level of interpersonal dysfunction and vitriol of which the group is capable.)
Point: Unfavorable reviews on Amazon. (Followed by a comment from Carmon Friedrich to me on the Amazon website followed by no second response and deletion of my first review.) Karen posts her review. Then Cally Tyrol posts one, I think. Then, miraculously, patriospeak.com appears.
Latest scene: Karen posts a blog post critical of RC, Jr, part of the holy and royal family of patriarchy. He’s worked up personally enough to write his own pious and “dispensing of existence” post (demonstrating about 5 characteristics of thought reform, BTW). No one really cares what he thinks anymore because of his own response to as well as his own scandals. So the pats just aren’t quite satisfied enough. Now we have Prairie Muffin.com.
I am curious to watch and discover if the PM site will show some activity for a month or two and then fade into inactivity as patriospeak. And that, of course, proves nothing about any connection between patriospeak and explains nothing about why Prairie Muffin.com and a link to it (without even linking) brought patriospeak immediately to mind. But it is curious.
June 2, 2008 at 10:43 pm
“Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men.”
What is so ironic is that if you do not believe exactly as they believe they say you want to ‘rule over men’. It’s that language thing again. They decide the definitions and descriptions for us.
Mutual submission to them is FEMINISM and female domination. Perhaps one day, they will finally realize that Jesus is the One who Rules over us all.
June 2, 2008 at 11:26 pm
ANYTHING that isn’t what they like is decried as feminism.
Why on earth they focus so heavily on feminism is beyond me. Sin has been around since the origin of time, so why not harp on the problem being sin all the time? Feminism is a relatively “new” thing…which I guess is a good counter-evil to the new gospel they’ve created for themselves, their movement, and their families.
I really think in time the patrios will be forgotten about, just another cult flash in the pan of church time.
There is nothing new under the sun, and there is certainly nothing special about their cause. They are no different, to me anyway. Not that I don’t care, because I DO CARE DEEPLY. That stuff sucked the marrow out of my bones and made me one depressed, joy-less Christian woman.
If that is the end result, I’ll choose white-washed, joy-filled so-called feminism every single time.
June 3, 2008 at 12:14 am
Corrie said, “If normative is so biblical, why did God use the non-normative to accomplish His purposes in such a big way? That seems really weird to me because there is a HUGE chasm between the patriarchalists tell us and what the Bible portrays.”
I can think of 2 biblical accounts; 1)Gideon and his army and 2) John the Baptist, (who could have easily been a priest serving in the temple, being the son of Zacharias and was able to rebuke the hypocritical Pharisees).
June 3, 2008 at 12:46 am
“Why on earth they focus so heavily on feminism is beyond me…… Feminism is a relatively “new” thing…which I guess is a good counter-evil to the new gospel they’ve created for themselves, their movement, and their families.”
Because feminism came into its own with their mother’s generation (or their grandmother’s, depending on who you’re talking about) and they are rebelling against the mores of their mother’s generation, and are trying to build something new…… just like the generation before them.
The trouble is, it didn’t work in the 60’s, and it’s not going to work now. What we need is a return to traditional religion, which is about neither free love and “doing your own thing”, nor about Calvinistic flavored Unification inspired family-worship.
June 3, 2008 at 1:37 am
Okay. That bunch believes that a woman is under her husband’s command, right? (Never mind that many of us HAVE no husbands; we know we’re just “muffin mixes” and they disregard us as though we simply don’t exist.)
So, where do they get off slamming “another man’s servant” (as in, other wives)?
Oh, yeah…they’re not slamming them, they’re just expressing their opinions, with which we ought not, in Christian decency, to disagree publicly. They can express opinions about “other men’s servants,” but no one else is allowed to.
You know, if we were to subject them to the same judgment with which they judge us, we’d have to conclude that they’re “not very Christian.” But then, that’s part of the big divide here, isn’t it? We’re NOT judging their faith according to their standards. We’re simply disagreeing in public with what we see as the false teachings and the hypocrisy they’re disseminated. It’s not up to us to decide they are or aren’t “very Christian”; that’s God’s “sphere,” which God hasn’t delegated to either women OR men.
That old Carmon blog entry just dripped with spite and judgment. And that’s one of the “godly women” presuming to dictate to other women what godliness is all about. Hmm…
As much as we might like to disavow some of what we write, if we put it up in public, it will get read, and remembered, and quoted, and discussed. ALL of us. Women, men, PMs, Thinking Christian Women, Bayly Brothers, homeschool mothers, Sproul (Jr. or Sr.), McDonald, Friedrich, Wilson, Phillips, CBMW, CBE, CT, VF, Salem, Psalmist, Thatmom, young, old, marble-sinkers, thinkers, doers, hearers, Bereans, Genevans…whoever! If you don’t want it discussed, don’t post it! All a no-comment “blog” does is invite comment elsewhere. (CBMW’s “blog” is classic in that regard.) If your blog entries can’t stand the scrutiny of comments, then it only proves the poverty of the writer’s principles.
June 3, 2008 at 3:13 am
Another thing- they want anyone who disagrees with what they read on the PM site to contact the author directly… well, haven’t several women on this blog tried that in response to the Passionate Housewives book only to receive no reponse or accusations of gossip and slander in return?
Honestly, I don’t believe I would even get a response from anyone on that blog, no matter how nice I could possibly be.
I’m about to embark on a bit of reading (The Trinity and Subordinationism and Discovering Biblical Equality)… maybe I WILL start a white-washed feminist blog to record my thoughts and findings…
June 3, 2008 at 3:40 am
I’m surely a “whitewashed feminist,” given that I’m a middle-aged single woman who doesn’t live off my father or brother, but IMO, those are both excellent books.
Let me say, too, that when there is documented history of someone misusing others’ contact information (uninvited phone calls to phone numbers, unsolicited e-mail or unauthorized sharing of e-mail addresses, mass dissemination of gossip or slanderous rumors, that kind of thing), I don’t think it’s wise to make contact with such a person to “correct” him or her. There is too much malicious misuse of others’ identities right now, and just because the other identifies him- or herself as a Christian, doesn’t mean that other doesn’t do just as the world does. It’s a particular risk when that other makes a living from selling books or products–including e-mail and mailing lists!
IOW, I advise my friends here to be very careful whom they choose to contact using “real life” contact information. People can be very unscrupulous with that information. I’ve heard too many stories and had my own brush with the ugly side of online contacts. There is nothing dishonest or dishonorable about making public statements about others’ public statements. If their statements can’t stand the light of day, they should choose a private venue on which to make them.
June 3, 2008 at 5:10 am
Golly, I am trying to think of all the names ladies for thinking are called by the patrios:
- gossip
<- slander
- feminist
- WWF
- bitter