For context, please read the first 6 parts of this thread.
Also, look for an index of related topics on this site coming soon!
June 7, 2008
7th part of prairie muffin and other topics regarding patriocentricity discussion (Karen)
Posted by millenniumwoman under 1[786] Comments
June 7, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Here is the link to that Phillips article, Cally:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/why_the_life_of_the_mother_is.aspx
June 7, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Anne, in thread 6, comment 534, you said:
I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Phillips would have nothing but scorn for me, a woman who has a “past” and induced labor to save her own life. I doubt he would even accept me as a sister-in-Christ.
And ultimately, and movement that would take away what I see as the most important parts of my faith (being an adopted daughter of the King of Kings who has sacrificed Himself that my sins might be forgiven, and receives me with grace and mercy) is no movement that I want to be a part of.
There seems to be little Good News at all in the gospel of VFM. It is, at it’s core, oppression and judgement. But I no longer live under the judgment of God, who has taken away my sin, and I refuse to submit myself to the judgment of Mr. Phillips.
Anne, first of all HUGE hugs to you from me. I can’t even begin to imagine being in your position; I certainly can’t pretend to know what it would feel like, or what I would do, but I do know I just want to reach through my computer and hug you.
Secondly, forgive the upcoming CS Lewis reference, but that just reminds me so much, not only of my own reaction to the movement, but of something Puddleglum said in The Silver Chair, when he faces down the Witch and tells her that all right, maybe the things he and Rilian and the children are saying are make believe stories, maybe there is no sky, no Aslan, nothing but life underground . . . but even so, it seems odd to him to think that a bunch of children can make up a play world that beats anything the Witch’s “real world” has to offer. He says that he’s for Aslan even if there is no Aslan to lead him, because the hope he has in Aslan is better than anything that’s offered in the prison the Witch has made, and even if his life is a short one for having said as much, that’s fine by him, because it doesn’t sound like the life she offers is much of one worth living anyway.
I am sure I have paraphrased him woefully inadequately, but all the same, those words really do echo my own feelings on this particular subject. The “grace” that is offered by people from VF and like-minded ministries is such a pale and perverted version of grace as I know it that I will cling to the grace I am given by Christ even when allowing that they may be right, and grace isn’t what I thought it was. Because honestly, as I see it? Grace as I know it, grace as I have in my own life been given by God, beats their “grace” hollow.
June 7, 2008 at 3:51 pm
To follow up on my previous comment, I’ve found the CS Lewis/Puddleglum quote I referenced there, and in interest of maintaining integrity for the original source, I wanted to post it here.
“One word, Ma’am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. “One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”
~The Silver Chair by CS Lewis
June 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“Is it just me? Am I in error here? Am I seeing animal, primitive, unChristian behaviour where none exists? ”
Johanna,
No, it is not just you. Thank you for that irenic comparison between the patriarchalists and the animal kingdom.
June 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I agree, Johanna. IMO, patriarchy is a matter of settling for the Fall’s consequences, rejecting the regenerate life we’re offered in Christ, and actually DEgenerating into behavior that rightly belongs to non-reasoning creatures, instead of godly human beings who can choose the more excellent way.
June 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Here is an article from 2003, where Phillips says that ending a nonviable, tubal pregnancy is wrong:
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/09/
PAUL HILL AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
Last night convicted abortionist killer Paul Hill was executed by lethal injection. Justice was accomplished. God’s law was upheld.
To the moment of his execution, Paul Hill, a de-frocked Presbyterian minister, husband and father, maintained his innocence, claiming instead that he had only acted in defense of others, and should be acquitted on the grounds of justifiable homicide.
The common law defense of justifiable homicide is derived from the case laws of Exodus which make clear that one may use lethal force if necessary in defense of self or others where imminent life-endangering harm is threatened and lethal force is necessary to prevent the crime. In addition, lethal force may be used in defense of country, or by the state against those criminals lawfully convicted of a capital offense.
So where did Paul Hill go wrong? Practically speaking, Mr. Hill acted as executioner, not rescuer. Having determined that the abortionist in question was guilty of past murders, and would probably commit future murders, Paul Hill stalked, hunted and executed the abortionist. The problem here is that the biblical jurisdiction to execute rests only with the state. There is no provision in Scripture for vigilante justice.
And what of Hill’s argument of justifiable homicide?: Under biblical and common law, justifiable homicide in defense of others requires (a) a clearly identifiable victim and (b) an aggressor who is presently engaged in a clear life-threatening act of violence against that specific victim, and (c) a reasonable determination that lethal force is necessary to prevent the specific life threatening act of the willful aggressor against the innocent party.
Paul Hill failed each of these tests: Who was the victim here? We don’t know. In fact, we don’t even know for sure what the abortionist was going to do that day. We may presume he will be about the business of killing babies, but that is not sufficient to make a claim to justifiable homicide. Nor was the abortionist being stopped from a crime in progress. He was simply gunned down in his parking lot. Nor was Paul Hill rescuing a victim from an observable and specific criminal act. Nor must we conclude that executing him was the only way to stop this man from future acts of murder.
Paul Hill lacked the jurisdiction to execute another. He never found himself in a circumstance which warranted justifiable homicide, as defined at biblical and common law. His was an act of premeditated murder, and for that God’s Word required his execution by the state.
But before we walk comfortably away from Mr. Hill, perhaps we should examine ourselves as well. Many Christians today oppose abortion, except in those circumstances where doctors claim that the mother’s life is threatened by the unborn baby. The classic case involves a “tubal” or ectopic pregnancy.
Though most “life of the mother” arguments for killing a baby stem from pure emotionalism, many Christians who seek to offer a rational defense of this type of abortion, usually do so by borrowing the same reinvented justifiable homicide argument embraced by Paul Hill to sanction the assassination of abortionists.
As with Paul Hill’s justification of the murder of abortionists, advocates of killing unborn babies “for the life of the mother” reason that it is o.k. for a mother to kill her child if it is an act of self-defense. But Paul Hill and pro-life exception advocates fail the biblical test. Both are terribly guilty of borrowing from pragmatic, non-biblical arguments, and twisting the Scriptures to justify a desired result.
Several things are worthy of note: First, a baby is not a willful aggressor. This ends the debate on justifiable homicide. A baby neither intends the harm, nor acts aggressively against its mother. (In fact, if “blame” is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother’s body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) The Bible makes no provision for executing an innocent party (one which lacks intent to harm) in order to help another.
Second, while the unborn baby in the case of an ectopic pregnancy may pose a threat which could materialize into a harm to the mother, the threat is not imminent in the classic sense, nor is it conclusive that the baby’s presence necessarily will cause harm. All that is known is that it might cause harm. Consequently, the murder of the baby takes place in anticipation of a statistical possibility. Here again, the biblical requirements for justifiable homicide are not met.
Conclusion: God’s law is the standard. God’s word speaks not only to vague principles, but to specific methodologies. We are not at liberty to improvise, nor may we substitute our own private interpretations in order to advance a “greater cause.” The greatest cause is obedience to our Lord. Paul Hill was wrong because he misconstrued Scripture. His thinking became off-base and he embraced a form of unbiblical pragmatism—-the ends justifies the means. Consequently, there is blood on his hands. It is my prayer that the Church of Jesus Christ will learn from this error, and self-examine our view of the so-called abortion exceptions, such that we will not be guilty of the same crime.
Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2003 | Permalink
June 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I get nauseated just reading this.
June 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Oh, and I wanted to add that I just can’t read anymore. The man’s words make me sick. Literally. I’m this close to calling him out to the patriocentrist friend I have at church. This close…
June 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm
And here’s another, dated from earlier this month:
Solve the Ethical Problem: Should Christians Abort Their Children in the Case of Some Ectopic Pregnancies?
Students at the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy receive instructions in diverse subjects including apologetics, epistemology, world view and ethics. During our three hour ethics dialogue, students were placed in groups and assigned questions to examine, and where possible, to solve. Their mission was to break down the issues presented by each question into their various component parts, identify the critical available facts, search for applicable biblical laws and principles, and attempt to determine a policy result which is consistent with Scripture.
The following question (paraphrased) presented at the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy requiries the student to examine a host of foundational ethical issues, and the implications of their conclusions, including the question “If abortion is the murder of a human being, is it biblical to oppose all abortions?”
A mother conceives a child. The doctor tells the parents that they have a tubal pregnancy and that the baby has little to no chance of survival, but its continued life poses a threat to the life of the mother. What are the relevent biblical principles? What facts must be determined to make a biblical ethical decision? What medical options might be available. Is killing the baby through abortion defensible through Scripture? If so, defend your position? If not, defend your position? Are there other options?
Remarkably, later that day, the following news report hit the international news wires: “Mother Gives Birth After Nine Month Ectopic Pregnancy, No Abortion.”
Evidently Doug doesn’t know the difference between a tubal pregnancy, which CANNOT progress past about 3 months gestation, and an ovarian or an abdominal pregnancy, which can proceed to term, with proper medical management.
He really should research these things better before posting the fruits of his ignorance in puclic, where people might read and be influenced by it.
Of course, if Doug DID research such an ICKY subject as this in too great a depth, he just might get girl cooties, which is simply not suitable if you are trying to pass yourself off as a patriarch.
June 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Ah, but he insulates himself from the feedback, and no one in his inner circle dares to tell the emperor that he’s nekkid. Who, him? Wrong? Says who? Can’t be!
June 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm
And let’s take the RARE EXCEPTION to the RULE that ectopic and non-uterine pregnancies threaten the life of the mother and make a case out of it. Just because its possible for a baby to live outside the uterus doesn’t mean that it will or that it is worth the risk. He’s not appealing to the Bible here- he’s appealing to the EXCEPTION!
June 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“(In fact, if “blame” is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother’s body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) ”
Well, that has rendered me speechless right there. But, I suppose in some of those circles, if infertility is a result of sin, that ectopic pregnancies probably are, too. (WHAT are these people smokin’?!?)
June 7, 2008 at 8:44 pm
JohannaS askes “What are they smokin’?” I think they’re smoking idolatry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Johanna from England,
Your post on the previous thread is excellent and articulates things that I’ve been trying to say or have said in very different language.
You wrote: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath – to do no harm. Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that a) has no viable outcome and b) endangers her own life is not compatible with that oath. and you also wrote God came to set us free and to make us human, to lift us to be His children. It seems to me that the patriarchs are patterning an animal model of behavior. Where is the humanity in that?
That is what I was getting at with by mentioning beneficence and how justice is not always what is in the best interest of the patient. Beneficence is doing good and charitable acts of kindness, or a charitable gift. It is the cornerstone of healthcare. It is not something that is done out of obligation but is done out of duty based on respect of the value of others. For the Christian and for the Jew, that is based upon the honor held for all those who are made in the Image of God, but that just enhances the basic idea that all life has honor and is worthy of care and respect, an idea that separates us from the animal kingdom. This principle and character trait distinguishes humanity from mere animals wherein human beings demonstrate the capacity of self-sacrifice (a willingness to suffer for another not related to them or their survival based upon the commonality of being). Even outside of one’s faith and codified ethics, I believe this is part of the general revelation given to all men (Rom 1), also echoed in John 1 as the light that lighteth every man who comes into the world, not just those from a Judeo-Christian ethic.
Likewise, a physician who has vowed to do no harm but to be an agent of beneficence does not have a primary concern with the law. The law decides justice and imposes penalties. Ethics such as in the case of bioethics is guided by and respects the law, but it’s duty and primary concern promotes beneficence and not justice. In healthcare, we are called to refrain from value and moral judgments so as to not be a respecter of persons. As one unrelated example, when universal precautions became mainstream, the ethics came into light – by wearing gloves when contacting any blood or body fluid with all patients rather than just high risk patients, one is delivered from that moral judgment (is this a high risk person based upon their known behaviors). A street person receives the same consideration and human respect as a king, or a murder or a wounded police officer. This is often hard to do, but it is the standard of the profession that is based upon beneficence and kindness. Kindness and justice are entirely different things.
But I believe that part of this hardness comes from this connection to a skewed and perverted view of providence and election. It’s especially ironic that a group of people who state to rely completely on God’s providence rely so heavily on marketing and upon esteeming others based on the Calvinistic principles of election. These folks are not beneficent without bias but believe that the non-elect “have and deserve what’s coming to them” for their rejection and hatred of God based upon so much strong identification with OT law. They ignore Christ who modeled beneficence in word through parables and in deed through his flagrant violation of Jewish standards of conduct by consorting with the dregs of society. I believe quite strongly that this discrimination based on a perverted understanding of the significance of the concept of election and thus providence creates a mindset that promotes the cruel logic and the emotional milieu that calls a woman who undergoes surgery (because of the pragmatics that there is a 99% chance that her tubal pregnancy cannot survive) a murderer who is seeking survival at the expense of her unborn child. Heterodoxy will eventually produce heteropraxy. I agree that it is “sinister” as you say. This is not the Spirit of Christ, as it is the spirit of the law alone which is inadequate and why we were offered a better way.
You also wrote: Some groups are patriarchal. They exist with a dominant male, controlling the reproduction of all other males, and corralling the females into a harem. The only thing important to the dominant male is to further his genetic line as widely as possible. To do this, he must do two things – banish the competition, and control the females in the harem.
And
Am I seeing animal, primitive, unChristian behaviour where none exists? Am I wrong in seeing a group of people attempting to recreate an atavistic pattern of behaviour, and promoting it as THE only God-given lifestyle with every modern contrivance at their command, and with increasing amounts of power and influence?
There are two issues here. One related to hegemony and one related to idolatry, IMO.
Wikipedia on hegemony:
Hegemony (Greek: ἡγεμονία hēgemonía) is a concept that has been used to describe the existence of dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group—referred to as a hegemon—acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force. It is used broadly to mean any kind of dominance, and narrowly to refer to specifically cultural and non-military dominance, as opposed to the related notions of empire and suzerainty.
In International Relations, a hegemon may be defined or power that can dictate the policies of all other powers in its vicinity, or that is able to defeat any other power or combination of powers that it might be at war with…
The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition.
Many people have identified this patriocentric view of women as “male hegemony,” using that express language including Andrew Sandlin and Kevin Giles. Thought the worldview starts from a Biblical principle, it quickly deteriorates into men requiring “some degree of consent” from women in order to support their rule. It has a military flavor to it, becomes formal and bureaucratic very quickly and does make power very abstract (in that is not attached to one individual but is a ubiquitous order based in our identity and upon creation mandate, a position that I disagree with based on my exegesis of Scripture). Opposition is certainly policed and subdued, and dissenting opinion is squelched or attacked with ad hominem abusive and, especially concerning this application, an ad hominem circumstantial discounting.
So you share the opinion of many others who are theologians and well-trained in these areas of ethics. We are recapitulating the very same arguments that have been made many times before we were born. Those who hold to a low view of women, because it supports their presuppositions and prejudice, label us with terms that employ informal fallacies by demonizing us as Marxists and amoralists (though we actually argue from what I believe is a higher moral ground that honors both the spirit and the letter of the law but also offers compassion through ethics, something the law alone does not possess).
The other issue is idolatry. That is a bit more simple to follow. If family is worshiped and man is worshiped over women, then a woman is devalued, irregardless of the rhetoric and qualifying statements of those who follow this idolatry of family. We have those such as the Pearls and as Bruce Ware and John MacArthur who teach explicitly that woman is made after man’s image and is not directly found in God’s image. This makes her by essence, or ontologically, lesser than man. This may not seem obvious, but as the idea of perverted election creates an environment that opens up for moral superiority and a view of entitlement, so also does the idea that a woman is somehow of lesser value follow from their logic. They can profess that women are equal in value, but if they are lesser in other areas, there is a propensity for discrimination, scapegoating and devaluing through gender comparison. This provides soil in which seeds of gender idolatry can readily grow. Throw into the mix a generation of people that have high levels of entitlement and individuals with obvious character traits of self-inflation and arrogance and we have a problem.
The hope that I have for some sense of specific vindication and justice in this life is the correlation between homosexuality and idolatry in general in the Word. In Romans 1, God gives those who stand against Him over to their desires and the madness of them. In Numbers 11 we also see this. It is also in I Samuel 8. I believe that Paul explains this in terms of their darkened minds. In Numbers 11, there is language there that literally speaks in a sense of irony that God will give these people the desires of their hearts and flesh until it comes out of their nostrils. Eventually, I believe that their own darkened vision will be their undoing, following this sense of irony that I believe is notable in God’s own character through the Word of God. I believe it is why there is so much effeminate behavior that has emerged from within the patriocentric movement as well. God will not be mocked. If these men have cut themselves free in their own darkened logic, God still sits in the heavens and laughs and will see them in derision. If we are also guilty of this, we will suffer that same fate, though I have peace and confidence before God, with all tears and brokenness that this is not the case. My issues now wrestle against the wrath of my emotions which do not work the righteousness of God.
So I agree that this is sinister. Very sinister (an interesting word that is “left-handed” versus the dexter and the right handedness of God). I believe that it is very animalistic, because in it’s own right, because it worships the man-creature over the Creator and at the expense of His created order of love and respect of women, it is unlike the those who are given over to a reprobate and darkened mind. This idolatry, oddly sexual in nature, bears many striking similarities to the idolatry and consequences that Paul talks of in Romans 1. This is anything but reflective of the great love and sacrificial love of Christ for the Church and the opposite of the laying down of a man’s flesh out of love for his own member.
June 7, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Here is another thought about providence that is supposedly especially honored and revered by Doug Phillips who follows the Reformed view and espouses the London Confession.
If God is providencial, why is it that a woman would suffer with an ectopic pregnancy to begin with? If there is an ectopic pregnancy, then God, in His providence ordered this thing to occur.
Karen posted a link on the previous thread that cites a source that makes note of the factor that PID and STDs play in the incidence of ectopic, tubal pregnancy. Ah, but this is just one of many causes of ectopic pregancy and is offered in that context as an example of a sinner’s just reward for their sin. So tubal pregnancies cannot be offered as a judgment for prior sin, or is this an unspoken factor in the “murder judgements” declared by Phillips. I personally know hosts of women who were not promiscuous, had one partner only, never had an STD and have had tubal pregnancies.
So what is God doing by providencially causing women who are not being judged for sexual sin to have tubal pregancies? Is He “setting them up” for a murder charge? Is this a testing? Is this a judgment that results from some other type of sin? Does Phillips follow Gothard’s reasoning in these matters? I would be quite interested to know. James 1 says that God does not tempt us with evil. Is this a temporal consequece of eternal sin? What other reasoning could possibly undergird this thinking? I would like to know.
Why was the man born blind? Jesus said that it was so that the Lord might be glorified. Well, then is it not so that a tubal pregnancy glorifies God. Could it not be glorified by showing the compassion of Christ toward the woman who is rescued where two are dying but one is saved? And I wonder what the eternal fate of the unborn babe is in the brave new neo-Calvinist’s thinking? Is that baby saved by virtue of the woman’s faith in Christ, or is that baby virtuous and under the age of accountability transferring them into the Kingdom, or could that baby possibly be non-elect and be destined to eternity in hellfire?
I’d like to hear those ideas and have them communicated to the homeschooling community and those who purchase VF products and support VFM with charitable gifts. I’d like to know his thoughts on whether that unborn baby who dies in a tubal pregnancy (whether the mother is rescued through “utilitarian” surgery or lives or dies while waiting for the infant to die in her ruptured fallopian tube) is believed to be part of God’s elect. If not elect, that baby goes to hell. Preach that to all of VF’s patrons. I don’t think that this will be so good for marketing either. (Your tubal is your own judgement of sin and God’s tempting you with evil and your baby might not see heaven if they are not elect. Great evangelism and edification tools, don’t you think?)
June 7, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Cally wrote: And let’s take the RARE EXCEPTION to the RULE that ectopic and non-uterine pregnancies threaten the life of the mother and make a case out of it… He’s not appealing to the Bible here- he’s appealing to the EXCEPTION!
Also, from thatmom’s post about Phillips posing threat to lives of homeschooling moms quoting Lynn Grandon: I mentioned to her the story of the Indian mother that Phillips used as an example of an ectopic pregnancy going to full term and she stated that we should never use the oddest and most extreme cases when looking at issues such as this one.
These are examples of the principle that “Hard cases make for bad law.”
I believe that it may also be reflective of a mindset of Right Wing Populism that is very given to the creation and promotion of false dichotomies to pressure people into accepting their arguements. Doug would condemn the “ice boat” argument that was condemned by Christians as a means of teaching public school children utilitarianism in the ’70s, but he essentially uses the same argument and deceptive argument in his scenario of “Suzie” on the boat with her child who supposedly chooses self-defense at the expense of her son. It is emotional manipulation. Howard Phillips used it frequently to advance his opinions when we participated in the Constitution Party, but I never heard cold and heartless opinions like this from him.
Consider that Doug was raised with a standard and with respect for the virtues of “Right Wing Populism” (Berlet and Lyons’ book)including:
(pp 6-13)
1. Producerism
One of the staples of repressive and right-wing populist ideology has been producerism, a doctrine that champions the so-called producers in society against both “unproductive” elites and subordinate groups defined as lazy or immoral… White farmers, laborers, artisans, slave-owning planters, and “productive” entrepreneurs; it excluded bankers, speculators, monopolists – and people of color. In this way, producerism bolstered White supremacy, blurred actual class divisions, and embraced some elite groups while scapegoating others…
[OR ARE WOMEN ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT GROUP IN TERMS OF GENDER COMPARISON??? I believe this his how political activists in the Christian Right have been trained to perceive the world.]
2. Demonization and Scapegoating
This creates an us-them or good-bad dynamic of dualism, which acknowledges no complexity or nuance and forecloses meaningful civil debate or practical political compromise.
The next step is objectification or dehumanization, the process of negatively labeling a person or group of people so they become perceived more as objects than as real people. Dehumanization often is associated with the belief that a particular group of people is inferior or threatening. The final step is demonization, the person or group is framed as totally malevolent, sinful and evil. It is easier to rationalize stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, scapegoating and even violence against those who are dehumanized or demonized.
The scapegoat bears the blame, while the scapegoaters feel a sense of righteousness and increased unity… What matters is that the scapegoats are wrongfully stereotyped as all sharing the same negative trait, or are singled out for blame while other major culprits are left off the hook.
Scapegoating often targets socially disempowered or marginalized groups. At the same time, the scapegoat is often portrayed as powerful or privileged. In this way, scapegoating feeds on people’s anger about their own disempowerment but diverts this anger way from the real systems of power and oppression. A certain level of scapegoating is endemic in most societies, but it more readily becomes an important political force in times of social competition or upheaval. At such times, especially, scapgoating can be an effective way to mobilize mass support and activism during a struggle for power.
3. Conspiracism
Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames the enemy as part of a vast, insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm. Like other forms of scapegoating, conspiracism often, though not always, targets oppressed or stigmatized groups. In many cases, conspiracism uses coded language to mask ethnic or racial bigotry…
Conspiracism blames individualized and subjective forces for political, economic, and social problems rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems, institutions, and structures of power.
Second, conspiracism tends to frame social conflict in terms of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil that reflects the influence of the apocalyptic paradigm.
Third, in its efforts to trace all wrongdoing to one vast plot, conspiracism plays fast and loose with the facts. While conspiracy theorists often start with a grain of truth and “document” their claims exhaustively, they make leaps of logic in analyzing evidence, such as seeing guilt by association or treating allegations as proven fact.
As Donner argued, “In a period of social and economic change during which traditional institutions are under the greatest strain, the need for the myth is especially strong as a means of transferring blame, and outlet for the despair [people] face when normal channels of protest and change are closed. In these ways, countersubversive scapegoating has played an important role in this country’s system of social control, bolstering elite privilege and power.
4. Apocalyptic Narratives & Millennial Visions
In its generic sense, the word apocalypse has come to mean the belief in an approaching confrontation, cataclysmic event, or transformation of epochal proportion, about which a select few have forewarning so they can make appropriate preparations. Those who believe in a coming apocalypse might be optimistic about the outcome of the apocalyptic moment, anticipating a chance for positive transformational change; or they might be pessimistic, anticipating a doomsday; or they might anticipate a period of violence or chaos with an uncertain outcome.
Consider that this is the approach to conflict that people like Doug Phillips has been raised to embrace. Add to that the concept that he is a foundationalist in his epistemology (how we know what we know) and that something has to be within his categories of his basic beliefs to be valued as true and reliable. If he has not experienced a similar loss or challenge, or if he has not been taught a different perspective and does not fit in a neat cubby hole in his thinking, it either does not exist or ends up in the heresy, Marxist, utilitarian dustbin. Add arrogance to that and the entitlement that is modeled by these brave, new Calvinist, owing to their election or their personal pride…
June 8, 2008 at 1:41 am
Ughhhhh. I just read that Doug Phillip’s will be the keynote speaker at the homeschool convention in Plano, TX in August. Guess I won’t be going.
June 8, 2008 at 2:09 am
Do more than just “not going.” The more we, as homeschoolers, start speaking out in disgust (polite respectful disgust, of course) at these speakers and spreading the word to others (encouraging them to speak out, etc), the sooner convention leaders are going to stop inviting them.
June 8, 2008 at 2:09 am
Sorry, I didn’t mean that to sound like I was giving out an order, Kelli.
My apologies!
June 8, 2008 at 2:13 am
We need to let state convention leaders know that we want help and encouragement HOMESCHOOLING, not “encouragement” to adopt a fringe group’s view of family life. Have a “fringe group family life” rally and invite Phillips to speak, for goodness sake. But for a *regular* Christian homeschool convention? Fringe groups should not be on center stage, period, OR, if they are, the convention leaders should be very clear that they feel they have the right to advance a hyper-conservative fringe group agenda, and should advertise it as such.
Likely the convention leaders have no idea about the level of “freaky fringe” involved with the well-marketed Mr. Phillips and his ilk. We need to let them know. A slick catalog should not a convention speaker make, know what I mean?
The more of us that start writing and calling convention leaders and politely-but-firmly asking that the topic of homeschooling be made center stage again (instead of all this garbage), the better.
June 8, 2008 at 4:30 am
Johanna,
I think you are right. These people are smoking something.
“Several things are worthy of note: First, a baby is not a willful aggressor. This ends the debate on justifiable homicide. A baby neither intends the harm, nor acts aggressively against its mother. (In fact, if “blame” is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother’s body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) The Bible makes no provision for executing an innocent party (one which lacks intent to harm) in order to help another.”
HUH? So, removing the fallopian tube is homicide? Give me a break. I guess it would be murder in the first degree, then? What a joke. Using words like “homicide” are a dead give-away that the debate has left the tracks of sincere and humble discussion and has wandered off into the wilderness of emotionalism.
If the mother’s body is guilty of causing the problem of an ectopic pregnancy in the first place, then the woman is guilty of murder no matter what she decides to do.
The mother’s body WILL burst open and cause the baby’s blood supply to be cut off and it will immediately die. This would also be intentional homicide because the mother KNOWS that her fallopian tube will give way causing the death of the baby and she just sits by and does absolutely nothing to stop the murder of her baby by her own body.
She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.
After all, if the mother is to blame for causing the ectopic pregnancy then she is to blame when her fallopian tube ruptures and kills her baby. Can’t have it both ways.
Now, when a husband or a doctor sits by and knows that she is just a ticking time bomb and does nothing to preserve life where it CAN BE preserved, then that husband and doctor are murderers, also.
They know that the inevitable WILL happen but choose to sit on their laurels and do nothing to preserve the life that is right there in front of their faces.
What does “willful aggressor” have to do with this? We are not talking about an intruder who breaks into someone’s home. We are talking about the very sad reality that a baby will NOT survive and if nothing is done for the mother, she may not either.
June 8, 2008 at 4:54 am
“Second, while the unborn baby in the case of an ectopic pregnancy may pose a threat”
May? Maybe they could do some homework before they start pulling things out of the air.
From what I can tell, ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition without a timely diagnosis.
1 in 60 pregnancies are ectopic. Before there was surgical treatment for tubal pregnancies, ONLY 1 out of every 3 women would survive. That translates to a 33% chance of survival. Not very good odds, if you ask me.
So, there is NO “may”. Ectopic pregnancies DO cause a threat and to say anything different is to LIE to the very women that you proclaim to love and to lay down your life for.
“which could materialize into a harm to the mother, ”
Again, more lies. It is not “could”. The odds are that it WILL materialize into harm for the mother.
“the threat is not imminent in the classic sense, ”
Bull.
The threat is both very real and IMMINENT in the classic sense. What in the world does he consider to be “imminent in the classic sense”? Is not death and/or loss of organs classic enough? How about the immense pain and suffering and blood loss, not to mention the stroke and heart-attack a woman experiences when she loses blood so rapidly.
I wonder what he considers a “threat”? I know he considers the feminists a threat.
What a JOKE.
“nor is it conclusive that the baby’s presence necessarily will cause harm.”
More lies. The statistics prove to us that an ectopic pregnancy is NOT viable and it will cause some sort of harm not to mention DEATH to the mother if left untreated or diagnosed too late.
“All that is known is that it might cause harm.”
Lies.
“Consequently, the murder of the baby takes place in anticipation of a statistical possibility.”
Lies. It is not murder when death is inevitable and to preserve the life of the mother.
“Here again, the biblical requirements for justifiable homicide are not met.”
More gobbley-gook. Words without substance. This is not homicide and he has yet to prove it is homicide, not to mention that he is asserting that somehow the Bible backs him up.
Just the like the Pharisees who tried to impugn Jesus with their man-made laws and reasoning, he is doing the same with this situation. He is like the Pharisees who were angry at Jesus for healing the lame, sick and blind on the Sabbath but would allow for the rescue of one of their cows trapped in a ditch.
One interesting statistic is that ectopic pregnancy increases 3 to 4 fold with age (34-44 years old). Aging is thought to reduce the movement of the fallopian tubes and that is why the incidence is so high among older moms. Since the Prairie Muffin set have babies well into their forties, I am concerned for those older moms who take these lies seriously.
June 8, 2008 at 5:00 am
imminent- about to happen
Would it not be a true statement to say that a woman with a tubal pregnancy is a woman with a fallopian tube that is about to rupture? Or that a rupture is imminent?
I would love for an OB to tell us whether an ectopic pregnancy poses an imminent threat in the classical sense to the mother.
My guess is that any OB would answer that it does pose an imminent threat.
Can Doug find an OB that says it does NOT?
Would be helpful for him in order to make his case, no? Otherwise it looks like he is pulling things out of the air. Where are his FACTS?
June 8, 2008 at 5:09 am
Corrie,
I think the willful aggressor comes in because this is the argument that the pro-abortionists made to support their views in the courts. The fertilized ovum invades the body of the woman without her knowledge and becomes and obligate parasite.
I’m guessing that by stereotyping anyone who wants to have surgery for a ruptured fallopian tube and the either doomed or dying unborn babe that “these terrible murders” also view the unborn baby in the ruptured fallopian tube exactly as a pro-abortion advocate. In other words, anyone who considers surgery to remove the baby, dead or alive I guess, in their minds, the woman with the tubal pregnancy also views their baby as a parasite and willful aggressor as defined by pro-abortion secular feminists. They don’t have a third category — their ethics are all black or all white without any Romans 14 alternatives that are thinkable in between the two extremes. The law (and not ethics) determines right and wrong, and there is no area that they believe that they cannot comprehend or discern. (This is Lifton’s thought reform characteristic of the “Demand for Purity” at work and a logical all-or-nothing fallacy. It is a classifying of all things into like bundles of sticks — fascism — and there is no bundle for odd or exceptional sticks.)
For those who think in this way, there is no separation or distinction between a Christian woman who is bleeding to death and a woman who wants to end an inconvenient pregnancy in their mind, just as there is no difference for them, in principle, between a Christian who rejects VF’s patriarchy/patriocentricity and Gloria Steinem or Madeline Murray O’Hare. There is such little respect and esteem for Christian brethren, they can only think of those who disagree in the worst of contexts. That is a problem for the foundationalist. Because the foundationalist assigns value to truth by classifying it as a basic truth that they’ve already identified through their preferred process of knowing, if they have not created a classification of grace for ideas or things that they don’t understand, they shove it in a category that most closely corresponds to their personal understanding.
It becomes a process of stereotyping leading to scapegoating, demonizing and dehumanizing. The unspoken message here is that anyone who does these things is subChristian or not a Christian, or is not of the same high level of enlightened, superior, gnostic Christian that they are. Its a variant of what Gothard was doing by saying that ATI homeschoolers were essentially a cut above the rest and those who were not ATI just didn’t have that specialness and superior relationship with and dedicated service unto God. This branches over into Lifton’s “dispensing of existence,” “demand for purity,” and the “sacred science” that is exclusive to their own group.
This is what every cult does.
June 8, 2008 at 5:15 am
Corrie, you wrote: May? Maybe they could do some homework before they start pulling things out of the air.
They didn’t pull it out of the air. They are portraying some selected facts in order to create a false dichotomy that does not really exist in their conspiracy type approach to things. The question that we don’t know is whether this is really how those who present arguments in this way is truly how they see things or whether they are crafting intentionally deceptive arguments to prove a point. “He who defines, wins.” Isn’t that something a trial lawyer is supposed to master in order to sway a jury?
June 8, 2008 at 5:24 am
Corrie wrote: 1 in 60 pregnancies are ectopic. Before there was surgical treatment for tubal pregnancies, ONLY 1 out of every 3 women would survive. That translates to a 33% chance of survival. Not very good odds, if you ask me.
Of those 33% that survive, there is a high risk for the development of peritonitis which has a 60% mortality rate. So of the percentage of women who get peritonitis, there is a 60% or so chance that they will die. In the article about the Nicaragua woman that you cited on thatmom, when intervention is delayed and the baby must be completely dead and releasing toxins into the bloodstream and risking a deadly coagulation disorder called DIC, there is a greater risk for peritonitis as well. This can also turn into sepsis which is also life threatening as it can also produce multi-system organ failure, DIC by another mechanism due to the sepsis as well as Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome which also has a terribly high mortality and morbidity rate.
These are all also very real complications for people who do not have surgery (D&C) after miscarriage because retained placental fragments can produce these same, often deadly, complications. Doctors don’t just want to do surgery to disfigure the baby but they want to give the woman the best chance at survival in the event that there is any tissue or placenta retained in the body. It is nothing short of deadly when that happens. So if you have a doctor that wants to perform a D&C, it isn’t because of anything other than the best interest of the woman.
June 8, 2008 at 5:26 am
One other thing to consider is that there are some ectopic pregnancies that will resolve on their own. The woman has no symptoms (pain, bleeding, abdominal tenderness), no evidence of rupture and declining Hcg levels which portrays “objective evidence of resolution”. 1/4th of the women with tubal pregnancies show declining Hcg levels. These things are very important in making a decision as to whether there is imminent danger to the woman.
“Complications of ectopic pregnancy can be secondary to misdiagnosis, late diagnosis, or treatment approach. Failure to make the prompt and correct diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy could result in tubal or uterine rupture, depending on the location of the pregnancy, which could lead to massive hemorrhage, shock, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC), and death. Ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester, accounting for 9-13% of all pregnancy-related deaths. In the United States, an estimated 30-40 women die each year from ectopic pregnancy.”
Can you imagine what these stats would be if Doug Phillips got his way?
I am someone who has had DIC which is a very serious complication. I have also had massive hemmorrhages resulting in blood transfusions and the scare of blood tainted with AIDS. I had sepsis that landed me in the ICU when part of my placenta was left in after the delivery of my stillborn son. I have had 17 pregnancies in all, 10 resulting in living children. The only complication I haven’t had is an ectopic pregnancy and it is only because of the grace of God that I was spared from having to face that.
Doug Phillips knows nothing about laying down his life but yet he speaks as if he does.
These patrios wax eloquent and they play dress-up and war while we are actually in the battle. Just more armchair quarterbacking at its finest.
June 8, 2008 at 5:26 am
Do more than just “not going.” The more we, as homeschoolers, start speaking out…..The more of us that start writing and calling convention leaders and politely-but-firmly asking that the topic of homeschooling be made center stage again (instead of all this garbage), the better.”
A good old-fashioned protest rally across the street from where he’s speaking wouldn’t hurt either.
June 8, 2008 at 5:30 am
I think Doug Phillips should stick to law. He obviously knows nothing of the medical reality of pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy.
It’s the number one pregnancy related killer of women in their first trimester, and left untreated it isn’t just a “statistical possibility”.
It takes a lawyer to make the logical (though sad) reality seem wrong and the death of the mother seem noble. And it takes a real piece of work to say that if blame is to be assigned, that it’s the mother’s.
I wrote a blog post on a new blog that Cally and I are writing:
http://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/justifiable-homicide/
June 8, 2008 at 5:34 am
Corrie wrote: Would be helpful for him in order to make his case, no? Otherwise it looks like he is pulling things out of the air. Where are his FACTS?
There are no medical facts presented. They are all utilitarian and pragmatic, just like calculating the outcome of the mother and her certain harm based on medical knowledge, and this is what he says in the posts concerning this topic. Scripture is sufficient.
I guess that means that a woman can go off alone in the wilderness with her KJV and deliver her own baby? That’s about how stupid this sounds to me. Let a man do the same with a kidney stone or a ruptured appendix. He is pitting the value of the unborn and nonviable baby against the value and Image of God in the mother who can survive.
I have this image in my head of someone saying “if this was good enough for the OT Prophets and the Apostles, then it’s good enough for us. If that’s the case, then I think that to be true to their philosophy, they should logically reject any other medical care beyond that which was available in the First Century, because anything else is unbiblical. They can have herb and rue and a little wine for their stomach’s sake, the leaves of the trees for the healing of the nations and oil and wine for topical wounds. The rest can be God’s will per the Mormon mantra or “as Allah wills” in Islam. After all, God is sovereign, isn’t he?
June 8, 2008 at 5:37 am
Anne,
You are a nurse. If I’ve said anything that is not accurate or is misleading, I trust that you will make it well-known and correct me. That’s true of anyone in the profession, especially those with experience with OB cases in an ICU setting from whence I draw my “pragmatic” experience.
June 8, 2008 at 5:44 am
Cindy, that’s brilliant – I’m going to print it out and read it a couple of times till I’ve got it fixed.
And what does the bit about Producerism, Demonisation or Scapegoating, and Conspiracism sound like?
It sounds to me like pre-World War II Germany . . .
And I agree with your last post, that they are selectively using facts to promote their worldview. Perhaps we should all be looking at practising forensic oratory – they certainly appear to have taken lessons in how to skew arguments and adjust reality: we are still babies in our approach.
Who was it said that the children of unrighteousness are wiser in their generation than the Godly?
This anti-Gospel is being preached to the Godly – the innocent, humble and faithful Godly, yearning to be saved. The cynical Ungodly would have called them out long ago for the snake-oil salesmen that they are.
Who was it suggested that you guys should get some of the secular homeschoolers on board? I agree with Molly’s comment. I might also do a bit of research here to see what the degree of infiltration is.
Corrie – he doesn’t NEED facts. He’s right. Period. And the woman is not important – she’s just a brood mare, and there are plenty of those available.
{{Cally}} We’re with you. In answer to an earlier question, I live 25 miles from Bath, in the depths of the country.
June 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm
JoAnna, that’s some beautiful country you’re in. It’s been too long since I’ve been there. *sigh* I long to sit and have a cuppa while complaining about the rain. I can sort of do that in Minnesota, but it’s just not the same.
Andrea ~ I love the C.S. Lewis piece you posted. It completely expresses how I feel.
Cindy ~ You’re absolutely right about how dangerous an untreated ectopic pregnancy is. Surgery for a ruptured fallopian tube or ovary is an emergent situation. The way DP presents ectopic pregnancy he makes it sound like it’s just something that might happen. Well, that’s true, but only insomuch as it’s true for everything. It’s true, but highly misleading. Which is why I say he’s a good lawyer, but perhaps he should refrain from trying to be a doctor.
June 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm
” If the mother’s body is guilty of causing the problem of an ectopic pregnancy in the first place, then the woman is guilty of murder no matter what she decides to do.”
Corrie,
Using their OT law would explain their stand.
The mother has created the problem. If the baby dies, she deserves to die because she has committed murder. If the baby lives, she can live too.
June 8, 2008 at 4:13 pm
In reality, however, DP doesn’t use OT law. He uses American Common Law, and then accuses us of using unbiblical sources in our reasoning.
Double standard anyone?
June 8, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“The mother has created the problem. If the baby dies, she deserves to die because she has committed murder. If the baby lives, she can live too.”
Well, if the Pats are going to call ending a tubal pregnancy homicide, they should be consistent — by those lights, allowing a tubal pregnancy to rupture would be called negligent homicide, from the viewpoint of the baby as well as that of the mother, since when the tube ruptures, the baby dies. Even if that were not the case, when the mother dies of the ruptured tubal pregnancy, that then dooms her baby, since at 3-4 months of gestation he cannot survive outside the womb. Doing nothing in the case of a tubal pregnancy INSURES that the child is doomed, and possibly the mother as well.
Personally, if I were a mother in this position, I would attempt to find a doctor who would be willing to try to relocate the fetus to the uterus. It would be a VERY long shot that this would be sucessful, but this is the only option that gives the baby a chance to live, and it incidentally preserves the life of the mother:
Ectopic pregnancy: overview of the problem
I. Stabile Center for Prevention and Early Intervention Policy, Florida State University, 1339 East Lafayette Street, Tallahassee, FL 32310, USA
Pregnancies occurring outside the uterine cavity but strictly within the fallopian tube are known as tubal pregnancies, while extrauterine (or ectopic) pregnancies include ovarian and abdominal pregnancies, as well as those implanting in the oviduct. This issue of Gynaecology Forum is devoted to the diagnosis and management of tubal ectopic pregnancy, the most common type of extrauterine pregnancy.
In 1992, ectopic pregnancies accounted for approximately 2% of reported pregnancies and 9% of all pregnancy-related deaths in the US [1]. Although mortality has fallen for white women with ectopic pregnancy in the US, the death rate for minority women is double that of their white counterparts, and minority adolescents are five times more likely to die of ectopic pregnancy than are white women [2]. All sexually active women are at risk of ectopic pregnancy, but in some, a combination of factors puts them at much higher risk. These risk factors are described in detail in the article by Job-Spira et al. in this issue.
Clinical presentation of ectopic pregnancy
Ectopic pregnancy remains the great mimic of gynaecology: no other pelvic condition gives rise to more diagnostic errors. The patient may or may not have symptoms pointing to pregnancy. With or without a period of amenorrhoea, she typically complains of pelvic pain and irregular vaginal bleeding. However, only half of the patients with ectopic pregnancy will be correctly diagnosed as having the condition based on clinical features alone [3]. Often the differential diagnosis lies between tubal pregnancy, a normal intrauterine pregnancy with a small ovarian cyst and a threatened, recent or ongoing miscarriage, sometimes in a patient with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), often due to chlamydial infection.
Abdominal pain is the commonest symptom, often present even prior to rupture, but there is little or no correlation between the nature, distribution and radiation of the pain and the final diagnosis. It is unusual for an extrauterine pregnancy to advance beyond 6-8 weeks without pain, bleeding, or both. Most patients present with amenorrhoea, and the last menstrual period (LMP) is often described as lighter than normal. This is not a true period and probably represents withdrawal bleeding secondary to inadequate ovarian steroid levels. One-third of women do not recall the date of their LMP, further contributing to the diagnostic dilemma. Vaginal bleeding, which is characteristically scanty and results from the sloughing of the decidua, is noted in 50-80% of patients [4].
“Ectopic pregnancy remains the great mimic of Gynaecology: no other pelvic condition gives rise to more diagnostic errors”
The commonest physical sign in women with ectopic pregnancy is abdominal tenderness, often with rebound. Bimanual examination should be carried out very gently to avoid rupturing the sac. Approximately half the patients have an adnexal mass and in two-thirds the uterus appears normal in size; the value of these observations is limited by their subjectivity. On vaginal examination, cervical tenderness is unilateral in half the patients. Most patients are afebrile (unless they have a concomitant and usually unrelated infection), thus aiding in the differential diagnosis from PID. Unfortunately none of these physical findings is unique to ectopic pregnancy.
Unless the patient experiences symptoms identical to those in a previous ectopic pregnancy, it is unlikely that individual items in the history and examination will be of value in reaching the diagnosis. It is therefore better to consider the clinical presentation as falling into three distinct groups and then act accordingly.
Practical management of suspected ectopic pregnancy
Group 1: acute abdomen
Less than a quarter of patients with ectopic pregnancy initially present with clinical shock which may be life-threatening. If available, detection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)points to ectopic pregnancy as the cause of the internal bleeding. However, the emergency situation dictates rapid transfer to the operating theatre for diagnostic laparotomy or laparoscopy. Because of increased awareness of ectopic pregnancy, earlier referral and greater availability of diagnostic tests, this type of clinical presentation is now uncommon in the Western world.
Group 2: asymptomatic, high risk
Less than 20% of women with ectopic pregnancy are asymptomatic but at risk because of a past history of ectopic pregnancy (there is a recurrency rate of approximately 10%), previous tubal surgery or assisted conception. However, even if one or more of these risk factors is present, intrauterine pregnancy remains the most likely diagnosis. Intensive surveillance (repeated hCG tests and transvaginal sonography [TVS] examinations) is warranted in this small group of women, but reliance on high-risk features alone is unlikely to pick up these cases.
Group 3: symptomatic but clinically stable
The third and largest group of women with ectopic pregnancy are those with a subacute presentation. In this group the prospect for early treatment is dependent on maintaining a high index of suspicion and the deployment of a few additional diagnostic tests, the choice of which is dictated by local availability and cost [5]. This is described in detail in the article by Tsakos and Amso in this issue.
Figure 1: Transabdominal ultrasound of a 7-week intrauterine pregnancy. There is a 1.6-cm crown-rump length embryo. Figure 2: Transabdominal ultrasound showing
an empty intrauterine gestational sac.
Any woman with a positive pregnancy test and features suggestive of ectopic pregnancy should have an ultrasound scan, preferably a TVS, provided the delay does not jeopardise her life (e.g. group 1 patients). A number of possible scenarios follow. First, if the pregnancy is unequivocally located within the uterus (Fig. 1), attention should turn to the adnexa to exclude a concomitant ectopic pregnancy, especially in women conceiving with the help of assisted reproductive techniques. Provided symptoms settle spontaneously, little else is necessary.
Second, the scan may show an empty intrauterine gestation sac (Fig. 2). This may represent a normal pregnancy at a stage too early to visualise its contents, or it may be a failed intrauterine pregnancy (e.g. spontaneous abortion) in various stages of evolution, an anembryonic sac or a missed abortion [6]. It is essential to ensure that the sac is not pseudogestational.
Third, the scan may show an apparently normal pelvis. This may be due to a false-positive pregnancy test, in which case it should be repeated, or it may be too early to visualise the pregnancy, whether ectopic or intrauterine. In group 2 patients, intensive surveillance may be warranted. Clinical deterioration in patients at risk of ectopic pregnancy would prompt many gynaecologists to do a laparoscopy.
Figure 3: Transvaginal ultrasound of an ectopic pregnancy showing an adnexal mass separate from the ovary, which contains an intact tubal ring. No embryonic pole was seen. The uterus was empty.
Fourth, the scan may show a complex adnexal mass separate from the ovary with or without fluid in the pouch of Douglas (Fig. 3). TVS may show that the adnexal mass contains a gestation sac, which is sometimes well defined and has an embryonic pole with or without cardiac activity, but more often is poorly defined and difficult to delineate. All these cases demand laparoscopy.
If TVS is unhelpful, the next step is a quantitative hCG test. If the level is above the discriminatory zone appropriate to the type of ultrasound used, then laparoscopy is indicated. If the hCG level is below the discriminatory zone, a repeat test should be performed not less than 48 h later to determine whether the levels are rising, falling or show no change. If hCG levels increase by less than 66% over 48 h (equivalent to a doubling time of 2.7 days), then laparoscopy should be performed in clinically stable women with suspected ectopic pregnancy and in women in whom ultrasound examination is unhelpful. Some 15% of normal pregnancies will also appear abnormal (false-positives) and 13% of ectopic pregnancies would not initially be identified (false negatives) using this approach.
“Contrary to popular belief, falling hCG levels are not synonymous with spontaneous abortion”
A woman presenting with bleeding prior to 6 weeks’ gestation may cause a diagnostic dilemma. If serial measurement of hCG over a 48-h period reveals a fall with a half-life of less than 1.4 days, then a complete abortion is likely and is best managed expectantly. If the half-life is greater than 7 days then an ectopic pregnancy is likely. Thus, contrary to popular belief, falling hCG levels are not synonymous with spontaneous abortion. A plateau in hCG levels, defined as an hCG doubling time of 7 days or more, is also highly suggestive of ectopic pregnancy [7]. Doppler ultrasound and other biochemical tests have been examined as possible ancillary tools in suspected ectopic pregnancy, but none has received widespread acceptance in clinical practice [8-12].
Suspected heterotopic pregnancy
Heterotopic pregnancy is the combined occurrence of intrauterine and extrauterine gestations. Early diagnosis of heterotopic pregnancy is only possible if a high degree of vigilance is maintained in all women who are at risk, particularly in those conceiving after gamete manipulation, pelvic surgery or a history of PID, although cases have been reported in women without any risk factors [13]. Diagnosis is often delayed by attributing symptoms such as pain and bleeding to complications of the coexistent intrauterine pregnancy [14]. Even if a gestation sac is seen in the uterus, the ultrasonographer should methodically examine the rest of the pelvis to exclude the possibility of a coexisting ectopic pregnancy. Biochemical tests such as hCG are not usually helpful, as levels are often in the normal range. Heterotopic pregnancy remains a difficult diagnostic and management problem. Although the diagnosis can be made earlier by TVS [15], laparoscopy is often helpful. This should be followed by the least invasive therapeutic regime available to ensure continuing viability of the intrauterine pregnancy.
Treatment of ectopic pregnancy
In spite of the increased incidence of ectopic pregnancy in recent years, the case fatality rate continues to fall. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy entails numerous choices by the gynaecologist: (1) whether or not to attempt it medically or surgically (expectant vs surgical or medical treatment); (2) choice of route (laparoscopy, laparotomy, sonographic or transcervical); (3) choice of operation (conservative vs radical); (4) choice of surgical approach (standard techniques vs microsurgery). The ideal management in an individual case depends on a number of variables, the principal ones being the location and size of the ectopic pregnancy and whether the tube has ruptured or not. Other deciding factors include the anatomic status of the pelvis and particularly the health of the unaffected tube, the availability of microsurgical techniques and the wishes of the patient. Past surgical and obstetric history is also relevant. In most cases, diagnostic laparoscopy is central to the management strategy: it allows the diagnosis to be confirmed in almost all cases and the state of the pelvis to be determined, and it opens the possibility of laparoscopic treatment. This is described in the article by Hart and Magos in this issue. The expectant approach, together with modern medical treatment of selected patients with chemotherapeutic agents, is discussed in the article by Cacciatore.
The major advantage of conservative surgery is that it preserves future fertility [16]. The aim of the procedure is to remove the ectopic pregnancy with minimal injury to the tube, resulting in a balance between subsequent intrauterine pregnancy and repeat ectopic pregnancy [17]. Although the advantages of the conservative approach are overwhelming, there are some occasions when radical surgery is favoured. This is discussed in detail in the article by Kumar.
The future
If one were to speculate [18] as to which aspects of the diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy are most likely to undergo radical change in the next decade, one could reasonably suggest two main areas.
“It may in the future be possible to successfully relocate an ectopic pregnancy to the uterine cavity”
First, advances in fibre optics have allowed for even more ingenious and adventurous attempts to cannulate the fallopian tube with a view to nontraumatic diagnosis and gentle treatment.
Second, it may in the future be possible to successfully relocate an ectopic pregnancy to the uterine cavity. This has been attempted several times in the last century, the earliest recorded attempt being ascribed to Wallace in 1917 who described a successful case following coincidental detection of an ectopic pregnancy in a woman undergoing laparotomy for uterine fibroids [19]. More recently, Shettles [20] described successful reimplantation of a 40-day-old gestational sac using a glass tube pushed through the myometrium until decidua was obtained by gentle suction. A third published case via the cervical route has been contested [21]. Numerous other attempts using the transcervical technique have failed (Forsdahl F. Westergaard JG, Grudzinskas JG, personal communication, 1997). Grudzinskas et al. [22] have suggested that, provided certain prerequisites are fulfilled such as facilities for accurate and early diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy, counselling for potential recruits, on-call surgical and embryology teams, availability of rapid and accurate karyotyping techniques, and progress in the development of a suitable surgical technique for the removal and relocation of the pregnancy, the transcervical technique may be worthwhile to explore.
http://www.medforum.nl/gynfo/leading4.htm
I’m not a doctor or a preacher — I’m not even a nurse. I’m just a grandmother and sometime research geek, and if I can find things like this online with a minimum of effort, why can’t the likes of Doug Phillips do the same, before issuing sweepingly irresponsible statements that have the potential break bereaved mothers’ hearts and ruin or even end people’s lives?
June 8, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Cynthia,
I agree. I have found a lot of information on ectopic pregnancies with very little effort. I thought lawyers were trained to thoroughly research before they lay down something as fact?
Joanna from England,
I agree with you that it certainly appears that the value and worth of a woman’s life is on the level of a piece of livestock.
All Doug’s legalese doesn’t change the facts. When I read all his “mights” and “coulds” I am struck with how desperate an attempt he is making at trying to convince his followers that treating a woman for an ectopic pregnancy in order to save her life (the life of the baby is not a question because that baby is not going to make it no matter how hard we may wish it differently) is one in the same with a woman who goes out and shoots someone in cold blood.
Outrageous.
It appears that it is okay to MURDER a woman by refusing to treat a very serious medical condition but it is not okay to prevent the death of a woman by removing part of her fallopian tube where the death of the baby inside that tube is very imminent and sure. Not to mention all the future babies they are murdering because they foolishly refused to preserve the woman’s fertility.
June 8, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Brilliant, brilliant teaching article, Cynthia
He can’t find stuff like that.
Because he doesn’t want to.
Human life is messy, and there are plenty of grey areas. He’s so blinded by the Light of his own belief, that he can see nothing else.
Anne – feel free to come over for tea and watch the rain anytime! At the moment the day is warm, and sunny, and beautifully green.
I really liked the Silver Chair quote too.
By the way – did I hear somewhere that the patriarchs don’t like the Narnia movies?
June 8, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Corrie, Good points. Phillips’ teaching on this one issue is no different than those religions that withhold medical treatment for religious reasons. Except in Phillips’ religion it is only withholding treatment for women in danger.
June 8, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I have a question. If the woman is to blame for implanting her own egg outside the uterus. Then, what role does the father have? He has contributed to this situation and he should have some type of responsibility and punishment, epecially if the mother dies.
Honestly, Mr. Phillips argument is just silly, as is his logic. I think that reading this last thing by him on his blog was the last straw for me. I kept cutting him a lot of slack, but this is ridiculous. BTW, he was the speaker at out homeschool conference, here in New Hampshire over Memorial Day weekend. I wasn’t able to attend, but I will make some noise if he is back next year.
June 8, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Excellent point, Zan! Since Phillips uses such twisted logic, we can, too!
I pronounce that any husband who is intimate with a wife that is less than 100% healthy is in sin and is no better than a serial murderer. If she suffers a cold, he’d better not even look at her with affection or he has doomed his future children and will be judged accordingly. If he just can’t control himself, he’d better “keep his sword sheathed.”
Oh wait, can’t do that either.
It’s a no-win world for men AND women using Phillips-think.
June 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“BTW, he was the speaker at out homeschool conference, here in New Hampshire over Memorial Day weekend. I wasn’t able to attend, but I will make some noise if he is back next year.”
Don’t these pastors/preachers have church congregations to dominate, er, I mean lead? Really, he and others who have their books and conferences to sell sure do spend a lot of time away from their congregations.
We’ve got Voddie Baucham coming to the Northwest homeschool conference (oh, joy) and his speaking engagement is a “can’t miss” event(!) I’ve heard the centrality of the home, and read “family-drivel faith” and there are a lot of biased statistics and fear mongering and just plain bad logic interwoven in his teaching. I found that out before I even knew anything controversial about him, so I wasn’t biased against him when I listened to him for the first time. All my fic friends just gushed over him and couldn’t understand why I had a problem with what he was teaching.
June 8, 2008 at 11:43 pm
” what role does the father have? He has contributed to this situation and he should have some type of responsibility and punishment, epecially if the mother dies.”
Exactly! And he can’t blame the hormones either.
Debbie from CA,
Comment 40 nearly made me splutter my tea all over the keyboard!
June 9, 2008 at 12:01 am
The “sheathed sword” deal was one of the things that Tim and David Bayly called a sin. Men who “keep their swords sheathed” are in sin.
Aren’t you glad that it is God who declares sin…and forgives sin? With these patriarchs, there is neither valid judgment nor grace to be found…just wind.
June 9, 2008 at 12:14 am
By the way – did I hear somewhere that the patriarchs don’t like the Narnia movies?
Oh I wouldn’t be surprised, they already don’t like so much else that I enjoy . . ! I can see them disliking the books too, too; Susan, the most archetypal female character in the book, comes off rather badly in The Last Battle, whereas the girls who destroyed a lot of female sterotypes came out shining. Lucy was a sparkling, vivacious character who rode to wars with the archers; Polly was deliciously pragmatic, matter-of-fact and she was right (and Digory was wrong) about not striking the bell; Jill was a girl of impossibly, admirably strong character, and Aravis liked dogs, riding and shooting; more than that, in HHB Aravis runs away when her father tries to make her marry a man old enough to be her -well- father. She chooses to ride for Narnia because her mare Hwin tells her “in Narnia, no maiden is forced to marry against her will.”
It does sound like a place they’d love to hate, doesn’t it?
Although actually, I’m not a great fan of the new Prince Caspian movie just because they did quite a bit of character-bludgeoning in addition to cutting one of my favourite scenes, the Romp that the Queens take with Aslan. That was one of the most delicious, delightfully alive parts of the book, and they cut it!
(I may just be having a slightly stressful weekend, hence all the frustration bubbling over in this manner. Not sure.)
June 9, 2008 at 12:45 am
I still can’t read Aslan explain about the deeper magic without tearing up.
Maybe that’s what the Pats really don’t like. That image of Aslan (who obviously represents Jesus) as merciful and forgiving. It gets in the way of all their judgment.
Where is the gospel in what they preach, anyway?
June 9, 2008 at 2:00 am
“The “sheathed sword” deal was one of the things that Tim and David Bayly called a sin. Men who “keep their swords sheathed” are in sin.”
“Where is the gospel in what they preach, anyway?”
Well, you won’t find any of the ideas on marriage and family that are near and dear to the Pat’s heart in the words of Jesus Christ.
Jesus didn’t tell women to stay home and have children, and He didn’t say that either women OR men had to get married, nor did He tell people have as many children as humanly possible if they DID get married. He wasn’t married Himself (unless you count His bride, the church) and He called His apostles to leave their families and homes to preach the Gospel.
You’d think that if things like this are so important, Jesus would have said so, but He didn’t.
Instead, He said things like, “…there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].”
After the Resurrection, He didn’t tell His apostles to breed lots and lots of followers for Him either. Instead He told them to build His church by preaching the Gospel to every creature.
Paul was even worse, telling folks that virgins are better able to serve God than are married folk, and proclaiming to the Galatians and to all of posterity the words of Isaiah 54:1: “For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.”
So the Baylys say that it is a sin to keep your sword sheathed? The Bible says otherwise, and it also says that it is a sin to add to the words of holy Scripture, or preach “another Gospel”. Almost NONE of the things that the HyperPats preach are found in the Gospel that is in the Bible. Even worse, the Pats contradict things that ARE found in the Bible.
Are they preaching another gospel?
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
June 9, 2008 at 4:33 am
It certainly feels like another gospel. The gospel that I’ve heard is that we are all sinners and that our sins demand atonement. But our God is merciful and offers us grace in the form of His Son Jesus who has paid the price for our sins. Through Him we can be cleansed of all our transgressions and find everlasting life. By following Him we must seek to share that message with others and live out His message of grace and mercy in the world.
People like DP make me wonder if I’ve missed something?
June 9, 2008 at 4:42 am
I’m pretty sure it isn’t YOU who has missed something!
June 9, 2008 at 5:40 am
“The “sheathed sword” deal was one of the things that Tim and David Bayly called a sin. Men who “keep their swords sheathed” are in sin.”
Where? And why does that not surprise me?
As an aside, if putting (WWF) after your name means White Washed Feminist (and did we ever decide what that was supposed to mean anyway?) then what should a plain, old-fashioned feminist put? (POF)?
June 9, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Unwashed feminist?
Nah. Can’t be. I’m a feminist, and I’m washed in the blood of the Lamb.
June 9, 2008 at 1:06 pm
That “sheathed sword” stuff is found in this tellingly-named blog entry “The Fruitful Womb: ‘Test me in this,’ says the Lord of Hosts” at “Out of Our Minds, Too” (the Bayly brothers’ blog) here:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2006/10/the_fruitful_wo.html
It was a rant against condoms and other forms of birth control, and against couples having as many children as possible. Here’s a quote:
“When the Master returns, though, what exactly will you say to Him to explain the fact that during by far the largest portion of your lovemaking through the years, your sword was sheathed, scrupulously kept from your lover’s womb?”
I wonder if the bros. won’t be highly disappointed when the Master, upon his return, doesn’t give a flip that they didn’t sheath their swords against their lovers’ wombs, and instead questions them about their actual witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is about God and not about men’s and women’s reproductive organs?
June 9, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Psalmist, that reminds me of the joke about a couple being shown about heaven upon their admittance. When they walk down one street, the angel tells them to tiptoe and to whisper as they walk past a mansion. When they ask the angel why, they are told that the occupants think they’re the only ones there.
I have no doubt that when I get to heaven and see things with the fullness of understanding that I will receive, I will find that I have had many things wrong. I’m human. I’m never going to have it all right. But I’m trying, and that matters. God has mercy and shows us grace. Shouldn’t we also strive to show that to each other? How can people like DP be so sure that they have it all right?
I look forward to one day being in heaven with the Pats and understanding where each of us have gone wrong and greeting each other as family. But right now, I’m frustrated. Especially when I feel like what is taught is unnecessarily hurtful to those who genuinely wish to serve the Lord.
June 9, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Oops, I need to edit that. In part, the Baylys’ rant was against couples NOT having as many babies as possible. (While that’s what I MEANT, I wrote the opposite!)
June 9, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I agree with you, Anne. It is frustrating to see some Christians presuming to such (falsely) authoritative judgment against other Christians. I notice that it’s always the most judgmental who are also the most restrictive in who they will actually agree IS a Christian. It must be rather easy to just declare those who disagree with them, to be outside the body of Christ. You get no challenge to your possibly shoddy study and interpretation that way. No one is then qualified to say you’re wrong. If they do, POOF! They’re just not Christians, so it doesn’t matter what they say.
June 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“It is frustrating to see some Christians presuming to such (falsely) authoritative judgment against other Christians. I notice that it’s always the most judgmental who are also the most restrictive in who they will actually agree IS a Christian. It must be rather easy to just declare those who disagree with them, to be outside the body of Christ. ”
Psalmist,
This is true.
We are in good company, though. The Pharisees, likewise, accused Christ of being of the devil and not of God all because Jesus violated their manmade rules and traditions.
The Pharisees are alive and well and still up to trying to tie up burdens on the backs of those who Christ died for in order to bring them back into bondage.
June 9, 2008 at 2:03 pm
““When the Master returns, though, what exactly will you say to Him to explain the fact that during by far the largest portion of your lovemaking through the years, your sword was sheathed, scrupulously kept from your lover’s womb?””
Psalmist,
Every time I read this quote, it still has the same “EWWWW” factor for me.
Sword? Thanks, but no thanks. Anyone who thinks that their male member is a sword would be someone you would not want coming near your womb. I will instruct my daughters that if a prospect refers to his member as a “sword” it is a deal-breaker and that they should RUN.
Add to this the whole “piercing” thing and you have a DOUBLE EWWWWWWWWWW!!!
Sometimes these guys are way too full of themselves.
Why are women not referring to their private parts in such grandiose terms?
June 9, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Having just watched Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”, I am thinking that this sword stuff must have come from one of his skits. In fact, a lot of what goes on in patriarchy surely must come from Saturday Night Live or Monty Python skits. If it doesn’t, then it should.
June 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm
About Narnia and the patrios…..
Here is a quote from James McDonald concerning Susan in the movie “Prince Caspian. You just had to know that the F-bomb was going to be used in relation to Susan. How dare she be skilled at using arrows (Ephesians 6, anyone???? Or are the weapons of our warfare only for men???)! McDonald refers to Susan as a “military leader”. Maybe the Queens in Narnia should take up knitting and tatting? Also, McDonald thinks that Susan amorously pursued Caspian in the movie. Weird. I didn’t get that at all. In fact, she gave up any chance for love with Prince Caspian so she can return and do what she was supposed to do. I can understand the patrios’ angst concerning these strong female characters since in Patrioland, women are only allowed to marry and have babies and anything outside of that is looked on with suspicion and derision.
“Of course, there were many literary problems in the movie. New scenes. Missing scenes. Character manipulations. One thing I enjoyed in the book was the concept of a faithful remnant holding to what some saw as a lost cause. Susan’s character was augmented with a feminist twist that disturbed me. She took on the mantle of a military leader and amorous pursuer. Yet, this may be in character. For those who have read the Chronicles of Narnia, you know the sad end of Susan from the Last Battle. Also missing was the sovereign revelation of grace that Lewis presented in the visitations of Aslan to the children, one at a time. The director must have assumed there was not room for needed repentance in many critical areas. Maybe these will be on the extended version of the DVD.
As Lucy Pevensie and her siblings are boating inland to find Prince Caspian, she mournfully states, “When we were here, the trees danced.” Trees cannot dance on their own. They need the power and direction of the wind. In John chapter 3, Jesus uses the wind and the trees allegorically to refer to the work of the Spirit of God to bring life to a dead heart. In this movie, the trees will again dance, but only for those who are able to really seek to see them dance. And this takes the work of the Spirit. They danced for me, as I was able to see my life apart from Christ allegorically presented in the life of the Narnian characters.”
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/the-trees-danced–a-review-of-prince-caspian/#comments
June 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“So the Baylys say that it is a sin to keep your sword sheathed? ”
Cynthia,
Obviously the Baylys are getting the Word of God (referred to as the sword in Eph 6) with their own privates. Which is really creepy if you think too long on it. Because it is obvious they believe that power is in their member and that they are doing battle with their member by producing children.
The word of God is the POWER of God. It is our sword. This is what we do battle with.
Referring to our privates in military terms is nothing more than vain imagination with a little delusion of grandeur thrown in for good measure.
June 9, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Comment 56 – Thanks SO MUCH Corrie!
Amen, amen … that stuff is just wrong …
I was a little frustrated by Mr. Macdonald’s reaction towards Susan. I remember when the first movie came out I still had my thinking warped by the extreme complementarian thinking I’d come across and fashioned for myself. Of course I thought Adams was a loser for letting the girls help with the battle. But now … Wow, now I understand. World Magazine had an article that talked a lot about Adam’s decision about Susan’s character … and I understand. I just had to suffer through stereotyping and limiting myself before I could finally enjoy and respect a girl who could kick butt.
In real life I would not become a soldier because I am just never going to be strong in the way that an army needs. Even if I worked out I would struggle to pick up another woman, much less a man and I just couldn’t handle all the life entailed. But … God did make women strong too, and we are responsible to develop our bodies too. And God may well call us to use that strength for others. I guess reality is just SO complicated.
Oh, and Mr. Macdonald dissing Susan for pursuing Caspian … this ties in to something I had wondered about for a while. Anyone who has read Elizabeth Elliot, or tons of other people is familiar with the idea that girls should never initiate romance, an idea much thrown about in Christian circles. But I’ve thought and thought and I have to ask “Does the Bible actually teach this?” Because I have yet to see that it does. I have yet to be convinced that this idea is more than a cultural thing. I mean, the Bible would support following the Golden Rule, which calls both men and women to treat each other carefully, so I’m not saying girls can do anything they want. But really – does the Bible teach this? I don’t think it does.
June 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I leave for three days and it jumps by a hundred comments! Still catching up here- have yet to read the extant articles and blog posts. It is interesting that I was at convention when this whole biomedical thing started on Doug’s blog- I guess it explains a few of the things I experienced. (I purposely didn’t take a computer with me, but many there were wired for sound…)
Keep in mind that in the ensuing posts, I am a second generation homeschooler; that is, I was homeschooled during the late 80’s and all of the 90’s, and I am now getting ready to start officially homeschooling my almost 6 and 5 year old boys. So I have an internal, unique perspective.
I think the mainstream “relationship” homeschooling community is getting wise to this NCFIC/VF/Botkin/McDonald charade. [I'll get at that later.]
At the HEAV convention, Western Conservatory for the Arts (the Botkin arm) and Vision Forum were there. There were also some extant (related) booths/groups, like American Vision and Generations of Virtue that clearly had “visionary” “multigenerational” drivel in their banners (over the booths) or in their advertising.
I haven’t been at a convention for nearly 10 years, and I was shocked at how easy it was to pick the “Vision”/NCFIC booths and adherents. It was painfully obvious. Even my husband, who has no experience whatsoever with the homeschooling community or how the conventions work had no problem picking those vendor booths out. So as far as “branding” goes, they certainly have done a good job in the marketing sense, but they also have shot themselves in the foot by being so obvious. The Vision Forum booth was large, but moved very very little product. (Unfortunately, the catalogs flew like hotcakes!). The Western Conservatory booth was painfully, painfully, abandoned and empty for large time periods during the whole convention. (It was stuck in an obscure back corner) Poor Geoffery Botkin was stuck at the booth for long periods of time alone with no one to talk to, except for an occasional Anna Sofia and Elizabeth adoring fan inquiring as to where they were…I think they may have sold 50 movies/dvd’s the whole convention. And from what I could tell, they were bought by people who already ascribed to the NCFIC credo (judging by the long skirts and hair coverings, etc.)- although I am in no way making a blanket stereotype here. I merely stating what I observed.
Particularly on Saturday, people were going out of their way to avoid the Vision Forum booth (it was pretty obvious, being right near the front), giving it a wide berth. The guy (in tie and jacket, of course) was trying to hand out catalogs, and I would say two couples out of every five (couples or family groups) flat out refused to take the catalog. One man went so far as to fuss at the man for having the heretical “stuff” there. [his words] Again too, if you stood near the Vision Forum or American Vision booths (which are much linked in consumer’s minds, even though one professes not to have anything to do with the other) the conversations you would hear were interesting…I think “kooky” or “legalistic” were most often used as descriptors. Most of the women using those kind of terms were often discussing Vision Forum’s position on women in the home. Often, when I would hear things in favor of VF, the speakers almost always turned out to be clearly VF leaning (again with the long skirts and head coverings).
To put it another way, there weren’t many “outsiders” that were easily fooled.
That being said, however, the contingent at the HEAV convention that were NCFIC leaning were sizeable in number. It was really noticable at the Botkin speeches (maybe 250? 300? young women/mothers/fathers). Maybe a quarter of the convention attendees? I am shooting in the dark a bit.
June 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Obviously the Baylys are getting the Word of God (referred to as the sword in Eph 6) with their own privates. Which is really creepy if you think too long on it. Because it is obvious they believe that power is in their member and that they are doing battle with their member by producing children.”
Man, that gives “private revelation” a whole new meaning..
“Referring to our privates in military terms is nothing more than vain imagination with a little delusion of grandeur thrown in for good measure.”
I agree — but then again, maybe it’s a sign of humilty. “Privates” are of the lowest military rank, donchaknow…
June 9, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The Botkin speeches:
Egads.
I purposely mentioned multiple times here on TW that I was going to see them. I also am well aware that you can find my picture on this blog (a few threads back). I joked about how loud and obnoxious I would probably be.
I was curious what would happen. (knowing that all of them *read* the blog)
I purposely *QUIETLY* observed them the whole weekend without identifying myself (removing name tags, etc).
Dears, I think the whole 21 Century daughter’s speech was written and aimed straight at us.
I desperately wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to hope that maybe, just maybe, we had misrepresented them. Misunderstood them. Call me an eternal optimist.
It’s worse. Much worse.
But before I actually get into what they said…I thought I’d fill you in on some of the reactions. In a room filled to standing room only (the workshop was actually closed due to space/fire code constraints) I would say that 10-15 people walked out in anger. Most of them were mothers practically dragging their daughters out. I would say another 20-50 stayed through the speech, but were very upset and angered by what they had heard. (My husband, by twist of fate, got stuck outside, and shared what he heard and saw during the speech and immediately afterward- I was stuck inside.) James said he heard “heresy” from 9 out of the 10 people who walked out (before the speech was over). Of that first wave of people who left quickly as soon as the doors were opened…there was a lot of anger/confusion.
The collateral damage?
The Botkins mentioned that it was the largest concentration of young (17-21 years) women they had seen. And, as much as I hate to say this again, judging from their modes of dress, a large number of attendees were patriocentric. (I hate to continually use the mode of dress as a descriptor, but it was pretty obvious, especially in contrast to a mostly conservative crowd to begin with. Where the large number of women at the convention were modestly attired (sometimes in jeans and nice blouses, some in knee length skirts, dresses, and etc) the patriocentric crowd was obvious because the skirts and dresses were almost always floor length, and the arms and neck were covered. As my husband noted, they were more ‘covered up’ than the Mennonite ladies (of which there were quite a few!) in their cape dresses.
June 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Cynthia! *blushes* Too funny!
June 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“Anyone who has read Elizabeth Elliot, or tons of other people is familiar with the idea that girls should never initiate romance, an idea much thrown about in Christian circles. But I’ve thought and thought and I have to ask “Does the Bible actually teach this?” Because I have yet to see that it does.”
The Bible doesn’t say that women should or should not pursue.
But, Ruth discreetly pursued Boaz, and the heroine in the Song of Songs was not particularly discreet at all!
June 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hi Joy,
So people were actually avoiding the Vision Forum stuff? I wonder why? (In my life it seems I only see people drinking this stuff up, sigh.) Any idea? I think you implied we’re not the only ones to have red flags?
So only Mr. Botkin was there? Had his family stayed home?
June 9, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“Cynthia! *blushes* Too funny!”
Well…. Corrie started it, with all her talk about the Bayly Bros. and their swords — I just drove the point home.
June 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Whoops sorry Joy I didn’t see that last comment. So they were there … so what were they saying that made people so angry? I know, I know, you’ll get to that.
So what were they like? Their dress, their manner, their diction, ect.
June 9, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Joy, are you sure the Botkins read on this blog? I mean, how do you know this? I can easily believe that they would, I’m just wondering what makes you so sure. And would they have any huge reason to want to, other than keeping up with their critics? They don’t seem to care very much about keeping up with criticism or to spend much time on the internet from what I’ve seen, but that’s just me.
June 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I’m afraid I am snickering terribly at James MacDinald’s comments re: Susan. Granted, I wasn’t a huge fan of what they did to Susan’s character in the movie, but that wasn’t because she was a woman fighting, it was because she was SUSAN fighting. Lucy in Susan’s place would have been 100 percent believable, but it took me a while to work out a way to reconcile the image of Susan the Gentle cold-bloodedly aiming for a fellow’s throat; once I had found a way, I wrote out my take on it and let it rest (I realised I hate killing things too, but if it had been MY sister riding for her life, I’d have aimed for the throat and not thought twice about it). I don’t for a minute think Lewis had anything against strong female characters –actually he was deliciously skilled at creating them– but neither do I think he ever meant Susan to be strong in that particular way.
Susan was actually the LEAST likely to fight in the books (in Lewis’s Prince Caspian we learn/see several times that Susan “hated killing things” whereas in HHB we gather that Lucy rode to battles regularly) and yet Susan the Gentle was the only one who didn’t make it to the new Narnia within the span of the books (Lewis later wrote to a child who asked him about this that it was still quite possible for Susan to make it to Aslan’s country in the end, which has given rise to considerable speculation that if she had been on the train with her siblings, silly or not, she would have gone with them to the new Narnia anyway). So, speaking strictly as a devotee of the books themselves, that part did disappoint me a little.
However, James’s issues with Susan being a romantic pursuer just have me in stitches. It’s very convenient that he chooses to ignore how Susan was pursued romantically in HHB, and that couldn’t have gone worse if anybody had tried. Rabadash wanted her for his wife, courted her in her homeland, and she trotted along to Tashbaan to see about that. Then she realised that he was every kind of awful (“a most proud and bloody tyrant,” as I think Edmund put it) and she had to get out of there as fast as she could, which of course didn’t suit His Highness any too well. Rabadash was in fact well on his way to taking a page from the Bayly bros., planning to rip her forcefully away from her family with his two hundred horse and unsheathed swords (well, scimitars), but Lucy and Edmund, along with Narnian and Archenlandish forces, put a swift stop to that, and shortly thereafter Aslan quite literally showed Rabadash up for the ass he was.
I love The Horse and His Boy, I really, really do.
June 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Cynthia, you are really naughty.
“Drove the point home . . .” Ouch.
I feel rather faint now. Do you suppose they actually talk about(whispers)’sheathed swords’ for real? How very infantile. (You show me yours and . . . )
Do you suppose that they keep a tally of how many – no, let’s not go there
Although I suppose it’s akin to Nazi fighter pilots putting little Swastika flags on their aeroplanes for every downed enemy.
Or Casanova carving a little slice into the walking stick to keep tally.
Although either of these might be painful.
I’ve heard of phallocentricity, but this is ridiculous!
I’ll be laughing all evening at this one. And where’s Richard these long days? Can’t he make them a pretty little button?
June 9, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Set the scene. I arrived on Thursday. So did the Botkins. We stayed in the same hotel, and I actually caught the elevator up with them Thursday night (Anna Sofia, Elizabeth, their father (Geoff), and Geoffery)) They were very haughty. Geoff and Geoffery spoke back and forth, while the girls stood behind. They never said a word.
Friday (the main thrust of the Botkin speeches) dawns. Both my mother and my husband note when the Botkin’s arrived in the exhibit hall…again, haughty. Not stopping to talk. I rarely, rarely, saw the girls smile. During the speech, both times, Geoff was sitting on the platform, near them, (less than 8 ft?) and touched and spoke to them *during the speeches* (speaking to one while the other was speaking to the crowd).
Saturday, Geoff had seminars, but the girls did not- they spent the time sitting off to the side. Other than that, they were not seen. They were at the booth a few times. But only for a short amount of time. The Botkin I saw the most? Geoffery. Poor guy. He manned the booth the whole weekend, by himself most of the time.
Their mother’s name is Victoria. Was she and the younger Botkins there? I have no idea. They were never seen.
Perhaps most disturbing…on the way to the main speech (21st century daughters)…I was running late. I noted them walking in front of me (Geoff, A-S, and Elizabeth). The girls stopped at the bathroom just outside of where they were to speak. Geoff stops. And waits. And then escorts them to the hall. Not in a friendly, waiting for my daughters standing as far away from the bathrooms, trying not to be obvious sort of way, but in a “secret-service” guarding the door kind of way. I am not sure, had I tried to enter the bathroom at that point, if I would have been allowed to pass. He was way too close to the door for comfort.
In a tactical, military sense, the girls were cloistered. Not seen. And when they were seen, Geoff or their brother or other VF type men were in close proximity. I don’t think I could have approached them to ask questions if I tried, because I was clearly not VF/NCFIC. I could have been untrue to myself and dressed to the NCFIC-nines. I could have been deceptive. But I wasn’t. But the whole experience outside of the speeches made me very very uncomfortable.
June 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Andrea I love HHB too – I am sure that Susan did make it in the end. God’s mercy is infinite.
Joy, the Botkin stuff sounds a bit weird. What about the speeches?
June 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Beatrice,
Karen and Corrie and Cynthia K and I have reason to believe that many of the Vision Forum elite read here…
And the speech was too uncanny to have not been aimed right at the unknown TW’er in the audience.
June 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“In real life I would not become a soldier because I am just never going to be strong in the way that an army needs. Even if I worked out I would struggle to pick up another woman, much less a man and I just couldn’t handle all the life entailed. But … God did make women strong too, and we are responsible to develop our bodies too. And God may well call us to use that strength for others. I guess reality is just SO complicated.”
Beatrice,
I wouldn’t, either. But, it is amazing how guns and bows/arrows level the playing field.
I do work out with weights at least 3 days a week and my husband, who hasn’t worked out for years, is still MUCH, MUCH stronger as far as physical upper body strength. But, I am like the Energizer Bunny who keeps on going where my husband does not have the physical endurance I have. I can run 5 miles and come home and work until midnight without taking a break.
But, I if put in a situation where I had to defend my family or come to the aid of someone else in danger, I wouldn’t think twice. I would do what it takes.
I was out jogging with one of my babies who was in a jogging stroller and a large dog attacked me and was going after my baby. Two men sat there in their living rooms and watched. I begged and pleaded with them to come out and help me but they wouldn’t. Finally the owner of the dog came out and called the dog away from me but he was too embarrassed to help me up and give first-aid. I later called the house of the man who sat and watched and he told me that he had company and was busy and that it wasn’t his dog and he that he was afraid of that dog. I didn’t know what to say. Well, I did know what to say but it wouldn’t have been polite to say it.
I know of stories where women are raped, beaten or another man is being beaten and men just stand there and do nothing.
I do not have that in my being. If the situation was reversed and I saw a woman being attacked by a dog, I would run out with a broom, baseball bat, mace, whatever and I would come to her aid. If I saw someone being raped or beaten, I would do whatever it took to help that person.
Courage is not a male thing. Courage belongs to both sexes as well as cowardice. The patrios would like us to think that courage and fighting when put in a situation where our lives depend upon it belongs to men but that is false.
Yes, men have much more upper body strength but women are physically strong where men are not. Both are called to be doers and both can fail miserably at worrying about protecting one’s own backside when another person is in dire straits.
There are some of us who have to really curb these qualities for fear that we would be thought of as too manly. I would have done well in the days where women were left alone for months at a time and had to fight off intruders and wild animals all by themselves. Good thing those women were not derided for being manly!
You are so right about your words in the above quote. We are all called to use our strength to aid others and to rescue them if need be. Again, fighting the good fight is not a “blue” command.
June 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm
” (I hate to continually use the mode of dress as a descriptor, but it was pretty obvious, especially in contrast to a mostly conservative crowd to begin with. Where the large number of women at the convention were modestly attired (sometimes in jeans and nice blouses, some in knee length skirts, dresses, and etc) the patriocentric crowd was obvious because the skirts and dresses were almost always floor length, and the arms and neck were covered. As my husband noted, they were more ‘covered up’ than the Mennonite ladies (of which there were quite a few!) in their cape dresses.”
Joy,
Well, Stacy McDonald agrees with you. She said, in the “Monstrous Woman” docudrama, that one shouldn’t be surprised when another person thinks you are pregnant if you are wearing maternity clothes. She stated that clothes reflect who we are.
So, if people confuse us with being part of the FLDS because we dress like them, that is not their fault. Just like if someone thought we were hookers by what we are wearing.
The patrios have a very distinct way of dressing. I just went to a homeschooling convention and even though I wore a skirt and blouse, I looked totally different than those of the VF/Botkin/FIC crowd. They have a certain look that is undeniable.
I am not saying it is good or bad. Just saying that they are the ones who teach that it is okay to judge someone by what they are wearing so they should not be offended when others judge them by what they are wearing.
By “judge”, I mean group them into a category.
June 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Corrie,
‘When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his stride,
He will shout to scare the monster, who will often turn aside,
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species is far deadlier than the male’
(Rudyard Kipling)
In defence of their own, or the weak, women will do all, dare all, and bear all – it’s a woman thing. Let’s be glad that we are strong and protective – what use is a shepherd to sheep, if he or she is not prepared to beat off the wolves!
June 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Sorry, I wanted to get this all down for you all and it’s not very organized. I apologize for taking so long to get to the point.
What follows are rough paraphrases, or direct snippet quotes. I can’t put my hands on my recording, yet.
Geoff begins:
I am speaking first so that everyone knows that my daughters are speaking under my authority. They don’t presume to address parents. Their message has resonated because “they are willing to open scripture” and “they do not posit their own opinions”.
The girls start: (they switched off)
In this “horrendously perverse” culture, it is not about “survival” it is about striving for God’s best. (This is when they noted the large amount of young girls there, the most they had ever seen in one place). Talk about the definition of feminist.
Feminist= selfish woman since the beginning of time.
Quoted Chaucer: “What every woman wants most is her own way.”
Her (woman’s) heart is decietful and has no law unto it’s own.
Speak of their time in New Zealand:
NZ is 20 years ahead of the US in secularism and feminism, and there are women leading in the “church, home, family, and state.” The women were “bitter and androgynous”. They said they questioned: “where have all the men gone?” Stated that men “were not interested in leading, responsibility, [and/or] marriage. Stated that some friends or some one they knew (this was vastly unclear) who was a secular nonChristian feminist had admitted that feminism was not good for the country.
America will turn into NZ…NZ’s and the US’s generation of young women (A-S or E’s age, so 17 to 21ish?) need to repent so that that the culture will change.
They say they wrote the book because there was very little resources for unmarried young women. So that unmarried Christian daughters could get a clear picture of “Godly daughterhood”.
June 9, 2008 at 5:12 pm
““Drove the point home . . .” Ouch.
I feel rather faint now. Do you suppose they actually talk about(whispers)’sheathed swords’ for real? How very infantile. (You show me yours and . . . )”
Joanna,
That is kind of what I was thinking.
The whole thing is really rather bizarre. Couple this with their whole philosophy about how a suitor is supposed to wage war against the father of the woman and take her away from her family and you have a whole lot of weirdness.
And then we can hearken back to the theory that women were made to be pierced by a man thus showing their submission and I can see how swords fit into the patrio scenario of making love since they are so hung up on making sure they are on “top” and women are in submission.
We surely do NOT see this sword-play in the Song of Songs. We do not see imagery of “piercing” or any other war theme. Thank God we have the Song of Songs to cleanse our mind from all this patrio nastiness or else I would run off and join a convent. Who wants to be pierced by a sword every time they have intercourse with their husband? Who wants THAT image running through your mind? Not me.
June 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Women were created for:
-women were made for men (1 Cor 9)
-women were made to fulfill a role (Gen 3)
-were made with a difference (Deut. 22:5)
They were made to help masculinity and suit men.
Ultimate goal is to serve God by serving men.
To help men fulfill their calling. It is [the woman's] reason for being, and [women] can’t escape this fact.
****Here’s where I knew the speech was aimed towards the TW blog- because what follows was over the head of everyone else there, and I started to snort because it was so *pointed* To those who believe as the Botkin’s believe, the following statements seemed to them “duh” statements, but to others it was troubling and confusing. This is also the point that people began to walk out, etc. This is also when people around me began to question me quietly, as I clearly knew what was going on and the theology. One woman was looking at th huge arrows and stars I had put next to certain statements to remind myself.I also had to scribble pretty fast!****
This “helper” role is not fully realized until marriage, and there is a huge difference between a daughter helping a father and a wife helping a husband.
Man is the head of the woman.
However, it does not mean that all women must submit to all men.
A man’s job:
-to sanctify her
-to be head. (there is only one head)
Note Numbers 30 (about the daughter and vows and what the father says).
State that there is no relationship with God without the father’s umbrella (once I get the recording, I’ll get the exact quote- I actually shuddered out loud.)
There is no pattern or precept for a girl being voluntarily separate outside of the family model (the four acceptable: wife, mother, widow, daughter in father/family’s house).
Quotes a Psalm reference about the “solitary being gathered into families”.
June 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Molleth, Molly etc. LOL
I agree that I should address the Plano TX homeschool convention re: Doug Phillips being the keynote. My problem is what to say? Maybe you could help me draft a letter? Not too good at those types of things : )
June 9, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Joy, this is incredible – I worry about the vulnerable and trusting home schoolers at this conference. I am surprised people were getting up and saying heresy, leaving, etc.
Speaking of heresy, I thought Jesus sanctified me, not my husband or father. I also thought salvation came through grace, and not through the work of serving a man.
June 9, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I am so excited to hear that people are getting up and leaving. I don’t have anything like this in my area (our conventions are secular), so I can’t say how delighted I am to hear that.
Kelli and others,
Yo, true womanhood team, could some of you who are more familiar with dealing with this sort of things as a “convention norm” draft a basic letter of sorts for sending to convention leaders?
Not only could we send it, but also pass it out to everyone we know that feels the same way, and have them pass it around, so that a lot of people send it to the convention leaders in their state.
If convention leaders are convinced that the Botkins, et all, are preaching 100% truth, then a letter may not do much to disuade them. But if convention leaders are bringing in VF and the Botkins because some have requested them, but then learn that a fair number of others are really annoyed by the whole thing, they may change their speaker invite list next year.
Homeschooling conventions should be about homeschooling, not promoting this wacko fringe stuff.
Joy,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I really appreciate it. It’s very sad, too.
Can you believe how misogynistic it sounds? It’s mind-bogglingly awful! I can’t believe I ever fell for this stuff (much less promoted it)!!! I guess it’s like someone else said, the frog in the pot of water analogy. Little by little, the heat gets turned up, and you don’t even realize how wacko you’re getting until you start smelling boiled frog and realize that it’s YOU…
June 9, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Speaking of heresy, I thought Jesus sanctified me, not my husband or father. I also thought salvation came through grace, and not through the work of serving a man.
Yes, but after all that’s just what the Bible says, not what the Botkins say. And who hands out BIBLES, anyway? Who in their right mind would attempt to stand on the Word of God alone? We need TRAINING MANUALS!
June 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I am sorry, I came home sick from work, I am very under the weather and crotchety and I suspect my last comment may have been steeped in ire, rather than seasoned with grace. I apologise for that, though not for the principle behind it. I DO stand on the Word of God alone, and I claim no superfluous sanctification, because His grace is sufficient for me.
June 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Ultimate goal is to serve God by serving men.”
Groan … why can’t my ultimate role just be to serve God? I think it is adding to the faith to redefine a woman’s purpose like that. I help my father and brother with certain tasks that we do together, but this is not the be-all end-all of my being! I also help my mother (though far too little) but that is not my sole purpose in life either. I read avidly, progress with my education at my own pace, explore some of the arts, support my friends, ect. Nothing I do is THE way I serve God, He just takes it all.
“State that there is no relationship with God without the father’s umbrella (once I get the recording, I’ll get the exact quote- I actually shuddered out loud.)”
Oh, that is … I don’t even have words to describe what I think of that. Thank God, it is not true. Other than the fact it is outright heresy, think about the effect it will have on a daughter abused or neglected by her father. Can you imagine the horror and helplessness her relationship with God will be poisoned by?
“There is no pattern or precept for a girl being voluntarily separate outside of the family model (the four acceptable: wife, mother, widow, daughter in father/family’s house”
Since when have we lived by patterns or precepts? Does the Bible really exist to give us nice little templates to pattern our lives after? Or is it the letter of a very terrifying, wild, uncontrollable but most loving Person? A Person Whom we can’t pin down, can’t see coming, can never figure out, Someone who comes at us like the wind and drops us in places we’d never have dreamed?
June 9, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Joy, this is all very, very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to do all this. Is it possible that we can hear the recording? Could it be put online like the podcasts?
I am actually shocked that their speech was so extreme. I thought they would be more cunning, and give a ’soft’ version of events – but it seems that they become more strident and ‘out there’ as they are questioned? Very interesting.
Corrie, you’re a runner! I was, too, in my teenage years. And indeed, I still have many great friends, one of whom is a marathon runner, who possess great physical strength. Women’s strength is not identical to man’s but we certainly have it! I’ve had to cut back from jogging to just hiking now and then when I’m healthy…
Speaking of which, can I request prayers? I have a doctor’s appointment on Thursday and I’m very much hoping that I will FINALLY be given the all-clear to begin trying to conceive. (I know the patrios have strong, and nasty, views of us women and our husbands who listen to our doctors’ advice when they say our bodies aren’t up to a pregnancy right now. The less said on their (patrios) ignorance the better).
June 9, 2008 at 6:03 pm
““Drove the point home . . .” Ouch.”
I’m a fencer (epee). I can’t help it….
June 9, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Claire,
(you have the same name as my little sister!) I will definitely be praying for you.
June 9, 2008 at 6:07 pm
And, in case any of the Pats are reading this blog, I’m a very feminine fencer. My DH fences also, and when we spar, our bouts are semi-complementarian — he wins about 65% of the time.
June 9, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Move on to a quote about Matthew Henry regarding daughters being the corner pillars of a house (for beauty and grace and decoration, but also ‘the heart of the foundation’). Use Psalm 144 in this context, talking about being ‘carefully fashioned”trained and polished”in beauty and grace’.
Move on to the duties of a daughter at home:
The current definition of home is “leisure” (watching TV, eating bon bons, not being in relation with other family members).
Home is “partially abandoned” and (girls quoting someone else, reference obscure) ” a comfortable concentration camp”.
They then discuss what Marxism/Socialism have to do with this, talking about the same references Doug has posted on his blog from Lennon. The point of socialism was to take (by force if necessary) the private and make it public. Instead of woman caring for her own children and home, she is “required” to work and ‘care for other people’s children’ or ‘cook for other not her family’ (etc.) Thus leaving everyone too busy to ‘revolt’ and or pass on belief systems.
The real model for women?
-Scriptural mandates women be at home (the Titus 2).
-”there is no stifiling of intellect or creative gifts” when women are at home (what they meant by that is kind of unclear, IMO)
- “problematic homes are no excuse for succumbing to [your natural] feminist tendencies”
-isn’t confined to the house alone; could be the father’s ministry, business, or “to use an archaic phrase, the borders of a family’s estate”
Refer to an email by an un-named girl of undetermined age: “Our goal is not to revive the days of Little House on the Prairie or Jane Austen”
Head into Proverbs 31:
The woman does many things, but the cohesive point throughout is that her home=her headquarters. Her husband is praised in the gates because of a good wife.
Question to the audience:
“Why would a woman want to be anywhere else?”
On to the College/Education “point”:
- state that up until a century ago, people ‘went to university just to read books because books were rare and not often available’
-there is a lot of information available at one’s fingertips via the internet (therefore, no need to leave the father’s house)
-they talked about some scriptural hermenutic regarding creativity, but I lost their point
Description of a Botkin day:
-center for industry
-they have lots of tools available (!!!!No normal middle class family would have all this available in their house. This was egotistical and preposterous in my mind!!!)
* media business
* film studio
* art studio
* composing studio
* harps, pianos, and other instruments
* enormous library
* a writer’s guild
They discuss the importance of family dinners and the discussions that followed (this is the one and only time they mention their mother, and actually name her for the first time) as a part of their education. (they also list a long list of senators, statesmen, famous pastors, theologians that have sat at their table- another thing that most others would not have access to).
In education, a girl should apprentice under a woman who has done the same thing (loose reference to their mother). She should learn by assisting and talking to her father and brothers, and putting her gifts to use inside the family sphere.
Girls (and mothers/wives) should start with their own families and homes.
Girls have a tremendous ‘influence’ (their words) on men and brothers. They should not mock and belittle their brothers.
They took a rabbit trail here to talk about some Christian psychologist they heard at a girls camp (that they spoke at) in NZ who encouraged girls to raise their self esteem by tearing down boys and saying that boys were ‘good for prison or suicide’. (I’d LOVE to cooborate this with the said “Christian psychologist” they are so maligning, but of course, he is not named.)
They say, quote: “The best weapon to tear down women is men.” We must choose to either destroy or encourage the “prophets, priests, and kings” in our lives.
One of them (I get them so mixed up) then says:
” I have a lot to repent for for pushing down an assertive brother”
A girl should:
-not make it a “waiting” time (regarding daughterhood) in the context that they are not ‘living live of leisure waiting for Prince Charming’
-there are no ‘perfect circumstances or perfect families’
-should work towards making things work AT HOME
- the daughters must turn back to a biblical culture
while they
-prepare for the future influence (being a mother of godly seed)
-Christian women should be highly educated
Obscure quote by William B Spring regarding developing faculties and creative gifts.
Parents should:
(note the irony here considering Geoff’s statements at the beginning)
-should educate daughters at home while providing amazing opportunities
-equip practically
to be:
-helpers
-mothers
- a man’s helper
- keepers at home
Women have a responsibility to stimulate ‘the future seed’ for dominion by changing their ‘corner of culture’.
They close with the statement that “womanhood is nearly forgotten” but daughters can be “weapons of warfare” that “lead cultures back to Christ”, ending with a reference to 1 John 5:4.
June 9, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Wow. I didn’t realize how many notes I had!
Molly, I too was so happy to see people realize it for what it was and walk out (it actually made the girls falter-She lost her point mid-sentence and had to recover).
I was pretty shocked that they weren’t trying to “prettify” it. IF their point was to “clear things up” so that they would be “left alone” all they did was open themselves up to even more criticism and examination.
There were a few women (and a man) near me that immediately struck up a conversation with me as soon as it was ended. One of the questions was basically like my own to you gals back in the day: “I know something is wrong here, but I can’t quite figure out why”. I discussed in *brief* detail our concerns regarding the Botkins and NCFIC and Doug Phillips; pointed them to this blog and Karen’s and Molly’s and Cindy’s (at least, all the blog url’s I could remember off the top of my head).
My husband stated after hearing them that he finally (although he had always understood) realized why I couldn’t let the whole thing rest, why it was keeping me awake at night (the topics discussed here at TW). He was the one who was adamant I get these speech notes posted this morning…He’s so increadibly angry. As a father of a daughter, he said he realized that he needed to ‘contend for the faith’ because he doesn’t want Lorelei getting into this mess when she is older.
Interestingly enough,
most of the first wave of people that left the speech after it was over were angry about the egotism (their description of a ‘normal day’ really bugged people) and hubris. They may not have been angry about the theological differences so much as they were angry, as johanna-from-england so aptly said, that young girls were telling them what to do.
June 9, 2008 at 6:31 pm
whew…I’ve been at this for a few hours now. I need to take a break and get some lunch and love on my kiddos. I’ll probably be back on later in the day to answer any questions or clarify my notes. I realize they are pretty rough!
Hugs to all, and
Claire…I’ll be praying for you! Praying that things can go ahead.
And Cally….words can’t express how much I appreciate your openness and honesty, and vulnerability. Maybe someone will be touched by your sharing the story, and find the path out.
June 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Joy, Been reading through your notes. I am furious at what they have done to the Word. They have taken the Lord’s Holy Word and mutilated it, not just for power but for filthy lucre. I could spend hours proving how they have proof texted all those verses out of context.
If ONLY more people would study on their own praying for the Holy Spirit to teach them with the WHOLE SCOPE of scripture they would not fall for this false teaching.
And yes. It is false teaching. They are trying to interpret NT teaching from the Talmud.
June 9, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“State that there is no relationship with God without the father’s umbrella (once I get the recording, I’ll get the exact quote- I actually shuddered out loud.)”
Wow. Just…wow. I’d have gotten up and walked out, too.
Thanks for sharing!
June 9, 2008 at 7:37 pm
That concept really does sum up one of the most foundational problems of the patriocentric camp. Despite the rhetoric, what they are doing is telling women that they need a mediator between them and God, and telling men that they mediate for women as their priest/sanctifier/lord.
It’s called idolatry.
What is so sad is that it’s often being done with the best of intentions. No one sets out to put a person in the place of Christ, and no one sets out to put themselves in His place. So many good people are being decieved and decieving others. The Botkin girls, their father, etc, are no exception.
It’s so important to remember that, because then we can maintain a level of compassion that is needed—we can look at these teachers as fellow brothers and sisters imprisoned by false teaching, WHILE strongly and firmly denouncing what they teach.
June 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Scary how much it sounds like what’s taught by the FLDS.
June 9, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Molly, I agree. All I could feel while listening was an incredible sense of loss and sadness. It brought me no joy to copy down their preposterous words. I prayed for them while they were speaking. I prayed for the audience- that they would be granted discernment, and that the vile poison would not fill their ears.
Afterwards, (I could have stayed for their “How to Write a Best Selling Book” seminar) my husband and I went back to the hotel room and I just cried and cried.
I wanted so desperately for us here at TW to be wrong, you know? Call me naive? I was hoping that we had read into their writings something that wasn’t there. But the opposite, in point of fact, was true. With each new statement of rhetoric and dogma that wandered further and further from the Truth I groaned in spirit. Sometimes I couldn’t help it and shuddered out loud.
As usual, Molly, you’ve nailed the issues at heart to a T.
June 9, 2008 at 8:25 pm
“They may not have been angry about the theological differences so much as they were angry, as johanna-from-england so aptly said, that young girls were telling them what to do.”
You said their father was with them in the room, Joy. Why didn’t he give the talk instead of them? Someone on here pointed out way back that he probably knows he is not going to be as appealing to a teenage girl as his two pretty daughters are. He can’t just get up and teach what he believes because it is so much more effective to have the novelty of two young girls writing a controversial book.
Does anyone think it’s gossip to say he’s using them?
June 9, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I’m sorry you had to go through that, Joy.
But since it did turn out to be worse than you dreamed, I think it’s wonderful that these teachings appeared for what they were and turned many people off. If people are going to be healed from this stuff, it needs to be out in the open for people to criticise and disagree with.
June 9, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Beatrice…
I’ve always wondered (and I think Karen has mentioned too) where, just where, their mother is. I finally heard her named for the first time during their speech. I would think that the most qualified person to talk about it would be their mother, with their help…but no one has a clue who or what she is outside of the Vision Forum elite. I’ve never seen her picture on a blog (but the Botkin girls, Geoff, and the younger Botkin boys have been plastered all over NCFIC blog land.)
But with Geoff sitting there right on stage, he clearly endorsed what the girls were saying!
June 9, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I’d love to hear Cindy K’s take on their behavior…
definitely some mind control going on!
I wouldn’t have mentioned it except it seemed so strange.
June 9, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I would think that the most qualified person to talk about it would be their mother, with their help…but no one has a clue who or what she is outside of the Vision Forum elite.
Wild, improbable thought . . . is it even remotely possible that she doesn’t agree with that they teach? That she wouldn’t outright “rebel” against her husband’s wishes that their daughters teach these things, but that, provided she doesn’t agree, she also can’t in good conscience endorse them? I mean yes, I will grant that there is no evidence that this is actually the case, but it just seems SO strange that their mother doesn’t feature into things at ALL. You’d think the very least she would want to murmur a few words of endorsement, wouldn’t you? If she wanted to endorse what they taught, that is . . . or maybe she just has severe stage fright. Either one seems equally probable to me right now
June 9, 2008 at 9:13 pm
” (I could have stayed for their “How to Write a Best Selling Book” seminar)”
Shouldn’t someone giving that sort of seminar have actually produced a “best selling book”????????
The problem with the patriarchalists is that they can’t compete in the greater market because they can’t handle criticism of their writings. We have all seen the great lengths they have gone to in order to shut up their critics.
Some who writes a “best selling book” is not afraid of criticism, they actually welcome that. In fact, that is how someone WOULD write a best seller….by improving their writing and the delivery of their message by listening to their critics.
The patrios, otoh, do not listen to their critics. They outright dismiss any valid point someone makes about their books. They won’t even answer simple questions. Their books are confusing and seem to be full of double-speak. They clearly say one thing but when they are questioned on it, resort to ad hominem and lie about their teachings and beliefs.
There are many of us who see through the cheap veneer and we KNOW what they are teaching because we have lived it. They are trying to pass themselves off as a kindler-gentler-more tolerant sort of “complementarian” when they are really died in the wool rabid patriarchalists who produce such things as “Monstrous Regiment of Women”, “Visionary Daughters”, “Passionate Housewives Desperate for God” and promote Mormon books like “Fascinating Womanhood”.
June 9, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“Scary how much it sounds like what’s taught by the FLDS.”
Anne,
It is.
Both the FLDS and the Patriocentrists believe that a woman needs a mediator called a “prophet, priest and king” at all times.
The Word of God tells us that there is only One Mediator, Christ Jesus our Lord. The Bible teaches us that a saved woman SANCTIFIES her unsaved husband and vice versa. The Bible teaches that a wife has authority over her husband’s body and vice versa. The Bible teaches us that we are all slaves to Christ and that we are to be like Jesus who came to serve and not to be served. That we are not to be like the Gentiles who lord our authority over others but we are to be like Christ who washed the feet of His disciples.
The FLDS and the Patrios give men a god-like position. Women were created to serve men, not the other way around. But, this is exactly opposite of what scripture teaches. Where does Scripture teach that woman is servant to man? One verse is all I need.
Women are in need of NO OTHER mediator. The same EXACT Holy Spirit that indwells men, indwells women and in the same measure and the Wisdom is imparted to both men and women without partiality to all who ask without doubting or wavering.
Men are not “prophets, priests and kings”. I would like just ONE verse that teaches this false concept.
The Bible does teach that we are ALL- men and women- a holy PRIESTHOOD. We are all to speak the TRUTH in love and to be ready in season and out of season in order to impart the truths of God’s word (prophet).
We have but one King, the Lord Jesus.
The FLDS and the Patriocentrists believe that a woman’s only purpose, role and calling is to be a wife and mother or to serve another man’s vision. They both believe that a woman is given no ministry apart from what her husband/father has given her.
The Bible in NO way teaches this at all.
Molleth is right, this is idolatry at its finest. Putting the created in a place only the Creator can occupy.
If they were teaching what the Bible teaches, they would teach that husbands and wives are ministers one to another and that they are vice-regents together, serving others as Jesus served.
The FLDS and the Patrios teach that men are like Christ in His resurrection and Godhood. They show disdain for the example Christ left for His followers and look down on the earthly example Jesus set forth. They look at it as the stuff of women and I have even heard Patrios teaching that the earthly Jesus was too wimpy for real men to want to follow. They like the part about turning over the tables but they don’t like the part about submitting, serving and doing the mundane and dirty jobs.
The FLDS and the Patrios both teach that man occupies a higher position than woman in Heaven! Yes, supposedly the heirarchy of men translates to Heaven, too.
June 9, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“They say, quote: “The best weapon to tear down women is men.” We must choose to either destroy or encourage the “prophets, priests, and kings” in our lives.
”
And the best weapon to tear down women is men. And what better way to discourage women and tear them down is to tell them that their whole purpose and reason for being alive is wrapped up in a man who will give them a vision. That women will never receive anything (vision, teaching, etc) directly from God because God always directs a woman through a man.
Goodness, are they saying that even their brothers are their prophets, priests and kings???????
June 9, 2008 at 9:32 pm
So, they ignore the Jesus who would submit to washing the feet of his disciples or freely talk to the Samaritan woman of the well in favor of their more macho image of Jesus and then claim that it’s me who’s ignoring scriptural teaching.
That’s rich.
June 9, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“They took a rabbit trail here to talk about some Christian psychologist they heard at a girls camp (that they spoke at) in NZ who encouraged girls to raise their self esteem by tearing down boys and saying that boys were ‘good for prison or suicide’. (I’d LOVE to cooborate this with the said “Christian psychologist” they are so maligning, but of course, he is not named.)”
Me, too. You could write them and ask them for this psychologist’s name. They should be able to give it to you.
But, it might turn out to be the same as the book which set the author of “Passionate Housewives” “hair of fire”.
Somehow these things never seem to materialize into something of substance.
Smoke and mirrors.
I am highly skeptical of such a Christian psychologist teaching such a thing. It sounds like it was grossly taken out of context. It doesn’t even ring true with ANYTHING I have ever read or heard.
June 9, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Description of a Botkin day:
-center for industry
-they have lots of tools available (!!!!No normal middle class family would have all this available in their house. This was egotistical and preposterous in my mind!!!)
* media business
* film studio
* art studio
* composing studio
* harps, pianos, and other instruments
* enormous library
* a writer’s guild”
And they are soliciting $40,000 from others in order to go on a vacation to England where they teach other people’s daughters how to be like them?
Boggles the mind, especially in this economy. No wonder the patrios are so oddly defensive of their teachings. When their rich lifestyles depend on them being able to sell their teachings, I can totally understand why they resort to smoke and mirrors.
June 9, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“The FLDS and the Patrios both teach that man occupies a higher position than woman in Heaven! Yes, supposedly the heirarchy of men translates to Heaven, too.”
I forgot to add what the Word teaches. The Bible tells us that the last shall be first and the first shall be last.
If men come first on earth, then who will be first in Heaven?
They can’t have it both ways.
June 9, 2008 at 9:49 pm
And they are soliciting $40,000 from others in order to go on a vacation to England where they teach other people’s daughters how to be like them?
My thoughts exactly. I mean don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t mind a harp of my own . . . I just wouldn’t buy one and then turn around and ask people for money so I could go tell working-class girls to emulate MY privileged lifestyle.
June 9, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I have been accepted to a seminary to earn an MA in theological studies. I will be there for two years. Classes start in August.
Why do I mention it here? Because I wanted my father’s AND MOTHER’S blessing/permission before I applied. They gave that blessing/permission. In fact, they are thrilled I am going!
My father studied at Dallas Theological Seminary in the 1980s. As I prepare for seminary, he has offered nothing but support and helpful advice on Bible translations, biblical studies, schools of thought, etc. His example as a Christian leader and father has been enabling– he would be horrified if I did not pursue my intellectual, theological, and educational interests because I thought it unfeminine to do so.
And my father’s main concern while I’m at seminary? Whether or not I can buy the school’s book press publications at a discount for him.
June 9, 2008 at 10:17 pm
For some reason I cannot get Stacy McDonald out of my mind. She had some harsh words for ladies who have marble sinks in their homes. I would think it would cost far more to have a fim studio, an art studio, a composing studio, as well as an enormous library. I wonder if her next book will adress this issue?
How much income does it take to live like the Phillips or the Botkins? I can’t even imagine.
As for the Botkins, it reminds me of those stories you hear of about wealthy TV evangelists who beg for money on TV and these little old ladies who send in money that they cannot afford to send in, just so they can receive their “blessing”.
June 9, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Joy,
I’m so glad I wasn’t there: just reading your account makes me ill.
“- state that up until a century ago, people ‘went to university just to read books because books were rare and not often available’ ”
What?!? Did they elaborate on that at all?
June 9, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I still feel guilty suggesting Mr. Botkin is using his daughters. Does anyone think that was a wrong thing to say? I just don’t know whether something is a hard but necessary thing to ask or really just harsh gossip. He is putting them in kind of a hard place but maybe they are really willing. *shrug*
June 9, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Beatrice,
I can see why it might bother you since “using” can have different connotations, but in the sense I took you to mean it –that you believe he might be deliberately taking advantage of the controversy in having them speak, rather than speaking himself– it seems to me a fair question to raise, given the typical teachings of this crowd.
If it’s true that men are meant to be the leaders and teachers of other men, should it not then –if this is truly what they believe– be a man who steps up to do the teaching? Simply saying “my daughters do this under my provision with my blessing” does not in any way negate the fact that they ARE teaching people –men, women and offspring thereof– who are older than they. It seems fair, then, given what we know of their teachings, to raise the question of how Mr Botkin could see fit to step out from the rigid paradigm they themselves support.
Where it would get unBiblical, I think, is to start outright flinging accusations of usery at him, saying “you’re doing this for reasons X, Y and Z!” That, however, was tone I, at least, didn’t hear in what you wrote.
June 9, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Good Heavens, listen to me: “unBiblical.” I meant to say un-Christlike, or something more along those lines. I mean really, technically speaking, incest, adultery and murder are Biblical, too; that doesn’t mean we’re supposed to engage in them!
I really must remember to proofread more than once.
June 10, 2008 at 12:41 am
Andrea…anything is possible. I think it’s pretty odd that even in their marketing materials the rest of the family is shown, but she is not. They get around it by either showing the girls by themselves; Geoff and the younger boys; or the girls and Geoff. Oh wait, I lied! She’s on the front page of the girls’ visionary daughters thing. I also realized that they named her on the website (I haven’t visited in quite a while).
Corrie…I can honestly affirm that they do believe that their brothers are as much their “prophet, priest, and king” as they do of their father. The dark haired one (Anna Sofia?-I get who is who mixed up and they speak of one mind) said towards the end that she had much to repent for in the way she had treated her brothers, and admonished the girls to do likewise. I remember being bothered by the statement because it meant that the brother couldn’t be “wrong” which is always highly possible when it comes to teenage boys and testosterone…she was taking the responsibility for her (un-named) brothers actions. She described him as being “assertive”.
Mary in TN– yay for the MA! And to answer your question, no, they did not explain that whole ‘they went to university for the books’ centuries ago comment. It was a quick, broad, blanket statement issued as truth.
As to the blanket statements regarding the Christian psychologist in NZ, it is the same one they talk ill of in the book…and numerous emails and questions have resulted in 0 answers. I have a feeling “he” doesn’t exist. I do think they are intellegent enough to realize that if he did in fact exist, to say such horrible defamations of character would land them immediately in the legal hot seat. ((but I’m no legal eagle either.))
June 10, 2008 at 12:46 am
I think what saddened me the most was the tremendous burden they had placed on themselves. A burden that wasn’t theirs. The thought process “we must repent so that the culture returns to its biblical roots” was woven through out the talk. They both spoke of needing to repent of things that they had done to their father and brothers (and mother) that all sounded incredibly past tense. And personal. Like they hadn’t been forgiven, if that makes sense? I guess it was the stricture of the law apart from grace that I was hearing. But I thought more than once that it was a heavy burden that they didn’t deserve the responsibility for.
June 10, 2008 at 4:14 am
Joy, the talk you heard sounds an awful lot like the one they gave at the “Christian Homemaking Conference” I “attended” last year. Their talk was called “Training Daughters to Be Visionary Keepers at Home”. They talked about how the home is a center for culture-changing industry and the core learning center… and they did talk about all the amenities in their home- recording studio, art studio, writer’s guild, music room (I know that Elizabeth plays the harp)… and so they are very busy at home, not just in helping keep house, but in “reforming the culture”.
Their mother, Victoria, did speak a little bit to the conference. She talked about what life was like raising a big family and what did did to help Geoff create a hospitable home.
I still have all those recordings on my iPod. Maybe I should give them a listen again. I can’t really stand to, at this point, but at least I can listen when I need a refresher.
Sorry you had to go through that. I straight up can’t stand much of this stuff right now. Maybe I’ll release some of my frustration on the WWF blog…
June 10, 2008 at 4:19 am
“They talked about how the home is a center for culture-changing industry and the core learning center… and they did talk about all the amenities in their home- recording studio, art studio, writer’s guild, music room…”
So where is it written, “blessed are the rich?”
June 10, 2008 at 4:27 am
“State that there is no relationship with God without the father’s umbrella (once I get the recording, I’ll get the exact quote- I actually shuddered out loud.)”
Now THIS is flat out, blaspheming heresy. There is no relationship with God without JESUS CHRIST.
HE is our Mediator.
Someone ought to ask the Pats, where was Mary Magdalene’s father or husband, the fellow who made it possible for her to have a relationship with the Saviour?
June 10, 2008 at 4:31 am
“The FLDS and the Patrios both teach that man occupies a higher position than woman in Heaven! Yes, supposedly the heirarchy of men translates to Heaven, too.”
More heresy. I wonder if they also believe that the people who are rich, white, and privileged here on earth wil occupy the same position in Heaven.
Don’t they know that it is written that in the resurrection there will be no marrying and giving in marriage, and that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female,?
June 10, 2008 at 4:39 am
Joy wrote: I’d love to hear Cindy K’s take on their behavior…
What specifically seemed strange? I’m familiar with th cloistering business and the haughty attitude. I think that more of that comes from this idea that they are all very elite. They are definitely FIC royalty and everyone else is a peasant. Everything is programmed.
It all just sounds like the same old feudal system. Don’t mix with the serfs
I’m encouraged to hear that people were offended, left the talk or had no blooming idea what any of them were talking about.
And about the reading of this blog — I spoke to someone again this week who pointed out that Bob Raynaud or whatever his name is at VF, as part of his duties, surfs the web for Phillips references. They do a great deal of marketing research and things, using public opinion as a gauge and what is projected about readership based on how many people actually post or if people write emails. I get a lot of emails, and I can count on one hand how many negative ones I get. I’ve also heard from a less credible person that interns are also assigned to watch the internet.
I can often tell from the sitemeter data that certain people read my blog. I find it interesting that I can get a Boerne, TX hit and then a couple hours later get a Vienna, VA (Constitution Party Headquarters) hit that links in from an email, such as was true of that series I did on the Orthodox Jewish practices that counter things like men demanding sex from wives, wives having no rights, daughters being property, women not permitted to work in the “civil sphere” or have their own money, etc.
June 10, 2008 at 4:51 am
Joy,
The Botkin material sounds like the same old party line…
I’m encouraged to hear that others were rejecting these things, however. I wonder if it turned out to be worth the trip and hosting a booth for either the VF and Botkin? I hear that they are no longer cheap. And every little amenity is extra: lighting, a phone line for credit transactions, etc… I would have loved to have a video of the guy refusing the VF catalog. Reminds me of what happened to me in Moscow when I tried to give a Bible to a Muslim in the Metro (subway).
I spoke with Pastor Martinez of Spiritwatch a few weeks ago, and he thinks that people recognize that this stuff is weird and just don’t like to make waves about it. They also don’t have or make opportunities to be vocal about things because they do fear reprisal and they do worry about the lawsuit threats that so many of these folks are known for. So I am glad that people are expressing their disgust at these ideas, because I have not seen this kind of response. People (like those in Phillips’ homeschooling co-op) murmur that they have some weird ideas and then change the subject or just tolerate things because they get some benefit.
June 10, 2008 at 7:30 am
Joy referencing the Botkins in comment #80: “State that there is no relationship with God without the father’s umbrella (once I get the recording, I’ll get the exact quote- I actually shuddered out loud.)”
HERESY. HERESY. HERESY.
I am SEETHING inside right now. This is so utterly disgusting and vile that it could only be the work of the Master of Lies.
Please, Botkins, I am begging you… PLEASE pray to see the Word through the Spirit… anew, untainted, without presuppositions, and with the original context and definitions. I mean this so very sincerely. My heart is breaking for you right now.
June 10, 2008 at 8:06 am
Molly in #96: “It’s so important to remember that, because then we can maintain a level of compassion that is needed—we can look at these teachers as fellow brothers and sisters imprisoned by false teaching, WHILE strongly and firmly denouncing what they teach.”
Joy in #98: “Molly, I agree. All I could feel while listening was an incredible sense of loss and sadness. It brought me no joy to copy down their preposterous words. I prayed for them while they were speaking. I prayed for the audience- that they would be granted discernment, and that the vile poison would not fill their ears.
Afterwards, (I could have stayed for their “How to Write a Best Selling Book” seminar) my husband and I went back to the hotel room and I just cried and cried.
I wanted so desperately for us here at TW to be wrong, you know? Call me naive? I was hoping that we had read into their writings something that wasn’t there. But the opposite, in point of fact, was true. With each new statement of rhetoric and dogma that wandered further and further from the Truth I groaned in spirit. Sometimes I couldn’t help it and shuddered out loud.”
This is exactly where I’m at.
Joy, I found it interesting that you used the same word that came to me… VILE. It is. So very VILE.
And I’m not talking about the Botkin sisters themselves at all.
What I’m talking about is the insidious LIES that have hijacked these precious girls faith and lives and used them as pawns in this ugly scheme. I’ve been praying that God would help me love people as He does, and all I can figure is He must be answering it, because I’m so incredibly ANGRY right now because (and it took me a while to realize this) I love them… it’s the kind of love that is so strangely protective that I want to literally tear apart the demons that delight and take part in the perpetuation of this fraudulent subterfuge.
June 10, 2008 at 8:07 am
“This is so utterly disgusting and vile that it could only be the work of the Master of Lies. ”
Yep, it sounds like the devil’s work.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
June 10, 2008 at 8:16 am
“Corrie…I can honestly affirm that they do believe that their brothers are as much their “prophet, priest, and king” as they do of their father. The dark haired one (Anna Sofia?-I get who is who mixed up and they speak of one mind) said towards the end that she had much to repent for in the way she had treated her brothers, and admonished the girls to do likewise. I remember being bothered by the statement because it meant that the brother couldn’t be “wrong” which is always highly possible when it comes to teenage boys and testosterone…she was taking the responsibility for her (un-named) brothers actions. She described him as being “assertive”.”
Let’s see… another sister who had an “assertive” brother was David’s daughter. Her brother’s assertiveness cost her her virginity and therefore her worth in the world she lived in. She lived a shamed, lonely, rejected life. Tragic.
Paving the way for tragedy.
June 10, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Let’s see… another sister who had an “assertive” brother was David’s daughter. Her brother’s assertiveness cost her her virginity and therefore her worth in the world she lived in. She lived a shamed, lonely, rejected life. Tragic.
Paving the way for tragedy.”
Yep.
But, there are some who have already taken care of that little problem.
Tamar was the problem. She should have been more aware of her surroundings and she should have cried out louder so that someone would have come to her rescue.
I have heard teachings that say even the younger brothers have authority over their older sisters. I have seen sons given authority by their father over their mother (as if this so-called authority is something even remotely the husband’s to give) where they keep track of the money she spends, the music she listens to and the people she talks to.
The unbiblical teaching of males as “prophet, priest and king” has many tentacles. I am really surprised that the doctrine of the “nearest male relative” has not been revived among the new patrios. That used to be popular about 10 years or more ago.
As far as Tamar goes, that is not as uncommon as people might think. There are many women I know, personally, who have been sexually violated by their own brothers.
Sisters should treat their brothers with respect. Brothers should treat their sisters with the *same* respect.
June 10, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Joy,
Going back to your notes from post #80…..I am sitting her wondering what to say.
“Women were created for:
-women were made for men (1 Cor 9)
-women were made to fulfill a role (Gen 3)
-were made with a difference (Deut. 22:5)
They were made to help masculinity and suit men.”
Why do they always leave out the balancing half of these verses? BTW, that is 1 Cor 11, no 9.
Every man has come from woman since the FIRST woman was made for the FIRST man, HOWEVER woman is NOT independent of man and man is NOT independent of woman. For as WOMAN (EVE) came from man, every man since then has COME FROM a woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERYTHING has come from God.
Can we emphasize this enough? No, not with them. The first woman was made for the first man. Since then, every man has come from woman. Paul was a brilliant debater. He appealed to the Corinthians half-truths and affirmed them and then obliterated their argument by giving them the WHOLE truth. But, the patrios fall into the same error that the immature Corinthians fell into. They operate on half-truths that suit their own agendas.
The truth of it is that man and woman were created for each other. If they deny this then their whole argument about how men are the protectors and providers for women goes out the window.
“Ultimate goal is to serve God by serving men.
To help men fulfill their calling. It is [the woman's] reason for being, and [women] can’t escape this fact.”
Chapter and Verse? This is idolatry. We must escape this “fact” since it is fiction. This is not our ultimate goal.
“This “helper” role is not fully realized until marriage, and there is a huge difference between a daughter helping a father and a wife helping a husband.”
This was a statement to down-play their previous assertions and teachings that daughters are helpmeets to their fathers.
The problem is that they don’t define “helper” properly. In order to do so, they would have to examine the use of “ezer” in the Bible and see that God is a “helper” to us. A woman is a strength to her husband, not some junior assistant who has no vision or calling apart from assisting her husband.
“Man is the head of the woman.
However, it does not mean that all women must submit to all men.”
That is good to know. But, as we know, the way things boil down in Patrioland, this is not true. If women are not subordinate to all men, then why can’t women hold positions of authority in secular government? What is the reason that they give?
“A man’s job:
-to sanctify her
-to be head. (there is only one head)”
No man can sanctify any person. That is Christ’s job. 1 Cor. 7:14 is the only passage that speaks of a spouse sanctifying another spouse. It tells us that an unbelieving husband can be sanctified through his wife and vice versa.
“Note Numbers 30 (about the daughter and vows and what the father says).
State that there is no relationship with God without the father’s umbrella (once I get the recording, I’ll get the exact quote- I actually shuddered out loud.)”
I can’t wait to hear the exact quote because as it stands this is blatant heresy. Daughters were fed to the lions in the Roman arena for choosing Christ in direct defiance of their own father’s orders. I have a good story concerning this. They most certainly have a relationship with God. Jesus tells us that our relationship with Him has to supercede our relationship with our parents and that even sometimes our relationship with Him will put enmity between our earthly parents.
Thank the Lord I did not need some “umbrella” in order to have a relationship with Him. I would still be wallowing in the pit. Both of my parents came to the Lord via my testimony and witness.
“There is no pattern or precept for a girl being voluntarily separate outside of the family model (the four acceptable: wife, mother, widow, daughter in father/family’s house).”
ROFLOL!!!!
Lydia. Mary. Martha. Phoebe. All the women who followed Christ and traveled with Him and supported His ministry from their OWN means. All the women in the early church who left EVERYTHING in order to be a Christian.
Start tearing pages out of your Bibles because that is the only way we can make the above statement a truthful one.
“Quotes a Psalm reference about the “solitary being gathered into families”.”
Yep. When a person is in Christ, they become part of the family of God. That means that our mother and our brothers are those who do the will of the Father.
It doesn’t seem that the patrios understand the spiritual vs the temporal and that they are constantly confusing the two? It reminds me of when Christ was telling the Pharisees parables and they just didn’t get it.
June 10, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I have been trying to post here but we are having major DSL issues.
Joy, I am so glad that you are posting your notes. I, too, need that exact quote regarding prophet, priest and king. I know several people who need to see (hear) that so that my rants can be deemed worthy to be ranted about!
Beatrice, last fall someone I know attended the San Antonio Film Festival and came home with an autographed copy of The Return of the Daughters. He had been asked by the Botkin sisters to bring it to me. So they knew of me then which means they knew of this blog and I believe have attempted to answer our concerns in a way that will lead others to believe they aren’t so radical but, again, we have to pull back the layers to get to the meat of their message.
I have so much to say and hope this DSL problem is soon solved.
June 10, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Forgive my naivete, but do VF/QF/ Botkins, et. al. believe in a literal “Kingdom on Earth”? As in, Christ comes back and reigns on this physical Earth as we know it? Is that part of “Dominion Theology”?
Because that’s what this Botkin speech sure sounds like.
See, that’s why I’m going to seminary, to find out these things and then be able to call a spade a spade.
But first I have to be very sure I know what a spade is.
June 10, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Something struck me reading here about the relationship toward brothers and the idea that it’s all about combating feminism. It’s sexist and ignores the sins of men, blaming women, as an excuse to dominate them.
Frankly, I don’t think I need to be the world’s scapegoat. I’m not more easily deceived, I’m not less intelligent, and I don’t need to be dominated to come to Jesus.
I actually get really offended when I think about it.
June 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Do any of you have Gender and Grace by Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen? She really speaks to much of this. I may quote some of it here, but are any of you aware of this book?
June 10, 2008 at 2:34 pm
To all…I am waiting for the actual conference recording…my recorder didn’t pick it up clearly enough…it’s a bit garbled.
Cally…much as I hate to ask, do you think you could listen to yours and see how they compare? I’d be curious to see if they said something similar (about the father/faith/umbrella thing).
Cindy, I think why I was asking about the behavior was because, well, they seemed off. It wasn’t that they were being haughty (Geoff and brother was) but that they were silent. Staring straight ahead. Walking through the convention, they looked straight through things, like nothing was there in front of them. I was really really bothered by the physical closeness of Geoff. It’s one thing to keep an eye on your daughter. It’s another thing to never let them get more than an arms length away from you. I actually wondered at some point if I was over reacting to it, but my mom (who really has no idea what we have been discussing here and only saw them in the convention hall) noted how “secret-service” Geoff was with the girls- she actually used that word first- it’s a great description.
Corrie, Alisa, and Cynthia G…The whole brother/authority thing was definitely there, but they didn’t come out right and say it. It was implied by the many comments they peppered through out, particularly towards the end. The only one I wrote down was the one about the assertive brother because it sent up red flags- but there were a few more that weren’t so overt.
I’d just like to say that the notes you are reading are literal short hand. Unless I’ve noted otherwise, they used those exact words and I’ve left out the filler words (the, and, etc.) If the notes are in complete sentences, I’ve roughly paraphrased them based on the key words I scribbled down. I am endeavoring to hold to the source as much as possible. I do not wish to construe.
Corrie…I actually snorted audibly when the mentioned the “four acceptable” roles. I couldn’t help it. There were a few people around me who rolled their eyes. A woman next to me leaned over and questioned “what about an orphaned girl?” “A single mom who’s only single because she was widowed?” This lady happened to be a military homeschooling mom of a tween and two younger boys, whose husband has been gone for nearly 2 years now with a few furloughs. (like a week). She was increadibly angry at these “young things” judging her and her daughter.
June 10, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Joy, I’ll listen to it again. No worries
Something struck me as I was reading Corrie’s response to Joy’s notes:
“This “helper” role is not fully realized until marriage, and there is a huge difference between a daughter helping a father and a wife helping a husband.”
Really? Because I can’t see too much in their description of a daughter’s role in their writings, their DVD, and their lectures, that differentiates daughters and wives then the sexual aspect. Daughters are called to make their father’s calling their calling. They are to be interested in the things that interest him. Daughters can influence their fathers so that they become great men of vision. Daughters must work in their father’s business and not for some pagan out there in the world who will just view them as another cog in the machine. Daughters are to let their father’s give them goals, tell them how to dress, and give their permission for everything. The father acts as their authority. How is any of that different then a wife? Take out the sexual aspect and you’ve got a visionary daughter.
June 10, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Cally…tell me about it. That’s one of those statements that I knew was directed our way, and I couldn’t help but roll my eyes. They didn’t clarify that statement either. It was just tossed out like that, verbatim. They didn’t elaborate, and they moved on to the next point.
I was like “Oh really?”"Can you explain the difference?”"Why do you use the term helpmeet?”
You know…that half dozen questions that still remain unanswered from the Botkins after *how many*?!?! threads.
They are simple questions. With simple answers. But they won’t go there.
June 10, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I got to thinking (as I am organizing and putting away all my catalogs and schtuff from the trip)…I have to hand it to the marketing people that work for VF and Western Conservatory. That slickness sucks people in before they realize how kooky the stuff is. If it was packaged in bad graphic design or horrible colors everyone would see it for what it was and probably not touch the stuff. But it’s hard to see past the marketing. Even the choice of words for titles is misleading.
June 10, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Joy,
Did they take any questions from the audience?
Also, you mentioned that you could tell “patrio” people by the long skirts and head coverings. Interesting: In the pictures I’ve seen of the Botkin girls, they do not dress this way (and they wear makeup as well). In their books, do the Botkins recommend long skirts and headcoverings, or is the clothing just part of the subculture in general (an aspect to which the Botkins don’t subscribe)?
June 10, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I was at the same homeschool conference on Saturday and Joy’s observations ring true to me. I didn’t attend the Botkin’s seminar, but I can tell you that most everyone avoids the patriarchal vendors. For one thing, I was there to stock up on curriculum for next year and have a look around for anything new and interesting. I wasn’t there to fine tune our homeschooling lifestyle. The vendors selling real curriculum at a discount have lines of shoppers wrapping through the aisles.
You know how most of us have joked somewhere along the way that we can’t homeschool since we don’t look good in denim jumpers? Lots of folks go to HEAV with that attitude, on guard for the fringe movement. I suspect a lot of the ladies in the Botkin’s seminar were there out of curiosity instead of devotion. It doesn’t surprise me that so many walked out. I live in the area and I saw a lot of friends and acquaintances at the convention. Most would be able to spot such error. It could be a really good thing that people are hearing this so they’ll know how far off it really is. It sounds like they didn’t leave time for a Q and A time at the end. Big surprise there.
HEAV gets a bad rap for bringing in the patriarchs as keynote speakers but let me tell you, I’ve never bothered to attend a keynote. A lot of people go to shop and take in the good stuff, discarding the drivel along the way.
One problem in homeschooling is that we’re all so darn nice that we tend to let this stuff pass. But that’s a form of relativism isn’t it? You believe what you want and I’ll just try to ignore you until it affects me personally. We’ve got to get beyond that by letting the convention planners know what we really think of these legalistic and misguided “leaders”.
I predicted to myself that the Botkin girl’s seminars would not be available online after the conference. That is the case. Take a look at bestchristianconferences dot com and see for yourself that even Geoffery’s seminars are unavailable.
This is no real surprise as I’ve seen it before with other questionable seminars. Last year a friend’s husband attended a talk about work from home businesses for dads. He said they were recommending a formula for “self-sufficiency”. – Just chose a subject and grab public domain information off the internet, slap it up on your own website with lots of affiliate advertising and let the checks roll in. You don’t even need to know anything about the subject. I wanted to hear this for myself but surprise, this seminar was not available.
June 10, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“I predicted to myself that the Botkin girl’s seminars would not be available online after the conference. That is the case. Take a look at bestchristianconferences dot com and see for yourself that even Geoffery’s seminars are unavailable.”
Well. I see that this is true since I tried to order the copy of that session for myself.
These people do NOT want to be held accountable for anything.
June 10, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Mary in TN..
No, they didn’t take questions from the audience. BIG surprise there. *rolls eyes*
If you read comment #63- I talk about the NCFIC “look”. Someone else coroborates it later in the thread, Cynthia maybe? It’s obvious, especially compared to an already “conservative” crowd…
VA girl…*waves* Yeah, I like HEAV to. I think we are different than some of the conventions that way…it’s been like that since back in the day when I was homeschooled vs. homeschooling. My mom and most of the women I know (all of whom were at convention this year, so much fun to see them all!) are incredibly intelligent, knock your socks off, amazing women. And they see right through the smoke and mirrors. Most of what I know, I learned from them. It was actually pretty cool to see the evolution of homeschooling since I graduated…I jokingly referred to myself as one of the guinea pig homeschoolers…way back when abeka and saxon were the only math, and math-u-see and Singapore were unheard of; when Sonlight was in it’s infancy, and no one had heard of the classical approach much…Patrick Henry College didn’t even exist!
On the recording…I ordered mine as the full CD set to be shipped to me. They showed those workshops as available- did something change?
AND…how freakin’ predictable is that?
June 10, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Confession- I didn’t go to any of the workshops besides the 21st Century Daughter, and the Economides (which were fabulous, I might add-did a run down on my blog). I didn’t attend one keynote!
*blushes deeply* Please excuse all of the grammar errors of the last 24 hours…I am typing fast and furious and not thinking about mechanics. James is on a business trip and after 72 hours of full on kids, my brain is beyond shot!
June 10, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Mary in TN- Corrie talks about the “look” of the NCFIC crowd in #76.
June 10, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Mrs. Joy,
Re: Comment #63. That’s what I find odd. The leaders themselves (based on what I’ve seen of their blogs) don’t seem to dress this way (at least not in public). That’s what surprises me about the pictures I’ve seen of the Botkin girls– they are dressed very, very– well, nicely.
With the clothing (based on what I’ve seen– I do not want to put words in the Botkins’ mouths), ths speeches, and the lifestyle appearance (which is all I have to go on), it seems like a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
June 10, 2008 at 5:03 pm
PS– Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t care how people dress– until they tell me how to dress and be “modest”.
June 10, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Oh yes. I see what you mean. I’ve always found it odd too!
June 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Mrs. Joy, don’t worry too much about any typos or errors. Your great amount of excellent content has given everyone so much to chew on that I doubt anyone even noticed any mistakes.
As far as the Botkin girls, I remember a while back someone here shared that after their young ‘uns watched a short video of the Botkin girls, they asked their mommy if the girls were actually robots. Your description of the girls walking through the conference reminded me of that.
While I found the young kids’ take on the Bodkin girls as robots pretty funny, I also find it terribly sad. Because I believe that patriarchs are, indeed, trying to turn young women into robot-like creatures, made to provide them service and comfort and absolutely nothing more. Not “So Much More,” but nothing more.
June 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm
OK, these are from Van Leeuwen’s Gender and Grace—and i will say that i don’t agree with all she writes in this book. But some thoughts are very striking in our context here, esp about women.
I will quote and summarize. she says that as the result of the fall, man’s propensity is to dominate (need i expound further about that?), and woman’s propensity is to become enmeshed in even pathological relationships. women avoid taking risks that could disturb a relationship. “Now this is a very seductive temptation indeed, for it so very easily masquerades as virtue.after all, don’t Christians see self-sacrificing servanthood and the desire to maintain peace and social unity as fruits of the Holy Spirit? Well, yes and no, depending on the context. if women insist on peace at any price–if they settle for abnormal quietism as a way of avoiding the risk and potential isolation that may result from opposing evil–then they are not exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit. They are sinning just as surely as the man who rides roughshod over relationships in order to assert his individual freedom. . . . One of the main problems of today’s counseling psychologists is accounting for women’s constant tendency to avoid developing personal self-sufficiency for the sake of preserving even pathological relationships with the opposite sex.” (pp45-46)
Very appropriate words here.
June 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm
birth…
I hadn’t heard of the book before. Very interesting in the context of our discussion!
June 10, 2008 at 6:50 pm
RE: comment 150.
The issues addressed in that quotation are the same issues I have with the women’s conduct in FLDS. I also have to wonder about patrio. women’s private lives– it all seems too good to be true. And by that, I mean that something feels like a facade.
BTW: Does anyone have an online link to the Botkin girls in a video, by chance? I’d like to see them on camera and interviewed, if possible.
June 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Birth,
Great quote. It is interesting how the patriocentrists never talk about the very real problem of men dominating women. It would seem they would since the Bible tells us that this will be one of the sinful results of the Fall. They seem to focus all their attention on the “feminists” and blame them for all their woes in the world. But, for most of history, we see men riding “roughshod” over women and we see this most clearly in the patriarchal cultures where polygamy, concubines, slavery, etc were commonplace.
June 10, 2008 at 6:57 pm
“Cindy, I think why I was asking about the behavior was because, well, they seemed off. It wasn’t that they were being haughty (Geoff and brother was) but that they were silent. Staring straight ahead. Walking through the convention, they looked straight through things, like nothing was there in front of them. I was really really bothered by the physical closeness of Geoff. It’s one thing to keep an eye on your daughter. It’s another thing to never let them get more than an arms length away from you. I actually wondered at some point if I was over reacting to it, but my mom (who really has no idea what we have been discussing here and only saw them in the convention hall) noted how “secret-service” Geoff was with the girls- she actually used that word first- it’s a great description.”
Before I scrolled down to Debbie’s comment, I immediately remembered that a lady here had shared that her young daughter had seen some of the Return of the Daughters movie and had asked unsolicited if the Botkin girls were robots. I find that unsettling that a young child would so easily tap into that … there must be something going on there. When I actually saw the trailer, the girls were beautiful and well dressed, everything, but they seemed somewhat stiff. And their language and diction were extremely grandiose. Apparently girls who subscribe to their views are “rebuilding the foundations of Western Civilisation”. (rolling my eyes) Anyways …
I almost got chills down my spine when I read what you wrote about their eyes, Joy. I know I jerked in my seat. I cannot articulate how this haunts me. It has very deep significance in my own life and what I see in the lives of others, both people I know and people I’ve only heard of, and all kinds of things I can’t go into because some are personal and the rest would take a book to write about. I just had to say this at least, though.
Cindy K., I wonder, do you have any perspective you can give on this demeanor that’s been observed in the Botkin girls?
We really, really need to pray for them.
(Elizabeth, Anna Sofia, try to forgive me if you read this. I know you believe you’re fighting a battle that desperately needs to be fought, but I have to disagree with the things you’re teaching. Because you challenged me in your book to be a Berean. I am a girl in your general age range and I am honestly concerned for you.)
June 10, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Maybe this will help, Mary? If someone hasn’t already found it …
http://visionarydaughters.com/return-of-the-daughters/
June 10, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Whoah! That is really odd! I could have sworn this was the link I saw with the sisters in it. I went and pasted it from the first Visionary Daughters discussion and I remember clearly that the video it led to had the two sisters talking and appearing a lot in it. But now they have changed the clip. Maybe they liked this one better … *shrug*
June 10, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Beatrice,
The link you have just posted is the only one I’ve ever seen for the Botkin video– I’ve never seen the other one you mention.
June 10, 2008 at 7:24 pm
“What is so sad is that it’s often being done with the best of intentions. No one sets out to put a person in the place of Christ, and no one sets out to put themselves in His place. So many good people are being decieved and decieving others. The Botkin girls, their father, etc, are no exception.”
Molly do you believe that the Pharisees had good intentions? From my reading, intentions did not matter in the case of the Pharisees. They did set out to control and profit from their positions. Jesus had some very harsh words for them. Was he not being compassionate not only to them but to their followers when He told the truth about them?
“It’s so important to remember that, because then we can maintain a level of compassion that is needed—we can look at these teachers as fellow brothers and sisters imprisoned by false teaching, WHILE strongly and firmly denouncing what they teach.”
Were the Pharisees and Judaizers bearing good fruit? Scripture teaches us that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. What is fruit? Matthew 5 tells us. I cannot say for certain that these folks are my brothers and sisters in Christ (GASP) because they teach a different Jesus than the one in scripture.
1Timothy 6
3If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
4he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,
5and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1 corinthians 11 is a rebuke to that church for allowing a different Jesus to be taught…Paul warns them:
19For you,being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly.
20For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face.
21To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison But in whatever respect anyone else is bold–I speak in foolishness–I am just as bold myself.
In 1 Timothy 1 Paul makes distinctions (and in Hebrews 10 we see the same thing) between those who are deceived out of ignorance and those who deceive on purpose. Paul deceived out of ignorance until the Lord saved him on the road to Damascus. But Paul warns and rebukes publicly those who deceive on purpose. These folks have the same Bible that you and I do. It is not a matter of disagreeing on secondary doctrines to them. It is a matter of enslaving people to legalism that literally turns them away from an intimate relationship with their Savior to look to mere men and their man made rules for salvation and sanctification.
That is a different Jesus. And it is quite serious with eternal implications.
June 10, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Mary,
I do have the Visionary Daughter video that features the Botkin girls. I am not sure what they are like in person but they seem robotic in documentary. My 4 year old daughter asked me, while we were watching it for the first time, if the girls were “real or robots”. The other girls that were featured didn’t have this quality that I remember. At least some of them didn’t.
Why aren’t the Botkin daughters courting or betrothed? They are in their twenties and I thought that their message was that all women are born to marry and serve their husband’s vision and have lots of babies? Surely some young men somewhere have shown interest in them to have them as their own servers of vision?
I find it ironic that they have praise of Hannah More of the Blue Stocking Society on their blog recently.
http://visionarydaughters.com/2008/05/hannah-more-on-the-education-of-women
It sounds like a bunch of white-washed upper class priviledged feminists to me.
The women in this group generally had a higher education and LESS children than most other women.
Well, no kidding. When a woman marries young, has no education because she has had to work hard from a young age to help support her family and then goes on to have many children of her own, who had time for sitting around and discussing books in the 1700’s? Only the rich women with few children.
This group is hailed by historians as having “preserved and advanced the feminist movement” by advocating education for women and complaining about the social status and lifestyle relegated to women.
I am doing a little reading about Hannah More and her sister and it looks like she (they) never married. The Botkin girls praise her for helping William Wilberforce but isn’t that completely against what the Botkins teach? Shouldn’t Hannah have helped her father with his vision and not out doing her own thing? Hannah also had a lot of MALE friends.
Hannah seems like a white-washed feminist who did NOT follow her God-ordained path in life and the Botkins are praising her and using her as fodder for THEIR cannon to shoot at us? LOL!
Here is a quote from the founder of the English society:
” “In a woman’s education little but outward accomplishments is regarded…sure the men are very imprudent to endeavor to make fools of those to whom they so much trust their honour and fortune, but it is in the nature of mankind to hazard their peace to secure power, and they know fools make the best slaves.”-Elizabeth Montagu[1] 1743.”
June 10, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Sorry, Mary.
There was another one, with the Botkin sisters appearing together and narrating a preview of the film. Their narration interwove with a few short clips of different girls testifying. I’m so sure! But now I feel like I have some memory disorder or something. 
June 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Speaking of Mrs. Botkin, there is a recent Mother’s Day tribute to her on the girls’ blog.
http://visionarydaughters.com/2008/05/mothers-day-tribute
It is interesting because she is praised for how subordinate and overshadowed she is and how she cares for and teaches, not her children but “his [Geoffrey Botkin's] children”.
I guess the children don’t even belong to the mother, something that Lindvall teaches. Never once does this daughter refer to her mother’s children as “her children” which would be appropriate for a Mother’s Day tribute. The whole focus of this praise of their mother is on their father.
This tribute to their mother truly contains their “gospel message” in a nutshell. The focus is on the father at all times, even when praising their mother. God forbid they should leave him out if it for one nanosecond.
“And the woman that I call “blessed.” A woman who lost her life for His sake and found it, who made her husband great, and was subordinate to him in everything, though inferior to him in nothing.
My mother was God’s instrument to teach me what it meant to be a virtuous woman. Partly through her verbal instruction, but mostly through the silent example of her actions and deeds. Most of all, through the way she executed her duty to complement and complete my father. She is his perfect match and the sine qua non of his greatness. She delights him with her company and conversation, sustains him with her strength, stimulates and sharpens him with her wisdom and intelligence, emboldens him with her praise, bolsters him with her cheerfulness, comforts him with her love, and heartens him with her courage.
Maybe the most significant way that she contributed to his success was by instilling his vision into his children. The things she chose for us to study, the things she taught us were important, the projects she encouraged us to pursue, were all in perfect harmony with his objective for our family.
She is uniquely suited to be the teacher of his children because the qualities that our father wants his family to be known for – dominion focus, ingenuity, creativity, entrepreneurialism, love of learning, a pioneer spirit – are all qualities that our mother models in every thing that she does.
The most important things I learned come from observing her two greatest strengths. First of all, her Humility.
I see her humility in her willingness to be overshadowed by Dad. She prefers to bask in his shadow than to chase after the fame and adulation that could so easily and rightly be hers. I’ve never known a woman who cared about personal glory less, or who deserved it more. She will be remembered with more respect than her contemporaries, who fought with religious zeal for recognition and prestige, and now have no one to rise up and call them “blessed.”
The other strength I would mention is her Courage.
Like a true pioneer, Mother was never affected by the fact that she was often standing alone, being “the only one” faithful in an entire country, and doing things no one else was doing. She never even considered the wave of disapproval that came from all sides for her decision to follow Scripture instead of modern culture.
At the altar, Mother promised to go wherever our father went, and to gratefully share in whatever Providence had in store for him, sometimes respect and appreciation, sometimes persecution and rejection, sometimes a high station, sometimes a low one. It’s her calm and unquenchable energy, her willingness to forego comfort and stability, her ability to adapt gracefully to any situation, that allows my father’s heart to safely trust in her. When a man’s heart can safely trust in his wife, it allows him to be a visionary, an entrepreneur, who can live boldly and dare to do great things.
He knew, as I did, that whenever times were the toughest, that’s when Mother is the strongest. That’s why, seven years ago, Dad was not nervous about asking her to leave her country that she loved, to follow him to the ends of the earth.
Last but not least, I appreciate her courage to go through painful labor to bring me into the world. The fact that I’m here to stand before you now is a testimony to that courage. It’s that courage that I especially would like to honor today.”
June 10, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Corrie, I saw that about Hannah More. I’m with you – what was the exact point and how does Hannah More make a good example of femininity for them? I’m guessing it’s that quote from Hannah about male oppression being a myth, which may have been a big point of the post.
About male oppression – there is an angry, hateful kind of feminism that utterly hates men and I want nothing to do with that and it’s not true that men are all beasts and tyrants. There are SO many good, kind men. And so many cruel, selfish women. But to imply that there has never really been any significant pattern of the often physically stronger and often more socially powerful abusing their power, and even worse, to condemn legitimate reactions against this pattern of abuse is not right. I think some over-patriarchal Christians have swerved in this direction.
June 10, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Beatrice, you’re not imagining it. The older clip was pretty much the Botkins with a few other clips thrown in.
They mentioned Hannah Moore in the speech on Friday.
Checked the recording list for the CD’s, and they are in fact on there. So we’ll see when I actually get them!
June 10, 2008 at 8:34 pm
You know what makes me the maddest in all this?
Is that all it takes are a few weirdos to make those of us who DO want to be home, to train our daughters (and sons, in my house!) to do household work, who believe in gender roles in the home and church, who homeschool and want to dress in a modest way (i.e. not like in short shorts and tight tight tops) look stupid. The racism and quotes on Thatmom from Stacy McDonald disgust me.
It’s like the world sees these folks and assume all homeschooling conservative Christian families are like this.
AHHHH!!!
June 10, 2008 at 8:53 pm
She will be remembered with more respect than her contemporaries, who fought with religious zeal for recognition and prestige, and now have no one to rise up and call them “blessed.”
I am perfectly willing to believe that they will remember their mother’s above-described behaviour with respect, provided God does not show them the error of the doctrine they teach. However, the implications I see here go beyond women who fight with “religious zeal for recognition and prestige.” Going by the content of this piece of writing, I would posit that the girls are here implying that all women who do not behave in the exact same manner as their mother must by DEFAULT be vying for prestige. That is, they leave no room between the two extremes for any women who simply want to chase hard after Christ without bowing down to household gods into the bargain.
I don’t know, I just don’t see how they can so blithely declare that the women who do not behave as Mrs Botkin have none to call them blessed, particularly since, as it so happens, I am sitting here at this very moment and calling blessed every woman spared the agony of being spiritually and emotionally crippled by this man-made yoke; I also call blessed every woman God has tenderly, lovingly and joyously made free from such things, as well as every woman who will one day be made free from what He never meant for her to bear.
I just feel really, really heavy every time I read something they have written. I can’t even begin imagine how they must feel, writing, living and actually believing it.
June 10, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Julie…exactly! It drives me bonkers too.
That reminds me. I got to thinking about a lot of us that have been here on the blog for a while: we’ve all had a tremendous crisis of faith because of this patriocentric junk in one way or another. Some of us have come out the other side with a completely different perspective than we would have ever had before (Molly chronicles her journey at Adventures in Mercy; Cally and Anne write at White Washed Feminist; I haven’t gotten brave enough yet to reveal my whole journey outside of what I share on TW). I find that both wonderful (our faith has been strengthened) but OTOH, saddening (because we were misled and confused by patriocentric authors). Do you know what I mean?
I mean, we all had these huge millstone necklaces and it chafed and burned our necks. Many of us still have a bad scar there…it’s hard not to notice. It’s hard not to wince. Nothing quite seems the same at all.
Sorry. I am just saddened and angered. I wish there were easy answers, but I know there is not.
June 10, 2008 at 9:46 pm
“Cindy, I think why I was asking about the behavior was because, well, they seemed off. It wasn’t that they were being haughty (Geoff and brother was) but that they were silent. Staring straight ahead. Walking through the convention, they looked straight through things, like nothing was there in front of them. I was really really bothered by the physical closeness of Geoff. It’s one thing to keep an eye on your daughter. It’s another thing to never let them get more than an arms length away from you. I actually wondered at some point if I was over reacting to it, but my mom (who really has no idea what we have been discussing here and only saw them in the convention hall) noted how “secret-service” Geoff was with the girls- she actually used that word first- it’s a great description.”
If I didn’t know better I’d say it sounded like they were in trouble of some kind and afraid of Daddy. Maybe he was sticking so close to keep them from running away.
Not that I was there, not that I saw anything, not that I know anything. I’m just saying when I first read this description it bothered me, a lot, and after sleeping on it that’s why. That’s how it sounded to me.
But I have no doubt I’m quite wrong. I just think they ought to know that might be the message they’re sending out unintentionally.
June 10, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Annie C, I wonder if you through Cally Tyrol for a loop when she reads your post. When I was younger I went by Annie (Cally’s one of the few people who’s known me long enough to remember me that way) and my maiden name started with a C. I know I do a double take when I see your posts.
June 10, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Julie, I agree. That’s why I started looking into all this in the first place. I dress modestly, I even look good in a denim jumper, and everyone assumed I followed the patriocentric path. Which couldn’t be further from the truth.
June 10, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Anne..
I’m laughing at this, really. My first name is Tiffany, but I stopped using it when I started working and started using my middle name, Anne, because I thought it sounded more professional. Then my husband started calling me Annie, and the C. is for my married name, of course. But now that I know this…I’m sorry Cally, I hope it’s not too confusing.
At least we have different colored quilts, if they were both lavender we’d be in trouble.
June 10, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Annie C., Oh my goodness–still another parallel with the FLDS! Unhappy girls, ready to bolt, climb out an open window, and escape at any opportunity… This just can’t happen! AWOL daughters of high-profile patriarchs make for unacceptable press!
Who really knows? Maybe while Botkin Daddy stood sentry at the ladies’ room entry, Botkin son guarded the powder room’s exterior window?
But I’m guessing that’s not the case here, merely because the light’s gone from these poor girls’ eyes; the sparkle’s disappeared. They’ve given up and are resigned to their fate.
Do they ever smile? Where’s their joy and hope? It will never be found with the patriarchs.
June 11, 2008 at 12:37 am
Well you know, one of the easiest ways to come to terms with your situation is to talk about how great it is and glamourize it.
Maybe the light HAS gone out of their eyes and they do these talks and such to convince themselves that they really are happy as daddy’s little helpmeets.
June 11, 2008 at 12:54 am
Annie C, actually, I thought you might be Chief Executive Mom, Annie Crawford, coming back to the internet from a too long hiatus. She was one of my favorite bloggers @ anniecrawford.com
LOL!!
June 11, 2008 at 1:29 am
Lin,
I just saw your comment (way back there somewhere). I agree with you. There is a balance. On the one hand, we have people who fall into these things with good intentions. But there are people who, at a certain point or all along, realize they are leading people into bondange and DO SO ON PURPOSE, for reasons of personal gain.
The difficult part is distinguishing which is which with accuracy.
The Botkin girls are young and are ruled over by an obviously “dominion-minded” father who’s force-fed his version of Christianity to them. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. I feel so so so sorry for those girls. I pray that God would open their eyes, but I know that if He does, they will experience great pain for some time.
I know that when I left the simplicity of Christ for legalism, I did so with the BEST of intentions. I truly believed I was following Christ. It was only later that I would realize just how faaaaar I’d fallen from grace.
Funny, we use “fallen from grace” as an indicator of a life of sin. But in context, Gal. 5’s “fallen from grace” refers to those who’ve left relying on Christ for their righteousness and have chosen instead to lean on law-keeping.
There are people that I deal with who are heavy-handed law-keepers. For safety’s sake (my own heart’s safety, since I am called to love), I choose to see them as well-intentioned but decieved.
I can’t judge their hearts. I’m human—only God can see the heart of a thing. I will fight their teaching tooth and nail, to be sure. But I don’t want to fight *them.* In fighting against their anti-Gospel teaching, I am fighting *for* their own hearts and for the hearts of all those they will try to influence.
Does that make any sense? I lived in the land of the patriocentrics too long, where everyone that didn’t believe things our way was The Enemy. I just don’t want to be that way anymore. *They* aren’t the enemy. They’re blind leaders of the blind. They need the light of Christ just as I do.
June 11, 2008 at 3:55 am
Molleth, that makes perfect sense. As angry as I am about teachings like Doug Phillip’s ectopic pregnancy lecture, I’m aware that one day we will see each other clearly and each of us will see where we have gone wrong and the divide between us here on earth will be no more.
June 11, 2008 at 7:15 am
Corrie – your post about “they’ve got a recording studio etc and they’re still asking for $40,000″ – I was in the middle of typing something up in practically the same words with exactly the same sense of outrage that came over in your post, when my older daughter came in and asked how she was supposed to know whether she had faith, so I never finished the post, because she was more important – she’s going through a crisis at the moment wondering whether to be baptised and confirmed and thinking about what she does believe or doesn’t. We had a long conversation – in fact it’s still ongoing – and we’re scheduling some bible research time together. She’s 16, attends church every Sunday, reads the Bible, goes to a Bible study group and has had preparation for baptism, but decided not to go forward because she was uncertain of being able to commit and is now very seriously researching what she believes. I know that when she makes a committment it will be 100% – but she has to do it her way and follow how God is leading her.
(Sorry about small personal digression)
Anyway – reading and not posting, ‘cos I haven’t had time, I thought you and others might be happy to know that what comes across from this blog and the last 24 – 48 hours of discussions about the ‘Botkin doctrine’ is how very concerned you all are about the wellbeing and happiness of these young girls, and how much you want people to see the truth of Christ, and how only He saves and justifies us. It comes across how hurt you have been by what you’ve been through, but the spirit of love is so very definitely there in what has been written. I love the fact that while anger and hurt are freely expressed, they are expressed with a sense of sorrow, and an awareness of the need to forgive as Christ forgives. It’s really inspiring and heart-warming.
If this blog is ‘under scrutiny’ we need to be extra careful of what we write, and I for one apologise if I’ve seemed a little flippant or irreverent at times. It’s this silly sense of humour – I must squash it. I do sincerely believe, and love and trust – I’m just still a very struggling and imperfect Christian!
Also, could we have a teaching thread perhaps, examining this ‘doctrine’ of femalae subordination, and looking at the Biblical references to how women should behave? I’d be interested in doing some research too, and looking at how the early Church fathers also amended scriptural doctrine to suit their cultural values.
Have to go now – am taking 42 children away for an adventure holiday for the next three days.
Love and blessings to all of you as you discuss this. I too am praying for these girls – it’s so sad. My own daughter may have no certainty of being saved, but at least she is allowed to speak to Christ directly, without a mediator, and no paternal imperative comes between her and His voice in her heart.
June 11, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Forty-two children Joanna? :O
May God bless you, hope you have a wonderful time.
June 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Joanna,
I will be praying for your daughter. I think that the way you both are handling this is very wonderful. She must “own” her own faith and know that she knows that she knows. I respect that in a young person and it shows that you have raised her to think for herself and not to parrot or adopt your values and faith just because.
Have a wonderful time with 42 children! LOL
June 11, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“I can’t judge their hearts. I’m human—only God can see the heart of a thing. I will fight their teaching tooth and nail, to be sure. But I don’t want to fight *them.* In fighting against their anti-Gospel teaching, I am fighting *for* their own hearts and for the hearts of all those they will try to influence. ”
Only God can say who is saved in the end so it is NOT a matter of juding a heart. But He did give us scripture and He does teach us that we MUST judge a book by its cover. Else, we would not have so much teaching on fruit and so many warnings of wolves and false teachers. Jesus Christ wants His followers to make judgements on what is from Him and what is from false teaching. It is the Holy Spirit through the Word that gives us that discernment.
Perhaps we need to define what is ‘fighting’? It would be a huge waste of time to fight with the Patriarches. They are simply too good at what they do. Most wolves are. But being detailed about what is false teaching in leading others AWAY from Christ is not mean or hateful. Like you, I cut the kids (or young adults) some slack who have been brainwashed and isolated. But, lets be honest, in the end, they will not be cut any slack if they are still following man instead of Christ. God is Love but He is also perfect Justice and Wrath. Both are uncomfortable Doctrines that are left out of most teaching these days.
However, pointing out error of their teaching NOT hateful, mean or unloving. There is a difference in scripture between those who are NOT believers and those who claim to be but teach untruths that lead people AWAY from an intimate relationship with Christ. This is outlined in 1 Corinthians 5 very clearly. Paul says, don’t judge the outside world..the unbelievers or the culture. But we ARE to judge the teaching and behavior within the Body. Peter said, Judgment begins in the Body. In 1 Corinthians Paul teaches that we should have several teach/preach and the others judge the teaching/preaching. If I teach every week to a group of believers and they never check out what I teach, then I am poorer for it and I could end up teaching my own doctrines.
That is accountability and contending for the Word. It is not fair or even biblical to say we are unloving because we point out false teaching with those who claim Christ and are public teachers.
“Does that make any sense? I lived in the land of the patriocentrics too long, where everyone that didn’t believe things our way was The Enemy. I just don’t want to be that way anymore. *They* aren’t the enemy. They’re blind leaders of the blind. They need the light of Christ just as I do.”
There is no such thing as a belief OUR WAY or ‘Their way’. There is ONLY scripture. We can all agree to disagree in love on secondary/teriary doctrines that do not affect salvation and be the richer for it. However, when the teaching (whether on primary or secondary doctrines) leads people AWAY from Christ and following mere men, then it is from the enemy. As mean as it sounds, there ARE enemies of Christ who claim to follow Him. Matthew 7 is clear on this as are other passages. The NT scriptures are full of warnings to that effect. The letters to the churches in Revelations should be a wake up call for all of us.
We should love our enemies but we should love Christ and the Word even more and to the point that we contend for it. Most people miss the distinction in scripture between an enemy of Christ who is an unbeliever and one who claims to be speaking for Christ. The latter should be rebuked publicly and stayed away from.
The blood of the Martyrs has been the seed of the church for thousands of years. Unbelievers (enemies of Christ) were saved because Christians went to the pyre singing hymns. Now, what do we do with those who claim Christ, claim they speak for Christ yet preach a different Jesus?
It is NOT unloving to rebuke them publicly. It is our duty and presses on our hearts if we love the Lord and His Word. For we cannot stand to see His precious Word maligned.
June 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm
For more evidence that this blog is being read by patriocentrists:
http://inashoe.com/?p=2372
June 11, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Please do consider Joanna’s idea of teaching threads. I know there may be materials “out there” already, but the women on this blog have a special insight and interest right now.
We need concise and accessible Bible teaching about these issues. The discussion style is very edifying for those of us who are neither novices nor young
but if these young girls are reading, another format might be helpful. Perhaps topic by topic, or in a Q & A manner.
Teaching threads could also be of benefit to daughters of regular readers here.
June 11, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Has anybody seen this “personal/independent research” on ectopic pregnancy?
http@@@://inashoe.com/?p=2372
The research and conclusions drawn seem a little lop-sided. A commenter attempted to point this out, but the writer politely disagreed.
I know it was discussed above, but didn’t Cindy or someone post that 2 out of 3 cases where the tube ruptures end in maternal death?
June 11, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I tried to post this link and it got lost in moderation…
I commented over there. I believe my comment is #13… “Jennifer”
All this talk about Biblical arguments but NO ONE IS OFFERING ONE! And Kim’s whole argument is that ectopic pregnancies aren’t life threatening to the mother. Okay then, what about me?
I just posted on “White Washed Feminist” about why I don’t argue with people like Kim:
http:// @@ whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/remind-me/
June 11, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Lin,
I agree that it is not unloving to rebuke them publically. I think you might be misunderstanding what I’m saying (or I said it unclearly). I’m 100% for exposing this filth. I was just expressing that I felt sorrow for those who’d been decieved by it, that I didn’t view *them* as the enemy (or, at least, that I’m trying not to) but rather the false teaching.
Amy R. and Joanna,
Easier said than done. There is no “concise Bible teaching” about these issues. There is ample room for many different ways of looking at things.
1 Cor. 11, for example…oh my goodness, there are MANY valid Scripturally-based interpretations. A scholar friend of mine just had me read the link below, with a note saying “just when you thought it was safe,” referring to how just when we thought there were only about 20 valid ways to interpret 1 Cor. 11, here comes this (very sound, very well-researched) thought (not for young readers). I read with gaping mouth, thinking it HAD to be a joke, but, no…not a joke, actually something really worth considering:
http://waterandspirit.blogspot.com/2008/06/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know.html
I know that saying there is more than one valid way to interpret some passages will make some cry, “postmodern!” But, er, it’s just the truth.
Take the word “kephale” used for head in Eph. 5. The patriarchal camp presupposes it means “leader.” There is ample scholarship to suggest that it does not. Before we assume that it cannot mean leader, though, there is some scholarship to suggest that it *could*
In other words, there is no way to tell which interpretation is The Right One when it comes to that passage (though there is a lot we can learn by studying carefully).
June 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2008/06/kephale-in-translation.html
Interesting article on kephale (“head”) on the Better Bibles Blog (a blog by Bible translators)and discussion in the comments box about the 1 Cor. 11 article linked to above.
June 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Hmmm…
Maybe that would be a good idea, thatmom & crew. Taking a look at the different “women” passages and providing a few different (sound) ways to look at them.
The patrio’s partially get their crowd by claiming that THEY are the Bible-believing ones, that THEY are the only ones who are reading and obeying their Bibles. It’s a big black and white, either/or “fight” that they see.
In actuality, they have an interpretational grid that presupposes them into seeing the Bible from their agenda and only their agenda, and blinds them to the other plausible interpretations. While claiming loudly that others need to look at the counsel of Scripture, they ignore much of it (anything that doesn’t fit into their grid).
Many times, sound Biblical scholarship is emphatically *not* on the side of the patriarchs. But instead of being able to agree with that, they sputter and spit and say that if the scholars don’t agree, it’s because the scholars are on Satan’s team.
June 11, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I knew somebody would think of something!
Another possibility would be to examine women in the Bible. We know that the patrios tend to ignore Deborah, Huldah, Lydia, etc.
We could bring these approved-by-God women out and shine the light on them.
June 11, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Personally, I’ve learned within my own extended family that it is very difficult to change somebody’s mind on these issues. I still can’t quite remember what changed ‘my’ mind. It was submission to Christ, I think. Opening my mind and heart to other teaching came ‘after’ He had impressed upon me that I was going to ruin my family if I persisted in false doctrine.
Thankfully the better teaching was available when I was ready for it. That is why the conversation needs to always go on. She who has ears to hear…
I’m thinking of all the women and girls who are still on the fence about these issues. Perhaps they haven’t heard of Huldah or Deborah. Perhaps they haven’t noticed how Jesus treated women. These topics are not all that debatable; we could begin there.
June 11, 2008 at 5:17 pm
That would be great, too, but “the women passages” should also be covered. Because of the way the patrios interpet “the women passages,” they say that Deborah, Huldah, Lydia, etc., are NOT to be emulated (if not were outrightly in sin—-I’ve heard that because Barak is in the Hebrews 11 hall of fame and Deborah isn’t, that it proves she was out of her place).
Like I said, they claim that others are coming to the Bible with an agenda, but their agenda is patently clear and when parts of the Bible don’t agree with their agenda, they find all sorts of creative ways to get rid of it.
June 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Keep in mind that Kim at In A Shoe is a HEAVY supporter of VF and patriarchy. I believe her husband works for Doug, or did at one time.
Spunky and some of us tried to have a decent debate there on her blog once regarding patrio stuff, and we were constantly told we were throwing about “straw man” arguments.
Some people you can’t debate with….so I would just take it with a grain of salt.
That is why I love TW. We let ANYONE jump in the fray and speak their mind and discuss these issues. Why not the others?
June 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Molly,
the article you linked to is fascinating. It’s one interpretation I personally could not have conceived (hah!) of on my own, having no grounding or background in Greek at all, and yet . . . well, there it is. Yet one more way to interpret it!
Pity they don’t have anything like those easy-to-learn language packs for this, isn’t it? Something like Classical Greek in Ten Easy Steps . . . ah well, a girl can dream
June 11, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Yeah, I knew that her husband was one of the “in” guys at VF.
I was kind of wondering what the more knowledgeable ladies (nurses, etc) here thought about her research. It seemed quite selective to me.
In all honesty, if I were in that situation I want to say that I would initially take the “watch and wait” approach until absolutely convinced that there was no way to save the pregnancy, short of allowing the situation to claim an additional needless victim.
But that said… I’m noticing something here. We already know that the patriocentric arguments are less than scholarly and logical (OR Biblical), but too many people still gravitate to them.
Think about it; what Christian mother wouldn’t welcome the good news that in the event of an ectopic pregnancy her baby isn’t instantly sentenced to death, but that she instead can play the heroine and “fight for life” to save her baby that modern medicine just wants to discard? It’s a wonderfully novel, new reality.
But that’s just it. For 99.9% of the cases it is in fact A NEW REALITY. A FALSE one. So let’s see…
The facts are rearranged to meet our desired outcome.
Isn’t that what Scientologist’s do? It was my understanding that they basically believe that you can *think* something into being true, into reality. Mind over matter. Am I wrong?
So how is this “researched” insistence that ALL ectopic pregnancies being safe any different?
June 11, 2008 at 6:52 pm
It seems to me that she is grouping ectopic pregnancies in the fallopian tubes,always fatal for baby, with ectopic pregnancies elsewhere in the abdomen where the baby might have a slim chance at survival, as we saw recently with that ovarian pregnancy that went full term in India.This is misleading to her readers who have not done their homework on this subject (i.e thinking it was “egg-topic”). They may be diagnosed with a “tubal” pregnancy and think that the baby may have a chance at survival. I think this makes all the difference when making the decision. Certainly any of us would lay our life down for a baby if there is a chance that the baby would survive. But if there is no chance of survival, why should both die. As has been said before – this is not prolife!
June 11, 2008 at 6:54 pm
And by the way- you all need to keep your voices down a bit- I guess we are the “loud bloggers”.
June 11, 2008 at 6:57 pm
“Certainly any of us would lay our life down for a baby if there is a chance that the baby would survive. But if there is no chance of survival, why should both die. As has been said before – this is not prolife!”
Mary, exactly.
I think it was thatmom that posted a link about Gianna Molla who took her baby full term at the cost of her own life. THAT is no greater love.
And it is also the difference in the arguments here. NONE of us are endorsing ending a pregnancy where the baby has a chance at life.
June 11, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Darnit! I took Kim’s bait AGAIN!! Grrrr Aaarrrgggh! She tried to use Exodus 20 (Thou shalt not murder) to justify her murderous position. Hello! It doesn’t apply! Murder has to do with intent. Ending a pregnancy in life of the mother cases has the intent of saving the mother’s life, not ending the child’s. Exodus 20 doesn’t apply.
Okay, I’m done over there. I’m going to set my browsers to ban me.
June 11, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Concerning the secret service/bodyguard role of Mr. Botkin over his girls at the convention, could it simply be that given their “celebrity” status that he is merely fending off any “paparazzi”?
June 11, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Loud? Me? Loud?
Wherever would they get that idea….
Honestly, some “research” isn’t research at all. I can find “evidence” and “statistics” to make my case for ANYTHING. Afterall, isn’t that what the internet is for? Dream it and you can acheive it? If a website says it is so, it must be, right!?!?
June 11, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I just went to the in a shoe post and my blood pressure is so high I could pass out. These women are so sickeningly impressionable.
Tell them something is abortion and poof! It must be so!
I really worry for them. Whatever happened to THINKING FOR YOURSELF.
Somewhere in the post Kim mentions that the odds of dying are 1 in 1600. That isn’t exactly a small tiny little chance. If we knew that eating a certain food would cause us to die 1 out of 1600 times, it would be banned. If we knew that 1 out of 1600 times that we cranked our car, we’d die in a crash, we’d never drive.
What gets me, is that being such crazed fertility zealots that they are, they don’t side more on the fence of saving the fallopian tube. Women have exactly 2 of them. When they are both gone, you don’t conceive naturally. So a woman has a tubal, chooses to let the pregnancy “continue” and then they lose 1 of their 2 tubes, thus shortening their fertility by nearly 50%.
I can’t decide if they are a fertility cult or if they’re just a bunch of crazed people running amok in the homeschool community.
I know my language is strong, but I am really TIRED of these people being some sort of mouthpiece or example for the average homeschooling family. They are NOT. They are FRINGE baby.
It’s like letting the state of Rhode Island be a mascot for the whole USA. It just isn’t an indicative picture of the WHOLE group, you know? (no offense to any Rhode Islanders, okay????)
June 11, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Normal, you MUST come write for White-Washed Feminists. Seriously.
June 11, 2008 at 8:19 pm
And by the way- you all need to keep your voices down a bit- I guess we are the “loud bloggers”.
Loud, hmm? Like this lady, here? –>
“Wisdom shouts in the street, she lifts her voice in the square; at the head of the noisy (streets) she cries out; at the entrance of the gates in the city she utters her sayings: “How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing and fools hate knowledge? Turn to my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you. Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; and you neglected all my counsel and did not want my reproof; I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes, when your dread comes like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but they will not find me, because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD. They would not accept my counsel, they spurned all my reproof. So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way and be satiated with their own devices. For the waywardness of the naive will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them. But he who listens to me shall live securely and will be at ease from the dread of evil.”
Prov. 1: 20-33 (NASB)
Loud or not, I can think of worse company to be in.
June 11, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Yeah, Normal. DO IT. Come on, you know you need to blog a leeeeetle bit now and then… Your former fans need you!
June 11, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I responded to the blog post:
http://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/the-shoe-is-wrong-on-ectopic-pregnancy/
I’m still shaking. I would lay down my life for any of my children. But I won’t leave them all behind just so that I’ll seem moral the the VFM types. Nope. I see nothing pro-life about giving mine up so that the baby and I can die together.
I loved my daughter, and would have carried her to term even knowing that she couldn’t survive, had doing so not risked my life. I love my daughter and always will. She’s part of so many aspects of our family life. My daughter knows which grave is hers when we visit and always reminds her “I’m your big sister, Piper, and we miss you.”
If saving my life makes me a murderer in their eyes, so be it. Because putting women in danger the way their advice does makes them the same in my eyes.
And I know my response here isn’t the most Christian it could be. You’ll have to forgive me. I’m beyond upset.
June 11, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Reading the comments on the blog at Life in a Shoe… I am sickened. I haven’t gotten through all of them but I’m thinking that none of them experienced a true ectopic pregnancy? That none of them had to look at their living children, knowing that they could very well be cheating them out of a life with their mother….all for an unborn child that is certain to die eventually, before it can live outside the womb? There is nothing wrong with reasoning or logic; God gave us both. I don’t see how killing oneself and purposely allowing your children to grow up without a mother can be seen as “pro-life”.
I also think the term “pro-life” should not apply in these cases. When one says “I am pro-life and I oppose abortions in these situations”, it implies that a mother is somehow gleeful at having an ectopic pregnancy removed from her tube. That is not true. It’s not as black and white as “you’re either pro-life or anti-life”. But, for these people, everything is black and white or can be wrapped up tightly in a neat, little package. That is, until they actually go through a situation like this.
I also apologize if I am being snippy. My heart just breaks for the hurt these words have caused and for the dangers it poses to the VF-type wives when their husbands grab onto this philosophy. “You must carry to term or die trying! Doug Phillips said that God said so!” Lord, help us all.
June 11, 2008 at 9:36 pm
{{{{{Anne}}}}
June 11, 2008 at 9:37 pm
There argument is based on the 6th commandment “do no murder”?
Now Mr. Shoe asserts that people are smearing Doug’s name?
Of course.
No one is murdering ectopic pregnancies when the life of the mother is threatened.
And where Mrs. Shoe gets her stats from, I do not know. I read one statistic that stated when there is no or little medical treatment for ectopic pregnancies, 1 out of 3 mothers die. The number are low in the US ONLY because doctors do their job and protect the life of the mother and diagnose these early enough so that little to no harm is done.
The numbers of women who have died from ectopic pregnancies has been steadily declining because they are being TREATED. They are using faulty “research” to bolster their false claim that ectopic pregnancies cause no danger to the life of the mother.
From 1970 to 1987, maternal deaths due to ectopic pregs. declined 95%!!!!!!!!!!
Some studies show that up to 70% of women who had an ectopic pregnancy and survived it were rendered infertile because no treatment was given to them.
How about the ethical code of a doctor to do no harm? How pro-life is it when we will risk the life of the mother AND her future children for an ectopic pregnancy that we know has 0% chance of surviving? That doesn’t sound very pro-life to me. Not treating a woman who is not showing any signs that her ectopic pregnancy is going to go away on its own is doing HARM to that woman.
Anyone remember the big uproar in Patrioland when Andrew Sandlin said that some patrios treated their wives like “baby machines”?
Here is what another source said about ectopic pregnancy:
“This is from the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vol 82, Issue 1, pgs 121-126:
“Ectopic or tubal pregnancy presents a medical emergency that requires prompt treatment in order to contain risks of maternal death and morbidity, including loss of future fertility. Medical circumstances involving individual patients and resources of the prevailing health care system will determine the options and means of treatment. Termination of ectopic pregnancy does not constitute or directly implicate abortion. Any practice of deliberately delaying treatment of reliably diagnosed ectopic pregnancy, on non-clinical grounds, until rupture of the fallopian tube has occurred or is imminent, in order to justify termination of the ectopic pregnancy on grounds of saving the patient’s life, is unethical and illegal. Those who undertake or counsel deliberate delay of medically-indicated treatment can be charged with criminal offences and civil (non-criminal) liability, and medical professional misconduct. On reliable diagnosis, prompt treatment to remove ectopic pregnancy is legally justified, and ethically and legally required.””
Maybe Doug should stick to being a lawyer and stop dispensing medical advice. There is nothing ethical about denying medical treatment in order to save the life of a mother or keep her body from being subjected to needless harm and damage. Preserving future fertility is no small matter, either.
June 11, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Having read through all of the comments now, I did see one or two who experienced EP’s or some weird miscarriages. I grieve for their losses. But their situations are not the norm. They are very blessed to be alive, frankly.
June 11, 2008 at 9:47 pm
JohannaS,
Well said in #203.
When we protect the life of a woman and her future fertility in the case where an ectopic pregnancy has 0% chance to survive but a imminent and looming chance to cause major harm to the life of the mother, then we choose life by treating her.
Their whole stance is not pro-life at all. Unless they discount the life of the mother and her future fertility as worth anything much.
And then they shamefully downplay the imminent danger and risk to the mother to bolster their argument?
Where is just one pro-life OB coming to their defense? Can they find just one?
Sure, some ectopics resolve on their own. Some do not. We are talking about the ones that are not resolving on their own and pose danger to the life and health of the mother.
This shows me that they do not value the lives of women when they would put them in the way of harm for absolutely NO good reason since the ectopic tubal preganancy has about a 0% chance of surviving.
June 11, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Pro-life is not pro the life of one at the expense of the other.
Pro-life simply means that we are FOR life.
A mother may feel that means she should preserve her own life when told she faces likely death (which is not just her life, but also the fact that her kids continue have a mother to mommy them, her husband continues to have a wife, etc), or a mother may feel she should risk her own life.
This is something that ought to be (and always be) the woman’s CHOICE. Her choice to make. It’s complex and there is no neat black and white answer. Every situation will be unique, every situation will call for a unique choice to be made. This is a personal, prayer-filled, painful place for any woman to be in.
Doug Phillips is giving us just one more example of how black-and-white thinking gets us nowhere but trouble, a loveless trouble where rules trump real lives and real life.
God help us if these people ever manage to take over America. Good grief.
June 11, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Comment from Shoe:
“On a different but related topic, I have always wondered if pain medication during delivery was a sin, since it was Yahweh who decided to make birth painful. Isn’t our use of drugs, then, disobedience? ”
Oy. Any woman who has given birth will tell you that, even with drugs, you most definitely experience pain in some form.
The legalism breaks my heart. I hope they remember that the Bible also contains a New Testament. And I don’t say that in a sarcastic way; I really hope that they comprehend–as much as a human can comprehend–the meaning of grace and salvation without works.
June 11, 2008 at 11:11 pm
After stepping away and thinking about it, I feel I must clarify my last comment.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t study the Bible to determine whether something we do/don’t do is a sin. Studying the Word is one of the ways we grow in Christ.
But that is not what I am afraid will happen there concerning that comment. What I am afraid of is that someone will respond to this woman’s question with “Gasp! You are right; God’s curse was that women would suffer in childbirth! That’s absolutely right; thanks for pointing it out! No more drugs for me with the next baby! Natural childbirth is the way God intended it!” Then, in a few days, someone will write a blog post, declaring that God is against all forms of drugs during childbirth…all based on the curse verse in Genesis. Did anyone study the Word further to answer this question? No. Once again, a whole philosophy trying to pose as doctrine is built around one–maybe two–verses in the whole Bible.
This is a very dangerous (but very easy) thing to do. I was just telling a friend today that it is very easy to find Scriptures that support our positions when our positions have been established beforehand.
June 12, 2008 at 12:04 am
It seems to me that those discussing this issue are so caught up in the theory of faith, that they forget that our faith must be applied in real life. It reminded me of the Pharisees focusing on the law while Christ was out ministering. Jesus very often made them angry, meeting the real needs of people while breaking the law as they saw it. Jesus seemed to understand that it’s easy to make up laws in an ivory tower, but he placed more importance on meeting the needs of those in pain.
In a subject like this, there are women in pain. Women who have lost loved and wanted babies. In-A-Shoe, and Doug Phillips seem to miss the real need for ministry to us in their jump to condemn us as murderers.
Anyhow, I went looking in my bible and found a verse that really stood out to me in light of this discussion:
Again, I maintain that God gives us a law to live by four our sake, not His. When we look back at the law he gave to the Isrealites, it makes sense. Don’t eat shellfish (you don’t know when it’s bad), take a day of rest, be careful about touching dead bodies, etc. etc.
God’s laws are made for us, not us for them. Requiring women to risk their own death to prolong the death of their unborn child, when there is a safer alternative, I believe, violates logic, and violates the pro-life principle.
I think the VFM ilk is forgetting mercy and faithfulness. Which do you see as more likely: Jesus comforting the grieving mother, or condemning her as a murderer. Because I think of him at the well with the Samaritan woman, and as I recall instead of condemning her he offered her living water.
Oh, that I may be like that, and put aside my own anger to reach out with that kind of mercy and grace.
June 12, 2008 at 12:45 am
Anne, you’ve summarized in a nutshell so very well the struggle in this whole thing: it seems to me that those discussing this issue are so caught up in the theory of faith, that they forget that our faith must be applied in real life. It reminded me of the Pharisees focusing on the law while Christ was out ministering. Jesus very often made them angry, meeting the real needs of people while breaking the law as they saw it. Jesus seemed to understand that it’s easy to make up laws in an ivory tower, but he placed more importance on meeting the needs of those in pain.
I knew there was a reason my net was down today…my blood pressure needed a rest.
((((Anne))))
and
(((Cally))))
Normal…I third/fourth the motion- I certainly have missed ya blogging, girl. Common sense in a wacko homeschool world.
I think the teaching threads would be a great thing too. Not sure what it would look like. TW has already “taught” me so much by forcing me to dig deep into the marrow of the Word.
Alisa, #196- Paparazzi? ROFL. Did I mention how EMPTY their booth was all weekend? Maybe at the other conventions, but at HEAV, people more looked at them like ‘huh?’ than anything else. Oh man, you made me laugh!
June 12, 2008 at 1:21 am
Oh, ladies, I am so grieved this evening. Joy, I think I feel how you must felt after listening to the Botkin sisters’ presentation. I just want to weep. Where is the compassion? Why is Mr. Shoe, the warehouse manager at Vision Forum, btw, when it comes to challenging Phillips for calling us murderers? And to say we are drawing the wrong conclusions? As though we are such dumb bunnies! The lack of care, concern, or defense of those who have been through this horrendous experience is totally unchristian. May the Lord save their souls.
I spent that afternoon with a dear fiend who became a grandma for the first time yesterday. Her daughter had a terribly difficult delivery and twice the nurses and doula came out to tell them to pray. Thankfully, a sweet baby was born and today both mom and baby are doing well.
This friend is the first director of our local crisis pregnancy center and the founder of the center as well. Because of her tenacity in the face of many people who are NOT pro-life, this woman has helped to save the lives of countless babies. Who better to ask than this woman who knows the issue inside out.
So, I posed this question to her. “If I came to you today as a young woman who just found out that I was pregnant with an ectopic pregnancy, what would be your counsel to me?” She looked at me like I had landed from Mars. So I went on “What is the 100% pro-life position on this?”
She said, “Karen, you know that answer to that. I would say go immediately to the doctor, your life is in danger. Now, why are you asking me this question?”
I went on to explain to her the craziness we have been reading and she was in awe. She went on to tell me about a woman she knew personally who waited until the Fallopian tube ruptured, as suggested by the Shoe group, and she barely survived. In fact, the doctor said she was within minutes of bleeding to death.
Are these people crazy? Do they not understand how a woman’s body works? Some of their links read like National Inquirer headlines. Please.
June 12, 2008 at 1:22 am
Cally and Anne,
You guys hang in there. We need your voices. We cannot just let these people make these wild accusations. I wear the “loud bloggers” badge quite proudly!
June 12, 2008 at 1:41 am
“Alisa, #196- Paparazzi? ROFL. Did I mention how EMPTY their booth was all weekend? Maybe at the other conventions, but at HEAV, people more looked at them like ‘huh?’ than anything else. Oh man, you made me laugh!”
Joy, that was my polite way of saying that maybe the objective was to send out “do not approach” signals; as in, “Do not approach my daughters in the Restroom with an ‘Oh, you’re the Botkins sisters! I’ve always wanted to ask you this question…’” You know what I mean? Since they are so highly recognizable now in these circles, I just thought that perhaps the watchful vigilance was a precautionary measure against either of the girls running into one of us True Womanhood types or anyone familiar with them who might engage them in an unwelcome exchange, even just a “Oh, I know you, loved your documentary! Blah, blah, blah…” You know what I mean? It’s just another way of guaranteeing no Q & A.
June 12, 2008 at 1:46 am
Awwwh shucks
You guys make me feel special.
I do miss blogging, but lemme think about it a bit, okay?
June 12, 2008 at 2:18 am
Alisa, oh. I get ‘cha.
Yeah…I think it had a lot to do with that. But it did make me laugh hysterically, I have got to admit. You know that it would be a bunch of Canon D’s…someone’s (or several someones) *ahem* preferred camera.
I honest to goodness, putting all the theological wrangling aside, still cannot believe they had the hubris to talk about all their “studios”. Part of me thought it was laughable how they were flaunting it; and on the other hand, I thought “You have the best creative tools, but for what? You clearly aren’t happy.”
The whole thing still makes me sad. Still processing it all out. Normal, if it makes you feel any better, I am considering starting a separate blog where I can talk about all this stuff. (And of course blather on about my favorite protofeminist, Miss Jane Austen). I really don’t delve into it on my creative blog for a lot of reasons- most of my readers would have a hard time understanding what I am talking about, since a large majority aren’t Christians. I do witness there- but I’d be afraid of confusing them, or worse, entering the millstone business. That make any sense? So I am right there with ya honey.
June 12, 2008 at 3:12 am
You know, these shoe people are all up in arms about the so-called “smearing” of Doug’s name… well, what about the smearing of MY name, or Anne’s name, or Karen’s name! I’m not calling Doug Phillips a murderer because he may be indirectly responsible for the death of some poor soul who actually listened to what he had to say on this and then followed his advice. I’m not calling him a woman-sacrificer. Heck, I’m not even calling him a bad lawyer! Seems like the only people doing the smearing are the VF types.
June 12, 2008 at 3:47 am
Karen:”I wear the “loud bloggers” badge quite proudly!”
I am trying to figure out a way to make a ” I love the loud bloggers” sticker for the chec conference this weekend- featuring Doug, voddie and kevin.Or maybe a “I am a relationship homeschooler” sticker!
June 12, 2008 at 3:54 am
Those ‘a’s should be ‘an’s…I need a good night sleep.
June 12, 2008 at 4:00 am
Thank you, ladies. I needed to hear all that you had to say. I have felt the need to be vocal about what happened to me because I know that others will be in the same situation. God forbid all they hear is “risk your life or you are a murderer” when trying to decide what to do for a much loved and wanted baby.
June 12, 2008 at 4:12 am
She denied my comments, by the way. Which were not at all unkind. One said that I’d answered her on my blog, and the other mentioned to mother of many that her bible verses all discussed babies being in the womb. Something that I thought was ironic considering the specific issue being discussed.
June 12, 2008 at 4:23 am
” I’m not calling Doug Phillips a murderer because he may be indirectly responsible for the death of some poor soul who actually listened to what he had to say on this and then followed his advice. I’m not calling him a woman-sacrificer.”
Cally,
Good point. No, you are not calling him names. Doug and Co. certainly like to call those who disagree with names, don’t they?
He will be held responsible and to a stricter standard for his teachings and their effects on other lives.
It doesn’t seem Doug is as pro-life as he claims to be. If he was truly pro-life, he would equally value the life of the mother and do all that is necessary to save her life.
http@@//www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
Here is a statement by prolife physicians. Doug might call them “cows” (or is that only women he is referring to?) or humanists or feminists or big mouths or whatever but their statement holds water whereas Doug’s holds none.
June 12, 2008 at 4:25 am
Joy,
Yes, please DO start up a new blog and talk about your favorite protofeminist Jane Austin!!!
June 12, 2008 at 4:27 am
“You guys hang in there. We need your voices. We cannot just let these people make these wild accusations. I wear the “loud bloggers” badge quite proudly!”
Karen,
But the real question is:
Has your husband laughed tonight?
June 12, 2008 at 4:46 am
I just wanted to add one more thing before I go off to bed and get some beauty sleep before going to the job that keeps me from truly being the stay-at-home-mom that God expects me to be. *insert eye roll here*
If Mrs. In-A-Shoe wants to take God’s curse on Adam and Eve so literally as to deem pain meds in labor as sinful, I think she should. And I also think that her husband should quit his job for VFM and become a farmer. After all, isn’t the man’s curse that he shall have to labor to bring forth food from the ground? It really doesn’t seem fair that she can’t have a little nubain when her husband is off ignoring God’s curse on him!
Just my $0.02
June 12, 2008 at 4:47 am
“Comment from Shoe:
“On a different but related topic, I have always wondered if pain medication during delivery was a sin, since it was Yahweh who decided to make birth painful. Isn’t our use of drugs, then, disobedience? ””
Egads! These people are awful. Next she will be saying that after a tube ruptures from an ectopic pregnancy, the woman has to undergo surgery without pain reliever since it is disobedience for her not to accept the pain associated with bring children into the world.
If the above is true then her husband is in sin by packing dolls and books and fake swords into boxes for Vision Forum customers. Why isn’t he out working in the field struggling with thorns and thistles by the sweat of his brow? All men who are not farmers or gardeners are in sin and disobedience because they have rebelled against God’s decree to them.
What a load of bunk!
Why is everything so literal for woman but figurative for man?
I think I said this very thing facetiously somewhere in this thread. And now this is being said for real?
I believe that the term “fertility cult” very well sums up their thinking.
June 12, 2008 at 4:57 am
Joy,
Re: #78
I can’t believe I missed this post of yours. In fact, I missed several good ones by a few of you.
Botkin certainly seems to have a very bad attitude towards women.
“Geoff begins:
I am speaking first so that everyone knows that my daughters are speaking under my authority. They don’t presume to address parents. Their message has resonated because “they are willing to open scripture” and “they do not posit their own opinions”.”
So, if I speak under the authority of my husband, I can preach to mixed crowds, too? Cool!
“The girls start: (they switched off)
In this “horrendously perverse” culture, it is not about “survival” it is about striving for God’s best. (This is when they noted the large amount of young girls there, the most they had ever seen in one place). Talk about the definition of feminist.”
This culture doesn’t even hold a candle to the horrendously perverse culture Paul found himself living in. I wonder why Paul didn’t obsess about all the feminists in any of his letters?
“Feminist= selfish woman since the beginning of time.”
What are selfish men called?
“Quoted Chaucer: “What every woman wants most is her own way.”
Her (woman’s) heart is decietful and has no law unto it’s own.”
What is up with these quotes? Do they prove something? Did he use them as proof that Chaucer’s words apply to all women?
I could say the same thing: “What every man wants most is his own way.”
Is a man wanting his own way any better than a woman wanting her own way? Isn’t this a condition common to HUMAN BEINGS? Are they so deceived to believe that it is only sin when women want their own way and they call it “vision” when men want their own way?
“Speak of their time in New Zealand:
NZ is 20 years ahead of the US in secularism and feminism, and there are women leading in the “church, home, family, and state.” The women were “bitter and androgynous”. ”
How nice. Why aren’t they going on a mission tirp to New Zealand, then? That way they can reach out to all the “bitter and androgynous” women.
“They said they questioned: “where have all the men gone?” Stated that men “were not interested in leading, responsibility, [and/or] marriage. Stated that some friends or some one they knew (this was vastly unclear) who was a secular nonChristian feminist had admitted that feminism was not good for the country.”
It seems like feminists are the patrios scapegoat. They just lay their hands upon the heads of a feminist and cast all their sin of selfishness, laziness, irresponsibility and the like onto her head and send her out into the wildnerness.
Funny thing is that feminist goat keeps on coming back to haunt them and remind them of their sin. That bell tied around that feminist goat’s neck just won’t stop ringing in their ears so they blather louder about how women are to blame for all of their sin.
I will start taking the patrios seriously when they start to be men and stop blaming women for their own sinfullness.
June 12, 2008 at 5:09 am
Actually, pain medication for women during labor was considered a GRAVE sin once upon a time. Doctors and midwives were literally burned at the stake for administering it. It was considered a sin because pain in childbirth was part of the curse, and to alleviate the woman’s curse was to rebel against God.
Funny, men could alleviate their curse about working by the sweat of their brow…I never saw any rich landlords getting burned at the stake for living off of the sweat of their serfs…
Come to think of it, I don’t here Mrs. Shoe grumping about tractors or other tools used to make farming easier…?
Oh, but that’s different. Men get a different standard. They’re *men*, after all.
June 12, 2008 at 8:09 am
http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/people/king-james.html
Read this short piece about a woman burned alive for daring to try to prevent pain during the birth of her twins.
June 12, 2008 at 8:11 am
http://www.thenazareneway.com/dark_side_of_christian_history.htm
More here about the “witches” who sought to relieve women’s pain during childbirth through use of medicinal herbs, etc. Burning at the stake was merciful, compared to the treatment they got leading up to the final sentance. *winces painfully* (This article makes Doug Phillips look good)
June 12, 2008 at 8:17 am
Btw, I have no ax to grind. I had five natural childbirths. One of them was one of those really cool “pain-free” kind. The other four hurt like hell (but only lasted 2-3 hours).
I just think that if we’re going to say that women are in sin for seeking to relieve “the curse,” then let’s play fair and make sure the men don’t relieve any parts of THEIR curse. Meaning, burn the John Deere tractors at the stake, and any other labor saving devices (like, say, the computer Mr. Shoe probably uses to help keep the Vision Forum warehouse organized and the vehicle he uses to get himself to work).
June 12, 2008 at 8:38 am
(Sorry if I’m getting a little testy. What was I saying about remembering to LOVE way back in the comment thread)…?
*sigh*
June 12, 2008 at 9:22 am
It seems like feminists are the patrios scapegoat. They just lay their hands upon the ” heads of a feminist and cast all their sin of selfishness, laziness, irresponsibility and the like onto her head and send her out into the wildnerness.
Funny thing is that feminist goat keeps on coming back to haunt them and remind them of their sin. That bell tied around that feminist goat’s neck just won’t stop ringing in their ears so they blather louder about how women are to blame for all of their sin.”
Corrie, that’s so so SO true!
I have been wondering why the fear of feminism. To me, feminism is a reaction to centuries upon centuries of male chauvinism, male dominance and the abuse of women in the name of the Bible and God. As any reaction, it can be carried too far (hatred of men, lesbianism, etc…)
They ignore God’s anger at his people in Malachi because the men were divorcing their wives and being unfaithful to them. They were treating them treacherously. They forget that not treating their wives as co-heirs of the grace of life will hinder their prayers…
What has the Christian patriarchal culture been doing other than considering women as lesser than man? What has it been doing other than treating women treacherously?
They turn God ordained systems to protect widows into laws against women. They twist Peter’s words to encourage Christian women married to pagan men into laws to keep women in abusive marriages. They consistently ignore the context, abusing Scripture to support their own man-made laws.
Yes, they are using women as scapegoats and tying burdens onto them. Militant QFs believe that a woman has a stigma to get rid of. People like John MacArthur are shoving the blame of sin onto the woman, saying that “being deceived” means something very strong, so women carry the stigma.
Need I go on? Apparently, Jesus’ death on the cross doesn’t atone for a woman’s sins. At least not completely, because even if a woman is lead by the Spirit, she is still “more deceivable” than man. And on and on it goes.
” Men get a different standard. They’re *men*, after all.”
You hit the nail on the head, Molleth
June 12, 2008 at 9:24 am
The winky smiley face is not supposed to be there in comment 234
June 12, 2008 at 11:03 am
re: #228
“How nice. Why aren’t they going on a mission trip to New Zealand, then?”
I have been told several times that patriocentrists from New Zealand are coming to the US where they can freely practice their beliefs. In fact, the number one reason I have been told for this move is that NZ now forbids corporal punishment of children. And outrage to be sure. Can you imagine telling your children that the reason they must move thousands of miles from their home and extended family is so you have the right to spank them? Why is this so central?
June 12, 2008 at 11:06 am
“t seems like feminists are the patrios scapegoat. They just lay their hands upon the heads of a feminist and cast all their sin of selfishness, laziness, irresponsibility and the like onto her head and send her out into the wilderness.”
And has it entered anyone else’s mind that a part of this “100% pro-life” rhetoric is to further alienate those of us who are genuinely pro-life but who are white-washed feminists? It seems to me that it is another way to paint normal reasonable Christian women as “feminists” and they can claim that we aren’t really pro-life. It is all in the labeling, one again.
June 12, 2008 at 11:12 am
I agree, let’s get rid of all the tools men use for their jobs. And let’s get rid of the air-conditioning in their offices so there can be sweat upon their brows.
June 12, 2008 at 11:20 am
Corrie asked: Is a man wanting his own way any better than a woman wanting her own way?
Yes. Because “wanting his own way” = “having a vision.”
Isn’t this a condition common to HUMAN BEINGS?
No. Clearly in patrioworld, a man’s way = God’s way. God hath spaketh unto him. A woman’s way = the way of the flesh. She can’t hear from the Holy Spirit, you see; God makes his wishes known to her only through her hierarchy. Anything else is pure feminist rebellion.
June 12, 2008 at 11:47 am
” the number one reason I have been told for this move is that NZ now forbids corporal punishment of children. And outrage to be sure. Can you imagine telling your children that the reason they must move thousands of miles from their home and extended family is so you have the right to spank them? Why is this so central?”
Karen, because they believe “there’s power in the rod”
Seriously…
We live in Germany where spanking has also been outlawed. Honestly, I don’t believe it’s ok for the government to decide how parents are allowed to discipline their children, simply because that is not the governments place. Children don’t belong to the government.
Here in Germany, families are leaving because homeschooling is illegal. Should parents rebel and go underground? Is it worth the risk? Do we have hard Bible facts to support homeschooling? No. Can we leave and go where we have the freedom of choice? yes.
When it comes to spanking, I think it’s a similar situation. Parents who are convicted that they MUST spank to obey God, will be leaving or hiding it.
The reason I think spanking is so central is because they are very focused on the law, and interpret the verses in Proverbs literally. They believe they are in disobedience if they don’t spank.
There’s also the central father-rule as in father has the say over his family, not the government. A case of mild insubordination, perhaps?
June 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm
About the odd behavior of the odds, bodkins and Botkins…
Alisa said something about the “secret service” behavior that without actually being there and seeing the behavior, I can’t really say.
University professors can be scathingly and miserably “a cut above everyone else.” And didn’t Old Botkin claim to be a Marxist, giving way to their scapegoating of many things as Marxist (like feminism and egalitarianism)? They could just be snooty. It could also just be the “VF rockstar” effect as I hear that Doug’s VF types guard him and keep the common people away from him for the most part like private bodyguards would do. (When I met Doug at church, it was more like he and his wife both did their schtick — reminding me of used car salesmen. And I couldn’t really comment on the rest — most everyone at that church (90%) were too pretentious to me. The people that were not didn’t last for very long.
I mean, without seeing them, I’m only making guesses.
1. Elite, pretentious people in general
2. VF Rockstar status (don’t mix with the commoners or you could get “sin cooties”)
3. Girls could be programmed to act a certain way in public (probably a subcategory/combination of numbers 1 & 2)– i.e. They could just be snooty and pretentious in personality and nature, add to the idea that they are in leadership at a conference (with the throngs of people pressing them like the throngs of people did on Jesus per the Gospel references)
4. Girls could probably be fearful or bound to a particular way of behaving all the time (bounded choice) and don’t have any experience with behaving any other way (The family might be 100% business most all the time. I get a little of this from Doug Phillips who seems to have NO sense of humor and is very prudish. I have a picture of the kids at ACE state competition in my mind which would be much like going to a Bill Gothard conference. Everyone walks around in their uniforms and never mentally take them off.)
5. They could be demonstrating various degrees of dissociation. In a nutshell, when exposed to cognitive dissonance (psychological stress experienced when things “don’t add up” because messages, behaviors, social context or ideas conflict), dissociation or varying degrees of “zoning out” can provide a way of surviving psychologically. Addictions are one, alternative method for escaping this stress. People in and emerging from cults also experience a high degree of dissociation, but to objectively say this is taking place, you must do objective data collection of some type. Some of this can be observed, but you would also want to give a validated assessment tool to someone to say for certain that it was taking place.
There are varying degrees of dissociation — basically 4 levels. Derealization (things seem dreamlike, people can literally be entranced and expressionless. Depersonalization is when people don’t feel like themselves or can actually be so stressed that they feel like they are observing scenes from outside of their bodies. People can have amnesia which, from chronic exposure to cognitive dissonance or trauma, alters the development of the hippocampus in the brain which is involved in the processing of short-term memory into long-term memory. When the person is stressed or their brains get flooded with cortisol, it inhibits memory.
The point of all this is that people in cults or those who are inhibited communicate as a little “off.” That’s your own brain making sense of the many complicated contexts of situations telling you that something is wrong (a function of the right side of the brain). A nice egghead book discussing this in recent years is a book called “Blink”). That is your own sense of cognitive dissonance, telling you that something does not add up. (Think of what it’s like when something is wrong with your car. You suddenly start hearing noises or noticing things that are wrong that would not otherwise catch your attention. Or you learn a new word, and then you start to hear that word everywhere. This is the right side or the intuitive part of the brain at work — doing what it was designed to do to help keep you safe and well.)
So a great deal of picking up on this stuff is intuitive at first. And I’ll go back and refer again to the Matrix film scene with Morpheus telling Neo that the Matrix is all around you but you just have the initial, gut sense that something is wrong with the world. Once you notice it, it becomes like “a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.” That is a very right cerebral hemisphere function.
So what do you do when you have that experience or what should you do? That’s when you should ask yourself whether you see any of the thought reform techniques at work on an objective level, which in this case with the Botkins, we already know is very much at work. They are a bunch of spin doctors, and they have a definite motive to sell books and sell their image. They’ve got a father who is pushing them to be something (phenomenal psych pressure if they grew up in a restrictive environment in that sense, with the world revolving around daddy), and then they have the positive reinforcement that they get from the book writing experience.
Again, I find the most significant thing about their behavior and their message is the fact that people (like Joy’s parents and others at the conference) who were not well-informed like Joy were confused, both by the message and the inappropriate nature of how the Botkins behaved. This is the “splinter in the mind” factor that should prompt people to ask questions.
I was in a clothing shop yesterday that is not a place that I typically shop, but I’ve been in there with my mom and have found some bargains. A saleswoman came up to me and seemed odd to me from the beginning, asking me, in a seemingly forced way, whether she could help me find something. I made some joke (because she was acting a little inappropriately weird and uptight) and said that I was just hunting for bargains and nothing in particular. I did find a pretty blouse that was completely different stylistically from everything else that they sell and bought it. That woman waited on me, and though my credit card was accepted, she thought that my signature looked wrong, asked me for 2 forms of ID and then solicited the opinion of the other saleswoman before she would give me my ID or the merchandise (a $12 purchase and not a very sizable amount).
Now, I became sensitized to the woman, so my brain started collecting data, trying to make sense of things. Her body language was very different with me than with other customers, as was her verbal response. That is something that you can learn to do with some of these types of situations to make things more fact oriented and less feeling oriented, so as to give yourself a handle on the experience. The trick is being very honest and very aware of your own feelings (both good and bad without passing judgment on them in the moment), so that you ask if there’s something else at work (like manipulation or prejudice and whether it originates with you). Those types of things can produce a “reaction formation” or a self-fulfilling prophecy. I see this in many VF types (women in particular) as what I would call a demeanor/posture of “always looking for a fight” or angry/uptight in general.
If something is off, that is information that your brain is giving you and you should start asking objective questions and start protecting yourself psychologically. Start scrutinizing language. Watch your purse strings. Watch your heart strings and be aware of emotional language or manipulation. Something is happening, and your job is to figure out if it’s internal or external and to protect your interests.
June 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm
thatmom wrote: Can you imagine telling your children that the reason they must move thousands of miles from their home and extended family is so you have the right to spank them? Why is this so central?
I think this is really just a psychological technique to throw people off balance using what I think are reactionary techniques of “Right Wing Populism” (Comment #15). In a way, they are creating a false uproar, an irresistible dichotomy that makes what they are selling the only, sensible choice. This is also a sales technique of consistency. (“We’re both good Christians that value our rights and I think the only way to do that is to move to NZ.” The unspoken or sometimes spoken implication is that “If you’re a good Christian, too, you will want to do what I’m doing, otherwise you will prove to me that you are not a good Christian.”) It’s manipulation. Lawyers learn this. Politicians learn this. Manipulators do it all the time. It is much like this creation of markets for products. “Lets create a disease and tell everybody that they have it or will get it unless they use our product. You won’t survive without our cure.”
June 12, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I don’t know why anyone is making much of a fuss over Kim at “Life in a Shoe.” Her husband works for Doug. Months ago, I read (contrary to the notion that Doug employs no women but temp agency folks) on her blog that she works in Doug’s warehouse. The point is that she’s not exactly like reading the leadership elite of the patriocentrists. She’s one who takes orders and would qualify as a “true believer.” She’s just spitting back the rhetoric that she’s been taught and that she’s banking on being true because she’s bought into the ideology. (I know well as I used to do it with various other things like different aspects of faith healing and pentecostalism. I did it with that Gothard submission stuff when I was trying desperately to make it work to be acceptable to my church.)
I guess that I look at the “followers” in a different way than I do the official, inner circle leadership. I believe there are different dynamics at work in the two different groups.
Some of this touches on a comment Molly made a few days ago that rubs me the wrong way a bit. There are two groups — followers and leaders/teachers. The followers, though culpable for their own involvement and actions, did not create this stuff and are just trying to make it work based on their trust and earnest desire to honor God. The leaders created this bunk. They may believe it, but they are held to a higher level of accountability. (I would put the Botkin daughters in the follower category, BTW, taking orders from Dad.) They may be more trapped because their livelihood becomes dependent upon perpetuating the ideology, but it is their own creation that they offer to others. They answer, based on Scripture, to a higher standard as they influence others and gain financially from their activities.
Molly had said something about coming out strong against the ideas but to be careful not to offend others. That is easier to do with followers, but the leadership will be more offended by the message and should be more offended. There is also a degree of personal offense, because so much of this is not truly Biblical but is man’s creation, the part of man that is invested in it to defend it will always be offended. So I think that a follower gets a greater measure of compassion here. The roles played here are very significant to me and is an important distinction that needs to be made.
June 12, 2008 at 12:23 pm
BTW, I have no idea why this HTML turns my parentheses into smiles.
Most of the time (99%), I do not use them. No hidden messages intended.
June 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm
In response to the Botkin teachers’ (oops, daughters’) assertion that feminists are defined as “selfish women,” Corrie asked, “What are selfish men called?”
Patriarchs.
June 12, 2008 at 12:41 pm
(grr) I guess WordPress is going to force me to learn to punctuate incorrectly in order to avoid inappropriate emoticons.
June 12, 2008 at 12:48 pm
My opinion of kim in a shoe’s comments:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/kim-in-a-shoe-speaks-out-in-support-of-phillips-dangerous-views/
June 12, 2008 at 1:00 pm
One more thought. Somewhere, Anne said that Phillips is following natural law and not Biblical law or something to that effect.
That is not true either.
Think about it. Manslaughter or a death that results in self-defense is permissible under the law and does not bear the same penalties that murder does. The two are very different in that sense, concerning intent. If the Bible were 100% pro-life, we would never see anyone killed in war.
A death resulting from self-defense is allowable by law. Didn’t the OT require recompense as a consequence (monetary) and not retribution (death) in these cases?
June 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I’m surprised that the Pats aren’t looking for a country where it’s legal to hit your wife. After all if both wife and children are under your authority and should be submitting to you, and corporal punishment is the answer to disobedience, then wife and children should all be paddled into obedience.
*Just as an aside, in England the term “spanking” has a dirty connotation.
*
June 12, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Afraid of catching SIN COOTIES?
I like that.
It is an apt description, really. For what it is worth, Jesus was covered in sin cooties then, I guess. He was the one who ate dinner with the taxcollectors and spoke to prostitutes and lepers because nobody else would.
(no irreverence intended)
June 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I wonder if this reckless disregard for the life of a woman comes from the patriarchal stance that the children belong to the father and NOT the mother?
Lindvall teaches this. He told women to view the children that come from their own bodies as their husband’s children and that they are giving their husband gifts. He told women that a mother has no more authority over her OWN children than she does over the children of a stranger. He teaches that it is a “dangerous” thing for a woman to protect her husband’s children from his sinful behavior.
The children belong to the father not the mother. The father has authority over the children and only gives his wife a little bit of his authority when he is not around.
It is taught in patriarchal circles that the husband should be the first one to touch the baby because he is that child’s authority so husbands have the midwife leave the room or stand aside so they can “catch” the baby. (As if the mother hasn’t been touching the baby for 9 months!) It is taught that the husband has supreme authority over the birthing process and that he should call the shots.
Maybe this all has to do with the possessive spirit in patriarchy? “That is MY seed and no one will touch it unless I say so!” It is their seed and that is why the baby takes precedence over the life of the mother even though that baby has a 0% chance of survival and there is a very high chance that damage or death will result to the woman for continuing the pregnancy.
June 12, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Funny, when my husband realized that my life was in danger with Sarah’s pregnancy, He grieved the loss of her, but never once wavered in his desire to keep me alive. Our child might have been “his seed” (though certainly mine as well), but I was his wife, his own flesh, and he couldn’t imagine trying to raise the three young children we had at the time, without me.
Have these men forgotten the bond that is supposed to be created by marriage?
June 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Anne wrote: Funny, when my husband realized that my life was in danger with Sarah’s pregnancy, He grieved the loss of her, but never once wavered in his desire to keep me alive.
Anne,
This is another consideration. I think that so much of this argument has been made by people that a friend of mine calls “the charmed life.” Until they have the experience themselves, they are talking from the knowledge of the letter of the law and not from any specific experience with it. They are a bit “wet behind the ears” and speaking from a position of ignorance in the medical sense.
I think that if Beall Phillips were ill, Doug would not hesitate to save her. They have their liberties to make these decisions. I’m concerned for the groupies that blindly swallow and follow what they say, running the risk doing all according to what Doug Phillips says and not based upon their own critical thinking capacity. Critical thought is punished in these groups. The inner circle can do so because they enjoy a double standard. Beall would get care and I don’t think any thinking Christian husband would let his wife die.
But then I think of the Children of the Firstborn/Stillborn. These are the true believers that believe so strongly that they cannot rely upon any critical thought and reason that appears to compete with the inadequate general law of the group. If it were not for my knowledge of their many deaths, I would not think this a threat. But I have also seen how very blindly these people follow Phillips. And I know how blind I was and how desperately I followed my own cultic beliefs in the past before I recognized the process and because I questioned the cogency of the teachings as well as the inconsistencies that I saw in the leadership (without really looking for it). People die for ideology. Otherwise, I would not believe that any Christian would seriously entertain Phillips’ ignorance in this matter. Unfortunately, I know otherwise.
June 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Corrie wrote: Maybe this all has to do with the possessive spirit in patriarchy?
I agree.
I think it also has to do with the types of men and women that get attracted to patriarchy. Some people get pulled in because of shared interests. But I think that the codependency and male hegemony that patriarchy promotes also attracts men with problems and a need for control. So many of these men are angry tyrants. So many of these men have something to prove. Many of them, especially leadership, have something to prove to the world. Some of it is the ideology and teaching. Some of it, I think, is the psychology of the leaders.
June 12, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Comment 241: Cindy K.– Thank you! Much food for thought.
June 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Cindy, #241:
That makes a lot of sense. I finally remembered what it was that brought you first to mind regarding their behavior (while reading comment #241). Where you the one that posted that video about the mind control, where the guy is convinced at the end that he really wanted a bike? And the host touches him every time he suggests something?
That is what seemed a bit off to me watching Geoff and the girls. I mentioned in one of my note sections that the girls faltered when a bunch of people walked out suddenly. It clearly played across their features, and was probably the most emotion I had seen from either of them. Geoff reached and touched whoever it was that was speaking on the arm. Then sat down again. There were other points that I thought it really strange that he would be touching them (no context)- and it was almost always at the same place on their arm.
I don’t know. It was just odd.
I think one of the noticable things about all the patriocentric group is the complete lack of joy. No one smiles. No tells jokes. The smiles that you do get seem plastered and fake. What are the fruits of the spirit again?
Gal 5:22:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
June 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“In response to the Botkin teachers’ (oops, daughters’ assertion that feminists are defined as “selfish women,” Corrie asked, “What are selfish men called?”
Patriarchs.”
Psalmist,
Very good.
I find it ironic that the Botkins chose some misogynistic sounding quotes about women to prove???? That all women are selfish? That all women want their own way? As if men are any different in this regard? What were those quotes used for? Shall I dig up some quotes on derisive quotes on men? Is this how the patriarchalist view women- through the lens of these quotes? I just don’t understand why those quotes were used. What were they supposed to prove?
After all, isn’t the patriarchal movement about men, their needs and doing it man’s way? Why is it godly for a man to want his own way but sinful for a woman to want her own way?
Doesn’t the gospel teach that we should each look out for the interests of one another and consider the other better than our own self?
Does not the same sinfullness afflict us all? Why are these qualities sin for women but considered virtue for men?
June 12, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I think we need to pray that Botkin girls et.al. be set free.
Unless they marry well, or their daddy leaves them set, someday, they will wake up to the rude reality of life. Even then there are no guarantees. An education is an insurance policy and men are not meal tickets.
June 12, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I think the whole bit about ectopics has more to do with how the patrios value women than pro-life. In the patrio eye, childbearing is the woman’s only value and purpose This is something they’ve made clear.
If you have an ectopic pregnancy, your fertility will be gone or greatly reduced. If your fertility is impaired, you have no purpose. Therefore, why not risk the woman’s life and pray that this will be the 1 in 1 million chance that the baby will survive?
Further, I believe the patrios must buy into the “Godly women won’t have issue” theology, at least a little bit. Notice how some patrios are attempting to make it look like only whores with STD’s experience ectopic pregnancies. The inference there is that if you live a holy life, you should never experience an ectopic.
June 12, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Sarah, I think you’re exactly right.
June 12, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“After all, isn’t the patriarchal movement about men, their needs and doing it man’s way? Why is it godly for a man to want his own way but sinful for a woman to want her own way?”
Maybe because everything men do is for God and His purpose, so it is assumed men are automatically doing it God’s way while women are supposedly only here to serve men and do mans purpose. Anything a woman does for herself is focusing on her wants and needs not on the mans wants and needs therefore it is sin. Sad isn’t it? Where in their thinking is there place for women to have a personal relationship with God? It is so man centered rather than God centered that men seem to be a substitute for God in a womans life. Scarey.
June 12, 2008 at 5:52 pm
When I was catching up here today, a couple quotes grabbed my eye-
“Apparently, Jesus’ death on the cross doesn’t atone for a woman’s sins. At least not completely, because even if a woman is lead by the Spirit, she is still “more deceivable” than man. And on and on it goes.”
“The children belong to the father not the mother. The father has authority over the children and only gives his wife a little bit of his authority when he is not around.”
I was at a dinner party with some friends, both older and younger women. At some point in the conversation when we were talking about singleness, I mentioned the stay-at-home-daughter teaching and how it disturbed me. Then one of the older ladies who had two daughters told me she actually leaned that way and that girls needed to be protected. Then another older lady began to talk about how important my father was in my life and how I needed to submit to him and God would take care of the rest. I tried to explain that I wanted my father in my life, just not in some certain ways, but I was suddenly feeling so out of place and under pressure. The conversation spiraled around a while, with the older women reiterating these ideas and unsettling me more and more, and even my friend who was a little younger than me chipping in. At last when someone said “And you DO need guidance and accountabilty, you can’t go it alone.” I felt I had a chance to cut to the heart of the matter and I said something like “Absolutely. But I thought that was a HUMAN thing, not a female one.” And I had indeed gotten to the heart of things, because then they replied, “But we women need special guidance.” “But why?” I asked. “Because we’re more emotional,” came the reply. It stuck in my heart and throat. So I couldn’t articulate what I was already feeling and thinking inside – that the Bible simply doesn’t teach this. It didn’t agree either with their assertions that my father had a weightier influence in my life than my mother because of his maleness. I just know it tells me to honor both of them, in the same sentence, no distinctions. But again, I was too upset to talk much. Sigh.
Any thoughts on how I could approach this in future?
This is a great conversation with so much happening. Please carry on!
June 12, 2008 at 6:10 pm
What does anybody know about Geoff Botkin?
I googled around and came up with something about a company called First Pacific Ltd. which shows up on a 2005 “troubled companies” and bankruptcy website.
June 12, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I noticed that too, but needed to hear someone else say it before it could be clarified for me. This seems to be another example of how little grace and mercy their particular brand of theology contains.
Christianity is not a righteousness club, it’s a hospital for sinners. Jesus is our Divine Physician. There is room in the faith for those who have pasts. And I thank Him every day for that!
June 12, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Any thoughts on how I could approach this in future?
Beatrice, I think the “emotional” card was shredded here several threads ago when one commenter said something along the lines of “and what word, then do we use to describe men at sporting matches?”
Emotion is a very human thing; it just so happens that men, to make a sweeping generalisation, tend to react emotionally in a different manner and in different settings than do most women. Men get just as heated and just as emotional as women, simply under different circumstances. It appears that we, as an English-speaking culture, have somehow come to equate only concepts such as “sensitive” and “weepy” with emotional, and by extension to then label these types of “emotional” persons as “irrational” (and I will grant that when in the grip of strong emotion we as humans do find it more challenging to act rationally, but that applies to both sexes, not only to women).
The false assumption that then arises (after defining “emotional” as meaning strictly tender, sensitive, prone to crying, etc.) is that all women are by nature less rational beings than all men and are therefore less suited to positions of government, power, etc, etc. And poof! One linguistic misunderstanding lands us back in the 19th century once again.
June 12, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Doug Phillips has put more about ectopic pregnancies up on his blog. I have only had time to skim it, but one thing stood out a mile. More of this daft “some people have been questioning” “loud voices of the blogosphere” nonsense.
Every time I read this, I just think “junior high”. You know, he said and she said and I’m not talking to them, they know what they did!! This is not how adults are supposed to behave. This is not how Bereans are supposed to challenge each other. This refusing-to-acknowledge-I’m-debating-you, I’m-just-throwing-this-out-coincidentally, I’m-not-even-acknowledging-your-existence! It’s so CHILDISH. Do they realise how ridiculous they look?
Seriously, I am reminded of fifteen year old girls in the bathroom between class, and one girl walks in and she’s NOT in the gang, and the other girls start talking about her as if she weren’t there. That is EXACTLY what comes to mind when I read these silly posts from Mr Phillips.
Aside from this persistent childishness, there is much to weigh up in that post. Several sentences seemed to contradict themselves to me, but I don’t have time to go over them properly now. I am rushing out – we are going out for dinner to celebrate good news at the doctor’s today! Thanks so much for all your good wishes.
June 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I think the Botkins own, or have owned First Pacific Media to sell their books and dvd’s
June 12, 2008 at 7:50 pm
About Dad Botkin and touching the girls. Touch is very powerful, and it is something very good and helpful when used for good. In hypnosis training, I learned several different techniques that involved touch, but they basically just all operate on the same principle that I would classify as an NLP technique of anchoring or firing anchors. In hypnosis, either waking or when you deliberately put people in a trance (which everyone shifts into at different times of concentration every day, you can use touch to ground something. The touch reinforces the message.
One of my first encounters thinking about this was when I was in high school in the very early eighties. On 20/20, the ABC show, either John Stossel or Geraldo or whoever was the dark-haired man that was on the show at the time, they set up their own experiments where they asked people information or to do things for them, trying to see if touch made a difference. The most impressive thing they did was put money in a pay phone and then they had a nice brunette go up and ask people if they found change in the phone. If she touched them, they were far more likely to give her the money. When she didn’t touch them, her rate of success of getting the people to give her the money was substantially lower. People are more compliant if you just brush their hand or make physical contact with them, even if it is just very brief and a fraction of a second.
In hypnosis, you can also anchor a good thought, then use touch to reinforce the thought when you need help. Say you want to do well on a test. Either in a waking state or in trance, you can tell people to put their thumb and index finger together and press while thy think about being very successful and either imagine or recall a situation when they did well on a test. When they need to reinforce this, they can, on their own, press their index finger and thumb together. Because more neurons are involved in the process, more of the brain is directed towards the success. Memory works on reverberating circuits, with smell being a very powerful trigger. You can also wear a fragrance that you never wear when reinforcing this stuff and then wear it the day of the test. This is also what sportsmen do with their rituals, and baseball pitchers come to mind pretty readily as they seem rather quirky to me.
So in theory, if Geoff was using a technique to help the girls maintain better control when they spoke and was part of a post-hypnotic suggestion, this is good. I wish I had given myself some work like this ahead of time before I gave my patriarchy talk so that when I was rudely interrupted (which apparently is something they do there that I did not anticipate), I could have pinched my thumb and finger together to help remind myself without words to not stammer so much after the interruptions.
But that makes you wonder, doesn’t it? I had horrible nightmares as a child for a period of time, and there was a group of Baptists that taught hypnosis as a Christian modality for healing and calming. Another non-denominational person that used this technique for Christian advantage (whether this was too New Age or not is another issue) was CS Lovett. I was put at ease when I took hypnosis training as a nurse because we did use two of the books I had studied as a child to help me with nightmares — both written by Baptist pastors.
So the question is whether Geoff Botkin took a Tony Robbins class somewhere (he uses a lot of NLP in his positive thinking content, so I understand), or whether he read Lovett or someone else. It sounds much like he may have coached his daughters through use of these techniques and may use them at home in every day life. And we do manipulate children, as a part of training them… Not all manipulation is bad. But it is manipulation, and that’s the question. Are these girls constantly being manipulated and are they subject to “bounded choice” through manipulative means that differ little from formal hypnosis? (Hypnosis can be tremendously helpful for pain management and trauma and such, but it is not “working out your salvation in fear and trembling” and it is a tool, not a way of life, just as not all manipulation is bad. But again, it is manipulation.)
I wish I had been there to see the action. There is another Derren Brown video on YouTube where he uses touch to distract people and pays for merchandise (including a diamond ring) with blank sheets of paper instead of cash and gets away with it. It’s interesting stuff.
Bottom line is that touch is powerful and can be used for good or bad. The human pendulum walking in front of a congregation on Sunday (with everyone in a physiologic induced alpha state because they are looking up at a 90 degree angle) is a powerful thing that should be used for good. Music (“bring me a minstrel”) and lighting and homiletics that pastors study are all types of manipulation. But what is the intent? Are those Botkin girls just like the old story of the elephant, tied to a post for it’s whole life, who never walks away from the radius around the post, even after the rope breaks?
June 12, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I’ve read and responded to Doug’s latest post on http://whitwashedfeminist.wordpress.com
But my question is how a man who head us a ministry can miss so many obvious opportunities to minister.
I guess it’s easier to sit back and feel righteous than go in and get your hands dirty with the realities of life.
June 12, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Also, Daddy Botkin may have also learned by mistake that touch enhanced compliance with his girls. He may not have studied or deliberately trained them or coached them. But given that he got up in the middle of a presentation and touched them or spoke to them, and it was out of context and strange, I find the idea that it was all coincidental.
These are deliberate people that live by rules and weigh outcomes. Hanging around military people and bureaucrats, paranoid people generally do everything deliberately and with a well intentioned plan in place. Even for routine matters, things tend to be scripted when they are in business mode.
So I suppose that this could have been something that Botkin discovered, but he doesn’t impress me that way. Coming across as a self-inflated intellectual, he strikes me as someone who would not do something so deliberate unless it was per a preconceived plan.
June 12, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I have got to learn to spell. That should have been http://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com
Oops.
June 12, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Doug has posted an article from Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life. Could you all please read it and tell me how it is in agreement with what Doug has already written?
I must be missing something.
Also, Doug states that this is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. What it appears to be saying, as I read the article, is that Becker is addressing the idea that there may be twins and in that case you must be careful not to end the life of the twin in the womb. But what about just an ectopic pregnancy with only one baby. What am I missing? This does not coincide with what I was told by the Respect Life office last week.
Sometime is rotten in Denmark.
June 12, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Karen, he doesn’t agree with “wait and see” approach. He says that methotrexate (an abortifacient drug given to end ectopic pregnancy) isn’t morally licit because it can kill other babies which may be implanted in the uterus.