A number of years ago, I knew a woman who had been the valedictiorian of her high school graduating class. She could be sharp and articulate and has spent most of her adult years in the education field. I knew these things about her but could never reconcile them with her outward demeanor. She often feigned ignorance about subjects I knew she was familiar with and giggled and tossed her hair around in that typical “ditzy” manner. One day she told me, “You know, men don’t like women who are intelligent. They are intimidated and uncomfortable around me so I learned early on that to get a guy’s attention or get a guy to ask me out, I needed to pretend to be dumber than him.” I eventually met her husband and wondered why she would want to marry someone who wasn’t as intelligent as she was.
I hadn’t thought of that conversation for more than 20 years until this morning when I came across a you tube video of three “visionary” high school age girls doing some sort of a skit for a church group. Is pretending to be ditzy part of being a visionary daughter? Or am I missing something? If this had been a role they had been playing, I can understand it. But they were playing themselves and that unnerves me. How is this better than being “monstrous women,” the label given to those who step outside of the patriocentric-appointed sphere for women?
I couldn’t help but think about the discussions we have had here about young women attending college or being educated beyond the high school years. I also was reminded of the aversion many conservative evangelicals have toward women attending seminary or studying theology. I know there are those in the secular world who also struggle with dummied down womanhood and have addressed it. But is there a new trend in some Christian circles for women to hide their intelligence? Is the attitude of the woman in my opening story still prevalent today? Are women willing to pretend to be stupid in order to be pleasing to men? Are they willing to step back because they are being taught that men are the only leaders?
Any thoughts?
December 2, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Karen,
What comes immediately to mind is Pink’s song, Stupid Girls.
It has a couple of “spicy” words in it but the main point is one that I think to be valid.
The Christian girls that I see are just copying the world but in a modestly dressed way. They are just as flirtatious and in love with themselves as the worldly girls their parents rail against.
I look at blogs filled with pictures of these girls mugging and posing for the camera and I feel a bit urpy. It is all about them. They love themselves. They flirt with the boys like the best of their worldly counterparts.
And, I am left wondering where God fits into all of these activities.
I took a bunch of my kids bowling the other night and I was with my 23 year old son and we were observing the teenage girls bowling on both sides of us. I started singing the Strawman’s words…”If I only had a brain….” It was nauseating to watch these girls act like complete idiots in order to get the attention and approval of the boys around them. Honestly, I think the boys were a bit disgusted and embarrassed by their behavior based on what I saw of their body-language and comments.
Acting stupid and dumbing one’s self down is fraud. It is done in order to get attention and to make someone else feel smarter and more empowered.
Education and intelligence have always been held as keys to power. That is why the slaves were denied the ability to read because it was easier to control them and there was nothing worse than an “uppity” slave (woman). That is why the 1950’s instructions to housewives included telling the wife that she should never question her husband, even if he stays out all night. That he has superior judgment and wisdom and that she does not and everything he does is right and good.
Women were taught to play stupid and to believe that their judgment is not even close to be as sound as a man’s judgment and they should not ever question because they are not capable of accurately discerning a situation.
Do we have to wonder why so many 1950’s housewives were hooked on valium and alcohol when they had to pretend that their husbands were not having an affair or having to play a role and pretend they are something they are not?
“Don’t ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him. ”
and
“Don’t complain if he’s late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work. ”
Staying out all night means one thing- sleeping with another woman. Unless, he is in a some covert special operations force or an undercover detective or lying dead in a ditch somewhere.
I remember being instructed (in my patrio days) to not run ahead of my husband in Bible study because it would make him feel bad if I knew more than he did or if he perceived me as more competent in various other areas, including home repair and finance. I was to wait on him to study something and then to wait on him to teach me what he learned because this makes him feel good about himself. I had no need, I was told, to gain knowledge concerning the Bible if it didn’t come directly from him. Then they took the 1 Corinthians scriptures out of context and slapped it on top of the teaching. (A woman should ask her husband at home if she has a question.)
There are many women who would be severely stunted if they had to wait for their husbands to wake up and smell the coffee.
The message is clear: smart women intimidate and cause men to feel inadequate. And when a man FEELS inadequate, he abdicates and it is the woman’s responsibility to make him the leader he is supposed to be by building him up by feigning ignorance. Men simply do not abdicate because they are lazy or lacking character or a backbone. Nope. It is because women make them FEEL bad about themselves and their only option is to abdicate or punch her in the eye.
It seems that the patrios truly believe that the woman is the leader in the home since the quality of her husband’s leadership is directly dependent on her performance as pseudo-follower who is actually leading her husband to be a better leader. Really. This is what is taught.
As the 1950’s Housewife advice says: A true woman always knows her place.
I had always thought that a true leader leads regardless of the circumstances? That leadership qualities are not dependent on those around the leader? That leadership qualities are inherent in a leader?
And then we can always throw in how the Bible defines a true leader and it truly messes up the patrio-picture of man who rules over his family.
And, everyone knows that a woman can’t lead so a woman who does have leadership qualities often feels like she has to play stupid in order to play the role she thinks she needs to follow.
December 2, 2008 at 2:17 pm
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bTzY-o-Y4y8
The video is even better.
Warning: there are some images that might offend.
But, it truly shows how stupid our society is and the video, imho, is right on the money in making its point.
I like several of Pink’s songs (Family Portrait is one of them) because she is intelligent and calls it the way she sees it.
Now, if only she could be born again and make songs and videos!
December 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm
As the 1950’s Housewife advice says: A true woman always knows her place.
I agree with this statement. Women should know their place as complete equals with men and if married right beside her husband as an equal team-mate, a co-heir in Christ, a believer priest equal to her husband and the appropriate power of God for her husband as Genesis indicates.
Too bad the patrio’s don’t know their place.
What a shame.
December 2, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Cindy, what was really a disconnect for me was that they were wearing army hats. I thought the patriarchs were completely against women in the military. I am trying to get this scenario.
December 2, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Corrie, that video made me feel a bit urpy, too.
Cindy, I want to state for the record that I think Carol Burnett is totally, wonderfully hilarious.
Karen, those young world-imitating girls in that video, regardless of coming from patriarchal, homeschooled homes, were probably wearing those military hats to impress the guys there. The ditziness was inappropriate and made my 17-year-old military-minded son reach for my mouse over my hand to stop the video. He was disgusted that they kept misidentifying the songs and acting like that. Hmmm, these are the brightest and best of the cream of the crop of homeschool example. (Don’t mind me; I just came from generation cedar blog after hearing the really condescending attitudes towards Christians who do anything differently than they do, like public schooling, and how much better morally and educationally and scripturally homeschooling automatically is).
December 2, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Oh, how dreadful! That was painful to watch and listen to, on more than one level.
Can it really be true that these girls don’t KNOW how stupid they appeared in that video?
I’m embarrassed for them, really. That was hideous.
(shudder)
Where were their mothers, to let them make such a spectacle of themselves in that way?
UGH!
Oh, yes…they might look like girls and act like girls, but I know at least one of those individuals is a grown woman, old enough to have been betrothed at one point, and proudly heralded by her step-mother as a highly intelligent and accomplished young woman. She and her song-mates OUGHT to have had the maturity to conduct themselves as the young adults they are.
I think it’s less about actual stupidity and more about total immaturity. I think keeping them so immature is how the patriarchalist parents justify pushing the extrabiblical notion that a daughter must remain under her father’s (note, they ignore the mother) authority until he passes her to her husband’s authority.
Or maybe, just maybe, the parents have never matured, either. Not in their judgment and discernment, anyway. If they had, they wouldn’t have fallen for the lies of patriarchy.
December 3, 2008 at 12:21 am
They were being funny, doing a comical tribute for a friend, in front of people they knew. It was the sort of thing that’s mildly amusing to outsiders, and hilarious to people who know them.
– Sara.
December 3, 2008 at 12:23 am
[got cut out first time] There’s not anything ominous in it. You’re looking too hard.
– Sara.
December 3, 2008 at 1:32 am
I find it rather pathetic that anyone would find girls deliberately acting, or genuinely behaving, as though they are mindless, to be in the least bit funny.
Seriously, I think it says something quite negative about a culture if those who practice it find it acceptable to even jest about women and girls being stupid.
If I remember correctly, there’s a general outrage among patriarchalists about how modern American popular entertainment, particularly television, ridicules fathers as uncouth and stupid. I deplore that, too, just as I deplored the common practice of portraying women as flighty and brainless and incompetent, in the 1950s and 1960s. So how hypocritical is it for a pro-patriarchy step-mother to be proud of her step-daughters and one of their friends, acting stupid as a “tribute” to the friend’s brother?
Ominous? No. Undiscerning, hypocritical, and highly disrespectful toward women? Absolutely.
One other thought: There are women who legitimately wear such hats, ones who serve their country by protecting these women’s (and all Americans’) freedom. I’m trying not to think that these pretend (?) brainless young women are mocking the women who serve in the armed forces. On its surface, a case could be made that they did exactly that, possibly deliberately.
And on a final, lighter note, their musical butchery of the cherished hymns and songs of the American armed forces could be considered criminal.
December 3, 2008 at 1:40 am
There’s a saying that there are three kinds of woman and only two of them get husbands. 1) The dumb women, dumb enough to get husbands. 2) The women who are too smart to get husbands. And 3) the women who are smart enough to pretend to be dumb, so they can get husbands.
December 3, 2008 at 7:37 am
wI don’t if my comments will be welcomed here, being an atheist, feminist and an ex-Christian. I have been a big fan of your blog, however, because I grew up in a patriarchal, extremely conservative church and can so identify with the issues in this blog.
I want to post comments here not to promote any of my beliefs (atheist, feminist or secular) but to share some of the more bitter experiences I and my friends had in different Protestant conservative churches.
Our pastors did want women to be “stupid girls.”
When my mother reported domestic violence to the pastor and church elder, instead of pulling up my dad for it, they preached to my mother that she wouldn’t have had it coming to her if she had “honoured, obeyed and submitted to the authority of her husband.” My mother was also told that she was splitting the family because she wasn’t attending my father’s church. When my mother told the pastor that she preferred the church she grew up in and pointed out that my father had not once gone to that church after he became an adult, the pastor replied, “Then your duty as good Christian wife will be to bring your husband back to church. You should attend the church of your father-in-law and your husband, because women must submit to male authority.”
Explaining to that pastor, that she preferred going to the church of her childhood was in vain.
The popular women in churches were the women who were “silly, flirtatious and respective to male authority.” People like my friends and my mom, who had problems at home though they were God-fearing believing Christians were glossed over because they didn’t fit in with their idea of the perfect Christian family.
When I asked unanswerable questions in Sunday school or youth Bible class, I was told “children should be seen not heard,” “girls should not be rebellious, they should hearken to the instructions of their elders.”
I’m from India and I think many of you might be aware that the caste problem is deep-rooted in India.
In churches in Tamil Nadu (much to my disgust) I found that caste discrimination and subjugation of women was being practised. To justify their practises, they used to quote verses from the Bible.
Even, now there are churches in places like Tirunelveli and Nagercoil were Dalits/Scheduled Castes/Harijans are made to sit in the last rows, while the upper-caste Christians get the first pews. When one of our pastors’ son fell in love with a Dalit girl, he was pressurized to break his engagement with the girl. All the church pastors kept up pressure on the couple, saying that “marriages arranged by parents are godly marriages.” (The real issue was however the girl’s caste). The couple stayed firm and fought the parents and the church elders for eight long years. I am not too clear as to the reasons, but the couple finally broke up largely due to the intense public pressure that love marriages are bad and arranged marriages good.
In India, arranged marriages are the norm and love marriages the exception. So, the patriarchs in the Hindu, Muslim and Christian community promote the concept of arranged marriages and not love marriages.
Because of the large-scale disapproval of arranged marriages, good, Christian friends of mine have been forced to elope and face social discrimination for the same.
Even my parents faced a lot of opposition because they fell in love and wanted to get married. My mother, being a Christian, did not want to get married without parental approval. So, my parents had to wait for more than seven years before they could get married. And even it was more the fear that my mother would become an old maid, than any concern for the couple which made the church elders and the parents agree for the marriage.
December 3, 2008 at 7:40 am
Correction: “And even then it was more the fear that my mother”
December 3, 2008 at 7:55 am
Another instance, I have against assuming that “girls are stupid” and “parents know the best” is that of a good friend of mine.
This girl studied in the same school with me and was a quiet, lovely person. One Chrisitian Roman Catholic boy in his late teens fell in love with her. For four years, he remained her friend, until she grew to like him, then love him and want to marry him.
By this time the two people were in college (and above 20) and their correspondence accidently fell into the hands of the girl’s parents. All hell broke loose.
The girl was demonised. Pastors came to pray over her to drive “the devil out of her.” Her sin? She had 1) Fallen in love in opposition to the concept of the parents-approved arranged marriage & 2) She (a Protestant) had fallen in love with a Roman Catholic.
The pastors kept on telling her she was stupid, she didn’t know her own heart and that the devil was enticing her.
They stopped her from going to college (though the boy attended college in a diff city alltogether), locked her up in the house and set a vigilance on her.
Finally, much against her will, she was forced to sign a police complaint that the boy had eve-teased her. Eve-teasing is a grave offense in India for which men can face imprisonment of upto two years.
The police immediately called the boy and his parents to the police station. The boy was completely shocked that the girl he had loved could give such a complaint. Faced by him, my friend broke down and told the truth that it was a false complaint.
Her parents and the church pastors(who are our distant relatives and church friends) walked out of the station, disowning her and telling her that they would commit suicide. My friend was horrified. She fell at their feet and begged them to forgive her.
…..There was much more huge drama and the girl was an emotional wreck for a few years. The couple obviously split (or more accurately were never allowed to see each other again by both sets of parents).
Now, the girl is always used as an example by pastors to tell girls “what would happen to us if didn’t follow the God-given percepts of marriage.”
Another aunt of mine, who goes to a diff church, was forced to drink only water and was given no food till she promised not to marry her “boyfriend.” And the person, who gave this estimable suggestion to starve people into submission, was the pastor.
There are many more horror stories, in which a woman’s choice is no choice at all. Only her father or husband’s choice is approved of by the church (Protestant or Catholic having been to both churches).
December 3, 2008 at 8:21 am
Rachel,
Those are some horrible stories!
It’s especially sad to read how people are mistreated in the name of God and the Bible.
December 3, 2008 at 9:56 am
For what it’s worth, I have to agree with SaraJ and CalLadyQED that I don’t take the skit too seriously. It seems clear to me that it’s meant to be a humorous sketch, and that the girls are obviously portraying a caricature.
In the original post, it is mentioned that it would be one thing if the girls were playing a role, but the fact that they were portraying themselves is unnerving. Well, I seriously doubt that they actually walk down the street bumbling and tripping over each other – much more likely that they are, in fact, playing a role. Yes, it might be a dumb role, but it’s all meant in good fun. It’s a common slapstick comedy routine. Personally, I don’t much find that physical humor is my cup of tea, but at least I get what they’re doing. That’s just my two cents’ worth.
Back to the original topic of women feeling that they have to dumb themselves down – Karen, thanks for bringing this up. I think it’s a great discussion point, and my personal take, of course, would involve the excellent morals found in Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth has a chance to marry well, but refuses Mr. Collins because he is intellectually beneath her and she cannot reconcile herself to the degradation of marrying someone she cannot respect. Charlotte has no such qualms, and pragmatically settles down with a man she knows to be a blundering idiot, for the sake of material security.
I think the gist of this can be summed up in Mr. Bennet’s excellent advice to Elizabeth: “I know that you could be neither happy nor respectable, unless you truly esteemed your husband….Let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life.”
December 3, 2008 at 10:16 am
Rose, what a great quote and so appropriate to this discussion!
I wanted to say one more thing about that skit….
I fully understand silly and slapstick and physical humor. This is coming from the woman whose husband owns dozens of Three Stooges Episodes purchased by our son! And I seriously do Love Lucy. I also enjoy writing song parody and have done so most years for the homeschooling mom’s retreat, often writing roles for myself or other women. And everyone knows that we are acting, we are in a role, we are not ourselves but are portraying a parody of ourselves that causes the audience, in this case homeschooling moms, to laugh at ourselves.
What I saw in this skit is something I would be horrified to do myself and doubly horrified if my daughter did it….be ourselves as stupid women, too dumb to know the difference between military songs, etc. I am not sure if I can describe it any better than to say that I cringe, literally cringe, whenever I see any woman dumbing herself down whether to be funny, flirty, or whatever the goal might be. In contrast to this, I tried to place some of the other homeschooled young women I know into that same skit. I know two girls who graduated from college with top academic honors, one of them in advanced mathematics. I can never imagine them feigning a lack of intelligence for any reason. I think of my own daughter. Yes we can be silly, but she would never pretend to be stupid for any reason. I think of the young woman whose testimony will be aired on my podcast this Friday. I can see her giving a warm tribute to a young man heading into the military but I cannot see her belittling herself in such a way as to look so dumb. Add to that the fact that these girls have been promoted as exemplary examples of young womanhood and it is troubling to me. This is not just a group of silly girls in their family room making a silly video. This was a public presentation by “role models” for the many, many other young girls present. The standards for leadership (even self-grasped leadership) are higher.
December 3, 2008 at 10:21 am
Rachel,
My heart really went out to you and the others as you shared these stories. I know you have told us that you are an atheist but I want to encourage you to not look at what sinful men do and have done but at Jesus and what He taught and who he said that He was. Either is was crazy and couldn’t be a great teacher, of He was as He claimed the Son of God, God himself incarnate! When we look at the works of others, especially those who claim to be an example for us all and who promote their legalistic self-righteous standards on others, how easy it is to forget that Jesus promised that His yoke is easy and His burden is light.
Blessings on you, friend, and I am so glad that you have joined us here. Please know that you are always welcome.
December 3, 2008 at 10:24 am
Gail, it is interesting that you brought up the LDS. Have you seen any of those movies within the past few years that are produced by LDS filmmakers? They have done at least one based on a modern version of Jane Austen writings. I had to laugh when you suggested the similarities with the LDS because when I saw those films, (can’t remember the names now but am certain they did one on Pride and Prejudice) the girls all reminded me of this genre of homeschooling girls.
December 3, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The video was cute and funny. It reminded me of my youth group days. There were girls who were into “man-baiting” as my cousin called it. That is there were girls who were so “spiritually inclined” that they would ask doubts about the Bible only to eligble guys and not to the youth pastor or any of their girlfriends.
You could always spot the girls who went to a girls-only Christian school and had ultra-strict parents as they were the boy-crazy ones. My friends from co-ed schools were more sober and less enthusiastic about boys.
Doesn’t it remind you of Scarlett from Gone with the Wind?
Even though she was intelligent and capable, she was taught by her mom and society that you had to act dumb to attract men.
The exact quote is
“But Scarlett intended to marry–and marry
Ashley–and she was willing to appear demure, pliable and
scatterbrained, if those were the qualities that attracted men”
Don’t you think it would be more accurate if they called themselves dyed-in-the-wool, pre-war Southern women, instead of Visionary daughters or girls with “sacred callings”?
Dear thatmom, (what is your real name, if Im not being too inquisitive?)
About Christ, I love Christ and his teachings, its just the rest of the Bible and the Church that I don’t agree with. I have a great respect for religion but not for the church.
December 3, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Another quote from Gone with the Wind:
Instead of Scarlett just imagine this is Miss So-and-So and Mrs So-and-So having a conversation about how to catch men
“I’m tired of everlastingly being unnatural and never doing anything I want to do. I’m tired of acting like I don’t eat more than a bird, and walking when I want to run and saying I feel faint after a waltz, when I could dance for two days and never get tired. I’m tired of saying, ‘How wonderful you are!’ to fool men who haven’t got one-half the sense I’ve got, and I’m tired of pretending I don’t know anything, so
men can tell me things and feel important while they’re doing it. . . . I can’t eat another bite.”
“Try a hot cake,” said Mammy inexorably.
“Why is it a girl has to be so silly to catch a husband?”
“Ah specs it’s kase gempmums doan know whut dey wants. Dey jes’ knows whut dey thinks dey wants. An’ givin’ dem whut dey thinks
dey wants saves a pile of mizry an’ bein’ a ole maid. An’ dey thinks dey wants mousy lil gals wid bird’s tastes an’ no sense at
all. It doan make a gempmum feel lak mahyin’ a lady ef he suspicions she got mo’ sense dan he has.”
Another similiar quote from Gone with the Wind reminds me so much of the message Stacy McDonald gives her daughters on how to act around men:
“In fact, the mothers of all her girl friends impressed on their daughters the necessity of being helpless, clinging, doe-eyed creatures. Really, it took a
lot of sense to cultivate and hold such a pose. Perhaps she had been too brash. Occasionally she had argued with Ashley and
frankly aired her opinions. Perhaps this and her healthy enjoyment of walking and riding had turned him from her to the
frail Melanie. Perhaps if she changed her tactics– But she felt that if Ashley succumbed to premeditated feminine tricks, she could never respect him as she now did. Any man who was fool enough to fall for a simper, a faint and an “Oh, how wonderful you are!” wasn’t worth having. But they all seemed to like it.
If she had used the wrong tactics with Ashley in the past–well, that was the past and done with. Today she would use different ones, the right ones. She wanted him and she had only a few hours in which to get him. If fainting, or pretending to faint, would do the trick, then she would faint. If simpering, coquetry or empty-headedness would attract him, she would gladly play the flirt and be more empty-headed than even Cathleen Calvert. And if
bolder measures were necessary, she would take them. Today was the day!
There was no one to tell Scarlett that her own personality, frighteningly vital though it was, was more attractive than any
masquerade she might adopt.”
There is also no family member (since its only their advice they can officially take) to tell these girls that their own personalities will be much more attractive than trying to fit in with the Vision Forum’s idea of the perfect women or girl.
And Scarlett is RIGHT, any man who could succumb for a simper, a faint and an “Oh, how wonderful you are!” isn’t WORTH HAVING.
December 3, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Rachel,
My heart broke when I read your comments about what you’ve witnessed among people who profess to follow God. I want to second what Karen (thatmom) said and also let you know that Jesus, who is God come in the flesh to become familiar with all our griefs and pain and pay for the sins and cruelties of humans, would weep alongside us here with you. He addressed such hypocritical and judgemental people He encountered with what was truly in their hearts, and it was not a love for God, but for themselves and their self-promotion. In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 13:1-7 it says:
“1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
This is Who Jesus is and would grow us to be through His love and mercy and grace, by His Spirit, not what you witnessed in, what I would think is, a cultic situation.
Thank you for sharing and I hope you can actually get some healing here, and in your life.
December 3, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Rachel,
I’m not at all surprised to hear you say these things about the church and all of the painful baggage that comes along with it for you. After my own experience, it took over 2 years for me to be able to cross the threshold of a church because of panic and grief. The church elders not only exploited my weaknesses and faults, they also exploited my trust and love. Those wounds ran deep, and I still suffer their pains. Sometimes I ask myself and wonder why I am still hanging on to Jesus and His Word, because I could very well find cause to “break the bands asunder and cast off God’s cords.” I do pray that you find healing, and my heart and my scars ache in empathy as I’ve read what you’ve written here.
I’m glad you’re no stupid girl, and I pray that you would have a rich, full, joyful life. Thank you for posting here, for maybe others can avoid this same path of pain as a result.
December 3, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Karen,
I have watched a couple LDS movies and am renting Single’s ward from Netflix in fact. I remember a Pride and Prejudice set in Provo. Saw the preview and I see what you meant by the comparison. I lived in Provo and I had a few good friends who were brilliant beautiful woman but stayed ditsy far longer than was wise. I have a few residual bad behaviors and am still learning to be assertive. It scares me that supposedly Christian churches idolize the same horrid behavior in their young women (and not so young women).
December 3, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Karen, I was also going to make a comparison to Lucille Ball! I LOVE her. She is a great physical comedienne.
But her style of comedy is very different to that in the video. ‘I Love Lucy’ wasn’t all about Lucy being a simpleton and meeding Ricky to bail her out (I could see why someone who hadn’t watched much of the show, or seen it for years, might have that impression though). Lucy messes up, but not because she’s an unintelligent fool. She’s goofy. Slipping, sliding, and making silly faces is very different to forgetting basic facts and being unable to speak a full sentence.
That’s the problem with the video. If they were being goofy, it would be very amusing. Pratfalls, parodies – all funny. But that’s not what the girls here did. They based their humour around the fact they were ditzy idiots.
(I think one of the key things they might have kept in mind is that it’s very hard, if not impossible, to do this kind of humour and look dignified. You have to throw dignity out the window! You have to forget about being prissy and feminine and throw yourself into it. If you are concerned with looking attractive and dainty, you are just going to come across as a very superficial ditz, not a Lucille Ball.)
I hope they just made that mistake because they aren’t very experienced at comedy skits. I would like to believe they were aiming for Stooges/Lucy, but aren’t mature enough, or knowledgable enough, and so completely misunderstood what it’s supposed to be about.
I still feel so sorry for these girls, and I know I shouldn’t, because they aren’t girls, they’re not much younger than I am. But what are their parents teaching them? Good Lord. Will these silly, attention-seeking parents never learn to keep their children OUT of the public eye? People this young should not be being held up as role models.
December 3, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Ladies,
Just bopped in to tell you that I still love this site.
I cannot respect a Christian place that gets ugly with honest yet respectful Atheists like Rachel, especially ex-Christian Athiests who have been terribly wounded by false authority (i.e. totally unChristlike Authority)in the church.
Rachel, I like you too and am very glad you chimed in.
I know the walking wounded are out there and I get excited when one gains enough courage/strength or whatever it takes to make themselves known.
God bless you or may good fortune come your way, whichever way you prefer to look at it at this time.
December 3, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Interesting interesting comments, Rachel! I’m glad you shared. I read Gone With the Wind too long ago, obviously, since I forgot those quotes, but WOW, are they ever appropriate!
December 3, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Rachel
Thank you for sharing and I hope you stick around! Your comments are insightful and I am glad you had the courage to speak up!
December 3, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Btw, Gone With the Wind really bothered me in a number of ways (uh, can you say RACIST?)…but now I think I might re-read it. I’d never noticed the anti-patriarchal quotes before. Interesting!
December 3, 2008 at 11:54 pm
About the video, yes, it was painful to watch. Not my cup of anything. Maybe you had to have been there, I dunno.
But there was something I actually DID like about it, strangely enough. How refreshing to see those young girls actually acting like young girls. Too bad they had to be stupid young girls, but the point remains.
They didn’t feel the need to display the false middle-age manner of the Botkin girls, girls who somehow fast-forwarded multiple decades in order to teach us all their wisdom of the ages.
If forced to choose between stupid young girls and robotic young girls, I’d pick the stupid. At least they don’t claim to know it all quite yet. At least they still have some sparkle in their eyes and a smidge of humility in their bearing.
There’s still hope with them We’ll have to see how smart they really are.
December 4, 2008 at 1:52 am
Kathleen, Cindy, Mara & Molleth,
I really appreciate your comments
If being a Christian means wanting to imitate Christ then I guess I’m a christian. I love his views!
I also greatly respect religion and other people’s decision to stay in the church. But I guess its not for me as of now.
And about Gone with the Wind, I have a love and hate relationship with the book. I hate the overt racism and the subtle sexism in the book.
Though a Protestant, I loved reading stories on the lives of Catholic nuns and fathers.
In “The Nun’s Story” by Kathryn Hulme, the protagonist Sister Luke is a bright, intelligent student nurse. But her Mother Superior tells her that she must fail in her exams, so that she doesn’t mortify the pride of another senior, but less-intelligent nun. The rival nun was quite antagnostic towards Sister Luk. She used to constantly complain about her thirst for knowlegde as “attention seeking behaviour.”
Finally, Sister Luke disobeys her Mother Superior and passes her exams in flying colours. She coudn’t let all her hardwork go for a toss, all because some jealous person thought she was lacking in humility.
Throughout the book, you have that strain: Good nuns are the humble, self-effacing ones, while the nuns who have honest pride in their work and acheivements are considered “worldly.”
Isn’t it a similar thought process? Leave the thinking to men. Girls should be sweet, innocent, guileless, possibly brainless and never achieve anything close to academic excellence.
I love Christ’s take on what is more important for women. I’m sure all of you must be familiar with the story of Mary and Martha. When Martha was fussing around (with admirable intentions no doubt) being the perfect Vision Forum or LAF woman, Mary was sitting at Christ’s feet listening to his words.
So when Christ said, “Mary has chosen the better part,” wasn’t he telling us women we need to give more importance to his teachings/theology/gospel than to our household responsibilities.
Wasn’t he so encouraging the thinking, Christian woman?
December 4, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Is this not the kind of thing that does indeed make us forever “whitewashed feminists” and unable to reconcile the patrio teachings?
This simple, unswerving belief that we share here at TW: The female of the species has a purpose on earth before God and that purpose is not merely to amuse the boys.
I don’t care whether the faker is a silly young girl or a woman who lies to her husband about her level of knowledge. I don’t find hypocrisy and play-acting to be a Christian trait at all!
I get what Karen is saying about what the girls in the video are doing. It isn’t just silliness, it is an act. They are trying to be cute and appealing through forced ditziness and I think it is gross.
Thinking back to my teenage years, I don’t recall ever deliberately acting dumb. Oddly enough, I never had any trouble finding admirers, either. I do not believe this myth that most young men want silly young women.
If a young man *does* want a ditzy bride, why would any rational woman want him??
December 4, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Amy R,
I love the comment “forced ditziness” as I think that sometimes that’s exactly what people are doing and how I felt when I had to abandon the assertiveness I had to learn. One universe (that horrible, Yankee North) required it to survive, and the other required me to abandon it to survive, relying on what I felt was pretense which presented tough ethical problems for me every day.
It’s funny because after returning from a missions trip, my large church gave me the whole morning service to present my testimony. A woman that I knew beelined right up to me to say that it was a great missions trip report and that she was amazed that my manner was no while I was behind the podium than it was when I was in my living room or in the fellowship hall, trying get ready for a church luncheon. So I may have my own, unique set of problems related to all this.
I’ve been thinking about what I posted the other day on this thread and considering the area where I was raised. I’ve had the opportunity to live in many different places, and I NEVER had the social problems anywhere else like I did in San Antonio. It was terrible, because the social rules were all so painfully different, whether I went to the grocery store or whether I was interacting with physicians. I remember when I was working for an insurance company as a temp, and the medical director turned back my work as if it was an error, and he was shocked when instead of acting like a puppy that had just been swatted with a newspaper, I asked for his rationale (because it seemed to me like what he asked of me was a violation of my Nurse Practice Act/state law governing my licensure and the laws governing medical insurance coverage). I was expected to do what he said without question because he was the medical director. But though I might answer to him in that work setting, I also answer to the laws governing my profession (different from his own state board and practice law) and the laws of the state. I guess he wasn’t used to people challenging him, let alone a nurse (a profession with a female majority).
Why is that relevant to this discussion?
I was raised differently.
I was trained differently with different values. My mom was huge on my being honest with people, though I was taught to absorb conflict and “deal with it.” Through being genuine and true, however, I was taught that God would work everything out. I was taught that no one in their right mind wanted to be around a fake. And in matters of interacting with the church and in my profession, I was taught that the principles that guided them could not be compromised. I was there for my patients as their advocate and as what usually turned out to be the last layer of protection that they had when they were too debilitated to protect themselves from harm and error. I don’t answer to social convention, I answer to the patient and their clinical outcome. Doctors and institutions be damned if it is warranted. I have to people who are at the mercy of the system and I have to answer to God.
I don’t know whether these girls are intentionally ditzy or whether they are just naturally ditzy and don’t have any problem showing that to the world on a video. I don’t know if they’ve been raised to think that putting all sorts of photos of themselves in Victorian-esque poses like scenes out of an Austen novel is the greatest thing they could give to the world. I don’t know if they’re taught that the most important virtue they can display before men is one of a position of subservience. But they have parents, and as we hear ad nauseum, these girls are to submit to and are very much a product of the parenting they receive.
I seemed to do just fine as very much a gracious lady, whether that involved fixing my hair or capitalizing on my figure or not. But I never sold out my beliefs. I even remember sitting at the table in my early twenties with my parents and an unbeliever I was hanging out with at the time. He said something about not understanding someone who had contradictory beliefs about a matter. I piped up with James’ “The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” He didn’t get the association, and I said, “Oh, it doesn’t matter,” considering that the guy didn’t really have spiritual discernment or knowledge of the Word to be able to make application of it. My dad got upset and, right there during dinner, had me explain what I said and what I meant by it. He said right in front of my friend that I’d better not ever belittle the Gospel like that ever again. (My dad could not have been a believer for more than about 5 years at this point which is interesting in itself.)
So I just don’t get it. It is one thing to not think of yourself more highly than you ought to think. It is another to feign a persona.
And we have the other factor. These girls were taught to be ditzy. The name of the YouTube channel says Ditzy Novelist something or other. (What exactly should be ditzy about a good novel, other than perhaps a character or two in the novel?) I think that indicates that on some level and at some point, “Ditzy” was taught to them as some kind of virtue or perhaps an apt descriptor of who they are. It’s sad because this is not something that falls to the fault of these girls but to whoever taught them to “carry themselves” in the manner that they do.
It may all be in good fun. And what can make you ditzy-er than getting all flustered when you’re stressed, either by an intimidating situation. Or when you’re an 18 year old girl, and the most brilliant, wonderful and beautiful young man you’ve ever known walks into the room and makes eye contact with you, flooding your body with wonder? But that’s not ditzy by definition and identity.
I just cant help but think about my dad that day and what seems like only a grain of sand on the shore of every moment of my life. What a telling and defining grain of sand that one turned out to be. I’m so thankful for it and I’m grieved by those who received the opposite message in contrast.
December 4, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I was interrupted a bunch of times when writing this, and I seem to have left out several single words. Sorry!
The first thing I noticed, I wrote that
“my manner was no when I was behind the podium…”
My manner was no DIFFERENT. I saw another spot where I just completely left out another word. ????
ooh! Does that make me ditzy? Ha, ha, ha!
I would say, “No.” That makes me distractable more than it makes me ditzy, and it’s not something that I aspire unto in any way.
But maybe it is ditzy by some people’s standards.
December 4, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Amy,
I just noticed your comment again about whether not aspiring to be a Ditz is what makes us whitewashed feminists.
Given what I just wrote about how I was taught that feigning things and being pretentious was a major character flaw to avoid at all costs, your comment really points out the ridiculous irony in it all. We are not whitewashed at all.
I don’t speak for everyone, but if I am anything personally, I’m more like Popeye. I ‘yam what I ‘yam.
Or maybe more aptly stated:
Ego sum quis ego sum.
and
Quis vos animadverto est quis vos adepto. (My best attempt at saying “What you see is what you get.”)
Maybe Jayne Kangamom and Deputy Headmistress can come back to correct my Latin grammar?
December 5, 2008 at 12:24 am
Hmm. Just viewed those tapes tonight. I suspect they don’t see how bad they actually come off. Nor do the viewers in the room. If they were NOT avowed patriocentrists, I wouldn’t blink an eye. It would then be actually funny – a parody. But they are not making fun of themselves – they appear to be trying to be cute. It doesn’t work.
Cindy K.,
I ditto what you have shared about your nursing experiences. I had identical experiences here in Canada. I noticed hospitals in white-collar cities with medical schools were progressive. Some older doctors or head nurses still were stuck in their “traditional” roles, but it seemed that on the whole, the teaching hospitals were progressive. We were expected to think and act on it within the parameters of our profession. There was no need to beat around the bush to keep from offending some Dr. God. My training and the bulk of my work experience was in environments like that.
Then I moved to a “lunch-bucket” city which has always been metaphorically cut off from the rest of Canada. There was no school of medicine. The hospitals were not teaching hospitals and the contrast was stark. I remember mentioning this to another nurse and she actually “shushed” me. “Keep quiet,” she said, “the doctors are gods here.” Anyone who had worked or trained elsewhere and had come into this environment saw the difference immediately. We wasted a lot of energy learning the personalities of the gods and how to manipulate them to get what needed to be done. Nursing office was unfortunately just as bad. It was like stepping back thirty years.
December 5, 2008 at 12:55 am
Fascinating about the health care field! Florence Nightingale would have been proud of you two, Cindy and Anne. She defied a patriarchal expectation to “marry well,” and brought feminine intelligence and respectability to medicine.
So true about the “whitewashed” feminist label. We aren’t pretending, and maybe that is what annoys people. We aren’t trying to be anything other than what we are, and we are not ashamed of what we believe. Imagine that!
I have often told people that I am definitely not a “second wave” feminist (Steinem, Friedan, etc) but I am absolutely a “first wave” feminist. Elizabeth Blackwell is a heroine in my opinion. Ditto Lucretia Mott and others who fought for the vote. I would have been too busy at home to help Carrie Nation break up saloons, but I would have loaned her my axe. I think Louisa May Alcott and Laura Ingalls Wilder were both amazing women, well worth emulating in many respects. I hope I would have moved heaven and earth to help that unsubmissive heroine, Harriet Tubman.
So what? What do these women all have in common? Brains. Absolutely zero hesitation to swiftly act on personal conviction. Nearly all of the “first wave” feminists that I do admire professed their Christian faith and believed they were following God’s direction for their lives.
I’m going to hush now. I get too worked up on this issue. I hope I haven’t shocked anybody here by liking Alcott or LIW.
(Cindy, I just saw your thoughts about whether being easily distracted equals ditziness. I hope not, or I am the Queen of Ditz! I would be nowhere without my daily lists. My short term memory is not what it ought to be!)
December 5, 2008 at 7:12 am
amy (#41), that is a very interesting distinction in feminist history that i’ve not heard before. Anywhere you could elaborate more on these first-wave feminists? It would be an interesting study!!
December 5, 2008 at 8:16 am
Distraction is not the same as ditziness. A ditz to me is trying very hard to appear dingy. Distracted is a natural state.
Thanks Amy for the explanation of “first wave” feminists. I like that category and am noting these ladies are wonderful role models for Christian or non-Christian girls and women.
Rachel you called the patrio role of women: antebellum upper class roles are their dream. Or should I say the movie version or romanticized view of said roles.
Gail
December 5, 2008 at 11:30 am
Psalmist mentioned at some point that one of the girls in the video had been betrothed. Are you talking about Tiffany? She is the one where Stacey devoted a blog post to her engagement. Am I corect in assuming that she is no longer engaged or whatever they call it?
December 5, 2008 at 12:55 pm
post #45, the one where Amy R. brings down the wrath of lurkers by blatantly promoting (a type of) feminism:
If I recall correctly, I got the “first wave” idea from Feminists for Life. I was reading their history page when it occurred to me that I have no biblical or ethical gripe with our foremothers who pushed for equal respect and rights. I just don’t think that was wrong.
“Second wave” feminists who want to make choices for others and IMO encourage women to think of self first…not in the same universe. The first group wanted the freedom to do their duty as they saw it. The second wanted societal indulgence to satisfy self as desired.
I think many of our TW posters fit the “first wave” category. I’m thinking of women who find themselves working outside the home this year. It wasn’t their first choice, they’d rather be homeschooling etc. but it is their duty to help provide food and shelter for their families and they are glad to have the freedom to do so.
My DH supports several international organizations that empower women. In those places they have learned an important fact: If you give a woman the chance to earn money and provide for her child, she will succeed. She will make it happen for the sake of that child. Women with some say in their own lives rise to the challenge and help to secure their own families. Surely history teaches us this.
We watched a video about women forming a sewing cooperative in Iran. It worked, and lifted their children out of abject poverty. I’m also thinking of the female doctors in Afghanistan and their struggle. Their services are so, so needed, yet they are women…
I am glad to be married to a fine man. I am thankful for the privilege of being able to stay home and homeschool our children. If I had daughters instead of sons, I would teach them to be keepers at home and helpmeets to their own husbands, because the Bible teaches it and it is a good way to live.
Viewing my life and actions, no one could call me a feminist. Yet these are my views about women’s rights.
December 5, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Forgot to add link to Feminists for Life history page
http:// www .feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm
December 5, 2008 at 1:16 pm
#46 link awaiting moderation
Seriously, I hope my posts in this thread do not offend. Please, anyone, feel free to disagree with me or show me what you think I’m missing.
December 5, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Amy R: Seriously, I hope my posts in this thread do not offend.
I think you’re going to have to get in line behind me, Amy R.
December 5, 2008 at 2:51 pm
She [Florence Nightengale] defied a patriarchal expectation to “marry well,” and brought feminine intelligence and respectability to medicine.
I spoke with a physician who was here visiting from England a few years ago (not in a healthcare setting, but in a professional and related one) who said that he was taught (informally) as a young buck doctor just out of school (thirty years earlier) that nurses were the soul and the ethics of the physician. They were like God’s stop-gap measure in the system to help keep them and their egos in check. He was very serious at the time, and I felt as though I’d been graced with the honor of a precious and guarded pearl of wisdom that was not often offered glibly or offered at all. (And I’ve never heard an American say such a thing. It sounds like the kind of thing that would keep Doug Phillips awake at night.)
I was trained by the Sisters of Mercy, and the order was founded because of Catherine McAuley in Dublin who was an orphan who received a large inheritance, leased a city block in a quite nice neighborhood so as to offer religious, educational and healthcare services to poor women and children, devoting her life to ministry to them. They came to call the building the “House of Mercy.” Other women were drawn to the endeavor, and the Catholic Church was seen as the best way to preserve the good work that they had started. Thus, the order of the Sisters of Mercy was eventually established, one of the first if not the first, organized groups anywhere to offer nursing training to women who wanted to serve God.
I am very proud of that origin that I kind-of stumbled into and chose because the college offered a unique 2-year program that made you an RN, and you could do just two more years to get a 4 year degree at that same institution. It kind of gives me chills to stop and think about McAuley’s original mission in comparison to why I am so motivated to advocate for manipulated and abused mothers and their children within the church (something I never would have dreamed would be necessary). And though the college I attended offered all kinds of other degrees, today, they still graduate more nurses, allied healthcare professionals and teachers than anything else. They still follow that guiding mission. I hope that McAuley would be proud of me along with some of the dear Sisters at the school that I was graced to know.
December 5, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Amy R, I find nothing to disagree with you in your posts, especially #45. From what you define, I would have no problem going along with the first wave of feminism, which seems to line up in a lot of ways with God’s heart for justice and equality for all in Christ.
I am thankful for my husband who has worked hard to provide for our family, and I am thankful I don’t have to work for a salary at this time of life, but I did do that for a long time, pretty much out of necessity to help meet the needs of our family, and I was thankful for the freedom and the opportunity to use my gifts and training to help other people. I made good friends and had a chance to share Christ with quite a few people and minister in His name, more than I would say that I am doing right now at home, being in a bit of a waiting time to see where the Lord leads us.
I don’t see that half of the human race should be taken out of the picture of using the gifts and talents they have been given by the Lord. I would draw the line as far as having women pastors (I don’t think this is the preferred biblical teaching), but we went to China where men are not a big part of the church and some women pastors were stepping up to minister to the rural villages. So somehow I don’t think God’s message there was to have them stay home when they could share the Gospel with those who had not heard. The same goes for Amy Carmichael, Elisabeth Elliot, and Florence Nightingale.
I appreciate having you here, Amy R., and that goes for the rest of you–I am always encouraged and challenged by the discussions here!
December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Amy R. said, “Seriously, I hope my posts in this thread do not offend. Please, anyone, feel free to disagree with me or show me what you think I’m missing.”
Hardly! I think you are right on the money. Compelling thoughts about the “first wave” feminists, too.
We could start calling ourselves “First-Wavers” instead of just WWF. Inatead of a special hand-shake, we could have a unique wave. Maybe like the Queen?
December 5, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Waving Merry Christmas to everyone…with wrist rotation.
December 5, 2008 at 7:32 pm
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm
I would encourage you guys to take a few mintues to poke around on this site that Amy gave the link to–there is some interesting and inspiring information!
December 6, 2008 at 12:45 am
“Elbow, elbow, wrist, wrist wrist.”
December 6, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I like the First-Wavers moninker.
December 6, 2008 at 5:25 pm
If there is one thing that bothers me deeply it is the whole “I’m a stupid woman” act that so many of my friends in the homeschooling world put on in their co-ops and churches.
I know this sounds egotistical, and I don’t mean for it to….but I am almost a bonafide genius and proud of it. I have the mensa IQ digits to prove it!
Stupid girls really, really annoy me. Not the truly stupid ones mind you, but those who play the role to get the man.
December 6, 2008 at 7:05 pm
This is a serious question…
Lindsey writes about the girls who play stupid to “get the man.”
But why would you want that man if you had to play stupid to get him? That means that the person you spend the rest of your life with will expect that, and you will have to play stupid for the rest of your life. It sounds like cutting off a limb. How could you do that and why would you want to do that?
Or is the point that you get the man and then you turn on him and show your true colors, or you change him so that he will decide that he likes you when you’re not so stupid?
I guess I’d rather be alone. There’s enough “being alone” in the best of marriages, just from life’s pressures and changes, as I see the work of marriage to be much about overcoming or working through the paradox of being separate yet one. Without working to connect, you become alone.
Or do I have that all wrong?
December 6, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Cindy—
The girl plays stupid so the man feels “smart” and it strokes his ego. It is like the cavemen/women days all over again, isn’t it?
I know so many of my smart, able friends who have gone dumb for the sake of the cute/rich guy with the inflated ego. Many men because of stupid societal (and hey, church!) pressures can’t deal with a woman who is smarter than they are in things like politics, finance, and gasp—especially religion!
I find that Southern Baptists do this really well, because after all they harp on and on that women should be QUIET in the church. I have been squelched more often than not for giving my views on theology. I absolutely detested it when I would ask a question in sunday school only to be asked in rebuttal “what does your husband think?”
All of this isn’t to say a wise woman shouldn’t stroke a mans ego a bit. It works. It gets my husband to vaccum the floors for me and I get the occasional back massage for making him feel smart and special (and he is anyway, but that is another thing altogether).
And this brings us back around again to the “should girls go to college?” debate.
We wouldn’t want our girls smarter than their husbands, now would we?
December 6, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Lindsey,
So women are, at some point, selling out?
I know so many of my smart, able friends who have gone dumb for the sake of the cute/rich guy with the inflated ego
You have to commit intellectual suicide to get a guy in the SBC?
At the end of the day, you are still married to a guy who is, as you say, a cave man.
Does the desire to be married just outweigh the desire to be married to just anyone so that you must risk part of yourself? How do you wake up in the morning and feel who you are for a moment and then realize who you’ve become? And how do you do that every day for the rest of your life without waking up “cracked up” one morning?
Corrie mentioned something like this near the top of the thread. It reminds me of what I heard in the cult/church: “Wait for the men.” So if we’re on the railroad tracks and I can see the train coming and the men can’t, I’m just supposed to stand there and become a train wreck?
How do you do that?
December 7, 2008 at 3:05 am
I am a teen, so this comes from only a few years experience.
I know girls who dumbed themselves down. In jr. high, they had boyfriends, in high school (a public high school at that) they couldn’t get a guy to save their life. The quality guys (the majority) wanted an equal.
The public high school I went to was a competitive academic high school. There were large populations of Asians, mainly Chinese and Korean, and Indians. I understand these cultures to be patriarchal (please correct me if that is false), yet almost every girl was aspiring to be a cardiologist, surgeon, lawyer, etc. I learned one of the desirable characteristics in an Indian-American woman was education, it was considered to be a symbol of wealth and good status.
Since this school was so competitive, stupidity was like social suicide. But you know what? The boys didn’t seem to mind. In fact the couples would support each other through the tests, finals, and ridiculous homework load. They were able to understand each other’s lives and the pressure.
I do not mean to say all public schools are alike, this is simply my experience.
I will not marry a man who cannot respect my God-given mind.
I will run towards the heart of God, serving him as best I can, if there is any good man running with me, great
I DO NOT want to have to stand before God and give an account as to why I didn’t use my gifts for His glory. The idea terrifies me.
December 7, 2008 at 7:27 am
“But why would you want that man if you had to play stupid to get him? ”
What does it say about the man who does not want to be intellectually challenged by his lifetime mate?
Has anyone else noticed that in the comp camp (not so much the Patriarchy camp) that after a man goes through his speil about women and their ‘role’, he almost always makes a comment at some point that his wife is intelligent, smart, a real go getter type? I have seen this over and over on blogs where the comp roles stuff is being discussed.
They want it both ways in some respects. They preach the roles but then don’t want you to think their wife is a stupid doormat because that would reflect on them!
December 7, 2008 at 9:52 am
Cindy, I think you are right.
The woman settles because in the end she wants love/romance/weddings/etc.
Women silly enough to dumb themselves down aren’t thinking about true compatibility, obviously.
Sadly, there are more of these women than we’d like to think.
December 7, 2008 at 10:33 am
It never really occurred to me before what bothered me so much about the patriarchal attitude, but this is a big one. I was taught by my mother to behave intelligently. My sister and I didn’t have very many boyfriends in school because we didn’t act like stupid girls, but we did both have long relationships with guys who clearly didn’t like the “stupid girl” persona. I think that’s part of why it was so hard for me to be one of the popular girls, even though I had a lot of the physical traits that guys found appealing, I was not some ditzy girl who flaunted my body for dates.
I am really glad that I grew up in a church that didn’t admire stupid girl behavior, and I know that I’m still in a church that raises women up who are extremely intelligent and godly.
One other thing that I think is worth mentioning is that a lot of the “pastor’s wives” in the patriarchal and complementarian churches are seen as the standard to which we should rise. This isn’t really a bad thing, but if this is what they are telling girls to act like, then it makes me question if they have enough sense themselves? Are they acting the fool for their husbands’ sakes? Stacey seems like an intelligent woman who wouldn’t behave in this manner, but why would she tell her girls to behave like that if she hadn’t tried it out herself, first?
Finally, one of the things my husband told me repeatedly before we got married is that the thing that attracted him to me was that I was smart. I wasn’t like the girls who went to Bible college to get a husband, and he liked me because I didn’t chase after guys. I have no respect for girls who behave like that, whether they go to college or not. I never really got along with most of the girls in my dorm for that very reason. I didn’t really understand why half of them were even in college (or how they got accepted–sometimes).
I don’t know what the intention of the girls was in these videos. I didn’t find it funny, but I personally didn’t think it was much different from some of the stuff out there on Saturday Night Live (except it wasn’t as well-written or acted).
December 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Studies are showing, and Nicole really brought this out, that things are changing. The new generation’s outlook on gender has a place for smart competant girls. Teen girls are feeling less “odd” for being smart, don’t understand why they wouldn’t want to be smart, and the boys don’t seem to be minding either. The social norms of yesteryear are fading away. Everywhere except for parts of the conservative church culture, strangely enough, where we hang on tight to our “traditional values” (which includes man on the top of a hierarchy) and then wonder why everyone rolls their eyes at us.
It’s all so weird. We should be at the forefront of liberating captives, and instead we can often be found making sure their chains are on good and tight.
I was recently in a conversation with a patriarchal soul (who I believe really means well) and, not for the first time, I shivered as I realized that this person would have been the first to light the match to burn me at the stake, if we were a few centuries back in time. This person would think they were doing God a service. It’s scary, what fundamentalist thinking does to the mind.
December 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm
from Lin in #62 “Has anyone else noticed that in the comp camp (not so much the Patriarchy camp) that after a man goes through his speil about women and their ‘role’, he almost always makes a comment at some point that his wife is intelligent, smart, a real go getter type? I have seen this over and over on blogs where the comp roles stuff is being discussed.
“They want it both ways in some respects. They preach the roles but then don’t want you to think their wife is a stupid doormat because that would reflect on them!”
Very interesting point!
December 7, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I briefly attended a Christian high school that was less intense academically. The teachers were excellent, however the students were tolerant, and sometimes encouraging, of stupid behavior in both guys and girls. Laziness was rampant. In one Bible class junior year, one kid asked why we even need to study the Bible, another couldn’t understand why people in persecuted countries memorize portions of Scripture (i.e. one memorizes John, another Romans, etc.). In their eyes, both things took too much work.
Molly #65: I hope times are changing for the better. Though I know many girls, myself included, still have a fear of intimidating guys. I really hope I find a godly man who values my mind (and respects me), but I am worried I won’t. With all the talk about men leaving the church, I wonder if there will be any genuinely passionate men of God left. I’d love to be married, but not to just anyone.
December 7, 2008 at 5:14 pm
One more thing,if women are told to dumb themselves down for men, then it’s a good indicator that we (church and Christians) are not educating the men well enough. A well-educated man should have nothing to fear from a well-educated woman.
December 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Nicole: “With all the talk about men leaving the church, I wonder if there will be any genuinely passionate men of God left.”
Funny. I just read Nicole’s line after following links to another site that claims that more than 50,000 women a year have left their congregations in the last 20 years. I believe it is an athiest site so I will try to leave the link in this post in honor of both Nicole (for her quote above) and our newest beloved Athiest reader/poster, Rachel.
It’s a long link. Hope it works. Here we go.
http://tazlines.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/buffy-the-vampire-effect-blamed-for-female-exodus-from-the church-blamed
If this doesn’t work. Go to the Complegalitarian site. Find the
Good Post Alert: Men, Women, and the Bible thread (posted by none other than our own molleth.) and drop down to comment 6 and hit Mart DeHaan on Women and the church.
Once there, drop down to related posts– Buffy the Vampire Effect Blamed for Female Exodus from the Church.
So, now I’m left wondering. Who is leaving the church in faster numbers, men or women?
If it’s men, are they really trying to blame women for “feminizing” the church? (Yes, I’ve heard that one.)
And if it’s women, are they also trying to blame it on women for a spirit of Jezabel? (Yep, I’ve heard that one two.)
December 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I have a post in moderation. I hope someone can get to it soon. It is response to Nicole’s men leaving the church comment. I just read a place where women are leaving their denominations on average of 50,000 per year for the last 20 years. I tried to leave a link to that page so you can see it for yourself.
December 8, 2008 at 12:14 am
#61
Nicole,
You are quite right about Indian girls being quite academically competitive. Many of them do go onto have great careers. But in the church alone, you’ll have the anomaly of smart Christian girls (with degrees to boot), being sub-servient to any potential mate.
NormalMiddle, is so right that this is all caveman antics
I mean they should just go about saying “I Tarzan, You Jane,” instead of all this Victorian-Jane Austen era, “I’m a gentleman, Your a Lady.”
December 8, 2008 at 12:18 am
Cindy,
If you are the Cindy of Botkin Syndrome, I’m a big, big fan of your blog. I have read and re-read every post on your blog. I would love to ask you so many questions. Can I have your mail ID?
December 8, 2008 at 12:59 am
Rachel,
That’s me. If you click on my link, in the sidebar, there’s a button you can click that will forward the message to me. (I get about 80% less SPAM that way.)
I have much more to put up on the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome site on forgiveness, but I haven’t had the time and energy to do it yet.
December 8, 2008 at 1:01 am
I should say that I’ve really appreciated everyone’s comments here this weekend.
Nicole, you’re insightful and honest. That’s encouraging to me.
December 8, 2008 at 10:29 am
Thanks for the support and agreement, ladies!
“#68 One more thing,if women are told to dumb themselves down for men, then it’s a good indicator that we (church and Christians) are not educating the men well enough. A well-educated man should have nothing to fear from a well-educated woman.”
Nicole, I think this is a very important point. Why are the boys being raised to be such insecure men who only feel strong when everyone around them acts weak?
December 8, 2008 at 11:23 am
“A well-educated man should have nothing to fear from a well-educated woman”
MAY I JUST SAY AMEN TO THIS BRILLIANT THOUGHT???
(Lindsey, who is home with sick kids again today….)
December 8, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Nicole, I have to say that I am the proud mother of two very bright young men (I know, I’m their mom, but they really are), and that you are exactly the kind of woman I am praying for them to meet!
Although I didn’t agree with her politics, I had to applaud Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado, 1973-1997) when she replied to a question about being a woman in politics with “I have a brain, and I have a uterus, and they both work just fine.”
December 9, 2008 at 11:41 am
Not sure where to put this, but I just wanted to let you ladies know that Matt Chancey is a finalist in the Old Spice 2008 Man of the Year Contest. (http://artofmanliness.com/matthew-l-chancey/) The guy in second place, Howie Farmer, is a retired NY cop and a wonderful coach and mentor to the kids in his community. If you want to keep $2000 out of the Vision Forum coffers, go to the link and vote for Howie Farmer.
I’m sure you’ll agree that Jennie’s essay about her husband is very interesting for what it leaves out…
December 9, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I voted–contest ends Dec. 13th, and it is a close race. 1333 for Howie Farmer and 1350 for Matt Chancey at this moment. Lots of action in the comments for Howie and Matt, plus a warning from Old Spice that if too many votes come from one source in a short period of time, they will not be counted. Oh, those VF technogeeks…
December 9, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Done. If you copy and paste “A Friend’s” link above, it will take you to an Old Spice page that says it no longer works. Just click on “home” near the top left and then scroll down. On the right is the list of manly male nominees. Sadly, Matt still leads. For now…
December 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Sorry, guys, I’m lousy at links. But if we could get the word out to as many people as possible to vote for Farmer, that would be great.
If Chancey DOES win… well, it’ll be interesting, no?
December 9, 2008 at 1:54 pm
No problem, Friend. You did just fine. Links are always a bit touchy here anyway. (Helps keep the spammers out, I imagine, so it’s all good.)
December 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Okay….I haven’t been keeping up but I feel like I have fallen into some alternative universe….
Am I understanding correctly that Matt Chancey is in a manly man contest?
I checked out the link and saw the picture of him with 2 Sudanese freedom fighters sitting there “cool as a cucumber” with a big fat stogie between his fingers.
“He’d never sing his own praises, but, as his wife, I never tire of doing so. My husband can read G.A. Henty’s historical fiction aloud to our children at the dinner table and fix the brakes on a 1964 Ford pickup. He can deliver food and medical aid to a refugee camp on the border of Darfur and stand up in church the next week to tell about it. He can write a terse letter to the editor and compose beautiful poems to his wife. He plays piano masterfully by ear and sings with a wonderful baritone. His many facets shine in every situation, and he has never met a stranger. Because of his genuine manliness, our sons have a role model they can look up to on a daily basis, and our daughters have a hero for every bedtime story. Most of all, I have a husband I greatly admire, respect, and love passionately. He will always be my Man of the Year.
PS – The photo was taken in the upper Nile. My husband, cool as a cucumber in the 120-degree heat, demonstrates that it is possible to be well-dressed even in the far reaches of Africa. His companions are Sudanese freedom fighters.”
The real question is whether or not he will scrub his own toilet after his wife has a baby or whether he will call some girl down the street and have her do it.
Seriously, has Old Spice looked into Matt Chancey’s manly associations with Doug Phillips and “Mrs. Binoculars”?
December 9, 2008 at 2:53 pm
ROFL!!!!!!
I am amusing myself by writing copy like that for my DH.
“He can read National Geographic and listen to NPR, all by himself. He is a man of many faucets, all of which are kept in perfect working order with his mad plumbing skillz. He is an electrician who is not afraid to be poorly (but warmly) dressed even in the far reaches of elevator shafts and high scaffolding. He is a hero to our boys who cheerfully follow him in all adventures of hiking, woodworking, and small engine repair. He is not good at bedtime stories because he falls asleep in the middle…but he makes up for it by being exceptionally patient (except when he’s not) and exceptionally handsome (even when he’s a mess).
PS-the photo was taken under our Ford Econoline Conversion van in mid-December, 2007, demonstrating that is is possible for a Manly Man to lay in the frozen sleet of the driveway late into the chilly night, after working overtime all day, to save $400 fixing a van himself with only the aid of a Haynes manual and a devoted wife standing lookout in case the van falls off the jack.”
December 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Amy,
Love the description of your manly man.
Jenny forgot to mention how her manly man is a shrewd and preemptive man. He anticipated his political opponent’s run for office and bought the web domain which bears his opponent’s name so that this opponent couldn’t have the domain which bears his own name. (Name stealing?) Some, with ethics, might consider it to be sneaky and underhanded but a manly man will stop at nothing to win.
I am actually enjoying reading through the bios on the Old Spice site. They are real bios and pictures of real men. Does anyone know if Matt works with freedom fighters or is he just posing with them and his fedora and stogie? Could that picture put those freedom fighters lives in peril? Why that picture? Why not a picture of him being a hero reading bedtime stories to his girls?
December 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I know I have felt that I should play dumb when it comes to theological discussions in Sunday School classes. It is just really hard for me to sit there and listen to a teacher who doesn’t know what they are talking about or is teaching things that are not according to Scripture and me being about the only one who gets it. It is easier to play dumb, especially as a woman, than it is to be the one to speak up but it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth.
I literally have had women tell me that I shouldn’t be concerned about things that don’t affect me (ie., slavery). And that was during a Bible study on Leviticus when we were discussing what happens to a female slave who is being sexually exploited by her owner. I wanted to understand what that law was saying and she couldn’t understand why I would even care about it since I wasn’t a slave and that would never happen to me. It is very hard to find women who want to study the Bible in depth because this attitude is so pervasive. It is sad how truly ignorant most Christians (male and female) are when it comes to rightly dividing Scripture. They simply parrot what they have been taught and never bother to check the Scriptures to make sure it is accurate. And they are happy as clams to do so.
I do wonder why I am wired the way I am and why God would allow this since it seems more acceptable for a woman to be wired differently than I am. Nothing that a lobotomy or electro-shock therapy wouldn’t cure, I suppose.
December 9, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“Corrie mentioned something like this near the top of the thread. It reminds me of what I heard in the cult/church: “Wait for the men.” So if we’re on the railroad tracks and I can see the train coming and the men can’t, I’m just supposed to stand there and become a train wreck?”
Good analogy. And I have heard this very thing taught in patriarchal circles. For instance, I remember a woman being told that she could not usurp her husband and get a job to provide food and shelter for her and her children so they would not freeze to death or go hungry while her husband refused to work. She was told that it was God’s will for her to wait for her husband to provide and if that meant starvation or being kicked out of their home and becoming homeless, so be it. But, one thing these geniuses knew was that it was NOT God’s will for her to go and provide what her children needed. That would be rebellious and blaspheming God for her to take up the role of provider. Her pastor told her to to get a job because her husband refused and these women told her that her pastor was wrong, too.
It is enough to drive a person to drink when listening to some of the whacky logic of the patriocentrists.
December 9, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Dulcimer Amy, I like your idea of making our own manly-man lists. My guy isn’t afraid to scrub a toilet or two, either. He also doesn’t fear smart girls. His testosterone level runs high enough that he isn’t threatened by housework or women who have a brain and a college degree. And he doesn’t even need Old Spice or their contest to assure him of his manly-manness.
How is everyone else’s non-patrio guy a real manly-man?
December 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Does anyone have an answer to my post? It’s # 45. Thanks!
December 9, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“do wonder why I am wired the way I am and why God would allow this since it seems more acceptable for a woman to be wired differently than I am. ”
It is more acceptable because that is the carnal view of women (even about themselves, unfortuantly) as a result of the fall. Too many people think that history of women started in the 1960’s. It didn’t.
December 9, 2008 at 6:40 pm
emr said: “The whole manly-men thing to me is kind of like being cool — you know — if you ARE, you don’t have to SAY so.”
Isn’t that the truth. I remember in college my instructors kept harping on professionalism–are we professionals, how can be treated like professionals. I got sick of it, until one day I quoted my husband, who’d once heard:
“If you have to ask if you are a professional, you probably aren’t.”
Perhaps the same could be said about manliness and patriarchs?
Another excellent thought about the fixation on roles, something that’s come up here before I believe. The patrios treat the concept of roles as if it were a major theological point.
Love God with all your heart; Love your neighbor as yourself; never ever forget your gender roles.
December 9, 2008 at 8:13 pm
emr #77: awww, I turned bright red after reading that. Thank you, that means a lot, really it does.
All of this manly men stuff makes me wonder, what if a son is gay? The “multi-generational faithfulness” topic is pushed so much I wonder if they will accept him? I hope they would for the sake of calling themselves Christians and bearing witness to Christ’s name. Or what if a boy doesn’t fit the mold of “patriarch” and would rather be photographing beautiful scenery, or in theatre, or dancing?
I remember a Botkin blog post about how a friend who loves chemistry, but didn’t go to college b/c of their beliefs, turned that into a love for cooking. Good for her, exploring her talents and their applications, that is commendable. But I hope that they are not comparing them and saying learning chemistry is the same as cooking. I love science, especially in relation to the human body. Cooking is okay, interesting but not my passion. I do not want to rearrange my passions to fit what someone tells me.
I figure God created me and in my thinking it appears contrary to give someone a gift/passion only to forbid them from using it to the full potential and to His glory. It seems that these roles have been created that few, if anyone, can fit in to. The rest of us must amputate, mutilate, and conform ourselves to this certain perception of humanity.
December 9, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Kelli and emr, I know it is easy for questions to get lost in these threads–happened to me a time or two! It seems that Tiffany’s betrothal has been canceled/revoked/annulled, and you can find more information on that in the comments on Thread 3 Patriocentricity, from 92-99 with Corrie and Karen, then lots more in the same thread from 142 on about “biblical” betrothal. You must read Cindi’s post about tomatoes, which is #200–don’t skip it amidst all the heated accusations of gossip. I have no more comments other than wishing God’s best for the young couple involved.
December 10, 2008 at 12:16 am
(chuckle) He was wearing that hat in the picture for the Old Spice manliness poll, too. Well-dressed is in the eye of the beholder/wife, I suppose, but that is NOT a stylish hat! Ughh…
December 10, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Is this “Old Spice” as in the product?
Isn’t this just too weird? Matt Chancy? That picture looks like he is the white plantation owner, given his affinity for Dabney. Please.
December 10, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“Matt Chancy? That picture looks like he is the white plantation owner,”
Bwahahaha! Yes!
December 10, 2008 at 1:21 pm
#103 Karen, I was thinking the photo looked like the days of British colonization.
Not exactly Kipling…more like Somerset Maugham.
December 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“kathleen” writes : I will continue to keep them in my prayers and hope that one day they will find the Lord.
Oh, kathleen,
Thank you for your loving Christian ad hominem comment directed at all those who read here with discernment. Thanks for noting that you, like God, can peer into the hearts of men while everyone else looks unto the outward things. Tell me, is my name written in the Lambs Book of Life like your own is, or will I be one to meet Jesus to say “Lord, Lord!” who will be sent to an eternal reward of weeping and gnashing of teeth. I’d like to know how you can tell.
December 10, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Hallelujah! The truth does come out, and the women on the TW blog are shouting the truth about themselves.
December 10, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“Humility does not describe their character.”
I can’t say it describes your words, either.
December 10, 2008 at 8:03 pm
So we are gossips, arrogant, prideful, unteachable, harsh, brittle, proud, brash, loiterers, pitiful, outrageous, destroyers, spinners, rippers of the Body, vicious and shameless non-sisters in Christ.
Wow.
Remember what they say about those who have to resort to name-calling?
December 10, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Debbie, I forgot to add vindictive and cynical.
December 10, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Thank you, Ruthie.
December 10, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Are 20 year olds, children?
December 10, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Debbie from CA,
Doesn’t this thread address the trend in some Christian groups wherein women are trained to feign stupidity in order to be accepted as is encouraged within some Christian circles? I’ve written here citing examples from my own life when I either belittled myself or I was required to belittle myself, feigning stupidity. I’ve posed questions about why young women would want to engage in this if their whole married lives would be contingent upon feigning disingenuous behavior and mannerisms. I wrote about how sad it is that if someone wilfully defined themselves as “Ditzy,” how sad it is because at some point, that was portrayed as virtuous to them, or they were defined or identified by someone in such a way. Perhaps it was their parents that did so, and I commented that if it was or if they were trained to do so, that is sad for the girls and reflects quite poorly on the parents IMO.
Other people here have made comments that echo my own and describe their own experiences with this expectation that prevails in some circles.
How odd. I thought that this was actually a way of advocating for them. Can you point out where I’ve been attacking children?
December 10, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Cindy K, in post #126. I think you accidentally got me confused with one of our patrio guests? Because my personal opinion of you would be the GOOD flip side of their not-so-nice list describing us. You’re smart, humble, teachable, kind…
December 10, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Heaven forbid you have fun and goof around.
December 10, 2008 at 9:34 pm
There are always two sides to everything. Not one of us was at the going away party, so we really can’t stand back and judge them for what they did. Not remembering the words to a song, wearing army hats, and probably 20 other things. Who cares…they were having fun. Do any of you get that. It was all done in fun. Is there a problem in teaching your children to act stupid, YES. But that is not what was going on here.
December 10, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Kathleen, I know 132 comments is a lot to wade through, but you might want to read everything that’s been said here. “Goofing around” was addressed by many commenters, especially in comments 20-40. In post 30, I actually specifically addressed why I felt ‘goofy’ was exactly what was missing from their show. As I said then, I hope it was their own ignorance of the genre that made them act the way they did, but whatever the reason for it, the way they acted was very concerning.
December 10, 2008 at 9:53 pm
ROTFL “Very concerning”, are you serious. My grandma had a saying for people who disagree for the sheer enjoyment of it…Their minds made up, so don’t confuse them with the facts. Have a good night ladies!
December 10, 2008 at 10:52 pm
As my momma wisely says over and over again, “If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
So those of you who find our words and discussion so “hot” to your liking, heed above mentioned advice and depart and be holier somewhere else.
December 10, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Ahh, Cindy K., that makes sense now. And no, you were NOT attacking children. I’d say it’s precisely the children we are worried about around here. They’re being used for their parents’ own means and likely will suffer for it in the future.
About the girls ACTING stupid. So if patrios think that boys will seek the stupid-ACTING girls, do you think they really, truly want stupid wives, too? Or do they want them just a little stupid, and for sure not quite as smart as husband. Because, you know, that would emasculate him or something.
But they need girls smart enough to educate the future patrio sons and make them all manly and wise and stuff–at least until the sons reach puberty, anyway, when patrio dad needs to take over boy education.
And just how does a girl evolute from acting sorta-stupid to slightly-stupid once she gets that first kiss witnessed by Dougie? Carefully, I imagine.
Sigh, it’s all so complicated. Fortunately, we’re smart enough (yes, we are!) to figure it–and them–all out.
December 11, 2008 at 3:20 am
Debbie & Kathleen,
Please don’t hit out at people here. Its Unchristian! If you have a problem with the views represented here, please criticise their views not the people.
To quote Molley: “You can beat up or beat down views, but not people.”
I for one, feel very lucky to be able to take part in such discussions because this is the most Christian, understanding group of women I have come across. And let me tell you that I have for 20 years been in a different churches and have never met with such clear, undogmatic thinking.
I have for months been reading these discussions and many a time, when the argument heated up, these ladies (I’m scared to use the word, I definetly don’t want to club anyone here with LAF) were the first to apologise if they had unitentionally hurt someone.
Even in this discussion, please list the words you two have used and the words Cindy, Nicole or Thatmom have used. A world of difference!
Ur embarassing urself by calling urselves christians and then making mean comments about everyone, for the ostensible purpose of “defending the ditzy girls,” who are by the way adults!
December 11, 2008 at 3:52 am
I forgot to include Ruthie, the comment was also addressed to you
December 11, 2008 at 4:16 am
Umm, Rachel, I think you got me in the wrong camp. But I promise I’d never call you a name for it.
Actually, I echo everyone’s earlier welcome to you here. It’s a good safe place.
December 11, 2008 at 5:59 am
Are there are two Debbies? I see a plain Debbie and Debbie from CA.
Debbie from CA, my apologies!
December 11, 2008 at 6:02 am
This is a bit funny! How did it start? Cindy also seems to have addressed another Debbie
December 11, 2008 at 6:09 am
Debbie from CA,
Thanks for the welcome!
Debbie,
About your comment #139.
“But they need girls smart enough to educate the future patrio sons and make them all manly and wise and stuff–at least until the sons reach puberty, anyway, when patrio dad needs to take over boy education. ”
Something similar happened in the Marthomite church in Orissa.
The pastors there decided that the womenfolk were better off teaching at the Marthomite Society School, so they decried all the women who were qualified to teach in the community should step forward.
Some of the girls only finished their 10th or 12th standard. They didn’t go to college but stayed on to teach the kindergarten children.
A few years later, all these girls were replaced by teachers who did have college degrees; some of whom were men.
So, the more you study, the better your chances are in life
December 11, 2008 at 8:58 am
I just want to point out that the “kathleen” in the last several comments (except this one) — was not me. I’ve been away for awhile, getting my home ready for the holidays
Carry on, my friends!
December 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Hate to keep chiming in here with all the practical wisdom, but mama also says THERE IS ALWAYS 2 SIDES TO EVERY STORY.
And we shouldn’t always jump to believe the most “Christian” version of one.
Or the one that sounds best wins?
December 12, 2008 at 12:26 am
This has been interesting. Looking back on the “Abbott and Costello” discourses here with “Ruthie” and “kathleen” with a small K (not the former member of Gregg Harris’s church for decades), most of what they offered here to discredit the subject of this thread takes advantage of what Cialdini describes as “weapons of influence” (trappings of our human tendencies) that salesmen use to manipulate people into buying their products. If you go to the Lucifer Effect website that highlights the work of Zimbardo on the depravity of human behavior, select “Resisting Influence” from the subdirectory. He has a very good summary there of Cialdini’s book.
When the tag team popped up here yesterday, I had a choice to ignore them or to engage them. Part of what made me choose to engage them came from my own tendency to find consistency, that is aside from the fact that it was a good opportunity to point out their illogic and the nature of their ad hominem tactics.
One of the strongest motivators to we human beings is the desire to look consistent to others in our words, actions and even the interworkings of our internal thoughts. Most people like to believe that they make sense, because it is tremendously threatening to realize that we are inconsistent and don’t make sense. This is very personal. What do I mean?
If you are generous and generosity is something you strive for in your personal walk and your behavior models this, you are demonstrating consistency. You believe it and the things that you do bear evidence that you are generous. Everything lines up. If someone comes up and accuses you of selfishness or stealing or of hurting the poor that you love and minister to, this challenges your own sense of consistency. It’s a very powerful(personal) motivation to fight and rise in your own self-defense to prove that you are consistent and that this information is not true. That’s why name calling is so powerful for children as well as adults.
So in this instance, I think it’s telling that one group here cites examples and events (that people like Karen and like me have sought and verified specifics with first hand sources or “victims” of some of these things mentioned). But those who find this inconvenient only use name calling to counter objective facts. That’s all they have. And what meaning does that have to me if none of what they say is true? I can sit here with a three inch stack of verified documentation and the dozen first hand sources I’ve spoken to personally who are perfectly willing to go to court to testify and have written notarized affidavits of their experiences attesting to the truth.
What weight does a charge of being a gossip and a liar have with me? That does not challenge my sense of consistency at all, because I’ve learned how to resist these cheap tricks that manipulators use. It’s not pleasant to be called a name, but I recognize this for what it is — a tactic of propaganda and manipulation, and manipulators count on people to fall for them. Part of learning how to respond to playground bullies involves resisting your own internal pressures to appear consistent to others and learning what opinion to value. My grandmother had a saying: “Consider the source.” How troubling can it be when your source is truth and when a liar or one deceived by a manipulator says otherwise. Those charges aren’t worth the paper (or cyberpixels) that they’re written on.
Why is it that no one in the patriocentric camp will ever engage a critic in a fair discussion and in a neutral setting? There’s plenty of us. When we get down through the layers of rhetoric that seem to be pleasant on the outside, the deceit emerges. I just had this happen to me with Voddie Baucham. When I had a knowlegable, respected person of authority attest that I was right and that Voddie confabulated and believed something that had no basis in fact (though it seemed reasonable to him), why did I suddenly get a passive-aggressive slap from him instead of him demonstrating his virtue by sticking to what he wrote to me several times — he wanted to have peace and build an atmosphere of respect with me so we could have as much fellowship in the Lord as we could. But what happened when the truth fell to my favor? He responded with anything but kindness and common respect. And I can only defer to what I believed from the start: patriocentricity is all about power and money. (The sex manifests through the warped control of gender rather than hedonism, but I know that there is a sector that indulges hedonism and sexual “inappropriateness,” too. And all of that will eventually come to light.)
Moral of the story? Choose whether you are going to be in the crowd who marvels at the emperors new clothes or whether you’re willing to look at things with the earnest and honesty of the little boy who exclaimed that the emperor was naked. Was he a gossip? Was he a vindictive cynic? Was he a coward? Was he pretentious or honest? Think about it and choose.
Grandmas have lots of good sayings.
No good deed goes unpunished,” “life is not a rose garden,” but then also consider that “you only intimidate the weak.”
December 12, 2008 at 12:45 am
From Zimbardo’s “Lucifer Effect” (.com)website — general statements from one of the first pages under “Resisting Infulence”:
Varieties of Influence
…Other times the influence comes not dressed up in words in persuasive messages or visually appealing ads, but simply when the members of a group you are in, or want to belong to, act in a particular way. They don’t have to tell you what to do; they simply exhibit the behavior or the style of action that is expected of “good team members.” That form of social influence is known as conformity. “Do as we do,” is the conformity motto.
Go along with the majority, the consensus and be accepted. Refuse to dress as they do, talk like they do, value what they value, or act in ways that are clearly the accepted social norm for this group, and you are rejected, isolated, expelled, ridiculed. The power of many groups in our lives to influence our thoughts and actions can be enormous, especially when we desperately want to be accepted by any given “in group.”
You don’t need a group to put pressure on you to act as they expect you to do; in fact, much social influence comes from a singular source—another person. Compliance is a form of influence in which direct pressure is put on individuals to take some specific action, such as doing a favor, buying a product.
[OR as CINDY adds, keeping your mouth shut about the factors that make so many of these self-established experts and ministers disqualified from holding positions of leadership in the church, and I don't just mean divorce.]
The influence agent doesn’t want to change your mind, only to get you to act on his or her request. Sometimes the request is pro-social, like donating blood in a blood drive, but more often than not, the request is to get people to purchase a variety of products that they might not need or even want initially.
In some special cases, an organization wants to go beyond inducing such specific changes, and actually to get individuals to change in more fundamental ways, to become “true believers” in some ideology or belief system. They want individual members to internalize a set of beliefs and values, even to change their personalities, so that they totally identify with the group’s mission. One common form of this intense personal change is seen in cult recruiting and indoctrination.
Finally, all these sources of social influence are imposed from the outside in, from assorted influence agents on individuals or groups. One of the most powerful forms of influence is self-persuasion, where conditions are set up that encourage individuals to engage in personal thought and decision processes. Obviously we tend to know our strengths and weaknesses better than do others, so we can tailor self-generated persuasive messages likely to be effective. One tactic for inducing self-persuasion comes from role-playing positions that are contrary to one’s beliefs and values. Also when we are resolving a commitment we have made to engage in public behavior that does not follow from our personal beliefs, cognitive dissonance is created. To the extent that we come to believe we made that commitment freely, without (awareness of) external situational pressures, we start to rationalize it and come to convince ourselves that it was the right action and the right position to hold.
These dynamics are as much at play here with these charges that to discuss these unpleasant things are lies and gossip as they are in the fearmongering, truth twisting and reductio ad hitlerum preached at believers in churches and homeschooling conventions.
It is manipulation. It is saying “God hath not said you shall SURELY die.” It’s a game for profit.
December 12, 2008 at 11:41 am
Karen,
Ruthie does not want to know the truth. She isn’t interested in the truth. She ignores it. She doesn’t care whether self-proclaimed leaders of God’s people are honest or not. That is why she has to resort to incoherent statements and ad hominem attacks. It is obvious she doesn’t want to take an objective look at what anyone says that might shed light on the whole story.
The patriocentrists specialize in fantasy. That is what they sell and they use all sorts of techniques to make sure people buy their fantasy. I think people deep down know that it doesn’t exist but it is too painful to deal with reality so they keep on role-playing and dressing up and living the fantasy.
Cindy,
That was an excellent blurb about influence. Thanks!
December 13, 2008 at 11:00 pm
- update –
Matthew Chancey is 200 votes ahead of Farmer
I don’t want vision forum and its ilk getting 2k…
http://artofmanliness.com/index.php?s=howie+farmer
Thanks ladies.
December 14, 2008 at 10:02 am
Please help! I’ve been following the Man of the Year contest and Matthew Chancey has now taken a commanding lead. A slew of blogs, including Doug Phillips Vision Forum blog, decided to wait until a day before the contest ends to suddenly link to the contest, and thus keep anyone from catching up. The Chanceys and their supporters have hijacked the contest are using it as a way to promote their crazy views. Please vote for Howie Farmer, and get everyone you know to link to the contest! It ends at midnight tonight!
December 14, 2008 at 10:05 am
http://artofmanliness.com/vote-2008/
December 14, 2008 at 11:55 am
Yes, Sandy– they all did it within HOURS of each other. Life In a Shoe, Doug’s Blog, Buried Treasure, Persevero, RC Sproul, etc. Doug even had his eldest CHILD Joshua put it up on his board for CHILDREN, Ballantyne the Brave. “Joshua” writes, “Mr. Chancey (as David) [is] standing up against the Goliath of effeminate men and preparing to chop off the head of that monster.” Lovely.
December 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm
This is the latest posting from Brett McKay, the MODERATOR of the Old Spice contest site:
“Another reminder to not abuse voting. One vote per computer. We’re checking IP addresses, so if we see a large amount of votes come from a single IP address in just a matter of minutes, we’ll delete them. So no deleting your cookies and voting again and again.”
And, comments on the contest site are now being moderated.
December 14, 2008 at 2:11 pm
What I meant by that last statement was that just PERHAPS, in their last minute push to get Matt voted the Old Spice Man of the Year, Chancey’s friends have been bending the contest rules somewhat…
December 14, 2008 at 2:39 pm
So I guess the patrios think that cheating is okay, as long as they’re manly about it, maybe.
Sadly, I’m not surprised. Remember the Allosaur, the Homeschooling magazine fraud…
December 14, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Gail:
This lady is a Christian, yes?
She should be treated as your sister in Christ.
Reading though the site the Criticism is rampant, no matter what she does it is a laughing matter.
If you yourself were under such criticism I would argue for you.
As brothers and sisters we should not be treating each other with such disrespect.
This is a person for whom Christ died.
If anything pray for her, pray that God will shed light on sin, convict her of any false doctrine.
You cannot change her mind, only God can.
In Christ,
Daniel.
December 14, 2008 at 3:28 pm
cynthia and Debbie from CA: What kind of a witness of Christ is the behavior of the Chanceys and friends?
December 14, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Karen:
DH and I tried to watch the LDS move “Singles Ward” and he could not take the childish behavior of the men and women for very long.
Gail
December 14, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“I fail to see how I am helping them to do anything, since I do not know them, nor have I read anything they have written.”
Then how do you know if their behavior is wrong or not? How do you know if their teaching is scriptural?
“You have to remember that the only reason Paul rebuked Peter in public was because Peter’s sin was against those people. And Paul kept his rebuke for Peter alone – he did not ask the Gentiles to join in on the rebuke. He did not get into a huddle with the Gentiles and talk about how wrong Peter was. It was open, and that was that.”
Peter’s sin was against God. He did not need to ask the Gentiles to join in because the problem was two fold. Peter’s behavior and what his behavior was teaching was false and negated the New Covenant. Think about it, Peter was a senior apostle and Paul had the nerve to call him out publicly. Even though Peter was saved, he was not acting like it.
“Words, yes. But you attack her personally. They only reason I am saying anything is because I want to remind you that she is a Christian! I don’t know her. I haven’t read her books. I just defend her because she is my sister in Christ. Her everyday behavior shouldn’t be under scrutiny.
Only her books can be criticized.”
It is YOUR opinion that she is being attacked personally for no reason. But, Perhaps Paul was told the same thing by the Judaizers there…that Peter was being attacked personally. How is behavior anything but personal? How do you get around that one?
“You say she and her husband are leaders of a cult, but elsewhere on this website there are claims that she is a Christian. She cannot be a Christian and a cult leader at the same time. (The true definition for cult is anything outside of Christianity. It’s a contradiction.)”
Can you give a reference for that, please? The only thing we have to go on is fruit which is both behavior and teaching. They make their living off this.
“You can correct her personally, meet with her personally, but to attack her every action is offensive even to me.
You can point out the things wrong with her books, not her life, public though it is.”
This is a huge problem for those in ministry. They want to make their public behavior off limits. This was Clinton’s defense as president. His behavior was to be off limits and we were told it had nothing to do with his governing. Are you saying that those in ministry should get a pass with their behavior?
“God chooses the weak to confound the wise, we are all sinners, if not for God we would follow after occults, Satan, and our own sin.”
Ironically, these are not usually the ones making their income and profit off ministry.
“Correct her false teaching, do it in love and be done.”
What is your definition of ‘love’? What about those who are blindly following false teaching and are being told to ignore the contradictions in behavior or never to question the leaders?
Sorry, Daniel, but if we follow your advice, we could never confront false teachers publicly. Which is the whole point. They will do whatever they can to make people think it is a sin to confront or even question them. Unfortuantly, many believe that, too.
December 14, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“You say she and her husband are leaders of a cult, but elsewhere on this website there are claims that she is a Christian. She cannot be a Christian and a cult leader at the same time. (The true definition for cult is anything outside of Christianity. It’s a contradiction.)”
Daniel, where did you get this definition?
The word “cult” refers to groups devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.
Christians tend to was to apply the term “cult” to religious groups who use non-standard translations of the Bible, put additional revelation on a similar or higher level than the Bible, or have beliefs or practices that are not held by orthodox Christianity.
This describes the people in the Patriarchal movement to a “T”, but it only makes them heretics, not non-Christians, because heretics are still Christians unless that reject the idea that Jesus is the Son of God and that God raised Him from the dead. If they reject these two principles, then they have moved beyond heresy into apostasy.
December 14, 2008 at 5:50 pm
What part of attacking her daughters is confronting false teaching?
December 14, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Daniel, I haven’t been around this blog much for the last month, so please bring me up to speed. Could you please provide the quote attacking Stacey’s daughters (as opposed to their actions or their teachings)
December 14, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“You can correct her personally, meet with her personally, but to attack her every action is offensive even to me.
You can point out the things wrong with her books, not her life, public though it is.”
Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard…
Should your rule apply to these Christian leaders, too?
December 14, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”
We are to hate sin and not the sinner, because we battle “not against flesh and blood”, but against the devil and his minions; however, we are also bound to confront public sinning and false teaching, for the good of the church.
December 14, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Of the 26 comments backed up in moderation at the Old Spice site, the moderator, Brett McKay, has approved only ONE so far, a defense of Matt by his “normal” brother, Caleb:
“Please excuse all grammatical and spelling errors…two of the many things I suck at in life*** …reading this comment section is actually quite funny. My brother Matt has some very upside-down views that I don’t even pretend to understand, and honestly I’m not really interested in defending his ‘internet honor’. However, for those of you reading this comment board saying ‘What the hell are these people talking about?!’, I offer you this summary: 1) Matt is not a part of a cult. I can understand how people could misunderstand this: 8 kids, homeschooled, lives in the country, goes to a small church, etc., but it is not a cult. It is however, by many peoples standards, very strange. I mean who has eight kids?! Well, Matt & Jennie do…and Jon & Kate on TLC. 2) Matt would never force his religion on another person. Where he gets into trouble, is when people want him to be honest. ‘What do you think about _____?’ He’ll tell you, and it will sound insane! However, if you give him 1 hour of your time after the question, you probably won’t agree with him, but you will understand where he’s coming from. 3) Matt is in the Sudan right now risking his life, and he is getting paid to be there. ‘WHAT?!?! He’s not going out of charity!’ No, he’s going because it’s his job…and guess what: he loves his job. He loves helping people, loving people, sitting and talking with people, and if he can support his wife and 8 KIDS while doing that, then I offer that he is not uncharitable, he is a caring husband, father, friend, and businessman. 4) Matt smokes a pipe and cigars. Booyah! If you want to vote for Matt, by all means do. If you don’t want to, please don’t. Peace. – Caleb”
December 14, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“Of the 26 comments backed up in moderation at the Old Spice site, the moderator, Brett McKay, has approved only ONE so far, a defense of Matt by his “normal” brother, Caleb”….
Yeah, I noticed that too.
You know, maybe we’re taking this Old Spice thing too seriously, writing all those letters, etc. It’s just a silly contest, after all – what’s the worst that can happen?
Matt doesn’t win, it’s all good.
Or Matt DOES win, and we boycott Old Spice and maybe even Proctor and Gamble, and encourage everyone else who think that the Patrios are a bunch of dangerous nuts to do the same.
Looks like a win-win situation to me.
December 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm
HA! Just voted for Matt, you crazy women, and I don’t even know who he is. Guess you better start your boycott!!!
December 14, 2008 at 9:33 pm
“Looks like a win-win situation to me.”
LOL, yes, Cynthia… I’ve adjusted my attitude and I do believe you’re right.
December 14, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Hi all I am new here having just dumped the kool-aid and gotten away from the patriarchy mindset/movement/cult. I just wondered if any of you lady’s had emailed Old-Spice regarding Matt. I did because I wanted Old-Spice to know that not all homeschoolers admire this man. I believe this man thinks he is superior to those of other races and I made sure Old-Spice knew it. I also threatened to go to the media with this story and Matt’s views.
Did anyone else contact Old-Spice??
December 14, 2008 at 10:56 pm
How many times have people like ‘kathleen’ and ‘Daniel’ showed up here asking the same questions, over and over? We repeat the same arguments (often day after day!), and inevitably the questioner devolves into petty insults. I would suggest that when a commenter indicates by their questions that they are looking to cause an argument, and/or repeats the same points that have already been addressed, we simply ignore them. There is no point engaging with people who resort to name-calling.
It looks like Matthew Chancey will win the competition. I’m very glad. The brighter a light that shines on these people, the more damage it shall do. Just look at the comment from his brother: “Matt would never force his religion on another person. Where he gets into trouble, is when people want him to be honest. ‘What do you think about _____?’ He’ll tell you, and it will sound insane! However, if you give him 1 hour of your time after the question, you probably won’t agree with him, but you will understand where he’s coming from. 3) Matt is in the Sudan right now risking his life, and he is getting paid to be there. ‘WHAT?!?! He’s not going out of charity!’ No, he’s going because it’s his job…and guess what: he loves his job.”
No reasonable person could read this stuff and think patrios are normal people, let along examples to be praised and emulated. Give them rope, as the saying goes, and they hang themselves.
So I hope he wins (although it is a shame that the embarrassingly desperate efforts of VF are going to deprive another candidate who seems a very worthy recipient of a $2000 prize). Shine a light. Such attention hurts them in the long run.
The cringe factor of a)creating b) entering and worst of all c) soliticing for votes in a ‘Manly Man’ competition goes without saying. I thank the Lord the men in my life would cut off their feet before putting themselves forward for something so childish.
December 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“What part of attacking her daughters is confronting false teaching?’
This thread is about ‘behavior’ which can be a form of false teaching as we see with Peter refusing to eat with Gentiles.
Daniel, I am still amazed that you claim to know nothing about Stacy or her teaching. Yet you call our discussion an attack. How would you know?
December 14, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“Matt is in the Sudan right now risking his life, and he is getting paid to be there.”
Caleb…a bit of high drama?
There are many missionaries there…who actually LIVE there.
December 15, 2008 at 12:49 am
Slightly off topic, but does anyone remember something about possibly the first Vision Forum film festival, and some of the entrants inadvertently signing over rights to their films due to Doug Phillips’ maneuvering? I have been trying to remember where I read it.
Speaking of shining a bright light on the patrios, I am thinking of writing letters to Crown Ministries and the producers of Fireproof and Expelled expressing concern for their lending credibility to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum through the SAICFF. The big names will probably bring in more attendees and publicity, which could be a good thing for those whose eyes are open.
December 15, 2008 at 12:52 am
Dumped the kool-aid, glad you have seen the light about patriocentricity, and glad you are here and speaking up!
December 15, 2008 at 2:03 am
OK, call me dense, but just what business do supposedly godly women have voting about the “manliness” of any man except their own husbands? All these silly women (and yes, I used that phrase deliberately) voting for Matt Chancey on the basis of his alleged manliness, doesn’t sound like it’s consistent with their battle cry of “modesty.”
Sorry, but I just do not get it. And I still think that is one bug-ugly hat. Manly the guy may or may not be — only his wife really knows for sure, right? And I don’t care 2 cents about that — but his notion of what is appropriate dress when posing with “freedom fighters” is beyond bizarre.
December 15, 2008 at 2:21 am
Well, it is one thing for a woman who enters her husband in a contest like that. But what of Doug Phillips promoting the whole thing? In its own way, it just adds to the weight of evidence that this group operates on comparison and hype. They are as postmodern as the world that they claim to hate so much.
If it was a book about doctrine that they were promoting by means of Matt winning, I would be far more verbal about it. But it is something really just plain silly. So Matt wins a manly man contest. In the grand scheme of all things, this is kind of a mockery. Why isn’t just the fact of knowing who you are enough on its own? They can stand before the Bema Seat one day, and Matt can have his pile of merits to give to Jesus. How much value do you think the Old Spice contest will add? Maybe Doug and crew think it will add a whole lot, fighting for truth, manliness and the American Way.
It just proves Vision Forum to be a joke. They need Old Spice to validate them? Funny, but my Bible says something about not marvelling at the world’s hatred of us and to expect such.
Matt and Jennie can snuggle up and stay warm at night with the warm fuzzy of an old spice contest. Maybe that works for them. Maybe they should have it and deserve it now, because I don’t think it’s going to matter much one day.
December 15, 2008 at 2:41 am
You know, maybe this contest is like some kind of sacrament to those at VF because it concerns gender. Maybe they see this as extending their covenant dominion into other covenantal units? Maybe this will bring them, in their minds, one step closer to having dominion over the secular culture? It is a making of Old Spice their footstool and their incense for their feet.
They can play this up to no end, like placing those big beacon lights around a sporting arena, shining them up into the night sky to gain attention. It reminds me of when I was a teenager, and my dad was driving me home from YOUTH GROUP or back from getting my allergy shot or something. Another car’s headlight was installed upside down or something, and the high beam was shining up into the foggy sky instead of down on the road. I said that it looked like a small scale version of one of those publicity stunt beacons. Dad said “Grand Opening to the front of my car.” And we laughed because it was so silly.
Well, by analogy, Doug can use this and shine beacons around if Matt wins. He can make a big fuss and carry on about how manly VF men are in COMPARISON to the rest of the world. And all I’m going to think of is that woman with the “grand opening to the front of her car.” I think it’s Judge Judy that has a saying or a book by this title of “Don’t pee on my shoe and tell me it’s raining.” Well, that’s about all Doug does, and ultimately, the joke is on him. That’s all he has.
And when business gets bad, some of these people can rent library rooms all over the country and speak there or tiny classrooms (or just sit in the lobby) at convention sites, and the only people in attendance to hear their speeches will be his kids. They can call the talk a life changing convention. They can tell themselves that they’re out doing the good work of God, even though the sinful world doesn’t want to hear it. And they can get out those beacon lights and say, “Grand Opening!” and “Big Event!”
Most of these men created themselves with postmodern hype, and people jumped on the bandwagon because they thought they were important. So that is really all they have. Let them have it. There’s not enough Old Spice in the history of the world to cover up some of the things they’ve done.
December 15, 2008 at 8:32 am
I don’t think Old Spice will ever smell the same to me again. Seriously, how to the patrios even define “manliness” in the first place. My idea of a “real man” is pretty far from what I see with Phillips, Chancey et al. But, we can remember that Chancey had his political butt whipped by a woman named Twinkle!
December 15, 2008 at 8:36 am
Daniel, I, too, have a difficult time believing that anyone would just happen to run across this blog and pronounce all of us in error without taking time to get all the facts. Lin has expressed it well…when people set themselves up as the examples of family life and they promote their own children as such (I refer to this as “Christian exhibitionism) then there ought to be scrutiny. And when those same people make an income by selling their paradigm, isn’t it only right that there be truth in advertising? Sadly, there are many people who have to go through a lot of pain and experience before they see this movement for what it is.
December 15, 2008 at 8:38 am
X koolaid drinker,
Welcome! I am sure that you will be a blessing to those who are struggling with those issues you have survived!
I haven’t yet written a note to Old Spice but plan to do so today. The picture of Chancey with the freedom fighters is really offensive to me when I know that this man honors and admires racists like Dabney. Old Spice ought to hate being associated with this kind of man.
December 15, 2008 at 9:53 am
Did anyone else poke around that site that manliness site? I can’t believe Phillips would want to participate in this sort of thing. Did you see the lessons on being a real man we can learn from James Bond? What in the world?
http://artofmanliness.com/2008/11/13/6-lessons-in-manliness-from-james-bond/
December 15, 2008 at 10:14 am
Gail, I haven’t seen that movie.
December 15, 2008 at 11:23 am
Romans 2:1 “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”
I am my own person, and I did come across this site.
I’m done though, no one can have a conversation with you.
December 15, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well it looks like Matt has won the manliness contest. My husband was disgusted as he watched Matt’s votes climb. My manly man, love him so much, sums up the entire patriarchy thing from a truly reformed view. “Any man that thinks he’s supposed to model his life after the Old Testament patriarchs has totally missed the point of the gospel.”
December 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Actually Daniel, these ladies are quite receptive to conversation, as are most people. It’s just when you randomly come in and discount years of work, tens of thousands of comments, and the very painful personal experiences that most people tend to become a little less willing to talk
If you had said “I have read this site and the work of Stacy McDonald, and I disagree/agree with her teachings but I am not here to debate. I respect the time and effort put into this site, however I am worried that the general attitude toward Stacy McDonald may be more hostile than is healthy for Christian sisters (i.e. maybe forgetting to love). This is counsel offered with the most sincere intentions,” I am pretty sure that would have gotten a completely different response.
December 15, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Maybe Daniel doesn’t have any knowledge in patriocentricity and doesn’t understand the context of this video. Would it be possible for us to throw out various characteristics of patriocentricity and create a list of those traits? It might help those who don’t read the other threads to know where this site is coming from.
Just a thought.
Of course, there is still no guarantee that anyone would read that.
December 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm
This is a little off-topic, but talking about racist tendencies in patriocentrism, I was appalled at these sentences on the Prairie Muffin blog,
“One way to determine the decline of a civilization is by the amount of clothes they wear. The African tribes, who are primarily Godless, wear little to nothing.”
It’s not only caricaturing a country, it’s caricaturing an entire continent. And discounting the millions of Christians on the continent.
Very sad.
December 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I guess Saudi Arabia is the most godly nation on earth.
December 15, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“One way to determine the decline of a civilization is by the amount of clothes they wear. The African tribes, who are primarily Godless, wear little to nothing.”
Or maybe they’re just hot, living so close to the equator and all.
December 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Here is the URL to contact Procter & Gamble if any of you want to tell them how you feel about their products being represented by Matt Chancey:
http://pg.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/pg.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=6f5fFdlj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=
December 15, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I am really confused. What is R.C. Sproul Jr. talking about re: negative campaigning? I can’t find where this is. And who did this? Help!
December 15, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Cynthia, thanks for the link to that Art of Manliness contest. I voted for Howie Farmer, because after reading his bio, I thought that if he were my friend, I’d much rather have him serve me up something he prepared from his own kitchen, than have Matt Chancey’s grilled hamburgers, served with his fedora on
(reference to Matt’s campaign support video for a pres. candidate).
December 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“One way to determine the decline of a civilization is by the amount of clothes they wear. The African tribes, who are primarily Godless, wear little to nothing.”
The type of attitude displayed by the above statement is nothing new, but it doesn’t concern me. God Himself will judge that type of thinking — check out the following scriptures:
First, James, speaking about church people who despise the poor:
Jam 2:2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; Jam 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Jam 2:4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Jam 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? Jam 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
And, then Isaiah,speaking especially to WOMEN who dress well, and despise the poor:
Isa 3:15 What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.
Isa 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Isa 3:17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
Look how many clothes THEY wore:
Isa 3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, Isa 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, Isa 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, Isa 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels, Isa 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, Isa 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. Isa 3:24 And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty.
…But all those clothes didn’t make them godly. Look what happened to those women, and to their mighty, manly men:
Isa 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
Isa 3:26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground.
December 15, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“Cynthia, thanks for the link to that Art of Manliness contest.”
De nada… it’s a pity Howie didn’t win…. but, it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the blog-o-sphere, given that that Chancey won.
December 15, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“I’m done though, no one can have a conversation with you.”
Are the only conversations you like the ones where they agree with you?
December 15, 2008 at 7:06 pm
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Personal_Testimonies_18/Testimony_from_Africa1003409.shtml
This is the Chancey’s idea of what will help Africa?
December 15, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Molly, that is absolutely frightening. Heaven knows that keeping women uneducated , barefoot, pregnant, and completely dependent on their husbands in all things has done great things for Africa. I shudder to think how things would be if LAF and VF took hold over there.
December 15, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Oh my goodness. I read through that article, Molly. Wow. Um.
Firstly, my thoughts and prayers are with that poor girl. Nothing that follows is a reflection on her as a Christian. My heart goes out to her.
Secondly, while Africa is very close to my heart, it is a HUGE place and although I spent many years in Tanzania, it doesn’t make me an expert on South Africa and I don’t claim to be. My husband spent a year doing missionary work in South Africa (near the Mozambique border) before I met him at college. I’m going to show him this article when he gets home and if he has any additional thoughts I’ll add them. My sister spends three months a year in Africa, but she goes back to Tanzania so again, that’s where her experience is.
All that said, there are a number of VERY concerning things in that article.
1) A non-specific to Africa point: the writer states that she is disobeying her parents and causing them great distress. I had to leave university. The trouble, heartache and rejection ensuing therefrom would result in a library of books. My parents, who had done the best they knew to do in providing for me, did not know what to do. They were seriously disappointed.
WHY is LAF condoning and praising that? They are hypocrites. According to them, unmarried adult daughters should be under their parents authority.
2) I can understand why her parents are so distraught. Education in Africa is the Holy Grail. Education lifts you out of poverty. It enables you to take care of your whole family. You will be able to pay for the education of other relatives. When a cousin is sick, you can look after them. Families speak with enormous pride of their educated relatives, because those relatives KEEP THE FAMILY FROM COLLAPSING. They raise everybody up.
And education is EXPENSIVE – not by American standards, but enormously so by African standards. Her parents will have scrimped and saved to send her college. They may be in great debt. Aunts and uncles who have good jobs will have given money for her tuition – and when a child is educated, they begin supporting the education of their own siblings, cousins, nieces, etc.
3) Nowhere in the article is the cost of her education mentioned. She writes that it was taken for granted that she and her schoolmates would go to college. There is no reference to the fact that a mere generation ago, she would likely not have been allowed attend college at all in South Africa.
All this leads me to believe that the writer leads a very, very privileged life. She is likely from a wealthy South African family – who have more in common with European and Americans than with ordinary Africans.
I mention this because it really undermines LAF’s desire to show that their ridiculous lifestyle is applicable anywhere in the world. It isn’t. This girl is from the same narrow background as most patriocentric proponents.
4) She writes: Unfortunately, polygamy is widely accepted and runs rampant through every level and structure of society. Men have two or three or more wives. Our Deputy President has six women he has taken as legally recognized wives in accordance with African Customary Law.”
I wonder when this was written. It wasn’t December 2008, anyway. She is referring to Jacob Zuma, who in addition to the above was also on trial for rape. He’s extremely corrupt. He has an appalling approach to the HIV epidemic. He is now President of the ANC, but he hasn’t been Deputy President of S Africa since 2005.
He was succeeded by… two women. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka (also accused of corruption, but a breath of fresh air in comparison to Zuma), and since September, Baleka Mbete. Neither of these women are perfect but they are miles better than Zuma.
5) Which brings me to point 5. Jennie Chancey adds at the bottom of the article: “Feminism has taken a foothold in so many countries across Africa, promising new freedoms and government-funded programs. Women like Miss N. are pressured to be like men or push men out of the way in their quest for power and accomplishment. This has had a devastating effect on marriage and home life.”
She is talking about the fact that most charitable/development organisations who work in Africa (from church organisations to NGOs to the UN) generally agree that programmes that target women are the most successful. Health programmes, education, welfare, anti-HIV – if you put money into programmes that involve women, children, families, and communities all benefit. Not to say that organisations should or do target women EXCLUSIVELY (of course not, and men do great work developing Africa too!), but many programmes aim at women because women are the bedrock of society. Helping them helps everyone.
This policy isn’t exclusive to Africa either – the Grameen Bank, which won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, lend money to men and women but puts special emphasis on women. (The Grameen Bank pioneered microlending – giving small loans to very poor people to help them start their own businesses. It’s really successful and has spread from India/Bangladesh to all over the world. A friend of mine from university was working for them when they won the Peace Prize!)
It is insane to me to think that LAF sets itself up as a development expert against virtually EVERY organisation out there. My sister sees it and my mother saw it all the time – progress in Africa is built on women. They are the cornerstone of development. It is unreal to me that they would say that women like Wangari Maathai are a problem, not a solution.
Another destructive force is the fact that the majority of our homes are led by women both officially and subtly. The most normal thing is to have a mother who wears the pants at home, sits on every civil and church committee as well as preaches up a storm at Church on Sundays whilst the father’s most important function is to bring home the bigger paycheck and get the biggest piece of meat at dinner. Really. I exaggerate not. Most of my friends fear their fathers and never say more than a basic ‘hello’ once a day.
So fathers are feared, but they aren’t in charge?? How does this make sense?? Mothers who ’sit on every church and civil committee’ are HELPING THEIR COMMUNITY! Because the men WON’T sit on the committees! But apparently, despite the fact that fathers are feared and men have many wives, women are in charge. But this hurts Africa. Riiiiiiight.
Sorry for waffling on so much – as you can probably tell this is a subject very close to my heart. I have lots of stories I could tell about Africa’s amazing women – they are truly incredible and inspirational. But I have to get some Christmas shopping done! I will show the article to my husband and see if he has any additional thoughts. Sorry this has been very disjointed!
December 15, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I have a dear friend whose daughter married a Luo tribe member (Kenya). His father had multiple wives and his mother and him were pretty much the rejected family of his father’s. Polygamy leaves women and children in poverty and abuse, while they still have other rights, like land ownership, I believe.
The women do most of the work, while the men have a reputation (at least in this young man’s painful experience) of being alcoholic, abusive and absentee. The men get the privelege of having multiple wives, but also have the problems of having multiple families.
My friend’s son-in-law suffers from extreme self-worth problems as a result of his upbringing in Kenya.
December 15, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Just a comment about the Old Spice contest. When I mentioned the contest to my college age son, he first thought it was strange that the Vision Forum people would be interested in the type of lifestyle that Old Spice represents, though it isn’t quite as obvious as AXE. But on second thought, he said it fit well into line with patriarchal agenda because it is all about having a woman who worships the ground you walk on (as a man). He said that is the number one rule of being “manly”, at least in the college age mentality.
December 16, 2008 at 7:26 am
Keebler, whenever I need a reality check, it helps to run things by one of my sons and I always interesting perspectives.
I think the Old Spice persona seems an odd mix with Vision Forum as does the whole Art of Manliness website. I found its promotion of James Bond (in all areas except his sexual immorality) to be odd, too. It had pictures of all the James Bonds and I wondered how Phillips would feel about his son, who promoted this contest, watching the 1970’s version of those films.
Yesterday I read testimonies of two young women who have left their homes after being basically held in their homes against their wills by patriocentric parents. The liberties people feel they can take with women still astounds me and I keep wondering what things are not being made public. Your son is correct, Keebler, and once women are expected to have their entire beings revolve around a man, what are the limits of that?
December 16, 2008 at 9:08 am
Yesterday I read testimonies of two young women who have left their homes after being basically held in their homes against their wills by patriocentric parents.
Karen, are you able to share these testimonies or post a link to them? It is frightening to me to see that patriocentrists don’t understand how they are violating the basic human rights of those whom they treat that way. Daughters are not possessions.
December 16, 2008 at 11:12 am
Light,
There are many such girls, and there are no links to their stories. The problems are too complex, and when these girls first leave these homes, there is much to process. I would not look for anything public like this for at least 2 years. And for the girls, that really is best. These girls have not been out that long.
I put up that Overcoming Botkin Syndrome blog just for girls like this. I’ve been through very similar problems, with some of my experiences more intense and some less troubling that don’t compare to what these girls have suffered.
Things I would like everyone here to consider because there may come a day when each one of us is asked to take these young women into our homes. I remember so vividly praying to the Lord on the way home from the theater after seeing the Hiding Place. I sat in the passenger seat with my mother (who went to bed for three days from depression as a result and did not speak to me), and I promised the Lord with all my heart that I would hide Jews in my home for Him. In a restaurant on Sunday afternoon, I burst into tears, and my husband and I decided that it may not be Jews that we’ll be hiding — it may be girls that are seeking refuge from their Christian homes.
1. There are legal considerations. Some of these girls have been physically abused. Some have endured sexual abuse. If they are a day over 18, there is not much help available to them, yet they have been trained to be children. So whoever takes them in has to work through how to address these things. And I think of my own sexual abuse experience and those of my friends who were sodomized by ministers or were molested by their brothers. No one believes you. I told my mother about my own abuse about a month after we got married where I knew my abuser had been buried. I told her that I decided that I would not tell anyone until the man lay dead in the ground because I was pretty certain that Dad would kill him with a hunting rifle. She told me that I did the right thing and then later denied that I told her about it. I tried three other times to tell her. When I did tell my father just a few years ago to explain just some of the issues that I had with my mother and why I couldn’t “Play ball” with the family script anymore, he and my godmother talked to my mother. Her response? These are lies that I’ve made up. Yet you can call every boyfriend I’ve had to ask about this, and I used to tell them about my past to make sure that they knew what they were getting into with me, giving them informed consent. So there is much of that going on in these homes, and I didn’t even come from a home with the degree of denial that takes place. Such has been the testimony of two Christians I know who endured incest. To this day, their families don’t believe them, and it divides the family anyway.
2. There are more immediate concerns that are more practical. The girls usually have few skills. Some of them have to get the police to help them retrieve their personal records so that they can get employment or arrange for assistance.
3. If they’ve been physically or sexually abused, as the incidence of this is growing today, these girls often self injure. That needs to be addressed, and these girls don’t have health insurance that will pay for anything. The behavior accomplishes two deep psychological needs for the girls. Endorphins (as well as the ritual) are produced in the brain by the injury, and this is like the brain’s own “homemade valium.” It temporarily alleviates the intense anxiety and has a self-soothing effect (and I think of Job scraping his boils). The second thing it does is that it satisfies the predictability of the abuse. There is such intense shame involved and there is so much punishment, it is a way of carrying out the punishment for the abuser. But it is controlled. When the abuser is in charge, there is a sense that the abused person has that often threatens to annihilate them, even if they never articulate it as such. If they self punish, the guilt gets temporarily satisfied, but it gives the person the appearance of control. They can always stop, but they can’t stop the abuser. It is the only kind of autonomy that they can have in the situation. It is addictive, just like any substance abuse or eating disorder, and it can be tough to treat and a serious problem. The last thing that you want to encourage is for people to broadcast this stuff while you’re working through getting a handle on things.
4. These girls have no money or assistance to pay for care from healthcare or counseling services. The best thing that they can do is apply for medicaid coverage so that they first get access for help. Some of these girls are in need of medical care. In these groups, there is a great interest in natural health (just like home delivery and do-it-yourself episiotomies). I still get calls from friends in Maryland asking about certain treatments so that they don’t have to take their kids to the doctor. I always tell them to go get an exam first. Always. So many of these folks have only ever had folk medicine treatment for conditions that can be quite serious, and some of the girls have chronic problems resulting from the neglect. And this happens in big, mainstream churches, folks. Seriously. So there is the difficulty in getting help.
5. There is a great deal of apprehension involved. Some people want to seek only Christian professionals, be they MDs or counselors or legal experts. From my own experience I know one woman who was trying to get custody of her children after an accusation of abuse against her (when the church helped orchestrate a scenario to “rescue” the children from her demon possession). She got a lawyer who dumped her because our former pastor was listed as a witness for the opposing side. The lawyer dumped her. As this was about two months after I got out of the group, you sit back and say “These men own lawyers. They own policemen.” This kind of thing goes on in Clearwater, FL with the Scientologists. It sounds like wild conspiracy theories, but in small communities, even suburbs near large metro areas, this can be intimidating.
6. When you first emerge from spiritual abuse, you have high dissociation symptoms and other psychological issues to deal with. The world seems surreal, and for kids that grew up in this environment and only know this side of the world, they cant even really function and problem-solve for their immediate needs. Half the time, the people that take them in are just as wounded and debilitated as they are.
7. And I would also say that it should be frightening that the patriocentrists don’t understand basic human rights. In the first set of Gothards IBLP seminars, you hear a big lecture about how a Christian has no personal rights whatsoever. None. They are to follow after Christ’s Philippians Chapter 2 example and make themselves of no reputation and must humble themselves unto death. Then, part and parcel to that is the concept that God placed their authority over them for a reason –their correction — and the only option that they are taught to have is that of submission to whatever injustice comes their way, all with 2 Peter grace, to glorify God. You don’t just submit to the good masters, but also to the froward. This glorifies God through humility, and Gothard teaches that this fills up your spiritual bank with grace. So you need all the grace points you can get, and that comes through cheerful submission while you’re been pulverized into a bloody mass of human remains, as you really have no rights, even as a Christian. We Christians deserve nothing from God but death. And though I don’t think that any patriocentric would own up to this in these terms, daughters are, effectively, like possessions. Scapegoating has been responsible for the worst atrocities ever committed in the name of the common good. The Jews were dehumanized — seen as less than human — and this is what is done with women to some extent. It is a “kick the dog” situation. It is all part of the mindset and the subtle implications of this gender hierarchy that does degrade into scapegoating results in this. Women deserve what they get. If they are in distress, this is God’s righteous judgement or His sovereign work.
8. Then there are the psychological factors of having your parents abandon you. The FOG (fear, obligation and guilt) are tremendous for the non-Christian to deal with. These girls have been raised to believe that their relationships with family are moral imperatives and represent turning their backs on God Himself. That is a terrible thing to overcome, and I speak from experience on many levels. If you come from Pentecostal home, often all the problems are blamed on demon possession or supernatural things. We see this in patriarchy, too, with the looking at spiritual causes for real 100% physiologic ailments.
I know of 5 ongoing situations at the moment where girls who are over 18 and are in their early twenties are coping with this stuff. Two Christian families in Maryland that I know had their daughters leave home as soon as they were able, just to get away from this stuff, and their families abandoned a lot of the Gothard stuff years ago. But the scars and the wounds remain. One friend of mine has grown children who will have nothing to do with church at all because her son and daughter were so affected by this stuff.
December 16, 2008 at 11:19 am
Claire, thank you so much for your informed response to that testimony of the South African woman. As I read it, I HOPED she was from the wealthy minority, because I thought of how her families sacrifice so much and put so many hopes on education of a bright young person; if they were not wealthy, I hope she finds a rich husband who can help her family as she might have had she gotten her degree.
Africa absolutely does not need women to have less power and control over their lives.
December 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Thank you, Cindy, for sharing this.
It’s like FLDS in Texas all over again.
I work in social services and am aware of abuse and self-harm. You laid these things out very well in a way that I could understand.
You remind me again why I travel through the blog world.
The wounded are out there.
But the worst part of all of this is that Jesus holds healing for the wounded. Yet the door is slammed shut to this healing because people are made to believe that the God of the Bible is the one holding them captive by His “unreasonable” laws.
The lie must be exposed.
People are being destroyed and turned away from the Healer.
I wish Daniel and Ruthie and those like them understood this.
December 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“I guess Saudi Arabia is the most godly nation on earth.”
Nicole,
ROFLOL!!! Good one.
Your comment clearly highlights how dumb their logic is.
December 16, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Molly,
Thanks for posting that article. Wow!
“[Editor's Note: We were so moved by Miss N's testimony and subsequently sent her a package of encouraging materials. Feminism has taken a foothold in so many countries across Africa, promising new freedoms and government-funded programs. Women like Miss N. are pressured to be like men or push men out of the way in their quest for power and accomplishment. This has had a devastating effect on marriage and home life. It is exciting to see young women waking up from the propaganda and taking a serious look into Scripture. We have a second story to share from Miss N. later this week. She hopes to keep us posted on developments in her country and in her own life as time goes by. Please keep Miss N. and South Africa in your prayers.]”
So, I am wondering how feminism in Africa has had a devastating effect on marriage and home life? I mean, what about the rampant AIDS epidemic because of the rampant immorality of the men? What about female genital mutilation? What about polygamy? What about the heavy workload on the women?
Claire, I want to thank you for exposing the folly of LAF’s thoughts on this. I can see why targeting the women can be the most helpful. It isn’t feminism, it is common sense.
“So fathers are feared, but they aren’t in charge?? How does this make sense?? Mothers who ’sit on every church and civil committee’ are HELPING THEIR COMMUNITY! Because the men WON’T sit on the committees! But apparently, despite the fact that fathers are feared and men have many wives, women are in charge. But this hurts Africa. Riiiiiiight.”
Exactly, Claire. When I read this, I laughed. It makes no sense at all and I am surprised that they allowed this letter to be posted.
LAF won’t ask the obvious questions as to why the women are left to do all the work and serve on all the committees but they will try and pin it on the evils of feminism? This is too funny and quite a pathetic and desperate attempt to scapegoat feminism as the number one evil of this world.
If they were thinking, they would realize that it is extreme patriarchy that has caused the problems and NOT feminism.
Why doesn’t LAF go after those who abuse women by selling them into sexual slavery or mutilating their genitals? Or is true concern and justice for females only something the feminists care about?
December 16, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Cindy K and thatmom,
Thank you so much for bringing to light what is going on with the children (not just girls in many cases) of these families. As the name I am going by indicates we (my husband and I) are just leaving this mindset. My name should probably be stopped sipping the kool-aid because my husband and I were never able to completely buy into this madness.
We are homeschoolers who belonged to a medium sized, normal church which quickly morphed into a 5,000 member mega church that was very light on doctrine. We saw so many families leading lives no different than the world, affairs (even among the pastors), teenage pregnancies, you name it.
We left that church looking for something a lot more conservative for our family, and stumbled upon Vision Forum thinking it was an answer to prayer. We met a good 10 or so families in the patriarchy movement in our area and my husband and one of the other men set started a family-integrated church. Before long we were going to conferences listening to tapes and making what we thought were much needed changes in our families’ lives.
As we got to know the other families we became very concerned with a number of things. Thirteen year old girls having to ask permission to sit on the porch with other girls even though their parents are sitting in the window watching them, children forced to dress alike all the time down to the shoes, children forced to share bedrooms even when there are other bedrooms in the house that are empty and not being used for anything. Parents spying on their children and others even though all of the kids were the same sex ages nine and up in a big room with the door open. Teen age girls who can not even do long division because their parents want them to be homemakers and not go to college and a host of other things too numerous to mention.
About four weeks ago my husband and left the family integrated church we started. Since this time we have had a series of talks with some of our friends trying to get them to see the light. It is not working. Last week we had a family in our house until 11:30 at night. The mother insisted that it was okay to keep grown children and even other adults against their will if they were going to lead what she termed “an ungodly lifestyle” if allowed to leave. I gave her the example of the prodigal son and many other examples from Scripture that she simply ignored. She also reasons away slavery in the U.S. because “the colonists were bringing the gospel to the slaves and therefore they were better off than they would have been.” This one really bothers me as my husband and I are black.
While we were downstairs talking to the parents are daughters ages 13 and nine were upstairs playing games. The other families’ daughters became alarmed when mine brought out contemporary Chrisitan music CD’s to listen to while they passed the time waiting for the adults to finish talking. These girls ages 9 – 13 told mine that the music was “suicidal” and were shocked that my kids would listen. This was a Barlow girls CD!!!! These girls had never heard of Barlow girls and said they looked like hippies and their music would cause people to kill themselves. The girls became very agitated and asked that the music be turned off. My girls complied but were shocked by how scared the girls in this familiy appeared to be by a Barlow Girls CD.
Everyone please realize the Pearl article, what Cindy and Thatmom are saying is real. There will come a time when this will come out and these girls and boys being raised in bondage will need normal Christian families to help.
Please pray for our family as we continue to work through these relationships with our friends. It is difficult. Also pray as we have been contacting the leaders in this Patriarchy movement to hold them accountable. So far we have had one response.
Thatmom I know you have been praying for me already and I appreciate it. By now you may have figured out who I am. I will not be using my real name for some time now because we are still in the thick of things here and even though we have left this church we are still working through these relationships with our friends and trying to talk some sense into leaders of this group, some of which so far have been willing to talk to us.
God Bless,
x-kool-aid
December 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Corrie said: “So, I am wondering how feminism in Africa has had a devastating effect on marriage and home life?”
In some African countries, male physicians can’t treat females, so women are denied basic health care. But maybe some really radical feminist stuff is happening there now, like women studying medicine and nursing themselves and going on to serve other women and their health needs.
This has got to be stopped!
Cindy K. said: “I know of 5 ongoing situations at the moment where girls who are over 18 and are in their early twenties are coping with this stuff.”
My heart aches for these girls, too. They are absolutely trapped. And yes, Mara, I thought of the FLDS again, too.
Where can they go? They are unskilled and know nearly nothing of the world and their options. They are taught that their salvation is tied to their family and the concept of patrio, their main sacrament.
Their best options may be grandparents who don’t share the patrio koolaid, or male siblings who have managed to get out. But often the younger siblings’ contact is severly limited to these renegade relatives. Simply too dangerous to manifest any glimmer of escape and refuge.
December 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Dear X-Koolaid,
I am so glad you are here. Welcome.
I admire your burden to reach out to those in your former koolaid-sphere. You have an opening to their ears that we don’t.
Above all, I hope that your family didn’t have to dip in that well for too much time. It sounds like maybe you weren’t in it long enough to do any permanent damage to your children. That is a good sign they like the Barlow Girls. I do, too.
Thanks for joining us here and sharing your story. You have some great insights, I’m certain, that can help the rest of us know how best to reach out the patrio mind-set.
December 16, 2008 at 2:39 pm
x-kool-aid:
Your story is very, very, very similar to mine. I/we (mainly I, I pushed it on my husband, oh the irony!) got caught up in it through our homeschooling years. Vision Forum had pretty catalogs, we had a few friends who went to a FIC and so on and so forth. We very slowly got sucked into what I call: “what looks good must be good!”
When it came down to brass tacks, I was NO WHERE NEAR the ideal patrio woman. I am a feminist at heart, and telling me not to work (ever), not to vote, etc was not sitting well with me.
The hardest part was family size. we have 3 kids but due to a genetic disease we carry, we have been thru 2 miscarriages and have 1 special needs child. We made a very hard decision to not have anymore children. This was the point when I saw the VF crowd for what I think they are: Hypocrits.
Do you kick a man when he is down? Do you write off a family because they cannot “increase the kingdom” in ways and numbers you feel appropriate?
That is what happened to us. And I won’t lie to you kool aid—it isn’t going to change them. You can talk til you are blue in the face, and they will smile at you and then stab you in the back when you turn away. One of my oldest daughters best friends is not allowed to talk to her play with her, etc because we are no longer “in their fold.”
They are snakes, and we know what the Bible says about that.
Just don’t let it hurt your feelings….
December 16, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Everyone,
I would like to apologize for some of my convoluted sentences in that long post (226). I skipped some words and such. This subject is weighing pretty heavily on my heart due to these ongoing sagas. Friends in another state that were deeply involved in patriarchy at one time who are not in it now had their daughter leave home. It’s all so troubling to me.
About my own story, let me clarify that about a month before my wedding, after driving by the cemetery where my abuser was buried, I told my mother about what he’d done to me. I didn’t express that very well. I had so wished that she could have pulled the car off the road, weeping and asking questions, asking for forgiveness for not feeling safe to come to her. Instead I got a cold and detatched “You did the right thing.” She didn’t miss a beat, though I don’t think she could process any of it really. But I didn’t write that out very well in that previous comment.
I also got pretty upset writing about self injury (cutting, picking, hair pulling, ect.), and some say piercing and tattoos are also related to this compulsive behavior. The ritual of self-injury and of some of these addictive behaviors create endorphins (but I wrote some strange arrangement of words that didn’t quite say that succinctly in that previous post). People tend to go from distraction to distraction, running from their shame, just changing their neurochemical drug of choice. For some it is power and lording it over others. For some, it is money. But it is so, so sad to consider self injury as a way of self-soothing.
I noticed a statement about scapegoating didn’t quite come out as I intended — another particularly painful thing for me. I didn’t express this very well.
I used to cart one of these girls I’ve mentioned around on my hip when she was young and called her my “snuggle buggle.” This is a girl whose mother was mortified when she looked up and said that she didn’t believe that there was any worldwide flood. She didn’t think it made sense. She is one who has to put her fingers into the scars and wounds like the Lord invited Thomas to do, but that does not mean rebellion or faithlessness. The authoritarian approach did not work with her, and her personality and her mind craved the truth. She didn’t just lap up whatever trite answer people would give her. She put the Lord to the test, just as we are commanded to test all things. But that kind of thing is punished in patriarchy (though I think those with that kind of approach often end up with rock-solid faith that can never be shaken when they are older).
So these matters do weigh heavily on me, and I’m sorry that my post reflected some of that emotion in some convoluted sentences and explanations.
I just didn’t express myself very well in that last comment.
December 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Cindy K, no need to apologize. You did just great right from the start, just like you always do. I appreciate you sharing your heart with us. Your transparency and real-ness to us is always lovely to read.
December 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hey Dumped the Kool-aid,
I had some friends in our church who I tried to talk with about the problems in our church. Several of us left the church all about the same time, but everyone went into another similar group. My best friend stayed in one group or another (many because of church splits) for another 9 years. And she’d been through the mill and cursed by the pastor, so she is one who knew about the abuse personally. Many people do not believe that it occurs until after they’ve actually been wounded themselves. And then they are likely to just cult hop.
It takes much soul searching and an admission of your own frailty and helplessness to fully realize that you’ve been duped. Royally. And all this despite all your best efforts to see trouble coming in order to avoid it. Most people are terrified by this prospect.
It’s unfortunate.
December 16, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Feminism is responsible for all things.
-It is responsible for the women in poverty not getting enough calcium, causing their pelvises to snap during pregnancy.
-It makes c-sections unavailable so that any woman who can’t have a natural childbirth dies
-It causes wars in which the armies cut off the breasts of women, making them unable to breastfeed their infants
-It caused around 5 million to be killed in the Second Congo War
-In this same war it caused rape to be used as a weapon, greatly contributing to the spread of AIDS
-Feminism forces the governments to be so corrupt, that little aid reaches the people
-It is the reason why girls are not valued as much as boys, leading to 60 million “missing” girls
-Feminism is why grown men travel to Cambodia, India, and Bangladesh to “meet” 5 year old girls, because their wives neglect them
In one way, I almost (ALMOST) envy the naiveté of those at LAF, who can worry themselves about women going to college, or not staying home, or think about “casting vision”. It is the same way my dad envies parents who think a broken bone is horrible, while he prays they never have to have their innocence shattered. It’s like they live in a bubble, where all the world’s problems would be solved, world peace would be achieved, if women stay at home and men are visionary.
Unfortunately, 1 billion still don’t have safe drinking water, and there will still be 150 million orphans.
Dumped the Kool-Aid: Praying for you! Here’s me , a sister in Christ, giving you a big squeeze!
December 16, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Claire,
Thank you for posting this information about the letter that appears on LAF. I guess Tanzania was much like Zaire. I have dear family friends who ministered there for many years while my mother served as their stateside coordinator. Outside of Bukavu where they ministered, there were no schools at all. They founded the churches and schools. There was such a demand for basic education that they could have taught around the clock and not satisfied the need for education for boys, girls, men and women.
The lifestyle that this Miss N describes is not remotely consistent with the hours into weeks of testimony of the family that we worked with in Zaire. (That work, a joint effort between Moody and the Assemblies of God ceased in the late eighties when the man that pioneered it passed away, shortly before the country returned to the title of Congo.) Some of the dynamics have changed since then, but I can’t imagine the world that this young woman describes. If it is accurate, as you point out so well, she represents a tiny portion of the population, probably less than a percentage of other representative young women her age.
December 16, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Nicole,
Thanks for that list of evils that feminism has cause.
Wouldn’t want to blame patriarchy (father rule) for any of it, would we? It is much easier, like Adam, to blame the women.
Doug Phillips recently wrote about the “disappearing male”.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/11/4609.aspx
“The Disappearing Male: Studies Show the Population of Males is Declining
Are males becoming an endangered species? That’s the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects, and disorders began emerging around the world. Read more about it here.
Posted by Doug Phillips on November 10, 2008 ”
I wonder if the fact that males out-number females in many countries because of patriarchal attitudes that cause people to kill their unborn and born females alarms him?
The study that he links to is interesting. Kind of caused me to think about the meaning of the “weaker sex” and how that is mistaught in patriarchal circles.
December 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Dumped the Kool-Aid,
You don’t know how happy I am that you are willing to share your story. I truly believe that only as women are willing to share their horrific experiences within these groups that others will also come forward to tell what they have seen. I think many ordinary men and women have been so convinced that they couldn’t possibly understand Scripture without a church elder explaining it to them and so they forget the admonition to be Bereans and embrace abhorrent teachings. Then when they experience the fruit of these things, their eyes are opened to the misuse of Scripture, the manipulation, etc. Sadly, once they come out of it, there has been much damage already done. I continue to pray for you and the many others who are struggling right now in patriocentric situations. Dumped, I am thankful that your husband is a real man!
I also wanted to say that one of the more abhorrent aspects of this mess is the emphasis on neo-feudalism and the acceptance of slavery. Honestly, it is appalling to me and some of the statements I have heard are nothing but racism. I am so glad that you are willing to speak out against this, Dumped!
And you are correct that it isn’t just done to the girls. I know several young men who have also been spiritually abused. One young man I know, a terrific guy and one any of us might want to have as a son or son-in-law, was in a courtship relationship with a young woman but her parents decided to change their minds as the insistence of Bill Gothard because the guy listened to “rock music” and was, therefore, rebellious. I know another guy who was kicked out of a Christian ministry because he became interested in a young lady and approached her for permission to call her father to begin a courtship. The father threw a fit because the guy hadn’t called him first. This is how whacky it is getting. And we are talking about really nice, responsible, Christian young men. I can only imagine what qualifies as “a biblical betrothal break-up.”
Light you asked about links or a website. I wish I could provide that. Cindy and I both have letters from either girls going through these situations or others who have been trying to help these girls. Man of them don’t want to come forward because they still hold out hope for reconciliation with their parents and their siblings.
A while back I met one of the young women who had corresponded with me and was so impressed at what a peach she is. She is spiritually mature beyond her years, lovely and modest, a godly wife and mother. And then I happened across the written testimony of her mom and pieced the stories together. This mother is using the historically revised version in order to make herself out to be an expert on rebellious children and she prays for her daughter’s “repentance and salvation.” I am aghast at this. And this all comes back to what I would call their promotion of “multi-generational faithfulness.” They aren’t talking about Christian parents having Christian children who are faithful to the Lord. Their real definition is that their children will remain faithful to their own whacky views of life style choices and a legalistic was of living and approaching life. To them, being a VF groupee is synonymous with being a Christian and if you have differing views outside of their paradigm, you are not being faithful.
December 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm
In a strict biological sense, females are the stronger sex. Look at infant mortality rates, etc. Just don’t let the patrios know–there would be much gnashing of the teeth.
December 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I had another thought…I know so many lovely young women who were homeschooled and were treated as thinking, caring, regenerated believers. They are living up to their parents’ expectations. I fear that many of these girls who are treated as though they will become harlots the minute they walk out the door will do likewise and it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
December 16, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“You have to remember that the only reason Paul rebuked Peter in public was because Peter’s sin was against those people. And Paul kept his rebuke for Peter alone – he did not ask the Gentiles to join in on the rebuke. He did not get into a huddle with the Gentiles and talk about how wrong Peter was. It was open, and that was that.”
Hello? Daniel?
This is an open rebuke. We know that they read this site because of what they write on their own blogs.
Also, their sin of hypocrisy (Peter’s sin, too) and dishonesty is against all of us. Also, they are self-made and self-proclaimed leaders and, as such, they are open to scrutiny, especially when they make certain aspects of their life into a dog and pony show in order to sell their wares.
Are you concerned that these leaders pay the debts they incur during the course of their “ministry” activities? Would you have a problem with them owing huge amounts of money to people all the while they were making lobster bisque and living a very nice lifestyle and making no effort to pay back the people they owe?
Are you concerned that they publicly teach that betrothal is binding, that it is biblical and that they use that word because it is biblical, use their daughter as an example by putting on an extravagant and widely publicized betrothal party, denigrate “post-modern” Christians for merely getting “engaged” and then end up doing just what they accused their spiritual slouchy Christian brothers and sisters of doing? Are you concerned that they only use biblical words when it suits their fancy but do not use them when it would cause their image to be less than stellar? For example, they teach that betrothal is binding and it is just like being married but it hasn’t been consummated. So, on the other hand, if a betrothal is broken, biblically speaking it is called a “divorce”. Why are they not publicly announcing the divorce of their daughter and the lack of discernment of the patriarchal father in discerning this young man’s moral or mental defects (since that is the only reason they gave for a person to break off a betrothal)? Why should we believe that patriarchy works when it appears that it does not? It seems boastful, does it not, to proclaim that they are doing it the bible way and then turn around and act like all the other spiritual bozos on the planet?
December 16, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Since we are talking about feminism in Africa and Patrio teeth gnashing, I thought I’d share the worst feminist-Africa, Patrio nightmare I know of.
Clarification:
This video is a nightmare to patrios.
I find it humorous and a, “well, duh… what do you expect when you push your patriarchy this far?”
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2008/02/where-women-are-ruling-in-kenya.html
The article links to a youtube video that is about twenty minutes long, but well worth the time.
December 16, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Mara #248: Thanks for that link! Good for them!
One thing that I thought of, and I wanted to run it past you ladies as you are more mature and much wiser than I, is that maybe patriocentricity is actually more damaging to the men. In the long run, I mean.
I know that women are set up to be abused, but that means that men are set up to be abusers. Men will have to stand before God and give an account as to why they beat, degraded, and humiliated the creation made in His image. Their neglect of women’s spiritual, intellectual, emotional growth will be brought before the Almighty, they must give account as to why women’s God-given gifts were stifled and declared heresies. They must explain why they set up extra-biblical standards, and distorted the Cross, made grace something to be earned. Doug Wilson will have to stand before God and give an account as to why he supports abortion and rejoices in babies’ death.
Patriocentricity sets up men to be leaders, when probably a majority of them were not given the gift of leadership. God says leadership is not something we should aspire to, as teachers and leaders will be more harshly judged. Patriocentricity seems to force young men into this position prematurely.
By blaming the women, patriocentricity plays off of the universally human sin of pride, implying that man can do no wrong.
Men are put in an almost idolatrous role, and for that, I truly pity them. I would never wish it on anyone, even my worst enemy, to have to give account to God as why they occupied a position only God should.
Just my thoughts, please post your thoughts.
December 16, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“Doug Wilson will have to stand before God and give an account as to why he supports abortion and rejoices in babies’ death.”
Oh my gosh! Really? That is SO disturbing.
“Patriocentricity seems to force young men into this position prematurely.”
Yes, and isn’t it weird to see these young bucks try to assume to cloak of all-knowing patriarch once they hit 18? They’re comical. Not so funny is seeing how they are not only allowed, but seemingly encouraged, to rebuke and disparage the authority of their mothers in their late teenage years.
Gotta practice for when they find a wife…that’s IF they are brave enough to endure the courtship tribunal.
December 16, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Mara, thanks for linking to that video. It’s well worth anyone’s 20 minutes of time. It also shows what happens when patriarchy reaches a tipping point, even in a place where it’s been so culturally immeshed.
What an inspiration those Kenyan ladies are! They get kicked from their tribes for “crimes” like being rape victims. Then some of these resilent expelled women band together, and through their smarts and resourcefulness, create a productive and safe commmunity for themselves and their children. They educate their children and abolish female genital mutilation. They prosper in a healthy, beautiful, and joyful environment.
The neighboring men’s community of former husbands can hardly stand it.
They now want their wives back to do the “women’s work” they despise. They also want to put these uppidy women back in their rightful place through beatings–it’s the natural order of things, they say.
They send emmisaries to the women’s village to plead for their return. For some reason, the women aren’t eager to resume their lives under patriarchal tyranny. The women explain their case for freedom. The emmisary flees in fear and confusion.
Sorta reminds me of the patrio guys that show up here from time to time. Return to patriarchy, you evil women!
No thanks.
December 17, 2008 at 6:23 am
About Wilson “supporting abortion.” I would not say that this is exactly his position.
Federal Vision and the teachings that resulted in Steve Schissel (I don’t understand any of that with him) and Doug Wilson losing their ordination involved their view of the importance of the “covenant community,” or for those of you who don’t speak Covenant Theology-speak, this means church. “Federal” in Latin means “Covenant,” so Federal Vision is a vision for the church in real English. But if you are Wilson, you have to demonstrate that you are clever and smarter than everybody else, so you have to make things a little more obscure.
In this teaching, these guys insisted that they were getting back to what the Protestant Reformers taught, and it boils down to this (for which at least 3 denominations have denounced them for): Your eternal fate and your salvation (justification, sanctification) depend as much or more on church membership than it does upon the condition of your heart and your own personal confession of faith. There is an assumption that all people who are born into the church (to church members) automatically get this station with God, though if you asked these people, they would say that it is also dependent upon personal confession. Because they believe that God chooses those whom He will save as an act of His sovereign will, those whom Ephesians calls God’s elect, everyone else deserves what they get. God hates the non-elect.
So the mentality is that the non-elect deserve what they have coming to them. I’ve read things on Michael Metzger’s blog where he’s quoted Wilson encouraging imprecatory prayer (“Destroy my enemies God, and Joe Shmoe is my enemy. Kill them and have Your vengeance, because I know that you hate them and their hearts hate you.”)and saying that we should rejoice when we see the children of the heathen naked and hungry in the streets. This brings glory to God because he is punishing His enemies. This was also the attitude that the more well-off had in Victorian times, as people said if you were poor, destitute or ill, this was God’s sovereign justice against you. This is the same hierarchical mentality that promotes scapegoating through slavery. That person was born a slave because God knew who they were and that is the station that they merit. There is a logical conclusion that is not stated that says we should basically not mess with God’s sovereign will by trying to elevate these people out of poverty, and we should not really minister to the needy. These things should be restricted to those who honor God only (by participation in the covenant community).
So, he’s said that we should be honest about pro-life efforts, and we should let the children of Molech go kill themselves, because this is the just end of the heathen. (Notice that there is always an assumption that human beings can tell somehow who is elect from who is not. Maybe this gift is limited to Wilson? If you were elect, you would think like the patriocentrists. This is the same mentality behind the persecution of the Jews. God turned His back on them and all Christians should hate them.)
So somehow, those who are elect should be able to discern who is God’s elect and who is not, and they should direct their missionary efforts, including pro-life efforts, to only the elect, and that can be easily determined: the elect are in the covenant community or look that they will likely come to join the covenant community.
He says “The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them on the rock (Ps 137:9). We should likewise pray that the babies of the non-elect should die in utero so that they are never even born, in accordance with this Psalm.
So he is technically not “pro-abortion.” He is just pro-death, suffering and destruction of any kind to those who are non-elect.
This is the same reason why Christian attorneys out there and so many patriocentrists are willing to violate 1 Cor 6 to keep matters among Christian’s out of Caesar’s courts. They just make the decision in their heads that they know beyond certainty that those whom they are at liberty to sue are non-elect. They declare you non-Christian, and then they can take you to court or into kangaroo courts of arbitration or mediation with lawyers of their choosing (that they manipulate), and they can fleece you.
And let me say that I talk much of ideological totalism, thought reform, collectivism and the lot in association with these groups. They purpose to do the right thing, but they do it by human means to create a “more perfect world” for the “greater good.” But in the process of solving for x in human equations, their ends become their idols and they use any means to accomplish them. They can’t tolerate tension very well (some we will always have with us, such as differing interpretations and intramural issues concerning Scripture), and so they believe that they are doing God’s work to make those tensions go away. But man cannot do this, so the results are always the works of the flesh. When you do this en masse, it always degrades into thought reform. Dehumanize those that don’t fit the prescribed standard and marginalize them, debilitate them, shut them up or destroy them. Send them to Rhode Island in exile like the Puritans in Massachusetts did with the Baptists and whoever else they found to be problematic. This is what the Spanish Inquisition did. This is what Hitler did with his Jewish “problem” and anyone else that did not suit him. This is what the Pharisees did (“Thank you Lord for not making me a worthless sinner like this one… Thank you Lord that You did not see to it that I was born a goy, a slave or a woman.”) Kick the dog and slit its throat to get rid of the inconvenient tension of life as a human being.
What is truly sad is that this is a trap that we humans fall into by making small compromises, and if we do not stay rooted and grounded in love and the Word in balance, we don’t even see that we are falling into error. This is the very nature of the idolatry of idealism. Satan takes good intentions and uses them along with the deceitfulness of our hearts (that not yet transformed through sanctification), and he turns us into that which we most hate.
So all that to say, Doug Wilson is not “technically” pro-abortion. He’s just pro-death for anyone outside the covenant community. This is evidenced, of course, by total agreement with him. Such is the case with most all the patriocentrists.
December 17, 2008 at 6:54 am
NOTE: Michael Metzler, not Michael Metzger.
OOpps! Much of that blog was hacked and destroyed, and though he was available to contact at one point, he seems to have dropped off the map.
I don’t know why that is. Sometimes people are threatened to get them to shut up. Sometimes, people just find that dealing with this stuff is so pervasive and toxic, that it’s just not worth it anymore. I can imagine that it’s pretty frustrating to have all the work that you put into a blog destroyed, and you might want to give up. But much of what was on that Pooh’s Think or whatever it was has disappeared and is no longer online. That had many examples of Wilson’s imprecatory leanings.
And I assume that it should go without saying that Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us and to pray for those who despitefully use us. We should not turn ourselves into doormats with them, but we should not pray destruction on people, nor should we rejoice in the demise of anyone. Our real warfare is not against the non-elect, and this comes from Covenant Theology’s identification of themselves as attached to Israel directly. We are to take authority over our own thoughts as well as principalities, powers, the rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places. That’s not warfare against people. We should not pray against those people personally but should pray for their deliverance. We should pray for God to deliver them from the spiritual forces that hold them back from unity with the Body of Christ. We should pray that their wounds be healed (as I believe much of what many seemingly wicked people do is just self-protection and pain from their own unhealed wounds). We are never taught anywhere in the New Testament to curse or condemn people, and even Paul states in I Cor 5, I think, that we should give people over unto their own corruption SO THAT GOD MIGHT SAVE THEM eventually. We should release them, letting God deal with them. We are not to pray for their harm and we certainly should not rejoice in their affliction. We are also never told to restrict our charities to only the elect. God told Daniel that man looks only to the outward things, as only God can see the intent of the heart and judge righteously. That’s why vengeance is His and not ours. We can certainly say “The Lord rebuke you,” but we are never told to curse. We are to hate sin, conduct ourselves with wisdom and to “one another” each other. I’ve never seen that this was ever restricted from sinners. The only people we are to hold at length from ourselves are recalcitrant people who will not repent or show themselves accountable to the brethren and those corrupt religious teachers who pervert the Gospel, thus abusing their sheep. Even then though, we are to pray that in the Day of the Lord and in the fullness of time that God will redeem them.
The patriocentrists see themselves like Abraham’s real seed, and they think that the holiness mandates for Israel’s purity still apply to their “spiritual nation.” But these new supposed Covenant Theologians (as I don’t really think this is a correct interpretation of Covenant Theology and Theonomy) forget that salvation is no longer restricted to the Jews, and salvation is no longer nation-based. We follow the Holy Spirit to do what the Law used to do for Israel to keep her pure. God works our purity from the inside out now, not the outside in like the patriarchalists demand. This is also why they are focused on “fecundity,” as they are interpolating Old Testament identification with Israel with salvation of the world. That is why evangelism of the lost is not key to them. It’s replacement theology on the steroid of human pride and tribalism.
December 17, 2008 at 8:45 am
Thank you Cindy! Now I understand why the Auburn Ave trial was necessary and was such a big deal. What appalls me is this: I am Reformed (not theonomist in any way, shape or form) and federal vision is NOT the Doctrines of Grace I was taught. The elect are sinners but for the grace of God, not monstrous arrogant jerks who use their self proclaimed status to lord it over everyone else. I was told that nobody knows who is and is not elect other than God. And we do NOT make that call.
Contrary to Vision Forums delusional thinking, the elect do not have wealth, disease free quiverfull lives: the Bible makes it clear that the opposite is more likely the case. It is ironic that VF is not that different than Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar. They just package their story in a different format.
Gail
December 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Thank you for that excellent explanation, Cindy. If we ever have some type of question/answer feature on this site, your response could go there over issues of election and Doug Wilson.
I understand better some of the bizarre patrio behavior now that I understand their thinking better. Like why they chose to look up and serve Vision Forum families only after Katrina. Why bother ministering to the damned unelect!
Or why patrios love to role-play as Southern plantation owners and have their daughters dress up in Scarlett O’Hara hoops. Of course the patrios would be the wealthy, blessed land-owners during that time. And don’t feel bad about all that slave stuff, either. Those poor souls would be the un-elect, you know.
December 17, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Here’s another couple of excerpts from a Wilson imprecatory prayer. It starts out pretty solid, and then it goes totally south. I guess he has some loophole to explain away Ez 18?
You have taught us, called us, summoned us, to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, to rejoice when we are mistreated by them, and to return good for evil. We are not to return evil for evil, but rather to overcome evil with good. We accept this and rejoice in it. We know and understand that this is based on Your holy character and example—You give rain and sunlight to the righteous and unrighteous both—and that this is therefore Your standard of holiness for us, and we gladly submit to it. We therefore seek the grace to continue to love our enemies, asking You to save them. Not only would we be saved from their treachery and lies, but we ask that You would save them from their treachery and lies.
But Wilson then goes on to the condemning of the heathen children of the heathen, as we know that all heathen nations can only birth more heathens:
Chase them like chaff in a stiff wind. We pray that You would string Your bow, sharpen Your sword, make ready all the instruments of death…Let their table become poisonous to them, let it become a snare. Let their eyes be darkened, and judicial blindness fall upon them.
We pray that their eyes would be blinded by You; strike them so that they cannot see. Father, we pray that You would make their loins shake continuously, that they would be seized with fear and amazement. Pour out hot indignation all over them; take hold of them tightly in Your wrathful anger. May their dwellings become empty and desolate—for whenever You chastise anyone else, they love to pile on as though You were not there. They persecute the one that You are disciplining, and by their talk they dismay the one who is suffering under Your hand. Add iniquity to their iniquity; make a great heap of their sins. Do not let them enter into Your righteousness. Blot them out of the book of the living. Do not record their names alongside the names of the righteous.
God of our praise, do not hold Your peace. The mouths of the wicked and the mouths of the deceitful have joined in chorus together, and they are speaking against us with lying tongue. They are surrounding us with words of hatred, and they fight against us without good reason. It is because we love You that they are our adversaries, but we still give ourselves to prayer. Not only have we incurred their hostility by loving You, but we have also loved them, and have been treacherously betrayed by them. They returned evil for good, and hatred for love, ingratitude for kindness.
Let these wicked men come under the rule and reign of wicked men. Let Satan be continually at their right hand, accusing them. When they come into judgment, when the trial comes, we pray that the verdict of guilty would be rendered. When they cry out to You, let their prayers be reckoned as sinful. When they pray to You, let the ceiling above them remain silent. Cut short their days. When they have abused offices within Your Church, let other faithful men rise up to take their place.
Let their children be orphaned, cut off without a father. Let their wives be widows, and we pray that their children would be desolate, having to beg their bread in empty places. We pray that the extortioner would come back at them, catching them in their plots, and taking all that they have. May strangers and aliens pillage them and leave them with nothing. We pray that when this happens, and Your hand is evident, that no one would show mercy, and that no kindness would be extended to his fatherless children. Cut off his posterity; may his name and his line come to nothing. Recall how sinful his father was, and call up again the sins of his mother. May their sins come before Your throne continually so that their name may be blotted out, and remembered on the earth no more.
We ask for this because he is merciless. He loved to kick the poor and downtrodden, and sought to kill the broken-hearted. He loved cursing, and so give him that cursing. He detested blessing, so let blessing remain far away from him. He would put on curses like a comfortable coat; let those curses of his seep into him deeply. Tie those curses around him permanently. Let this be the clothing of all our enemies.
Posted by Douglas Wilson – 11/24/2006 1:04:30 PM
I don’t understand all this praying for God to have no mercy. Even Paul says of those sexual sinners in 1 Cor 5 that we should let the abusers be given over unto themselves so that in the day of the Lord, they might be saved. Why does Wilson give up? This was a prayer directed at Michael Metzler and two others. Metzler is reportedly working on a book now, expanding upon the subjects he explored on his now missing blog. That should be an interesting read when it’s available.
December 17, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Wow.
Whatever happened to…
“Bless those who curse you”? –Jesus
December 17, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“Let their children be orphaned, cut off without a father. Let their wives be widows, and we pray that their children would be desolate, having to beg their bread in empty places…
We pray that when this happens, and Your hand is evident, that no one would show mercy, and that no kindness would be extended to his fatherless children.”
This makes me ill.
December 17, 2008 at 6:41 pm
*stunned silence*
December 17, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Despicable is too kind for that hell spawned “prayer”.
December 17, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Pure evil, straight from the pit.
December 17, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I think he’s lost the sight of the real enemy.
December 17, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Cindy,
Regarding post #257, do you know where I could find the original source for that?
Thanks.
December 17, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Never mind, Cindy. I found it.
December 17, 2008 at 11:29 pm
The mindset behind this sort of thing is closely related to the one behind that “Prayer Warrior” movement currently popular in the Third wave Pantecostal churches. One of the darlings of the Third wave Movement, Ana Mendez, credits herself and fellow prayer warriors with the deaths of Princes Diana and Mother Theresa a few years ago:
http://www.transformingmelbourne.org/au/index.php?option=com_content&%20;view=article&id=122:the-ana-mendez-story&catid=54:testim%20onies&Itemid=74
December 18, 2008 at 12:12 am
If you look at the first part of the prayer, it does call for God to turn the heart of the wicked, but then I think as the prayer wanes on, it falls off into what I can only see as hatred. He has the qualifier in the beginning that asks for God to sovereignly sort things out, so I think that Wilson would argue that he’s within his full rights to then pray hatred.
All I can think of is that if Wilson were a Christian who had his family martyred by Saul of Tarsus, say 2 weeks before God knocked him off his horse on the way to Damascus, he would feel justified? And what did Stephen do when he fell to his knees as he was being stoned? “Don’t hold this sin to their account, Lord! Lay not this sin to their charge.” His last breath, according to Acts 7, contained a plea for mercy for those who were stoning him to death. Is Stephen’s dying breath supposed to be another non-normative example of how we are to NOT conduct ourselves? Add it to the list along with Abigail.
It really does bother me, because the whole prayer is a mix of black and white together. The good is very good and the bad is horrid, just like the girl with the forehead curl. The first part of it is lovely and is nothing to sneer at, and the last half of it is like vomit to me. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with praying that those who seek our destruction would fall into their own traps. That is something temporal that works justice and accountability. Let all of our chickens come home to roost so that we might be driven to repentance and back to our Lord of mercy. But that’s a far cry from praying that the children of our enemies would wander naked in the streets.
I was once furious over a bunch of tax increases that the elected officials of my new home at the time (Sarbanes and Mikulski in Maryland) voted in a new tax increase. I was livid. Livid. And I was embarking on a road trip, just entering the tunnel under Baltimore harbor, ranting and raving about how these people just do whatever with impunity. And out of nowhere, certainly not from my main conviction at the time, a very “loud” thought popped into my head which I count as the Holy Spirit: “How can you ask for cruel justice for others when you received mercy?”
I tend to be like Jonah who was angry, angry, angry about God’s decision to spare Ninevah. He said He was going to do “A” and I expected “A.” When the outcome is “B” or “C,” my natural flesh wants to get angry. But the Righteous Judge spoke to Jonah in his willfulness, appealing to Jonah’s sense of compassion by reminding him that the nation did not even know their right hands from their left. They lacked all discernment but repented. So God had mercy on them. What makes me greater than Jonah or greater than Stephen or greater than Paul in terms of discernment?
I would like to understand how Doug Wilson gets around those examples and what makes him greater than his fathers. I am surely not.
December 18, 2008 at 12:58 am
I can remember going to his blog a few years back because I did not believe that anyone actually taught people to say imprecatory prayers. But, he did.
It is unbelievable. The worst case scenerio is in 1 John 5 where he tells people they do not have to pray for those who are sinning unto death.
Where does he find imprecatory prayers in the NT?
December 18, 2008 at 1:40 am
Thank you Cindy for clarifying that.
Your explanation helps me understand how people can accept a “prayer” like this.
I just don’t even know what to say.
I hope no non-Christian stumbles upon this.
December 18, 2008 at 8:53 am
I’ve slept on it and I come back this morning thinking that this pray proceeds from a root of bitterness, which springing up defiles many as mentioned in Hebrews.
And it is self-righteousness that would make someone think that this prayer is righteous. Doug Wilson is right in his own mind and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
But we know what the Bible says about our own righteousness.
I don’t know if the utterer of this prayer is barging in where angels fear to tread, but I’m thinking a pray for this man might be in order to call him away from pronouncing destruction on others to avoid bringing destruction (of the most devestating sort) upon himself and his family.
I’ve moved from being horrified of this man’s words to fearing that he may be heaping the judgement onto himself that he intended for others.
I pray that he will escape even if the hairs of his head are slightly toasted and his clothes smell like smoke and that he will learn to never utter such an godless prayer again.
P.S. The actual most effective and quickly answered prayers that I’ve ever had were when I obeyed the words of Jesus, when I blessed those who cursed me.
It goes against the flesh to be sure. But what good does it do to keep on cursing in a world already under a curse.
We must inject blessing to dispell the overwhelming cursing.
That’s what God did when He sent Jesus.
We are His children if we carry on the ministry of blessing.
Be blessed ladies (and you gents who check in on us) and may your mouths be filled with blessings for others, even the undeserving.
Violent men attain riches, but gracious women attain honor. (Proverbs somewhere)
December 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Now here are a couple of questions for the group – is imprecatory prayer effective?
If it is, it it God answering the prayer, or something else?
And, if a person finds out that they have been placed on someone’s imprecatory prayer list, what is the proper thing to do in response?
December 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Another question- Cindy perhaps?
Where does the basis for imprecatory prayer come from? Is it talked about in the bible? I confess to never hearing of such a thing until I read this vile trash of Wilson’s today. So I feel a little behind the curve.
It’s awful, just awful.
December 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm
#271 Wouldn’t it be easy to just substitute some words in that question? Words that would make the whole convo more apropros?
Show you what I mean:
“Is voodoo effective? If it is, is it our god answering the prayer, or some other spirit? And, if I person finds out that they have been placed on someone’s hex list, what is the proper thing to do in response?”
We recently read two books in our homeschool. “Bruchko,” and “In Search of the Source.”
Oh, I have to go. Be back later to explain further.
December 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Imprecatory means that which calls down a curse, and it contains the root word of the Latin word for “pray.” There are varying degrees of imprecation in the Psalms, and there are a few in the Old Testament, but all of these must be understood in context.
Most of the direct and harsh imprecatory prayers are found in the Old Testament. If you apply responsible hermeneutics, you first look at the context in which the prayers for justice were written and you must consider the ultimate intent of the prayer. David prayed against his enemies, most of whom were well known to him as enemies without any equivocation. Most of the prayers of this type that are found in the Psalms were prayed against those with whom David was engaged in war. And as the chosen nation, Israel remained pure by maintaining distance from their enemies. As mentioned before, their spiritual, eternal fates depended upon their status as a nation. They were to follow purity so as to not marry Canaanite women, etc. Salvation and the nation’s purity were connected. But even this was not always a blanket statement. God did send Jonah to Nineveh. There were “worshippers within the gate” who were not Jewish but embraced the Torah. And the final consideration is that the Psalms are poetic writings, so there are those of us who think that that is a reasonable consideration.
The imprectatory Psalms include:
Ps 5 (Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee.)
Ps 10 (Break thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man: seek out his wickedness till thou find none)
28:4; 31:17-18; 35:4-6; 40:14-15; 58:6-11; 69:22-28; 109:6-15; 139:19-22; 140:9-10
There might be more of them, but these are the ones I have written in my notes.
I don’t even think that Psalm 137 that speaks historically of Babylon is considered imprecatory, from what I learned, and this is the Psalm that Wilson uses to support his “pro-life” statement:
Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Probably the most difficult imprecatory section in the Psalms is 139:
Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Now, most of the time that I’ve heard this imprecatory psalm preached, they leave off the “search me and know me…see if there be any wicked way in me.” So there is a caution in there.
Genesis 12:3 is also used by some to support imprecatory prayer: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. But God does the blessing and cursing in there, however. Some people also believe that this supports the idea that if you curse someone and it is undeserved, the curse will come back upon you. There are some writings in the Sanhedrin and other of the oral traditions that contain this message. Psalm 7:15 and Psalm 57:6 seem to also support this concept. The NT also cautions to refrain from judging, as we will have that same standard applied to us. Mara hints at this in her comment when she says that Wilson should have some holy fear when he says his stupid comments as he is raising the bar for himself. It’s pretty scary to me, because the men who Wilson directed these prayers at contend that they was telling the truth and exposing the corruption in Wilson’s church. There’s all kinds of documentation that used to be out there on the web about it.
This imprecatory psalm business takes on new life for some Calvinists, as previously mentioned, because they believe that we should show no kindness to those who God hates. The problem is that we cannot tell who those people really are. There will be many who cry “Lord, Lord!” when God separates the sheep from the goats. Many will hear “Depart. I never knew you.” And I pray for grace and have the hope that I will be one who the Lord says “Good and faithful servant,” despite all my faults. I’ve even heard RC Sproul (Sr) teach that there is a holy fear in him that does not take his salvation for granted in that sense. We have confidence in faith, but we must have holy fear as well. We must never presume who we are but always stand in faith, waiting on the mercy of God.
Note also that “A curse without cause shall not land,” (Pro 26:2 which I rested heavily upon when I was cursed upon leaving my own cultic church) so that answers at least one of Cynthia Gee’s questions. And don’t forget Baalam. His curse turned into a blessing for the one for whom the curse was meant, and that may be what a portion of Wilson’s prayer turns out to be for Metzler.
Also, it is always 100% wrong to curse God or parents or our authorities. You are also never supposed to curse the deaf, but I don’t know where that’s found. ?Exodus or Leviticus? My deaf girlfriend in Christian school used to pull that one out from time to time in her own defense
December 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Note: Some imprecatory prayers call for justice to be done so that wrongs can be made right, and they need not call for death and destruction. That Psalm 137 is not a prayer to destroy babies, if you look at the context.
So I dont’ think that in the temporal sense that it is wrong to pray that people are provoked to jealousy to do what is right or to suffer the consequences of their actions, so long as it is not a call for their destruction. Heaping coals of fire are different, too.
Now, more on the New Testament imprecatory statements…
December 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Good! I don’t have to type this all out. This is from Theopedia and it pops up on a search engine for “imprecatory psalms”:
Application
Some hold that Jesus introduced a “new” law appropriate for this dispensation. [citation needed] This view sees the NT admonition to love our enemies and pray for the welfare of our persecutors (Matthew 5:44) as incompatible with imprecatory Psalms of the Old Testament. This perspective is typified in the following quote:
“… whilst we need not suppose that the indignation which burns so hotly is other than a righteous indignation, yet that we are to regard it as permitted under the Old Testament rather than justifiable under the New. Surely there is nothing in such an explanation which in the smallest degree impugns the Divine authority of the earlier Scriptures. In how many respects have the harsher outlines of the legal economy been softened down by ‘the mind that was in Christ Jesus.’ … As in the Sermon on the Mount He substitutes the moral principle for the legal enactment, so here He substitutes the spirit of gentleness, meekness, endurance of wrongs, for the spirit of fiery though righteous indignation. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, but it is inferior to it.” [5]
However this view ignores the many imprecations in the New Testament:
* Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
* Matthew 26:23-24 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
* 1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
* Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 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.
* Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
* 2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
* Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
First, Jesus condemned the Pharisees strongly, but He was God. I don’t know that all the rules that applied to him apply to us in the same way. We can look at Paul’s example of how he dealt with the religious leaders, and the only people who Paul dealt with harshly were Christians who twisted the Word and made a mockery of it.
Those who do not love the Lord are accursed, and those who preach a different gospel are to be accursed. Is this instruction to curse them specifically with cruel hate? That vengeance is still God’s. So again, Wilson might have cause to get started, but he does not have cause to go so far as to pray for God to bring death to people and to curse their children. (And what if Wilson doesn’t see the whole big picture or is blind to some of his own sin? Think David and Nathaniel…)
The other NT imprecatory prayers are based upon reaping the consequences of bad action. That is a far cry from hating the enemies of God. We could even call on God to pour out his righteous indignation, but that does not mean that we intend that the people who would experience this are meant to be destroyed, but this could be a plea for repentance for them. These are prayers to see justice but don’t call out for eternal damnation.
Romans 15:3 For Christ did not please Himself [gave no thought to His own interests]; but, as it is written, The reproaches and abuses of those who reproached and abused you fell on Me (citing Psalm 69). This is Messianic, isn’t it?
Theopedia lists the verse from Revelation, but I don’t think it’s fair to use that as an example of imprecatory prayer for us. It’s out of the apocalypse and it is talking about what God will do sovereignly.
Lin mentioned 1 John 5:16 that there is a sin that leads to death and that we should not pray for that sin (when seen in one of our brothers). That is the sin of lying to or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, as I was taught based on Matthew 12:32. So I guess people get that all twisted around and decide whether their brethren are lying to the Holy Spirit. That can be as easy a thing to do as deciding that someone is non-elect. I can look at you and say, I think you’re lying to the Spirit, so be accursed. It’s semantics. I don’t have the hubris to presume these things about others, and I’m just hoping that I’m not kidding myself about my own heart. (Much of what I see as sin now I did not even know about years ago. I was not convicted as such. It makes me wonder what God will reveal to me about my own heart in days to come.)
And then, Paul says that there are those who God gives over to a reprobate mind, suggesting that there is a time when some people use up the grace God has given them. (1 Cor 16:22) But I see all that as stated as “If the shoe fits you, then be accursed.” It doesn’t ever imply intent, bitterness or any kind of personal retaliation. And it certainly does not contain anything in there about praying destruction on the children of those who have rejected God. We would never have converts to Christianity, then.
December 18, 2008 at 5:05 pm
And I can’t believe I didn’t write this already. Justice loves mercy. Mercy loves justice, and God loves them both. God does not take pleasure in punishment, and if we seek His mercy which He has in abundance, He rejoices to show us mercy. But we’ve got to repent, showing clean hands and pure hearts. And He works these into us by His Spirit.
I think of Karen’s podcasts — “through His mercies we are not consumed.” He is full of compassion and of great mercies. And I always say that I’m so glad that His mercies are new every morning, because I think that I use them all up sometimes.
Psalm 85:10 – Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
December 18, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Cynthia Gee,
That is just horrible about the 3rd Wave movement and Mendez’ prayers. Truly sickening.
In light of the NT, I am really having a hard time thinking that imprecatory prayer has a place in our communication with God. My flesh would like to lash out with some imprecatory prayers, especially when it comes to those who do harm to others in God’s name. But, I cannot justify praying those sorts of things.
Some Jesus’ last words were, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” Doesn’t sound like He was into imprecatory praying against His enemies, either.
I remember one [unstable] woman on Thatmom’s blog who prayed an imprecatory prayer against a few of us. It really did remind me of a voo-doo type mentality. I remember having some health problems, which is RARE for me, right after that prayer and almost giving into the notion that her whacko prayers had any power over me but then the power of a sound mind prevailed!
I also think about Gamaliel’s words to the pharisees and how he told them that if it is not of God then Jesus’ disciples will not prevail. Acts 5.
I would think that our prayers should be modeled after Christ’s own example. He prayed, in the Lord’s Prayer, that we should forgive others as God forgives us. I have no recollection of Christ praying imprecatory prayers against His enemies.
I love Psalm 85:10, Cindy. I also feel like I use up God’s mercies every day and I so desperately need them anew every morning.
December 18, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Looking back on what I wrote and in light of what Cindy K wrote, I want to dispell one misconception about blessing people.
If you pray a blessing on a thief, do not worry that you are blessing his thieving. When a thief steals, he breaks the law and brings himself under judgement.
When you bless him, part of the blessing is that he would escape his self-destructive and other-destructive behavior and into the life God has for him. I.e. he will be free from thieving and no longer be a thief. In order to do this, the thief must see that his behaviors are wrong and want to change. This is all part of blessing.
As long as he’s thieving, he will be cursed. And he needs to flee the curse he’s under by repenting.
But how can he repent unless he knows the seriousness of his situation. He doesn’t know he’s cursed. He’s pleased with himself for being so clever and getting away with something. But he really isn’t getting away with it. God sees. And God brings judgement. But God also provides a way of escape through repentence. This is why we pray that the eyes of understanding will be opened. That people can see where they are, that it is a bad place, that they need saved. We pray that people will see that they need a Savior.
The same goes for “Christians” who think they are getting away with something or think they are righteous in an area where they have actually swerved of the straight and narrow.
I feel like I’m rambling now and talking in circles. But I know what I mean. Jesus told us to bless those that curse us. He said to bless and curse not.
Don’t be afraid to bless. Jesus wouldn’t tell us to do it if it were the wrong thing to do.
And if you fear you are blessing someone that is past heal, trust the Lord to let you know to stop blessing. The cursing will take care of itself. The unrepentant bring it on themselves.
December 18, 2008 at 6:34 pm
That’s
“Swerved OFF the straight and narrow” in my third from the bottom paragraph.
And
“…if you fear you are blessing someone that is past HELP,” in my last paragraph.
Sorry.
December 18, 2008 at 8:39 pm
That prayer was really disturbing. I remember in college, a professor (of OT) told our class once that he prayed that God would “deal” with a young man who had done some pretty awful things, but he never asked God to hurt him, just serve him justice. Strangely enough, his prayer was answered and the man was killed or badly injured in a motorcycle accident (don’t recall the exact details).
But the fact that Doug is praying specifically for terrible things to happen–especially to innocent people (children and the unborn) is despicable. This is not a man of God.
December 19, 2008 at 1:53 am
I found this interesting article, “Gimme That Old Spice Religion,” about Matt Chancey, the “Manly Theocrat.” The author speculates that the Old Spice contest was just another strategic move in his political career.
http://@@@ dot religiondispatches dot org/archive/874/gimme_that_old_spice_religion_/?page=entire
(replace @ with www, you know the rest)
Besides the Chanceys, the article deals with Vision Forum and Doug Phillips, and the “pretty savvy marketing” used by them. It ends with this quote:
“In light of the Chanceys’ religious orientation and profoundly anti-secular, evangelical world view, it is a little odd that he entered a contest that required him to elide all references to the ways his religious beliefs shape his life and manly character.
“Whether Chancey’s victory in the Old Spice, Art of Manliness-Man of the Year contest is a harbinger of another run for office remains to be seen.”
Apparently there is a book coming out in April 2009, called “Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement” by Kathryn Joyce, who was quoted in the article. Preorders, anyone?
December 19, 2008 at 2:13 am
Another interesting angle is whether making an imprecatory prayer asking God to kill one’s enemies is tantamount to attempted murder.
It really poses quite a dilemma, especially for those folks entrusted with protecting the president and other public officials– one of their duties is to investicate stated threats against public office holders, and what with the increasing amount of fringe religious traffic on the internet nowadays, a startling number of folks are PUBLISHING exhortations to imprecatory prayer against their religious, political, or ideological opponents.
Here is an article that deals with the subject at length—please ignore the political content, the article dates from last fall, before the election:
http://volokh.com/posts/1220638176.shtml
December 19, 2008 at 6:06 am
Hi I have been reading y’all’s old threads and read all the Visionary Daughters threads and some of the others. I want to thank you folks. you have really given me a lot to think about and got me to open up my Bible again.
I kind of hesitate to put this but for another view of Psalm 137, Jeremiah Wright used it in his 9/11 sermon entitled “The day of Jerusalem’s fall”, (That’s the sermon in which he read a long quote by a former U.S. ambassador listing some violent acts of the U.S., that included the ‘chickens have come home to roost’ line…. hardly any news people told the public that those were not even his own words.)
but here is the transcript of the part before that.
“Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families –and God’s guidance upon the selected president and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do – payback.
There’s a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back – a move, if you will, from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of the God of creation to war against those whom God created. And I want you to notice very carefully this next move. One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read in its entirety [is] because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.
Look at the verse, look at the verse – look at verse nine: “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks.” The people of faith are at the rivers of Babylon. ‘How shall we sing the Lord’s song?’ If I forget the order … The people of faith, have moved from the hatred of armed enemies – these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, burned the temple, burned the towers – -They have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents – the babies. The babies.
Blessed are they who dash your baby’s brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in 551 BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don’t care who gets hurt in the process.
Now I asked the Lord: “What should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act?” But before I share with you what the Lord showed me, I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes…..”
partial transcript
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/27/thedayofjerusalemsfall
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
[I don’t mean to show up here to start an argument about Rev. Wright, I certainly do not agree with him on everything but I didnt like how he and the church were portrayed as something they are not. I have visited their church back before he retired, and used to often watch their TV services, and can attest it is not some crazed “black separatist” or “black supremacist” cult, and people don’t come out of church all riled up hating others. Actually I never heard Dr Wright say anything I personally find as horrible as this imprecatory prayer asking God to have no mercy, to let children starve etc.
One of my favorites…end of a worship service at TUCC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A04oMn6XNE
Cynthia that is an interesting angle about imprecatory prayer as attempted murder. I think it IS what they are attempting/hoping for, they just want God to do the dirty work. but I dont think it would qualify as attempted murder for law enforcement purposes but hmmmm… Some kind of incitement? The Secret Service or FBI would probably want to keep track of someone who is expressing such things about public officials… one of their followers might decide to “help God out.”
December 19, 2008 at 9:41 am
Thanks for the link to that article, Kathy. Interesting to say the least. You can also go to amazon’s website and read the editorial reviews about that upcoming book, “Quiverfull” that is mentioned in the article.
December 19, 2008 at 9:58 am
That book looks interesting. Thanks Kathy!
December 20, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Doug Phillips scrubbed Brian Abshire’s article on why women shouldn’t have the right to vote from the Vision Forum site:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/20/141939/08/805/675502
Apparently, this Chancey/Old Spice story is making him a tad nervous.
December 21, 2008 at 1:27 am
What a bummer having to (have the interns)do all this (extra)internet monitoring and spin control just when they are trying to get ready for the film festival. Good thing they don’t have any Christmas celebrations to get ready for.
December 21, 2008 at 10:47 am
Hey Friend,
Doug scrubbed it when Beall voted in November and he blogged about it. He says Beall has voted in all the presidential elections anyway, and that they have a tradition of going together to cast their individual votes.
It’s been gone at least that long.
I think it is a reaction to last year’s article by Don Veinot. They waited for the dust to settle and then they did some damage control so that they don’t look so rough around the edges. They need to look more mainstream if they want to keep getting donations in a bad economy.
December 21, 2008 at 10:52 am
Oh Kathy,
Yes, I’m sure it is a blessing that the true followers of VF don’t celebrate Christmas, as Doug reportedly believes that Christmas is just a repulsive “Catholic holiday.” He might catch extra holiday sin cooties from Christmas, as there are already so many horrible sin cooties to be had in the US. Better start working on the exit strategy to get to New Zealand. Someone has to vote Geoff Botkin’s son into the Prime Minister office by age 57, per Daddy Botkin’s 200 year plan.
December 21, 2008 at 12:40 pm
And yet, the VF catalogues arrive ad nauseum during the “repulsive catholic holiday” season, don’t they? Would Daddy Doug be trying to make a buck off ye olde sinners?
He makes me SICK.
December 21, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Would Daddy Doug be trying to make a buck off ye olde sinners?
The FLDS has a name for this. It’s called “bleeding the beast.”
December 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm
LOL, you guys are making me laugh so hard… Yes, it’s always fun to go to the Vision Forum online catalogue this time of year and look at the graphics and catch-phrases, seeing how close they’ll get to the line. Evergreen trees and snow? Okay– as long as they’re BLUE and white, not GREEN and white. An old guy with a white beard? Yes– but be sure to call him “Grandfather” instead of “Santa.” Sheesh…
Anyway, thanks for the information, Cindy K. I do recall Doug’s post about Beall. Hmmm, allowing your wife to vote “in the meantime,” making lots of money off a holiday born of the Harlot of Rome… Doug sure can bend the rules when it’s convenient or profitable for him.
December 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I just checked out the online catalog (had to look for the blue trees.) You can still get your items shipped by December 24th! Of course that is just some random date, you know.
Something else that popped out at me was Doug’s signature at the bottom of his boy’s adventure letter. I bet signature analysts would have a field day with his “D” alone.
visionforum(dot)com/boysadventure/about/
December 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Debbie, if that handwriting doesn’t scream “militant fecundity,” I don’t know what does. The “D” and “P” are practically waddling across the page.
December 21, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Cindy K, I noticed up above that you mentioned leaving the US for New Zealand. Just wondering if there’s any connection between VF and New Zealand (other than the Botkins once living there). I only ask because my patriocentric friend and her family was considering moving to New Zealand. I had thought this was rather random of them, but perhaps there is some kind of significance?
December 21, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I think the D looks like a kidney. What does that mean?
December 21, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I understand that Bill Gothard thought that moving all homeschooling families to NZ was a good idea because they were so family friendly or something. The resident ATI guru (Karen) will have to address it though. I’ve only heard and read the Botkin references (one mentioned on a Kevin Swanson interview about the 200 year plan of multigenerational faithfulness).
I thought that NZ was a democratic parliamentary system, and I didn’t think that these guys liked democracies. And there’s a pretty big leftist labour party, I thought. Maybe they think that it will be easier to overturn that leftist party than it will be to reign in US politics? Taking dominion by way of retreat?
December 21, 2008 at 6:34 pm
speaking as an Aussie, I’m not a total expert on new Zealand, but I have been there many times, and I find this whole fascination of the patrios for NZ just swimming in irony. On the one hand I can see the attraction: apart from some of the most frop dead beautiful scenery in the world, it is also very underpopulated — in the South Island you can drive for hours and rarely see another car. So I guess in NZ they have more chance of doing their own thing undisturbed. But they are also one of the most feminist countries in the world. Until their last election they had a woman Prime Minister (Helen Clark). They were the first country in the world to give women the vote (beating Australia by about a year). And they have a very comprehensive welfare system — which I would have thought was way too “socialist” for patrios .. Curious ..
December 21, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I don’t know who else brought up NZ, but my sister’s family were thinking of going there because Geoff Botkin was planning on taking “like-minded” Christians there in 2010 to start a community. Apparently he says he knows enough about the country, its ins and outs to get by with the government that is in place. After looking (seriously) into requirements to emigrate to NZ, my sister’s family decided that moving there is prohibitive for them.
I see that, from the upcoming conference with the Botkins (“Two Remarkable Days with America’s Visionary Family”), one of the topics will deal with “Why children do not need to fear the coming hardships of 2010.”
So most probably his 200 year plan does involve starting his own little patriarchal utopia around that time.
December 21, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“Cindy K Says:
I think the D looks like a kidney. What does that mean?”
It means you and I think exactly alike.
December 21, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I am all for starting a “send them all to New Zealand” fund. Anyone care to donate and we’ll get them out of America faster?????
December 22, 2008 at 12:52 am
In all seriousness it’s rather disturbing, isn’t it? Why New Zealand, why can’t they start a colony in the U.S.? Is it possible to get away with more of their ridiculousness, like holding adult children at home against their will, in New Zealand?
I’m actually surprised they haven’t tried a commune before now. It’s what most groups like this tend to gravitate towards. Although I do believe Phil Lancaster had one called Rivendell in West Virginia, and it did NOT go well.
December 22, 2008 at 7:06 am
About 20 years ago, Bill Gothard was promoting ATI ministry to New Zealand. He believed that God had given him a “rhema” for ministry there because of this passage of SCripture:
Isaiah 45:6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Because New Zealand is the beginning of the International Dateline, Gothard believed that God was calling him to the land where the sun first rises each day.
He also told us that we might all have to move to New Zealand to live in a truly Christian nation if the US kept getting worse. (There is still ATI ministry there today.)
Now here is an interesting twist…a few years ago, a woman told me that they had had a family from New Zealand visit there family-integrated church. This family was traveling across the US hoping to find a community to move to because they were worried about the religious freedoms in New Zealand being taken away. Their big concern at the time was that a law had just been passed to prohibit parents from spanking their children and they couldn’t live with that.
Interestng. I can’t imagine that being the bell weather for religious persecution.
December 22, 2008 at 10:50 am
I’m not so sure New Zealand would be as welcoming to the “Holy Huddle” as they think. A college student we know at our church spent the 2007 school year in New Zealand as part of an overseas study program and he experienced a lot of Anti-Americanism. And I mean actual confrontational, mean and rude comments to his face. I was surprised because I didn’t know what a small country like NZ would have against the US, but apparently they’ve been mad at the US for years over some political policies/issues. If you google “Anti-Americanism in New Zealand”, you’ll come up with quite a few websites and articles about it.
December 22, 2008 at 11:09 am
Does anyone know the reason the Botkin family lived in New Zealand? Why did they move back to the US?
December 22, 2008 at 11:52 am
About 20 years ago, I met an adorable elderly couple from NZ on a connection between Detroit and Memphis. We ended up talking about secularism, and they were far more impressed with the freedoms we have here as compared to there, but that you can keep to yourself. (They were Christians and wrote down their address in a devotional that they gave to me called “Daily Strength,” inviting me to stop in when I was in the neighborhood…. HA!) Anyway, this seems to echo what Lynne has said above.
From what I understand of the Botkins, they are from the US from what I gather, Geoff participated in making documentary films for PBS about 20 years ago or more, and he was a lobbyist in Washington (the DC code for lobbyist is “consultant” in my experience in the area). The Botkin girls book says that their father was a University professor, something that I think I’ve also read and heard about him also in other places. But it is unclear about exactly when he was a Marxist. That would be interesting to know if this took place while he was in NZ, or whether he was a Marxist while he was a US citizen.
December 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Oh, and I don’t recall reading about why the Botkins returned from NZ. I don’t know why they ended up in Texas, either.
December 22, 2008 at 12:57 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_New_Zealand
December 22, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Poor NZ’ers! I have some good friends that live there. I’d have thought somewhere rural in the US might have suited them more… Might have been more ‘tolerant’ towards them. The irony of that statement is not lost on me.
On a side note,
Has anybody seen Doug’s latest blog post about VF’s ‘Vision’? Am I the only one to notice the absence of even Christ’s name on that manifesto?
December 22, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Cynthia Gee,
What are you trying to say about this Destiny group in NZ? They are pentecostals and VF would not be able to work with them at all. Their concept of dominionism and the means by which one accomplishes it on a practical basis (outside politics) are about as polar opposite as you can get. Are you saying that you think that VF would want to get involved with them, or are you just saying that there are Christians in NZ who might be recruited to serve VF’s needs? Or does this just mean that it demonstrates that NZ is family friendly?
NZ did have a series of Christian political campaign efforts for awhile, but that seemed to go nowhere fast. Destiny is one of the spinoffs from that group, with the Christian Democrats representing another (another group that I would imagine would repulse VF). That article (linking over from the Destiny Church article) says that about 50% of NZ residents claim to be Christians, but those stats are essentially comparable to stats in the US. That doesn’t seem to really fuel the parties and political efforts. Destiny and the spinoff party from theirs only procured 0.37% of the vote in the 2007 election.
I don’t undertand what you’re trying to infer with just the link. Could you explain a little more?
December 22, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Andrea said: “Has anybody seen Doug’s latest blog post about VF’s ‘Vision’? Am I the only one to notice the absence of even Christ’s name on that manifesto?”
Of course Christ if missing! How could Jesus fit into the Vision Forum 10-Commandments of gender roles? What else is of more significance today than who gets the first life boat on the Titanic? I know I stay up at night worrying about that.
December 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Andrea,
All I can figure about that new VF list is that they are trying to distance themselves from the ministry of Vision Forum Ministries for tax purposes. They want to look more like a business and less like a religious organization? Maybe it’s their new evangelism approach (ROFLOL!)? VF is the for profit end, and VFM is the charitable division. Maybe they are looking to drop VFM and roll it all over into the NCFIC?
Maybe Doug is getting ready for a revamp of the whole set-up? Scott Brown set up an internship for someone to create an NCFIC website that is a stand alone one that is separate from Vision Forum/Vision Forum Ministries. Maybe they are going to try to mainstream this into its own official denomination? They’ve called themselves a “church planting organization” for years, though they used to deny that they were a denomination on the old website. (Back when John Thompson was still NCFIC president, you could put in ncfic.org and it would route you to VF, I thought, which is still what happens, but the URL is VFM’s.) If you write to Peter Bradrick to ask questions of Scott Brown, you must send your email to dbrown@ncfic.org. (Maybe FIL Brown has to screen all Peter’s mail, something I thought was odd? Can’t give the kid his own email????) So they must still own the domain name for the ncfic but have not used the site online under that URL.
Anyway, if you look at the application and the agreement and the description of what Scott Brown wants to do with that intern, it sounds like they want free labor to build the website which they call a “big build-out.” (You get to stay in a dorm, you have to buy the current editions of their books and videos with your own funds of course, turn in book reports to Brown like Bradrick did to win Brown’s daughter, you have to maintain your own car, attend Hope Baptist Church like a real member (participating in the “body life”), pay your own meals (save for 1 meal with the Browns per week and two meals with families in the church), pay your own way get to Ligonier’s conference in FL which seems highly recommended but not mandatory (nudge-nudge), you can’t be over the age of 25 (as you might be too discerning), and you must have the full approval of your parents (God-forbid you don’t have the full blessing of your “multigenerational faithful covering” after you check with Uncle Ned). I noticed on the application that they have a question where you are to write how many years you were homeschooled, so it seems that the homeschooled will be given priority. And there is a schedule to follow with your breakfast times set and with a curfew. I wonder if they throw the breaker for lights out? They even have daily morning exercise on the list, and it’s not long enough to go to the local gym. Maybe you do supervised jumping jacks with someone? They rotate elders through every morning.
If you download the documents, in the “properties” of the PDF file, it says that they have been written by a “David Brown” (a son)? ….Good, because I don’t think they are very well written for a document of this purpose and what I would call important. It sounds as though Peter Bradrick and Scott’s daughter will relocate (or have already) from Texas to NC to work directly for Scott Brown.
The NCFI seems to operate much like a denomination while equivocating that they are not a denomination. Now that they have Baucham, Brown, and those who followed them to embrace the FIC concept (and technically RC 2.0), they might want to officially make this group a formal denomination. I don’t get the sense that Reyenga would want to follow along, as I don’t think they all share the same “vision” concerning home worship and discipleship or catechism or whatever the most popular phrase is these days. I’m told that Reyenga is not legalistic like the aforementioned VF bunch.
But something is going on there and they are making plans. I don’t think the SBC plans for FIC idealism is taking off like some had hoped, so this might be phase II of taking over the church…
and then….
THE WORLD!
(Insert maniacal laugh….)
December 22, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Debbie in CA,
I don’t know that the “Reviving the Doctrine of Women and Children First” really refers to getting on Titanic lifeboats.
Women are the first to blame when there’s something wrong with your family, as they are not properly supporting their patriarch’s vision and helping him to properly fulfill his 200 year plan of kingdom vision covenantal successive mandate directive of multigenerational faithfulness and sanctification of the biblical doctrine of family and related gender sacraments.
And when your kids go wonky because they’ve been so psychologically abused, then you can blame everything and all your problems on your rebellious kids. We all know that if they aren’t the picture of sparkling eyed submission, they failed to respond to the culture of virtuous boyhood and girlhood that you provided for them through VF products, probably because they picked up sin cooties from meeting some kids at your FIC church that don’t tell anybody and go to AWANA at another church.
December 22, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Hey Cindy K,
Thanks for the detailed update of the goings-on in the VF world. It definitely does sound like the rubber is hitting the road as far as making their “vision” for the church–and yes, the world–come to pass.
So it sounds like they’re making plans to make their “ministry” appear more mainstream, while also making plans to isolate themselves somewhere halfway across the world.
Brilliant, really. Fewer people will be able to discern the poison beneath the pretty packaging, and helping the young people trapped within the group will be that much more difficult.
December 22, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“What else is of more significance today than who gets the first life boat on the Titanic?”
Oh Debbie you crack me up!
Very astute observation Andrea.
I do not get points 7 and 9 at all. I suppose I am too postmodern.
“7. Understanding Family Culture As Religion Externalized
9. Developing Biblical Worldview Through Presuppositional Thinking”
What on earth is that about? Point 9 kinda sounds like eisegesis to me, right?! Cindy you are usually so good at translating this gobbledegook, can you help?
December 22, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“How could Jesus fit into the Vision Forum 10-Commandments of gender roles?” – Debbie from CA.
I really don’t think he could.
Jesus was unmarried, didn’t procreate, wore long, almost dress like robes (cross dressing by todays culture), (traditionally) had long hair, associated with prostitutes and thieves, lent towards socialism (Matthew 19:21), dispised the merchants at the temple, refuted the idolisation of fertility (Luke 11:28), was born to an unmarried mother…
This doesn’t sound like the person who would fit in VF’s image.
December 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm
re: Geoff Botkin’s NZ connections.
This is something I’ve wondered about for a long while. The Botkin girls make a great deal of their father’s leadership positions, political connections, etc., and I’ve wondered exactly in what capacity he made these contacts. It seems significant to me that the Botkin girls haven’t been very specific.
I’ve done some googling to try to discern his background, and I’ve come up with several pages indicating that he’s had past employment with the Great Commission church movement, which is in the Rick Ross Institute’s archive of controversial groups/cults. Great Commission’s beliefs seems to line up very closely with Vision Forum’s in terms of gender roles and importance of homeschooling; it made sense that he could easily move from one organization to the other.
This 2002 article describes a joint business venture in NZ btwn Botkin and Great Commission founder Jim McCotter:
http://www.gcxweb.org/Articles/NAndS-04-2002-a.aspx
This 1986 article quotes a Geoffry Botkin who is an administrative assistant at Great Commission:
http://www.gcxweb.org/Articles/MCS-08-07-1986.aspx
I also happened upon a forum for ex-GC members, and one user had posted a letter from a NZ staffer of the business venture Botkin was involved in. The tone was very angry at the Americans’ perceived betrayal of the NZ employees. Botkin apparently made some enemies in NZ. And of course I didn’t bookmark that site, so I can’t provide a link!
I haven’t done more than skim the above articles, but my intuition tells me that if a researcher with more time than I currently have were to really dig, they may turn up some interesting information regarding Botkin’s background.
December 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Claire,
You are not too postmodern, just too discerning. This is a case of the emperor’s new loaded language.
7. Understanding Family Culture As Religion Externalized
Here’s my hypothesis:
This is vague and equivocal, so it can mean a couple of things, depending on what they want at the time.
This is their weird view of theonomy that says that all spheres are really inseparable. So if you take dominion over your family, the family spills out into the culture and your religion is made know to the world. They are families that minister to families as part of groups of family collectives. They don’t do individual evangelism or ministry. They still really do view the church as a family of families (even though they amended that one document). So no one does anything apart from their covenantal family unit collective. Their family is their religion externalized in that sense. If you do have those pesky non-normative singles, you assign them to a family so that they can be part of family culture that will save the world. (Those pesky singles include types like the non-normative Jesus who went around doing nearly every socially non-normative thing He could have possibly done.) There should be no culture apart from family really, and society should eventually turn into a big family of families just like the church.
It’s progressive expansion, I think. All culture is family culture for them in their world, because where they go, the family goes and where the family goes, the church goes and where their church goes into society, they expand their dominion. The world will become one big happy family demonstrating proper submission eventually, just like God said that He wants it, whether the rest of the US likes it or not. Democracy (the freedom and liberty of the individual who has equal access to power) is tyranny. That’s the patriospeak translation of the “family culture” term. Family culture means the world, wherever the patriocentric finds himself. (You won’t find a herself, because they are all contained in the sphere of the home while their patriarch is out standing in the gate.)
Now for externalizing religion… This is taking dominion. We are not supposed to make religion a private matter, but it should permeate every area of our lives and every area of human life. What that means for me and other reasonable Americans means something very different from the brave new Christian Reconstructionist. For me in the US in that civil sphere I’m not supposed to function in, it means that I live by my principles and walk them out, using the Word of God as my only standard, but I submit to the process set up by the founding fathers which protects and defends the right of others to follow religions that are different than my own. If I do all I can do to defend what’s right and to see that righteous laws are established in the American government as outlined in the Bible, I am to rest in the process. When the hearts of people change, then people will change the laws and the system. It will not be forced or pushed. The people will want things to change, and the democratic constitutional republic — our system — will work to see that God-honoring law is re-established.
If you are a dominionist, such as this brave, new VF type, you seem to have liberty to do whatever it is to win, no matter what sphere you’re spinning in. “He who defines wins.” He who sells the most holy hand grenades of Antioch, virtuous boyhood sacramental cross bows or crocheted gloves for Biblical virtuous daughterhood tea dates with daddy wins. And we can stone homosexuals and wayward teens and whoever else we don’t like, because they are non-elect. We can rejoice to see the children of our enemies naked and starving in the street? I should seek to establish political power and presence as this is top-down dominion with a focus on hierarchy and submission. That’s true externalized religion.
Just an hypothesis. Maybe Moody will do another interview with Doug or maybe Swanson will rant about it, and we can ascertain a little more.
December 22, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“I’m actually surprised they haven’t tried a commune before now. It’s what most groups like this tend to gravitate towards. Although I do believe Phil Lancaster had one called Rivendell in West Virginia, and it did NOT go well.”
Maybe that’s because he called it “Rivendell.” (I’m being sarcastic–I like the Lord of the Rings.)
No, seriously, I’ve thought the same thing. I do wonder why we are seeing so much of them plastered on the internet, if they feel the need to seclude themselves.
December 22, 2008 at 6:51 pm
9. Developing Biblical Worldview Through Presuppositional Thinking
This is Francis Schaeffer stuff and is just a reiteration of his material, referencing his presuppositional apologetics — meaning you have to take some things by faith and there is no material evidence for matters of faith. It is contingent upon presuppositions that the Bible is true and that these revelations cannot be proven in the material world. We should not expect to prove them with the material world, necessarily.
Presuppositional apologetics is circular reasoning, so you, Claire, again demonstrate that you are discerning and not impaired by postmodernism (at least not as evidenced in this circumstance).
Biblical worldview is pretty straightforward. This is someone who applies the core and essential beliefs of Christianity to all areas of life. The Word of God is the standard for all things pertaining to life and godliness as opposed to whatever is PC or dictated by the government. You would have to believe that you must confess faith in Christ to be saved, believe that sin exists and is objective, that the sins listed in the Bible are really sins, etc. You have to have sound, essential doctrine. I’m all gung ho for that.
The main points of presuppositional apologetics:
Logic and rationality should not destroy the Christian faith but should prove it to be true. (Nothing works against the objective truth, and God is a reasonable and logical God.)
We should be able to answer and defend all objections to the faith (defense)
We should be able to use logic and rationality to expose the errors in any non-Christian worldview. Schaeffer called this “taking the lid off.” You talk to people until they start to feel the tension of the inconsistencies in their own view of the world, and by pointing out how Christianity and a Christian worldview is actually true and sound, you can convert people this way. This, of course, assumes that Christianity is rational and can stand up to scrutiny (which I believe it can). And again, there are some assumptions that must be made such as the a priori idea that man is a rational being with a sense of the spiritual, that the objective and empirical world will validate the truth of the Word. You have to start somewhere with some assumptions. It differs from straight empiricism which would want you to prove that God exists, such as an evidentialist might. Creation science is more critical to an evidentialist than it is to a presuppositionalist, because the evidentialist rests his understanding on empirical proof. The presuppositionalist says that the Bible says it, so I make this assumption that it’s true. They accommodate information into what the Word says rather than accommodating the Word based on empiricism. If you start with man and the rational world, you open yourself up to existentialism, and it is the person who gives meaning and value to that which is known. If you start with the presuppositions that Scripture is the standard, truth does not find its meaning in the knower but in God (as we know Him and the world through the Word of God). Presuppositional apologetics renders a more true and God centered view of the world and epistemology (how one validates truth) than does starting with the experience of the material world first.
What this does not say is that VF follows an epistemology of foundationalism. I am a coherentist. (Van Til and Clark were both presuppositional apologists but they differed on their preferred epistemology.) I cannot think like a VFer and I cannot accomodate how they make sense of the world with their epistomology which I find to be arrogant. Foundationalists get caught up in defending and proving truth, and coherentists like me don’t take things personally. Truth does not need me to prove it, though I am to be ready to give an account of the truth and of the hope within me.
December 22, 2008 at 6:53 pm
There are some pretty strong female characters in LOTR…according to patrio standards Eowyn belongs in the monstrous regiment.
Actually, I think a lot of the literature these folks so highly espouse runs contrary to their proclaimed message. Jane Austen is read both as a feminist and by feminist literary critics for the ways her books subversively satirized cultural norms of her day, especially those pertaining to women. She wasn’t as outrageous as, say, the Brontes or Thomas Hardy, but you can find a lot of material in her works where chauvenism and “stupid girls” are mocked, and intelligent women capable of independent thought are the heroines. I suppose as long as there is enough descriptions of teas and balls and young men asking fathers’ permission to marry their daughters (as was the cultural norm for the time period and social class Austen is writing about), nothing else really matters…
On another note,
Cindy K did a good job of laying out what their worldview is in terms of “taking dominion” through their new “culture of the family.”
These ideas don’t come out of nowhere. They’re rooted in a particular way of viewing God’s relationship to humanity and the Church’s relationship to the world. It’s essential to have a comprehensive understanding of their worldview to understand how these ideas take shape.
December 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I have somehow gotten on the VF mailing list (I’m Catholic and don’t homeschool, so go figure . . .) Anyway, I received a fundraising letter a few weeks ago from VF Ministries. Outside of the envelope says “An [sic] Personal Letter From Doug Phillips” “A Moment of Opportunity” “Picture Enclosed”. The letter starts out: “you and I are living on the threshold of a season which may be the most culturally and politically antagonistic to Christian families in American history.” Then it goes on to use the usual martial language and attack the usual suspects: “when confronted with the toxic doctrines of feminism, we need to remain unflinching in our promotion of sturdy, virtuous, biblical womanhood.” Refers to “a sea of effeminacy” (gotta say that the obsession with effeminacy often strikes me as a case of “thou dost protest too much”). Everything is a “battle”, e.g. “it is a battle we wage everytime we hold a Father and Daughter or Father and Son Retreat.” (Could the absence of “Mother” be more obvious?!)
Bottom line: “We critically need to hire more staff” and so “We are asking the Lord to provide us for a base of $50,000 a month in planned giving to cover our operating expenses, including new staff. This is the equivalent of 500 people donating $100 a month to this ministry.” Asks for “a generous one-time donation and a monthly commitment.”
Enclosed is a Christmas-card style photo of Doug Phillips and family. He has a beard (more manly?) and everyone is dressed alike.
I wonder if the economic downturn is taking a toll on VF and their entourage. I’ve often wondered what it is exactly those interns and various other in the VF repertory company actually DO.
December 22, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Hey y’all…in case I don’t get online again before the big day I want to wish my fellow feminists a happy CHRISTmas. May you have a wonderful time with family and friends….
December 23, 2008 at 12:39 am
About the whole internship thing- basically, it seems to me that the INTERN is paying for the “privilege” of being “mentored” by Scott Brown. He tells you what to eat, buy, read, and wear, when to sleep, with whom you can associate, what conferences to attend (and pay for), and then gives you homework on top of everything else. You pay for your airfare and living expenses… and if you will do just those measly little things, Scott Brown will deign to show you the ropes of the FIC. In fact, you actually have to do WORK for him on top of everything else. You are an adult (between 18-25), but you are being treated like you are away at boarding school.
Really, its insulting in every sense of the word.
Hope Scott Brown is worth it.
December 23, 2008 at 3:32 am
Cindy K. said: “I don’t know that the “Reviving the Doctrine of Women and Children First” really refers to getting on Titanic lifeboats.
Women are the first to blame when there’s something wrong with your family, as they are not properly supporting their patriarch’s vision and helping him to properly fulfill his 200 year plan of kingdom vision covenantal successive mandate directive of multigenerational faithfulness and sanctification of the biblical doctrine of family and related gender sacraments.”
Bwahaha! Love this, Cindy, and a great summary of their ridiculous jargon. But sadly it contains lots of truth. Women are to blame for any patrio family failure but uncredited for any instance of success.
Nice analysis, Andrea: “Jesus was unmarried, didn’t procreate, wore long, almost dress like robes (cross dressing by todays culture), (traditionally) had long hair, associated with prostitutes and thieves, lent towards socialism (Matthew 19:21), dispised the merchants at the temple, refuted the idolisation of fertility (Luke 11:28), was born to an unmarried mother…
This doesn’t sound like the person who would fit in VF’s image.”
I wonder what a good patrio would do if a guy fitting Jesus’ biblical description showed up at their church door on Sunday?
Cally, I’m kinda fascinated with the whole just what do interns do question, too. Basically they pay for the privilege of providing free grunt work. They leave poorer and without anything remotely resembling a diploma or accreditation for any real-world type job. Picture this–
Job interviewer: “So what did you do at your last job?
Former intern: “I served as an intern for Scott Brown/Doug Phillips!”
Job interviewer: “Never heard of them. So what exactly did you do?
Former intern (sweating): “I monitered the harlots on Christian feminist websites all day.”
I bet that Doug Phillips wishes he could call his free housekeepers “interns.” He wouldn’t have to hide them anymore. Plus he could staff a small army of unpaid help around the house–it would free him to cast better visions and stuff. But he can’t because well, his housekeepers have girl parts. Internships, battle and gate-sitting are for virtuous dominion boys only.
December 23, 2008 at 7:35 am
Debbie,
Doug does have a string of boys that follow him around. They line up to carry his books and papers or whatever. In fact, I held up a picture of Doug’s son from on his blog to show my husband, just to demonstrate how old we are…. We remember that boy zooming around with his siblings the day that we talked to Doug and Beall at the OPC, now about 10 years ago. Anyway, my husband’s response:
“Why does Doug always have some 14 year old boy following him around?”
When we attended a multiple day Constitution Party thing with Doug and about a dozen or so other people and he would not so much as make eye contact with us, he was attended by what looked like two teen boys and interns, too. They follow him around like lap dogs. It is the weirdest, weirdest thing. He made a big deal about explaining it in a “look, I am so important I have valets” address he made to the group. It’s all part of his hard work discipling young men so he can teach them to be manly save the world.
And on that Return of the Daughters video, they have a whole family from Hondo that does labor for Doug, apparently for free. Hondo is not that close to Sisterdale (a little borough or village outside of Boerne) at all. Hondo absolutely must be at least 50 miles away and probably more like 70 miles away from Sisterdale. Anyway, the daughter works for them in their home, I guess. I think that the mother cleans for them, but the brother takes care of the yard for Doug, so far as I can tell.
I don’t know if people realize just how San Antonio “sprawls.” I think Doug would actually have to drive about 40 or 50 miles to get to the Vision Forum building that is supposed to be seized by the city or county for a fire house (as a retaliation for protesting the support of homosexuality and parades and such with city officials). I have not heard any more about that building business which might be another reason why they need more money. Jim Leininger bought that Vision Forum building on Blanco Road for them, not the greatest neighborhood, IMO.
That was all pretty arrogant and stupid planning on the part of VF (acting pious and offended with city officials). One thing speaks in San Antonio and that is $$$$$. They don’t like carpet bagging Yankees, and I’m sorry but someone from Virginia like Doug and company, Dabney loving or not, will be considered an outsider and an “Anglo.” I know a guy who lives there named Martinez who is from California, looks “Anglo” and they hate him because he doesn’t look or sound like a local. Life there is all pretentious game-playing and figuring out how to look nice and smile while gaining advantage over everyone else. I am as sure as I can be that they would only give VF the time of day if they could give them more money than the homosexual community brings into the city.
I don’t care how often Doug fills in for Trey Ware on KTSA’s daily talk radio show. He’s an outsider there when push comes to shove, and he really should not have that much expendable money available for buying off public officials. If you’re not an obvious, native South Texan or a Mexican, you are not worth the time of day in that city UNLESS you have a lot of money that you can use to grease political palms. And the second that the money stops flowing, there is no love lost as loyalty always goes back to natives and non-Anglos. It is a caste society there, all based on whether you are wealthy or hispanic. They aren’t even really that much in awe over new money as opposed to old family money and names.
And the city/county is slimy. A very respectable professional person said with all seriousness to my husband that it used to be that you could walk up to a local official on the steps of the courthouse in front of God and everybody to buy them with bribe and graft. But now, all the same things go on, but you have to put your $$$$$$ in an envelope and meet them around the corner to buy them off. The man was as serious as he could possibly be, and the comment pertained to a very practical, professional matter. I felt the effects and pain of the evil politics there like I have no where else, and I experienced it on nearly ever level of daily living there.
They ticked off the wrong people in Bexar County or the City of San Antonio or both. The best thing they can do would be to buy a building on Bandera Road (where you could still find good deals on sq footage in Leon Valley while I was there) or find some old and dumpy building on the way out to Boerne to get out of the City of San Antonio proper. But whatever they get for their building on Blanco, it won’t pay for a comparable building outside of that area. I don’t think that they can afford to go further north on 281, and 10 is all built up. If the get an old building, it will take major money to get it up to code, though people always seem to be able to find fast money for that kind of thing in that town.
Well, what all that has to do with interns, I don’t know. But it may all be reason for why VF would need to procure more money because their expenses will climb when the move out of that North Central location in the city when they loose the warehouse.
December 23, 2008 at 7:43 am
Oh, let me state that Doug does say that he patterns his practice of having these young men following him around after how his father trained him. That’s a huge and central part of Doug’s explanation of why he does what he does with his idea of mentoring. It is somehow his own version of how Howard trained him.
(Funny, but I guess Howard’s work of this type was done when he raised and launched his own boys. I never noticed an entourage of young men following Howard around at Constitution Party functions in Maryland/DC.) If it is something Howard continues to do on an ongoing basis with other young men, it is not anything that Howard makes any kind of big deal about at all, since you don’t ever see or notice these people. With Doug, his entourage is an event. And at VF, apparently, it’s a media event since we see many of the photos. What you don’t see there shows up on the interns’ blogs.
December 23, 2008 at 8:32 am
Which brings up an interesting point.
About a year or more ago, I got all of these anonymous emails from someone who really, really wanted me to put info about the John Jay Institute on my blog. (My focus is spiritual abuse and I didn’t think that this had anything to do with my own mission or “vision,” so I did little else than look at their website.) It was a quite impressive looking website, however. It seriously marginalizes Vision Forum by comparison, and I half wonder if this is what VF would like to do and be but it lacks the resources and the intellectual chops for it. Have they just have set up a much lesser version and focus on the aberrant aspects of a more simplistic group while still aspiring toward the same types of lofty ideals? Hmmm.
Apparently this John Jay Institute actually does work with attorney interns and they do train citizens to be mindful and responsible Christian thinkers and leaders. I don’t think that their work is geared at homeschooling but more directed to legal/civil arenas. And though I read that they operate pretty closely with FoF in some ways, they don’t appear to be terrified of women and “seas of effeminacy” or whatever it was Elizabeth quoted above from a recent VF fundraising letter.
They take all kinds of women as interns, and they post their photos and academic info on their website. You can read where each person doing an academic internship then goes on to a field placement. JJI puts them in really exciting-sounding groups that are not anything like sweeping Little Bear Wheeler’s floor, washing Doug’s car, playing with spreadsheets for CHEC under Kevin Swanson’s supervision, or participating in the “body life” of Scott Brown’s church. (And I’m sure they don’t spend their days surfing the web for people who mention Alan Crippen’s name so that they can do damage control.)
After looking at those NCFIC internship documents, I thought of this JJI website. It really does just put VF into perspective, I think.
December 23, 2008 at 8:56 am
Merry CHRISTmas indeed!
Something that came to mind: VF is trying for a society like the Amish & Hasidic Jews (who do it better) but the VF folks are sadly like unto the FLDS. Or Centennial Park for now (another polygamous mormon group). I find it ironic that the VF males dress modern and the females dress and act JUST like the FLDS.
December 23, 2008 at 9:45 am
I can understand the “internship” thing for boys, but how in the world do the Phillips acquire free house help? Have they stated that they don’t pay these women?
December 23, 2008 at 9:48 am
Debbie from CA:
I forgot to comment —
In “Captive Hearts, Captive Minds” (cult exit book), they have a section where they talk about what it’s like to go to try to find work after you’ve been in a cultic group. There’s a cartoon there where one person conducting an interview asks the interviewee about their teamwork skills. The ex cultist says, “Teamwork! I was in a cult!”
(It’s meant to point out that your skills are not wasted and that you need to take stock of the beneficial things you learned while in the group. So what the interns that Doug fires for asking too many questions need to figure out is just where they can apply their harlot monitoring skills and put them to better use.)
December 23, 2008 at 10:05 am
May I put in a good word for San Antonio, please?
My husband grew up there, his parents lived there for almost 50 years until his father died, and we lived there together as a couple for five years during the first part of our marriage in the mid to late 80s. It is a different town from anything else I have ever lived in, but mostly in a positive way. It was strange to be in the minority ( we are of Scottish and mutt descent) and the politics did seem to revolve around the Hispanics and the old money. But, like any other place, there are those in power and then the rest of the population. The mixing between the two goups is very rare, and it doesn’t usually bother the normal citizens. It was a wonderful place to live. At the time we lived there, there were 5 military bases, and that brought all sorts of people into the city from all different places. There are so many interesting pieces of history – all the missions around to visit. There are several day hiking places nearby – like Enchanted Rock which is a fascinating granite dome, and Lost Maples State Park. The zoo was an excursion of great fun. There are museums that have some very good art(as well as some other types) and there is the military museum at Fort Sam Houston. The Riverwalk is an experience, and though the best food is elsewhere, it is fun to eat outside and watch everyone go by.
My FIL was a professor,my MIL worked at a high school, my husband was a medical student/resident, and I was a teacher at a different high school during this time. We attended a church that emphasized Christian living and some doctrine and was full of like-minded people.
Anyway, I just felt like I needed to let readers know that San Antonio is not one personality. As with any other place, you find your niche, interact with others, and live a normal life. Most of the people I ran into were very pleasant and friendly, and this was true for my husband and in-laws, as well. If I had to pick a city to live in, I would like to go back to San Antonio, though my small town of population 30,000 is my preference. I enjoy our relatively uncrowded streets, but I look back on my time in San Antonio as very positive.
December 23, 2008 at 10:19 am
Peaches,
That’s the pernicious gossip around San Antonio, say for instance, in the church I once attended. They also discuss this in the “Return of the Daughters” video which features both the daughter and the son of the woman that, at that time, did their housekeeping. I do not believe that they are actually paid for doing some of these things and it is couched as Christian ministry.
I would completely discount this as true if I had not heard and seen these things in the shepherding movement (the charismatic movement that got started about the same time that Bill Gothard started to get cranked up in the mid to late ’60s). We had a close friend at one time who was on the list to have the privilege of washing Bob Mumford’s car. The more holiness you have and the more submissive you are, the more deeply you can penetrate into the inner circle of leaders and the more intimate duties you are permitted to perform for them. So scrubbing the toilet for Bob Mumford is a far higher and more lofty duty than just washing the car. I actually talked on the phone with someone who left a sister church of my group whose father actually got to pick Bob Mumford up at the airport.
This is all a very big part of submission teaching, and in terms of this aspect and dynamic, Gothard and Mumford and some of these patriocentrists ascribe to the same mindset. Gothard teaches that if you want to have your own vision, the way to make that grow comes through serving others in their mission. So the more humble you are, the more grace you get (like God puts money in an account or you get grace warm fuzzies to counter all those sin cooties). The more selfless you are in your service, the more benefit you gain. If you are asked to wipe someone’s bum because they are too lazy to do it themselves or if they are actually taking pleasure in the fact that they can get you to do it, this is a test of your virtue. Submission, submission, submission. It is seen as an act of piety that builds your character in a direct cause and effect manner.
But what’s interesting is that no one is interested in scrubbing the toilet of the aging,obese woman who had a stroke and drools, who is seated in the back row and when she comes for prayer or to ask for critical help is patted on the head and told to be warmed, filled and to go in peace. The ministry efforts are directed primarily toward the elders and leaders in a group, because it is a type of validation and reinforcement of your own importance. Consider that this is like a drug, because you are in an environment of comparison as well as one where shame is used to motivate. It is more satisfying than a glass of cool water on the hottest summer day because it medicated the pains of comparison and shame.
People in these groups are overridden with shame, and gaining the favor of the elite is a most powerful neurochemical drug. It also feeds pride, because you are more special than the other people who can’t even get on the waiting list to wash the car, let alone scrub the toilet. But sometimes, if there is a favorite of the group, one that the group can hold up a non-normative they would like people to minister to — a pet project. Because it is seen as a virtue and is counted as virtuous by the leadership, attending to the particular non-normative who has been set apart by the leaders will also earn you bonus points with them. They
ALWAYS have their favorites. You might not get to wash the car of the leader, but you might be able to get on the list to wash the car of their pet project.
And think about it. They have set themselves up in a hierarchy and established themselves as the visionaries who speak for God and discern His thoughts in ways that normal people cannot even begin to attain. Where would we be without Doug Phillips? We would have no one championing the family and the world would be a sad, sad place. If you want more than anything to honor and serve God in all the wonder and fullness that you can dream of, this is alluring.
If you believe their press, they hold out this fantasy for you. They create it with smoke and mirrors, and if you want that fantasy, there it is. You might not get to experience the awesome power and holiness and greatness of God, but you can perhaps glean something from the crumbs that fall from God’s table of greatness. I’ve heard people describe this as like unto those sick who took strips of Paul’s clothing to the sick so that the power of the Holy Spirit that remained on the cloth would heal them. You might have a Holy Ghost experience by washing the very car that Bob Mumford actually touched and sat in. You might get a Holy Ghost jolt when you scrub the… Don’t forget that Gothard teaches this. To have vision you must first experience the death of a vision, and then you work toward your vision by serving someone else in their vision. When God finds you faithful and you earn enough grace points and warm fuzzies, you win the prize — you get your own vision, and volunteers will in turn come to serve you as you aspire toward your very own vision.
This is all Gothard. It was all over Shepherding. It is a twist on being faithful over little so that God will make you faithful over your own greatness. By serving others greatness, God will eventually make you great. It’s all part of the formula.
December 23, 2008 at 10:41 am
Wow, Cindy. That’s enlightening. My husband’s parents we went to the Gothard basic seminars when my husband was a kid, but they never went any further into than that, so I wasn’t aware of some of these teachings.
So whose toilets will the Phillips children scrub until they are worthy of their own vision?
December 23, 2008 at 11:05 am
Peaches, the girls will always be scrubbing the toilets because they are not allowed to have a vision. They’ll go go from scrubbing Daddy’s to scrubbing Hubby’s.
December 23, 2008 at 11:16 am
Keebler,
You said something very important. Your husband was a native. Your family was from there. You were grandfathered in. I was not.
Both my husband and I had some compassionate and very credible, reputable people comfort us on many occasions with the wisdom that our problems were related to the fact that we were outsiders. I could fill a book with the experiences that reinforce this — as it was those experiences that prompted others to communicate this to us. Other things that contributed to our problems there in a wide array of situations and settings stemmed from not being willing to play the political games. Some of them involved lying in court or lying to state agencies. I left two jobs because of such situations.
I guess you had to be there to hear the county official tell us about open graft on the courthouse steps. It has been my experience that this is how that city works, and it may be that all cities work this way. I moved up here to Detroit, and you can google Kilpatrick if you don’t know Detroit’s recent saga. But I don’t deal with the politics here like I did there, and it’s not like anything I’ve dealt with in the past. That doesn’t mean San Antonio is not a nice place to visit, and if you are well-received by the community, you can make a nice life there. Unfortunately, we received an outsider’s welcome.
I would like to redirect back to the point I made. Vision Forum, not banked with South Texas natives, marched into city offices to solicit help from the City to oppose a group that brings in a lot of money. You can’t be a native of Virginia and waltz into that city and play aggressive politics like the patriocentrists like to play.
As an outsider, it has been my experience that San Antonio does not like outsiders.
December 23, 2008 at 11:44 am
I posted a comment some days ago that didnt get approved which was just as well because the way I wrote it could have started a distracting tangent….
I was writing about Ps 137, and I had heard a sermon where the minister was using this as a cautionary example of cycles of vengeance after a great violent attack. In other words, he seemed to be looking at it as descriptive of how they were feeling after having violence done against them — but not that this was a GOOD thing. Not that it meant it is really a blessed, happy thing to be killing children.
Cindy said “Note: Some imprecatory prayers call for justice to be done so that wrongs can be made right, and they need not call for death and destruction. That Psalm 137 is not a prayer to destroy babies, if you look at the context”
OK Here is the context again:
“Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem,how they said, “Lay it bare, lay it bare, down to its foundations!”
O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”
I’m not really understanding what you mean by ‘a call for justice to be done’ but NOT meaning killing babies…. because it seems like that IS part of what he sees as “justice being done”. An eye for an eye, a baby for a baby.
I really cannot feel that God would see that as justice. But, I have to admit there are places in the OT where God is ordering genocide. and that is very bothering to me. though Doug Wilson may feel it’s a great precedent for his imprecatory prayers against babies of today’s non-elect.
I think also about how the verses about not marrying the Canaanites are used by “Christian” racists to justify their hatred of race mixing.
Do you reckon God changed since the OT? or is it like wrong to even think that? Of course if God could do anything, I guess He could change .
December 23, 2008 at 11:59 am
Peaches,
Gothard teaches this in the first seminar, the only one I ever went to (once), but my church leadership went to everything Gothard ever had going. Had I not worked in the office of the church, I would have had no clue as to how dedicated they were to all things Gothard. I never heard his name in a church service. We had an elder ask us if we wanted to go and carpool since we lived nearby and had some distance to drive… By the end of the long week of evening sessions, you are primed and ready for programming on the full day at the end of the week.
But all that teaching was in the first, basic course that I took. Gothard uses Joseph as the primary example of the death of a vision, and if you are to do great things for God, he says that you will follow in Joseph’s footsteps, like a formula. Joseph’s vision died when he was sold as a slave, but he earned grace through humility. Faith is not really the unmerited favor of God and His work in you, but it is seeking and ?casting? a vision for what God wants for you. Then you go about making it happen. Don Veinot spent several weeks (daily meetings once per week) with Gothard pinning down exactly what he believed. And his view of grace (as a something like a mystical substance that is merited or dispensed which is acquired through humility) was also something that Veinot discussed at length with Gothard.
Central to all of this is Gothard’s teaching from Philippians 2 about Christ’s humility. We are to humble ourselves unto death if need be to whatever authority happens to be over us, even if this is our humiliation. You are to submit to whoever your authority is at the time, and you never draw what they are doing or why or how into question. You never should ask yourself if you really think that your authority is making wise, sensible decisions or whether what they are doing makes sense.
If your authority tells you to go out and water the garden with the hose in the middle of a heavy rain, you do it. God sovereignly gives special wisdom to those who are in authority over other believers as part of the perfection of the diamond of our souls. The authority becomes like the chisel — a precision instrument in the hand of God, and God brings down the hammer on the chisel. If you resist this structure, the hierarchy placed above you, you are risking your own demise. Exiting out of this structure opens you up to the direct wrath of God, as your authority is your umbrella of protection from all evil. If your chisel needs some work and you circumvent the process, you take your life into your own hands. Because you’ve resisted God’s work and structure, God cannot and will not protect you from all harm.
If you contest or even question what they’ve asked you to do, you are showing a lack of humility, and you are resisting God’s transforming work on your character. You’ve abandoned that servant mind that was also in Christ Jesus. Never, ever say “You want me to what?” or “Why?” or “Did you realize it was raining and the plants are water-logged?” By demanding unquestioned obedience, these men ask of us what even God Himself does not. Jesus graciously offered to Thomas the opportunity to examine Him so that he might believe, but that is not tolerated under this mindset. Such a thing is rebellion which we all know is as the sin of witchcraft.
This mindset destroys critical thinking and turns people into automatons. It actually creates more potential for harm, for people are not taught to be discerning and must submit, no matter what. I think this is especially dangerous for young women who are taught that they must always defer to a man, not by virtue of who they are but because they are men. God gives men a special wisdom that a woman does not receive which He uses for our good to build our characters. Character first! It also rewards and glorifies suffering of all types, including unjust suffering at the hands of those who should know better (who seemingly have no authority to whom they must submit).
Anyway, this is all in that first course, and there’s enough odd doctrine in that book to mess you up for life.
December 23, 2008 at 11:59 am
Well, my in-laws were Kansas natives and were very proud of their Union relatives and thought the Civil War was won by the right people. They were not shy about their views. They were outsiders. Yes, they had a hard time fitting in at first, but they made a great effort to get to know many people and succeeded in their community of the University and their area of town. When they went to San Antonio, it was a permanent move because of my FIL’s job, and they did their best to make their place in San Antonio. I realize that a university setting is a bit more open about outsiders since most come from somewhere else, but here again, it was not necessarily tied to the politics of San Antonio. When I moved to town, I worked in a school that was mostly populated with Air Force related children – from all over the country. There were teachers there from San Antonio originally, but most had come from somewhere else. They really didn’t care where I came from or who my relatives were. There are many, many people in San Antonio who are not natives and move in circles that have nothing to do with being native to San Antonio. Many people retire to San Antonio and enjoy its weather and resources. It is a metropolitan area and you can find your niche while ignoring the rest of the goings-on, if you desire.
I guess what I see is that you were in a position where politics was important and where you didn’t play by the rules of the city politicians. And, it is not fun to run against the ruling party. But I really want others to understand that each person has a different experience wherever they are and just because one person has a horrible time does not mean that all will have the same experience. My time in San Antonio was a time which I remember with great joy, full of people that were welcoming to a medical student/resident widow in her first years of teaching and marriage and motherhood.
December 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I’d like to know more about that mom, daughter and son who have the honor of driving for miles and laboring for free for Doug Phillips.
Who supports that family financially? Where’s the dad in their picture? If there is a dad, who labors for his vision? Would Phillips ever allow his wife and children to do such work for another man?
December 23, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Good questions, Debbie. I’ve wondered the same thing.
December 23, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Cindy K wrote:
“I would like to redirect back to the point I made. Vision Forum, not banked with South Texas natives, marched into city offices to solicit help from the City to oppose a group that brings in a lot of money. You can’t be a native of Virginia and waltz into that city and play aggressive politics like the patriocentrists like to play.”
The sort of attitude this demonstrates is why, thankfully, VF will probably never take much dominion over anything outside of Christian homeschooling circles. People outside “the bubble” tend to be, um, a bit less impressed with leaders fawned upon inside the same bubble.
But, about the women who clean the Phillips’ house. I’d like to know more about this and discuss it further, personally. It seems like a glaring example of utter hypocrisy. I believe Vision Forum sincerely teaches women can NOT hold actual, gainful, real jobs. Anything outside the domestic sphere is where the MEN are commissioned to take dominion.
Yet, at the same time, you hear of families like the Phillips and Chanceys getting young women from other families to come WORK for them, in their homes. For free. If these girls were hired by their non-Christian neighbor across the street to clean house for a few bucks an hour, that would be breaking faith the patrio Vision, no questions asked. Doing it without pay for important people in their subculture is apparently not the same–probably chalked up as some sort of ministry. Or perhaps, if these young women are younger children and don’t have littler siblings, it’s a type of “training” to help keep the house of a woman who has babies (I believe I’ve heard that justification floating around in patrio-world before).
The fact that one of the women cleaning the Phillips’ house is a MARRIED woman, with her OWN house, just makes it more hypocritical, flying in the face of one of the groups’ core beliefs.
But I think so much of what seems to drive Doug and his “vision”–based on what I read in his blog, which I do fairly often–is this weird aspiration to live out this sort of master-of-the-plantation fantasy life.
I think VF does an excellent job of packaging a sort of lifestyle that incorporates all these overly-romanticized aspects of the antebellum south, Puritan New England, medieval Scotland, Regency England and a little 1950s Americana… In a nutshell, at the heart of this movement, I think you can see that. From the Jane Austen-obsessed visionary daughters to the “passionate housewives” to, yes, the lifestlye the top families in this movement lead, this sort of patriarchy is about trying to make into reality a glamorized vision of a past that never existed.
That doesn’t excuse the hypocrisy, but I think it can explain some of these inconsistencies that we see. Maybe there’s not strict faithfulness to every aspect of the patriarchy laid by these leaders, which is outrageous considering how they insist their vision is THE biblical one. But I think they live in a way that’s VERY faithful to the overall lord-of-the-manor fantasy lifestyle I think they are really aspiring to here.
December 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Melissa said:
That doesn’t excuse the hypocrisy, but I think it can explain some of these inconsistencies that we see. Maybe there’s not strict faithfulness to every aspect of the patriarchy laid by these leaders, which is outrageous considering how they insist their vision is THE biblical one. But I think they live in a way that’s VERY faithful to the overall lord-of-the-manor fantasy lifestyle I think they are really aspiring to here.
I think that’s a key point here. The lifestyle they ascribe to is such a hodge podge of things, like you said. I’ve thought more than once that is quite strange that they claim their lifestyle as the “biblical” way, when so little of their lifestyle actually appears in the Bible. Leaving the whole OT aside, what would have happened to Mary, a young virgin who got pregnant outside of wedlock? Or Timothy, raised by two women (and whom Paul commends for doing such a great job). And for that matter, where do the apostles fit into all of this? Paul never married, and he certainly didn’t have a bunch of little Pauls running around to carry on his vision (although, he did have Timothy, but that wasn’t blood….) and Paul preached over and over again about the need to die to self. (Could you imagine Mr. Phillips doing that?) And John, the beloved? I seriously doubt he would have fit in- or James. But then again, as someone has already pointed out, Christ wouldn’t have fit the paradigm either. Again, the question of the fruits comes to mind. What fruit is the VF way of life producing? Does it match up with the examples we have in the NT, of the apostles (see 1 John)? You can layer it in fancy schmancy graphics and media, but it doesn’t change the underlying reality.
*sighs*
I just continue to pray for discernment for those that are caught up in this way of life, that the Holy Spirit will overcome the lies, and reveal it all for what it is. And then my heart breaks for them, because the road out is not easy. But God can and will bind up the broken places…and that is what I cling to when I deal with people caught up in the mess of it.
December 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm
So I’m not able to keep up with the conversations, but I just skimmed through and someone mentioned VF interns being fired. Did that actually happen or was that just hypothetical????
December 24, 2008 at 12:06 am
Regarding hypocrisy.
People have written me to inform me that Voddie Baucham’s daughter has enrolled in a secular state college distance learning program.
I put up a blog post on it:
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/12/getting-your-ticket-stamped.html
December 24, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Excellent blog post, Cindy. Your article brought several questions to mind:
I would like for the patriarchy leaders to define exactly what they mean when they make statements such as Baucham that his daughter’s home schooling has given her the equivalent of a PhD level education. I completely don’t get that AT ALL. A PhD spends years specializing in one specific area of study which often includes travel abroad and hands on life work experience. How can he claim that young Jasmine’s home schooling (which I’m sure was stellar) is on the same par as PhD study? Can Baucham back up his statement with some specific examples of how she has the equivalent of a PhD?
This kind of rhetoric also comes from the Botkins. Here’s a section from their latest web post:
——–”We believe women should be highly, highly educated, in the right ways and for the right reasons. We encourage girls to strive for a broader, higher and more intellectually honest education than is available at most colleges today. When researching the higher-education options before us a few years ago, Anna Sofia and I studied college syllabi, interviewed students and teachers alike, spent time on several campuses, and then studied the way the best-educated men and women in history have become so. We concluded that colleges do not have the monopoly on higher learning, higher qualifications, and proper training. The historic fact is that the best-educated men and women of history have always been autodidacts: people who took responsibility for their own educations and were self-motivated. Brick-and-mortar institutions and pedagogues have never cornered the market on education, and we would love to see more young women think outside that box, taking the initiative to pursue real education rather than “schooling.”—————
OK so they want women to pursue “real education” and not schooling. What exactly is “real education”? I have never read an explanation of what this “real education” means and how this applies to practical, life situations. If anyone else knows the answer to this, I’d love to know.
The patriarchs can say whatever they want, but that does not change the fact that in this day and time in our western culture, “highly educated” does not mean self study. Highly educated means someone has put in the time and sweat and in the end is awarded a degree and a few letters after their name. Having an advanced degree is not always necessary, but often it is. Somebody can’t just do self study on anatomy and become a doctor, or self study law and become a lawyer.
Patriarchs might congratulate each other on being autodidacts, but that means nothing to people outside the patrio-sphere. And it seems with this new revelation about Baucham’s daughter that they aren’t even practicing what they preach.
December 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I get a huge kick out of it when Baucham claims that the “piece of paper” you earn when you graduate from college doesn’t mean squat. He IS the one with the “Dr.” in front of his name, isn’t he?
December 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Peaches, they turn and their progeny magically become PhD-educated as teenagers because well, they are the patrios of the highest order, don’tcha know? You should know better than to question them!
Regarding the Botkins girls “research” of colleges a few years back, doesn’t that sound suspiciously like they were actually looking into attending college themselves at the time? Then Daddy had a vision or something?
Peaches said: “Somebody can’t just do self study on anatomy and become a doctor,”
and
Cally said:
“I get a huge kick out of it when Baucham claims that the “piece of paper” you earn when you graduate from college doesn’t mean squat. He IS the one with the “Dr.” in front of his name, isn’t he?”
Therefore, Baucham must be qualified to perform surgery, right? I wonder if Doug Phillips and Scott Brown would undergo his knife?
December 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The Botkins said: “We believe women should be highly, highly educated, in the right ways and for the right reasons.”
What the Botkins actually MEANT by this: “We believe women should be highly, highly educated in the RIGHT ways and the RIGHT THINGS we think are best for women. You know, cooking, baking, scrubbing toilets and birthing babies at home.”
Blech!
December 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Re-reading the Botkins girls’ directive on women’s education, something new stood out to me. Consider changing the CAPS emphasis from “right things” to “we think.”
…and the right things WE THINK are best for women.
Just who do these girls think they are, anyway?
December 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm
This is interesting. The metonym of “brick and mortar institution” that the Botkins note in this quote is the same phrase that I noted in Phillips’ audio recommendation of the College Plus program on their website. It’s not a terribly common phrase, one I more commonly hear referred to as a “main street or a high street institution.” I even went and looked up the phrase last night to see if I was ascribing the correct meaning to it — that of a virtual institution with a physical building made of brick and mortar as opposed to a virtual one. I just don’t hear the term often at all.
Oh, how wonderful it must be to have starry-eyed young women to fill with your rhetoric…
December 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm
ooops — that of an actual institution with a physical building…
And re-reading the quote above:
We believe women should be highly, highly educated, in WHAT WE THINK ARE the right ways and for the right reasons. We encourage girls to strive for a broader, higher and more intellectually honest education than is available at most colleges today.
It should be followed up with
“And girls can find a more intellectually honest education at a secular state college in Trenton, NJ that will provide just the high, high quality of education that surpasses that which is available in other colleges, including private, ivy league and excellent Christian ones. Thomas Edison State College stands head and shoulders above the rest. Doug Phillips told us so.”
December 25, 2008 at 8:25 pm
NormalMiddle Says:
December 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“The Botkins said: “We believe women should be highly, highly educated, in the right ways and for the right reasons.”
What the Botkins actually MEANT by this: “We believe women should be highly, highly educated in the RIGHT ways and the RIGHT THINGS we think are best for women. You know, cooking, baking, scrubbing toilets and birthing babies at home.”
Blech!”
You know, to me, articles like these by the Botkins and others are sounding very defensive. They are trying to walk a fine line here, arguing that higher formal education is outside the sphere women are supposed to be confined to, but also trying to make that idea sound less offensive by arguing that a denial of a college educaiton doesn’t mean they really oppose high learning! I mean, they are allowed to read whatever novels or economic theory or interpretation of history that their father and his friends agree with, in their own living room. That’s CLEARLY the equivalent of a rigorous 4-year university course at a top-rated institution, right?!
Again, I think all goes back to the bizarre striving for fantasy ideals in this subculture. I don’t think the ideal VF woman is some illiterate ninny ONLY capable of cooking and cleaning. The image I see them espousing is of a gracious, genteel Southern belle who is cultured enough to look elegant, speak gracefully and give their visionary sons a good educational start on their way to taking world dominion. Someone who genuinely enjoys domesticity and traditional feminine things, and doesn’t want to do more than marry well and raise children.
And there’s nothing wrong with being that sort of reserved, conservative, very-feminine woman. I know some and they are lovely people. What is absolutely appalling, however, is the insistence that woman need to conform to this very particular image-that all women need to fit Botkin and Phillips’ idea of what makes an ideal woman. That women who have a very real desire for intellectual challenge and work outside the role of wife and mother are inferior women and inferior Christians.
This is ridiculous. It would be like me insisting that because I like happen to find the artsy, slightly alternative-looking type of men attractive, that all men should fit that ideal to be considered genuinely masculine and a good Christian. My friend who wants to marry a farmer who drives a truck would then, in my view, be getting someone less spiritual than me. I could probably, even, make some kind of “biblical” case for it. I mean, didn’t Jesus say some things that sound pretty hippie-ish? Didn’t he cry once, in public? Aren’t we supposed to be like Him? Case closed, then, I now have THE definition of the truly “biblical” male, and my friend who wants to marry a farmer who drives a truck and wears overalls not only has bad taste, but is actually much less spiritual than I am.
It sounds ridiculous, but that’s what so much of patrio-world is. It is a very real attempt to conform the God-given personalities of individuals to one very, very narrow standard, which is based on nothing more than the preferences of a few powerful men.
December 26, 2008 at 1:09 am
“I get a huge kick out of it when Baucham claims that the “piece of paper” you earn when you graduate from college doesn’t mean squat. He IS the one with the “Dr.” in front of his name, isn’t he?”
LOL…. I’m old enough to remember the 60s and 70s… a lot of young folks back then were doing things like dropping out of college, cohabitating rather than marrying, or starting up their own churches rather than getting properly ordained in an existing denomination, all on the grounds that a “piece of paper” “doesn’t mean squat.”
December 26, 2008 at 1:12 am
“It is a very real attempt to conform the God-given personalities of individuals to one very, very narrow standard, which is based on nothing more than the preferences of a few powerful men.”
They’re not all that powerful,either, except among their own followers. Most orthodox-believing churches dismiss these guys out of hand.
December 26, 2008 at 3:48 am
“They’re not all that powerful,either, except among their own followers. Most orthodox-believing churches dismiss these guys out of hand.”
Sort of a quandry for these guys, huh? They have fewer cult followers than they’d like, so they work hard to increase their fold. But they can’t manifest their true patrio selves or people rightly dismiss them as wackos.
So what’s their game plan? Infiltrate Focus on the Family, enter Old Spice manly contests, and have lawyers and other non-ordained guys with secretive pasts start the only churches out there that do it God’s way. (The rest of us have got it utterly wrong, you know.)
No wonder they resort to militant fecundity. At least their churches will be full of kids–until the kids grow old and smart enough to bolt.
December 26, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“So what’s their game plan? Infiltrate Focus on the Family, enter Old Spice manly contests, and have lawyers and other non-ordained guys with secretive pasts start the only churches out there that do it God’s way.”
Actually, the dominionist dream is to take over and transform society, by infiltrating government, commerce, and the military.
The game plan is to raise lots of kids, indoctrinate them well via homeschooling, and send the best and the brightest to schools like Patrick Henry University. Following graduation, the plan is for these young men to seek out posts in the government, in commerce, and in the military, where they become the proteges of older, well placed dominionist men.
Dominionists are banking on the idea that in a couple of generations, there will be sufficiant numbers of their fellow-cultists in high positions that the takeover will happen almost by itself.
December 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Wow, Cynthia Gee, very well put. And terrifying in its accuracy.
December 26, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Question: How do the patrios justify sending their boys to Patrick Henry when the school allows enrollment of girls? That must drive them crazy.
And what if their patrio-in-training boys meet and fall in courtship-wanna-be with an actual college girl (shudder). Pretty dangerous, I’d say.
December 27, 2008 at 10:03 am
So instead of a land grab, it’s a people grab.
December 27, 2008 at 10:29 am
Yeah, but they’re in it for land grab too, when the Biblical covenant kingdom architecture mandated multigenerational faithful and sanctified vision presents the opportunity for it.
December 27, 2008 at 10:29 am
Land is generally referred to as in the feminine sense, isn’t it? Motherland and all…
December 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Regarding girls at Patrick Henry, one must remember that the Hyperpats are a minority, even among their fellow Dominionists.
Their extreme views have caused them to become something of a cul-de-sac — after all, the dominionist goal is infiltration, and even a casual overview of hyperpat ideology reveals it to be aberrant in the extreme.
December 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
…in other words, now that the whole Y2K/back to the land/agrarian movement is ancient history, these guys aren’t fooling anybody, at least not for long.
The more mainstream dominionists, however, are another story entirely.
December 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[...] on the surface has nothing to do with the world of “Charismania” – when I came across a really amazing comment that describes to a “T” the dynamic that was at work at Living Word Church. I want to [...]
December 27, 2008 at 5:29 pm
[...] picks up the story of the pseudonymous “Living Word Church,” republishes this comment about Bob Mumford by Cindy K, both about how the pastor of a cultic church controls an inner circle. For the record, [...]
December 28, 2008 at 2:28 am
Cynthia and Debbie,
#356 and #357
Right on the money. I have seen this very thing.
December 29, 2008 at 1:28 am
Oh, wait. McCotter did move his group to DC in ‘83 but he was not in Florida before then. He relocated to Florida in ‘87 when he left Maryland.
December 29, 2008 at 1:52 am
Another note on 370:
Botkin operated a Christian TV station in Christchurch, NZ as part of NZ Media Group for which he was CEO. With all of the gross exaggerations that he makes about himself and his children, if he were a university professor and held a doctorate, we surely would have heard about it. But I started to say and did not state very well was when the Visionary Daughters talked about having all these university students in their home, they give the impression that Daddy Botkin is a professor or instructor. (Maybe he is.) But if that Christian college named Lifeway sent students there to intern or do a practicum, maybe that’s where the students came from?
I just find it odd that Botkin is not more forthcoming and honest about his information. Why would he not want anyone to know that he was a lobbyist with a Christian activist group that fought for pro-life causes or even the Contras? But that’s all hush-hush. And why would you not want anyone to know that you operated a TV station? And why is the public (who is expected to buy his materials) not permitted to know what he really does for a living? Does he have credentials and what are they? Where did he train? Where is Deerwood studios? Maybe it is in his basement and he calls it a production studio that offers training to young artists and filmmakers — his sons. ?? And why couldn’t he just say that?
December 29, 2008 at 2:11 am
A quote about a member who left Botkin’s Silver Spring church from a local newspaper article:
According to ex-members reached by The Sentinel, discipline classes were held for married couples with children. Taught by the elders’ wives, the disciplining of children was to be consistent and thorough. Parents were to spank their children until the child’s spirit was broken.
“They have husbands’ meetings and wives’ meetings on how they are to raise their children. Discipline. Very harsh. It’s almost to the point of beating them. You spank them until they break. That means they stop crying,” said Liverman.
Liverman, through the constant demands for her spiritual purity and the resulting guilt feelings that accompanied her smallest failures to adhere to those demands, decided not to rely on her own decision-making capabilities, because she constantly ran against the grain of the group
“You are always taught to submit to your elders,” said Liverman, “and I just thought, I’m not submitting to my elders. I just felt real guilty. I made a conscious decision that, ‘from now on, I wasn’t going to think about any more things myself. I remember feeling a lot of peace, really, because I didn’t have to think for myself anymore.”
“I remember praying that God would kill me. Praying that he would kill me inside so I wouldn’t fight anymore, because I was always fighting against the grain of the group. I always had my own opinions and sometimes they weren’t in line with everybody else’s opinion. The snapping came because throughout this all I started getting more and more discouraged about myself. ‘Man, I’ve got too many opinions.’ I remember just praying and praying that God would just kill me, kill me, kill me, kill me.
“There was this part inside of me that was getting in the way of what I thought he wanted me to be, totally moldable, yielding to whatever anybody else wanted, very submissive, disgustingly submissive.
“When I made that decision I noticed an incredible amount of peace. I felt no more problems, because there wasn’t any more struggle in me. I didn’t have to worry about what I wanted or what I thought, because that didn’t matter any more at all.”
“I came home from work … I was going through a real stressful period, because there was this guy I liked that I was not allowed to initiate with. I looked at some clothes on my chair, and got really sad. I thought I used to know that person … and I felt inside that that person was gone, or almost gone, and I felt very sad. But at the same time I was very happy because I thought, ‘Oh yeah! I’m becoming more Christ-like. Yeah! I’m finally gone, finally rid of things that were in the way of everything God wants me to be.’. . .
“They drew parallels between the tapes and Great Commission. They told me I was the toughest case they had ever had. I was at that house for eight days. I never conceded that they were right, but I was too drained to go back to Great Commission. I was afraid enough of the inconsistencies they showed me to reconsider. I thought, one, I was happy in there (GCI). My responsiblity to God is to find out the truth. And, two, if this stuff was wrong, could I still follow it and say I was following Christ?”
No wonder Vision Forum became so upset over the “C word.” And no wonder Botkin keeps his prior activities quiet. I know some of the exit counselors who worked with these people. That adds a bit of ironic humor to all of this.
December 29, 2008 at 3:04 am
“I looked at some clothes on my chair, and got really sad. I thought I used to know that person … and I felt inside that that person was gone, or almost gone, and I felt very sad.”
This could come straight from the “Heaven’s Gate” cult that killed themselves a few years ago during the Hale Bopp comet. They referred to their bodies as “vessels.” Viewing photos of themselves, they’d say “there’s my vessel.”
“I was at that house for eight days. I never conceded that they were right, but I was too drained to go back to Great Commission.”
Another cult similarity, this time to
David Koresh. Koresh would preach to his followers for hours upon end despite their exhaustion, age or physical limitation.
The better to indoctrinate them, I guess. Erase the personality in whatever manner necessary. Insert cult leader directive and “vision” into vacated brain. In the meantime, make sure no outside (i.e. university) or original thought sneaks in.
None of this is anything new. I just hope the patrios don’t maintain a huge stash of leftover kool-aid from their Y2K hysteria.
December 29, 2008 at 3:08 am
This information means a LOT to me, because we came out of a cultish church that was deeply influenced by the shepherding movements teaching on spiritual authority.
Though we left the church, we still believed the doctrinal teaching, and so found a very neat and tidy home in the world of the patrio-centrists. The things I did and allowed, all in the name of obeying my spiritual authority…
I was well trained to believe that God sets up spiritual authorities who are *His* delegated authorities—meaning, when you disobey them, you are disobeying GOD, and when you obey them, you are obeying GOD. God’s will for you is whatever your delegated authority says, basically. They speak for God to you.
I can really relate to the above woman who felt so out of place and so WRONG, all for having opinions of her own. I felt this way in my own home, regularly. I would not be surprised if I prayed prayers similar to hers… And I also agree with her story on how FREEING it was when that annoying brain with it’s awful *opinions* gets shut off. I rememeber when I snapped: the threat of hell did it, the threat of being sent to hell because of my disobedience to God (because I was not obeying every whim and opinion of my husbands). I believed it, and I remember when I shut off my brain (not realizing that, of course).
Though the real person inside is dying, at least you are finally FREE of bearing the burden of thinking for yourself and always feeling like such a huge failure/sinner. There is a lot of comfort to be had in shutting off the brain.
*big huge sigh*
I cannot tell you how glad I am to be free of the misery of this kind of thinking. But what is important to realize is that I am a smart, intelligent, gifted person. I don’t mean that to brag—it’s more to my shame—but I want to communicate that it’s not something that intelligence vaccinates one from. I was in the top layers of my classes, always, I have a high IQ, I was/am talented in a number of different directions, etc… In other words, smart people fall for this stuff.
It seems so idiotic when you look at it from the outside (it seems so idiotic to me now, like, HOW could anyone ever fall for this stuff), but it’s just different when you are on the inside of it. Everybody’s doing it, everybody’s going that way, people you really respect and admire are teaching it… If you are not aware of all the manipulative techniques being used, oh man, you are toast. Which…I was. I am so hyper sensitive to being manipulated right now, too. Oooh! It’s like alarms go off all over the place when I hear anything that smacks of manipulation.
I can’t tell you how wonderful it is to be free of it all. But how horrible it is knowing that it continues to be propigated…
December 29, 2008 at 3:37 am
“I can really relate to the above woman who felt so out of place and so WRONG, all for having opinions of her own.”
Reminds me of another story from the Heaven’s Gate cult. Whenever they’d eat at a restaurant, they’d all have to order whatever the head guy selected. We’ll have 36 chicken pot pies, please. Opinions of any sort: not allowed.
Do patrios allow their daughters choice on anything, even as adults?
Molleth, I am so glad you survived patrioland, and God (and your good brain) delivered you from that place. Experiences like yours are helpful in learning how to reach those still enslaved in a world of empty vessels and forbidden opinions.
December 29, 2008 at 9:37 am
Here is one website where you can pick and choose an article about McCotter, the Silver Spring church, all the people that ran for office in Mongomery County.
http://gcxweb.org/Articles.aspx
Intellus says that Botkin lived in Wheaton, MD in Mont. Co. He apparently did have something to do with Howard County (Laurel) where it is much cheaper to live. I wonder if he moved to Wheaton later to get in Mont. County? He also lived in Rileyville, VA at one point which is off to the east of where Howard Phillips lives, but still in that general area in Northern Virginia.
There are also two places that also pop up for Botkin: Gerrardstown, WV and Enterprise, AL. The same cities come up for Victoria W Botkin, but she shows an additional city of Brundidge, AL. I wonder if Geoff Botkin was born in Gerrardstown, WV and if Victoria is from Alabama?
I would like to know where Botkin went to school and what he studied. Vision Forum touts him as some kind of specialist in history, worldview, human interaction and theology. I would like to know whether or not he has a college degree and where he earned it. People with credentials are proud to talk about them, particularly when they are of Botkin’s age. Did he move to MD to be with the Great Commission, or did they recruit him the campus from Towson State or U of MD? Or was Botkin one of the people who did aggressive recruiting on those campuses, or both? Botkin would have been in his early 30s when the Montgomery County business went on, as he says in that Kevin Swanson interview that he took his son to college campuses and to Capitol Hill to show him how things were. Yeah, and to give him expert training in cult recruitment techniques on those college campuses where these groups were especially virulent and aggressive back then.
There is a Gregory Botkin listed on the Western Conservancy site, said to be a chief of staff of a progressive ID hospital. They have a limited staff and low census. Gregory appears to be married and has no children (not an advocate of militant fecundity?). He is an ER doc in Bonners Ferry, ID, did an internship in Family Practice in Kentucky, and attended med school in OKC. I seriously doubt that he is chief of staff if his residency was in family practice, as chief of staff slots nearly always fall to surgeons. If they airlift to Spokane, they are probably no higher than a level 3 trauma center, so they might let a GP doc serve as a ED Director. It is a small facility.
And the stuff that he says about Isaac on the Western Conservancy site… On the bio page of that WC site, he boasts about Isaac saying that he worked with the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Department, citing the US Navy Underseas Warfare Department in 1995, before they would have left for NZ. That would have made Isaac Botkin about 12 years old. (He was helping the applied physics dept at Hopkins when he was 12? Maybe Botkin knew someone who let the kid look at their lab or something.) And he was an “advisor” to the New Zealand Canterbury TV (where he actually did some work per the wordpress McCotter site), but that would have made him 16 years old.
Vision Forum does nothing but blow smoke and spin mirrors. I don’t know how anyone can believe anything they people say. I still can hardly believe that Botkin is one of those Great Commission cultists that trolled the campuses in Maryland. It makes a lot of sense, though.
December 29, 2008 at 10:07 am
On the “Divisions” page of the Western Conservatory site, the first division is the “Canterbury Study Center” which disciples cultural leaders and their families. Canterbury TV was the station that Botkin ran in Christchurch NZ.
I wonder what the “Providential Technologies Labs” would be. Maybe Gregory is his brother and took a class in plant gene expression 20 years ago in college? That makes them all experts? Cancer screening? (Maybe Geoff edits people’s colonoscopy videos for his brother at his Deerwood or at the Western Media Group? I suppose that is a media conglomerate, too?) Maybe he took his brother’s CV and confabulated, based upon his clinical projects or something?
And that Global Humanitarian Council? I wonder if that has something to do with Great Commission missionaries in South America? I wonder if that’s where Doug Phillips is as is noted on his blog. He appears to be somewhere in the Andes researching civilization. Would that not be a hoot? Wouldn’t that just be great, if Doug is in South America with Great Commission cult missionaries? Maybe these are the battles for civilization Botkin says that the media neglected to report that he intends to feature in his new video project? Were they the battles against the shepherding/discipleship/submission doctrine takeover through GCMI, which of course we all know was what was the guiding worldview behind the Puritans, Dabney, the Reformation, Augustine, Churchill, Jim McCotter…
I don’t know how anyone could find out how Doug got his South American contacts, but it makes perfect sense knowing that Botkin was a GC activist. GCM does a lot of missions work in South America.
December 29, 2008 at 11:43 am
I am delighted to have stumbled onto your blog after doing a Google search for “patriocentricity,” a word I first read in an Amazon review of some Vision Forum literature.
What a cracker jack group of commentators you have here! Erudite, witty, and discerning in your readings of scripture and balancing of the various textual interpretations (ALL of which are inescapably informed in some way by the World) floating around out there.
In case you are interested in my background: I am an umarried woman in my late twenties; am the child of African immigrants; and was raised in the U.S. in a very Christian-Evangelical household that combined the repressive cultural traditions of my ancestral country with a strict Evangelical-complementarian view of gender relations.
As a pre-adolescent (aged 10-12), I was extremely interested in women’s equality and gobbled up anything I could find about the subject (I was an advanced reader). You could say I was an ardent feminist. I remember spouting off to my White American aunt-by-marriage about the damage patriarchy has done around the world, only to have her (a childhood Catholic-converted-to-Evangelicalism) admonish me with lectures on the complementarian/headship view.
Puberty and a heavy diet of both secular and Christian media temporarily put my egalitarian views on hold. The pendulum swung the other way and I began vigorously advocating (as per the Botkin sisters and other young unmarried girls with little knowledge of the outside world) for pretty extreme essentialized gender roles, separation of the sexes, and and courtship-only relationships that forbid even sitting alone with a potential suitor.
Looking back now (to be honest, I even sensed it at the time), I was acting out of confusion and frustration over my position as one of the only ethnic minorities in my small town, church, and school. My ethnicity and culture and non-Western appearance were ridiculed by my schoolmates and ignored, condescended to, or misunderstood by my all-Anglo church fellows.
I leveraged my extreme views on gender and marriage–always careful to back up with scripture, of course–as a sort of badge, along the lines of “You think I’m different? I’ll show you how different and out-there I am.” Because nobody made an effort to reach out to respectfully acknowledge my family’s background, my advocating for even the negative aspects of my culture was my coping mechasim. I even recall DEFENDING female genital mutilation as a Biblically-acceptable means of protecting women’s chastity!
That phase lasted about 3 or 4 years. By my third year of college or so, I was on my way to a much more balanced view of gender, men and women, culture, etc. (Thank God).
But I must admit something to you here: although I still attend church here on my own (in a city far from my parents’), I have lost a lot of belief in and investment in American Evangelical interpretations of Biblical texts. I have not gone so far as to become an agnostic, but my work as a social scientist combined with several years of intensive life experiences with people from all income, ethnic, and cultural brackets has impressed on me the belief that so much of what I once swore was infallible and inspired by God is in fact mired in the specific cultural context of Biblical times and places.
I have seen so many similarities between the patriarchal teachings/practices of my Muslim brethren in my ancestral country; Hindus; Orthodox Jews; and some of the indigenous groups of my own and various countries. These religions have vastly different theological and doctrinal teachings, and yet ALL arrive at the same conclusions: that patriarchy is the “natural” and Divinely-ordained, desirable way of the world.
It may be the way of the world, but it is OF the world, IMO, not of the Divine. Like another recent poster here, Rachel Chitra, I adore Jesus and his teachings; He, out of all other world religious figures, I could truly believe is God. His Kingdom appears set up for all his Creation, for all of the human race–no matter the color, the country, the reproductive organs. But as soon as I open up one of Paul’s letters, my stomach drops and I begin to wonder how it is that some of what he says seems to directly flout Jesus’ own actions.
I have started, in this past year or two, to mentally and spiritually grow apart from the surface-only interpretations of text modeled for me in the Southern Baptist churches of my childhood. (Of course, I have not told my mother or family members of this; they are extremely wedded to fundamentalist interpretations, and would view me as a raving heretic and Lost Sinner).
I was raised to mistrust, find fault with, and decry “liberal Christians” like some Episcopalians and Unitarians and so forth. I was taught to despise and reject “revisionist” interpretive endeavors like the Jesus Seminar. The first time I set foot in a “regular” Baptist church–two years ago–felt like heresy. They even had a clergywoman preach some Sundays, when the main (male) Pastor was out of town.
And now I find myself agreeing with more and more of their arguments.
Can it be?
Am I now a liberal Christian as well?
When other views have been so polarized and marginalized from my upbringing, I feel uneasy and in denial about the possibility that I might now be “one of the enemy.”
Yet I cannot go back to a face-value interpretation of many Biblical texts, I just can’t. I can’t reconcile it with the Jesus of the Gospel–the social justice crusader capable of delivering blistering tirades to the legalistic, culture-bound, earthly-oriented priests and people around him (the people who, frankly, put me in mind of the Vision Forum/Stay at home Daughters practitioners: people hung up on the World and its social manueverings, not on the Kingdom of Heaven).
I think there’s no going back for me.
December 29, 2008 at 11:46 am
That was so long; I do truly apologize!
(And I thank you for enabling non-registered and Anonymous comments; many of the Stay-at-home-daughters blogs and sites have heavily moderated forums that discouraged me from posting).
December 29, 2008 at 11:47 am
This is from the preface of “Cult Proofing Your Kids” by Paul Martin
(Note that the leader of this organization that Martin says lacked ethical standards is the man Geoff Botkin became business partners with and went to NZ to work with, according to a newspaper in NZ.)
Fifteen to twenty years ago I could boast haughtily that I was like David’s men, for I thought I, too, understood the times and knew what I should do (I Chron. 12:32). In my senior year of high school I experienced the shock and horror of losing our president, John F. Kennedy. I still remember the day well. It was a Friday, and in preparation for a big basketball game that weekend the Wheaton Academy pep band was warming up for a pep rally. As the baritone player for the band, I was there wearing my stray hat and my red and white pinstriped shirt. However, we didn’t have our rally that day. Instead, the teacher walked in, and with deep sorrow announced the shooting of our president. My youthful idealism began to shatter.
A few years later our generation was into the Vietnam war, the hippie revolution, drugs, sex, and heavy metal rock and roll. “Flower children” were everywhere. My evangelical church seemed cold and uncaring. Idealism was at an all-time low. A few years later, I joined the “Jesus Movement.” This was the Christian youth version of being a hippie, or at least of being anti-establishment. My needs for friendship, purpose, and belonging seemed to be met at last.
During that time I read voraciously. I probably read one thousand books. As a Christian I know well the problems of the world. I had read most, if not all, the books of C. S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Jacques Ellul, Os Guinness, Clark H. Pinnock, B. B. Warfield, Hal Lindsey, G. K. Chesterton, John Warwick Montgomery, Friedrich Nietzche, Karl Marx, and Søren Kierkegaard, along with numerous biblical commentaries, various theological works, some of the church fathers, and much more. I also read books on cults, such as James Bjornstad’s Counterfiets at Your Door, Kenneth Boa’s Cults, World Religions, and You, Pat Means’s The Mystical Maze, and Jan Karel Van Baalen’s The Chaos of the Cults, to name just a few. At that time I held the traditional view of what a cult is ― any religious body that holds beliefs and practices clearly in opposition to historic Christianity as expressed in the Apostles’ Creed.
Ironically, however, I was being swept away by an evangelical Christian movement that was growing more and more cultic itself. In the early seventies the group was known informally as “The Blitz.” Later it gave itself the name “Great Commission International” (GCI) and “Great Commission Church.” A few of the cultic practices I began to see exercised by GCI in 1977 were the use of deceit, the claim that our group had discovered the only correct way to evangelize the world (a practice that was lost after the first Christian generation and then was rediscovered by the founder of our movement), and the suppression of any sort of questioning or confrontation of the leadership. Nothing I had read prepared me to see the warning signs when I joined.
Ultimately, by 1978 the lack of ethical standards I perceived on the part of GCI’s national leader finally woke me up. He was able to justify veiled deception and outright misrepresentation as effective means of getting out the Gospel. To question this was to be divisive. For seven months, I struggled in vein to get this leader to listen. The experience for me and my wife was like being interrogated in a Communist Chinese prison. During that time she suffered a miscarriage, and I was physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually exhausted. My father, an evangelical pastor, heard of these discussions and was enraged. Normally a calm man, his anger flared. I will never forget what he said about my leader: “Paul, I have met thousands of people in my life, but when I met your leader, cold chills ran down my spine. He is the most evil man I have met in my life. . . . He is a false teacher . . . he throttled you.”
At first I dismissed my dad’s words; I was still loyal to my leader, in spite of being rebuffed by him. But because of my dad’s concerns, I began to question more things. A few others in the group began to open up. We compared notes. We discovered that we saw the identical problems ― the suppression of questioning, inaccurate interpretation of Scripture, and the use of deceit. Because of troubling issues like these, I left GCI in the summer of 1978 to begin a teaching job at Geneva College.
But as I related my story to my Christian brothers and sisters, I could sense that few really understood. Talking about it became painful. I grew embarrassed and withdrawn. The notable exception was the elders at my new church, who listened in quiet support and refrained from offering either quick fixes or judgment.
Later, Barbara and I began to hear of others leaving the group. We heard painful stories of hurt, betrayal, broken health, broken dreams. Often I wept. I still do when I hear of the pain. Those who left became a needed support for each other.
Much prayer and counsel convinced me to switch careers. I wanted to learn more about psychology and religion, in the hope of being able to help others victimized by groups such as Great Commission International.
Barbara and I opened Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center two years after I received the Ph.D. degree in psychological counseling. To my amazement, I learned that there were innumerable groups around the country like the one we recently left. Hurting people were everywhere. We found it typical that both the ex-cultists and their parents usually had gone through an agonizing search for help. For some, it was years before they found someone to explain the psychological dynamics of cultic mind control phenomena.
http://www.gcmwarning.com/Articles/CultProofingPreface.htm
December 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Emmy,
I’m glad that you posted here and that you had the opportunity to re-evaluate things. It breaks my heart to hear about how you were ostracised in the US for not looking the part. (Honestly, I don’t do much better in most Southern Baptist churches myself. I don’t smell right or something.) I would have likely followed you around like a puppy dog if you went to my church, asking you a million questions about Africa where I so wanted to go as a missionary when I grew up. I guess that I haven’t grown up yet!
I feel my heart swell as I read what you posted here, wondering if you actually turned into part of the group that you were taught to despise. I still feel very much like a (wo)man
without a country. I left the Word of Faith movement mindset, so even my old Pentecostal friends think I’ve totally rejected everything related to the charismata and cashed in my faith for reason. And most of the reformed people I know think I’m a spiritist or something. What used to be home is not home anymore, and most of my mentors have graduated to glory, and I can no longer go to them for guidance. It’s not a delightful place to be most of the time.
I too attempted to adopt a strict complementarian view at one point, reacting to what actually were rebellious women elders at my church who did not love our pastor and did not handle things as well as they could have been handled. I thought that the Gothard plan solved that problem, but those few examples of bad behavior made me quite willing to accept the other end of the spectrum, because it was held out to me as a panacea.
It is difficult to grow up with only one possible supposedly God-inspired view of something from Scripture. Eschatology was a huge problem for me, and I would say my primary reason for rejecting a pre-trib view was the fact that so many used it to emotionally manipulate people to persuade them with fear. But then I learned how groups like the patriocentrics also use fear and exploitation to promote their own view. Who does have it figured out, and how much should it matter? This is one of many such presuppositions that you almost have to make about how you interpret certain Scriptures, yet we really don’t know any better than anyone else which interpretation of one view or another is true.
The blessing in that is that I am always redirected back to the person of Jesus, His character and who I am in Christ. The plain things are the main things which puts Jesus into perspective. He told us to love God with all of ourselves and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Pure religion is to visit the widows and fatherless in their affliction and to keep unspotted from the world (no easy objectives). We are to be in the world, yet not of the world. And we are to walk humbly with God in the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we are conformed to Christ’s image and as He conforms us. It is a matter of balancing many things that are seemingly contradictory.
But as you note, there is much blessing and benefit in focusing on the simple things. I think that there is sometimes a great blessing in not having all of the answers. That generally doesn’t go over well in many American Evangelical circles. The disciples often didn’t get what Jesus was saying about the Kingdom of Heaven, and I wonder if we are no different. It is so easy to get focused on the wrong things, something I battle all the day long in the little things.
And I apologize if I bury your comments in a bunch of posts about Geoff Botkin, an interesting character of interest in things patriocentric.
December 29, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“Oh Cynthia Gee, you’re going to eat this up.
A reader here emailed me with some links she found talking about the mysterious former Marxist, Geoff Botkin. It seems he was a former member of the Great Commission….”
Nice work!
December 29, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Cindy, I had questioned the info about Gregory Botkin, because I know Bonners Ferry, and it is not the place for a progressive hospital. It is in the same small county where the Ruby Ridge standoff took place in 1992, and where people can go to get away from the prying eyes of the government (not all of them are white supremacists, but they are there, too). From Gregory’s bio, “Current research projects center on alternate energy sources that can be derived from microorganisms.” Shoot, this could be Botkinese for producing methane gas from cow manure…
I do see that Gregory is a homeschooling father of 5, and someone linked to his daughter’s blog in these threads. She politely said that her cousins’ (the “daughters”) view of not attending college might work for them, but not for everyone. She had appreciated her university education and not come away the worse for it. I don’t think they are all as sold on the 200 year plan of this “visionary family”.
December 29, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Emmy, I am glad you are here. Your post wasn’t too long; it was well-written, honest and quite thought-provoking. You are very welcome here with us.
December 29, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Emmy,
That was really good. I can so relate, it’s not even funny, though many of the circumstances in my own story are much different.
On Paul, I (personally) think that much of the “problem with Paul” is more due to misinterpretation vs. him actually being a jerk. Articles and books from scholars and thinkers at Christians for Biblical Equality really gave me a lot to chew on, along those lines.
Btw, I’m currently attending a (gasp) Episcopal church. And…I really like it.
December 29, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Kathy,
Where did you find info on Gregory Botkin? I pulled up only brief info from his medical licensure info. And I could only find legal documents pertaining to his wife.
Do you have links and could you send them to me? I may put all of this info up on a separate blog. There is all kinds of information pertaining to Botkin directly, the info I’ve received from the exGCers and the info I know from exit counselors in Baltimore. I have an interesting observation from one of them who visited this group and observed how zombie-like their children were.
I’m just kind of in a state of overwhelm because my exit counselor spent a lot of time working with the people who exited this group and even confronted these same leaders. She may have even had a run in with Botkin himself at one point. They were a pretty ruthless group and they made my group and its uprisings look like a walk through the park.
December 29, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Thank you all for your welcome.
Although we may not all share the exact same theological interpretations, I feel as though I can reveal my doctrinal opinins to you without censure–even to those of you who DO take a strict complementarian view. I must note that I do not feel I can do this in other Chrisitian communities.
I also look forward to reading and participating in your blog posts.
CindyK, you wrote: “I feel like a woman without a country.”
ME TOO! Thank you so much for putting it into words. I don’t feel comfortable in extremely theologically liberal (note: I don’t mean political) churches because I feel that sometimes their arguments for picking one interpretation of one verse over a second interpretation of another verse rely on inconsistent and poor logic. They have indeed made the choice to have ideology first and then find a way to make it fit into scripture. And I’m uneasy with that, because it leads me to question the validity of Christianity and religion in the first place.
But, on the other hand, fundamentalist interpreters like my Southern Baptist childhood churches and absolutely like these Vision Forum believers ALSO start with ideology and attempt to shoehorn it into the scriptures. I picture the leaders of the latter movement scanning the scriptures for every verse they can find to check off on their “Supports Patriarchy” list. If you look at their sites, they are ready with long articles to try to rationalize away ANY semblance of female authority in the Bible; pages and pages of attempts to argue that Deborah’s authority was an anomaly and that Junia was really a Roman man, etc. And their logic is equally as inconsistent and alarming as the extremely liberal interpreters above.
The scary thing is, while the liberal interpreters admit that there are numerous ways to interpret the Bible, the Vision folks ABSOLUTELY KNOW they’re in the right 100% and have discovered the TRUE and ONLY interpretation of the Bible. This would amuse me if it were not so disturbing. Are they so swept up in ideology that can’t see that their favorite verses are all the patriarchy-supporting ones, and that they do not even acknowledge those verses that point the opposite way, towards equally distributed Christian gifts and works?
Do they even realize the irony in claiming they are “truth warriors” and “countercultural” when in fact it is only in our small slice of history and location that patriarchy has been denounced–that in fact, it is PATRIARCHY itself that IS the human, earthly culture and has been for much of human history?
Cindy K also wrote: “But then I learned how groups like the patriocentrics also use fear and exploitation to promote their own view.”… “yet we really don’t know any better than anyone else which interpretation of one view or another is true.”
Yes, this was a sticking point to me too. The comparative relgiion part also plays into it. As I mentioned above, I began to learn about other religions from their own sources, and not just from Zondervan- and other Christian-published apologetics works attempting to debunk other religions. I delved deep into the doctrines of other religions, and watched them unfold in action within their countries.
And it was brought home to me that this vast variety of beliefs, so very different, all just happened to arrive at the same one conclusion: Patriarchy. And Patriarchy was an instiution of humankind, deeply in place long before Christianity and other religions (much longer in fact that social scientists and cultural feminists of the 1980s believed it to be; as you recall, there was a lot written back then about long-ago, pre-mono-theism egalitarian societies and a few matriarchal ones; this turned out to be an exaggerated interpretation of formerly unclear archaelogical and other data).
Somehow, all of these gods and prophets and even goddesses. though they could not agree on major theological tenets, all agreed on patriarchy or, at the least, female-specific limitations.
Could it be they all agreed on this because the writers of these texts and early practioners of these faiths were all no-holds-barred patriarchalists, and so enmeshed in that lifestyle and worldview that was the only way they could make sense of God?
I don’t know but I am trying to work this out by reading as much as I can and talking to as many different Christians as possible.
————————————
BTW, I am VERY interested in learning more about the Vision Forum/dominionist/ (what else do you call them?) folks. I recently learned about them and have been reading all I can on the subject; I find it fascinating, if disturbing for the daughters involved.
I wish I could talk to these daughters (and mothers) and tell them: “Hi, my family’s from a country where a woman must always live with a male relative; where she remains under her father’s authority till death if she does not marry; where she cannot inherit her own parent’s property if she has a brother or male relative, unless he agrees to allow her a portion; where it is expected that a woman’s body will be cut up, only for her own “protection,” of course, so that she can forcibly fulfill this ideal of chastity that you have turned from a loving Biblical guideline into a cruel bludgeon.
Botkin sisters and others: “How would you like to take a trip with me to my parents’ home country and see what historical, TRADITIONAL (because human tradition is almighty, of course) patriarchy looks like?
The reason you enjoy playing at patriarchy now is because you live in a country that has, praise God, largely rejected it! You enjoy the benefits and safeties and HUMAN rights (I know the term “women’s rights” scares some Vision folks) of your wonderful country, and that’s what makes your father’s “vision” palatable to you and the women who believe as you do.
So, to the posters here, I am interested in learning more about the motivations behind the people involved in this movement. This seems essential to me whenever learning about any new belief system.
December 29, 2008 at 7:38 pm
LOL, molleth–I also was forced to atttend an Episcopal church because I don’t have a car and it’s the closest one to me here. It was okay, but a bit too cut-and-dry and stylized for me. But I also found that regular Baptist church with the part-time clergywoman, and everything they’ve preached so far has been very Biblically-consistent…a far cry from the heathenism I was warned of by my childhood pastors.
I will check out the resources you mention.
Debbie from CA, thank you for your kind welcome.
December 29, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“I feel like a woman without a country.”
Me three!
Good thing our citizenship is really in a place called Paradise.
December 30, 2008 at 1:29 am
Alright, I have consolidated this Botkin info and wrote a timeline of the Great Commission activities, so you can see how it all fits together. From there, you can link to references that the EX GC groups have posted online. I also put a quote in there about the discipline of children in the GC from a newspaper article, something that corroborates info I learned from my exit counselor who worked with the people who came out of Botkin’s group.
Hope that helps! And thanks to everyone who sent me info.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/12/who-is-geoffrey-botkin-vision-forum.html
December 30, 2008 at 9:40 am
Great work uncovering Botkin, Cindy. I had never even heard of GCI until now.
December 30, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Excellent sleuthing, Cindy. No wonder none of us has heard about this GCI or their association to Botkin before. Not too pretty.
Doesn’t take much to find the ugly under the rocks surrounding these characters, huh?
December 30, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Well, my thanks goes to an anonymous commenter here who found the association between Botkin and the Great Commission. She’s had some posts stuck in eternal moderation, so she emailed some links to me from one of the sites documenting the history of the group.
This anonymous person who also pointed out some errors I made in the original post last night deserves my thanks and the credit.
I just happen to know a great deal about the Great Commission (not necessarily McCotter) because they were active where I used to live (and where I had to be counseled out of a different shepherding group). They are one of the other well-known shepherding/discipleship groups and are noted in Ron Enroth’s book. (Other shepherding groups would be the Christian Growth Ministries, Sovereign Grace is another, and I think Gothard classifies as one because rather than getting things approved by someone who disciples you, you are supposed to submit to your elders. So it is basically all the same concept of sacerdotalism. My group highly suggested mentors for people but they never could make it work. There were not enough older people interested in doing the mentoring, so they did it through home groups. You had to go to your homegroup leader for everything.
I just find that all to be highly ironic that I actually lived in the same area where these guys had been very active and still are to some extent, but not to the great extent that it was in the mid eighties.
I also had the opportunity to meet Paul Martin in person who told me a bit about his involvement as a minister for Great Commission (whose testimony from his book preface you’ve already read). He was incredibly kind and gentle. I watched him interact with a woman who had come out of the Worldwide Church of God, and it was just so comforting to watch how compassionate he was with her.
December 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I’m wondering what sort of relationship (if any) the GC fellows have with these guys:
http://www.3news.co.nz/News/NationalNews/Brian-Tamaki-announces-plans-for-standalone-community-in-South-Auckland/tabid/423/articleID/77688/cat/64/Default.aspx
They share many of the same views on women, government, etc.
December 30, 2008 at 1:55 pm
CG,
#395 –
I don’t know how the uptight and pious ersatz Calvinists will be able to tolerate the Pentecostal stuff and the pre-millennial eschatology. They would have to become completely Reformed, I would think, for them to really work together. Voddie Baucham could probably keep the two groups comfy together on a short-term basis, but I don’t think they like to rub elbows that closely. These groups tend not to mix, in my experience. It’s the source of great controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention here in the US right now and threatens that group.
VF may see them as a group that is ripe for harvest for recruiting them from Destiny Ministries over to their version of Theonomy, but I don’t think that’s a task that is so easily done, historically. God can certainly do anything, but why would we not see this happening in the US? It’s my experience that the contention between pre-mil and post-mil groups is great, and Pentecostals don’t take well to hearing that babies that die go to hell if they are not God’s elect.
December 30, 2008 at 5:10 pm
This is all just SO fascinating. Thank you all, for your investigative work.
*applause*
December 30, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I thought the 7 part TV series “The Battle for Civilization”, which was heavily promoted last spring, was supposed to be released in 2009, and now I see from Ben Botkin’s site the release date is 2010. They are still taking donations for this project (heard that somewhere before). Who is going to broadcast this, anyway?
They had a small discussion about this on Puritanboard, and this was a comment someone lifted from the Botkins’ PR releases and quoted.
Geoffrey Botkin is a Christian leader and mentor to pastors in New Zealand, a nation that holds promise for the reformation of Christian civilization.
Also this…
Hmmm, after searching the internet for info, I have been unable to determine just what “Geoffrey Botkin is a Christian leader” means. Can’t seem to find any information except the label “Christian” which today it seems anyone can appropriate.
very perceptive comment…
December 30, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I was encouraged by Molly to post here.
I am an avant garde artist and photographer by day, but writing is my life. I am the oldest of 11 children and am in the process of writing a book examining the spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical effects that being raised in a quiverful, authoritarian, patriocentric, legalistic, and performance-based household, has on women.
)
( WHEW…mouthful!
For any woman who has been raised this way, or who possibly raised her family this way, I have an extensive questionnaire that I have prepared as part of my research. If you would be willing to fill it out and contribute your thoughts, I would be extremely grateful! Please contact me and I will be happy to email it to you.
To the TW ladies….I am very impressed by your site/blogs! Thank you for all of the hard work you have invested. I look forward to catching up on all posts here!
God bless,
Hillary
December 30, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I hadn’t been here for a while, since I need to use my vacation for lots of rest and fun and Bible and prayer, ect. But I miss reading here and so I was checking it out … and I tried to post last night and failed. Anyways …
I had a wierd dream last night that my younger brother was going to work for Peter (is that his name?) Bradrick. *shivers*
What the Botkins say about self education … is just not true. I’ve lived with dreams of being an autodidact … and they just don’t work. Sure, many people have bright minds and can self-guide and learn a lot at home and that’s great. But everyone, even those, should have some education outside the home. Even the geniuses get lazy sometimes. We need accountability – it’s just our nature. And parents cannot provide all of our education for us. For instance, my mom was never a good math teacher, and my dad couldn’t have done it either. Only when I went to college did I have a good math teacher who helped me continue to heal my math wounds. And I needed someone besides me, though my will to try was the most important part.
That story about the woman who shut herself down and felt that peace and rest … WOW. I can so relate to that. It hurts so incredibly much to be myself, to listen to God first, to have my own mind. It is one of the most painful things I’ve ever done. It would be so easy to just give that all back, find someone else to spell things out for me. To be honest, I have had brief moments of that, moments when to embrace visionary daughterhood or something like it seemed very appealing.
And how she cried “Kill me, kill me” … I can’t even begin to describe how chilling that is.
The truth is that God handcrafted each one of us into life (“You knit me together in my mother’s womb”), and anything, religion, ideas, groups, whatever, that stops us from embracing that is not of Him.
Oh, and Emmy, I love your thoughts! Even though I come from a different place in some areas. The place where you talked about people only being able to play at patriarchy nicely because we don’t live in a real one … however you said it exactly (this is a long thread to scroll up through, forgive me), that was so good!
Just a few of the thoughts I’ve had …
December 30, 2008 at 11:05 pm
*blush* I mean, *have*.
December 30, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I meant to leave my email address for post #400……
thesanctuaryat700@hotmail.com
Thanks for your patience as I navigate my way!
December 30, 2008 at 11:44 pm
When I think of Vision Forum and LAF, I think of Joan of Arc. Didn’t the church burn her at the stake for her political power, military prowess, “visions”, preaching of God’s word and being unfeminine (wearing men’s clothes).
Do you think Vision Forum or LAF would approve of Joan of Arc being burnt at the stake for her heaven forbid “unfeminine behaviour”?
History tells us:
“Heresy was a capital crime only for a repeat offense. Joan agreed to wear women’s clothes when she abjured. A few days later she was sexually assaulted in prison.She resumed male attire either as a defense against molestation or, in the testimony of Jean Massieu, because her dress had been stolen and she was left with nothing else to wear.
Joan of Arc wore men’s clothing between her departure from Vaucouleurs and her abjuration at Rouen.This raised theological questions in her own era and raised other questions in the twentieth century. The technical reason for her execution was a biblical clothing law. The nullification trial reversed the conviction in part because the condemnation proceeding had failed to consider the doctrinal exceptions to that stricture.
Doctrinally speaking, she was safe to disguise herself as a page during a journey through enemy territory and she was safe to wear armor during battle. The Chronique de la Pucelle states that it deterred molestation while she was camped in the field. Clergy who testified at her rehabilitation trial affirmed that she continued to wear male clothing in prison to deter molestation and rape. Preservation of chastity was another justifiable reason for crossdressing: her apparel would have slowed an assailant, and men would be less likely to think of her as a sex object in any case.
She referred the court to the Poitiers inquiry when questioned on the matter during her condemnation trial. The Poitiers record no longer survives but circumstances indicate the Poitiers clerics approved her practice. In other words, she had a mission to do a man’s work so it was fitting that she dress the part. She also kept her hair cut short through her military campaigns and while in prison. Her supporters, such as the theologian Jean Gerson, defended her hairstyle, as did Inquisitor Brehal during the Rehabilitation trial.”
December 31, 2008 at 12:25 am
I’m sorry if I introduced a line of thought not fitting with the topic.
But I was reading George Bernard Shaw’s Joan of Arc and couldn’t help but think of her and how people would have treated her today.
Even today, churchmen and their pastors are so antagnostic towards a women, who knows her theology.
I remember one of my pastors misquoting a verse. When I corrected him. My grandparents and the pastor were furious. Instead of admitting his mistake, the pastor went on to say, “why women should be silent in church.”
I was 11 and didn’t think I qualified as women.
Another good resource I found was Jocelyn Anderson’s book on domestic violence against Christian women in the name of the “Biblical mandate women must submit to men.”
http://jocelynandersen.blogspot.com/
http://www.WomanSubmit.com
These are her sites. Sometimes I feel so shocked at the amount of abuse a person is forced to put up with, because some inhuman pastor believes “its the victim’s fault if her husband beats her. She wasn’t submitting to his authority so she had it coming to her.”
Where is Christ in all this, I wonder.
December 31, 2008 at 12:48 am
Yay, Hillary. I’m glad you posted here.
(plug, plug).
Hey, all, here is a list of cult tendancies:
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/12/100-question-cult-test.html
In reading through them, particularly the first section, I was struck at how many could be answered in the affirmitave for Vision Forum and the “Biblical Patriarchy” movement in general.
December 31, 2008 at 1:45 am
“I’m sorry if I introduced a line of thought not fitting with the topic.”
Rachel, I don’t think that’s possible here. We are all about rabbit trails. They often lead to wonderful places, and we always seem to get right where we need to go. The Joan of Arc information is good.
“I remember one of my pastors misquoting a verse. When I corrected him. My grandparents and the pastor were furious. Instead of admitting his mistake, the pastor went on to say, “why women should be silent in church.”
I was 11 and didn’t think I qualified as women.”
I LOVE this. hehe. So you were spunky even at age 11? Good for you.
December 31, 2008 at 4:50 am
The Botkin girls have the second installment of the Childish Homeschooler Syndrome up on their blog. They do have some good points about not staying at home with like-minded friends and about studying the Scriptures to personally seek God through His Word, to name a couple. I thought the following section on responding to “the world” was a bit of a misinterpretation of the Scripture, although it seems to be a common one among the patrios.
We don’t know how to respond to “the world”
We grow up knowing we are different – we weren’t raised to be “of the world” – but on reaching adulthood we don’t always know what to do with those differences. Too often, we respond one of these two ways:
1. We try to minimize the differences, so we won’t stand out. We want to be normal, “in spite” of having been homeschooled. The older we get, the more we push to be reabsorbed into the world, until we’re virtually indistinguishable from its own children. (Sometimes we say our goal is actually to infiltrate it and sneakily change it “from the inside” – so we learn to play by its rules, on its turf, using its standards, and always as the underdog.)
2. We try to escape from the world, rather than challenge it. Once we recognize our modern world as ugly, dark, cruel, and anti-Christian, we run from it and bury ourselves in fantasies of prettier times. We often retreat into romance novels and obsolete “romantic” pursuits, rather than embrace the battlefield we have been given and study to meet the challenges of our times.
Both of these unbiblical responses are a result of fear of the world, forgetting that our job is to judge it (1 Corinthians 6:2), disciple it (Matthew 28:19), and overcome it (1 John 4:4).
This judging of the world which believers will do is to come after the Lord sets up His throne, not in this present time. The context of the verse in 1 Cor. 5-6 actually refers to Christians who were tolerating immorality within the church while taking fellow believers to secular courts over disputes, and Paul was shaming them over it.
Just before the verse quoted by the Botkins, Paul says in 1 Cor. 5:9-13:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Two names pop up in my mind when I read this: Joe Taylor, and R. C. Sproul, Jr. No, actually three: Doug Phillips.
I think there are more verses that deal with the believer’s response to the world (kosmos), and here are just a few:
Col. 2:8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
1 John 4:7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us.
2 Cor. 5:17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Long post and it’s late–hope I’m coherent.
December 31, 2008 at 5:02 am
What I’m trying to say is that these are not the only two options: being conformed to the world or challenging and overcoming the world. We do come up against the ideas of the world and its systems, yes, and we are overcomers because “greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world”–not through our own power to take dominion.
But we are to be salt and light in the world, ambassadors of Christ bringing the true Gospel, the message of reconciliation to the world–all those people whom Christ came to save. It involves rubbing elbows with people who are not like us and getting a little dirty sometimes so that we can love others into the kingdom. It’s not just “discipling” the world, and it’s definitely not “judging” the world, but it is pouring out our lives and sharing the hope that we poor beggars have been given by (and only by) the grace of God.
December 31, 2008 at 8:38 am
Cindy K, the personal testimony you shared about being called into the principal’s–er, pastor’s–office chilled me. Several men in my family were/are pastors and maybe my standards are too high based on their gentleness and humility, but your former “leader” is NOT an example of an Christ-like shepherd.
Beatrice, thank you for your kind words.
I am genuinely interested as to what would be the reactions of the women enmeshed in the patriocentric type ideology if they were deposited in certain African or Middle Eastern countries with societies arranged very similarly to their own utopian ideal…only minus the crucial element of choice. Oh, and minus the equally crucial ingredient of besieged martyrdom (“the outsiders just want to persecute us for speaking the truth.”)
I suspect it’s not as easy to be passionate about an ideology when one can no longer set up oneself as a persecuted renegade, pioneer, or Truth-teller.
Kathy, interesting analysis of the Botkins’ post. Again, in the excerpts you relayed, I perceive a strong undercurrent of “us against the world” that goes above and beyond the Bible’s textual admonition to “be in the world but not of it.”
I am no Biblical scholar and have far less practice at interpretation than some of the regulate posters here. But, it seems to me that a movement such as patriocentricity that deviates from scripture to such a degree would benefit mightily from those “world’ warnings of the New Testament. That is, it seems likely that some leaders (not necessarily within VF but in any movement) could easily invoke such verses as a ready-made cover for any questionable teachings. (as in, “Well, it’s true that other Christians don’t accept the God-ordained mandate for unmarried daughters to be lifelong father’s helpers. But you see, these Christians are ‘of the world,’ and the Bible teaches that we must be in the World but not of it. The World is what’s wrong, not us. The World persecutes us as it did the first Christians….” etc etc). ( Or, how about with a cult-like movement: “The Bible mandates that we enter this commune/compound. The verse explicitly says we must not be OF the world.”)
Note: I am NOT suggesting patriocentricity as practiced in the VF is a cult. However, I think ANY Christian-minority movement–including very progressive/liberal movements!–could potentially exploit such verses to justify their deviations from other parts of the Bible.
December 31, 2008 at 9:12 am
Kathy,
That is classic black and white thought that the Visionary Daughters are grappling with, the paradoxes of being human. To be human and in the world yet not of it means that we will have unavoidable tension. It’s not easy and it’s stressful/painful. Visiting widows and fatherless in their affliction can be messy, and we are to keep ourselves unspotted from the world. That is not free of tension and pain and unanswered questions.
They miss the point that it’s not their work to make it work — they totally write out the power and the work of the Holy Spirit.
December 31, 2008 at 9:16 am
Rachel,
Ah, the Christian Right would say that you are reading the wrong source. Shaw is a humanist. Nothing he could possibly say, even about how to twist the lid off of a jar, could possibly be true. He’s poisoned your mind which we know is female and so is easily given to deception.
December 31, 2008 at 9:19 am
Regarding the Botkins sisters latest post, this part stands out to me. They say one of the weaknesses of of this generation of homeschooled young adults is:
“We don’t study the Scriptures to develop convictions on our own”
They then go on to explain:
—-”Too many of us wait to be spoon-fed our beliefs by people who have already studied and have strong convictions. When it comes to our beliefs, we can’t let others do our work for us – God wants each of us to personally seek Him through His word.”—–
Seriously, do they not think THEY have been the victims of being spoon fed the beliefs of daddy Geoffrey? As to studying so they can have convictions of their own, oh please. Starting back when they were teenagers and writing the book “So Much More”, it’s obvious Anna Sofia and Elizabeth are tools in the hands of their father, merely spouting off HIS doctrine. I suspect it wouldn’t be a pretty scene in the Botkin household if one of his daughters studied the bible and came up with a personal conviction on something that went against what their father believed.
December 31, 2008 at 9:49 am
Emmy,
but your former “leader” is NOT an example of an Christ-like shepherd.
My pastor and most of the people in the church would be floored by your comment. He kept the dark side as hidden from sight as he could. And most of the time he really was Christ-like on the outside. I think a lot of it was very genuine, and I think that he was a good pastor in very many respects. But then, under certain conditions and concerning certain things, he just could not be more wrong. In many ways he’s like Gothard. He’s a nice guy wouldn’t hurt a fly. Directly and intentionally. These men are another example of the problems of black and white thinking. They don’t fit in either category, and it is often painful and difficult to acknowledge the whole package of paradoxes.
But about VF being cultic. It depends on what definition of a cult you use. I don’t arbitrarily throw the term around like a pejorative. I use Robert Lifton’s Thought Reform model (as do most people who deal with cults) and ask whether a particular group manifests the criteria of thought reform. VF definitely does.
-milieu control
-mystical manipulation
-demand for purity
-sacred science
-confession of faults and sins
-loaded language
-doctrine over person
-dispensing of existence
Many Christians find this intimidating and prefer the term “spiritual abuse,” but there is essentially no difference between the tactics of cults/thought reform and those of spiritual abuse. The criteria are just reorganized into a different format, but it contains the same elements:
-authoritarian
-image conscious
-suppresses criticism
-perfectionistic
-unbalanced/elitist
What is interesting is that you can so often have a group that slips into cultic behavior, and that seems to eventually give way into doctrinal problems. Or you can have a group that has doctrinal problems, and they eventually gives way into behavioral issues.
If you examine the 210 Scripture verses that talk about false prophets and teachers, only 10% of the verses talk about doctrinal problems. Most of the verses discuss behavior and fruit related to behavior.
December 31, 2008 at 10:00 am
I suspect it wouldn’t be a pretty scene in the Botkin household if one of his daughters studied the bible and came up with a personal conviction on something that went against what their father believed.
Well Peaches,
Daddy Botkin teaches how you can control your children with your eyes (as the person who found the Botkin Great Commission cult connection recently pointed out to me). If his girls started off on some Biblical interpretation with which he did not agree, all it would take would be one hypnotic gaze to nip it in the bud.
The Great Commission group where Botkin was and participated with when those kids were young had their kids trained to be automatons. I don’t know what techniques they used for child training, but they had them trained well. Botkin himself probably shuts down mentally to some extent when faced with the inconsistencies in his beliefs, because there is even a very real, physical sensation of illness that sweeps over you when you challenge the views of the group. That’s why people have the “floating” experience and have high degrees of dissociation when they leave a group and start thinking for themselves. There is a psychological and physiologic reaction that ensues when you do challenge these beliefs. It’s easier and less painful to defer to the group and the group philosophy than it is to think and challenge. It’s really pretty sad.
December 31, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Thought of this after I went to bed–
Two names pop up in my mind when I read this: Joe Taylor, and R. C. Sproul, Jr. No, actually three: Doug Phillips.
Make that Douglas W. Phillips, Esq.
December 31, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I had some thoughts while reading the original post (“I Don’t Wanna Be a Stupid Girl”).
I had read elsewhere that many women in the American patriocentric movement endorse and recommend the works of Jane Austen, and the movis based on them. As we all know, many of Austen’s chracters were no dummies and made no efforts to hide their intelligence. Most of her women protagonists are witty, clever, and hold their own against the men in their lives. Elizabeth Bennet makes decisions about her own welfare and life that I think would be big no-nos in a patriocentric household.
Then, while re-watching last week the 1994 film version of LITTLE WOMEN (dir. Gillian Anderson), I was curious whether anyone within those movements had ever written anything in favor of or against this movie.
The screenplay is extremely pro-North (Civil War), anti-slavery, anti-child labor, touches on Transcendentalist philosophy and, most significantly for patriocentrists, takes an explicitly egalitarian view of gender. The father is, tellingly, absent for much of the movie due to fighting for the Union in the War. The mother makes the household decisions but allows her daughters autonomy. The mother makes numerous speeches about women’s intellectual equality and their right to personal agency, as does the character of Jo March. There is even an explicitly anti-Visionary Daughters sequence in which the women of the household express outrage when a teacher tells one of the girls that there is no point in educating women outside of the home (suggesting that all women will be returning to the home inevtably, thus their only education need be domestic in nature).
I would imagine that this movie, even though it also displays the romanticized vision of the 19th century that appeals to patriocentrists, and even though it features chaste, home-making young women with aspirations towards marriage, would be anathema to people coming from a Dominionist perspective.
Any thoughts?
December 31, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Oh, and there’s also a sub-plot with Jo March being openly envious of her (male) best friend that he is allowed to go to college and that she has no such opportunity because she is a woman. It even goes further and has the male character (Teddy/Laurie) express regrets that as a man, he is expected to go out into the world, receive formal education and make or continue his fortune (he wants to focus on music, art, and other less-breadwinning pursuits.)
January 1, 2009 at 12:55 am
Debbie & Cindy,
Your comments were hilarious. I had to bite my knuckles to keep myself from laughing because someone was on the phone.
Emmy,
Don’t you think these people get all the great movies and books wrong?
Look at how wrong they get Little Women and Jane Austen. They seem to like none of the values embodied in the books. And also if they want to play Jane Austen, they must also remember she said, “Marriage must be their pleasantest preservative from want.”
Looks like for these girls also with no education, no skills, no work experience, “marriage would be their only preservative.”
The other day, I read in the Homeliving Helper how one woman who was more than 30 was still living with her parents. She apparently, to quote the blogger, was still waiting for someone to marry her, but was contented to do the waiting from her home. The blogger appluaded her for staying at home and honouring her parents instead of going to college or working. I read it as “thank heavens, she’s at home. She’s now at no risk of marrying those secular men out there…”
Little women is definitely anti-slavery.
Something in their blog writings tells me they are not actively anti-slavery…Sinister
Even in Anne of the Green Gables, Anne is shown to excel in academic pursuits and goes on to get her degree in college.
She continues to write and earn money even after marriage and seven childern…
Do these people even understand these books?
Either they like them for the pretty dresses of that era or because their twisted logic clouds their vision or because of their low or “high” quality of education (like for instance elder Mr Botkin’s Excel spreadsheet)they really don’t understand the themes and sub-plots in the books.
January 1, 2009 at 3:04 am
Rachel Chitra,
You bring up good points about Austen’s underlying social context.
Yes, all her protagonists end up married, but Austen herself was painfully aware of the necessity of her characters marrying. In P&P, if the women had not married and the father had died, their all-female household would have forced either into being governesses, into trade, or prostituition. One historian I’ve read pointed out that because such women were not tutored growing up (self-taught in a rural environment), they could not find work as governesses, and because they had NO marketable skills, they’d be unlikely candidates for trade. Which leaves…
I have read several biographies of Austen, and she and her mother and sisters found themselves in the horribly vulnerable position of being dependent on the charity/goodwill of male relatives for support. They were forced to move out of their childhood home at one point and, because that society was not set up for middle-class women to earn a living, they ended up fairly poor. Genteel, yes, but still poor and still living from day to day, dependent on the whims of distant relations who did not always have their best interests at heart.
Even assuming that I could accept the textual/Biblical arguments made by patriocentric Christianity (which thus far I cannot), there is still the practical problem of what unmarried, abandoned, or widowed women do when all their male relatives have died.
I don’t buy the argument they offer that the church will step in to take care of its own. Women live so much longer than men as it is; are we to expect that there is enough church support to finance the livlihoods of the hundreds of the many women in this situation?
And what a precarious position to be in, anyway (and what extreme DEPENDENCE it fosters; women would have no choice but to stay in a church, even if it were spiritually abusive!).
Good points about Anne of GG! Her intellectual prowess was always what drew me to her. Did you ever read the entire 7-book series? It’s been about 20 years since I have, but I’m fairly sure Anne gives up writing after she has a bunch of kids as Gilbert the doctor’s wife. That makes me very sad. Stay at home mothers are ideally suited to part-time writing!
January 1, 2009 at 11:10 am
Emmy:
Anne of Green Gables still wrote while home with the kids. The last 2 books focused on the kids pretty intensively but there was mention of Anne’s “little writings” by her former rival for Gilbert’s love. Interestingly, Anne’s youngest was a source of despair (Rilla of Ingleside) for her “love of parties and lack of ambition.” Her girls all went to college and I think at least 1 was in England as a nurse.
January 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Emmy, I LOVE your thoughts on Little Women! I love Alcott’s writing for the most part, though she was not a Christian (I don’t believe she saw Jesus as a divine Savior). Her writing is very sweet and domestically toned … but it deals with serious issues and does not shortchange the girls who read it at all.
Here is an uber-conservative review of Little Women. The writers appear to be part of the general patriocentric group.
http://www.keepersofthefaith.com/BookReviews/BookReviewDisplay.asp?key=12
The choice passage here …
“Quite a few years ago, we put the question to a group of girls about which character they wanted to be the most like in Little Women, Meg, Jo, Amy or Beth. It was unanimous. They all desired to be like Jo. Of course. Jo rises to the top as the protagonist. When Miss Alcott wrote about Jo, she was essentially writing about herself. Jo was the adventuresome, tomboy of the four. She disliked the limitations that society placed on feminine behavior. She was a free thinker and possessed an independent spirit. She was made to seem like the most fun of the four, and always becomes so in the mind of a young reader, who also usually thinks that the reason for this is her lack of femininity. Hence, Jo has become a role model for thousands of girls. Jo takes a different path. Beth is so sweet, but she dies early. Amy is conceited. Meg is domestic. Jo listens to the tune of a different drummer. She is different. She is special.
This desire to be different, to be special, to not be confined to the natural, God-given role for a woman, is awakened in all the little girls who read this book, as they, through the author’s subtle persuasion, just fall in love with Jo. By the end of the book, the reader desires to be a Jo, and to have the same goals and desires as Jo. We might here ask the question, “Where do these desires lead?” If these desires do not lead to a closer walk with God, they lead away from a closer walk with God. If these desires to not develop a love in the heart of a girl for things of a feminine nature, they are developing a strong liking for things not feminine.”
I find it interesting that they say the book makes girls chafe against “the limitations that society placed on feminine behavior”. Very interesting indeed. Notice it is society and not the Word of God that the feminist Alcott rebelled against.
This confusion of fallen, flawed cultural ideals and tradition with God’s timeless will is not a good thing … not at all.
January 1, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Just want to qualify – I don’t know much about the people who run that website. I have no idea if they know the patriocentric leaders and families we’ve talked about. I just know that they’re displaying the same ideas.
Some good quotes from Little Women:
Mrs. March is talking to her daughters:
‘” I want my daughters to be beautiful, accomplished, and good; to be admired, loved, and respected; to have a happy youth, to be well and wisely married, and to lead useful, pleasant lives, with as little care and sorrow to try them as God sees fit to send. To be loved and chosen by a good man is the best and sweetest thing that can happen to a woman; and I sincerely hope my girs may know this beautiful experience. It is natural to think of it, Meg; right to hope and wait for it, and wise to prepare for it; so that, when the happy time comes, you may feel ready for the duties and worthy of the joy. My dear girls, I am ambitious for you, but not to have you make a dash in the world, -marry rich men merely because they are rich, or have splendid houses, which are not homes because love is wanting. Money is a needful and precious thing, – and, when well used, a noble thing, – but I never want you to think it is the first or only prize to strive for. I’d rather see you poor men’s wives, if you were happy, beloved, contented, than queens on thrones, without self-respect and peace.”
Note from me – quite the counter-cultural stand here!
“Poor girls don’t stand any chance, Belle says, unless they put themselves forward,” sighed Meg.
“Then we’ll be old maids,” said Jo stoutly.
“Right, Jo; better be happy old maids than unhappy wives, or unmadenly girls, running about to find husbands,” said Mrs. March decidedly. “Don’t be troubled, Meg; povery seldom daunts a sincere lover. Some of the best and most honered women I know were poor girls, but so love-worthy that they were not allowed to be old maids. Leave these things to time; make this home happy, so that you may be fit for homes of your own, if they are offered you, and contented here if they are not. One thing remember, my girls: mother is always ready to be your confidant, father to be your friend; and both of us trust and hope that our daughters, whether married or single, will be the pride and comfort of our lives.”
Noting again- even though the girls are expected to stay at home if they don’t marry, this is not a mandated thing, not a must, just more of a socioeconomic pattern (They’re not exactly filthy rich.) But Jo later leaves home when she is older to be a governess or teacher of some sort, I forget exactly which. And she finds it a very fulfilling experience.
Anyways, this does not seem to me like any kind of radical or androgynous feminism. This is more in the line of the First-Wave feminism that one lady here talked about. Men and marriage can be wonderful, and are to be looked forward to, prepared for – but they are not a woman’s meaning.
January 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
What Beatrice said is really an ideal. The sad thing is that feminism has become the worst “f-word” in Christian circles. I am baffled quite honestly how a woman having basic human rights “destroys” society.
January 1, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Beatrice, I’m loving the LITTLE WOMEN quotes you took the time to share. And thank you so much for finding that article denouncing the book; that is *precisely* what I was suspecting! (So how come Jane Austen is allowed, given the points I raised above?) When you look at the character of Jo alone (who did indeed go off on her own to become a governess/teacher; who makes her own choices on behalf of her family—like cutting her hair—almost as though she had an active stake in decision-making), and then add to it the centrality of Marmee in the household, the book goes entirely against the grain of patriocentrism. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems patriocentrists would have required a male relative to come in and guide the household while the father was off at war. For Marmee and her daughters to be self-sufficient and support one another without male authority would be verboten. And this is to say nothing even of the more-progressive movie!
Gail, Thank you for the clarification about Anne of GG (and Rachel Chitra as well; I misread your earlier point about Anne staying at home in the later books). I’m so glad to hear she keeps on writing.
TO your other point:
The farthest-left feminists become (rightly) frustrated and distressed to see women of all ideologies reject the term feminism. In their eyes (and I agree with them), feminism is not defined by what we DON’T agree on (abortion; same-sex marriage; heterosexual marriage; reproductive rights) but the essentials on which we DO agree: men and women are equally human; are equal in intellectual, emotional, and moral capacity; and neither should be more limited in their life options than the other on account of the reproductive organs with which they were born.
Many self-described “complementarians” I know (like my own mother who gave up a very lucrative career as a medical doctor to stay home with us) agreed with everything I just laid out in that definition. She gave up everything SO THAT I could obtain my undergraduate and graduate degrees and rise to the top of my profession…not so that I would have a stellar high school career and then return home to wait for a husband my father would seek out on my behalf (and this is coming from a woman whose own marriage was semi-arranged and ended up working out well).
So why are these and even less conservative women afraid to call themselves feminists? Because secular AND religious society at large has vilified feminism to an astonishing degree, blaming it for everything from the fabled “breakdown of the [nuclear] family” to low morale in the workforce to teenage gangs.
Sorry, acknowledging “the radical idea that women are human” is not the source of the world’s problems today. Forsaking Christ-like behavior and flouting Jesus’ Law of Love, the Beatitudes, and the teachings of His parables? Much more likely, IMO.
January 1, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I’ve come to describe myself as an “evangelical feminist.” I’m concerned with women’s equal treatment in the church and in society. I am not about abortion rights and all that other social stuff, however I will say equal pay/healthcare is important to me. I am a global feminist, as I am concerned about the treatment of women worldwide (aka–muslim “sharia” law, African women in poverty, etc)
Once I was able to come to terms with the fact that “feminist” is NOT a bad word (it took a long, long time), I actually love the label.
it gives me purpose…
January 1, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Lindsay, I’m actually coming to that point too. Its hard for me to call myself an “evangelical feminist” because its connotation goes against the grain of how I was brought up. However, the more I study God’s Word and the more I, dare I say it, think for myself, the more evidence I find for the EF position.
January 2, 2009 at 12:00 am
Oh, Emmy, you’re so welcome. Thank you for bringing the whole issue up.
A few more quotes …
“When Mr. March lost his property in trying to help an unfortunate friend, the two oldest girls begged to be allowed to do something toward their own support, at least. Believing that they could not begin too early to cultivate energy, industry, and independence, their parents consented, and both fell to work with the hearty good-will which in spite of all obstacles, is sure to succeed at last.”
This relates to what you said …
“To outsiders, the five energetic women seemed to rule the house, and so they did in many things; but the quiet scholar, sitting among his books, was still the head of the family, the household conscience, anchor, and comforter; for to him the busy, anxious women always turned in troublous (this is what my edition says, I kid you not) times, finding him, in the truest sense of those sacred words husband and father.”
I really love this because this does not look like a tyrannical or enmeshed thing at all to me … Mr. March is clearly essential to the house, but his presence, because of the unique personalities in the family, comes across more in a gentle undertone. And that’s OK.
January 2, 2009 at 12:09 am
I used to hate the term feminist and think “What is all the fuss about?” But now … now I am starting to grow up more and see more things … I do understand.
Feminism is still a loaded term (and is that ever an understatement!). I do feel the need for grace in when the word is used. Many people would never use the word – and yet, they still are so close to everything that true feminism stands for it doesn’t matter.
“the essentials on which we DO agree: men and women are equally human; are equal in intellectual, emotional, and moral capacity; and neither should be more limited in their life options than the other on account of the reproductive organs with which they were born.”
This is so beautiful, Emmy, heartrendingly beautiful, even.
Which is why I will, at the appropriate times, and with the necessary qualifications identify myself as a feminist. It’s still a good term to get a rough handle on these beautiful ideals.
(Oh, and I’m an evangelical and a feminist, so … I dunno though. Will have to think about that some more. Definitely merits thought.)
January 2, 2009 at 1:31 am
Until recently, I had a tough time with the “F” label, too. This blog has actually helped me come to terms with being an evangelical feminists.
Another group that helped me embrace the F-identity is an organization called Feminists for Life:
feministsforlife.org/who/aboutus.htm
For years, proponents of abortion have high-jacked the feminists label and gone radical with groups like NARAL and NOW. If submission is the sacrament of the patrios, abortion is the sacrament of NOW.
Makes sense why NOW and the like went ballistic with Sarah Palin. Sarah, a member of Feminists for Life, messed with their definitions. And as Doug Phillips says, “He who defines, wins.”
Feminists for Life teach that abortion is an act of violence against women (and their babies), and that men dodge responsibility through the “easy” way out of abortion. Most of the early feminists were actually pro-life.
January 2, 2009 at 1:46 am
I’m enjoying the quotes and analysis of the Little Women and Green Gables books. The patrios have issue with Laura Ingalls Wilder, too. Way too independent, that little Half-Pint.
I think the patrios cling to Jane Austen and the like for a couple reasons:
1. The romance, the fairly-tale, the handsome noblemen rescuing the virtuous maidens from singlehood, etc. (Patrio women are in desperate need of romance in their lives. Anything, anything, please!)
2. The fact that if anybody tried to write a book about perfect patrio women, there would be no plot. The protagonists would have robotic personalities, no opinions on anything, and would never leave the house. Not exactly page-turners, eh? Jane Austen makes a fabulous substitute for Elsie Dinsmore.
January 2, 2009 at 10:49 am
“Jo listens to the tune of a different drummer. She is different. She is special.”
Rather like Lazarus’s sister, Mary….
“This desire to be different, to be special, to not be confined to the natural, God-given role for a woman, is awakened in all the little girls who read this book, as they, through the author’s subtle persuasion…”
Again, rather like Mary.
This desire or dissatisfaction with mere mundanity exists in both men and women, and its purpose is to direct us to seek something MORE than the fufilling of the “natural”, ie, carnal roles which were given to us by God in His first Great Commission, when He told us to multiply physically and fill the earth.
In its proper form, the desire to transcend (not to eliminate!) mere physicality is meant to direct us God-ward, in order that we may aid in fufilling the Second Great Commission, and reproduce spiritually by making disciples of all nations.
This desire exists even in the unsaved, but without the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit, it goes haywire.
When people who are dissatisfied with the flesh do not find Jesus Christ and the Church, their hunger for “something more” gets redirected. Sometimes this redirection takes the form of intellectual striving (which is not a bad thing, and which may eventually help lead one to Christ), and sometimes it leads to pop spirituality, the occult, drugs, and worse.
January 2, 2009 at 11:00 am
Re comment #432: The fact that if anybody tried to write a book about perfect patrio women, there would be no plot.
Ah, but someone did write a book! It’s called The Stepford Wives.
January 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I have no problem calling myself a feminist. Feminism, at it’s core, is about treating women with the same level of respect as we treat men.
True feminism supports the sahm just as much as it supports the career woman, the women who clean the church nursery just as much as the Beth Moore’s of the church, as long as all have had the freedom to *choose* the life and calling that they think best suits them.
I see nothing incompatible with the Gospel there. If anything, I would think our faith would encourage us to make sure that women are not treated with less respect than men, that women are not denied the ability to choose their future paths. I don’t feel shy about the word feminist for those reasons and more.
I don’t usually give a lot of qualifications when I use the word, “Christian” to define myself, even though there are plenty of Christians out there who’ve slopped mud all over the label. In like manner, I currently don’t feel like giving a ton of qualifications for the word “feminist” either. *shrugs*
January 2, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I think it is high time to restore the word Feminist to it’s rightful place. There were even men who were feminists! How else did we get the right to vote unless they ulitmately agreed and made it law?
The early feminists were for equal rights, against abortion, against child labor and slavery. Sounds pretty normal to me.
January 2, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I think some people have rewritten or ignored large parts of history to be able to talk about feminism the way that they do. Almost like … making up their own version in their heads. Not naming any names, but I know we’ve all seen it done at times.
January 3, 2009 at 12:53 am
“I think some people have rewritten or ignored large parts of history to be able to talk about feminism the way that they do. Almost like … making up their own version in their heads. Not naming any names, but I know we’ve all seen it done at times.”
Well, yes. Every “Rebelution” needs a scapegoat, donchaknow…. and as has been previously pointed out, the pro-abortion folks have commandeered the feminist movement, which allows the Pats to feel justified in condemning ALL feminists, while remaining blissfully ignorant of the fact that feminism arose in response to very real social ills.
January 3, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Happy New Year everyone! I hope everyone had a restful vacation. We are staying with relatives at the moment. So many great comments! As ever I am in awe of you ladies.
I am still waiting for LAF to update with the next part of the girl from South Africa’s story. I showed the article to my husband (who worked in rural South Africa for a year) and he agreed the writer is almost certainly from the wealthy minority. He had other thoughts – I’ll save them for when the promised second part comes out.
There is a really strange new article from Lady Lydia’s ‘Guard The Home’ blog (devoted to adult children who are ‘rebelling’ against their parents). I have been checking it regularly ever since that time she counselled an anonymous commenter to consider turning her 16 year old ‘rebellious’ son out of the house. I hope it’s ok for me to comment on it here. We do jump around so much!
I was just going to link, but given that Lydia has revised articles that we’ve commented on, I’m going to copy it all out so there’s no confusion.
http://guardthehome.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-youth-at-home-who-really-controls.html
For Youth at Home: Who Really Controls You?
Parents should not be fooled by the claim that their young lady or young man at home is isolated and without communication from the world. This is simply untrue. I grew up in a wilderness area, with homesteader and pioneer type parents, and our lives were always busy with other people. The only time we were really isolated was when we were snowed in or sick. Having homeschooled my children clear through high school, I can tell you frankly we were not home as much as we would have liked.
Sometimes the children got tired of having to go somewhere else for something we needed to do or learn and begged to stay home. “Can we just stay home today?” they would ask, first thing in the morning. However, I suppose when this truth becomes known, the doctors and therapists who are suspicious of home education, will conclude that all colds, flue, tiredness, etc. will be a result of too much running around and not enough confinement to a desk at a school.
The fact is, that most homeschoolers have cars and access to the world outside the home, and use it freely. The homeschooled students are even less isolated than their public school counterparts who are inside of the school campus during school hours and home doing homework after school hours.
Homeschool children are not the isolated people that many doctors and psychologists claim. Yet there are people who will believe these so called experts when they say that every illness comes from isolation or parental control. This is simply not proven, nor is it researchable to a satisfactory level.In order to prove it, every homeschooler in the country would have to be interviewed. These conclusions seem to be only after seeing those homeschool children who have to go to the doctor, and does not seem to include the vast majority of homeschoolers who are healthy and happy at home. In order to be fair, these doctors need to interview all the healthy and happy homeschoolers, too.
There are several ministries which I will label only by initials,which once claimed the Bible teaching about parents being the teachers and trainers of their own children, and children honoring the parents and willingly complying with the family for their own good and protection. The SMD, IBLP and NGJ ministries have all reneged on this and are now following the words and beliefs of psychology instead. Having no ready scriptural answers to prodigals, they try to find other reasons for their behavior other than the rebellion that Proverbs talks about. Our answers can all be found in the Bible, but having a scarce knowledge of the scriptures and lacking the heart to put them into practice, many ministers turn to psychology.
The ministers in these ministries would all deny that they use psychology, however, there are key words that show a strong influence of psychology: abuse, and damage, among many others. This language has entered the churches and ministries via the training manuals and courses that ministers study in order to become counsellors. It was sad to see that many churches now hire preachers on the basis of their degree, rather than on their soundness in scriptural knowledge. A degree almost always means that a course in psychology has been taken, and it is this kind of belief system that these ministers bring into their lives and the lives of others. Psychology, the study of human behavior, at first glance, may sound quite logical, but when compared to the scriptures, it can be shown as robbing the proper authorities of their rightful domains. One example is their tendency to take over realms of life that do not belong to them.
The roots of psychology claim that any problems people have are a result of their parents and their disadvantaged childhoods. These teachings take away the entire meaning of parenthood and give power to the children to do as they feel, because, after all, feelings are more important than principles, and happiness reigns over doing what is right. These ministries have bought into this psychology because they have not been effective, and are looking for ways to retrieve youth without losing their following. Many of these ministries are tied into the state youth detentions centers, where it is advantageous to keep youth in a perpetually troubled or rebellious condition, in order to justify having them there and to insure continued funding, much like the way public schools get their funding through the numbers of students and the length of time they are there. I have no objection to Christians being involved in redeeming wayward youth, or preachers preaching the gospel to the lost, but their involvement in these detention centers, often called “ministries” has taken a completely different turn which has caused too much heartache in homes.
One particular ministry has an online newsletter and message board where they constantly discuss atrocities that the Bible says should only be talked about “in the dark.” They keep people hyped up about parents and they claim to be rescuing children from abusive parents. I have seen true abuse in drug infested homes, where the neighbors will bring in the government authorities to remove the kids or put the abusive parents in prison. These abused children exhibit completely different attitudes than those whose parents have been falsely accused. Many of the parents are falsely accused, and yet no charges were made. Still, it has had a profound impact on the father’s businesses or the mother’s reputations in their local communities. Once the label “abusive” or “controlling” has been levelled at a parent, the stigma is difficult to get removed. It deflates the impact of the family.
The ministries that automatically accuse parents of abuse if they have any kind of trouble with their children, are in error if they do not call the police. If they truly feel that the parents are illegally abusive e, they ought to call the proper authorities, which are also Biblicly ordained ministries, according to Romans 13 verses 3 through 5.
If these religious ministers truly believe that parents are conducting themselves unlawfully, they need to call in the rightful ministers of the government rather than taking matters into their own hands by maligning the parents and putting the children in so called “ministries” or turning then to further rebellion. It is simply not scriptural to let parents get away with something illegal while supposedly rescuing the kids. These ministries have no business claiming that the parents are “abusive” while not levelling legal charges at them. My suspicion, from what I have seen, is that there is no abuse going on but the ministries side with the rebels so that they can use them in their ministries. It is free unpaid labor for them.
The reason I write about this is that many nice parents who trust ministers, thinking they have some wisdom (after all they are suppose to have studied the Bible) find themselves in worse trouble. They trust these ministries and they never see their children again. Some of them send them to a ministry for just minor problems, to help them grow, and then the ministry accused the parents of “abuse” and never encourages the children to return home.
I have written many articles in the past to show how effective parenting used to be before the psychologists took over child-rearing. Later, people like Dr. Spock publicly admitted his teachings and his books had done more harm than good to parents, by taking away their authority and substituting ineffective psychological techniques. The Bible says children are to obey and honor their parents. It is not always fair, but wise parents of old would tell their children “I know it is not fair, but I am the parent. When you are a parent, you can be the guide and authority.” This gave us, as children, a hope of being promoted.
When I have more time I will write about how effective the old paths of parenting were. They were in fact, so effective, that parents did not even have to consult a ministry for help with a rebel.
Be careful of the ministries you put your trust in. Just trust in God and read the Bible. Like Dr. Spock, these ministries will eventually have to make some public statements regarding their error.
For the children at home with complaints, you have to take a good look at who is really controlling you. You might say you do not want your parents to control your life, but if you reject their care and protection, you end up being controlled by someone else. The army will certainly control your life if you join it. A ministry has more restriction and control than even a home. In any institution, your choices will be extremely limited and your individuality, although lauded and promoted through their shiny brochures, will be severely diminished, as they really want you to blend in more with “the group”. Even college and careers have more control over people than the average home.
Homes operate under a lot more freedom and leniency than man made institutions. As for control, it is the job of parents to teach their children how to control themselves, and they do this by placing limitations on freedom until the child has shown responsibility.
The girl who complains that her parents wont let her go anywhere, is not admitting that she took off on her own in the middle of the night, when she climbed out the window. This caused her parents to put restrictions on her, not because they hated her or were “controlling” but because they were doing their job of protecting her and teachingher how to use her freedom responsibly.
The young boy whose parents restricted his use of the automobile, did not tell the whole story, preferring instead to make others think his parents were bad old meanies without any sense. They restricted him because of careless driving and an incident that involved putting the lives of others in danger. They restricted him because he used the car to go somewhere he had no business going, and because he had people in his car he was not supposed to be driving.
Both the boy and the girl were guilty of gossipping about their parents to their friends and neighbors and were consequently restricted from communications of phones and the net. They subsequently reported that their parents had locked them in their rooms and would not let them use the internet. In truth, bedrooms have locks on the inside of the doors, not on the outside, so if these arrogant children were locked in, they most likely locked their doors to keep their parents out.
These are just two samples of the whole story behind the problems of youth. Most of the time you hear only one side of things because the children are busy verbally covering themselves by accusing the parents of being abusive or controlling. In actual fact, girls, when you sneak out the window, someone or something else is controlling you. The lure of parties and other people and night life can be very strong and it is controlling, indeed!
Young people, you should know that Satan hates families and will reign with confusion and arguing in order to get you to reject your parents and family. You should also know that relatives of nice families are always looking for ways to break it all up because they are jealous or because they think your parents are too strict or too extreme. Beware of all these tactics and stay where the Lord put you. You will be glad in later years that you dont have a “past” to overcome or explain, or that you dont have to go back and make it right with your parents when you get in your right mind.
I know numbering my thoughts is sloppy writing, but it really helped me with the Africa article so I’m going to try it again now.
1) Confusingly, I think this is actually two articles, combined together for who knows why. The title and the last 7 paragraphs go together. The first part of the article is really about a separate topic.
2) About the title and the last bit first. So many sentences here leap out at me as being really, really odd. “In truth, bedrooms have locks on the inside of the doors, not on the outside, so if these arrogant children were locked in, they most likely locked their doors to keep their parents out.” I wonder how Lydia knows so much about these peoples lives as to know about the locks on their bedroom doors. I couldn’t tell you about the lock on my relatives’ door, and it’s across the hall and I’ve been here a week. I wonder does she have permission to use these peoples’ troubles as blog material? And we see very confusing language – the people at fault are ‘children’ (okay – children often need to be confined to places when they’ve misbehaved). Except the previous paragraphs make it clear that the people being punished this way aren’t children at all. They are old enough to drive and sneak out at night to go partying (not that that behaviour, if true, is appropriate) – they are ADULTS.
“You should also know that relatives of nice families are always looking for ways to break it all up because they are jealous or because they think your parents are too strict or too extreme.” Again, this is just so bizarre. It makes me wonder what on earth the situation was she had in mind, that she would write something like this. You know, I think I have a quite nice family, and I can’t think of one time a relative tried to ‘break it all up’. How completely strange. And surely if one had such a lovely family, it wouldn’t matter if some crazy person tried to disrupt you? And how are you a ‘nice family’ if you have relatives like that anyway? So strange. So sad.
3) The main part of the article is, I think, Lydia’s response to the Pearls, mixed with her continuing complaints about ‘ministries’. In previous articles, she’s written about how ministries are actually all out to steal your children away from you.
4) “There are several ministries which I will label only by initials,which once claimed the Bible teaching about parents being the teachers and trainers of their own children, and children honoring the parents and willingly complying with the family for their own good and protection. The SMD, IBLP and NGJ ministries have all reneged on this and are now following the words and beliefs of psychology instead.” So this is about the Pearl’s article. But we can’t say that, because the one thing VF and LAF NEVER do is link to Christians politely disagreeing with them. They will show us raving mad abortionists – our delicate sensibilities can apparently handle that no trouble – but reasonable debate, backed up with Scripture? Never. In all the articles ‘addressing’ debate, I can only think of one (Jennie Chancey’s response to Andrew Sandlin) which actually acknowledges where criticism has come from. This site, with everything on it, is completely verboten. We are gossipers (MacDonalds) or silly women (Lydia) and the issues we raise are dealt with at a comedic distance.
And the comedy continues with Lydia using initials to indicate who she disagrees with. Why oh why? They make it perfectly plain who she means. Tapping them into Google will straighten it out if there’s any uncertainty. Why not be a grown up and write down plainly who you disagree with?
5) “The ministries that automatically accuse parents of abuse if they have any kind of trouble with their children, are in error if they do not call the police. If they truly feel that the parents are illegally abusive e, they ought to call the proper authorities, which are also Biblicly ordained ministries, according to Romans 13 verses 3 through 5.
If these religious ministers truly believe that parents are conducting themselves unlawfully, they need to call in the rightful ministers of the government rather than taking matters into their own hands by maligning the parents and putting the children in so called “ministries” or turning then to further rebellion. It is simply not scriptural to let parents get away with something illegal while supposedly rescuing the kids. These ministries have no business claiming that the parents are “abusive” while not levelling legal charges at them.”
This is, I think, her response to the Pearl’s articles about how hyperpatriarchy hurts children. So ludicrous. (Isn’t it interesting that the Botkins seem to have decided to respond by almost agreeing with the Pearls – writing their own articles about how homeschoolers need to grow up – neatly sidestepping the fact that their book about daughters is greatly responsible for the whole problem). (Isn’t it also interesting how quickly she advocates for the ‘rightful ministers of the government’. Goodness gracious. Remembering patrios responses to the Texas polygamists debacle…)
6) The strangeness continues as she suggests these ministries are actually interested in hurting children for their own nefarious gain:
“My suspicion, from what I have seen, is that there is no abuse going on but the ministries side with the rebels so that they can use them in their ministries. It is free unpaid labor for them.”
“Many of these ministries are tied into the state youth detentions centers, where it is advantageous to keep youth in a perpetually troubled or rebellious condition, in order to justify having them there and to insure continued funding, much like the way public schools get their funding through the numbers of students and the length of time they are there.”
Is there any particular case that she could be referring to here? I have never heard of anything like this. It seems paranoid in the extreme.
7) Some final thought about clear factual errors in the piece. We’re used to these – this is after all the person who wrote about how Christian slaves were able to keep house for their husbands in their huts.
Later, people like Dr. Spock publicly admitted his teachings and his books had done more harm than good to parents, by taking away their authority and substituting ineffective psychological techniques.
Like Dr. Spock, these ministries will eventually have to make some public statements regarding their error.
Wikipedia (I don’t want to link because that will send this post to moderation, but it’s very easy to Google) says no such thing. I cannot find any reference to Dr Spock ever saying his practices (suggesting babies should be cuddled when they cried, instead of being left alone outside in their pushchairs as infants – this used to happen to my father in law!) had ‘done more harm than good’ or anything else.
And finally, there is the very concerning disdain for science (and apparent ignorance of how one obtains a college degree) throughout the piece.
“Psychology, the study of human behavior, at first glance, may sound quite logical, but when compared to the scriptures, it can be shown as robbing the proper authorities of their rightful domains. One example is their tendency to take over realms of life that do not belong to them.
The roots of psychology claim that any problems people have are a result of their parents and their disadvantaged childhoods.”
What utter nonsense.
“A degree almost always means that a course in psychology has been taken”
I did not study in America, but to the best of my knowledge, this is completely inaccurate?
“there are key words that show a strong influence of psychology: abuse, and damage, among many others.”
And now ‘abuse’ and ‘damage’ are dirty, unbiblical words. Cindy, I am reminded about what you have said about controlling language. In fact, lots of things in this articles reminded me of that. Like the use of initials to signify those you disagree with (those in the know will understand the meaning, those who are not must have their access to such information controlled). And the strange references to personal experiences, like the disruptive relatives and the bedroom door locks – though that, I believe, may just be a quirk of her writing style.
Wow! With the length of the article and the length of my super-waffly thoughts, surely this must win some sort of longest comment prize?
January 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm
—-”There are several ministries which I will label only by initials,which once claimed the Bible teaching about parents being the teachers and trainers of their own children, and children honoring the parents and willingly complying with the family for their own good and protection. The SMD, IBLP and NGJ ministries have all reneged on this and are now following the words and beliefs of psychology instead. “—-
OK I know NGJ is No Greater Joy, but what is SMD and IBLP? Also, what is she specifically referring to regarding what these ministries have reneged on?
January 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Many of these ministries are tied into the state youth detentions centers, where it is advantageous to keep youth in a perpetually troubled or rebellious condition, in order to justify having them there and to insure continued funding, much like the way public schools get their funding through the numbers of students and the length of time they are there.”
Is there any particular case that she could be referring to here? I have never heard of anything like this. It seems paranoid in the extreme. – Claire.
Michael Pearl does work with juveniles. He preaches the good news to the prison population. I could be wrong – but I doubt that is Micheal’s motive!
On a side note – I’d LOVE to know how Michael would respond to that remark!
On a side note :
As far as I’m aware – Dr Spock DID retract some of his earlier advice. I know he did advise to keep children off ALL dairy products for life because of the health risks involved.
Somehow…I don’t think that is what “Lady Lydia” was referring too.
January 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I found that IBLP is the Gothard stuff, but I still can’t find SMD, other than info on something called a Surface Mount Device and then a text messaging acronym that is too foul to repeat here!
January 4, 2009 at 1:05 am
SMD = SM Davis perhaps?
January 4, 2009 at 3:02 am
Just a little snippy aside from me here. For a woman claiming authority as a patrio female on high, “Lady Lydia” certainly is no great writer. Multiple errors and commas inserted at random made for tough reading and comprehension.
Perhaps I was spared.
January 4, 2009 at 3:05 am
SMD = Submissive Male Deviants
January 4, 2009 at 3:06 am
SMD = Sad Mom’s Daughters
January 4, 2009 at 9:34 am
A thought: Is Hyles-Anderson “college” too evil and worldly for the patrios? I find HAC evil for a lot of other reasons (like the fact that it is not accredited and the “male teacher” and female teacher separate and unequal majors……
January 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Wow.
One question–what are they supposed to use the degree in Marriage & Motherhood for if they don’t get married?
I mean yeah, nothing wrong with teaching girls about marriage and motherhood, but a degree? I thought degrees weren’t supposed to be necessary for that *scratches head*
I’ll stick with nursing college, thanks….my mom was a far better professor for me in the marriage and motherhood field–I’d take her advice on it anyday
(I posted awhile back, just thought I’d pop in here again
)
January 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Btw, I was referring to HAC’s bachelor’s degree in marriage motherhood–just to clarify in case my post seemed unclear
January 5, 2009 at 12:09 am
Some items I pulled from HAC’s on-line catalog. Fascinating stuff:
Hyles-Anderson College
Maybe You Wouldn’t Like…
Our Dress Code
Many think our dress code is too strict. Skirts above the knees are not allowed.
Men must wear neckties to class and must have short haircuts. Young ladies may
not wear shorts or slacks.
Our Old-Fashioned Discipline
Young ladies are not allowed to go off campus unchaperoned. Young men and
young ladies may not date alone in cars. Absolutely no hand holding or other
intimacies are allowed between the genders. There are date nights with bus
transportation and adequate chaperones provided by the college. Student
insubordination is absolutely forbidden.
Our Intense Evangelistic Atmosphere
All faculty, staff, and students are required to go soul winning weekly. Students
participate in the evangelistic ministry of the First Baptist Church of Hammond,
Indiana, which builds its ministry around personal soul winning. An average of
over 10,000 new converts were baptized each year for the past several years.
Our Fundamentalist Emphasis
We are fundamentalists and use the term proudly. We believe in a literal Hell which
has fire and brimstone and a literal Heaven with streets of gold. We stand for the
King James Bible as the only Bible and the local New Testament church as the only
true church. We believe in redemption through the blood of Christ, salvation by
grace through faith alone, and the premillennial second coming of Jesus Christ.
Our Separatist Position
Absolutely no drinking, smoking, or dancing is allowed. No student is allowed
to attend Hollywood movies, play cards, or participate in other questionable
amusements. We do not fellowship with liberals, but instead take a strict separatist
stand from the world and apostasy.
Our Emphasis on Culture
We believe in students’ learning and practicing propriety. We oppose the paganistic,
barbaric humanism that prevails on many campuses. We believe in refinement,
dignity, courtesy, proper manners, and Christian grace.
Department of Marriage and Motherhood
This course of study is designed to train ladies to be wives and mothers. Courses
in Christian womanhood, the art of being a good wife, the way to be a spiritual
mother, and the rearing of children will be emphasized.
Freshman
Fall Spring
Old Testament Survey……………………………..3 New Testament Survey……………………………3
English Composition……………………………….3 English Composition……………………………….3
Gospels……………………………………………..3 Personal Evangelism………………………………..3
Proverbs………………………………………………2 General Mathematics……………………………….3
Children’s Literature………………………………..3 Christian Womanhood II………………………….1
Preparation for Leadership……………………..1 Personal Finance………………………………………1
Christian Womanhood I…………………………..1 Christian Ladies’
Elective………………………………………………….1 Attitude and Appearance………………………..2
Total…………………………………………………17 Total…………………………………………………16
Sophomore
Sophomore English…………………………………3 Communication in Marriage…………………..2
U.S. History I……………………………………………3 U.S. History II………………………………………….3
Bible………………………………………………..2 Bible……………………………………………….1
Preparation for Marriage………………………..2 How to Rear Children……………………………2
Beginning Cooking………………………………….4 Baking………………………………………………….2
Beginning Sewing……………………………………3 Intermediate Sewing……………………………….3
Homemaking Electives……………………………3
Total…………………………………………………17 Total…………………………………………………16
Junior
Biblical Standards……………………………………2 Beginning Keyboarding II………………………3
Philosophy of Education…………………………3 Principles of Leadership…………………………1
Beginning Keyboarding I………………………..3 The Christian Wife………………………………….2
Speech………………………………………………….2 Nutrition and Cooking
Sewing Ladies’ Clothes…………………………….3 with Health Food…………………………………….3
Sewing Children’s Clothes………………………2 Practical Medical Training for the Home…..2
Bible……………………………………………….4
Electives………………………………………………….2
Total…………………………………………………15 Total…………………………………………………17
Senior
Teaching Music in the
Elementary School…………………………………..2
Sewing Drapes and
Household Items……………………………………..2
How to Rear Infants………………………………..3 Cooking for Guests………………………………….2
How to Rear Teenagers……………………………2 Home Management…………………………………2
Preparation for Marriage…………………………2 Women Used of God………………………………2
Canning and Freezing……………………………..2 Activities for the Home,
Home Decorating…………………………………….2 Church, and School…………………………………2
Electives……………………………………………….2 Bible………………………………………………………4
Electives…………………………………………………2
Total…………………………………………………15 Total…………………………………………………16
Missionary’s Wife Diploma
This diploma is a one-year, thirty-two credit program to train the wife of a
prospective missionary in the basics of how to have a happy Christian home while
thousands of miles away from friends and family “back home.” Those enrolling in
this program would have to be engaged or married before starting this program.
This program may be custom designed with the approval of the Academic Office.
Freshman
Fall Spring
Introduction to Missions………………………..2 Problems of the Mission Field………………2
Old Testament Survey…………………………….3 Understanding Your Husband……………….2
English Composition……………………………….3 Practical Medical Training………………………3
Personal Evangelism………………………………..3 Home Schooling for Missionaries…………..3
The Missionary Wife……………………………….2 Cooking Electives……………………………………4
Preparation for Leadership……………………..1 Christian Womanhood…………………………….1
Christian Womanhood…………………………….1
Personal Finance……………………………………..1
Total…………………………………………………16 Total…………………………………………………15
January 5, 2009 at 12:32 am
For those wondering about SMD, I would guess S.M. Davis:
http://www.solvefamilyproblems.com/
January 5, 2009 at 12:40 am
This alone proves that Hyles Anderson is run by heretics:
“Our Separatist Position
Absolutely no drinking, smoking, or dancing is allowed. No student is allowed…”
Jesus made and drank honest to goodness, alcohol-containing wine. Any church which teaches otherwise is promoting “another Jesus”, not the Jesus of the Bible, and any church which prohibits all use of alcohol is promoting doctrines of devils:
Psa 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty…….Psa 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; Psa 104:15 And wine [that] maketh glad the heart of man, [and] oil to make [his] face to shine, and bread [which] strengtheneth man’s heart.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;…. 1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving…
January 5, 2009 at 12:44 am
Look at this site to which Lydia links:
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/The_CHARITY_of_Holy_Kidnapping.htm
January 5, 2009 at 12:46 am
The “anti-kidnapping” tract is from a site which claims that witchcraft is being practiced in the churches:
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/Stop%20Holy%20Kidnapping.htm
January 5, 2009 at 1:16 am
The author of the tract is Dale Sabin, husband of the late Coleen Sabin, who ran the Lydia of Purple modest clothing site:
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/
Mrs. Sabin passed away recently, and I do extend my sympathies to the Sabin family.
However, when it comes to Mr. Sabin, there’s more to the story. Dale Sabin may be a good father to his daughters, but somebody ought to kidnap his dogs:
http://www.all-creatures.org/aro/nl-19990307-pup.html
January 5, 2009 at 1:58 am
There are some interesting hidden links at the Sabin site, scroll to the bottom while left clicking:
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/
January 5, 2009 at 2:11 am
Molley once said on her blog that “you can abuse a person’s views but never the person”
That way, when there are criticisms about Lydia I become uncomfortable. Not that what anyone of you have said isn’t true.
I have written to her many times about the things I don’t agree with her on her blog. But though she disagreed with me, I always found her gracious and nice in her “disagreement.”
She also used to mail me long letters, photographs and chat with me on gmail-chat. I have found her a very nice person to know.
Sometimes when you really love doing something you feel that work is noble (For instance I am hyper about journalism, in particular business journalism, stock markets, banking, etc). It is not godly work, however. I think the mistake Lydia makes is because she loves her work at home so much and finds it noble, she thinks it’s also godly. With that comes the rosy-eyed view of the Victorian era and her belief that it is a “biblical mandate” for women to stay at home.
Her views, however, I cannot accept. I also have not told her that I have become an atheist; I started correspondence with her during the mid-way stage.
I have felt uncomfortable about corresponding with many of my Christian friends after having become an atheist.
This post was just to say, Lydia is a nice person with not-so-nice views. I have enjoyed talking with her about tea (Indian tea), fabrics, interior décor and even writing.
There are many other Christians who are nice, but with horrible views. For instance my grandparents used to do ministry from home and were quite kind and generous. But I found their views horrible. Like for instance they supported the US invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, Israeli aggression towards Palestine and they feel “Muslims are terrorists.”
I am totally anti-US government, anti-Israel (only with regard to the Palestine issue lest I be called anti-Semetic) and feel that just as there are Muslim terrorists, there are also Hindu terrorists and Christian terrorists (I feel Govt-sponsored terrorism is called defence).
I hope this does not bring in a discussion on whether the US govt was right in invading Iraq. All I know is the US said it was invading Iraq to find WMDs (they found oil instead) and now George W Bush has admitted intelligence failure and said there are no WMDs in Iraq. I object to young American men being sent out to fight a dirty war with the object of making American and European oil companies richer.
But then I know many of the people on this blog are very much pro-US government, pro-US-Iraq invasion, pro-American-Army-military recruitment-drives.
For me coming from a “third-world country” I bitterly resent US interference in Indian affairs. But I also have had decent and nice conversations with my brother-in-law (an American National Guard officer) who is now deputed in Iraq.
Sorry if the post has become too long and too convoluted. But this was just to say, I have met too many Christians who are nice in their personal life but have horrible views.
January 5, 2009 at 2:19 am
I must also add a note that I do not approve of Lydia posting on “Katrina women” and then re-editing that post or saying that the people here on truewomanhood are “silly women gossiping.”
I believe that when people have any dissenting view they should debate about the view, not about the character of the debaters.
January 5, 2009 at 3:56 am
Cynthia, I was unable to find the hidden links, but I did discover that “Lydia of Purple” (Coleen L. Sabin) passed away last January. She had one bizarre website, but what a tragedy for her husband and all those daughters.
January 5, 2009 at 8:53 am
Disturbing links. Whether Lydia is nice or not, she sanctions a disturbing parenting model and her fellow adherents to this model are forgetting that Christ is the head of the household. The patrios elevate the husband and father to the level of Jesus and that bothers me. Are the Sabins Mennonites?
BTW Rachel Lydia is not involved with Hyles-Anderson (it is an independent fundamentalist baptist college).
January 5, 2009 at 11:31 am
regarding the link in post 454 from Cynthia Gee.
In just a brief skim over the longwinded letter, could anyone walk away from it without knowing that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”
As if repeating something over and over makes it true.
(Yes, I know that verse exists and in and of itself, it is true. But it is being misapplied here, terrible.)
The other thing is the repeating over and over that the father is the head of the daughter.
Wow. Talk about misguided ego and twisting scripture.
Not much to say, really.
Just wish I knew a way to make these people read the Bible for what it is and not what they want to make it into.
January 5, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“It’s no secret that Sodomy is growing today, because people have rejected God’s design for the home and reproduction of the human race. And you guessed it – - WOMEN – - are a root cause!” – Lydia of Purple
…Oh, my.
Somebody eloquently react for me.
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/Flavorite_Tastes.htm < Here are the secret links.
January 5, 2009 at 12:39 pm
This comment from last night is still stuck in moderation – it contains a link with more info about Dale Sabin:
The author of the tract is Dale Sabin, husband of the late Coleen Sabin, who ran the Lydia of Purple modest clothing site.
Mrs. Sabin passed away recently, and I do extend my sympathies to the Sabin family.
However, when it comes to Mr. Sabin, there’s more to the story. Dale Sabin may be a good father to his daughters, but somebody ought to kidnap his dogs:
http://www.all-creatures.org/aro/nl-19990307-pup.html
January 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“< Here are the secret links.”
That’s one, here’s another:
Here’s another one:
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/Jehovah-Jesus%20page%2020%20page%2021.htm
January 5, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Here’s another interesing link from the Flavorite page:
http://www.gemworld.com/US-MarriageLicense.htm
(Matt Trewhella is a preacher known for advocating the bombing of abortion clinics. his literature was distributed at the US Constitution Party’s 1995 conference, to which Trewhella was a Wisconsin delegate During his speech, Trewhella said, “This Christmas I want you to do the most loving thing and I want you to buy each of your children an SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition.” Trewhella has advocated forming church-based militias, because he thinks they are constitutional; he also signed a declaration saying that murdering abortion providers is “justifiable homicide.”)
January 5, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Of course, the fact that Sabin agrees with Trewhella about marrige licenses does not mean that he agrees with him about armed violence. But the fact that he agrees with him at all makes this next link especially interesting:
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/Homeschooling_Christian_Homesteading_Communities.htm
January 5, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Cynthia, thanks for the secret links. We can see why the Sabins wanted to keep them secret, huh? They list a virtual hall of shame of patrio extremism. They even have the “sin of Bathsheba.” What a treasure trove of nutty.
Gail, the Sabins aren’t Mennonites, just odd. They used to have a photo and a short bio explaining that people often ask them if they are Mennonite. Apparently Mr. Sabin decided independently that the females in his family should wear hair coverings, etc.
Mr. Sabin also has several articles about (adult) daughters not leaving their father’s home, especially to stay with “other spiritual authorities.” A huge no-no. I wonder if some good church folks nearby have tried reaching out to help his many grown daughters. Mr. Sabin needs them to stay home to maintain the farm (and puppy mill), especially now with their mother gone.
Those poor Sabin girls. They’re never going to get out of there. I felt sorry for them before; I feel sorrier now.
January 5, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Sabin’s denomination:
http://www.byt-yhwh.org/index.html
January 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Some thoughts on the nature of Jesus, written by Carlo Tognoni, the founder of BYT-YHWH:
http://www.search-the-scriptures.org/DidYahshuaPreexist.htm
January 5, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Still more:
http://www.byt-yhwh.org/yahshuaisnotyahweh.html
January 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm
How many grown daughters does he have?
Incredible, the indocrination that goes on in the name of God for the purpose of human control
January 5, 2009 at 3:04 pm
And the worst part about it, if any of these girls do manage to get out, they most likely will run in the opposite direction of God rather than to Him.
I guess we can pray for a better outcome than that.
January 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Interrupting regular programming….
I have a lot of prayer requests for young women that have fallen into my lap over the course of the past couple of weeks. A couple of them are no longer striving to be stupid girls (have left patriarchal homes). A couple of them are in homes where none of this kind of thing goes on. Collectively let me say that there are GYN issues for some of these young girls. There have been several surgeries. A young teen that I know of and have been asked to pray for is having a procedure this week, and the diagnostic reports have sounded quite intimidating. And none of these things are ever fun. Several families of a few girls are still waiting on pathology reports. Many of these things are not anything that you typically associate with being 14 or 18 or 22.
So I humbly ask that since God knows who these girls are and who their families are and what their conditions are that you could all pray for all of them. There are mixtures of pain and disappointment and shame and healing and help coming from unexpected places for some of these girls. There are lots of worried moms who are concerned for their girls. I just find myself praying against fear most of the time for them and for remarkable healing without complications. Each girl and each family has some story, and they all have struggles that make me feel so tiny and small and helpless as I hear about them. So I pray that the Lord would show Himself strong and faithful to all of these young women, their families and everyone involved with their care, both physically and emotionally. I pray that God will comfort the mothers of their girls and give them the peace that passes all understanding. In the families where there is pain and discord as these things are taking place, I pray for healing within their relationships. But I sure would love it if you all could hold all of these girls up to the Lord Who knows them so well that He has the hairs on their precious heads numbered. I pray that all concerned see and know that about the Lord in a real way through all of this and find Him faithful.
Thanks
January 5, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Mara, I just found the link that describes the family:
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/family_up_date.htm
A friend showed me this website at least three years ago and the details haven’t changed, so obviously the girls are older than the dates listed. The website has been something of an internet phenom due to its incredibly long URL and the marketing of the daughters. You really have to see it for yourself. To answer your question, it seems they have four grown unmarried daughters plus a younger daughter that appears to have Down Syndrome.
Cindy K–I’ll be praying for these girls. Bless you for reaching out to them. I can only imagine what the stress of living in patrio-land has done to these girls physically. I also imagine not all of their health care needs have been seriously addressed over the years.
January 5, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Oh dear heavens. You ladies are so much more gracious than I can be regarding this lydia of purple mess (and I have heard of them before in my circles, but never really looked at their “fashions” seriously, not my style AT ALL.)
Let me just say, I think I would rather my children play with the worst of heathens before being anywhere near this family. It makes me feel so perverse just looking at that spiritual goobldeygook they have in their “secret links.”
I feel very unclean after looking at that GARBAGE.
January 5, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Cindy, I will be praying for those girls too. As someone who has done my share of ministry with abused people, and also a doctor’s wife, I find myself jumping to some very disturbing assumptions. It’s a tragedy, but it’s a tragedy that follows on logically from the presuppositions that shape such an environment. At what point are we allowed to name this damage to young lives as evil? Please don’t misunderstand, not all the people caught up in an evil system are any more evil than other sinners, in and of themselves, but a corrupt system leads to corrupt decisions.
January 5, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“It makes me feel so perverse just looking at that spiritual goobldeygook they have in their “secret links.””
Me too.. but for me, the writings of the founder of Sabin’s denomination are far more disturbing than those of Sabin himself.
Carlo Tognoni (and, I assume, Dale Sabin) believe in neither the Trinity nor in the preexistance of Jesus Christ. As far as I can tell, there is little difference between Tognoni’s Christology and that of the Mormons.
January 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm
From Tognoni’s website:
“Such “Jesus” came to do away with The Law of The Creator and Father – so he is a
REBELLIOUS son,”
Wow.
January 5, 2009 at 11:14 pm
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/01/sweep-it-under-rug-church-informs.html
A related but slighly off-topic post…
This is SO sad.
January 5, 2009 at 11:24 pm
This is slightly off topic too…
About a woman’s 3 year old that was molested by a teen boy who baby sat for them. Buried by the church.
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=276
January 6, 2009 at 12:08 am
Really, someone ought to write to “Lady Lydia” privately and tell her about Sabin.
I really doubt that she knows about the hidden links on Sabin’s website, and I doubt that she’s aware that she has linked to a man who was convicted of operating a puppy mill and who has connections to a bonafide cult. Lydia may be (in our opinions at least) a bit of a snob and a hypocrite, but as far as I can tell, she is orthodox in her beliefs about salvation, which makes her our sister in Christ. We owe it to here to let her know about this guy.
January 6, 2009 at 1:55 am
I was mailing Cindy today morning and I thought I’d post the link here of an article I came across
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000338.html
This forum says:
“It has been suggested that many women are abandoning paid work for the home.
If this is an accurate appraisal, and not just wishful thinking on the part of some, then the Ladies Against Feminism (LAF) are surely this trend’s most radical faction.
Armed with a Bible, an Edwardian Apron Pattern and the booklet of Christian Modesty, the LAF are fighting for, or at least demurely crafting, a version of femaleness that probably only existed in pre-twentieth century romantic fiction.
LAF?s website, which was no doubt embroidered one day when columnist Mrs. Stanley Sherman?s husband was calling on parishioners and her bairns were playing impetuous, but Godly, games, is adorned with the kind of treacly images that suggests it could be a parody.
A modest perusal of How to Get Back Home and Responsible Manhood reveals, however, that these ?ladies? aren?t taking the piss.
Unsurprisingly, there are no pictures from olden times of over-worked females in factories, servants cleaning day and night for a pittance or destitute wives surrounded by hungry and grubby kids.
Like much of the retrogressive advice aimed at women, LAF is pure bourgeois fantasy and could be used as evidence that watching too many BBC costume dramas addles the brain.
It?s also unadulterated hogwash; imagine a site called Negroes Opposed to the Civil Rights Movement (NOCRM), with sections devoted to appropriate slave wear and tips on how to behave around your owner.
?NOCRM recommends silver chains and a permanently bowed head so he knows who?s boss?.
Most of those currently promoting domesticity as the height of female achievement, such as Dr Laura Schlessinger, author of The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands (what a title ? is she saying blokes are like helpless puppies?), and the New Yorker?s Caitlin Flanagan, are more modern than LAF; after all they hold down jobs outside the home so they can?t be trying to deny that right to others, can they?
Mind you, a chap in short sleeves, shorts and long socks would seem more hip than the LAF Mesdames.
The likes of Schlessinger and Flanagan are exploiting both the entrenched belief that certain roles and qualities are innately male or female and the insecurity that has arisen since this idea has been, partially, challenged.
Indeed, they?re taking advantage of a place deep inside us where a LAF member lives untroubled by three waves of feminism, or, for that matter, the end of the 19th century.
Lakshmi Chaudhry in Stepford Wife: You?ve Come the Wrong Way, Baby adeptly assessed Flanagan as someone, ?…who represents that part of us that wants to throw in the towel, to give up the good fight in the hope that surrender will bring a better, more perfect happiness than the contradictions and confusions of a partly-liberated life?.
It looks, then, as if the centrality of individual contentment (as opposed to fighting for the rights of a group), as well as anxiety about contemporary living, allows these commentators to peddle their reactionary cure, but, as Chaudhry properly argues, ?whatever we do there is no guarantee of happiness, there never was ? how much the hardy band of anti-feminists may insist to the contrary?.
Although LAF obviously don?t champion women?s rights, elements of Mrs. Chancey?s dissertation on feminism demonstrate they do think sertation on feminism demonstrate they do think females are morally superior and more dependable than men, till they start emulating them that is.
In this view, it?s a wife?s influence that frees a man from ?promiscuity? and living without accountability.
That women civilize was accepted by some first-wave feminists, and given the harshness of early Australia not unreasonably, but persisting with this notion asks too much of women and not enough of men.
Dr Schlessinger doesn?t mind; in an article in The Courier-Mail recently, wherein she damned modern women, she claimed men are ?simple?.
While possessing the emotional complexity of a children?s show host may be better than being amoral and ?irresponsible?, when Schlessinger says this, and puts the onus on women to make a relationship work, isn?t she saying men aren?t capable of much?
Imagine the ballyhoo from right-wing boys if a feminist suggested this.
With all respect to the good doctor, and the LAF, activities like changing nappies, washing dishes, nurturing, needlepoint and working outside the home are not inherently gendered and both men and women are capable of doing them.
We should keep striving until the home and the labour market reflect this reality.
Darlene’s website.
January 6, 2009 at 2:37 am
Not that I agree with everything that it says or the language used. But I like the points being made about women supposed to “subtly” guide men. That means women are essentially more capable than men.
January 6, 2009 at 2:41 am
Also such attitudes that women are responsible for making men more “feminine” or more masculine is quite insulting to the men themselves.
I am sure our men are capable of being men without our help and subtle “guidance.”
Someone once said on LAF, that we ought to make men proud of themselves by deferring to their opinion, even if we think otherwise.
What that could mean is men are not smart enough, so just pretend you agree with them to keep him happy.
January 6, 2009 at 2:41 am
Also such attitudes that women are responsible for making men more “feminine” or more masculine is quite insulting to the men themselves.
I am sure our men are capable of being men without our help and subtle “guidance.”
Someone once said on LAF, that we ought to make men proud of themselves by deferring to their opinion, even if we think otherwise.
What that could mean is men are not smart enough, so just pretend you agree with them to keep them happy.
January 6, 2009 at 3:18 am
Cindy K.
I’m not Christian, you know, but I started having gyn problems and procedures when I was 13. Now I’m 30-ish and the doctors are giving me a lot of hope for starting a family. So, if you, or anyone, needs someone to talk to, you have my e-mail.
January 6, 2009 at 8:48 am
I am finally getting back online after trying to catch up a little yesterday. We had 23 total in our home over the holidays and I don’t know who is more pooped, me or my dishwasher. (One day I ran 7 loads through the poor thing!) Anyway, some many great thoughts here.
I am so sad for Lady Lydia. She has no concept of one anothering or what the Gospel requires of us, only her manmade (or womanmade) rules and regulations. Very very sad.
And speaking of sad, here is a post I found left on my thatmom blog this morning. The guy’s URL is from kinism.com. What a great way to start the new year.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/racism-one-of-the-things-i-want-my-children-to-hate/
January 6, 2009 at 8:49 am
“Armed with a Bible, an Edwardian Apron Pattern and the booklet of Christian Modesty, the LAF are fighting for, or at least demurely crafting, a version of femaleness that probably only existed in pre-twentieth century romantic fiction.”
Great sentence.
January 6, 2009 at 8:52 am
Debbie, that webpage you posted a few comments above gave me the creeps. It read like a personal ad to find mates for those girls.
January 6, 2009 at 9:05 am
Just wanted to note that I have moved all comments out of moderation. Please forgive my tardiness in doing so. If you ever have something stuck in moderation for a day, drop me an email and I will get it out. We don’t censor here and I hate to have anyone waiting around for their comments to appear because I am tied up somewhere else.
January 6, 2009 at 10:08 am
My thoughts and experience with Hyles-Anderson…
We have a small church in our town that is affiliated with Hyles-Anderson. It was started by a preacher-boy grad from there as a church plant and I remember their initial door to door campaign to recruit members. The pastor was here until a few years ago when he took another church far away after his daughter became pregnant when she was single. (She is a lovely young woman who really struggled under the heavy hands of their system.) We even attended there for a year during our patriocentric years.
The women dressed very modestly and dresses were required all the time but they all worked outside the home, most in minimum wage jobs. We got the impression that homeschooling was frowned upon because it meant we weren’t showing support for their Christian school, which had children spending entire days in individual cubicles doing their Paces. (This Charlotte Mason gal cringes when she thinks of it.) The environment was very intellectually stifling and I could never figure out the system entirely.
We used to have frequent guest speakers from Hyles-Anderson, which was the only authorized college for the kids there. The pastor’s wife told us that Bob Jones and Pensacola were far too liberal. The preachers they brought in were fire and brimstone breathers, heavy on theatrics and big into threatening their young people on the evils of worldiness, which meant anything outside of their box. To promote these meetings and other church events, the deacons (who were like elders) would dress in weird clothing and do silly things. Once we saw them wear cowboy hats and chaps and ride stick horses down the aisle and around the pulpit to promote their “Rodeo Round-Up Days” which was once of their door to door promotions of the church. Thinking about it now really makes me laugh, as I think about how we ended up going to a hyper-regulated worship church after that.
After we were gone, the youth pastor at that church was found guilty of sexually molesting several of the young women and he and his family left the church. I don’t remember any criminal charges, though there might have been. I do know that I did an online search after that and discovered that this was a common problem with young preacher boys who hailed from Hyles-Anderson. Their teachings about gender and men and women relationships made Doug Phillips almost look normal. Almost.
I also found a public statement by their denomination’s group of pastors in Indiana, calling for the resignation and church discipline of Jack Hyles, Sr. for immorality. As I remember it (I have the paperwork printed out in my files somewhere) Hyles had a secret doorway between his office and his secretary’s office, where they carried on together for years. Her husband finally sued Hyles for alienation of affection and then for divorce. It was a huge scandal and overlooked by many “godly” men from the college. I don’t think Hyles ever was given any discipline nor did he have to step down. BTW, his church where he pastored boasted the largest bus ministry in the world, even taking their buses from northern Indiana to the north west suburbs of Chicago to bring in kids, some 3 hours’ drive away. Crazy.
One of my sons was given a copy of the promotional video for Hyles-Anderson College that still makes me laugh. One of the scenes showed a room full of 30 or so young women sitting at sewing machines. Those girls were being trained to be “helpmeets” for preacher boys. At one point, the tape showed Hyles himself inviting youth to become students, assuring their parents that to the young ladies he always says “I am your daddy” spoken in a very creepy voice. I’ll bet he offered to hold more than a few upon his “knee.”
One of my biggest frustrations with this group is that they proclaimed the great desire for evangelism, which to them meant getting people saved, ie getting them to pray a prayer. There was no discipleship at all and getting saved meant following their legalism to the “T.” I was volunteering at a crisis pregnancy center at the time and one night brought along three of my clients with me to an evangelistic meeting. No one, not a single person, offered a kind word or a hand of friendship to these girls, even after all three of them went forward at the end of the service and were baptized. These were totally unchurched girls; one I even had to show how to use the hymnbook because she had never been in a church service in her life. I was appalled at the way these people practiced “separatism” toward these girls who so desperately needed to be shown the love of Jesus.
January 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Great descriptions, thatmom.
January 6, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Molleth,
I am all too familiar with the victim being told that they should stay involved with the one who molested/violated them. Blech.
The last thing a victim of a sexual assault or molestation wants to do is be put into a weekly situation of being friendly with the one who assaulted them.
I once asked some church leaders if they would give the same advice to me had it been that a man had snuck into my home at night and did the same things that had been done in the situation we were discussing. They looked at me as if I was speaking a different language. Would they tell me to befriend the man who assaulted me in my sleep, too? To them it wasn’t the same. It seems that some people think that when a fellow church member assaults another church member it is just a matter of forgiving and being good buddies again.
Also, being told that it is “unchristian” or “gossip” to talk about it or even warn others who may have been victimized or be in danger of being victimized. I have no idea why so many church leaders want to cover these things up. I have to wonder what it is that causes them to side with the perp and causes them to want to protect the perp at all costs while excoriating the victim and putting them through hell.
I think that the term “sweeping it under the rug” is very good. I once said that the rug is getting quite bumpy….
January 6, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Cindy,
That SGM link on the story about the woman whose daughter was sexually assaulted is sickening. Truly.
I am so thankful that there are so many Christian detectives in this line of work- both men AND women. I am thankful that they cut through all the bull of the church leaders who tell the victims that the Bible forbids them from going to court in order to cover over sexual abuse.
This is a serious problem in our churches. And I think we would all be very surprised to know just how rampant it really is. The victims are so wanting to obey their church authorities but if they do not toe the line they will soon find themselves to be the ones who are in the wrong if they dare to seek outside medical or psychological help or help from the police.
January 7, 2009 at 12:06 am
Cindy,
Those lines on sexual abuse really spoke to me. There are two kinds of abuse – one the direct physical abuse by the abuser – second the victim is asked to recount everything that happened and then is judged upon it. Once the victim has spoken out loud, mostly the authoirites (church) will make the victim feel bad, unclean and dirty. The church will also try to hush up the matter, indirectly aiding the abuser.
Also when it is the pastor or someone in high authority you can be sure they will find some “biblical justification” for their abuse. If Christian churches can talk about “forgiveness” for sexual crimes, instead of calling the police, then they are just as bad as the FLDS.
In my college, which was a Christian minority institution, there was a professor sexually molesting girls. For more than three years all the lady lecturers in my college, including his own head of the department, were giving written complaints about him that they were not comfortable with his behaviour. Finally a group of us girls, spoke to the media. There were a couple of reports published. The college immediately conducted an enquiry. Not on the professor, but on the students to find out who had spoken to the media. They didn’t want to dismiss the professor as they felt it would mean they also thought he was guilty of some wrongdoing. Also they had their reputation as a Christian college. For one month nothing happened. Then after another media report came out only did the professor himself resign. Still the college when it relieved him, gave him a certificate of experience.
So, as far as I know when something bad happens. The authorities (church/school/college) mode of operations: Protect or disassociate yourself from the abuser, turn the works on the victim to ensure the victim’s silence and ensure absolute silence and secrecy.
January 7, 2009 at 12:20 am
Cindy,
In a patriarchal set-up, it is doubly hard on the victim, because there is also this talk of family honour, modesty and showing “forgiveness to the abuser.”
This is because, the victim’s parents feel nobody will marry their daughter if this comes out. Also they feel their daughter’s modesty and honour will be violated if she is made to testify in court about what happened. They also feel their daughter’s good name or more correctly – the family’s good name will be disgraced with such revelations.
People will also be hesistant to give a police complaint, because the victim is sometimes cross-examined harshly and with little sensitivity by the police and the courts.
Most abusers are people in some kind of power or authority over the child/victim (pastor/church elder/professor/teacher/gym instructor) so if parents bring up the child in a pro-patriarchy, anti-feminism (where the rights of women are non-existent) environment, you can be sure the child or the girl teenager will never be able to work up the physical or mental courage to report the abuse.
And again with all this talk of morality, modesty, etc, even the adults think it reflects badly on the child if the child is abused. They can never realise the amount of agony a child goes through.
Plus, when the victim is told to be silent and to forgive the abuser, the victim will also think its her fault.
I’m sorry for the extensive use of the feminine gender. I also realise there a lot of little boys out there who are being abused. It was just that when I writing that I was writing about me and my friends and it comes out as her.
Again, in the case of boys, people dismiss it as “boys will be boys.” And if any boy victim becomes too traumatised or sensitive, they will only tell to grow up and get over it, instead of dealing with the abuse or abuser.
Sometimes, I feel so angry, when I think of what goes on in the name of God. For me if God exists, I’m 100 % sure he will be on the side of the victim not the abuser. But manyatime people behave otherwise.
Sorry if it sounds like a tirade, but I guess I get a little too emotional over this issue.
January 7, 2009 at 12:39 am
And then again when you talk about patriocentricity, in the Indian context it translates to culture.
I remember during the high-profil case of two girls being molested by a mob on New Year’s Eve in Mumbai, there were people who felt that if the girls were at home instead of partying and had not been wearing jeans this wouldn’t have happened to them.
This is nonsense. So when someone is abused, the victim is responsible for it because the victim wasn’t modest-enough, traditional-enough?
This kind of thinking is dangerous. So if women are responsible for attracting the wrong kind of attention, then what about cases of rape and sexual violence in Saudi Arabia and Middle-Eastern countries or FLDS communities? Those women are covered from head to toe, yet men prey upon them. So modesty is really not the issue.
And I have rarely, very rarely seen scantily-clad women in India at the workplace, at home or at social networking places. And Im sure the same is true in the US.
When I hear the twisted logic behind this patriarchy stuff, it makes me want to puke.
January 7, 2009 at 12:45 am
I also feel that by wanting women to remain “perpetual children” in the patriarchal cult, even grown women might feel uncomfortable with reporting abuse.
There is also another angle. Women can be raped and sexually abused by their husbands, but what are the church’s views on this?
Don’t they teach women, sex is a chore and women have to give in to their husband’s demands? With one swoop they make sex sound unenjoyable and the rights of the women in the relationship.
Sorry if I’m hogging up too much space, but Karen’s observations has my head whirling with all kinds of thoughts.
Its like I’m trying to catch straws in the wind.
January 7, 2009 at 12:56 am
“There is also another angle. Women can be raped and sexually abused by their husbands, but what are the church’s views on this?”
That women should wear dresses-only, so as to provide easier access…..
January 7, 2009 at 2:30 am
That’s one problem (of many) within patriarchy. Women are repeatedly told to be modest (modesty is good, but not how patrios teach it) so it is assumed that whenever something bad happens, it is her fault. It reduces the male to an animal incapable of controlling his own instincts. It makes him the “victim” of her “advance”. DISGUSTING.
The church (Christianity) condemns abuse of any kind and rape in any situation. Unfortunately, there will always be those who twist, distort, and mutilate God’s word to fit their liking (such as the pastors in that account and patriocentrists).
Their idealism cannot be applied to reality because it exposes women to vulnerabilities of rape, abuse, and sexual mistreatment. Patriocentricity/patriarchy seems to be based on the delusion that all men are angels and will be fantastic husbands. There are bad dads, there are bad moms, our world is not perfect.
January 7, 2009 at 6:18 am
There is also the problem of Ministers’ wives themselves being abused and not being able to report the abuse.
In Mumbai, there was a case of a police officer not being able to file a case of domestic violence against her husband (though she was physically injured and had medical records) because her husband was the assistant police commissioner with the Mumbai city police force.
Even after media reports, the police did not pursue the case.
If this can happen to a police officer (with no doubt enough physical and legal training), how much more vulnerable will women who have been from birth told to “obey their husbands and be Proverbs 13 women” be?
When one pastor’s wife wanted to file for divorce (after having caught her husband committing adultery) even her father, who was also a pastor,told her not to do it. Their reasoning? “It will reflect badly on the church.”
Don’t you think people will have greater respect for the church if they focus on justice rather than forgiveness when it comes to abuse of any kind.
January 7, 2009 at 6:42 am
For me I keep reading and re-reading the archives of truewomanhood and there are so many great comments here. I wish sex education of this kind happened in our churches.
I remember in the earlier topics of “Can sex be talked about during bridal showers” there was a wealth of information on how Christian couples can deal with issues of sex.
Sometimes, I wish someone published a book of all the Truewomanhood archives or atleast made a PDF file that we could all download. I’m new here, so is there some such PDF file already available?
I also wonder…..These patriarchal sites give so much advise to women on how to be “modest, clean house, homeschool, please husbands, start sewing ministries, make dollies, be frugal, recycle trash to treasure, polish furniture, wipe baby bottoms, monitor home-based businesses….” I mean even ridiculous things like aprons and its usage are discussed. But not one word on sex or sexual abuse…
When they can talk about violence, abortion and divorce, why not sexual abuse?
When the FLDS issue came up, I remember one really hyper-patriarch was talking about how she really liked the clothes and hairstyle of the FLDS. (Ok! So you have a wierd taste in clothes).
Next, came a line about how the state should not have removed the children from their parents’ care (Not so ok. Considering that there were cases of minor brides and child abuse)
Next comes the shocker! “Christian women must learn from these women on how to keep house, dress properly and please their husbands” (Excuse me!!!!!!!!!!)
Shows how warped people’s thinking becomes. Maybe too many BBC costume dramas and too many episodes of the sitcom Big Love does addle the brain.
January 7, 2009 at 8:55 am
Whoever wants an inside look into the FLDS read ESCAPE by Carolyn Jessop (sp).
Also a book called, Under the Banner of Heaven. Can’t remember the name of the author.
Wish the Patrio wives would read ESCAPE.
There was nothing Carolyn could do to please her husband (high priest of the home)and satisfy her religion. Nothing
It shows the extremes of patriarchy for what it is.
Hell on earth.
It is not a happily ever after fantasy.
It is a woman’s worst nightmare.
January 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm
So sad, to hear these stories…….my heart weeps.
January 7, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer. An EXCELLENT book.
January 7, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I am a frequent poster at SGM survivors and I am glad people are becoming aware of the abusive nature of the SGM org.
Please don’t let them get away with sweeping this under the carpet.
So far the silence on the part of their leadership is deafining. Someone needs to hold their collective feet to the fire.
January 8, 2009 at 12:24 am
Hey all, this is off-topic and old news to boot, but get a load of what I just found:
http://southernthundertn.blogspot.com/2008/12/total-war-vs-noble-war.html?showComment=1229153880000#c726622861481144494
You can tell a lot about a guy by his friends…..
January 8, 2009 at 1:47 am
Speaking of telling a lot about a guy by his friends, get a load of this guy’s links:
http://floridacrackercsa.blogspot.com/
… and, the owner of this blog is a friend of the guys who post on Southern Thunder blog.
January 8, 2009 at 1:51 am
….the owners of BOTH of these blogs, as well as most of their commenters, are very young men, and they adulate Chancey and link to Visionforum and Doug’s blog
What we are witnessing are the firstfruits of Doug’s homeschooling vision.
January 8, 2009 at 3:28 am
Hi Karen,
Lydia Sherman wrote to me about that article with the line “Mrs Stanely Sherman and her bairns ….”
I am sorry if I have hurt her feelings. Karen could you just delete the reference to Mrs Stanley Sherman in the article.
Now that I re-read it, I feel it might not be in such good taste and could be the equivalent of name calling, though I was not the author of the article.
January 8, 2009 at 8:51 am
A message I hope Lydia Stacy McDonald, Jenny Chancey and their friends read: You ladies really need to spend some time with former FLDS folks: the FLDS live the reality LAF and other misguided groups desperately want to create. And the reality is sordid, utterly depraved and disgusting. For that matter, look at Afghanistan under the Taliban. Same kind of society. And go ahead and “out” me to my session: they need a good laugh.
Gail
January 8, 2009 at 4:36 pm
And, get a load of the comments on this blog:
http://drpaleophd.blogspot.com/2008/12/matt-chancey-is-ahead.html
This kid writes,”I trust my savior Jesus Christ above all else, and strive to follow Him unceasingly…..and did I mention that I’m also a states’ rights Confederate flag-waving Rebel?”
This is how Visionforum is poisoning young minds. It oughta be illegal.
January 8, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Now THAT I didn’t know.
Neo-Confederates… flag-waving Rebels — and in the “Land of Lincoln”, for crying out loud.
The normal churches in Peoria need to be doing all they can to stamp out this poison, or they are going to have their hands full of heresy and maybe violence in a few years.
January 9, 2009 at 2:23 am
WOW.
January 9, 2009 at 3:01 am
… and talk about a coincidence!
Today we’ve been talking about Chancey and VisionForum’s influence on youth — now get a load of Matt Chancey’s latest article, hot off the e-presses tonight:
http://www.redcounty.com/national/2009/01/winning-the-youth-vote-through/
January 9, 2009 at 9:07 am
Here is an interesting article on Papa Pilgrim and his imprisoned family.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=39915622047&h=8Zxii&u=3pbbu
January 9, 2009 at 9:09 am
oops, here is the real link:
http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200812/robert-allen-hale-papa-pilgrim-1.html
January 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“Politics from the Center-Right”
Um… If Matt Chancey is “center-right,” I’m the queen of England.
January 9, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Um… If Matt Chancey is “center-right,” I’m the queen of England.”
Yup… and it’s strictly a PR piece, I think. The things he says in the article sound benign — Chancey writes, “There are churches in Jefferson County, Alabama, with a combined net worth equal to the GDP of some small countries. Yet, they’ll spend more every year on pine straw for their landscaping than on the local crisis pregnancy center” — but how do you reconcile that apparent benignity with the fact that most kids homeschooled in the VisionForum paradigm emerge into young adulthood bragging that they are “states’ rights Confederate flag-waving Rebels”, on blogs sporting names like “FloridaCrackerCSA”(CSA = Confederate States of America), or “Southron Thunder”, or “Books, Bones, Bricks, and Bullets” ?
I say, we are better off with the government administering charities, and churches donating and helping out.
It’s kind of like that old Army saying, “I’d rather have a sister in a *****house that a brother in the Navy” — it’s bad enough having your unwed daughter turn up pregnant in the first place, without having her get “converted” to VisionForum’s brand of Confederate Christianity at the local crisis pregnancy center.
January 10, 2009 at 12:28 am
Charming.
January 10, 2009 at 6:16 pm
If anyone ever wondered why an Atheist comes around to listen in from time to time, it’s because these people, and their Confederate, Patriocentric form of Christianity, outright scare me.
January 10, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Rachel, I want to say that what makes you want to puke makes me feel the same way.
Some time ago I was telling the ladies here about how one of my college teachers (a former pastor) believed that fathers are the heads of their daughters … and how frustrating the conversation was. Ugh. Nice man, but a pretty “ugh” conversation. Well, this same man said in class once that Muslims are not what they are reputed to be, such as in their views on women. He said that the treatment of women (covering them up with all that cloth) is actually respectful to and protects them.
?!?!?!
I’d say rather that the mindset behind all that covering up is one that reinforces objectification of women. As has been pointed out, if you’re going to lust, you’re going to lust.
January 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I’m going back to school next week!
My grades from the first semester were WAAAAY higher (mostly As, a few Bs) than they might have been, considering the ridiculous number of classes I had and the load of work, not to mention intense depression and trauma of several kinds that I have been dealing with as well. I don’t know how I did it … wait. I DO. Say rather … it wasn’t me.
There is a lot more making this still difficult (including the church which I am hoping to wean myself from slowly) which would be too complicated to talk about here.
Anyway, if any of you would pray that God would still be with me, I would greatly appreciate it.
January 10, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Go, Beatrice, go!!!!!!
You are doing awesome, girl.
(((hugs)))
January 10, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Yahoo, Beatrice! Freshman year is tough for everyone–even without some of the unique challenges you face. But it usually does get easier. Hang in there, Sweetie.
January 10, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Beatrice,
I am a student as well. My grades were mixed last semester (two B’s and three A’s.) This semester, I’m taking challenging classes so I will be online much less frequently.
I’m here to encourage you if you want a student-friend (for what it’s worth
)
January 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I start Grad school on Thursday this week and I’m nervous about the work load while working full time, being a mommy, wife, etc. But my school is paying for most of my classes, so I’m crazy not to do this. It will open up doors for me later to maybe get out of the classroom full time.
January 11, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Why don’t we purpose to support one another with our academic adventures!
January 11, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Thank you, all of you. Ah, I feel very loved.
(I hope it goes well, Lindsey. Is that your name? Sorry … my memory.
)
Hi, Debra! I don’t remember you, there are so many of us.
Have you, like me, struggled with patriarchy in the Christian world? I have had it nothing as bad as some people do, but I still struggle(d) and so this site has been a big blessing. It took me a good while to accept that being a student out of the home was God’s path for me – not because I was a stay-at-daughter, but because I was lazy and afraid. Then, I encountered the stay-at-home daughter philosophy (which I had been subtly prepared for by different things) and WHAM I had to make some decisions fast.
Anyway, it’s great to meet another student. And, I TOTALLY understand if you didn’t want to do this (we can just talk here), but if you wanted to talk to just me, get my email from Karen or Joy. But I look forward to reading your comments, and thank you!
January 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Good for you, NormalMiddle. May God bless you in your endeavor.
January 11, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Oh, and funny/sad story I have to tell. It happened some months ago.
I was at a church dinner and sitting near some of the little children. At some point in the conversation, I mentioned that I was going to school (and at church they know I go, but I know for sure one lady thinks college is not good for girls). And this teeny tiny little boy looked at me wide-eyed and said “Don’t do that.”
I asked why, and the children proceeded to tell me that school was bad and that they taught bad things there.
They are homeschooled, and their mother has educated them about the wrongness of public schools already.
It was kind of funny, and kind of sad too …
January 11, 2009 at 6:54 pm
All right, I will be a bit scarce now. Bye everyone!
January 11, 2009 at 7:12 pm
That was such a sad story; keeping our children ignorant isn’t going to protect them from anything. Yes, I have had nasty brushes with the patriarchy and I believe it is one of the most destructive forcces within the church today.
I won’t be able to participate online as much as when I’m on break, but I really like the mix of personalities here and find the discussions interesting so I will check in on a regular basis.
January 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm
On a happier note, my pastor and his family spent Christmas with a patriocentric family last year when he was preaching at a church plant they were involved in. They have eight children with the youngest being around 5 years old. They were all sitting in the living room one night and my pastor was talking to this little one. He asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up. The little one replied “a wife and mommy.” Pastor replied “that is a wonderful goal… but you can also go to college and get an education first”… or something like that anyway. I am quite proud of that little jab
January 11, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Cally,
Long time no see, I thought you got thrown out of an airlock or something
January 12, 2009 at 9:44 am
“That was such a sad story; keeping our children ignorant isn’t going to protect them from anything.”
No, it isn’t.
One of the attributes of God is that He is the Spirit of Truth (Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father), and every earthly fact or truth proceeds from God as well, because He is the Creator; religions which keep people ignorant prevent them from knowing the truths of God’s creation.
As for those sects of Christianity which deliberately revise (ie, teach LIES) about Science and History in order to push their political agenda, what can you say about them?
January 12, 2009 at 11:03 am
Debra, ask me after they reveal the final cylon in a couple of weeks. Then we’ll see
January 12, 2009 at 11:04 am
Oh wait, I just got your joke ROFLOL!! That was really good! See what happens when you find out your husband is a Cylon!
January 12, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Something to look at.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?em
Has this group ever discussed the Harris brothers and The Rebelution? They have a quote in that article on page 3.
January 12, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Evening ladies,
I was reading this article about Mark Driscoll…
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/09/13/righteous/index2.html
“Everything was great when my conversion happened. I was making money, I was about to take a trip to Mexico, I was totally in control of my life,” she tells me. “My life is much harder, not easier, now that I’m a Christian,” she says, clenching her teeth against Asher’s droning whine. “We had originally planned not to have kids, but now we have to do our best to repopulate our city with Christians.”
Doesn’t sound like his doctrine leads to a “light yoke” does it?
We have some scary, scary Christians. It is a good job I heard “Don’t stop Christians from letting you love Christ” (Awful paraphrasing, I know) or else I’d still be agnostic…
January 12, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Ugh, I can’t take Mark Driscoll. I have never encountered a more rude, ungracious man in ministry!
January 12, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I just read the article about Mark Driscoll, and if what it says about him is true, I have to wonder whether Mark is worshipping a masculine God or masculinity itself.
I would suspect the latter — Jesus says, Mat 11:29 “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls” and “Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Jesus doesn’t sound like the sort of guy who would agree with Driscoll’s “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter” parishioner, who brags that he handles stubborn insubordinates by breaking their noses.
The Bible calls all of us, both men and women, to subject the more unruly aspects of our sexuality to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Thus men become more gentle, less prone to pride and “throwing their weight around” as they become more like Christ, and women become more focused upon developing the inner beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, and so spend less time competing with other women to be the prettiest, smartest, sexiest, etc.
What Mark Driscoll is preaching is the same old phallic worldly view of masculinity, as typlified by James Bond, Hercules, Thor, etc, minus the promiscuity that has always accompanied the male archetype.
You might as well try and clean up Jezebel or Astarte or Mae West, take away their penchant for extramarital sex, and declare them to be Christian role models too…..
…and come to think of it, in spite of everything else she did, the Bible never said that Jezebel was sexually unfaithful to Ahab.
January 12, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I have read this blog for a long time. I’m a sr in college who took a year off and randomly came across vision forum and patrio blogs. I thought hmm maybe I need a break because as a girl I shouldn’t be in school…2 seconds later I came back to reality.
But I just saw how fireproof won an award at the vision forum film. That’s a more mainstream film. My church sponsored a couples’ night for all the married couples to go see it when it was showing at the local theater. It doesn’t seem very smart, business wise for Kirk Cameron to associate with Vision Forum. I’ve never seen it but at this point it’s likely I wont because I don’t want to support anything related to vision forum.
January 12, 2009 at 10:46 pm
It’s not like Vision Forum is making money off “Fireproof”, I don’t see where boycotting it is doing any good.
January 12, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Renee, very glad you are here, and that your lean toward patrio world lasted only 2 seconds!
I think that the patrios at Vision Forum are trying to associate themselves with anything mainstream (successful enough to promote their cause) that won’t cause them to totally disown their beliefs, in order to gain recognition and positive opinions from those who don’t know what they are all about. Thus the promotion of Voddie Baucham, Matt Chancey’s “Manly Man” entry, and inviting Fireproof, Expelled and Crown Financial’s films to the film festival. They were positively gleeful at the publicity they got from Crown’s interview of Doug Phillips. It’s all about the PR.
Note that none of these films seem to have signed over release to VF on behemoth dot com. They came to the SAICFF, they participated, and I was praying they would see the strange patrio world for what it is and go away wiser for it.
I haven’t seen Fireproof yet (we just don’t go to the movies that often…), but I plan to. I have heard great things about the message, and I think I do respect Kirk Cameron’s walk with the Lord. He is too charismatic for Vision Forum, though, and I imagine the soundtrack and some parts of the movie (no children in the family) weren’t exactly their cup of tea, either.
January 12, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Unbefrackingleavable.
Phallic, indeed.
But methinks these Patriocentric types may be, ahem, compensating for, ahem, the shortcomings of the, ahem, appendage for which, their much lauded Y chromosome codes and little eles.
January 12, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Personally, I’d prefer Eddie Izzard over their manly man knuckle dragging-ness.
January 12, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I’m not calling for a boycott. I just choose not to see/read anything associated with the organization. That’s just me
My main point of posting was to say that, I’m surprised someone as mainstream as Kirk Cameron was even associating himself with Vision Forum. I’m not trying to run down their organization, just giving my 2 cents..back to lurking!
January 13, 2009 at 1:48 am
Thank you for sharing those points, Renee. The only things I’d read about Fireproof were in the secular press, so I had no idea Vision Forum was affiliated with it in any way (even by hosting it). It saddens me that (a) “mainstream” Christian films are getting caught up in the VF ideology, and (b) that non-Christians in the U.S. might learn more about VF, see the connection between VF and evangelical movies and media, and stay away from Christianity because they confuse patriocentricity with Bible-based beliefs.
Cythnia Gee, I agree completely that the “Christian” patriocentric world seems, to me (not a Biblical scholar but a social scientist) very parallel to the many polytheistic religions throughout history that have exalted the male sex and the faculties assigned the male gender by given societies. Gods/goddesses of fertility (the quiver Full “mandate” as opposed to the general Christian welcoming of kids or NO kids as blessings) are nothing new, either. Neither are they Christian.
January 13, 2009 at 2:13 am
“…the “Christian” patriocentric world seems, to me (not a Biblical scholar but a social scientist) very parallel to the many polytheistic religions throughout history that have exalted the male sex and the faculties assigned the male gender by given societies.”
Well, the physical relationship between a man and his wife does mirror the spiritual relationship between God and Israel, between Jesus Christ ansd His Church. Even the pagans “got it” to some extent, and this is a very important and very beautiful mystery common to both Judaism and Christianity, one not to be denied or glossed over — see Ephesians 5,25-33, especially verse 32.
But, one can’t help but look at Patrios in particular and at mankind in general and wonder, “Why are they so obsessed with sex?”
So………why ARE the patrios and so many other folks so obsessed with earthly sex and related issues?
The answer, I believe, is, for the same reason that the whole world is obsessed with sex — because they are carnally-minded.
Awhile back someone on this list stated, “The whole singleness is sin, militant fecundity, daughters in love with their fathers until marriage happens, betrothals and such—-it all has a root in their preoccupation with sex (or lack of it).”
Well, yes. That’s because almost everything that has happened since the Fall has procreation as its motivating force.
All creatures, including man, have certain instincts which are put in place to insure the survival of the species.
These insincts are alive and well in modern man — the sex drive itself (and its cultural expressions as seen in the varied courting and marriage customs of mankind) is an obvious example, but our drive to acquire and protect resources and territory, which is the basis for every economic system on earth and which accounts for the majority of mankind’s wars, stems from a man’s basic urge to protect his progeny and ensure that they survive and are not supplanted by ANOTHER man’s progeny (and here we also see the basis of kinism.)
Early man, once he had forgotten God and started to worship idols, fashioned gods for himself that reflected the urges behind his ideals. Since men had forgotten God, their lives had become “nasty, brutish and short”, and procreation was the best thing that happened to them. Likewise, mother-love was the closest thing in pagan man’s experience to the unselfish, agape God-love that he so keenly missed but didn’t realize that he missed, and so he deified these things.
That’s how the fertility cults sprang up — man tends to deify the best things in his experience, and in the absence of God, procreation and mother-love and family were natural substitutes.
Since families (and by extension, villages, towns and nations) have to be fed, man created gods of the hunt, and later invented gods of agriculture and commerce — enter Mammon! Since families and their means of production need protection from those who would seek by force to better their families’ lot in life, Heroism, and fighting to defend and better one’s own and one’s people’s interests were deified as well, in the role of the Warrior/Protector.
So it went for all of the world’s cultures except for the Jews, who retained some contact with God, although even their perception of Him remained flawed by Original Sin.
Then along came Jesus.
Jesus approved of marriage, He blessed children, and He recognised the need for families in this earthly life, but He also taught that there was something MORE, something GREATER than mere continuance of earthly life, and He turned the old paradigm of procreation and acquisition on its ear, saying things like:
Mat 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Luk 10:41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: Luk 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
January 13, 2009 at 2:17 am
Renee, I wish they weren’t associating with Vision Forum, either. I hate the idea that VF could gain a shred of credibility from Christian media and teachers who are orthodox and reputable. It bugs me that authors like John MacArthur and John Piper have books listed for download on their site, too. (I know some parts of their teachings on biblical womanhood are questionable, but I have grown a lot closer to the Lord through their teachings about Christ.) I guess my hope is that God would use this, and people who are in the patrio “flock” might accidentally be exposed to something that would enlighten them as to the abundant grace of God.
January 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I don’t think the problem is that the church has been too feminized but that it has grown “soft” in other ways. I think that groups like Vision Forum and SGM are reactionary to that problem (among other things).
There are many things I personally like about Mark Driscoll. IMO he’s one of the most interesting pastor-speakers today. I love that someone like Mark can go into a place like Seatle and engage folks who aren’t believers, who didn’t grow up in the Christian subculture. And that it doesn’t matter at Mars Hill if you like rock music and have tats. It shouldn’t matter.
I’m not a Calvinist, and I don’t agree with Mark’s views on the limitations of women serving in the church. And yes, he has put his foot in his mouth more than a few times (and there has been more than once that he’s repented for those type of situations) And it troubles me to see Mark get entwined with people like CJ Maheney (SGM).
I know there are institutional issues within Mars Hill that have surfaced and will continue to surface if Mark does not exhibit a spirit of humility in leadership and does not make himself accountable to others in that role. I pray for Mark, because I think that the Lord has greatly used him and wants to continue to do so.
I read “Death by Blood” recently and one of the main things that really got to me was the emphasis, which I really think has been lacking in the Evangelical world, on repentance. I think by and large we no longer understand the concept. Unfortunately, it’s an area where leaders often have blind spots (which brings me back to SGM and the horrible things that have happened there).
January 13, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Mark Driscoll just puts a hip cover on the same old patriarchy drivel. (My opinion, of course).
As for college, me too. I am taking 15 hours this semester, plugging along… I do my classes in the mornings, and mother my five kids in the afternoon, evening and night time.
Yay, Lindsey, on grad school. My mom was the school nurse, and she did grad school via a distance program (Loma Linda, I believe) and got her Masters when I was in high school, and promptly got a job as the administrator of all the school nurses. The hours were the same, but the job paid way more and she was much more refreshed with the challenge of a position that demanded more use of her brain cells and her own personal giftings.
She studied for her classes while we watched Star Trek and the Cosby Show, etc, with my dad. I have no bad memories of it at all.
January 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm
okay, I guess I’ve tried not to find demons under rocks, but (and I’m asking sincerely) is Mark Driscoll really this way? (as in: the description of him and the church’s beliefs in the article)
I only knew about the “radical” behavior and the fact that he is pastor of a mega-church, so forgive my ignorance. Can someone direct me to more information on him. I had just figured he was more like Rob Bell than these patrio types, but I guess I was wrong?
January 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I’m sorry to comment again about it, but the way Mark Driscoll talks about Jesus in that article (mentioned above), I’m not sure he even knows who Jesus is. I mean, he basically calls Jesus a militant radical, which is the opposite of who he was. “(H)e describes an uncompromising disciplinarian who demands utter obedience from his followers in exchange for rescue from an eternity in hell.”
That’s not the way I know Jesus, and that’s exactly what turns off a lot of atheists and agnostics about Christians in the first place.
January 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Abby, Marc Driscoll is the one who suggested, when prominent evangelical leader Ted Haggard was caught in a homosexual affair, that pastors like Ted wouldn’t be tempted if their wives didn’t “let themselves go.” Mrs. Haggard, by the way, is quite a looker.
That tells me all I need to know about Driscoll.
January 13, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Blame the woman, always blame the woman.
Guess what? If Haggard is gay, nothing his wife could do would ease his temptations any more than Marc Driscoll (unless he’s in the closet,) would be tempted by the sight of a hunky man.
I don’t give a rat’s backside how hip someone is, he’s chewed up and is in the process of spewing out the same basic Patriarchal chyme that has plagued our culture since Biblical times, and, just to give the patriarchs a clue, just because people in Biblical times practiced something doesn’t make it Biblical.
And, Molly, I didn’t know you were a student, I’m so happy to have found this group of women. I’ve been to all my new classes, can’t wait for Physics lab, and I’m so excited. But I also have my seat belt fastened because this is going to be a wild ride.
January 13, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Driscoll did appologize – sort of – for the comment regarding “wives who let themselves go.” This is a quote from a Christianity Today article on Driscoll from 2006:
—
—-
There’s a review of Death by Love today on Christianity Today’s web site.
January 13, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Driscoll is like a lot of female subordinationists – he shoots off his mouth and then when held accountable, backpedals. “Oh, I didn’t really mean it that way.” Yah. Right. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, and with these guys, it’s clear that in their hearts they believe women are inferior.
January 13, 2009 at 6:44 pm
http://mysteryofiniquity.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/mark-driscoll-and-the-cult-of-men/
Here’s one link where you can watch Driscoll on this very subject…
January 13, 2009 at 6:47 pm
http://kristievosper.typepad.com/honestlyspeaking/2006/10/godmen_mark_dri.html
An interesting observation…
January 13, 2009 at 6:48 pm
http://jasonclark.ws/2006/11/16/open-letter-to-mark-driscoll/
This one has a lot of quotes by Driscoll on his gender views.
January 13, 2009 at 7:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSrZVF3FEUQ
You can hear Driscoll talk about men here.
January 13, 2009 at 7:08 pm
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/11/09/mark-driscoll-and-women/
January 13, 2009 at 7:08 pm
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/mark-driscoll-on-the-shack
January 13, 2009 at 7:11 pm
[Putting in links one post at a time, so as to not get eaten by the spam catcher. My apologies for clogging up the thread!]
January 13, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Okay, just oooone more.
Here’s a teaser quote:
“In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached.”
Get the entire post here:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-011009-they-are-sinning-through-questioning-the-pope-needs-a-business-meeting
January 13, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Light, you got that right!
It seems to come down to these people believing that people are too STUPID to see through their plain words?
January 13, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Cynthia,
I really connected with what you were sharing in your comment. I’ve been thinking about how some in the FIC and homeschool arena are preaching dominionist teachings and their primary teachings are basic: The world’s full of sin, the culture is evil, the ‘world’ “hates” children (J. Chancey), and we need a new reformation of militant fecundists with the proper “roles” in place to take the world for “Christ”. When I read these teachings by some leader and realize they are NOT preaching the Gospel but a series of works of man, I’m reminded of the passage in Scripture in Phil. 3:18-21:
“For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.
Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”
The whole chapter is great because it is written by Paul, who would have had the corner market on operating in the Law of God, who knew those who preached another message of works as opposed to the Gospel of Grace.
Also, I remember Cindy K. sharing with us in another post about “Natural Religion”(?) in which there was discussion on how “modern” kinism sprung from some of those teachings, though, I suspect has been around since mankind started to populatthe earth. The emphasis on producing children for God seems tribal to me. It doesn’t reflect the account of Gideon’s army, for example. It isn’t the Gospel, this family-oriented dominion teaching. I’m pro-life and have given birth to 4 wonderful blessings from God, but they are not my accomplishments — they’re His! Even in this “boast” (of which I am unworthy to boast except in Christ alone) I still was questioned by militant fecundists and patriarchals that wanted to know why I didn’t tempt God with my insulin-dependent diabetes and have more children. Like I wasn’t having enough “faith” in God. The teachings are producing – with the help of people’s sin natures — extreme legalists and pharisees.
I am praying and hoping that the young families and young women being exposed to these teachings will find the truth in Jesus’ Gospel of amazing love and grace and forgiveness, and not be ensnared by a false gospel.
January 13, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I wanted to add another thing about Philippians 3:19 where it says “their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame(?), with minds set on earthly things”.
“their god is their belly” could be translated as the following:
1) the whole belly, the entire cavity
a) the upper [i.e. stomach] and the lower belly are distinguished
2) the lower belly, the lower region, the receptacle of the excrement
3) the gullet
a) to be given up to the pleasures of the palate, to gluttony
4) the womb, the place where the fetus is conceived and nourished until birth
a) of the uterus of animals
5) the innermost part of a man, the soul, heart as the seat of thought, feeling, choice
So, I share this to show how “earthly things” encompasses many things, including the boast in producing many children. Children ARE a blessing from the Lord, but so are souls won for Christ. In this age of the Gospel of Grace, we ought to be thankful for the blessings we have, our freedoms, our children, but we ought to be focused on sharing Christ’s love with people and His message of Hope. How do we do that if we’re (those who subscribe to such teachings) telling the world they are evil for not having as many children as possible, when they can’t afford to care for the ones they have? Or if they have never given birth because of health or other reasons? This is a fleshly focus, in my estimation.
January 14, 2009 at 12:37 am
I’m in the midst of college preparations, but I was checking on where the conversation was going lately – and I just have to share this.
This is probably the saddest thing that I have seen on the Botkin girls’ website. It is archived under October 28, 2006.
“One of the most exhilarating rewards of having published a book is receiving letters of encouragement and thanks, and testimonies of hearts turned toward home and family. Below is one of the letters we’ve received lately.
Dear Anna Sofia and Elizabeth,
I am a fifteen-year-old girl from _____, and I have your book “So Much More.” I have read it, and I enjoyed every minute of it! It helped my vision as a daughter and a sister of five (and soon to be six!), and it taught me so much.
All my life my mother has taught me and my sisters to be keepers of the home for God’s glory. I was always fine with the idea until I turned twelve and started to get my own opinions. I slowly began to stray from my mother’s and father’s vision for me and my sisters. I began to pursue my own ideas. I was plain sick of staying at home, tending the house, caring for the children, and doing school work. Every day it became more and more burdensome for me. Every day was more of a drudge then the day before. At last, I purposed in my heart that I would never be a homemaker when I had my own children. I was set on working outside the home just like a “normal” person. (Which was the way I put it then, even though now I know I meant “worldly”) I grieved my parents greatly as I became defiant of what they told me. Frankly, I couldn’t have cared less. I was looking to the world for my peace and happiness. I was straying from my parents, just like the prodigal son.
Then, about nine months or so into twelve years of age, I was gloriously saved. Christ turned my life around. The change was dramatic, and I was no longer the same rebellious brat that I used to be. I desired to please my parents in every aspect, henceforth pleasing my Father in Heaven. The vision that my mother had put before me suddenly burst forth in a new light. The ways of the world around me no longer appealed to me, and I was set on refusing them.
When I read your book “So Much More,” it restored my vision even more. I was so touched and convicted as I read about building up my dad (Something I never really thought about before), and helping him in every way possible to be a stronger man for God. (Also with that would come a respect for my Mom, and my trying to build her up in every way possible.)
I can truly say that now I am happier than I ever was trying to find peace in the world. God’s plan is always the best plan, and it will always bring peace and joy. I have found that the fleshly ways of the world may appeal to man’s sinful nature, but to turn to them will only result in emptiness and anguish. I have no qualms about keeping the house, tending to the children, and cleaning up after all the messes that the day brings. All of this is to my Savior’s glory.
Thank you so much for your book, “So Much More.” It has helped me in many ways. It has restored my vision, given me many good ideas, and helped me better see the light in all I have been taught.
Rejoicing in my Savior,
Miss C.”
January 14, 2009 at 7:01 am
A link to a June 2008 thread someone provided further upthread lead me to Lady Lydia’s Home Living blog (I had only been aware of the Ladies Against Feminism blog). The June thread also saw Lady Lydia herself weigh in briefly expressing her displeasure with posters’ challenges to her past published remarks about slave women and Katrina victims’ clothes.
Anyway, has anyone perused the latest entry/public teachings she has posted on her Home Living blog? I was *very* surprised to see it is a forthright and frank primer of sorts (directed towards likeminded homemakers) on how to avoid engaging with critics of full-time home-making, and how to dissemble one’s way out of uncomfortable conversations:
Avoid saying things about being alone all day or having no money to go out, or only having one car, even if it is not a complaint, because “they” will take it that way. “They” may be tuned in to any little thing you say that makes homemaking seem disadvantageous to you. Put a different spin on the entire thing.
…Then, learn to change the subject onto something greater than yourself and your own activities. Make a list of the great variety of things there are to talk about and learn to change the conversation by taking something in a remark and using it as a vehicle to another conversation. For example, if someone says that you are just vegetating at home, say “Speaking of vegetables, do you know where I can find a good bargain on broccoli?”
…These are just two examples of how to take a word out of a sentence and turn it into another subject. It should be used only when the subject matter is focusing too much on you, and causing inner turmoil. Knowing how to use it can save you a lot of problems.
Hmmm. I’m not sure how I feel about this.
On the one hand, I admire her forthrightness. She comes right out and teaches her readers how to manipulate conversations and shift the power dynamics in uncomfortable situations in their favor. I don’t believe manipulation is always a bad thing, and I surely don’t think it’s wrong for a person who feels discomfort to politely cut off the source of her pain.
I also can appreciate that a lot of stay-at-home-women and -men alike feel pressure from mainstream society to participate in commercial, academic, or athletic pursuits deemed more “worthwhile.” It is obnoxious in the extreme to have to defend oneself against annoying, nosy friends and relations who cannot reconcile themselves to one’s legitimate and non-harmful lifestyle choice.
So part of me is saying “you go, girl, Lady Lydia! Preach!” (I mean that in the strictly figurative sense, of course, since it is my understanding that she does not believe women should be preachers).
But then, I run up against my dogged commitment to spirited debate, discussion, and analysis. Remember the adage about “an unexamined life [not being] worth living?” It troubles me to think that people might be *trained* in avoiding discussion and debate and criticism, simply because it discomfits them to have their choices held up for analysis.
Also, there’s a whiff of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander” here. After all, isn’t it the patriocentric ideology (to which I, perhaps mistakenly, believe Lydia subscribes) that makes a palaver over some Christian women’s lifestyles that deviate from what THEY consider to be the norm? If they can admonish college-going or working Christian daughters/mothers as being unaligned with their interpretations of scripture, and if they expect those non-patrio women to heed them, then is it okay for non-patrio women to take Lydia’s lead in teaching each other to avoid patrio butting-in? I mean, wouldn’t the Vision Forum folks raise a hue and cry if thatmom or one of the other bloggers created a “How to Squirm Your Way Out of Dissenting Discussions with Patriocentrists” primer?
One last minor bit:
Towards the end of the post, she adds this: “Very few women at work have time to do the things they really would like to do, and they will be glad to know [a full-time homemaker] who is available to [make crafts and domestic gifts on commission].”
It got me thinking. Personally, my work IS what I really want to do. I have wanted to be a social scientist since I was ten or eleven years old. I’ll spare you the life history, but I worked towards that goal single-mindedly, from high school to undergrad to various jobs and through grad school.
Of course, like most men and women alike, there are things I’d like to do that I cannot do when I am grading undergrads’ papers or preparing lesson plans or checking my research citations: I would like to be hiking on a fall day; touring a historic house in a small town; making and drinking hot chocolate; settling down with a recently published work of ethnography or philosophy that doesn’t relate in any way to my own research (!).
But, enjoying activities that cannot be done while I am working does not mean I am not “doing what I really want to do” in the grand scheme of things. I am! (And, I daresay, a stay-at-home parent who likes hiking, reading ethnographies, and touring historic homes would likely *not* be able to do any of those things while “on the clock” at HOME, either).
I suppose, then, I find myself in a strange position. I sympathize with the patriocentric woman who delights in staying “at home,” whether Daddy’s or Husband’s, from birth ’till death (hey, if this is her choice and if it’s not hurting anyone, and if it does not flout Scripture…) But at the same time, I revile the patriocentric MANDATE that says ALL women’s ESSENTIAL, NATURAL purpose in life MUST be to ONLY be a full-time domestic manager and to ONLY support a man’s (father’s or husband’s) vision.
So, while I can admire Lady Lydia’s spunk and candor in this posting, I cannot respect the underlying hypocrisy of a movement that attempts to set forth false universal madates and wrongly justify them with scripture, and, further, that teaches its own members how to avoid debate with those of us who do not accept this mandate.
January 14, 2009 at 7:03 am
Oops. Only Lady Lydia’s words were supposed to be in italics, not mine. I hope you can discern the difference.
Also, here’s the link to her primer:
http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2009/01/homemaking-without-worry.html
January 14, 2009 at 7:10 am
Well, let me clarify that last sentence of the long post: Lydia’s primer is NOT how to avoid interfacing with dissenting non-patriocentrics (like many of us here). It’s about how to avoid interfacing with people who believe a stay-at-home parent is better employed outside out of the home.
January 14, 2009 at 7:18 am
Beatrice:
Well, here’s what I can say about that, anyway: at least this young woman gave credit to her Mother and her Mother’s having a vision as well as to the Father’s vision. However, correct me if I’m wrong, old-timers, but that’s not strict Vision Forum/Patrio orthodoxy. The mother’s not supposed to have her own vision, and even if she did, the daughter’s job is to tend her father’s. not her mother’s. It’s assumed that the mother is tending her husband’s vision rather than cultivating one of her own. So, both woman and girl (or, in the case of grown unmarried daughters, both WOMEN) are meant to be supporting the same one man in his vision. (A daddy’s vision sure does need a lot of full-time supporters! A wife alone’s not enough, it seems).
Also, isn’t it interesting how she denigrates the “worldly” and the “fleshly”?
Here I am thinking that her patriocentric worldview is–literally, as others have pointed out above–fleshly. It is carnal and carnally-centered in every sense of the word.
January 14, 2009 at 8:39 am
How much more “fleshly” could one get beyond being oddly obcessed with physically bearing children?
I must digress a bit because I’m new and most of you don’t know me well enough. I am the mother of eight children and had my brush with quiverfull patriocentricity about when I had my fifth child.
It took for me to realize that if I followed that lifestyle and belief system to its logical conclusion, my daughters would be following in my footsteps. I realized that I didn’t want my daughters’ lives to be all about keeping house and bearing children for what? For the glory of men (not God, but men!)
In other words, I could identify with a bitch in a puppy mill more than a person created in the image and likeness of God. If, for any reason, my childbearing capacity was taken away from me, of what worth would I have? Housekeeper? Maid? After so many children, I would have no hope not to, “let myself go,” so, I suppose, I wouldn’t be able to keep my husband away from other men, for heaven’s sake!
I feel very fortunate to have been able to stay home and mother my children when they were babies and preschoolers. I do believe I have given them something that other caretakers couldn’t provide. I do, however, honor and respect other people and the alternative choices they have made for their own lives.
Why did I want my daughters to have something I denied myself? I really spent some time pondering that question. I wouldn’t stand up for myself but I did stand up for my daughters and, as a consequence, extended that grace for my own self.
” I still was questioned by militant fecundists and patriarchals that wanted to know why I didn’t tempt God with my insulin-dependent diabetes and have more children. Like I wasn’t having enough “faith” in God. The teachings are producing – with the help of people’s sin natures — extreme legalists and pharisees.”
I can’t believe a conservative Christian would encourage you to tempt God. We aren’t to tempt God. I stand in admiration you carried and gave birth to four children with insulin dependent diabetes. You don’t have enough faith? Who are they to judge?
I agree completely with the assessment that these patriocentrists are carnal and focused upon the flesh.
What are they discussing on their blogs?
Sex.
Childbearing.
Satisfying a man’s sexual appetites.
Keeping a man content with your sex, your appearance, your cooking, and your housekeeping.
What is the *result* of all this effort?
If you are a man, you are living a lifestyle that outshines that of any ancient king. You have a beautiful sparkling clean house and whatever food you want to eat. You have a car to drive (generally, the keeper at home goes without a car,) You have multiple sons and daughters satisfying the biological drive to overrepresent your DNA in the next generation. You get to rule your wife and all those offspring with almost the same impunity as a patrofamilias of Roman times.
Sounds similar to a Greek Hedonist or Epicurian in my opinion.
And we women get to hear them opine if we have the audacity to pursue an education or satisfy a natural and noble desire to make a difference in this world.
January 14, 2009 at 10:23 am
Kate, that word study on “belly” really explains so much of what we see in militant fecundity. There is a huge difference between seeing children as a blessing and what is being defined as “militant fecundity” within the patriocentric camps.
A few months ago I flushed this out in 4 podcasts in case anyone missed it and would like to listen to them.
http://www.thatmom.com/podcasts/podcastsmilitantfecundity.htm
January 14, 2009 at 10:33 am
Debrabaker, you are accurate that this stuff often sounds like the epicurian mindset. In fact, one other thing I notice is the use of fancy foods within these circles. I love to cook and eat and share recipes, too, but come on, lobster bisque? What ordinary large family on a single income would ever consider making that? I have several questions I ask when I sit down with a menu plan….Will this be something my children will enjoy eating? Will this fit into my budget? Is there good nutritional value in this meal? Will the prep time and clean-up time be reasonable or burdensome to anyone? Of course, we have “dainties” from time to time, things like my “death by pork” recipe but I have found that both husbands and children prefer simple meals. Perhaps this is part of the confusion that results in the notion that a godly woman is a Christian Martha Stewart. (I love Martha Stewart, btw, but don’t think following her standards makes anyone godly.)
January 14, 2009 at 10:37 am
It is apparent that Lady Lydia likes to read here or that she has friends who do and report back to her.
One thing that was funny to me is that she seems to think that she is the “older woman” and the rest of us know nothing. First of all, I think I am older than she is. Secondly, Lady Lydia doesn’t understand the principle of one anothering. I am so grateful to the wonderful women on this blog, many of you the age of my children, who have been willing to share your lives and have taught me so much. We have some true Bible students among us and they have enriched my life. I am sorry that Lady Lydia is so unteachable and afraid to open her heart and her mind to the important things of the Word of God and has chosen to concentrate on those things that are temporal and not really important in the grand scheme of life.
January 14, 2009 at 10:40 am
Yeah, Emmy, I noticed that she honored her mother too, and that was good.
But, the grief that her letter gives me, because the Gospel is so horribly misrepresented, outweighs that by far. You are right, it is fleshly.
It’s almost like there is a different Gospel for men and women. For women, original sin is feminism, and to be saved, they must turn away from feminism and embrace these people’s idea of femininity.
Where is Christ? Who is He, anyway? Just Someone Who helps us glorify our earthly parents? My big problem with So Much More – Christ is in the background to the human father. I doubt if someone who was not a Christian would actually get any Christ out of it. Just a lifestyle.
Or is He our King and Lover Who is jealous (even of parents), and has been wooing us to Him all of our lives, though we have rejected Him and struggled against Him?
Remember what Paul said about false gospels …
January 14, 2009 at 11:26 am
“It’s almost like there is a different Gospel for men and women.”
Just so.
January 14, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“I can’t believe a conservative Christian would encourage you to tempt God.”
Hi Debra,
I didn’t mean to say that they said I should “tempt God”, but that they questioned why I would purposefully choose to have my tubes tied (instead of just trusting God for His provision) after having 4 difficult pregnancies (for the babies and me, with one having been born with heart and intestine complications). The implication was that I had gone outside of God’s general pleasure of His will, and acted in some way outside of Biblical liberty. Also, knowing what many of them had already espoused verbally in other conversations helped me understand their perspective. One couple, who were very vocal in their militant-ness about no-birth control and full-quiver “mandate” they believed was in the Bible, were the most obnoxious. Others seemed to be coming from more of a presuppositional background, such as heavily-involved Gothardism. Some of it was taught from the pulpit of my ex-church that having lots of arrows filling your quiver was something to admire, and was often praiseworthy. I often wondered if the preacher knew just how that might affect a couple who couldn’t conceive, or women in the congregation who were unable for other circumstances, such as single moms.
One of the things Cindy K. mentioned here a couple of times is that often these patriocentric teachers and followers have in common with the Word of Faith movement is that there is a tendency to promote a visible show of faith. Sort of a jumping out of the boat all the time to walk on the water to prove your “faith muscle”. I’ve seen that comparison, too, because in the 1990’s our family was pretty involved with a foursquare church that had a lot of that emphasized in the small groups.
I’m not putting down foursquare, I’m just more of an analytical person and much of the Benny Hinn-type following I just couldn’t take. I loved those women from that church, though, that held to his name-it-and-claim-it, and other varying sorts of teachers. I’ve also seen and experienced (outside of that situation), REAL miraculous healings. Jesus Christ, by His Spirit still does heal people today. But I’m not here to sell a miracle. I just know the Miracle-Worker and He does more than just the fleshly miracles. He turns hearts of stone into flesh and opens spiritually blind eyes. This focus is being heavenly minded, and I believe when we get hung up on perfecting the flesh, focusing to much on increasing our fleshly tribe instead of actively ministering to those people God has already set before us, then we become carnally minded.
January 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Kathleen,
The *point* in my opinion is they’re perfectly willing to harass you for not freaking putting your own life on the line to conceive and bear more children.
By implication, your life (because, after all, we were created to be *his* “Helpmeet,” so if we are of no use to *him* (and note the lower case pronouns,) then our lives hold no innate purpose.
These are certainly not *my* feelings but it is what I read between the patriocentric lines.
What else would embolden someone to blithely give you such dangerous advice.
January 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Kathleen said,
“I just know the Miracle-Worker and He does more than just the fleshly miracles. He turns hearts of stone into flesh and opens spiritually blind eyes.”
I want to believe this right now. I’ve been lurking for a while again. Please pray for my teenage sisters, stuck in a patriocentric home. There are so many abusive situations going on. I’m praying that things will happen to open blind eyes.
January 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Emmy, I agree with you regarding Lady Lydia…
I corresponded with her a couple of weeks ago regarding that pseudo-amish fellow to whose “anti-kidnapping” article she had linked on her “Guard the Home” blog. She didn’t seem to mind that he had been arrested for running a puppy mill, or that he was a cultist and a heretic who denies the divinity of Christ, but she did mind that people were copying things from her HomeLiving blog and posting them in other places.
She pointed out that there is a copyright notice posted in the upper left corner of the HomeLiving blog (though not on the Guard the Home blog) and she asked that I pass that along to the ladies on the TW list (by TW I assume she meant this one) and also on the WF list, whatever that is (what is this thing she has with initials, anyway?)…
So, I said I would do it, and here it is:
“Do not copy original articles, quotes or portions of writings by me without permission. Do not paste any portion of my writings on any of my blogs into your blogs or websites or online spaces,hard copies of any of my original writing, or vocal broadcasts, without my permission.”
January 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“Where is Christ? Who is He, anyway? Just Someone Who helps us glorify our earthly parents? My big problem with So Much More – Christ is in the background to the human father…..
Remember what Paul said about false gospels.”
Whenever you have Christ in the background to anything, chances are you have a false gospel.
The the REAL Gospel reads as follows:
Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
January 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Lady Lydia says, via Cynthia Gee:
“Do not copy original articles, quotes or portions of writings by me without permission. Do not paste any portion of my writings on any of my blogs into your blogs or websites or online spaces,hard copies of any of my original writing, or vocal broadcasts, without my permission.”
The law of the land, however, permits copying portions of others’ writings under the “fair use” guidelines of copyright law. Permission from the author is not required.
To wit, the law says, “Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered ‘fair,’ such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
So, I would say that the readers and posters here are fully within their legal rights to post excerpts from those public blogs for those purposes. Lady Lydia doesn’t really have a legal reason to cry foul.
January 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I meant to add, how uncomfortable it must be for folks like Lady Lydia to be held accountable for their own words. In my opinion, that is often why they claim nobody is allowed to copy and discuss their work elsewhere.
January 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Hey everyone, I usually just lurk here at TW and haven’t checked here in quite awhile but simply had to tell y’all how encouraged your ongoing discussion on these important subjects have been to me. My husband and I have always planned for me to go back to school to finish my degree, when life and finances would allow, as neither one of us necessarily disagrees with the notion that homeschooling parents should have a higher education. We have finally reached a point where I will be able to do just that, starting this fall, as well as point where we have been able to start a college fund for our little daughter. I am so very excited to not just be going back to the books but to have the opportunity to be majoring in philosophy and religious studies–two of my favorite subjects. My husband has been encouraging to me and was actually the one who suggested such a major as I was realizing my former chemistry major is no longer something I would care to pursue.
The more time I spend in the “conservative” world and the more blogs and books I read with an anti-higher education stance, I can’t help but be very baffled. My (fairly conservative Baptist) parents always placed a high value on their children broadening their horizons and learning all we could. Many trips to bookstores, libraries, museums, and historical sites were activities our entire family shared together and my parents did a wonderful job imparting a love for knowledge in my sister and myself. I always took it for granted that most people were like them; branching out of their comfort zone to read books they knew they wouldn’t agree with and not being afraid to re-examine their positions and opinions. But as I quickly learned after high school this is not so and even less so in the more conservative ranks of the Christian faith.
The Bible admonishes us on many occasions to seek wisdom and to educate our children adequately learning must be a life-long pursuit, yet seeking wisdom and growth opportunities is almost presented as an evil in some circles, especially if done by us women. I cannot understand this one bit and become quite frustrated when I feel as if I need to dumb myself down, hide the fact I’ve read (or even own) certain books, be secretive of the fact that my husband & I love to debate politics, religious ideas, and other such subjects and don’t always agree on such matters (he says this is part of why he married me
)), or not share the exciting news that I am going back to school, for fear of what others might say. To me, having the privilege of being born in a nation where I, as not just a woman but also a person who is not in the wealthy ranks, can have access to all the books, lectures, museum tickets, and learning opportunities I could possibly want, and really more than I could ever pursue in a lifetime, is an immense blessing and something that must not be taken for granted. Many people even in today’s world are not given the time and means to read and explore as we are in the developed West. So how on earth Christians can speak ill of such a blessing really astounds me. I doubt I will ever understand.
I best end my novel. Many thanks to all of you for the many enlightening discussions that take place on this blog and your own personal blogs. I have been blessed to learn many important lessons from you lovely ladies and sincerely appreciate all the wisdom y’all share.
January 14, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“So, I would say that the readers and posters here are fully within their legal rights to post excerpts from those public blogs for those purposes. Lady Lydia doesn’t really have a legal reason to cry foul.”
I agree. But I promised to pass it on so I did.
January 14, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“So how on earth Christians can speak ill of such a blessing really astounds me. I doubt I will ever understand.”
It never used to be that way — education used to be a conservative Christian value. That has since changed — since about the 1980’s, conservative Christianity has been hijacked by the radical elements of the Dominionist movement, a political ideology operating under the guise of religion.
January 14, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Cynthia, I imagine that WF refers to “Whitewashed Feminists,” although that blog is pretty much on hiatus right now.
Amy, I am right there with you in not understanding the fear some people seem to have of education. Remember that other people — even other Christians — are not your example. Jesus is, and He encouraged Mary to sit at his feet and learn from Him. The only family you are responsible for is your own. If you and your husband are content that you are being obedient to God, then you do what you know to be right. Best wishes with your education — you sound like an interesting person to know!
January 14, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but words aren’t copyrighted just because you say they are. Isn’t there a process you have to go through to obtain a copyright?
January 14, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Cally, the written expression of an idea is actually copyrighted the instant you create it. In my opinion, that is a good thing. (Except if you create written work while in the employ of someone else – then your employer owns the rights to your work!)
You can go the extra step of registering the copyright by filling out paperwork, filing forms, and paying a fee. The difference between the two forms of copyright are in the damages you can collect if someone infringes your rights. With the former, you can get them to cease and desist, but rarely can you collect monetary damages. If you have registered your copyright, you can.
However, even if someone has registered their copyrighted material, the section 107 I quoted above still allows others to quote fair use portions of the material. You can’t copy a whole book willy nilly, but you can use excerpts in research, discussion, parody, criticism, etc.
January 14, 2009 at 6:53 pm
If the original source is cited, I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Blogs are public. People discuss them all the time elsewhere. What “Lady” Lydia doesn’t like is when people point out her historical revisions and poor attitude. I would hazard a guess that she wouldn’t mind if people were quoting her blog in praise.
January 14, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Exactly, Cally.
January 14, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I think what is copywritten is the idea. As Cally noted, if we cite Lydia as our source and include exerpts crediting her as our source, it is perfectly within our rights to create some of our own unique thoughts in response.
Hello First Ammendment.
And ignorance isn’t historically alligned with Christianity. Christianity and Judiasm (and Islam) are collectively regarded as People of the Book (well, Christians, Jews, and Muslims.) All three of these major religions have historically favored education. Christian monostaries kept literacy alive through the dark ages. The first book mass produced on the printing press was the Bible. All the major European and many of the most historic American Universities were established to produce a literate clergy.
Ignorance is the antithesis of what historically Christia culture advocated.
But, alas, the majority of the poor Christians in Biblical times were illiterate, so we should be illiterate as well because we’re taking that logical fallacy to its extreme within the patriarchy.
January 14, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I apologize for posting the clip from Lady Lydia’s site. I have virtually no knowledge of internet legal/ copyright matters.
But I am astonished that it could possibly be the case that people are not allowed to link to sites and provide excerpts of something posted publicly on an open website. To be honest, my mind is boggling right now. (So I and all the other bloggers I’ve read over the years have been breaking the law by linking and providing excerpts to sites without first getting permission of the author? Does that mean that internet journalists from online publications–like Salon.com, say–have to also get permission before they do this, or do they get a pass because they are a publication instead of an individual? What about if I run a personal review site or blog –do I need to contact the authors of books or articles if I want to quote from them in order to support a contention in my review? )
I see there is some disagreement here over the potential illegality of this from those more in the know than I am, but I’m really shocked and disappointed in our legal system if this is true.
How else are we to analyze the public works an author has “submitted” to a potentially limitless (the internet) audience?
Either way, I won’t post any more excerpts from other sites/blogs, just to be safe. I’ll just offer the link and tell you what paragraph to look at. I hope THAT’s allowed!
January 14, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Also, Lady Lydia, if you’re reading: I meant you no harm. As you might have noticed, I quite admired your gumption and spirit and said so more than once. I just take issue with some of the beliefs/assertions saw posted in other of your blogs/writing, and wanted to express my criticism of those beliefs, not of you personally.
I admit I find it hard not to question and debate. It’s second-nature to me, having been raised within a family that argued back and forth and played Devil’s Advocate for days on end, sometimes even for years. (My sibling and I have an unspoken rule that any time our family members or friends take one stance, we offer the opposite or an alternative stance, if only to “put out on the table” all the various intellectual options from which one might choose.)
January 15, 2009 at 12:04 am
Alison (588)- My heart goes out to you, as I have loved ones stuck in patriocentricity, also. I will pray for your sisters, for their protection, and for truth to be clearly seen.
January 15, 2009 at 2:34 am
Hi Emmy,
I just wanted to clarify. It was me Lady Lydia was referring to not you. She has been corresponding with me this last week, and has told me not to copy paste or use the contents of her mail. She also specifically mailed me not to post any of the contents of her blog on my blog (Not that I did or have any intention of doing do.)
She got really offended with the article (which I didn’t write) on “Mrs Stanely Sherman and her bairns..”
She feels that since I’m an atheist and might not follow any of the decencies of debate common to Christians, so …
Also Annie, said
“If anyone ever wondered why an Atheist comes around to listen in from time to time, it’s because these people, and their Confederate, Patriocentric form of Christianity, outright scare me.”
So, I was thinking maybe my posting here, kind of brings down the validity of what the other Christians posting here are saying.
Cindy, in her blog UnderMuchGrace says that some of the propaganda techniques in Spiritually Abusive groups are:
Ad Hominem – Attack your opponent’s person rather than the argument itself. Literally “against the man”
“The women at TW are just a bunch of feminists. They even have an atheist posting there…I would never be able to sleep if I said half the things that are being said there” was a comment at one of the hyper-patriach blogs. I don’t know if it was in reference to me. But I know it can be easy to dismiss all the good things that Christians here are saying about spiritual abuse, if they can be portrayed as those “bra-burning feminists.”
One pastor, when I was telling him I objected to seduction of little boys by clergymen, said that I had no right to talk about it being an atheist. When you are an atheist, people will only focus on that and not on the issues at hand.
Cindy also posted:
Ad Hominem Circumstantial (Subcategory of Ad Hominem) -A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent’s position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: “Of course, that’s what you’d expect him to say.” The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument’s acceptance.
I really liked this site, White Washed Feminists, Under Much Grace, Overcoming Botkin Syndrome and Adventures in Mercy. In fact, I linked back these sites to my blog, because this is really the kind of Christianity I would like to promote.
So, I thought that I should probably stop posting here. This was to say I really liked posting here and hope you continue the good work of promoting what I would call “freedom Christianity.”
January 15, 2009 at 4:15 am
Rachel Chitra, you are too right that too many so-called “Christians” decry any Christian enterprise that encourages intellectual exchange with “non-Believers.”
But, I think it a tremendous GOOD for non-Christians (whether atheist or of another creed) to interact with and swap stories and opinions with Christians. We have much to learn from each other ( at the very least, it forces us to learn how “others” perceive us). And in my humble opinion, whether you mean it to or not, your linking your blog to “thinking Christian” sites like this one will go 100 x more toward getting an atheist to regard Christianity with less contempt and more curiosity than would a patriocentric household’s mandatory skirts and “daughters as helpmeets” made-up doctrine.
I thought we were meant to follow Jesus’ and the apostles’ examples of going out into the community and/or the world to live as examples for the nations and peoples. Jesus himself washed the feet of his own disciples and socialized with tax-collectors, prostitutes, lepers, adulterers, fornicators, etc. (Note: I am by NO MEANS comparing atheists and non-Christians to these categories!) The first evangelists went out amongst people of differing religious, cultural and political beliefs (to say nothing of different ethnicities).
To my mind, shutting out “the world” with such single-minded intensity as do the patriocentrics is the surest way to NOT win people for Christ. They are primarily engaged in self-serving self-evangelization, amongst already-Bible-believing families.
Meanwhile, other Christians continue to offer diapers to teenage mothers, to minister to drug addicts and prison inmates and all manner of people who might be ignored by patrio communities realizing these people would be unlikely candidates for patriocentric lifestyles. (After all, a homeless, urban, single man in his sixties will almost certainly find it improbable to transititon into “the patriocentric” lifestyle and community, even were he so inclined. So, of what use would be sharing the Gospel with him? )
Please correct me, anyone, if I have misunderstood the patriocentric community; to my mind, they are aggressively insular, not evangelistic, in nature.
January 15, 2009 at 4:17 am
Argh. I can’t get this html to work. Sorry for the boldface excess.
January 15, 2009 at 8:33 am
I’m glad atheists can feel welcomed here. We aren’t going to be able to share the Gospel with people if we hide our light under a bushel basket.
To be honest, it helps that this group of women are normal and healthy; our message is Jesus without all the pseudochristian cultural baggage.
January 15, 2009 at 11:41 am
Rachel, if you ever stop posting here, I will be highly disappointed.
January 15, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Jesus’ prayer completely counteracts these doctrines. This same Jesus who was friends with those who were forsaken, belittled and despised by the religious leaders of the day (Pharisees)prayed fervently: John 17:15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
January 15, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Wow,
I don’t like my tone in post #609.
Let me rephrase what I meant it in a manner more intune with my heart.
Rachel, I would be very sad if you stopped posting here. I love what you bring to this place.
January 15, 2009 at 2:58 pm
RACHEL, DON’T GO!
What the heck kind of world would it be if Christians, atheists, and everybody else thought it wasn’t seemly to talk to eachother? What, atheists don’t have good points to bring to the table? What, a conversation is ruined if a non-group member contributes? What, Jesus only associated with good Bible-believing Christians?
Do any of those folks ever actually *read* the Gospels????
GOOD GRIEF. (Okay, so I’m having an exceptionally difficult time being patient and gentle with them these days).
January 15, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Cally, not to go OT for long, but this one’s for you, and anyone else who will be sitting around Friday nights trying to figure out who is the final Cylon.
wwwdotchristianitytodaydotcom slash ct slash 2009 slash january slash 19dot72dothtml
Or, just go to CT’s web site and hunt for an article called “Evolve or Die.”
One little last thing regarding Driscoll and patriarchy, and I’ll zip my lip regarding it afterwards. I really was tempted to go tit for tat with some of the links posted.
For example, regarding the Salon article – one of the primary women interviewed for that article was adamant that she was misrepresented and misquoted. And in the case of the Seattle locals who had gotten upset about comments they considered sexist, there was a good long, open conversation with Mark which included some apologies on both sides (there were attitudes on the other side as well).
I personally don’t think Mark is a patriarch hiding behind contemporary dress and slang. I think he is a traditionalist (in the American cultural sense) about family roles. Which includes views that I don’t believe are necessarily the only biblical path for women. As I said in the first post I made on the topic in this thread, there are a good number of things Mark teaches that I don’t agree with.
But I still think he’s a compelling preacher that God has been using. Mostly to reach younger people. But even my husband, a 50 yo OTR trucker, likes the guy. He thinks that Mark’s sermon series this fall on prayer is some of the best preaching on the topic that he’s ever heard.
I’ve lived through being involved with PDI, before it was SGM. My first two roommates after becoming a Christian got into WOF. I’ve lived through Ezzo sweeping through my church and through a Gothard family trying to push the church in that direction. I’ve seen a lot of stuff up close and personal in the last 30 years. And frankly, I think there are enough male (and female) so-called “leaders” out there who are clearly in the hyper-patriarchal camp (and hyper-promoting their views) for us to deal with, without scrounging around for the kinda-sorta-this-is-what-they-REALLY-mean ones.
But if you want to go ahead and lump Mark into the hyper-patriarch group, I certainly can’t stop you. I’d encourage you to actually go out and listen to some of his sermons and read some of his materials before you come to that conclusion, though (LOL, it’s not like the man’s stuff is hard to find online). Even read the whole article that triggered the Haggard-related controversy. See that comment about pastor’s wives in context. I still don’t agree with the comment, but it did help me, personally, to understand it within the context of the whole article.
On yet another topic:
Beatrice – that letter to the Botkin girls was truly sad. I guess I since I work outside the home I was 1) never saved and 2) not following God’s plan.
I wonder if that girl will end up yet another one of those patriarchal-fallout spinsters.
January 15, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Rachel, please stay.
January 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“(After all, a homeless, urban, single man in his sixties will almost certainly find it improbable to transititon into “the patriocentric” lifestyle and community, even were he so inclined. So, of what use would be sharing the Gospel with him? )”
I think that the Calvinist heresy, with its misunderstanding of predestination, is at the root of this attitude. After all, if God preordains that certain people are going to be damned, and if it is obvious from their lifestyles WHO is among the elect and who is not, why share the gospel with “bums”?
But, this is NOT what Jesus taught. It is necessary to believe in Jesus to be saved, the Bible says that salvation is found in no one else and “for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved”; but Jesus also said that obvious sinners and whores who repent and follow Him will enter heaven before many people who appear to be paragons of virtue.
REALLY believing in Jesus goes beyond believing in Him as our Savior — it also means believing in and living what He stands for, namely, Love, humility, and serving others:
31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.” 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’
January 15, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I would put Mark in the complementarian camp along with Piper and Grudem, not the hyper-patriarchy camp, personally.
Here is where I must admit that I have a very gut-level reaction to the guy, as in my stomach gets sick. He is so authoritarian, and so into gender roles, and very (I would say) spiritually abusive in his methodology. All my inner alarm bells go off when I hear him preach. I think part of that reaction comes from living with an abusive husband who was very very very into being masculine and maintaining “real man-ness,” etc, and part of that comes from living and working with a semi-cult with a very authoritarian charismatic fun-to-listen-to leader who was larger than life.
That said, I recognize that on the other hand, many people in Seattle are meeting Jesus. I can’t complain about that. I just do not care for Driscoll’s style one bit, personally. But, no, he is not in the same camp as Vision Forum. I would put him squarely with Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, etc.
January 15, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Rachel, I hope you don’t leave the discussion.
One of the most powerful moments of realizing God’s grace came from an atheist. I was a wide-eyed graduate student fresh from homeschooling through a tiny, wonderful Christian liberal arts program, for the first time in a “secular” graduate program, at a school that kind of had a reputation as a party school. I just didn’t know where I fit in. An atheist professor of mine came to me one day and said, “I know that it must be lonely as a practicing Christian here, let me introduce you to some Christians I know.” And he went out of his way to introduce me to a Christian colleague of his, as well as fellow students. I was so blessed by him, it still is a source of comfort for me, and I really do feel like God used him, whether he confesses God or not.
Also, CynthiaGee, I really don’t think patriocentrism’s interpretation of Calvinism accurately reflects a historic view of it. In my experience with Calvinism, it’s actually a source of great comfort. First, that I can reach out to those around me, not knowing who is elect, knowing that God will use my actions and my witness despite my weakness and frailties. It’s his power I trust in, not my own. And I don’t have to figure out who’s elect and who’s not before I have a relationship with them, that’s really none of my business. Trying to assess who’s elect by looking at their clean house or social standing or money or what-have-you? That’s just rude, inappropriate and as you pointed, veering away from the heart of the gospel.
And the other source of strength is that as a child of God, He hold on to me, despite my weakness and frailties. It gives me great courage and confidence. I would call patriocentrism’s version, hyper-Calvinism, and very sad, to boot.
January 15, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Molly, I wanted to say thanks for the links. I checked out a couple when I had time, and they were not surprising after what I’ve read here, but I wanted to let you know that I saw them.
As far as I’m concerned at this point, Driscoll is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, based on his relationship to the culture. We are talking about a man who has intentionally imbraced the American culture to fool people into thinking they can just go about their “regular” lives the same as always, then turns the whole thing upside down once they are in his grip. Not cool. At least the patrios are blatant about their differences.
January 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Cynthia before I jump, I want to clarify: are you talking about the patriocentric garbage or are you deeming all that follow the Doctrines of Grace aka the Reformed Faith/Calvinism as heretics?
January 15, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Gail, mainly I’m talking about the patriocentric garbage.
As for “the Doctrines of Grace aka the Reformed Faith/Calvinism”, rightly understood, they are as orthodox as can be, but they are misunderstood more often than not, with heresy as the result.
January 15, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I know that many Calvinists say that we don’t know who’s elect and who’s not. I would never dispute that or that loads of Calvinists love all their neighbors, including the messy dirty ones.
But. If we love people “just in case” God may care about them, then is that real love? Is it really loving them for themselves if we have no idea whether God wants them in Heaven or not and would be fine with them going to Hell, because we think God may actually be OK with that too?
Again, I would never doubt the real, true love and outreach of so many Calvinists. But as for agreeing with the way they’ve processed and systematized their doctrine (and I’m not bashing systematic theology per se) … that is a totally different matter.
This is just the only way I can see it.
And “heresy” is a very strong word, and I, unlike Cynthia, would probably not use it, because the Reformed branch of Christianity is a real, living one, not a cult. But, Calvinism, the real, actual doctrines, not the misunderstandings of them, threw a monkey wrench in my view of God and there was just no other way I could proceed until I started questioning them, reading more non-Reformed people, continuing to read Scripture, ect. So, I can understand people speaking harshly of it, because if I hadn’t dumped it, I might no longer be a Christian.
Now, I will be flooded with homework very soon and I still mean to keep my resolution to keep it first. But there are so many Reformed people here, I really wanted to speak up and give my viewpoint.
January 15, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Whoops, Cynthia didn’t see your reply. You’re about the same as me.
January 15, 2009 at 10:24 pm
And Rachel, since I’m posting anyway, I really hope you don’t leave here either.
January 15, 2009 at 10:25 pm
We’ll be at an informal BSG party.
Is Friday definitely when the fifth Cylon’s identity is revealed?
Hmmmmm……..
January 15, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Another example of demure, quiet “lady” lydia demanding her way because she said so!
January 15, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Kathy (604) thank you. I so appreciate your prayers. The situation is even more complicated now and I’m not sure how much influence I have beyond prayer.
January 16, 2009 at 1:37 am
Debra, I don’t think so. I think its early in the last few eps, but not the first one.
January 16, 2009 at 4:01 am
Emma, Debra, Mara, Molleth, Cynthia, Joanna, Beatrice,
I felt teary-eyed when I read all the comments here. Sometimes, I think is like a nice online church, where there is freedom in Christianity.
I would love to post and thank you for re-extending the invitation to me. The thing is I feel a lot of guilt. For instance, because I became an atheist and married a non-Christian, my family members had to face criticism from the church.
And again some of my Christian friends were asked, “Can’t you teach her better?”
So every time, I interact with Christians either they feel bad for me (they feel if they were true friend they wouldn’t want me in hell) and hence pressurize me to the point of saying “Yes, I do believe in God,” if only to stop them agonizing me. Or there are Christians for whom it’s a problem continuing to interact with me. Maybe you don’t realise it, but the Christian community here is very clannish and close-knit and so they give my friends a hard time, making them party responsible for my decision.
Also for me the minute I married a non-Christian, I was literally ex-communicated from the church. The place, I had gone to and had so many friends for years, was suddenly treating me like I was pariah.
Even now I haven’t worked up the courage to tell my parents I am atheist. I know it will hurt them badly.
For me, when they realise I have no issues with Christ and infact like his teachings, they don’t get why I don’t come to church or reject God. For me Christ is totally different from the church. Christ is the personification of all the values that I like, admire and want to follow, but the church – too many painful experiences.
Meeting you ladies has been a healing of sorts. Especially finding the link to Cindy’s blog on spiritual abuse has been very helpful.
Even as a kid, I knew there was something wrong with their logic, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.
And again, for me Christ is the role model – non-judgemental, loving, non-dogmatic, radical thinking….So even the thought of having to accept God is there or going to church, makes me ill. Its like a big, painful baggage that I don’t want to pick up now.
I can only feel anger and revulsion, that I had to be part of something that was so un-Christian.
I would love to post here. But again, I want to make it clear, I have no intention of promoting my atheist or feminist beliefs. I like and admire the gumption and attitude of many of the ladies here and respect their faith.
I was surprised to find Christian men writing to me (they get the feed from TW and my blog) and asking suggestions for how to deal with certain issues. I don’t claim to be any kind of expert, but I feel happy that if in some way someone is able to live a happier life (Christian or non-Christian) through a more tolerant ideology then that should be promoted.
And thanks a million. Reading the comments was like a super-duper boost of strong, hot coffee….I really liked the idea of the “thinking Christian woman” and this blog in a way deals with all the questions and doubts that I had from the time I was a kid.
Sorry, for the really long post, I feel overwhelmed. Thanks a lot!
January 16, 2009 at 5:20 am
Look’s like Matt Chancey is courting a wider audience now, and is trying to pass himself off as a regular, run-of-the-mill conservative. This is the second news-blog that has published this article:
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/winning-the-youth-vote-through-real-compassionate-conservatism
January 16, 2009 at 6:37 am
And so it infects England…
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article2137129.ece
January 16, 2009 at 7:52 am
Rachel,
I’m new here and I’m getting to know everyone a bit better, but I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.
Sometimes someone on the outside looking in has a tad more courage to broach some touchy issues. Supposidely the majority of Christians have doubts and are afraid of them (when they’re normal, oy.) I don’t picture Jesus badgering all those “sinners” that he hung out with (if He did, the people wouldn’t share dinner with him.) I’m sure He just hung out with them and acted like a normal human being, He didn’t speak Churchease or wear funky clothing.
Hey, Cally, I didn’t think we would get that Cylon scoop, but I’d settle for knowing what the *frack* happened to Earth (and what time period said events happened.)
Excuse my cussing.
January 16, 2009 at 8:08 am
Re: #630
Crumbs!
It’s a shame that Christianity is newsworthy only when the focus isn’t on Christ but on someone who seemingly builds their whole life around one verse in the Bible.
I really hope ‘Quiverfull’ doesn’t catch on in England.
January 16, 2009 at 8:57 am
Beatrice and Cynthia:
Thank you for clarifying that. I agree that loving someone “just in case” is offensive but so is loving someone because they speak in tongues or any number of man made conditions. We humans don’t get to save anyone: that is not our job.
I do not carry the soul crushing guilt of “being the only Jesus some may ever know.” If that awful saying was truly the case (it came from Holiness folks and a couple non Calvinist Baptists and was used as a guilt card), then “some” (from the song) are in trouble. I would say the “proud to be elect” are prideful heretics: the ONLY one who truly knows His Sheep is the Good Shepherd.
For the patrio folks who are reading this, the RPW and Westminster Confession are not salvic. God saves people that do not know or care what John Calvin, Martin Luther or any other father of the Reformation wrote: they just love Jesus.
January 16, 2009 at 9:56 am
“I really hope ‘Quiverfull’ doesn’t catch on in England.”
The upside is that because they’re British, they likely don’t buy into the neo-fascist, neo-Confederate side of partiarchy. Britain had too close a brush with the original purveyors of “Kirk, Kinder, Kuchen” to fall for that sort of thing again so easily themselves, so soon.
Hey, maybe we egalitarian, non-Confederate Christians ought to take a page from the Patrio’s book and start having 10 kids apiece, raising them as ORTHODOX beleiving Christians, and training up ALL of them, both girls and boys, to go into politics, public service, and the ministry. We could out-breed the Patrionuts in a generation, because there are more of us to begin with.
(and the scary part is, I’m only half joking..)
January 16, 2009 at 11:39 am
I know very little about doctrines such as predestination and “the elect.”
Perhaps it is this unfamiliarity with these doctrines that has sparked my distate for what I believe them to be saying.
Why, in the course of human history, must there always be a “special” group? Why does there have to be a winner and a loser? Why can’t everyone who confesses in Christ be a winner under His grace?
Perhaps someone can link me to Calvinist-approved webpages that explain this all for the neophyte, or that point out some of the benefits/positives of these doctrines. Because all I can see on my own is the injustice and futility of them.
January 16, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Molly (molleth) – understanding why you make the connection helps me understand your perspective on he-whose-name-I-will-not-mention. There are other famous people in the Christian world for whom I have similar reactions. There is a particular Christian radio talk show host that really rubs me the wrong way, and it’s all about the ultra-masculine stereotype persona he radiates (IMO). Not that I associate it with abuse, but I make the connection to guys I’ve known who have been that way and been total jerks.
Those of you who get to watch BSG live tonight are lucky. I will likely be on the road and won’t get to see it till Sunday night at the earliest.
January 16, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@ Rachel.
that we have cheered you. 
that you underwent all that you did.
Emmy, there are many Calvinists out there who do not process it the way some do. An old pastor of mine who was very soft-spoken, but still Reformed, said to me gently when I told him of my fears that God does not care for some, “Do you think God allows you to weep over Jerusalem?” And I am a big fan of “Reformed” (term used broadly)Christians Martin Luther and John Bunyan and some Puritan writers – they have all incredibly blessed my walk.
And I love this quote by Calvinist Charles Spurgeon about how Christians should not be happy at the thought of one person going to Hell, but should weep and pray over each unconverted person, to “let not one go there unwatched and prayed-for”.
But, all that said …
I am very familiar with the doctrines you mention and was passionate about them. I read about them, talked about them all the time.
But there came a point when I just could not reconcile some of their logical implications with my most core beliefs about God and how I believed the Bible to call me to love others.
So now I’m where you are, Emmy.
I’m not innerant, of course, but this was the best, most reasoned thing I could do, to not be a Calvinist anymore. I still believe many things that could be seen as part of Calvinism and the Reformed doctrines. But, I do not put myself in the Reformed box anymore.
And I believe that truth and love will always win out in any group or church of real Christians, win past the mistakes that each denomination has made. And that God does understand the whole picture, while we do not.
January 16, 2009 at 1:56 pm
#634 Cythia, lol, I’m not sure I’m that altruistic that I could give my womb to a cause!
I had to look up ‘neo-confederate’ (I’m English and it’s not something I’d come across). To be honest in my personal experience as an English Christian, I wasn’t aware of egalitarian vs. complementarian beliefs until I started blogging (I was fairly sheltered prior to that). I’ve been backwards on forwards in my personal search to decide what camp I belong to. Tony Campolo best describes my viewpoint in his book ‘Speaking My Mind’ where in his chapter ‘Is Evangelism Sexist?’ he explains that a Christian marriage should be characterised by each partner trying to outdo each other in Christian love and servanthood. I like that, God always turns things upside down – leader as servant, servant as leader.
January 16, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Interesting discussion on the doctrines of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I’ve learned and have still got a lot to learn about theology, for sure.
But I find it disturbing, not to mention dangerous when people (and I don’t mean those of you here at all) focus overly much on their particular theology or denomination. When asked about their faith, they identify themselves as Reformed (or whatever) instead of as a follower of Christ.
At the same time, culturally we’re moving away from official group identities. Younger people are less interested in church membership, for example. Mainstream denominations’ membership has dropped while non-denominational churches flourish. Youth today are interested in Jesus and not so much in Calvin. While denominations serve important purposes, somehow I don’t find this trend a bad thing.
Plus you don’t need to breed your way all quiver-like to fill your church pews. Faith gets you there instead.
January 16, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Sarah,
I loved loved LOVED that book of Campolo’s. Wow. It was a GREAT one.
Battlestar fans…
I will think of you tonight while watching. I am DYING to find out what happens!!!!!!!!
January 16, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Hi Rachel. Your honesty is refreshing, and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts on this site. Like Beatrice, I too am very sorry for the pain you experienced at your previous church.
I can relate to the frustration of feeling like a “project” instead of a peer to those I care about. There’s nothing worse than trying to have a friendship with someone who constantly views you through the scope of their own agenda. However, as a new-ish Christian, who spent lots of time believing exactly what you do now, I feel it’s important to tell you what I’ve learned: that Jesus’ teachings were so much more than just wise sayings regarding love and tolerance. He actually claimed to be God…one and the same with the creator of the universe.
That was crippling to my philosophies, because until I was able to reconcile myself with his claim of ultimate diety, I couldn’t really justify picking and choosing which of his ideas I would follow. The entirety of Christ’s teachings were predicated on the fact that he was God. I just couldn’t see any room for a luke-warm response to someone like that. There had to be more to it, and it was certainly a long and painful mental road, but one that I’m very grateful for.
(CS Lewis discusses this concept in one of his books, although I’m sure it’s been recommended to you before.)
Anyway, I hope I haven’t said too much. I don’t want to sound like the broken record some of your friends have become. I just thought I might be able to provide some insight into what they might be thinking.
January 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm
#640 Molly, it is a VERY cool book, I like the fact that he allows himself to be vulnerable and honest in his thoughts on each subject, and doesn’t just dogmatically announce his great all-knowing wisdom on each topic like a teacher teaching a small child (as I have found with some books that deal with the topics he deals with).
In fact here’s a quote that might be pertinent to your discussion:
I wonder what patriocentric families think of this, do even the daughters wonder why Daddy isn’t following the teaching of Jesus when he exerts his ‘kingly’ authority over the family?
January 16, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Oh, oh, oh, (OT) there’s a BSG marathon before the new show!!!!
Sorry normal people, my nerdness is manifesting itself.
January 16, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Ah, NOW I get why patrios hate Tony Campolo.
What a great response Campolo offers over the whole master/servant/head of household question. I just wonder how those patrio guys respond to Campolo’s final question.
January 16, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Hey, my comments are being discarded. What gives?
January 16, 2009 at 10:09 pm
OK, here it is again, minus most of the links.
Well, it looks like the folks over at “United Liberty” removed the comment I made this morning regarding Matt Chancey’s article there, “Winning the Youth Vote through Real Compassionate Conservatism”.
So, I just posted my comment again, prefaced with the following invitation:
This morning I posted the following comment (below) to this blog. This evening I found that it has been deleted.
To the best of my knowledge, I have documented the claims that I have made pertaining to Matt Chancey, Doug Phillips, et al; if anything that I have said is false, I invite you refute it.
But if what I have stated is true, why delete it?
I wrote:
Maybe the young folks are getting turned off of conservatism because they’re tired of getting hoodwinked by people who pose as conservatives and loyal Americans but who upon closer inspection turn out to be something else entirely.
To begin with, during Matt Chancey’s recent run for office in Alabama, it was revealed that Matt Chancey opposes women’s suffrage on religious grounds:
Matt Chancey and his wife Jennie believe that it is a sin (or at the very least, is highly inadvisable) for women to vote, hold political office, attend college, or work outside the home. These views are expounded upon at great length on Jennie Chancey’s website,Ladies Against Feminism.
Apparently, in the Chancey household’s ideal world, fathers would vote for the household, and all daughters would live at home until the time of their arranged courtship and marriage, at which time they would pass from their father’s ownership into their husband’s possession, thus assuring that they would never have the chance to vote; theoretically, any adult sons living at home would be similarly disenfranchised.
Certainly women COULD vote under such a system if they were the heads of their own household, but the only time that this would happen would be when a woman was widowed, and then only until such time as she remarried or moved in with an adult male relative.
Matt Chancey is also on very intimate terms with Doug Phillips, the president and founder of VisionForum Ministries, a major homeschooling curriculum company. Doug Phillips is described by Matt Chancey as being his dear friend and mentor, while Phillips in turn praises as his own intellectual hero one of the most virulent racists of the 19th century, Robert L. Dabney; Phillips has authored a book , Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.
…Spencer”
Like his cohorts Doug Phillips, Nathaniel Darnell, Justin Turley, Peter Bradrick, and other Vision Forum afficianados, Matt considers the Confederacy to be the most “Christian” nation to ever exist.
History texts sold by VisionForum are revised in order to portray the South as the protagonist of the Civil War; not surprisingly, many young folks who have been educated using VisionForum materials are associated with Southern secessionist movemnts, and many hold views like this:
“Hey there! Do me a favor please, check out my latest blog post and vote for Matt Chancey for Man of the Year. Spread the word; we need him to win!!! He’s a good Confederate.
This particular young man also has a blog, Books, Bones, Bricks, and Bullets, where he describes himself thusly:
“My name is Spencer. I’m 20 years old, a Bible-believing Christian, and I live in California. I am many things. I trust my savior Jesus Christ above all else, and strive to follow Him unceasingly. My soul is that of the warrior’s, and I seek to fulfill my duties as such. I am science-minded, and am pursuing a career in dinosaur paleontology. I am for my God, and His Word, the Holy Bible. I am for the literal six-day interpretation of the Creation account as found in the book of Genesis. I am for my country and its military, and I will give my support to those who defend this nation and its people, even if it means that we are forced to wage war. I am for homeschooling, the rights of parents and the unborn, the Biblical family, and courtship. I am for the rights of gun owners, and believe in carrying. I am for martial arts, and advocate the study of those means necessary to protect the family, the faithful, and the defenseless. I am for the dying ways of chivalry; “Women and Children First!” is a creed well worth dying for. I am for conservatism, and did I mention that I’m also a states’ rights Confederate flag-waving Rebel? This is me. Welcome to my blog.””
We’ll see how long it lasts this time….
January 17, 2009 at 1:05 am
I would not get on the Tony Campolo bandwagon. I’ve been around and heard him for years and years, and he has been weak on doctrine for that long and longer. And I thought that way about him when I was as deep into Word of Faith as a person could really get at the time. He has good sermons on some subjects, and he is very motivational sometimes, but his doctrine on a variety of subjects, like many in his camp is weak. Just be mindful. He is from a very experiential perspective.
January 17, 2009 at 1:10 am
Let me put it this way. You guys should probably know by now that I basically cannot stand John MacArthur’s preaching, and on many topics, I have all sorts of problems with his doctrine. Tony Campolo — I’ve enjoyed his sermons from time to time over the course of 20+ years. I have an old very good cassette of one of them in my good sermons box, now about 15 years old. But I would trust John MacArthur’s doctrine over Tony’s. (But you’d never find one of MacArthurs sermons in any of my sermon stashes.)
So figure out what that means. Tony’s a nicer guy???
January 17, 2009 at 3:57 am
Just read through Lady Lydia’s Home Making Primer as discussed briefly above. Wow. Is she teaching women to lie? Is she teaching women to ignore the truth of their situations? Is she saying that their lives aren’t the beds of roses that they are made out to be?
And her responses in the comment section – contradictory, many assumptions. In defense to one criticism dealing with a blanket statement, she provides but a single personal reference.
I’ve spent probably 3 or 4 times reading around her blog but far more over on LAF. Every single time I’m struck by the blindness of it. All of it. God help those girls and women. It’s so revealing of the mind games going on just to survive in their world and may explain why they frequently refuse to discuss issues with critics.
If this isn’t a recipe for crazy-making, I don’t know what is. I can hardly believe that she would write what she did and actually publish it. She mentions specifically that she wrote the article for women who are easily undone emotionally by unwanted questions.
Frankly, if these women are so emotionally delicate as Lady Lydia says they are, I would fear they would eventually crack up under her advice to shush up and pretend life to be otherwise. It sounds very, very bad.
January 17, 2009 at 4:31 am
Speaking of Chancey trying to appear mainstream, I was just online turning on Adventures in Oddyssey for my daughter to listen to and saw that Focus on the Family Weekend was advertising their show (I think it’s this Sat.)…
The topic of the show is an interview they just did with Doug Phillips.
January 17, 2009 at 6:21 am
Cindy, I like Tony Campolo because he doesn’t set himself up as the teacher on every doctrine going and is honest enough to say he’s not sure in some areas. I find his writing points me to Christ’s love and saving grace without telling me that if I don’t believe in…XYZ then I’m not a true believer. I don’t agree with everything Campolo writes, but I don’t feel condemned by him for not doing so.
I’m not familiar with John MacArthur, so I couldn’t possibly comment on who was nicer 
January 17, 2009 at 9:37 am
It really freaks me out that some of these people are seeking public office.
It’s one thing to have a crackpot opinion, as the saying goes, opinions are like @$$holes, everyone has one, but when someone seeks office, he is representing a group of other people. If enough of these men seek and win office, they could potentially affect change upon our society. In other words, it is not beyond them to try to pass ammendments to the constitution codifying into *our* civil *law* their odd pseudobiblical beliefs.
Color me paranoid.
January 17, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Let me put it this way. You guys should probably know by now that I basically cannot stand John MacArthur’s preaching, and on many topics, I have all sorts of problems with his doctrine. Tony Campolo — I’ve enjoyed his sermons from time to time over the course of 20+ years. I have an old very good cassette of one of them in my good sermons box, now about 15 years old. But I would trust John MacArthur’s doctrine over Tony’s. (But you’d never find one of MacArthurs sermons in any of my sermon stashes.)?”
I totally agree with this. I won’t listen to Campolo at all, though. He teaches cheap grace. My Savior’s Blood was costly.
As a matter of fact, it is becoming harder and harder to find a true expositor that is not a nutcase on the issue of ‘gender roles’.
January 17, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“It’s one thing to have a crackpot opinion, as the saying goes, opinions are like @$$holes, everyone has one, but when someone seeks office, he is representing a group of other people. If enough of these men seek and win office, they could potentially affect change upon our society. In other words, it is not beyond them to try to pass ammendments to the constitution codifying into *our* civil *law* their odd pseudobiblical beliefs.”
You bet it’s not beyond them… in fact that is their stated goal — read the writings of Gary North, Doug Phillips, et al.
That’s why I spend so much time discrediting Matt Chancey — it’s nothing personal, rather, it’s all about defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
January 17, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Sorry for the gratuitous plug, but I just wrote a couple of blog posts about the idea of being a stay at home mom and feminism, and I wanted to ask for some kind thoughts and insight. here’s the link to the latest:
http://betweenbabies.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/bye-daddy/
January 17, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Well, I’m informed that my comment has been scrubbed from United Liberty blog, and that the UL editor, South Texas (Bourne country?) homeschooling mom Shana Kluck, has responded,
“From the editor to Cynthia Gee: The reason your first and any subsequent comments were and will be deleted is because they are off-topic. If you would like to use the world’s bathroom wall, aka the internet, to denigrate someone, please purchase your own domain and go at it. If you have comments to make regarding the topic of this article, either for or against, we welcome them.”
The funny thing is, my IP has been banned from accessing the United Liberty site, so how does she think that I will see her comment, or make those “ON topic” comments she claims to welcome?
OH, I SEE — Shana is only saying that to make herself look good, and make it appear that she welcomes differences of opinion.
January 17, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Stop bragging, Cynthia. I had my entire campus’ IP addressed banned from MDC. Said action is legendary.
But these folk do scare the bejingles out of me.
January 17, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean to brag… but do I sense a STORY here???
Do tell — what is MDC, and how did it happen?
January 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm
“Stop bragging, Cynthia. I had my entire campus’ IP addressed banned from MDC. Said action is legendary.”
You’re hysterical, debrabaker. Maybe we ought to consider it a badge of honor the number of patrio sites we get banned from?
“Speaking of Chancey trying to appear mainstream, I was just online turning on Adventures in Oddyssey for my daughter to listen to and saw that Focus on the Family Weekend was advertising their show (I think it’s this Sat.)…
The topic of the show is an interview they just did with Doug Phillips.”
Scary stuff, Molleth. Last summer the patrios worked to mainstream into the young adult crowd at Focus on the Family. This winter it appears they’re infiltrating us grown ups. I already wrote my letter to FOTF last summer warning them…
Cindy K., I really don’t know much about Tony Campolo and would like to hear of some ways he’s light on doctrine. And Lin, could you explain more what you mean by the concept of “cheap grace” and how it relates to Campolo? I have an idea, but I’d like to understand you better. And honestly I’m not trying to be contentious here–just want to learn. Thanks.
January 17, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I like Tony Campolo a lot. But then, I think I differ in doctrinal matters with many of the people here. I personally find the creedal doctrines to be very important. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds I consider as definitive of the faith. The rest, I don’t really care about (as in, feel that we can/should differ charitably, including that I’m not afraid of the different opinions, and I think talking about them is a good thing).
I think voices like Tony, even when I don’t agree with them, add to the conversation, not take away from it. Sure, I don’t agree with Tony about a lot of things, but I feel I’ve grown by listening to him (I feel the exact same way about Brian McLaren, btw).
January 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Speaking of scary stuff, get a look at what the VisionForum/neoConfed kids are into these days:
http://warskyl.blogspot.com/
January 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I am very disturbed to hear that Vision Forum has infiltrated Focus on the Family and gained access to its huge audience/membership.
I loved Odyssey during its early years, and read many FOTF publications as a teenager. My mother is an ardent supporter of James Dobson, but I will have to warn her off him if he gets in bed with the patrios.
Perhaps as he gets older, Dr. D has gotten frustrated with the lack of political gains towards which he’s worked so long, and sees extremist ideologies as a last resort of sorts. Very sad.
On the banning of IP addresses for posting dissenting opinions: ridiculous. Just ridiculous. Is this sort of move supposed to instill confidence in the on-the-fence Christian considering patriocentrism? As a person prone to analysis and circumspection, this movement-wide shutting down of dissenters would be a major red flag for me.