We will continue the discussion here. It WAS getting too hard to load that last thread!
March 10, 2009
continuing from the last thread as we discuss all things patriocentric (Karen)
Posted by millenniumwoman under 1[470] Comments
[470] Comments
March 10, 2009
We will continue the discussion here. It WAS getting too hard to load that last thread!
March 10, 2009 at 9:06 pm
“Someday “Quiverfull” will serve as a documentation of that strange phenomenon of patriarchy that manifested in the early 21st century–before dying out from its dysfunction–and sheer weirdness.”
Debbie, this is profound!
Did the author happen to differentiate between being “quiverfull” and seeing children as a blessing?
March 10, 2009 at 10:21 pm
That review was really interesting! I am looking forward to reading the book myself.
March 10, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Debbie in Ca said, “I’ve marked some lines in the book that I found particularly interesting. I’d be happy to transcribe a few if anyone is interested.”
Yes! Please share. In particular, I am curious about how the patrios treated Susan Wise Bauer… I respect her as an author, historian, and high-energy homeschool mom.
March 10, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Here is a link I just found to an excerpt from the book that discusses the Botkin sisters:
http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/dogma/victory-through-daughters/
March 11, 2009 at 7:38 am
Elizabeth, thanks for that link. I have to say, I am very impressed. Obviously if the book isn’t written from a Christian perspective it won’t be perfect, but that excerpt has really impressed me.
When I started reading and posting here (wow, how long ago was that?), it was the theological refutations of the patriocentric dogma that attracted me, but I’ve grown to be equally interested in the psychological aspects of it. I have a feeling this book is going to be heavier on the latter than the former, but that’s okay.
Thanks so much for your very thorough review Debbie! Your opinion is always so well thought out. I think Joyce’s book is going on my wish list.
Cindy, I know you mentioned you are reading the book also, and I would love to hear your thoughts when you are done!
March 11, 2009 at 8:51 am
Here is a quote from the article that Elizabeth referenced and I think is interesting:
“Concretely, Geoffrey Botkin explains, this means evaluating all materials and media that daughters receive from childhood on as it pertains to their future role. The Botkin sisters received no Barbie dolls—idols that inspire girls to lead selfish lives—but rather a “doll estate” that could help them learn to manage a household of assets, furniture, and servants in the aristocratic vision of Quiverfull life which Botkin paints for the families around the room. The toys the girls played with were “tools for dominion,” such as kitchen utensils and other “tools for their laboratory”: the kitchen.”
This breading of a new aristocracy is appalling. This is, in essence, what I think is meant by “Christian decorum.”
March 11, 2009 at 9:08 am
Another quote:
“Elaborate courtship mechanisms are being worked out by fathers hoping to make alliances through the marriages of their daughters to the sons of men in the fold. And home business projects, largely home-based sewing businesses that produce modest clothing or home decorations, are cropping up among young daughters of the movement to such an extent that in 2007 homeschooling leaders James and Stacy McDonald urged homeschooled daughters to consider signing up with a new young-woman’s home business ministry, the Proverbs 31 Project (after the biblical verse, “who can find a virtuous woman, for her price is above rubies.”) The project, evoking the many virtues of the storied Proverbs 31 woman, is a Mary Kay-like franchise that promises to help young daughters “build a business for herself around the use of therapeutic-grade essential oils,” thereby helping her find a way to bring a home business into her marriage, making her a more attractive prospect to potential suitors.”
Anyone know anything at all about the Proverbs 31 Project? This is the first I have heard of it. Did it fizzle out?
This is one observation I have long had…did you ever notice that some of the most simple and obvious things are turned into a “project” or “seminar” or “conference” and thus used to build someone’s bank account? From what I can tell, it sounds like the this Proverbs 31 project is a version of Etsy.com My homeschooled daughter is a homemaker and homeschooling mom, (wasn’t harmed by her master’s degree) and has a successful Etsy home business. She doesn’t need this project. What in the world? I mean, any of us who homeschool know that teaching basic skills for maintaining a household is part of what we just do and it is mostly learned by being part of a family. All three of my grown sons know how to cook. In fact, when one of them first moved away, I sent along a crock pot and a crock pot cookbook. He took it to a church fellowship dinner filled with a favorite potato casserole recipe and all the women asked for the recipe! I have long considered one of my most important jobs as a mother-in-law is to give my daughters-in-law sons who know how to run a household, too.
And while I am on this soapbox, why is it that so much of what these people write is also such common knowledge but presented as though they were delivering a paper hoping to receive a Pulitizer prize? Everyone once in a while I will read something to my husband and he just shakes his head and replies “Don’t these people have any original thought?”
March 11, 2009 at 9:12 am
We are in the process of editing the interviews I did with Ellen Dana and Kathie Kordencrock from the Moore Academy and I hope you all get a chance to listen to them. They really bring us back to the fundamental truths about homeschooling and what it is “supposed” to be without all this goofy stuff. It is so interesting because Raymond Moore saw all this weirdness and predicted where it would head 20 years ago. No wonder the patriocentrists had to shut him down.
March 11, 2009 at 9:13 am
By the way, Ellen and I talk about his list of 6 concerns 20 years ago and some of how they are manifested today. She has some great insights and in the next three podcasts starting Friday we get into it.
March 11, 2009 at 10:23 am
Is it just me or is this disturbing? This (from the article linked above) strikes me as very intimate . . .
“Such lessons are repeated wide-scale at the father-daughter retreats, where daughters are given object lessons alongside the sermons through a series of ideological games, including a blindfolded obstacle course, where chains of blinded daughters were guided solely by relying on their fathers’ verbal commands; contests for fathers “wooing and winning the hearts of their daughters”; and intimacy-building “unity games” that teach daughters to serve their fathers by shaving their faces, grooming their hair, and knotting their shoes and ties. As three of Phillips’s young daughters, Jubilee, Liberty, and Faith, explained on a video posted on Vision Forum’s Web site, “Each of the games was designed to teach us a principle about our relationship with our fathers.””
March 11, 2009 at 11:24 am
Hillary,
I can’t tell you gamut of creepy, disgusted emotions that sweep over me thinking about the implications of these games and recalling the pictures of father’s leading blindfolded daughters around; how incredibly and deeply insulting!!! Beyond disturbing…
March 11, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“I mean, any of us who homeschool know that teaching basic skills for maintaining a household is part of what we just do and it is mostly learned by being part of a family. All three of my grown sons know how to cook.”
Exactly, Karen! I am reminded of a comment by (I think) Cynthia a while ago. She said that the way these people go on about the most basic aspects of homemaking, you would think they had been raised by wolves!
They go on and on about the benefits of adult daughters staying at home to hone their homemaking skills. It is ridiculous. Cooking, cleaning, and balancing a checkbook are NOT difficult skills to learn. I was comfortable with the basics of all three before I was fifteen. My brother is fifteen now and he is a great cook and always pulling his weight with housework in my parents’ house. And it’s not just homeschooling families. I went to university with lots of girls from unsaved homes and I can’t recall meeting anyone who couldn’t cook a few simple healthy meals and work a vacumn cleaner.
Now, I’m not saying at fifteen I should have or could have been running my own house. Emotional and spiritual maturity are vital. But they don’t come from sitting at home practicising your sewing and your coupon-cutting skills. In fact hands-down the best preparation I had for running my own household was, shock horror, sharing a house with some other girls at university. THAT gave me some real life experience about getting on with other people, managing my own money, and throwing dinner parties!
March 11, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Hillary, I know, the shaving exercises are particularly disturbing. We have discussed them before, back on the early visionary daughters threads, I think. There were some great thoughts then.
What I liked about the extract in particular was that Joyce has really done her homework and there are some things I didn’t know about, like this:
“So as Botkin held his newborn daughter perfectly still in his cupped hands, he prayed to God for guidance: after having raised two older sons, how should he raise a daughter? He felt God move him to a specific prayer for the infant sleeping in his hands, a prayer for her body. He remembered baby girls are born with two ovaries and a finite number of eggs that will last them a lifetime. He placed his hand over his new daughter’s abdomen and prayed for Anna Sofia to be the “future mother of tens of millions.” He prayed that the Lord would order everything in his daughter’s life: “What You will do with every single egg here. How many children will this young lady have? Who will be her husband? With what other legacy will these little eggs be joined to produce the next generation for the glory of God?” He explained to a room full of about six hundred fathers and daughters gathered for the annual Vision Forum Father and Daughter Retreat that he had prayed that his new daughter might marry young.”
Praying over a newborn infant’s ovaries? So strange.
Also, Anna Sofia is at least 24 (possibly 25?) now. There’s nothing wrong with that of course, and I don’t think anybody should be in a rush to get married. She’s roughly the same age as me and I know so many Christian friends who are hitting that quarter-century and starting to panic they’ll be left on the shelf. God’s timing is perfect. But in the context of a father on the one hand insisting women should stay home and marry young, and on the other hand using his young daughters to market (as Joyce’s article points out) what is really his book, well, it’s thought-provoking, isn’t it?
March 11, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I’ll be 24 tomorrow and I got married when I was 21. I have two kids with one on the way. I really don’t consider getting married at 25 “getting married young”. It’s not bad it’s just not getting married young. LOL.
March 11, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Hillary,
comment 10, that’s beyond creepy… that’s fostering emotional incest which is destructive to the child’s sexual and emotional development, and a seed of destruction for her future marriage.
Karen,
I don’t see what’s wrong with a home-business project that has a Christian spin. Nothing bad at all. I start having problems with this retrograde way of thinking that sees a home business as one more “asset” the daughter has, it’s like they are adding more programs to a computer they want to sell. “Mine trained and homeschooled nine siblings”, “mine can cook, bake, and sew”, “mine can make money, she comes with a home-business built in!” It’s like going back to Jane Austen’s days where women only had a future if they married, and dad (and mom) were always looking out for the rich man that would have their daughters. The more accomplished the daughter, the more chances she had with the rich suitors. Sad.
March 11, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Sorry, MrsW, I wasn’t very clear! I quite agree with you. I am about your age and got married when I was 21, straight out of university. My point was that 24 is not getting married young (though it’s not old-maid territory either!), and that Geoffrey Botkin’s Grand Plans would seem not to have come to pass, quite possibly because he has made his daughters HIS helpmeets, which can’t help them find REAL husbands, not daddy-husbands.
I don’t like talking about young girls and their personal relationships, but since Anna Sofia is NOT a young girl, but a grown woman the same age as myself, and her father has made this a point he preaches about, I think it’s acceptable to point out that his ‘strategy’ is a big fat failure. At 24, a person has six years of adulthood behind them. What of the ‘wasted eggs’? How can he teach this rubbish? It’s so upsetting and disturbing.
March 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I am glad to hear (in Debbie’s review at the end of the last thread) that Joyce’s book does not come off as a left-y political smear. Like Joyce, I am also a secular feminist with a left wing orientation and I have been following these extreme patriarchal movements on the internet for several years. But I worry that the deep interest I and many other feminists have in this topic may come across badly – as though we are taking the attitude of, “Look at these weird people with these weird lifestyles and beliefs, and the gullible women who put up with it.”
That’s why this forum is SO important. It seems the very best thing that conservative Christian women (if I may characterize most of you in that way?) should be leading the way in critiquing Christian patriarchy. In particular, the voices of women who have actually experienced it are far more valuable than anything I (or others like me) could add. Though I have commented only rarely on this forum, please know that I am cheering from the sidelines!
March 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Let me also be clear that I do not view women who get caught up in patriarchy as “gullible.” Though patriarchal attitudes may exist in fuller force in some sectors of society than others, none of us is immune.
March 11, 2009 at 2:28 pm
From Claire’s comment-
“So as Botkin held his newborn daughter perfectly still in his cupped hands, he prayed to God for guidance: after having raised two older sons, how should he raise a daughter? He felt God move him to a specific prayer for the infant sleeping in his hands, a prayer for her body. He remembered baby girls are born with two ovaries and a finite number of eggs that will last them a lifetime. He placed his hand over his new daughter’s abdomen and prayed for Anna Sofia to be the “future mother of tens of millions.” He prayed that the Lord would order everything in his daughter’s life: “What You will do with every single egg here. How many children will this young lady have? Who will be her husband? With what other legacy will these little eggs be joined to produce the next generation for the glory of God?” He explained to a room full of about six hundred fathers and daughters gathered for the annual Vision Forum Father and Daughter Retreat that he had prayed that his new daughter might marry young.”
“Praying over a newborn infant’s ovaries? So strange.”
Discusting! My 18 yr old daughter just read the excerpt with me and I assured her that her Dad had no such thought or prayer as he held her as a newborn. We simply prayed a humble thank you….
One of the last paragraphs also elicited her response…
“It’s a short window of opportunity for a father to guide his daughter where he wants her to go, and a short time for him to experience what Phillips calls “the greatest privilege of the ages: to have someone look at you and say, ‘Father, I love you. Father, shepherd me.’ Father, father. The very words we call our God and savior. God has given you fathers the opportunity to look at these girls and say, ‘You are mine. You are mine.’”
My daughter recalls that Janet Parshall at the True Woman Conference in Oct, taught on Hannah & Samuel and how Hannah gave Samuel back to the Lord… just as we all must do… we don’t own people. And it is healthier to desire them to follow Jesus not Dad & Mom.
March 11, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I have been looking into Joyce a bit more, reading some of her old articles. I found this recently published interview:
http://buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/149
Again, I’m impressed. She seems to have a very nuanced understanding of the dynamics here. This impressed me particularly:
BuzzFlash: Getting back to the race issue, it’s been sort of unstated, but how did we get to the point where Jesus and Christianity are seen as white?
Kathryn Joyce: That is a good question, but I’m not sure I am necessarily qualified to answer that, but I think I should clarify. I think there is subtext of race in a lot of the demographic concerns, but it’s often not overt and I don’t think everybody in this movement shares those beliefs. I think there’s a very strong racial undercurrent, when they talk about demography as a crisis, or underpopulation, or declining fertility rates as a crisis, because they’re talking about declining white fertility rates, not declining worldwide fertility rates. I think there are a lot of ties and connections between the extremist members of this movement and traditionally conservative and racist groups in the South. I don’t think that’s necessarily part of the theological basis for it, though.
I mean, this is exactly what I think myself. I’m glad she doesn’t rush to condemn every patriocentrist as racist, which I don’t think is correct or deserving.
I’ve ordered the book, but it won’t be here for a while. I was planning to spend my book budget this month on some Dorothy L Sayers novels. Joyce had better be worth depriving me of Peter Wimsey!
March 11, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“And while I am on this soapbox, why is it that so much of what these people write is also such common knowledge but presented as though they were delivering a paper hoping to receive a Pulitizer prize? Everyone once in a while I will read something to my husband and he just shakes his head and replies “Don’t these people have any original thought?”
So they’re trying to serve both God and Mammon, and attempting to mix the two — nothing very original about that.
It just goes to show you, housework is a never-ending job — you can braid a whip of cords, and clean out the Temple from top to bottom, but before you know it, it needs cleaning all over again.
March 11, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Slightly off subject but hopefully not too much . . . has anyone heard of the Rebelution movement that is very common among young patriocentric conservatives? It is headed by Alex and Brett Harris and is described as “a teenage rebellion against the low expectations of an ungodly culture. It is a safe haven for those who refuse to be defined by our rebellious culture. It is a community of Christian young people from around the world who are mutually committed to doing hard things in their teen years for the glory of God. ”
“The official definition of the ‘rebelution’ is “a teenage rebellion against the low expectations of an ungodly culture.”
http://www.therebelution.com/about/rebelution.htm
March 11, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I am reading Alex and Brett Harris’ book at the moment. I do like the idea of everyone including teens doing hard things, however not sure that they are entirely correct in their methods. Maybe I can review the book when I finish it.
March 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Looking forward to discussion about the rebelution movement/book since our church is promoting the book. From what I’ve seen on the website, what’s being promoted is a mix of religion, hard work, and rugged individualism.
I read the section on their blog on the gospel and doing hard things, but really couldn’t make heads or tails of it.
March 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm
madame, I have no issue with a Christian beginning a business, home or otherwise. I just am weary of so many people acting as though they invented these idea that have been around for centuries! And, dare I say, as with many of the VF film festival entries, so much of their imitation of secular business is poorly done.
March 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I also have an issue with people equating “godliness” with certain styles or tastes, especially when it comes to clothing and decorating.
March 11, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Karen,
I have an issue with people equating godliness with a certain style too.
All that “modest” this and “modest” that is tiring, IMO.
They all talk about how hard it is to find modest clothing out there, so they sell overpriced “modest” clothing and patterns, all of which are nice (if you like them), but not more modest than my jeans and sweater!
March 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Re: The Rebelution
I have recently been doing some research on The Rebelution. They have ties to Doug Phillips and support the Botkin girls on their blog.
You can read my recent post by going to: http://betsytacyandtib.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-i-am-anti-rebelutionary-part-one.html
March 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm
madame (#27),
you have hit on one thing that irritates me no end! All of the lamenting about how impossible it is to find modest clothes… Have they not been shopping recently? Vintage girly-feminine has been in style for at least 4 or 5 years now! You can get skirts of all sorts and frilly blouses everywhere. Heaven knows I’m no up-to-the-minute follower of fashion, but even I have noticed the general trend. I realise my standard of modesty is probably not the same (I wear pants and short skirts, gasp!), and people will still wear those cotton skirts with no slip and unbutton the shirts down to wherever, but the point remains that it isn’t hard at all to find modest, feminine (even girly) clothes in the mainstream. I suppose it’s another instance of creating a problem so you can sell a solution?
March 11, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Thanks for the new thread, thatmom. I just wish I’d noticed it before I transcribed a bunch of quotes from Joyce’s “Quiverfull” book at the end of the old thread. Oops!
If anyone has patience to go back for the down-load, you’ll find them there.
Or thatmom, is it possible to add them to this thread? Thanks.
March 11, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Debbie, here are the quotes from the last thread….I think I got them all. If I missed something just feel free to add it again here!
Okay, I’ll post a few quotes. Here’s one about Debi Pearl from page 78 of Kathryn Joyce’s “Quiverfull” book. (I’ll try to transcribe exactly–any typos are mine alone):
“But Debi departs from the conventional wisdom of other biblical womanhood manuals, offering a flavor of submission darker and more sexual than her suburban sisters. This is largely an expression of shaping the message to a different audience, a more rural, working-class, ‘Old South’ church than that ministered by Martha Peace and Nancy Leigh DeMoss. The message is the same, but with Pearl, blunter and crueler.
Women who don’t submit to their husbands in Debi’s wifehood gospel, organized as a seriers of “Dear Debi” letters with Debi’s withering replies, aren’t just upsetting the heavens but are setting themselves up for worldly destruction as well.
A woman who writes to complain that her husbands’ TV-watching is exposing the family to bad influences is warned that the social circle for divorced women with children is painfully small and that the job they’ll be forced to take will leave the kids in the hands of a fornicating babysitter. Other single mothers, Debi suggests, end up with bad haircuts and cheap clothes, pooling resources with other divorcees and becoming lesbians.”…
March 11, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Here are the rest:
#
Debbie from CA Says:
March 11, 2009 at 3:02 pm
From Joyce’s chapter about Jen Epstein (pages 118-119). Jen had just described her recent marriage crisis and impending divorce, and how she’s had trouble finding a church that will accept her that isn’t a “mega-church” with music she “hates” and sermons she sees as “unbiblical.”
Joyce writes in chapter summary: And this finally seemed like it might be the sad center of what Doug Phillips’ associates and employees had called a great ‘Internet conspiracy’ of defamantion: a life lived in a perpetual state of stumbling and repentance, writ large for the world to see. It was the Christian infatuation with the salvation story played out publicly, but with lives so messy that they could never fit easily into the idyllic male-headship family that Vision Forum promises is the solution to modern marriage woes. Instead, it might be simply the story of Jennifer, a sharp and intelligent woman who felt a need to make a mark for herself in the world she had chosen. She led her family in a search for distinctive holiness and took them into the arms of the patriarchy movement. There she found that her husband’s anger, violence, and jealousy were vindicated and that she was no longer allowed to lead, speak, debate, or distinguish herself in any way other than submissiveness. When she balked at those rules for holiness, she found herself in spiritual limbo: too holy for the churches that accept her as a broken sister and as a sharp, capable woman, and too tarnished and unsubmissive for the churches that meet her standards. Jennifer hopes still for a ‘perfect’ church that can deliver the standard of righteousness patriarchs claim as their own, but in which female members play a role more substantial than that of ‘completer,’ or at least one where she can rise as an exception to the ranks of helpmeets. Sadly, it’s not a combination she’s likely to find where she’s looking.”
#
Debbie from CA Says:
March 11, 2009 at 3:12 pm
In Joyce’s chapter on Visionary Daughters, she describes Kelly Bradrick and her Vision Forum fairy-tale wedding. On pages 232 and 233, Joyce writes:
“Kelly, a blonde daughter of North Carolina, with a fragile, intelligent beauty in her pictures, like a young Mia Farrow, was another of Vision Forum’s lofted models for young daughters before the era of the Bodkin sisters, speaking on the Vision Forum ‘Victory for Daughters’ CD while she was a single daughter living at home after finishing homeschool. There, as a model of patient premarried womanhood…”
And later
“Kelly, filmed just days before delivering her first child–a son she and Peter would name ‘Triumph’–had lost the waifish thinness of her wedding photos, but her imminent childbirth, just a year after her wedding, is of course a part of this story as well. But there’s a gloom to those shots, despite the best intentions of the filmmakers, who linger longer on Kelly’s wedding pictures, black and while shots of the laughing, svelte, bare-face beauty than on her married life or her filled-out and heavily rouged cheeks. The expanse of life stretching out in front of her seemed little more than an afterword, with the baton clearly passed to the next set of model daughters–young women who, for all their advocacy of the home life of wives and mothers, are still unmarried and pursuing creative projects.”
#
Debbie from CA Says:
March 11, 2009 at 4:56 pm
More from Joyce’s “Victory Through Daughters” chapter:
Pages 220–223, “The education of the young Botkin women is the current key example that Vision Forum is offering to parents following its model, and the reasons are clear. The Botkin sisters in the past several years have released a polemical book, ‘So Much More,’ as well as a companion documentary, ‘The Return of the Daughters: A Vision for the Single Women of the Twenty-first Century,’ in which the daughters, staring regally, unblinkingly at the camera, appear in front of the fireplace in a vaulted roomm decorated in rustic country elegance. They further spread the message through their blog, Visionary Daughters, and they speak or play the harp frequently at events for women and daughters, including Vision Forum’s annual Father and Daughter Retreat. Appearing on book jackets, on film, or on stage (their iconic public personas are captured in photographs with upswept hair and softly made-up, flushed faces turned towards the camera in three-quarter profile), they’re an elegant pair possessed of the distinct, romantic beauty ideal biblical womanhood seeks to claim as their own.”…
At the 2007 retreat, at Calloway Gardens in Georgia, the Botkin sisters delivered one such address as part of a conference that cost upwards of five hundred dollars per father-daughter couple (and which was recorded and repackaged as a CD set for families unable to afford or to attend.) In it, Anna Sofia and Elizabeth speak in a soft, flat Kansas accent, Dorothies in a perpetual Oz, with a deliberate diction suggesting of public-speaking lessons.”…
“On stage, the sisters explained…they should wear feminine clothes to prove to their fathers that they are virtuous women worthy of protection. They should not learn career skills as emergency ‘backups’ to support themselves, as “‘learning to survive’ can teach girls attitudes of independence, hardness.’”
#
Debbie from CA Says:
March 11, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Continuing with Joyce’s “Victory Through Daughters” chapter (pages 225-227) and the teaching at the Father/Daughter retreat, Joyce writes:
“As husbands represent God’s will for their wives under patriarchy, fathers ‘pattern’ the role a husband will play to their daughters, that of ‘Lord.’ And in fact, as a number of speakers repeat, in tones of hushed revelation, fathers are ‘a conduit, a pipeline, a representative head to express His love to you.’ Daughters who don’t understand that, who have been blinded by the devil to the true meaning of headship, will be unhappy and lost. And, in a fammiliar tweaking of the Protestant denial of salvation through works, Scott Brown tells the fathers present that if their daughters are angry or rebellious, they should assume that the girls are unsaved; the fruits of salvation would make a daughter eager to please and follow her father’s guidance as diligently as do the the model daughters trotted out on stage.”…
“Girls whose hearts are turned to their fathers will behave as do Phillips’ daughters: anticipating his needs, offering encouragement through physical affection (’rubbing their fingers in Daddy’s hair’), and rejecting ‘patricidal’ friends who encourage them to ignore their parents’ wishes or keep secrets from their fathers. The effect of such daughterly devotion Phillips describes in terms usually reserved for less paternal relations: ‘It puts fire in the heart of a man. It encourages him to stand up and be strong and be a missionary.’”
And finally on page 227, Joyce writes, “The extent to which Botkin views his daughters as his ambassadors, or extensions of himself, is perplexingly hinted at when both he and Doug Phillips slip during the conference and refer to ‘So Much More’ as Geoffrey Botkin’s book. This could seem either an indication of his daughters’ total identification with their father, or else, perhaps, indication of the heavy paternal hand guiding the virtuous daughters’ movement–as present in the writing of the book as it feels in every frame of the film and every still photograph taken of the two sisters.”
March 11, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Actually, thatmom, I think I can just copy and paste my earlier posts. Hope that’s okay. Here we go:
______________________
Okay, I’ll post a few quotes. Here’s one about Debi Pearl from page 78 of Kathryn Joyce’s “Quiverfull” book. (I’ll try to transcribe exactly–any typos are mine alone):
“But Debi departs from the conventional wisdom of other biblical womanhood manuals, offering a flavor of submission darker and more sexual than her suburban sisters. This is largely an expression of shaping the message to a different audience, a more rural, working-class, ‘Old South’ church than that ministered by Martha Peace and Nancy Leigh DeMoss. The message is the same, but with Pearl, blunter and crueler.
Women who don’t submit to their husbands in Debi’s wifehood gospel, organized as a seriers of “Dear Debi” letters with Debi’s withering replies, aren’t just upsetting the heavens but are setting themselves up for worldly destruction as well.
A woman who writes to complain that her husbands’ TV-watching is exposing the family to bad influences is warned that the social circle for divorced women with children is painfully small and that the job they’ll be forced to take will leave the kids in the hands of a fornicating babysitter. Other single mothers, Debi suggests, end up with bad haircuts and cheap clothes, pooling resources with other divorcees and becoming lesbians.”…
March 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Thanks, thatmom! You move fast! We re-posted the first one at the same time. My job is done.
March 11, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Susan T said, “Yes! Please share. In particular, I am curious about how the patrios treated Susan Wise Bauer… I respect her as an author, historian, and high-energy homeschool mom.”
Joyce interviewed Bauer on the phone. Joyce writes about Bauer, beginning on page 31 of “Quiverfull.” Bauer’s minister husband had just gotten Vision Forum flack for daring distance himself from the Jamestown celebration ten miles from their house. Joyce writes:
“In full fact, though, Susan Bauer had drawn the ire of this continguent earlier in the year with a brief note on her personal blog praising an ‘egalitarian’ book by Christian author John Stackhouse, ‘Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender.’
Joyce quotes Bauer, “I figured I’d get some flack,” she said, “but I didn’t realize how dramatic it would be.”
Joyce writes, “…there was a roar of condemnation, starting with a chorus of homeschool mothers’ blogs warning that Bauer’s books would lead unwitting homeschooling families astray if people read them without realizing she had subversive feminist sympathies…. The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood charged that Bauer is ‘undermining biblical authority by holding her current position on the gender issue.’…
“They (the criticizing homeschoolers)advocated a boycott against Bauer’s books. The Reformed theologians warned…that accepting this book place Bauer on a slippery slope, opening the door to accepting gay rights, abortion, and other such ‘abominations.’ Such was the risk of arguing that the Bible’s rules could be understood as culture-bound and conditional in other cases.”
Joyce quotes Bauer, “They tend to be very sophisticated when reading Scripture about where it fits in to its original context, except when it comes to women. Then they’re not as eager to look to context.”
And in an unrelated (but very good) Bauer quote on page 220 of the Daughters chapter, “By forgoing college education and any meaningful interaction with culture, they become increasingly isolated communities from the mainstream. And isolated communities are ultimately doomed to fade.”
March 11, 2009 at 8:10 pm
thatmom said, “Did the author happen to differentiate between being “quiverfull” and seeing children as a blessing?”
Interesting question. I wouldn’t say that the author actually addresses the idea of large families or children as a blessing on its own. She focuses on those deliberately breeding big numbers as a call to patriarchy. Joyce is careful not to denigrate mothers or babies or even those with lots of babies. (Again, my radar is set on high there as a dedicated pro-lifer.)
She holds her criticism for those patriarchal leaders who’ve elevated fertility into an idol, tying the number of births into a measure of salvation or holiness. She describes the pain and pressure many of these women feel to produce big numbers no matter what.
March 11, 2009 at 8:16 pm
From the link:
“One day, while father Botkin was entertaining a “very important political leader,” he called to his daughter. Anna Sofia, then five or six, came into the room to untie and remove her father’s shoes, and she then asked the guest if she could untie his shoes as well.”
What is wrong with these dads? Seriously. It’s just got the “females are beneath me” kind of feeling, whether they intend it or not.
March 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Hillary, you asked, “has anyone heard of the Rebelution movement that is very common among young patriocentric conservatives? It is headed by Alex and Brett Harris and is described as “a teenage rebellion against the low expectations of an ungodly culture.”
Yes, I used to attend their church for years. That is until I started questioning their father’s and other’s teachings on exclusivity in Gregg’s teachings in the Bible. He advocates that to be truly biblical a man should own his own business, homeschool, and they have neatly tied up Old Testament verses (just like the other Reconstructionists do) to base their teachings on. There is a close connection between the Harris family with Vision Forum, with their twin sons, now at Patrick Henry college (they made lots of $$ during their primarily volunteer-run “Rebelution” conferences, that promoted their book, “Do Hard Things”, which is a re-cap of all their blog posts.
Their younger son is taking up a different interest in Vision Forum in that he has bought the super expensive semi-professional video equipment to create “christian” films, in anticipation to submit one to the San Antonio Independent Christian Film festival, by Vision Forum. The Harris’ have built a small inner circle of devotees that insulate the family from any real constructive criticism, even if it involves adverse behavior from their children or their own pulpit teachings. It’s really a cult of personality there, with the twisting of the Scriptures just enough (by adding prerequisites to the Gospel) that make it worthy of investigation.
I left after I could not deal any longer with the exclusive teachings and really twisting of the Scriptures and attitudes in leadership. Oh, and I felt very comforted when after I had posted my disagreements on my blog with Harris and Co.’s teachings, that a former leader, who was still in attendance, confirmed to me privately that my assessment of Harris and his teachings was correct, and roughly, he “could have written it” himself. This was a man and his family who were considered a “poster family” for their teachings, and had been with them since early on with them. Did anyone stand up for what I said there? No. But I understand the dynamics a bit better now. It still feels bad.
I wrote about it on my blog:
http:@@ //kateschosen.wordpress.com/exclusivity-condescension-preferential-teachings-and-why-i-disagree-strongly-with-these-teachings/
http:@@ //kateschosen.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/already-doing-hard-things-myob/
http:@@ //kateschosen.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/good-stuff-and-not-so-good-stuff/#comment-608
Take out the @@ and fix the link to get it to operate in your browser. I just wanted it to get through the spam filter.
I wrote about much of the really troublesome teachings I heard personally from them/Harris, and one in particular dealt with Gregg’s recommendation to the congregation from the pulpit to watch “The Return of the Daughters” video and be challenged by the Botkin’s teachings. I’m glad I got my daughter out of that church before any more brainwashing could occur.
March 11, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I have lots of thoughts, but I am going to sleep on them because I want to be very sure I phrase everything appropriately and in a Christlike manner.
I just have one quick question. Are the Harris twins related to Joshua Harris of ‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ fame? Or is that a coincidence? I know ‘Harris’ is hardly an uncommon surname.
March 11, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Debbie, I really appreciate the pro-life aspect you have, too, and I would consider myself a tried and true pro-lifer, though my former congregants would paint me differently, I suppose. I had many interactions, some painful, with women who were quiverfull to the “nth” degree at Gregg Harris’ church. They have idolized fertility almost to the point that you could almost call it a cult. Who, as a pro-lifer, could argue with having lots of children or blessings? Well, what if a person like me shows up: I had my kids at a young age (20′s); I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic who had a difficult time during my pregnancies, and chose to have my tubes tied after my 4th child was born with a severe heart condition that resulted in her death at the age of 2 1/2 years old. (Thank God I didn’t know these extreme teachings when my husband and I made that personal/God decision earlier). Years later, when our “small” family of 3 homeschooled children started to attend that church, it was apparent through the talk of the grapevine and some pulpit preaching that having “many” more than I did was even more “blessed”. (You know, much is learned in church from sincere seekers “mimicking” leadership, and deriving conclusions based on leadership’s lifestyle choices and inferences and outright teachings in sermons. It’s a trap in the church.) Particular families drew a “following” of sorts because of their quiverful convictions. They also had some fertility reversal done.
Another family was outright rude to us about our family size. It was just par for the course with them, though. That couple is now one of the leading “pro-life” families at that congregation. What drew us to the congregation at first was the homeschooling aspect, and we weren’t plugged in at the time. I had no idea of all the baggage piled on top of the Gospel would be required for me to carry.
March 11, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Claire,
Alex and Brett Harris are Josh Harris’ younger brothers. They hold some of their Rebelution tour conferences in Sovereign Grace churches, and especially at Covenant Life Church, Josh Harris’.
They’ve all been discussed at sgmsurvivors.com, too.
March 11, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Claire,
I didn’t get caught up on comments here yet.
I have not yet been able to delve into this book for several reasons.
When I first flipped through the book, now almost 2 weeks ago, getting a copy in advance of the publication date, I looked in the index and commented on it here. Kathleen asked about Gregg Harris, as I’d mentioned seeing his name. When I looked at the first reference, he was listed as something of a founder of homeschooling and, given my recall of it now (though it is on the other thread), he was considered something of the Pacific NW leader in homeschooling.
That really frustrates me, because my exposure to homeschooling came years before anyone had ever heard of Gregg Harris. I learned about homeschooling on Phil Donahue in the mid-’70s. I consider John Holt (non-Christian) and the Moores to be the founders of homeschooling. I then learned later, when I learned about Chalcedon, that Rushdoony also supported the movement, but I’d not heard of him until we started attending the cultic church. Even Kevin Leman was an early advocate of homeschooling, and I’d never heard of most of these people until I was inducted into what I will call the “Gentle Spirit culture” as a precarious member, as I never had any children to homeschool as I had planned.
Then I saw that the references to Harris largely pertained to Cheryl Seelhoff, noting that it appears that she was interviewed along with Jen Epstein. That also took some wind out of my sails. Really, I can’t think of two more weird spokespeople, though they were both individuals that were treated pretty miserably.
All this comes on the heels of the past recent months, and I am just so disappointed, I don’t know that I want to read anymore. I started out with clear opinions about VF after what I’d witnessed at our church in Texas. But there are levels of realization, just as there are levels of deception used in patriarchy. I had the miserably disappointing experience with Voddie Baucham in November, I uncovered the documentation about Botkin’s role in the Great Commission cult, and then I went through all the material that I could find on multigenerational faithfulness. Of all of these things, that multigenerational faithfulnes tripe is sick. It is all about propagating the species and is nothing more than social darwinism and survival of the spiritually fittest.
So before that, I held a certain degree of respect for some of these people. I am an idealist, believe it or not, and I held out a lot of hope that all of these teachings were just off balance. I mean, they do profess faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. Per their professions, they are believers. But to look at the blatant works oriented beliefs so closely for so many weeks, all with this social/spiritual engineering focus, I almost can’t take any more of it right now.
Even in that excerpt on that link noted above, as I believe Gregg Harris was wrongly described (Moore says in the white papers that Harris “raped” his business in order to establish himself), I read that they called Vision Forum the intellectual avant garde group of fundamentalism or something. The day that VF truly classifies as intellectual and representative of fundamentalism, pigs will sprout wings and fly. So that stuff is also difficult for me to read right now.
I am, however, validated that the author was equally as offended by the same passage in RC Sproul Jr’s book describing the 9 year old that can’t read, something I did blog on in my posts on MGF. I really intended to read it, but my heart is just not in it right now.
So I am as thrilled as can be that so many here have been such good Bereans to review it and scrutinize it. PG Wodehouse once had his character Jeeves say that it is best to know what tunes the devil is playing, and I’ve heard D James Kennedy in the early ’80s say something of the same effect. So though the book was written by a secular author, I’m sure there are many things that we can learn.
(I feel a bit sometimes like a proud parent, because everyone is really stepping up to ask important questions — questions that 3 or 4 years ago, most people were too terrified to ask, let alone write about on a blog. It’s like watching Acts 17:11 come to pass here, and I’m really proud to have supported this inquiry.)
March 12, 2009 at 1:00 am
Hi all, I’ve been a lurker for a few months, greatly intrigued by this forum, and I thought I might as well say something while I poke around here.
First: thank you, thank you, thank you, for this site. I am a 22 year old biomedical sciences grad student, and for the past 5 or 6 months, I have been trying to find out what it means to truly be a “woman of God.” Unfortunately, almost everything I came upon ranged from the disappointing (give up the vet-school-missionary-in-Africa dream and move back home) to the horrifying (place your father above Jesus and serve him until you marry, or one of you dies.) Needless to say, I was elated when I found this site and with it, women of reason and capacity (and skepticism, if I may be so bold.)
It is greatly encouraging to know that I can still be my own person, with my own plans and dreams and desires, and not have to come to God through a man (father, husband, etc.) to have them, or myself, approved. It is even better to not have to live with the guilt that I’m probably going straight to hell for living 70 miles away from home, and being so profane as to go to a *gasp* public college. I feel that those who teach these ideals may be on the right track for themselves, but this is a rigidly molded lifestyle that is not meant for everyone, both from a standpoint of personality and spirituality.
Again, thank you. You have relieved at least one little college student.
March 12, 2009 at 8:13 am
The passage on Kelly Bradrick is really intriguing. Is there much more about her in the book? I will confess to long have wondered what the woman embodied in all those beautiful pictures is really like.
It would probably be fair to criticize Joyce for reading a mood into the photographs that may not have been experienced by Kelly in real life. But I can understand the sense of gloom. It’s not that there is anything wrong or sad about having a baby right away. What’s sad is that the life script of this lovely, energetic, apparently intelligent young woman has been written for her already – and that she doesn’t have an option to change it if she desires (at least not without a dramatic break from everything she has ever known).
March 12, 2009 at 8:47 am
“But there are levels of realization, just as there are levels of deception used in patriarchy.”
Cindy, I have often described this as peeling back the layers. I just wish those who do interviews and articles with/about the patriocentrists understood this and did their homework ahead of time.
March 12, 2009 at 8:48 am
Hi Catherine and welcome. We are excited to have you join us and appreciate your kind words. I hope you will be a regular part of the conversation.
March 12, 2009 at 8:49 am
I also found Joyce’s comments on the photos of the girls to be quite interesting. Do you all remember when Corrie’s 4 year old daughter walked into the room while Corrie was watching The Return of the Daughters and wanted to know if the Botkin girls were “real girls or robot girls?”
March 12, 2009 at 8:53 am
Cindy, I know you expressed your concerns about the R.C. Sproul Jr. comment before but I am a little confused about what bothered you so much. Was it that Sproul saw a fore-ordained role for women? Was it the age of the girl? Was it how much that little girl was already doing that were adult chores? Was it that she was the caregiver for the children? There are many possibilities here.
I wanted to interject something here. If it is the fact that she is 9 and not yet reading, I don’t think someone should be alarmed. (I have been reading lots of the Moores lately.) And R,.C. did say that he wanted the girl to learn to read so it wasn’t like he didn’t think women needed to read.
What are you thinking exactly?
March 12, 2009 at 9:40 am
From my post about this matter:
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/02/rc-sproul-jrs-take-on-multigenerational.html
But what I found most disturbing about this book was a vignette of a family of eight that RC discusses who has a nine year old daughter that cannot read. When I first learned of homeschooling in the late 70s, I thought it was amazing how much better the academic training a child could receive from a mother with a vested interest in the outcome. And I have had friends who struggled with children with learning disabilities. I have helped these friends work with their children, and I’ve worked with kids in the Christian school where I volunteered, helping with these very issues. So I am not terribly stressed about a 9 year old that cannot read. These families I know worked and sought out every resource, screening their kids for problems and trying different alternatives such as trying private school for a year, considering that their child might do better with a different teacher in a different setting. Vision problems and physical problems were ruled out as a deterrent factor. And I don’t know that this was not the case with the family that RC describes in his book, but he certainly made no effort to point out what the family did one way or the other. That could be an oversight (that RC did not make a point to explain that the family had worked hard and done all they could do to rule out an organic problem which explains why their nine year old can’t read), but one that I find a bit disturbing, setting a standard that this is acceptable (that a 9 year old homeschooled girl can’t read). But this I find even more troubling:
From Pages 110 – 112:
The mother made a confession to me. She told me, “You know, my nine-year-old daughter doesn’t know how to read.” Now here is a good test to see how much baggage you are carrying around. Does that make you uncomfortable? Are you thinking, “Mercy, what would the school superintendent say if he knew?” My response was a cautious, “Really?” But my friend went on to explain, “She doesn’t know how to read, but every morning she gets up and gets ready for the day. Then takes care of her three youngest siblings. She takes them to the potty, she cleans and dresses them, makes their breakfasts, brushes their teeth, clears their dishes, and makes their beds.” Now I saw her rightly, as an overachiever. If she didn’t know how to read, but did know all the Looney Tunes characters, that would be a problem. But here is a young girl being trained to be a keeper at home. Do I want her to read? Of course I do, as does her mother. I want her to read to equip her to learn the Three Gs. [From earlier in the book, he notes the "Three Gs": Who is God? What has God done? What does God require?] But this little girl was learning what God requires, to be a help in the family business, with a focus on tending the garden.
I’m not suggesting that the goal is to have ignorant daughters. I am, however, arguing that we are to train them to be keepers at home. These two are not equivalent. Though we aren’t given many details we know that both Priscilla and Aquila had a part in the education of Apollos. I’m impressed with Priscilla, as I am with my own wife. She is rather theologically astute… My point is that that brilliance isn’t what validates her as a person. It’s a good thing, a glorious thing, and an appropriate thing. But it’s like the general principle we’ve already covered. Would I rather be married to a godly woman who was comparatively ignorant, or a wicked person who was terribly bright? Who would make a better wife and mother, someone who doesn’t know infra- from supralapsarianism, but does know which side is up on a diaper, or a woman about to defend her dissertation on the eschatology of John Gill at Cambridge but one who thinks children are unpleasant? It’s no contest, is it? Naturally we want everything. We want all the virtues to the highest degree. But virtues come in different shades and colors in different circumstances.
I don’t understand why the patriocentrists work so hard at making reading and caring for a home and children a life long and an either-or dichotomy. RC tells us that it doesn’t matter if your kid can read, so long as they meet the requirements of a good wife and mother. It isn’t called home-keeping-schooling. It’s called homeschooling. Sproul and his soulmates suggest over and over that if a young woman knows the meaning of fifty cent words that she may not have enough room in her brain to adequately put a diaper on a baby or will be unable to be a proficient and loving mother to her children. And God forbid that she not be able to make a pie! What makes academic excellence and being proficient at keeping the home mutually exclusive? This I don’t understand.
The laws of our land require that children receive adequate basic schooling, and when the Christian school and homeschooling movements came about, it was a concerted goal as a Christian virtue to show the world that we could do what they could do – and do it better. And I don’t think it’s any kind of good Christian witness at all to say “Well, they wouldn’t get any better of an education in public school, and I want my children to have good character.” But this is not an excuse for a permissive attitude when our kids can’t read, and certainly not when it is written about in a book that sets a standard for a “covenantal vision.” As Christians, we used to seek to set a higher standard of academic excellence, because that’s what I thought taking dominion was all about. That’s what I heard John Holt and Raymond and Dorothy Moore speak about, and I even heard it from Kevin Leman. But I find less and less of this spirit of dominion in homeschooling with the advent of the “movement homeschooling gender sacraments.” And I suppose it’s a great blessing that Rushdoony and the Moores are no longer with us, because I believe they would be (more) heartsick.
Again, Karen, I know several kids that were not pushed but did not read until they were 12 or 13 but turned out to be excellent readers thereafter. They had good outcomes, and I believe that public school would have crushed both of them. Homeschooling served them well, but I believe that one of those two would have done quite well with the Accelerated Christian Education program that I was trained with.
I also worked with a 15 year old boy with reading and math through a Christian School that I volunteered with. He had so much trouble that he dropped out there, but the school was still concerned about him. I used to meet with him at the request of the school. But I worked with his family to also rule out other causes such as visual impairment or learning disabilities. He actually had several problems and had fallen through about every crack that could possibly have existed up until this late date. That kind of thing really troubles me, because at least a portion of his difficulties could have been averted and this set him back many years. He improved dramatically when finally received treatment.
We don’t know. We aren’t told the full story, but if you are declared leader in this area and are writing a book, you ought to be pretty clean with the setting of a good standard. I don’t think that, for reasons stated, that this is a good standard.
March 12, 2009 at 9:41 am
Well, I knid of got the impression that it’s OK if some people, especially girls, can’t read, because they don’t NEED to read in order to do what they need to do in life — in other words, people really need only as much education as it takes for them to do their jobs.
Never forget, at heart theonomy ISN’T about religion, it’s about politics which tier adherents believe are religiously validated, and it’s all about a return to a stratified society — in a word, feudalism.
March 12, 2009 at 9:42 am
Ugh…. sorry about all the typos — apparently the coffee hasn’t worked its way down into my fingers yet.
March 12, 2009 at 9:44 am
You can link to my post to see where the RC Sproul Jr quote ends and where my commentary begins, but I did not make it clear here when I copied it here.
RC 2.0′s quote ends with:
“But virtues come in different shades and colors in different circumstances.”
My comment starts with:
“I don’t understand why the patriocentrists work so hard at making reading and caring for a home and children a life long and an either-or dichotomy.”
March 12, 2009 at 9:47 am
I read When You Rise Up a few years ago and was equally offended by Sproul’s example of the non-reading 9 year old. It seemed as though teaching this child to read was not a priority, but that teaching her how to change diapers and scrub toilets took precedence. I have no doubt that a great deal of time was spent on teaching the 9 year old boy to read. I’m thinking about this in the context of the entire book where educating women is so shamelessly devalued. Essentially, Sproul says that parents need no other textbook than the Bible to teach their children all they need to know to succeed in life. Try to make a living in this economy on just the Bible. At least the Botkins claim to believe that women should be “highly, highly educated” and not just in how to bake bread and balance a checkbook.
March 12, 2009 at 10:12 am
The new “unschooling” movement:
http://lacy.obeyingthetruth.com/blog/tag/public-school/
March 12, 2009 at 11:01 am
Kathleen, thanks for the links!
March 12, 2009 at 11:49 am
Laurie said, “The passage on Kelly Bradrick is really intriguing. Is there much more about her in the book? I will confess to long have wondered what the woman embodied in all those beautiful pictures is really like.”
Joyce covers Kelly and Peter Bradrick on pages 232-234. She describes how the Botkins featured Kelly in their Return of the Daughters video, “…showcasing some of the movement’s prettiest daughters, moving, in slow motion, through their daily lives at home with a number of pointed indicators of the good life: sensual shots of lush meals and strawberries dipped in chocolate…”
Joyce describes the academic courtship process Peter underwent in wooing Scott Brown, I mean Kelly Brown. And how Peter withheld telling Kelly he loved her or that she was beautiful because he didn’t want to interject any of that emotional stuff into the process.
Kelly says that people ask if her dad picked her husband. She answers that they both did, plus God, too. But she also says, “I see so much importance of a father being the one who goes out, who is in harm’s way, that is looking for a young man for his daughter,” she says. “It shouldn’t be for a daughter to be making herself exposed searching for someone.”
March 12, 2009 at 1:33 pm
My copy of the book just arrived! I am really looking forward to reading it.
A lot of the marketing of this group reminds me of Ralph Lauren. Lauren didn’t market just clothes, he marketed the allure of a leisured, elegant, upper class lifestyle — just as these folks do.
The way the most beautiful of the daughters get pushed forward seems, well, really transparent. Yet effective.
And how Peter withheld telling Kelly he loved her or that she was beautiful because he didn’t want to interject any of that emotional stuff into the process.
This seems like a recipe for trouble. I wonder where these couples and their children and grandchildren will be in 50 years?
March 12, 2009 at 2:45 pm
—”Joyce covers Kelly and Peter Bradrick on pages 232-234. She describes how the Botkins featured Kelly in their Return of the Daughters video, “…showcasing some of the movement’s prettiest daughters, moving, in slow motion, through their daily lives at home with a number of pointed indicators of the good life: sensual shots of lush meals and strawberries dipped in chocolate…” —–
Wow. The good life. What happens when these young ladies realize that the day to day life of a wife and mother is not all that glamorous? Yes, there may be days when our lives include lush meals and strawberries, but that is not the norm.
My children have brought me more joy than I ever imagined, but motherhood also came along with more work than I ever imagined. It’s the most fun I’ve ever had wrapped up with the hardest work I’ve ever had. They seem to leave out the “work” part in these videos.
March 12, 2009 at 3:08 pm
http:// @@ thegatheringplacetrentfamily.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-weekend.html
Popping out of lurkdom to share this link (remove the @@). The ‘star struck’ quality of it bothered me, especially as the writer is in her 20s. She sounds like a lovely young woman and I have no wish to criticise her. Perhaps she’s writing tongue in cheek. But it shocks me to me to see a person respond to anybody within the Christian world in the way that you would often see teenagers respond to popstars. The promotion of individuals or individual families as role models for a perfect life encourages this kind of response, I think. I’m certainly not blaming the writer.
Thank you for the interesting conversation. Back to lurking
March 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm
(please pardon my sarcasm today)
From the above link (killingthebuddah)
“They (young ladies) should not learn career skills as emergency “backups” to support themselves, as “learning to ‘survive’ can teach girls attitudes of independence, hardness.” -Botkin girls
Does this remind anyone else of the old racist opinion “When ya educate a negro, he gets uppity?” I guess when you educate a woman, she gets the hairbrained notion that she’s made fer better thangs. :p
but “…their parents are quick to argue that the women are receiving Ph.D.-level educations at home, at least in the skills they will need later on as wives and mothers.”
Ph.D. “level”? What does that mean?
Do you think I can get a Ph.D. Equivalency Certificate from VF because I have spent 26 years of wife/mothering?! roflol.
And this line really infuriates me:
“They (young ladies) should wear feminine clothes to prove to their fathers that they are virtuous women worthy of protection.”-the Botkin girls
Where in the Bible does it teach that we must be worthy of our father’s protection?! Grrrr!!
I’m sorry, but the Father/Daughter relationship that these people describe is bizarre! I see the daughters as crossing the line of sexual impropriety. I mean, is this a harem, or a family?! Rubbing fingers through Dad’s hair?? That’s like, a number one turn on! Feet? That’s another turn on! Chains? Bondage? NOT a turn on for normal folks but that’s gotta be at the top of the “bizarre fantasies” list. Has an expert commented on these weird games? Don’t you think the moms are struggling with jealousy?
March 12, 2009 at 3:22 pm
What I always wonder about is this:
How do these teachings by guys like Botkin and Phillips work themselves out in the next generation?
And doesn’t this put a monkey wrench in their efforts to attract suitable husbands for their daughters?
I mean, as lovely and apparently talented as the Botkin sisters are, any guy who’d want to court one of them already would have to go through what must be a highly intimidating “wooing” process with their dad, Geoff. I’m sure Mr. Botkin would require that any future son-in-law would subscribe to his own “visionary” ideals about “multi-generational faithfulness,” too.
So how does this work?
A potential suitor for Anna Sophia or Elizabeth has to be “visionary,” with grand ideas about being the patriarch of multiple generations. But in order to marry one of the Botkin girls, doesn’t he then have to set aside his own patriarchal aspirations in order to take on Geoff Botkin’s “vision” and become part of Botkin’s next generation?
If a young man is sold out enough on these patriarchal teachings to be willing to jump through all the necessary hoops so he can act upon his attraction to
Geoffrey BotkinAnna Sophia or Elizabeth, isn’t he then going to want to establish his own “multi-generational” family?It’s kind of enough to make one’s head spin!
After all that creepy hand-wringing over his newborn daughter’s ovaries, Mr. Botkin seems to have done quite a lot to set her up for having “wasted” eggs. Poor girls!
March 12, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Kris, I was thinking about this very issue. But I think there is a small community of young men (VF interns anyone?) who look up to these guys and want to pursue their vision. But it would take an incredible amount of gumption for the young man to make the first move. I imagine the fathers kind of taking matters into their own hands at some point and either approaching the young men or approaching the young man’s father.
Joyce refers to “alliances” and someone else mentioned “aristocracy.” I imagine the fathers getting together and negotiating marriages with acceptable familes who are elites within this movement. Kind of like Saudi Arabia or medieval aristocratic Europe.
March 12, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“How do these teachings by guys like Botkin and Phillips work themselves out in the next generation?”
Nobody knows because this is the first generation. Why would someone want to emulate these people with no proven track record and whose ideals aren’t based on the Word of God in the first place? And, again, sounding like a broken record, but where is the Gospel?
March 12, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“Joyce refers to “alliances” and someone else mentioned “aristocracy.””
I’ll bet that these people can only intermarry among their own caste, too. Do you think for one minute that Doug would allow one of his daughters to marry the son of a family who lives in a tent? Could one of the Botkins marry a young man who only makes the kind of money an intern can make working at VF? I would think that they would have to have alliances in order to find uneducated young men a job to keep these women in lace doilies.
March 12, 2009 at 4:16 pm
In regards to Peaches comment on the fanciful patriarch life. . .you don’t give us girls the credit we are due.
I am the eldest child from a very large family. My youngest sibling is nearly 20 years younger. I have no fantasies about home life or child rearing or home schooling or being married (for the record, I’ve been married several years and have no children).
I am not sure all the patrio girls are living in a fantasy world of chocolate covered strawberries. I know all about casseroles, diapers, endless laundry, scrubbing floors, and trying to teach kids basic reading skills. I don’t know how many siblings Kelly Braddick has. If her family is a good Quiverful family, she was not ignorant of the realities of the life she chose.
One of my closest friends, also the oldest child in a large home school family is about to have her first child. She is 30 and waited years after marriage to have a child. I was looking at her registry the other day, to buy a present for her shower. It is not your usual baby registry. Oh no. I am used to seeing cute baby booties and clothes and toys and matching crib bedding on a baby registry. She had some of this, yes, but she also had practical things I have never seen on another baby registry. Pampers. Diaper cream. A very plain but well designed baby bath seat. She knows exactly what is involved in basic baby care. No one had to tell her, she did it long enough.
Honestly, this kind of made me mad. Big home school families don’t work without their older daughters. They just don’t. I love my siblings and don’t regret caring for them at all. But don’t pretend I had some kind of normal American childhood or that I don’t know anything about tuna casserole or cleaning up after a tummy flu incident.
No one has to tell me or any other oldest girl from a big home school family that in married family world you don’t have chocolate strawberries and steak on a perfectly set table every night.
March 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Again, I come from waaaay outside the culture of large families and homeschooling. So if I am out of line, people who know better should let me know! But here is my guess:
– I think Sarah is right that, of course, girls who grow up in similar families know what they are getting into when they take on this lifestyle. They aren’t blind or stupid, after all. The tactic for getting daughters to go along with the extreme patriarchy seems to be (1) lifelong indoctrination; (2) wild praise for the young women who stay home and submit; (3) the implicit threat of losing your family if you rebel; (4) the demonization of those who rebel; and (5) protection from too much exposure to other possibilities or ideas.
– I think the lush srawberries and idealization of the lifestyle aren’t designed so much for the Kelly Bradricks. After all, they know all the more mundane details of what happens when the camera isn’t clicking. Those images are meant to draw in women who aren’t from that patriarchial lifestyle. Or women who are living that lifestyle but haven’t quite attained what the Phillips or Brown families have. The promise is that if you work harder, live a more a pure patriarchal lifestyle, live more frugally, and by our books, you too will have this gracious and contented lifestyle.
March 12, 2009 at 5:02 pm
That last line should say:
The promise is that if you work harder, live a more a pure patriarchal lifestyle, live more frugally, and BUY our books, you too will have this gracious and contented lifestyle.
ALSO, I think that what Kelly Bradrick may wind up struggling with, which Kathryn Joyce, alludes to, is being pushed off the pedestal. The stars of this movement are the older men and the beautiful young girls. Notwithstanding the notion of the older women teaching the younger, the older women seem practically invisible.
March 12, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Wow, Laurie, this -
is so true!
I have a couple of friends who have become enamored of the patriarchal lifestyle. As other ladies here have pointed out before, while the theories behind patriocentricity are all about male superiority, I think the reality is that more WOMEN than men become the driving force for patriocentricity in their own families.
One of my friends is married to a really nice but very mild-mannered guy. And she’s visibly frustrated with his “failures” to have more of a vision. He supports her and goes along with the things she does (like the “modest” Little House on the Prairie clothing and her desire to keep having kids). But it’s so ironic how it’s pretty obvious who actually “wears the pants” in that family.
I kind of think that the guys who put out these glossy catalogs know full well their precise target audience – women. How many “normal” guys are REALLY gonna be attracted to products necessary to have a true Victorian tea party, for instance? And pay premium prices for them, too?
This is another inconsistency I see. Guys like Botkins and Phillips teach that it’s all about the man’s vision. But then they actively market that vision to WOMEN, because they must know that women are the ones who make most of the buying decisions for their families.
March 12, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Wait a minute….
Didn’t Mr. Botkin say that he was training his daughters to manage a household of servants? Which ones get the servants?
March 12, 2009 at 6:15 pm
And if the servants are women, how are those servants helping their own fathers fulfill their vision?
March 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Laurie wrote: – I think Sarah is right that, of course, girls who grow up in similar families know what they are getting into when they take on this lifestyle. They aren’t blind or stupid, after all. The tactic for getting daughters to go along with the extreme patriarchy seems to be (1) lifelong indoctrination; (2) wild praise for the young women who stay home and submit; (3) the implicit threat of losing your family if you rebel; (4) the demonization of those who rebel; and (5) protection from too much exposure to other possibilities or ideas.
Laurie,
You just described the concept of “Bounded Choice” which refers to a phenomenon in abusive relationships wherein people seem to have the opportunity to choose options, but if they choose those outside of what is acceptable, they will be destitute and will loose all of their supportive relationships. It has the appearance of freedom, but it is an illusion.
So when parents say that their children, particularly their daughters, enjoy freedom, it is merely an illusion. Because they have been ill-prepared to survive apart from an earthly “Lord,” they are dependent and have no options but those that have been predetermined for them.
March 12, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Karen, silly,
Who gets the servants? That’s what all the babies are for. Your children will rise up to be your servants, that is unless they are boys and when they turn 13, you are largely subject to them.
But then, if you are a Christian celebrity, you get those perks and as the pres of the seminary I worked for, God will send volunteers to be your servants after you’ve worked up through the ranks and scrubbed enough toilets. He had a list of proof texts to prove this was Biblical.
So there are two sets of rules. Parachurch leadership folks are created to be more equal than the other rank and file members.
March 12, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Laurie,
You wrote: ALSO, I think that what Kelly Bradrick may wind up struggling with, which Kathryn Joyce, alludes to, is being pushed off the pedestal. The stars of this movement are the older men and the beautiful young girls. Notwithstanding the notion of the older women teaching the younger, the older women seem practically invisible.
I’ve watched some of this myself. Remember how Jennie Chancey was everywhere, even with her little ones running around, but she didn’t look terribly matronly. Now she does, and you don’t see her much. If you gain the honor of being one of the poster children, one day you find yourself no longer a child. I’ve heard this stated about many others. Everyone likes a young and pretty face, and the postmodern marketing tactics of VF all operate on this principle. You need a constant influx of young, fresh faces. Young women age.
March 12, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Kris,
You commented about how this stuff is marketed primarily to women in your comment above.
I spoke with a former Mormon the other day, and he said that the Mormons do the same thing when they send their young missionaries door to door. Who do they usually find during the day when they canvas communities of homes? They find women at home and market their ideology to them. This is the same with most salesmen. If all these people were targeting men, they would go knock on doors when men were available and they would go to places where men could be recruited. But they don’t.
I’ve been out with my husband during the day and have seen Mormon missionaries, but they never approached us. But they will knock on the door of a home during the day.
March 12, 2009 at 7:06 pm
This talk of servants and leading a rather sensual lifestyle put me in mind of the Word-Faith/Blab-it-and-Grab-it/Health-and-Wealth preachers. On the one hand, life will be perfect if you have absolute faith in God. On the other, life will be perfect if you have absolute faith in your father/husband. As much as I’m sure the patrios despise Word Faith teachings, there’s really no difference between the two. In either case, your life will (at the very least) appear perfect; the only difference is who you believe in.
March 12, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Cindy K and Laurie,
Out of sheer curiosity, I googled Kelly Bradrick and found several blogs that talk about the wedding.
I went through a couple photographic accounts of it, and there were a few things that jumped out at me.
- That was a HUGE wedding. It must have cost a fortune. Just the bridesmaids and flower girls’ dresses! Who has a dozen bridesmaids and a dozen flower girls? And a dozen men (whatever they are called!)
- The whole first-kiss in front of everyone thing. Why do they make it such a huge issue?
- Young girls were better dressed than their mothers. There was one particular pastor’s wife who looked like she was going on a picnic. Her dress was a very simple, shirt style, cotton summer dress. A size or two too big, and a few inches too long. She was wearing no makeup, and her hair didn’t look like it had gotten any attention.
Usually, such details say little or nothing to me. People can dress as they like (within reason). But for a wedding?
To me, it communicates something different. That a woman has to be frugal, that modesty is akin to frumpy, plain, drab clothing, and that a mother shouldn’t look better than ( or even as good as) her daughters.
Maybe I’m reading too much into a few pictures. I followed a couple of links and found the pastor family is not exactly “humble”, they live in a large house, own a business and look fairly well off. I just can’t understand why the wife would show up at a wedding looking like she is going to a picnic.
March 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Cynthia,
comment #54,
That link was worth following.
This family has attended various Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches, but have chosen to leave because too much error is taught. Now they house-church.
They live in isolation to flee the evil influences of the world.
Despite being so isolated, the mother and daughter still have to dress “modest”, and wear head coverings as a sign of “obedience, submission, humility….”
Special rules regarding clothing only affect the women. (although the 22 year old son is not exactly dressed in 21st century attire)
Ok. So you want to educate your daughter to be a housewife and you don’t want her to go to university.
Now you cut yourself and family off from church.
Where on earth is your daughter supposed to find a man to marry, submit to, and run a home for?
That young girl is talented, but she is not ready to quit textbook education! Read her about page and see what I mean…
March 12, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Wow – I hadn’t heard of Bounded Choice, but it seems like a really useful concept.
I just got home and got my copy of Joyce’s book!
*Settles in for long evening of reading.*
March 12, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I want to chime in about the teaching on having “servants”. Here in the Northwest, it’s so not politically correct to want to have servants, so the choice word would be “staff” for those people who serve you in your household. The aristocratic teachings have made their way here at homeschool central NW in Gregg Harris’ teachings, in that he also taught that instead of homes relying on modern appliances such as toasters and such, they could do like in the olden days and have “staff” that somehow toasted your bread for you (I have a link – an audio, if I recall — and transcribed his words, so as to not be accused of taking things out of context). Would that mean you’d call in your servant girls, er, I mean, staff, to either man the oven (because you wouldn’t have a toaster) to brown your bread? I don’t get it, and I don’t know what they’re OWN fathers would think of them serving the elite’s home instead of their own.
Just a random thought on the ridiculousness of the aristocrazy teachings.
March 12, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Please excuse my spelling errors (blushing homeschool mom).
March 12, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Excellent points going here about the unmarried daughters with blessed, but aging eggs, and the terrified young patrio men who are taught to fear women and have to write theological dissertations before getting to know one.
Yes, how do those patrio boys fulfill Daddy’s vision and still become a patrio themselves someday? And those poor daughters–they imagine the life of servants chocolating their strawberries, while in reality the girls shoulder the drudgery of housework as servants themselves. They’re more servants than wives or daughters, but are getting creepily closer to wife status all the time with things like Daddy scalp massages. (Leaving room to vomit momentarily.)
It’s gonna be real interesting to see how this plays out in the next handful of years. Too many poster-child maidens of virtue will turn into old-maidens. The boys will look elsewhere, places where they can meet girls without tribunal.
Aristrocratic patrio daddys will trade in daughters and doweries. Those outside the elite will either get desparate and drop the crazy standards, or realize that they never really wanted to release their adoring servant daughters in the first place. Who will be around to untie their shoes?
It’s simply not sustainable. I predict the daughter issues will lead to an implosion of the entire patrio cult philosophy. In the meantime, I fear for the daughters. They are the true victims here, and they don’t even know it.
March 12, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Kathleen, I think that you meant “woman” the oven.
March 12, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I totally saw that, too, after I wrote it.
All this patrio discussion has inspired a new parody, if you can find the irony in that I chose a rebellious Rolling Stones tune to put with the new lyrics.
March 12, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I just have to comment on this (excuse my spelling errors and missing words too)……. I know the family in comment#78 you speak of personally and I have to tell you that this just made me laugh. I’ll skip telling you how ignoramus your view about them is as well about your [twisted] ideas on what a submissive wife/daughter is, and just commented on the issue in general.
Said family is much like my own but we are far, far, far, far from what you have all described as the partio (I assume you’re referencing to patriarchal families), though I am sure that there are daughters who have been put in such a position.
I’ve never rubbed my daddy’s scalp or feet. I have rubbed his shoulders though, but he usually does mine. There are a lot of problems with each and every “sect” of Christianity. No one does anything right because we are sinful human beings. We don’t know the holy and righteous way. Only the LORD knows what decisions and lifestyles are correct. Who are you (or me) to judge another is such an unChristlike and harsh manner? If the Bible says “thou shalt not murder” and someone does we can say “hey you’re sinning” but if someone is living in “isolation” WHO CARES??????? Who are they hurting? Don’t Christian women like yourselves have something better to do – than to sit around and gossip about another brother/sister in Christ?? IF they are wrong in the way they are raising their family it’s not going affect their salvation if they are truly seeking to please HIM, unless they are sinning in definitely. You cannot say they are because the Bible doesn’t say they are. You are merely basing your opinions on the culture you’ve been raised in.
The Bible calls all women to be a helpmeet and a keeper of the home, and that is what “the daughter” and I are striving to be, just what God created us to be. I’m not sure why that is so ludicrous or offense to most Christians, but it is. We are to please our heavenly Father, why is it so wrong to want to also please our earthly father – if we can serve him by bringing him his food or getting him a drink than what’s so sickening about it? The Bible says “honour thy father and they mother so you will live long on the earth”. If dad says “hey would you get me that blanket?” and I do it and throw it over him why am I deemed a servant?
My dad loves me with all of his heart. He works from 7am to 7pm to provide for us and I frankly don’t mind bringing his plate out to him when he gets home so he can eat, relaxed on the couch. I know he would do (and does) the same thing for me. It’s not about being a servant, but about being ready to serve where ever you’re needed.
And excuse me but Jesus was the greatest servant all of. If we are truly seeking to please him we won’t mind washing our dad’s feet. Jesus washed all of the disciples (dirty, hard, dry, gross) feet to show them that this is what the LORD requires… a servant’s heart. If you have a problem with that…. well I suppose that is a problem between you and HIM. I’ll consider being called a servant an HONOUR.
I had a phone-interview several months ago with a journalist from the Ladies Home Journal magazine. She wanted to talk about the a few of my websites and why I live the way I do. When we were done with the conversation she told me that in no way do I sound oppressed by my religion, have been “brainwashed” by my parents, and am truly living by my own choices. She was not a Christian, but by having a teachable and curious spirit, rather than a hostile and discriminatory one, she saw passed my “image” and understood me. I wish more people were like that…. investigate before making a verdict, especially on a “class” of people. Not everyone who voted Republican agrees or adheres to everything in that party.
I’m sorry if I sound angry or hateful. I’m not, honestly. I hope that whoever reads this would truly consider the servant’s heart Jesus had, if nothing else.
Blessings of peace and grace be upon you.
Miss Jocelyn
March 12, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Thatmom -
In comment #7 you asked why they need some special Proverbs 31 project, why not just use etsy.com….
A quote from that excerpt:
“The patriarchy community, however, is dedicated to building up its own, purist alternatives to the interaction mainstream society provides.”
So to use etsy.com might put them in too close a contact with the ebil ideas of the great unwashed.
March 12, 2009 at 11:43 pm
The young woman referred to in #76 does not appear to me, to be a good fit in the world into which she has been isolated. Given the opportunity she would likely become a veterinarian. My heart broke reading her blog.
March 12, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Kris,
Your comments (#60) caught my eye again. You wrote:
If a young man is sold out enough on these patriarchal teachings to be willing to jump through all the necessary hoops so he can act upon his attraction to Geoffrey Botkin Anna Sophia or Elizabeth, isn’t he then going to want to establish his own “multi-generational” family?
That is what Bill Einwechter has to say. Daughters are not dead ends but provide means for sons to expand their covenantal family units.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72405162447
From Einwecter’s 2 sermons on Sermon Audio discussing Multigenerational Faithfulness (my paraphrase in order to condense the material):
Sons and daughters differ according to Einwechter and the “continuity of history” of name and family extends only through sons. Einwechter states that multigenerational faithfulness works differently for daughters because a daughter no longer carries on her own family’s heritage or work within her new marriage. She serves her new husband’s family name and “his covenant,” so their marriage allows the husband to “extend his influence into other families.” Daughters are the “dynamic means” whereby men extend their name and heritage “into other covenantal family units,” or more specifically as Einwechter implies, into her own family of origin. The man “extends the covenant” of his own fathers through marriage. “Daughters are not dead ends . . . Faithful families must work together to give their sons and daughters to one another in marriage.” He also explains that multigenerational faithfulness cannot be limited to simply training our children but should include “the goal of giving them in marriage to other well-trained children from godly homes.”
March 13, 2009 at 4:35 am
Anne 2
The young woman referred to in #76 does not appear to me, to be a good fit in the world into which she has been isolated. Given the opportunity she would likely become a veterinarian. My heart broke reading her blog.
The line where she says she’s an outdoorsy type of girl but has to learn to stay indoors and cook and wash dishes made me sad too. Poor girl.
I was thinking about that too, how her talent and love for animals is, if not going to waste, not being cultivated to the extent it could be. She would be a true blessing to any farmer out there, and if she brought in knowledge with her hands-on experience, she could be the perfect helper-suitable!
Methinks it’s got more to do with keeping her on THEIR farm (AKA selfishness)
March 13, 2009 at 4:36 am
Hmmm, I spent quite a bit of time skipping around in Joyce’s book. Most of it won’t come as a surprise to people who have been following this subculture for a while.
– It did surprise me that some women in Doug Phillips’s church were prohibited from driving at night, or driving at all. And I was struck by the description of Vision Forum interns being visibly uncomfortable to at any length to young women. Comparisons between this subculture and the Wahabbism of Saudi Arabia really are not far-fetched.
– I was struck by Cheryl Seelhoff’s observation regarding the appeal to the men in this movement. The men are often ordinary guys with ordinary jobs – so it’s a huge ego trip to suddenly be cast as a wise patriarchal leader of one’s family. The marketing may be intended to draw in the women, but there is a lot to appeal to the guys too.
– Given my strong identification with feminism, I appreciated Joyce’s summary of how feminism is cast as the bogeyman responsible for all the evils in the world, even evils that feminism is specifically fighting. It gets especially eerie when the patriarchal blogs and the feminist blogs take the exact same positions on the same issues. Patriarchal blogs will claim that “feministic” culture hates breast feeding, even while all the feminist blogs are arguing aobut the importance of respecting every mother’s right to breast feed! Or the blogs on both sides will complain about the same exact example of the extreme and demeaning photoshopping of models on our magazine covers!
March 13, 2009 at 4:37 am
Oops, that should say: And I was struck by the description of Vision Forum interns being visibly uncomfortable TALKING at any length to young women.
March 13, 2009 at 7:52 am
I appreciated Joyce’s summary of how feminism is cast as the bogeyman responsible for all the evils in the world, even evils that feminism is specifically fighting. It gets especially eerie when the patriarchal blogs and the feminist blogs take the exact same positions on the same issues. Patriarchal blogs will claim that “feministic” culture hates breast feeding, even while all the feminist blogs are arguing aobut the importance of respecting every mother’s right to breast feed! Or the blogs on both sides will complain about the same exact example of the extreme and demeaning photoshopping of models on our magazine covers!
Laurie,
YOu see, they will say that feminism is like the “angel of light”. It looks like it’s doing good, but it’s really not, because it’s undermining the very structures that will keep family and finally society as a whole.
March 13, 2009 at 9:33 am
For obvious reasons I am going to be anonymous for this post. I have been thinking about this thread for some time and pardon my bluntness, but here goes . . .
Sometimes when I make love to my husband, I dig my fingers into his scalp and pull his hair. If I were to at that moment recall fun moments with daddy, could you imagine the instant confusion, guilt, and loss of libido that would inevitably ensue?
Furthermore, if I did NOT feel some strange emotion towards that memory, I still think that guilt would set in as a response to some sick and twisted mental image of things I did with my father cropping up during sex with my husband.
Sometimes when he shaves we become playful and share sweet little kisses that sometimes lead to other things. The same concept applies as before . . . do I want to recall in ANY form or fashion, memories of my father? NO!
What if a father expresses pleasure through a moan and verbal “That feels so good?”
Those memories are likely to trigger if her poor husband innocently does the same thing during lovemaking . . . her husband, who also bears the direct consequence of his wife’s confusion, loss of libido, and abuse . . .
Have any of those who promote these ideas–VF, Botkins, Brown, etc–stopped to consider the implications of their teachings on their daughter’s future sex life? Within her intimate moments with her husband? To me, anyone who actively promotes this covert incest–inappropriate emotional and non-sexual physical intimacy–with a child or young daughter IMO is setting her up for future dysfunction within her marriage and sexuality. I am so sad at the thought of this! In addition to the problems that have already been discussed, think of the poor virgin wife who has her own ideals and dreams and expectations . . . and then the dashing of some of these through the reality of normal married life; to add to that the memories, triggers, and other inappropriate intimacies of parental over-involvement is NOT LOVING TO YOUR DAUGHTERS!!! NOT GODLY! NOT BIBLICAL! I hope these fathers are reading–I pray that when the women who finally DO marry are able to heal from this type of teaching and this abuse.
To me, this is just a “religious” way to bring someone else to the marriage bed.
This is beyond co-dependency, beyond toeing the line. I believe that this is one of those cases where Jesus recommends a millstone. For what is sin? What is an idol? In part, anything other than God from which we derive our source of life, security, comfort, identity . . . in these cases, when a father places himself as king in his little girl’s heart–intentionally or not–he is declaring with the pride of Lucifer,
Isaiah 14–For you have said in your heart:
‘ I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.
Strong words, I know . . . but there is some resemblance, for even if this is not within her father’s heart to do, the effects and results still bear alarming consequences.
I hope and pray that this is not the case with the majority. I hope and pray that the leaders of this movement pause to consider this important aspect within their 200 year vision. Even if they sadly believe women are inferior, let them consider the words of Jesus Christ himself . . . ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
March 13, 2009 at 9:42 am
Moreover, to sacrifice their daughters on the altar of this vision reeks of blasphemy.
March 13, 2009 at 10:20 am
What amazes me is when I have people telling me that I don’t “spend enough time tending to my house”. I am told that women in the past always dedicated their entire lives to their families and their homes.
BUT…didn’t most of those women “in the past” have SERVANTS?
All of the women that tell me this have very nice fancy houses. I live in a very small rental house. These other women are in families who own the house and are debt free.
Sarah, I just started a baby registry too and mine has diapers and wipes and *shock horror* FORMULA on it. (After two extremely painful – physically and emotionally – times of trying to nurse, I give up.) I also have some things that I would like to upgrade such as the baby bathtub and the excersaucer now that I know what things my boys like and what they don’t. I only put on the “cute things” that we actually need. The rest was practical. I actually don’t understand when women put a whole heap of fancy, cute, and unneeded things on their registry. But then again, most of them have room in their houses to store unneeded stuff. I don’t.
By the way ladies, my husband got me an ultrasound yesterday for my birthday, and…
IT’S ANOTHER BOY!
March 13, 2009 at 10:51 am
Anon,
Post 90.
That is soooo true!
Emotional/covert incest is devastating to marriage. I had never thought of a daughter having flashbacks of what she did with her dad, but it’s possible, and it would only add to the pain.
IMO, any parent who uses a child as a surrogate spouse, and some have already said it before, “training” your daughters to be help-meets to their husbands is using them, is setting that child up for hearbreak at some point. If that child marries, she (or he!) will find herself torn between daddy and hubby/wife.
Chances are, however hard things get, even if she is incapable of sleeping with her husband or doing things with him that he would like because they bring back, memories, she (or he!) will defend daddy. Even if she realizes at some point that what happened was wrong.
How does she transfer her allegiance from her daddy to her husband?
So these dads are very possibly setting their children up for failure in marriage. They are stealing the emotions and hearts of people who don’t belong to them. They are abusing those entrusted in their care for them to protect and provide for.
I wonder how all this surrogate help-meeting of the daughters affects the marriage of father and mother. As some have said before, it seems like it’s all about grand-patriarch daddy and the sons and daughters. Mama is there to do the breeding, early raising, and cleaning up the mess.
March 13, 2009 at 10:53 am
Congratulations Mrs W!
March 13, 2009 at 11:31 am
Mrs. W said:”IT’S ANOTHER BOY!”
Thanks for making me smile today! I am happy for you! I’m having a girl July 1st. When is yours due??
March 13, 2009 at 11:37 am
Mine’s due in the middle of August some time.
March 13, 2009 at 11:58 am
Anon, I appreciate your words. I think there is a lot within the patriocentric movement that defies the admonition to “keep the marriage bed undefiled:”
~ when introducing words like “swords” or depicting courtship as an act of stealing away a daughter from her father, it likes sexual intimacy to the violence of rape and defiles the marriage bed.
~ when suggesting that married couples having an intimate sexual relationship is watched by angels, it invites others into the marriage bed, thus defiling it
~ by dictating family size and the use of offspring to further an agenda, not leaving the most precious and intimate of relationships, creating a child, to the privacy of the man and woman, it defiles the marriage bed
~ by promoting the concept of being a helpmeet to your father is the standard, the one flesh relationship between a husband and wife has been broken, defiling the marriage bed. (anyone else feel vindicated by the fact that Joyce commented on this? It isn’t just those of us who have critiqued their position for over 2 years, leaving us wondering if some people who tried to run interference on behalf of the Botkin sisters even read the book)
~ breaking down the natural, God-given inhibitions between a father and daughter places temptation where there should be none, thus defiling the marriage bed
~ placing adult daughters in roles that are to be fulfilled by wives can cause jealousy and insecurity, leading to poor relationships with daughters and with husbands thus potentially defiling the marriage bed. I remember Bill Gothard warned mothers not to be jealous of the relationships their daughters had with their husbands and even suggested that this happens because the daughters are a younger more attractive version of the moms.
These are just off the top of my head….please add your thoughts.
March 13, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Anon, excellent points on the dangers of this emotional/sensual abuse and the implications on the daughter’s future sexuality in marriage. It is a theft born of selfishness and ego. Obviously the full effect on patrio Daddy is something he’ll never admit.
My own elderly dad has said in recent years that he deliberately avoided us, his daughters, during our teenage/young adult years. He kept distance from us, particularly physically. Unlike Mom, Dad wasn’t ever a real warm guy, so I guess I never noticed the change in his behavior during those years, sadly. And while I think he was absolutely wrong in how he handled the issue, I suddenly have an appreciation of his concern for appropriate behavior.
And madame, yes, how IS this affecting the physical relationship between Mom and Dad? These are questions I don’t think we’ve ever discussed here yet.
Congrats, MrsW. May you have a safe rest of your pregnancy and a healthy, relatively easy delivery for your sweet baby boy to come.
March 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Debbie—
RE: relationship between fathers and mothers
‘Good submissive Christian wives’ know their place and joyfully agree that this is the “Biblical way”.
Many times I wonder about the level of emotional abuse locked deep inside the hearts of mothers; how any loneliness or resentment is immediately decried as carnal nature, rebelling against “God’s plan”. I suspect that many view it as a refining process and treat it as a spiritual discipline.
The roots of this abusive doctrine and vision run deep.
I imagine the fruits will be devastating.
March 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Although I do not discuss it often, I am presently infertile. I wonder how I would be treated within this vision?
March 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Hillary, I’m sad to say that there are patrios within the movement that declare that you shouldn’t even get married if you are infertile; you should save your fertile patrio guy for a breeder. And infertility that manifests later must be the result of some “sin” on your part. (I obviously don’t agree with these idea, by the way!)
(Joyce describes this thinking in her book–unfortunately I don’t have time to find the references at the moment.)
March 13, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I’ve commented here in the past, and I, too, want to be anonymous on this one.
Hillary, I’m sorry about your infertility. I struggled with infertility for years. One person, who has since come more out of a patriocentrist framework, and this was before she knew I struggled with this issue, too, told me that my extended family’s struggle with infertility was a result of the “generational sin” that my grandmother (in her opinion) wasn’t submissive enough to my grandfather. This was years ago, and I don’t feel like she would say anything like this now, and I really hope that it isn’t a majority viewpoint within quiverfull families. I believe she was getting most of her ideas out of a Bill Gothard framework.
I have seen the results of some of the most extreme versions of patriocentrism, not directly associated with the big names talked about here, but stemming out of some of the same ideas here. The complete isolation of children so that they don’t get corrupted by the world, the extreme interpretations of submission, the lack of boundaries between parents and children, the avoidance of accountability to any in the church outside your immediate family, and the devaluing of women because of misinterpretations of biblical womanhood. I’ve seen teenagers succumb in the most terrible way imaginable to the depression that can result from these ideas.
I think many families turn to these ideas because of fear, and they really and truly want to raise good kids. But these things cannot save, only Christ can redeem our families and children.
March 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I’m curious – this would be very difficult to prove, but it would be interesting to see how many patrio parents were victims of childhood abuse themselves, particularly sexual abuse. Both of my parents were sexually abused when they were children – both in realitively “mild” form (though no abuse is ever truly mild) and both still live with much shame. I’m convinced that their past abuse is in part what drove them to patriarchy – the idea of a father protecting his daughter/son from the evils of the world is very attractive to many, and especially those who don’t want their own children to suffer as they did.
Past abuse left untreated and unhealed will warp one’s sense of sexuality. In my parents, there is an obsession with modesty, no pysical contact between a guy and a girl if they are courting, etc., and yet, at least in my mother’s case, an odd level of interest in other people’s sexual issues.
Bottom line (in my theory, anyway
) is that if a lot of patrio parents have suffered abuse in their past, whether sexual or otherwise, and have never truly healed, and then fall into the trap of the Patriarchal movement, they are suffering their shame in silence and condemnation, and they are desperate to keep their kids from this same tragedy. Because of this, their own twisted sense of sexuality creates these weird obsessions and backwards thinking about:
Daughters being modest in appearance and behavior, but also being daddy’s helpmeet;
Daughters not beeing allowed to even shake hands with a young man, but being encouraged to run her fingers through daddy’s hair or help him shave.
In a sense – the natural being exchanged for the unnatural. (And yes, I know I’m using that verse out of context, but it’s an interesting though to ponder….)
March 13, 2009 at 1:40 pm
By the way, the people we know in the patrio world are telling us that we MUST name our child something with a “good, strong meaning” and “ask God what to name your child” otherwise we are unspiritual.
What happened to naming children just because you like the name?
March 13, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Hillary,
As someone with no live births, no indications of any pathology after two comprehensive workups, using primarily NFP except when taking steriods intermittently, most of the visionaries treat you as a non-person. You do not exist, and they look right through you, just like you were not even there. It isn’t true of everyone, as some did take me in like I was one of their own and as their sisters.
Some harass when the subject comes up or when they introduce it, expressing that you should be trying to have kids which was especially hard for me following an early miscarriage that I did not make public knowledge. That was tough when I kept feeling like I wanted to reach down with my arms and pull that baby’s life back up inside of my belly and into my heart again somehow.
I feel as though I have been denied personhood, particularly now that I’m in my 40s and outside of the window of opportunity that I thought would have surely opened by now. Those who appreciate the impact of health issues on our lives don’t pressure about adoption. But now that I’m passing out of the age-range and most of my peers have started into the empty nest phase of life, I find that I’m not quite as focused on other’s esteem of me in this area as I used to be. I still feel like I am largely looked upon like I an enigma by most people, however.
What I don’t understand is how that if one believes that God opens the womb, why is it that He has not reciprocally not opened my womb? That definitely does not fit into the ‘vision.’ No one has ever responded when I have offered this to people who border on rude with me when this comes up in discussion. They say nothing.
Adopt if you can. I think that there is little that is more Christ-like to do, since it was through Christ that God has adopted us as sons and daughters and bestowed the authority of his Name upon us in Christ through the Blood of the Lamb. Rejoice in what God has given you in His sovereign providence. They are not wise that compare themselves…
March 13, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Cindy, thanks for your post. Adoption is on both my husband’s and my heart, when we can. I think it fits perfectly in our personal mission here on earth: to want the unwanted, to love the unloved, to nurture the un-nurtured.
March 13, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I’m thinking further about girls (and boys) like those from the link in comment #54.
When I was a young teenager, I WANTED to be around other people my age. I wanted to fit in, to be “normal”, and to have fun.
I went to church youth group. I tried to be “modern” and fit in. I fell in love with a different guy every other month or so. Sometimes my heart was juggling two or three acceptable guys!
Point is, it was all a part of growing up and maturing. A couple of years later, I discovered I was interested in other things. I didn’t try any more to fake I was having fun at a party where most everyone was dancing salsa. I settled for one guy (who broke my heart), but even that heartbreak was good for me. I learned to hold onto my heart for a little longer.
My dad would have loved to keep us under lock and key. Thank goodness, my mom had sense and she worked on him behind the scenes ( I see her hand in it….)
I was encouraged to get as much of an education as I could (or wanted to). While we were expected to help out in the house, our education took priority, so my mother respected our study time like it was sacred.
I wonder how many patrio wives have a good education and are conveniently (or pressured into) forgetting all the positive sides of having gotten out there, experienced the world, tried their wings, and settled for marriage and keeping their home. Maybe one of the main reasons they are happy at home is because they had the chance to see what else there is out there to be had, and find true fulfillment in motherhood and wifehood.
What will happen with these repressed, overly controlled youths? One day they will want to try out their wings, but having had them clipped off, or tied to their sides for so long, I wonder whether they will always stumble or always be overly dependent, or worse, whether they will grow bitter because they were always repressed.
Maybe all this will end in a huge flop when the next generation break free and swing the pendulum too far off to the left again.
March 13, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Hillary,
Re. comment #106
I hope things work out for you and God blesses you with some very special children to love and care for.
March 13, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Madame said, “or worse, whether they will grow bitter because they were always repressed.”
Sadly, I see this happening already. Have you noticed how many of these girls are over-serious, unnaturally cool, even robotic for their young age? Where is the joy? The joy of Jesus is muffled by the oppression of their new religion of patriarchy. I find it terribly disturbing, all of it.
And Hillary, hugs to you as you deal wih the issue of fertility. You are not judged here, but loved.
March 13, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“What will happen with these repressed, overly controlled youths? One day they will want to try out their wings, but having had them clipped off, or tied to their sides for so long, I wonder whether they will always stumble or always be overly dependent, or worse, whether they will grow bitter because they were always repressed?”
Well, we have Andrea Yates and that Murray kid who opened fire in that Patrio church in Colorado as examples…
March 13, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“Wait a minute….
Didn’t Mr. Botkin say that he was training his daughters to manage a household of servants? Which ones get the servants?”
In the Patrio-fantasyland, the kids of the rich Pats, who were homeschooled by college educated moms GET the servants, and the kids of the poorer Pats, who were homeschooled by moms who were uneducated themselves, get to BE the servants.
March 13, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Hillary:
Another Hannah here and hugs to you sister. Unfortunately I am finding people at church have NO CLUE how to be supportive and loving to the different ones. Nevermind the patrios who look through us when they see us at all. Sin in the camp my right eyeball.
March 13, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Patrio fantasyland looks an awful lot like the YFZ ranch in Eldorado Texas.
March 13, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Awwww, thanks Gail, Debbie and Madame!
March 13, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Cynthia,
You are 100% correct. This isn’t just a theory; I’ve seen what you’ve described in action.
MrsW, congratulations on your little growing child, and may the Lord give you strength in your home and family life.
Hillary, I love your blog, and your willingness to heal through difficult attitudes thrown at you in your life. You have so much to offer with the love of Jesus that I hope the Lord blesses your heart in whatever way that overflows with His love.
March 14, 2009 at 12:25 am
A couple of observations before I hit the sack:
-On every patrio family website I’ve ever seen, there’s always some explanation as to why the Mom is not letting/sending her kids to college. It often begins something like, “I went to college and I hated it,” “I went to college and it drove me away from my parents,” etc. Often these stories begin when the writer wasn’t a Christian, and certainly wasn’t involved in the patrio movement. I wonder how many of these mothers have talked to another Christian woman who went to college and loved it. Further, I wonder what makes them absolutely certain that their children are just like them and will definitely hate college, or fall away because of it. My guess is that it has less to do with the children, and more to do with the parents; either they’re projecting their views on the kids or possibly they’re scared that they didn’t teach their kids well enough and will lose them to college/the world. You would think that they’d be more than thrilled to send their kids off to college, saying, “look what we do, how good it is and how well it works.” Exactly the opposite. Which leads into my second thought:
-How does anybody see this? What happened to a city on a hill? From dolls and swords at vision forums to handmade modest dresses you can find on the internet, the patrios have cloistered themselves away into a tight little self-sufficient community. If I walked down the street and asked random people who Billy Graham or Dr. James Dobson are, I’d probably get some kind of an answer (whether it is good or bad depends.) Wouldn’t none of those people know who the Botkins are. The difference between the three ministries is their outreach, Samaritan’s Purse and Operation Chirstmas Child, for example (love stuffing those shoe boxes.) Unless the Vision Forums outreach consists of the angry Baptists who tell everyone on my campus they’re whores/whoremongerers, drunks, and going to hell, then there’s nothing there to make any kind of action for the kingdom of God. They almost seem more interested in perpetuating their little kingdom here on earth. Maybe because this kingdom they can control how they see fit. I don’t know if they’d like having to give it up to a God who would probably make some changes.
March 14, 2009 at 1:23 am
Whoa.
Everyone check this out. Two women who left the Patriarchy. One of them is a woman named Vyckie Garrison.
http://2spb.blogspot.com/
March 14, 2009 at 2:37 am
Very sad, really. But not all that surprising, unfortunately. Guess what happens when patriarchal rules and faith are indistinct–but an individual starts questioning the rules? They end up tossing the entire package. They lose their faith along with the prairie dresses.
A mom or a kid once solidly on the far right teeters, then stumbles across the international dateline of religion/politics, waking up an atheist.
By the way, have we ever heard stories of ex-patrio dads? Maybe they’re out there, but I can’t think of any. Do these guys ever leave willingly? But why would they want to–these “lords” aren’t the ones suffering.
March 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Wow! That article was something else.
I can, sadly, resonate with many things she said in that article.
I still believe in the authority of the Bible and that Christ is the only way to the Father but I have stopped reading it through the perverted lens of patriocentricity. It took me a long time to get here and I still have a far way to go.
But, boy, can I relate to some of the things she expressed.
My prayer is the same as the father with the demon-possessed son: “I believe, Lord. Help my unbelief!”
I am walking this path of faith day by day and I am trying to stay unfettered by the patrio-bondage by standing firm and refusing to be yoked again.
I believe we will see many more stories like this woman’s in the coming days. I believe it will provide a good avenue of discussion and hopefully healing for those who have bought a lie and tried to live it and who have foisted it upon their children.
March 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm
“What happened to naming children just because you like the name?”
Mrs. W,
Nothing wrong with that!
And, the whole “wanna-be” baby naming club is really kind of embarrassing to watch.
March 14, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Annie C
Thanks for posting that link.
It is just what I keep telling people about.
Women are leaving Christianity because men have made it into something God never intended.
Instead of liberating, it is a bondage.
Instead of healing, it is harming.
Instead of empowering, it is oppressing.
God help us.
It seems no one wants to hear this. But I see it and it breaks my heart.
And if it breaks my heart, what is it doing to the heart of God?
March 14, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“On every patrio family website I’ve ever seen, there’s always some explanation as to why the Mom is not letting/sending her kids to college. It often begins something like, “I went to college and I hated it,” “I went to college and it drove me away from my parents,” etc.”
I wonder how many of these Patriomoms who were “driven away from their parents by college” are on speaking terms with their parents now?
March 14, 2009 at 6:30 pm
You know, bad as Reformed patriarchy is, there is something worse … non-resistant Anabaptist patriarchy. The women cover 24/7 and wear dresses only, while the men uncover their heads in church but wear a hat everywhere else they go, and dress just like everybody else, and on top of that, they believe in NEVER using force in any amount, even if somebody is hurting of killing your wife or child….. but of course THEY can order their wives around and beat their kids, and that’s just fine and dandy.
March 14, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I was thinking this morning what effect the no-college insistence will have on succeeding generations. I am sure many of these girls don’t learn much past an 8th grade level, if that, as their time becomes consumed with the home arts. Science, history, philosophy, art.. everything they are taught is with increasingly revisionist text books. No outside sources and I am sure their book and internet reading is heavily monitored. Unlike their parents who for the most part came from “the world” when they start teaching their own children they will have a much smaller base of general knowledge. I suspect they know little about other cultures and their children will know even less. While I don’t think you need college to be educated I do think you need resources (which in these times are wide ranging and free!) and a lively mind. I am sure most don’t watch any television either so that’s one more source of exposure to other ideas, people and lives that they are cut off from. They have their patrio culture and everything else is the bad bad world. I guess if they don’t implode and become a footnote in Christian history they will end up like the Amish.
I used to think this movement was not a cult but I now think it clearly is simply because you cannot *leave* and still be accepted by your family and friends. You cannot change. If one of these daughters in her 20′s decides to get a job and buy a pair of jeans what will happen to her? She will be in rebellion against her father for such a simple thing.
I was lucky in that my own quiverfull phase of life was relatively isolated. No big churches or movements here (yet). Still my closest and most patrio friend was never allowed to speak to me again once I left.. though we would have little in common now it still makes me sad.
March 14, 2009 at 8:52 pm
re comment 117
I read some there and am just as saddened as Debbie & Corrie.
I clicked around and found this link-
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/03/14/joyce_quiverfull/index.html
to a new article by the Quiverfull author.
This quote concerns me:
“After getting married, Garrison followed a new pastor’s counsel to homeschool her growing family, which eventually led her to the Quiverfull movement, ***where homeschooling, Quiverfull and submission are intertwined convictions. As Garrison says, “If you take one, you pretty much have to take it all eventually.***”"
I think Karen & others have previously pointed out this ***unfortunate connection of –homeschooling & the wacky lifestyle choices that result from patriocentry. Remember the crazy fundamentalist neo-LDS cult in TX and the other patrios defending them…?
It is so unfortunate… on several levels… marriage, family, child “brainwashing”, mis-education… and for anyone to stumble onto this story and others like it, is likely to mislead many about what Christianity is and is not and what homeschooling is and is not. So very, very sad.
P. S. Many of the comments on the Salon site & 2spb site contain rank/raw language.
March 14, 2009 at 8:59 pm
#124, good point, Arietty
The more one hides from the world, the less the world will be able to find you (no duh, right?) What service do they think they’re doing to non-Christians by never interacting with them? I can’t say that any of my non-Christian friends would be in the slightest bit interested in that lifestyle, but the principle still remains. How are any of us supposed to learn about God, if God never leaves home?
March 14, 2009 at 9:16 pm
#54, 76, 84
I feel so bad for “Lacy”… who loves to be outdoors and seems to have a gift with animals… reminds me of Beatrix Potter, and thousands of farm girls who love to help outside with the animals.
What is with girls spending so much time each day inside and so many years “learning homemaking”. Let’s be honest, it simply doesn’t take that long to learn. And no matter what we are trying to learn, most of us do better with “cross-training”- doing/learning a variety of unrelated tasks… hence the quote “All work and no play, makes Jane a dull girl.”
Are homemaking skills important? Yes. Should homemaking lessons be the only focus of our lives & learning? No.
For the record, a big part of my life is homemaking and I love it.
March 14, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Ladies, please do not take this in any wrong way.
As someone who is standing outside of Christianity, I keep seeing more and more that it is entirely possible, if you choose to, to live your entire life and very rarely interact with a non-Christian.
Think about it -
- All social life revolves around the church
- Christian doctors, and pharmacies, for non-emergent cases
- Christian books, publishers, and bookstores
- Christian satellite networks with Christian programming.
- Christian radio stations with Christian music
- Christian news programs, filtering all the news through a Christian viewpoint
- Christian websites and blog listings
- Homeschooling, with Christian-specific science, history and literature
- Christian colleges, with Christian curricula
- Christian businesses, where you don’t have to work with or for a non-believer
- Christian movies
- Even, in some cases, Christian neighborhoods.
It strikes me more and more that we’re living in two parallel cultures, just living side by side. Which, honestly, disturbs me.
Granted it’s up to each individual family as to how much of the non-Christian culture they choose to participate in. And I understand that many don’t take it to that extreme. But I have to wonder how many do.
March 14, 2009 at 9:32 pm
And for the record, in case there is anyone new here, I am a happily married homemaker, and plan to homeschool, but I am not a Christian.
March 14, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Annie C. many right wing evangelicals see themselves engaged in a “culture war”. Creating their own culture as a counter to ungodly culture is one side of that and an increasing emphasis. Many have given up trying to be “the yeast” of godliness by advocating for cleaning up television, public schools, libraries, music played by radio stations.. and are now just creating their own christian versions of these things. I remember 20 years ago when there was always petitions and letter writing campaigns trying to get certain evil songs off the radio etc.. now people just send money to christian radio and listen to that.
Personally I think it’s a good thing. It pleases my libertarian heart, LOL. If you don’t like MY culture get your own culture and stop trying to change mine.
March 14, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Regarding the “culture war” . . . (and I do not mean any of this sarcastically, but have a genuine question at the end . . .)
Let’s follow the thought process. We need to go back to “Biblical” living and establish multi-generational faithfulness, fruitfully multiplying so that we can transform our “culture” for God. Okay–so fast forward 200 years. We have established ourselves firmly into our “culture” and have transformed the world for Christ. Our heritage and family legacy have overtaken this country and spilled into other parts of the world. We have become a success.
Presumably still seeking to follow “the Biblical way” to raise a family/live our lives counter to culture, what would that mean when our very culture is enmeshed with these philosophies? Would it suddenly be justified in Scripture to break away and begin a new denomination? Would we need to create a neo-culture or post-culture, to stay biblically on-track? When these ideals become the cultural norm, then how do we then follow what is interpreted as transforming culture?
March 14, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Furthermore, does this mean that we NEED an ungodly culture so that we can always be here to ‘biblically’ change it?
March 14, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Hillary “break away and begin a new denomination” is exactly what happens once the culture reaches a certain saturation point. All these movements began by breaking away from already established movements and denominations. Schisms is what keeps things energized. The bible is pretty big and you can always find something to be more righteous about than your neighbour, something to make an issue about that forces you to, once again, separate yourself from the culture you’ve been imbibing of and to *take a stand* for holiness. Look at the Amish, they have sects that have separated over buttons and what kind of buggy wheels are acceptable unto the Lord.
There is a deep attraction to zeal and to being on the forefront of a spiritual and cultural war. Millions of women have a baby every day but for some it is not just a part of life, it’s a divine calling and mission from GOD and that makes it even more exciting. Maybe someday a VF family will be convicted that they must worship on Saturday as the Jews do and they will be called to TAKE A STAND against the ungodly practice of having church on Sunday.. and that family and their followers will once again be high on zeal. The possibilities for looking around at your culture and feeling called to be superior to it are endless.
March 14, 2009 at 11:21 pm
A little OT, but I thought I’d post this in case someone is interested:
http://whitewashedfeminist.com/2009/03/11/the-hijacking-of-my-tradition/
Comments are closed for now. Anne and I don’t have time or a desire to debate at all… we are considering starting up the blog again now that I’ll be a SAHM again at the end of the month. Anyway, I just thought I’d throw this out there if anyone is interested…
Back to lurking…
March 15, 2009 at 12:14 am
Hillary,
When the patriocentrics accomplish their ends, and folks like me live in Rhode Island, and when America is a little Geneva like God and Calvin intended (??), this is what I think Philip Lancaster would say, since this is written in the back of his Family Man, Family Leader book, (somewhere on pages 313 -317):
Patriarchy is not the most important issue in life, nor even in itself a very remarkable thing. In times past it was simply taken for granted as the underlying framework that holds a civilization together, the pattern of relationships that allowed the truly important concerns to be addressed: evangelism, truth, justice, mercy, statesmanship, discipleship, discovery, dominion, and so forth. What is remarkable is the wholesale abandonment of patriarchy in recent generations and the utter devastation this has brought to every aspect of our culture. We look forward to the day when we can stop dwelling on patriarchy and move on to less elementary things.
Our problem today is that the very foundations are being destroyed. We don’t have the strong, godly men, the healthy families, and the sound churches that have held Western civilization together and made God-honoring progress possible on many fronts. We need to get back to patriarchy so that we can rebuild all that is fallen in our times and then build anew. Without the groundwork of patriarchy, no other efforts at renewal and progress will succeed. They will fall flat. No efforts of governments, churches, agencies or organizations can compensate for the failure of men to lead their families.
Imagine what our nation would be like if in every home the father loved his wife sacrificially, trained his children in God’s truth and disciplined them in love, took responsibility for the education of his sons and daughters, protected his family from evil relationships and influences, and led his family in worship and prayer. The land would be a veritable Eden.
So presumably, when they get the foundations rebuilt, they will be all about that which which is less elementary:
“evangelism, truth, justice, mercy, statesmanship, discipleship, discovery, dominion, and so forth.”
See, it is still saucy and cheeky broads like us holding up the works trying to be men or something. Whatever… It’s all the fault of Eve and Jezzie.
March 15, 2009 at 12:19 am
So I neglected to say, apparently, all we need to establish Eden is patriarchy.
What will the men be doing? dancing around in Utopia.
March 15, 2009 at 6:22 am
Cindy,
So presumably, when they get the foundations rebuilt, they will be all about that which which is less elementary:
“evangelism, truth, justice, mercy, statesmanship, discipleship, discovery, dominion, and so forth.”
See, it is still saucy and cheeky broads like us holding up the works trying to be men or something. Whatever… It’s all the fault of Eve and Jezzie.
Yeah, blame it on the insubmissive ladies. If they’d just stay in their place, and if the gents would just claim their thrones back, all would be well. Once the kings get their crowns back on, they can get the world in order again. Sigh…
Why didn’t Jesus preach the Gospel of patriarchy then?
March 15, 2009 at 8:01 am
“Why didn’t Jesus preach the Gospel of patriarchy then?”
I could ask that about a lot of issues Christians obsess over..
March 15, 2009 at 10:30 am
Maybe someday a VF family will be convicted that they must worship on Saturday as the Jews do and they will be called to TAKE A STAND against the ungodly practice of having church on Sunday.. and that family and their followers will once again be high on zeal.
As a Sabbath-keeper who is most definitely not on the same page as VF when it comes to views on women in the home and all that, please, please don’t lump us with them. :-/ I think there is a difference between godly zeal and zeal that brushes aside and shuts out the rest of the world. Most of the Torah-observant people I know are lovely people who are not in any way legalistic, who would never shut out other believers who don’t go to church on Saturday.
I know that may not have been your point, but I just wanted to come out and say that by just being different in some beliefs doesn’t make you legalistic or inclined to shut out other people who don’t agree with you.
March 15, 2009 at 12:26 pm
madame: Your excellent point reminds me of a question (the patrios don’t know how to answer it): How is it the women’s fault if the man is head of the family? Wouldn’t the fault more properly be laid at the feet of the menfolk?
March 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“Patriarchy is not the most important issue in life, nor even in itself a very remarkable thing. In times past it was simply taken for granted as the underlying framework that holds a civilization together, the pattern of relationships that allowed the truly important concerns to be addressed: evangelism, truth, justice, mercy, statesmanship, discipleship, discovery, dominion, and so forth.”
Yes, but isn’t that very pattern what Jesus and the Apostles referred to as “the World”, and warned us AGAINST?
March 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Having more and more women speak out about their reasons for exiting patriarchy can only help those still involved in these lifestyles.
3 or 4 years ago when I first started following this stuff, I couldn’t find any sites critical of Vision Forum or patriocentricity. There seemed to be in eerie lack of criticism. Now if anyone who is starting to have doubts can easily find dissenting views on the internet — this site is an important part of that, and so are sites like 2spb.blogspot.com/.
March 15, 2009 at 2:45 pm
kes said, “As a Sabbath-keeper who is most definitely not on the same page as VF when it comes to views on women in the home and all that, please, please don’t lump us with them. :-/”
Point well taken, kes. I have little doubt that the commenter meant no malice, but just wrote the first idea that popped into her head.
Yet, we do well in remembering to respect and appreciate minor doctrinal differences, focusing instead on that which makes us sisters in Christ. Happy Sabbath to us all, today and yesterday!
March 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Hillary, my heart really goes out to you, that you would even have to admit such feelings! {{{}}}
Unfortunately, I understand. Though we have 6 children and I have had 3 miscarriages, I will never forget the feelings I experienced the day that my doctor told me I would have to have a hysterectomy. I was in my mid forties and had been suffering with severe hemorrhaging for a couple years. I will never forget that afternoon, sitting in my van and sobbing, huge, heaving sobs. And I remember feeling that I was no longer usable as a woman in God’s kingdom.
The other day a woman shared a very similar story with me but her moment was after a miscarriage. And we both talked about this trip that is placed on women that motherhood is central to our worth, that it is at the core of who we are.
Praise God, we both could rejoice that we have been delivered from that sort of oppression. I have that prayer for you as well, Hillary.
March 15, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I just finished reading the entire No Longer Quivering blog as well as the articles.
Susan, I have the same concerns that you have. I hope that people will realize that there are many sincere homeschooling families who love and honor the moms and daughters and who seek to encourage them and see them use their gifts for the Lord. What a tragedy it is that this is what makes the news and what is picked up on by the secular world. There are many enemies of homeschooling and I pray that this story isn’t used against the rest of us.
March 15, 2009 at 4:14 pm
kes,
I think you express the same pain that I feel and that others feel about the different doctrines that the patriocentrics have already overtaken. We are all lumped in together with them and have seen some of that conflict among contributors here on this very forum.
Consider that this has already happened with other concepts. What could possibly be more wonderful than honoring the Sovereign God with Lordship over your body as a concept in general? Yet this has been taken and made a central doctrine. What could be more wonderful than celebrating youth and purity, the simple concept of boy meets girl and live happily ever after in a home full of joy? Yet this has been taken and turned into a central doctrine. And the Doctrines of GRACE themselves (when balanced and not used as a cause for comparing ourselves with others but as a cause to minister the Gospel to the lost) — Grace that has been taken and turned into a process of earning opus operatum points, banking power through submission — even this has been taken and turned into something that God never intended. Grace is no longer anything but irresistible.
There are so many words and concepts that have been overtaken and corrupted because of the twisting. When you hear people use the word dominion, do you bristle? Do you clench your jaw a bit, wondering if the person will speak the truth or whether you will hear patriobabble?
When I consider how this fringe acid has eaten away at how certain Scriptures that these people have twisted, I weep. How horrible that I have been so miserably treated that when I hear certain beautiful verses now that my guts twist, not from the verse itself but because of the perversion of them. How I have watched people bludgeoned with them. How they have been used like daggers to stab me in the proverbial heart in condemnation, very much apart from the true context of Scripture.
So I feel this disdain that you do at the idea that some concept allowed under the idea that the Christian can eat meat sacrificed to idols if their heart gives them leave has been propagated as a holy sacrament of this fringe.
That is such a large part of why I have not yet been able to read the new Quiverful book. Psalm 127 helped to heal the wounds of growing up with a profoundly depressed mother who has horrible PPD and was terrified and tormented with fear. I heard “If I had it to do all over again, I’d NEVER marry and have children” as my mother worked through her own dark night of depression with me an unwitting casualty of her private war against torment. Psalm 127 was a soothing balm, and happy, balanced, loving, joyful mothers and fathers who loved their children and wanted what God wanted for their families were healing medicine to me. Over 15 years since I received that healing of the deep wounds in my heart, I’ve watched what was once my source of healing medicine be warped, distorted and used as a poison of both piety and condemnation.
So, why should the Sabbath be left? They have cherry picked their pet Old Covenant doctrines. Why not add the Sabbath to the list? The end of their dominion justifies their means, so why not take this doctrine, too? Because there has been no obvious rhyme or reason as to which Old Covenant doctrines they’ve selected to adopt, it makes more sense that they would find polygamy more suitable that a Saturday Sabbath. And it also sickens me to think of what a new and disgusting loaded language phrase that could be made of “Shabbot Shalom” by these people.
But it is a possibility, because the mindset thrives on adversarial controversy and anything that will reinforce their sense of being unique and elite. They have to see themselves as special before God, a way of leveling all the buildings around their own so that their spire is the highest one on the landscape. It is a cause for comparison, so the Sabbath may well be drawn into things, and it would not have the negative implications of polygamy to overcome. So as offensive as this sounds, it is not less offensive than what has already been done in the name of this paganism. And it is sad, because I don’t believe that these folks started out with any intent to be pagan.
March 15, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Cindy, that quote from Phil Lancaster is even more eerie now than when I first read that book.
And to think that we were in a church that invited him to become the pastor! (That was the last straw for us, btw.)
March 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Cindy, that Lancaster quote nearly gave me chills. I am truly alarmed at the future that the next generations will inherit–and sad to say, it is a religious future rather than political that I grieve about!
Acts 15 seems to apply here very precisely–Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? . . . “Known to God from eternity are all His works.19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,from things strangled, and from blood.
Thatmom–thank you for your kind words. You are so sweet.
March 15, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Polygamy:
http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2008/03/evangelical-christian-polygamous.html
March 16, 2009 at 12:58 am
Yes I used “sabbath-keeper” as a potential doctrinal schism point just because it was the first doctrinal point that popped into my head. I could have used any number of other doctrines. My reply had nothing to do with the doctrines themselves, I was just saying that movement will continually reinvent itself and be energized by more zealous righteousness as groups break away over doctrinal issues.
I was in the whole quiverfull thing over 10 years ago and I am somewhat agape at how some of these groups have intensified their control. In the past we talked about how you could do college by correspondence or send them to a fundy college, even Mary Pride talked about how degrees like Business Management would help you manage a home. Now we have groups not wanting to send daughters to college at all–and I am sure their actual years of academics will decrease in favour of homemaking (because you really need to spend 3 years learning how to bake and iron). Of course the Amish have done this for years.
I’m expecting non-Mormon polygamy as a future schism of these groups.
And thatmom I quite agree with you, it’s a shame that all homeschooling/large families will get painted with this brush by hostile folk. But if it gives one woman the courage to walk away from an abusive cult or marriage I’m willing to take some smearing when I am out with my 8 kids. I’m VERY happy to see that salon article and to hear people talking about the dark side. Lets be open and transparent about how controlling some of this theology is.
March 16, 2009 at 6:49 am
I know a Christian married man who says he personally wouldn’t take a second wife, but can’t see why another Christian man should be kept from doing so, if he can care for his wives responsibly. After all, women were made for man….
March 16, 2009 at 7:54 am
As someone outside the homeschooling community, I think that most people can tell that the problem with Quiverfull is patriarchy and the directive to have as many children possible, not homeschooling per se.
On the other hand, the example of some of these patriarchal families illustrates how homeschooling can compound emotional and spirtitual (and possibly physical?) abuse exponentially. As someone who grew up in an emotionally (and sometimes physically) abusive household, being able to leave the house and go to school every day and interact with normal, reasonable people was a salvation. That’s not to say that I oppose the freedom to homeschool. But it seems that is the issue that opponents of homeschooling could use most effectively.
Of course, abuse can happen in school too, but it is much more diffused than in a homeschooling situation.
March 16, 2009 at 8:05 am
Even though I will defend homeschooling to the ends of the earth my personal experience of homeschooling in an abusive marriage was that it was incredibly, painfully isolating. Prior to homeschooling I got all my socializing and built my friendships through women centered church activities. Bible studies, playgroups, special church events set up to reach community women. With the advent of homeschooling in my life I had to let go of all of that. It was very painful but I was sure that I was following God’s calling and putting my children first. Even if there wasn’t the whole fear-factor around being seen out and about during school hours (this was very big where I lived) there was the simple fact that you can’t bring 6 kids with you to a woman’s bible study or luncheon. I basically signed up to my own isolation. In an abusive household it IS important to get out and “interact with normal reasonable people” as you say Laurie. For myself that happened when I got the internet which was a powerful force in my coming out of fundamentalism.
Homeschooling is a very good thing. Homeschooling in an abusive home is potentially a very terrible thing.
March 16, 2009 at 9:01 am
Arietti,
I agree with this one:
Homeschooling is a very good thing. Homeschooling in an abusive home is potentially a very terrible thing.
A family we are very close to (and can’t avoid it!) have 8 children, two of which are still at home.
The father wants to leave the country and “flee to safety from Sodom and Gomorrah”. But the father is an abusive father and husband.
He wanted his wife to start homeschooling their children (in Germany, where it’s against the law), to start preparing for their new life away from society.
Thankfully, his wife is smart enough to say no, school is the only link to a normal world, a schedule, and some happiness for the children.
My husband also wants to leave “the system” and move somewhere where we can homeschool, but my conditions remain: we need to be in a community if we are going to homeschool. I want my children and myself to have friends. I won’t put myself in a situation where I’m completely isolated.
One problem I see with these movements is a fixation on separation from the world, and some are also quite obsessed with eschatology.
March 16, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“One problem I see with these movements is a fixation on separation from the world, and some are also quite obsessed with eschatology.”
The trouble with religion that promotes radical separation from the world is that in essence it’s like one of those old-time horor movies, where the protagonists are running from from the monster or the bad guy and reach the safety of the house, and lock themselves inside. They frantically lock the doors, they lock the windows, and when the last key is turned and the last bolt slammed home, they take a deep breath and for a moment, all is well — they are SAFE.
Then they hear a noise…. and they realize that they have locked the monster inside the house with them.
March 16, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Cindy or Karen, or others–is there a transcript of the 200 year plan outlined by VF? I would be interested in reading it.
March 16, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Manipulative and idealistic groups thrive on intensity.
The root cause of any totalistic group is the imbalance of power that is built around a charismatic individual or elite core of people. Then the process is enhanced and solidified by the systems of control which demand the member’s transformation. Cataclysmic crises add that intensity — to survive, you must be transformed, and your life and soul depend on this transformation.
The group just so happens to also offer the FORMULA for salvation. As Karen is always astute to point out, they create a disease and just so happen corner the market on the cure for that disease. It is like V for Vendetta, if you’ve seen the film or read the graphic novel. They manufacture a virus which they perfect by torturing “non-persons,” and then they release it so that their own people become infected. It just so happens that they manufacture the medication that saves everyone, and the leaders are set for life. Throw in there the moral imperatives that are impossible to achieve (by design) so that everyone stays off balance and are well-acquainted with a sense of grief.
But there is always an apocalyptic vision involved. There is ALWAYS some kind of coming disaster from which a few will escape. There is some approaching cataclysmic event, an impending disaster, or some transforming event. It is always cast as a righteous struggle and a basic “good against evil” conspiriacy.
The group just so happens to have what everyone needs to survive and overcome the PURE EVIL that threatens life as we know it. The even usually always promises some kind of transformation of society, and the group always anticipates that those who follow them will transcend the dangers.
It is a formula or a pattern that people fall into that helps idealistic cults develop. Cults are enforced idealism, and you have to give people good and convincing reason to want to sign up to save themselves and their families.
March 16, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Hillary,
Botkin talks about the 200 year plan to Swanson on his radio show — and you can download the audio. I also took some info from John Holtzmann’s “Strategic Inheritance” blog before he realized how strange VF really was and what they were pushing.
I wrote this about the 200 Year Plan Botkin/Swanson sermon audio, too:
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/12/layers-of-extra-biblical-belief.html
All this is built around Multigenerational Faithfulness, so a good companion to this is Bill Einwechter’s sermon audio download on Multigenerational Faithfulness as well. It’s all just “Spiritual Survival of the Fittest” which they think is somehow not Darwinian (yet somehow, Sunday School is).
March 16, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“All this is built around Multigenerational Faithfulness, so a good companion to this is Bill Einwechter’s sermon audio download on Multigenerational Faithfulness as well.It’s all just “Spiritual Survival of the Fittest” which they think is somehow not Darwinian (yet somehow, Sunday School is).”
Well, what can you say about a group that includes people who advocate stoning children to death? This is fundamentalist Islam with a Christian veneer.
March 17, 2009 at 2:15 am
I have no idea what I am doing awake. DST should have me an hour off, but somehow I am two hours off schedule.
I think it was Laurie who effectively described the concept of “Bounded Choice” by mentioning a description of the plight of the patriocentric daughter. This has been on my mind as a component of thought reform anyway, so I wrote a more in-depth post about this concept and why it is so comprehensive for these young women in particular. It explains in better detail why people find it difficult to leave manipulative groups and sometimes abusive relationships.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/bounded-choice-as-another-component-of.html
When I discussed these matters with some people a few years ago, it was in 2006, right about the time that the Children of God cult in DC was discussed on Dr. Phil. It came up in conversation with some non-Christians I was having dinner with (gasp!), and they insisted that these things couldn’t be true. They were dumbfounded when I told them one of my friends had dealings with the group and that I was involved in a similar type of group. I explained this concept, but people do not think it is legitimate. They expect these girls to walk away because that is what they would do. But they don’t understand that kids who grow up with this system as a norm do not know anything other than this.
So this has been on my mind to write up for some time. I hope it helps. I know that it’s been my experience that this is largely misunderstood by people who have not been through a similar experience.
March 18, 2009 at 12:37 am
I read your post, Cindy K. I thought the elephant story was a good, visual illustration (I love analogies and parables, especially ones that make visual abstract concepts).
I think it might be helpful if someone (probably you or the person who wrote the book you cited to has already done this elsewhere) offered a scenario or hypothetical for each stage of being sucked into this mind control. I was also, as you suggested, reminded of domestis violence situations (secular, non-cult) and think some of those hypotheticals would help, too. Just little stories like “Naomi was in grad school when she met Tim. They got married and moved to a new city, where they started attending a new church with a charismatic pastor. Naomi…” (and then whatever symptom Naomi displays at this stage could be identified).
Maybe having hypotheticals with names of other people might help some women enmeshed in patriocentricity to view the situation with a clearer, less self-defensive attitude (compared to somebody who cares about them expressing concern about their lives–that way might lead to withdrawal, denial, defensiveness).
March 18, 2009 at 12:44 am
Sarah Walston, thank you for sharing. Over the time I’ve learned about the Botkin women, I have felt a melancholy when I think their lives. I don’t mean to be condescending in feeling this way; my lifestyle (physically independent of my parents, though emotionally still very close) has its own problems, too, and I do not suggest the Botkins would fare better living my way.
But, although their writings actively harm women and families, and although the falsehoods and the Biblical twisting/textual manipulation they publish harm Christianity generally, I cannot bring myself to feel much more than foreboding on their behalf. I believe they need to take responsiblity for what they write, but we also need to understand that they were raised deeply enmeshed in this thought control (at least that’s what it seems like based on the materials Cindy K and others have offered). So, I don’t think it’s too much of an offense to their agency and personhood to suggest that other, bigger forces around them are ultimately the source of the “Biblical” and lifestyle conclusions they “reached” at an astonishingly young age (12, from what I’ve read).
I hope they don’t end up brokenhearted and in turmoil. Unfortunately, it seems like sometimes that’s the catalyst that propels people out of the thought control and isolation.
March 18, 2009 at 7:58 am
Emmy,
Thank you so much for this feedback. The book I drew the info from, Bounded Choice, was written by Janja Lalich. [I don't know what group Geoff Botkin was involved in because he talks about being a former Marxist], but Janja was a member of the Democratic Workers Party, a very socialist political cult. She narrates her whole experience and then also writes the history of Applewhite, the founder of the Heaven’s Gate UFO cult. She compares the two groups, making an opportunity to tell more of her own story. The details are different, but I am continually amazed at how the dynamics in any totalistic group are always identical to my own in evangelical Christianity’s Shepherding/Discipleship. (Remember that Applewhite started out as a very gifted son of a Presbyterian minister, and Jim Jones was Assemblies of God.) The material I pulled out of the book comes from Lalich’s description of the theoretical in the very last chapter of the book that makes sense of the common dynamics. So in terms of the book itself, the analogies are all there. When I read any of the personal or biographical studies of people who have come out of an ideological, totalistic group, I identify strongly with them, though they are not accounts of Evangelical Christianity.
We do have a few depictions of Christians who have been through this process and emerged to tell their stories of hope. Wendy Duncan wrote “I Cant Hear God Anymore,” her testimony of getting involved in an evangelical Christian cult. She couldn’t find a place to minister in the Southern Baptist system, and she was both a social worker and a seminary graduate from SWBTS when she got pulled into her particular group. “Take Back Your Life” by Lalich does have some personal accounts in it. And I think everybody ought to read “Combating Cult Mind Control” by Steve Hassan who was a Jewish lad who was recruited by the Moonies. Our stories are all the same.
You wrote: Maybe having hypotheticals with names of other people might help some women enmeshed in patriocentricity to view the situation with a clearer, less self-defensive attitude (compared to somebody who cares about them expressing concern about their lives–that way might lead to withdrawal, denial, defensiveness).
This is what I’m hoping that Hillary’s book will be. I suppose I should get started writing my own personal account which I often think will be too complicated and not typical of the stories of most. I have more issues with family and other trauma than I do with abusive religion when you look at my whole course, but for me, the family stuff set me up for the religious abuse. It is certainly a drama, from day one. I am a theory girl by nature of how God put me togeterh. So the theory of this all is my comfort zone, though I do share some of my personal account at botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com. There is much more there that helps to accomplish what you suggest, presenting the same kind of information. (Does anyone out there want to send me material?)
The other complicated aspect of discussing these things is that I am healing as I go. I have spent the last 20 years trying to break the gravity of the first 20 years of my life. I am that elephant, no longer held by the tether, and I am only just beginning to venture away from the safety of the known radius, hence I use the analogy. The terror/pressure/pain/panic/guilt/shame of the process of breaking away from that has been a learned process, and I am just taking my own few, steady steps. Sometimes it feels like rather than a circle path around my stake and tether, I have worn a comfortable trench at this point. I have been engaged in crawling up out of the trench.
My great prayer for these girls is that what took me 20 years to do will take them far less time with less collateral damage. People with healthy family origins (having a smaller foothold for the exploitation of the cultic ideology) have trouble transcending patriocentricity and the cultic nature of their religious systems. From my personal experience, I know that girls like the Botkins have to also transcend enmeshment with their families wherein they never had any personal options from which to choose, subject always to bounded choice. It has been intense and beyond my ability to comprehend at times how difficult breaking free of this process has been for me personally and I am still taking my own baby steps.
God is good, though. I have had other factors, as you know, life doesn’t stop happening for you to get yourself together, does it? Entropy and age take their tolls, and life does not wait for us to get it right before it pushes us along. (Can you tell that I still wrestle with perfectionism???) But God girds us with strength and makes our ways perfect in His perfect timing.
Maybe it’s time for me to get working on something serious about my own testimony?
Hmmm.
March 18, 2009 at 9:02 am
“The details are different, but I am continually amazed at how the dynamics in any totalistic group are always identical to my own in evangelical Christianity’s Shepherding/Discipleship.”
This is what makes me hesitate to put this on our forum. I’m afraid it does bear striking resemblance to what many Baptists accept as “discipling”! (Our denomination is very authoritative.)
Cindy, I know you have a wonderful, supportive hubby in your corner, and, I’m a bit discouraged with all these patrio horror stories. Can you share one simple way he has been a comfort in your recovery? It would be a blessing!
March 18, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I wanted to link to this article by Stacy McDonald. I am thankful that she is telling her story publicly.
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2009/03/beauty-for-ashes-testimony.html
March 19, 2009 at 1:11 am
Hi, Momgodin,
My husband didn’t start out perfect, as none of us does.
For a number of reasons, I had the pervasive feeling that I was inherently, terribly and irreparably flawed on the most basic level. I’m also different. My personality is different, and nearly every one of those type tests I’ve ever taken, be they personality related or talent-oriented, put me in 1 – 2% of the population. Most people don’t look at the unusual and see potential. They define anything “out of the ordinary” as bad, difficult and a problem. It is especially pronounced when one is younger.
And God, in His graciousness, has always put someone in my life that looks at me and sees someone remarkable and amazing. These are the kind of people who believe every good thing about you, marvelling as they watch your life unfold to see how God will shine uniquely through your life and testimony. I always had enough of a glimmer of that in my life to keep me going.
Then, I met this amazing young man on a summer job, and he became that person for me in a way that was much more profound than I’d ever experienced before. I once asked him if there was ever a particular moment when he fell in love with me, and he thinks it is when I challenged him over politics. He is staggeringly brilliant in a battle of wits, but he made a really lame argument. I didn’t hesitate to challenge him, and in so doing, he became my biggest fan. I can barely comprehend it. Even in the midst of one of the worst seasons as we struggled to survive some really terrible things, he paid me one of the most wonderful compliments that makes me weep to think of it.
I am continually amazed at how he looks at me and sees goodness, even when I cannot recognize it in myself. It is beyond my ability to comprehend sometimes.
We have not had a charmed run of things. We have had illness to deal with which has not always brought out the best in us to put it mildly. By our 2nd anniversary, he had no cartilage in either wrist, with bone rubbing against bone. (We celebrate our 19th anniversary this year.) We’re both brutally human, just like everyone else, making mistakes and with pain often bringing the sin in our hearts to the surface. The relationship has been a lot of work, but it has been rooted in a great respect for one another and a lot of love from the beginning. We are one another’s safe place to land and source of strength. And there is a lot of stuff about our relationship that is messed up, and we are not perfect, but the man has always been my most favorite person in the world, and me his.
I don’t know if that helps you or not. I remember when I first heard that “Wind Beneath My Wings” song years ago, and even then, I thought that it didn’t do my husband’s love for me any justice. I’ve dropped out of graduate school twice to help him when he needed me, though he never asked and would have done all to help me realize whatever it is that I feel God calling me to do. And the really amazing thing about it is that I don’t think that I deserve it.
March 19, 2009 at 6:05 am
I’ll be interested to see how she answers the question in the comments about whether verbal/physical abuse is “abandonment” even if no adultery took place.
I thought it was very heartening to read about her real struggles with the blended family etc.. Emmy I think your point about the biblical interpretation is a good one, but really I am so happy to read about a “real” person as she seems in these posts, with real stuggles. I think it will have great impact because of all her family represents and hopefully open a door for discussing these real issues in families.
March 19, 2009 at 7:55 am
Emmy, you were very insightful to notice the “contextual” argument.
Having just studied the Timothy passage with a group in a Bible study, I thought it was an interesting take on that passage. One point that came up during our study was that polygamy was forbidden under Roman law at that time and that it wasn’t even practiced in Ephesus then. The sexual sins there were one dealing with sexual immorality and goddess worship. So I don’t think the polygamy explanation even applies.
The other thing that came to mind was the Scripture (can’t find the reference this morning) that warns us that a story can sound accurate until someone else comes along and gives their version of it. I know that in some churches, a divorce cannot be declared “biblical” unless both sides have been heard by a group of elders and there is documentation to prove it. I am wondering if they have that sort of documentation. I believe Stacy was the one who, a couple weeks ago, warned us to not believe everything we read on the internet. Given the past “dissembling” we have witnessed, I think this is a fair concern.
March 19, 2009 at 11:03 am
“And whaddya know? She used historical, cultural, and…dum dum dum…CONTEXTUAL arguments!”
That is because it suits her and her own situation.
Again, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
March 19, 2009 at 11:48 am
Cindy K,
Your post was a beautiful testimony of a good man’s love! Thank you for sharing. I read it to my mom (who loves your blog).
Isn’t it funny, that the very thing he found attractive in you (your opinions and your willingness to express them freely) is the VERY thing many women are being told are unseemly and unfeminine. We are told that we should not give our unsolicited opinion as that is the mark of insubordination! I guess it all depends on what you want to attract!
Dan said he loved me at first sight, but he really loved me when I beat him at Chess in public. Normally, I am very competitive, but when I started falling for him, I couldn’t win anymore. My mind would wander… :p
March 19, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I’m sorry, but can I take a moment to vent here, on what I see as a possible patrio problem affecting our daughters?
Maybe I’m paranoid. But there’s a pastor’s school with thousands of MEN ONLY in the auditorium.
I’m told that they sent fifty young ladies among them to sell/distribute dvd’s and cd’s.
I think this is inappropriate! As a young lady, I would have been mortified to do this, and I would never subject my daughters to this.
The men on my forum think I’m a prude, and that I imagine evil. I answered,
“I’m usually open to be corrected on many things, but
Since you’re NOT a woman, nor a mother, let me enlighten you:
It is inappropriate to send young ladies into an auditorium full of men, to personally distribute anything among them!”
March 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“A mother is a biological and/or social female parent of an offspring. Because of the complexity and differences of the social, cultural, and religious definitions and roles, it is challenging to define a mother in a universally accepted definition.”
So, technically, yes. But in this culture the connotation is that the birth mother relinquished any responsibility for the child/children and gave them up for adoption. Using the word puts a misleading spin on the story.
March 19, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“Grass Widow” or “grace widow”
was anciently an unmarried woman who has had a child, but now the word is used for a wife temporarily parted from her husband. The word means a grace widow, a widow by courtesy. (In French, veuve de grace; in Latin, viduca de gratia; a woman divorced or separated from her husband by a dispensation of the Pope, and not by death; hence, a woman temporally separated from her husband.) 1
“Grace-widow (‘grass-widow’) is a term for one who becomes a widow by grace or favour, not of necessity, as by death. The term originated in the earlier ages of European civilisation, when divorces were granted [only] by authority of the Catholic Church.”—Indianopolis News (1876).
The subjoined explanation of the term may be added in a book of “Phrase and Fable.” 2
During the gold mania in California a man would not unfrequently put his wife and children to board with some family while he went to the “diggins.” This he called “putting his wife to grass,” as we put a horse to grass when not wanted or unfit for work.”
I guess the use of this phrase left me puzzled. If women who are divorced are considered to be “grace widows” then do the bibilical admonitions for widows apply? It seems that that is what she is saying and that Paul’s admonition to remarry goes beyond being allowed to marry, that it becomes a “command.” how does that jive with other passages?
March 19, 2009 at 1:07 pm
momgodin, I would agree that it would not be a wise situation for a room full of pastors to be ministered to by a group of young single women. But this seems to be the standard in these groups. I would bet money that the men who attended the Homeschooling Leadership Summit at Gothard’s Indianapolis training center were waited on by the lovely young women who are assigned there.
March 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Momgodin wrote: Isn’t it funny, that the very thing he found attractive in you (your opinions and your willingness to express them freely) is the VERY thing many women are being told are unseemly and unfeminine.
The man cannot claim that he didn’t have a good idea of the kind of relationship we would have. I was sure of the truth and contended for truth in the discussion with him. He’d said that he’d never had a woman challenge him like that before, and I told him that it was the truth that challenged him, not me.
What is really a testimony is that we were discussing matters pertaining to a Christian worldview. At that moment, I had a duty to contend for Christ, not just arguing a point. He argued a lame and liberal point that I would have argued with the President of the United States. He says my determination in such matters, something he’s witnessed many times since and complete with physical expressions, is truly something to behold. Apparently, when I really have an opportunity to shine forth important truth, I manifest it physically and he found this very attractive.
And there is also something this little vignette that makes a mockery of the whole argument that women who contend for truth before the male gender are unnatural and unbecoming. The cause for my determination in the discussion that made my husband find me so attractive to start with originated with my strong faith in Christ and my confidence in the truth of the Gospel. He fell in love with my commitment to contend for God’s truth — Christ in me and how that manifests uniquely in how God created me to be. That moment changed his life, and it was wrapped around Jesus.
March 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Sorry for the grammar errors in that…
My husband stayed home from work today, and I just read the last comment to him. I am mortified at the grammatical errors in it! Both he and the cat interrupted me multiple times as I wrote it, and I have not yet had enough coffee to offset my headache today.
March 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“My husband stayed home from work today, and I just read the last comment to him. I am mortified at the grammatical errors in it!”
It’s the company you’re keeping. I can be a very bad influence on people! 
March 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Momgodin,
I think it has more to do with the cat! My orange tabby loves the computer and lays so that it looks like he’s typing. For the past couple of days, he got on the kick of having to put his paw on top of my hand as I type, like he’s communicating to me what he wants me to type… It’s hysterically cute but distracting!
March 20, 2009 at 12:46 am
WOW!! I’m so lost. You guys are busy on this website! I’m impressed and intimidated with all the responses – but encouraged to see so much chatter going on with Christian women about these important issues.
Now. Back to my Facebooking Blitz….
March 20, 2009 at 5:46 am
Arietty,
It would be nice to focus only on doctrine in the church, but this is not what Paul established as the only standard for elders and pastors.
I again am going to sound like a broken record on this issue. There are 210 verses in the Bible that address false teachers, false prophets and Pharisees.
99 of them talk about identifying and concern BEHAVIOR.
66 concern FRUIT.
Only 21 (10% of those verses concern Doctrine).
78% of what God tells us about these matters concerns behaviors and actions. 12% concerns motive. And only 10% of these verses talk about identifying and confronting doctrine.
So if I were writing the standard, I might make it all about doctrine, but this is actually not consistent with what the Word of God calls us to do, particularly when it comes to leadership in the church.
Spiritual abuse and cultic issues in Christianity have far more to do with behavior, and I believe it is the folly of our day to focus only on doctrine. I believe, based upon Scripture, that if we limit matters only to the discussion of doctrine that we are ignoring 90% of what the Word calls us to do. It is far more about behavior.
It’s not politically correct, but I believe that this is precisely what the Word of God teaches. So that’s why I believe that behavior is just as important an issue as is doctrine if not more so in these matters.
March 20, 2009 at 5:49 am
Good theology should lead to right living. But behavior and the fruit of the life lived as Dr. Walter Martin described it is essential as well. Right doctrine with a bad witness is dead orthodoxy. Dead orthodoxy leads to living heresy. And the end does not justify the means in either case.
March 20, 2009 at 9:17 am
I was reading the book “Lethal Medicine- the epidemic of medical malpractice in America” by Harvey F. Wachsman, M.D., J. D.
“Malpractice has become a plague in America.
From the moment we are born we are in the hands of physicians…it is not hard to think well of doctors. Like members of the clergy, it seems as if they’re the ones who are always there when you need them in times of crisis…”
(I thought it was interesting when I substituted the word “pastors” for “physicians/doctors”, in the following exerpt, because, as he said, the LEVEL OF TRUST is equivalent.)
“We assume that the *physician is acting in our own best interests.
We assume that *doctors are highly educated, so they must know more than we do.
We assume that *doctors’ licences are a certification of their competency.
We assume that prestigious medical centers would never allow incompetent *physicians to practice there.
And finally we assume that if they weren’t competent, we’d all know about it, and someone would do something to stop them from practicing.
More often than most people realize, these assumptions are terribly wrong.”
(I hope that this reminds people why it is SO important that we qualify shepherds of trusting sheep.)
March 20, 2009 at 10:07 am
Oh, momgodin, how much more crucial is it to be diligent and discerning when it comes to the very souls of others! Thanks for sharing that insight.
March 20, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Just poking a toe in to suggest why some may be skirting the very valid issues you raise, Cindy. Perhaps because it hits much closer to home? Not that that makes it any less valid–but the extreme debt might be more uncomfortable an issue for people to accept, and perhaps and tacit agreement places them on “that side.” I don’t know–I can say that my husband and I are still reaping the horrific financial errors we made in our younger years and have bankruptcy in our history. Just offering my .02. Hugs! :^)
March 20, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Oh- and I am sorry you have been accused of lying. Given your passion for the truth, I would venture that you are that LAST person to exaggerate or make anything up. This is very distressing.
March 22, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Crickets chirping…
Debbie from California and anyone who has taken on reading “Quiverfull”:
Are you finding it slow going or hard to metabolize? I generally read rather quickly, but this is slow going. I was getting hung up on erroneous comments that I thought were wrong, but I’ve started to just disengage so that I can effectively read the book, just to have read it.
It is also hard to read so much of what I would call a shining example of a blatant argument for the ontological subordination of women. It just repeats over, and over, and over. Women are little more than rib tools to be used, something that is a concept that is going to save humanity, and something upon which the Gospel is both dependent and contingent. For each ten time that some ontological subordination point is mentioned, there might sometimes be one mention of how this puts a heavy responsibility on men. (Though I would say this is an accurate reflection of how much play this gets as subject matter in churches that follow this concept.)
It also jumps around from topic to person in a way that does not allow me to trace a logical progression, unless at this point, the progression is building the argument of the ontological subordination of women.
Has anyone had this experience as they’ve read through this book? I specifically sat time aside to get through it, and I’ve much exceeded that time allotment it at this point.
March 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Cindy, I’m still awaiting my copy from the public library here.
March 22, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Cindy, my copy just came and I took it along on our trip to Springfield. I ended up reading one of the chapters out loud to clay!
I am in chapter 3 but did read the chapter on the Epstein debacle. So far my response is that there are some factual errors that bothered me. Like her stating that Doug Phillips was homeschooled. He wasn’t and made of point of telling us that when he spoke at the homeschooilng convention in Peoria, though he did travel around with his dad and spent much time in the presence of famous conservatives. (This troubled me because I don’t want Phillips to appear to be the product of homeschooling. Shudder.)
Secondly, she seems to be under the impression that public anti-patriocentricity statements originated online with Jen Epstein. I know Corrie has taken a stand against it for nearly a decade. My first online statement to it came at least 1 1/2 years before Jen’s blog went online. I know others have been speaking out against it for a long time, too. I don’t believe Jen’s Gems spawned a bunch of anti-Phillips blogs. Hype.
I think that it would have been wise for the author to have spent more time with people who have been in the patriocentric movement and got out and who are normal. Her views are just a half bubble off some of the time, though other times she really seems to get it.
I will keep reading and post more thoughts later.
March 22, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Karen,
It is those misinformed details that you mention that slow me down as I read.
There was also a statement made about Chalcedon that might be reflective of what Chalcedon has become since Rousas Rushdoony died, but it is not remotely accurate from my perspective when I did read their materials. I wrote and asked for some clarification from someone who worked for the organization to clarify, because what is written there sounds like something written by a Doug Phillips critic. I don’t know that Phillips openly promoted what they ascribed to him as coming directly from Rushdoony. He said some nutty things when taken as sound bytes and some things that cannot be justified, but he did not live out on a compound, recreating a fiefdom. If he thought that this was necessary to live a Godly life and was God’s plan for society, he would have gone off and lived in his own version of Rivendell. It is my honest understanding that he did nothing and lived nothing like this. And his daughters who chose to be were well educated by secular standards, for example. I understand that he ascribed to none of this shrinking violet stuff for women. In fact, I understand from a circle of friends that were close personal friends of his that he took great delight in discussions with strong-willed, well-informed and outspoken women, the kind of woman for whom the Quiverfull movement has great disdain. (But if you only knew Rushdoony through a source like Phillips, you would not know this about Rushdoony.)
As I mentioned online here, the first night that I opened the book, I found Gregg Harris classified as one of the original advocates of homeschooling and something as someone who laid the foundations for homeschooling. That is ludicrous!
As you have so astutely pointed out, Karen, the Moores were homeschooling their kids when HOWARD Phillips was barely potty trained. The Moores and John Holt from the secular side paved the way for homeschooling, making it possible for men like Bill Gothard to come along and take advantage of things, so even Gothard does not classify as an early pioneer, though he did much to advance the cause for SOME, but certainly not all. I know many people that homeschool that I know that NEVER heard of Bill Gothard and had nothing to do with him. Gregg Harris and Mike Farris were playing with pop guns or Lincoln Logs when the real pioneers were establishing homeschooling as an option open to parents for their children, back before it had been established as legal.
But qualifying Gregg Harris as he was in the book sounds much like Jen Epstien misinformation, if you ask me. Jen was a Johnny Come Lately to things, was DEFINITELY NOT the first person to speak out against patriarchy, and she had many of the early facts mixed up. If we had not lived in the backwoods of Texas with lousy internet, and if I did not have a dreadfully ill husband to care for which took up most of my time and energy (when the debate first heated up), I might have started my own site earlier. I had liberty to do so again when Midwest Christian Outreach decided to speak openly about these matters, just as they had about Gothard. Prior to that, most people didn’t want to hear anything about matters. It took a couple of years (and more support from forums like Corrie helped to pioneer with the Gothard Discussion Group) for people to feel comfortable speaking out. I tried years earlier to promote the message that I do now, but people were not interested in it. There were plenty of local people in San Antonio that I knew who were of the opinion that Phillips was operating a cult back in ’99. But Jen had no interest in patriarchy or Phillips when Pete Hurst, Andrew Sandlin, David Bahnsen or Joel Miller on the now defunct RazorMouth.com were very outspoken about this mess, back in 2002 -2003. By then, the Phillips followers at our church had departed, and I left Grace OPC where I attended with Phillips, on the rare occasions that he actually attended. Jen was completely ignorant of patriarchy then.
At random, I pulled up razormouth on the internet archive. One of the first things I pulled up without really looking talks of the pitfalls and disparagements of formulaic thinking. No one heard of Jen Epstein at this point, and I don’t even know if she was a Christian then. http://web.archive.org/web/20030618093116/www.razormouth.com/archives/00000046.htm
I’m not sure how I want to address my issues with the book. I could do it piecemeal, or I could get through the whole book and post an overview.
It reads more like a very disorganized report on the ontological subordination of women, but I am having a rough time following the logic. Thus far, it does not build a premise from a linear approach. It just seems to parade disconnected quotes from wackos and some vignettes about people like Susan Bauer who were maligned for speaking out about the wackiness. It’s difficult for me to follow in that sense, because I can’t figure out the premise she’s building. It’s not like reading a Dickens novel where you attend to the character building, as it is a string of quotes and scenes at this point.
I just wondered if the whole thing will start to come together at some point with some sort of organized agenda. Right now, the disorganized approach to what I consider two or three separate but peripherally related topics in addition to the errors to make for difficult reading at this point.
March 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“For each ten time that some ontological subordination point is mentioned, there might sometimes be one mention of how this puts a heavy responsibility on men. (Though I would say this is an accurate reflection of how much play this gets as subject matter in churches that follow this concept.)”
Cindy,
But, imho, the burden is on the woman in MOST cases. If the husband doesn’t make enough to support all of his children…it is her problem. She has to learn how to be more frugal, to make do with less. If he doesn’t want to care for his own children, then that it is her problem, that is her responsibility. She needs not to expect anything out of him and she needs to learn how to make any situation work no matter what or else she has a problem.
I have seen too many women living in utter squalor because their husband doesn’t have any ambition outside of bragging about how many children he has sired.
Really, the only ones patriarchy really works well for are those who have a lot of money and the husband doesn’t have to work very hard for it. That way he has lots of free time to travel around the world with his children, teaching them.
For the responsible men, they must work very hard, sometimes two jobs in order to support the quiverfull lifestyle. That, in turn, puts enormous pressure on the woman to try and keep up with all the schooling, cleaning, cooking, shopping, pregnancies, nursing, etc that living the quiverfull lifestyle entails. She is exhausted with the sheer physical demands that this puts on her body and ends up looking 10 years older than she should.
The patrios that are “leading” the movement have sold a fairy tale to their followers and they have marketed it as the “fix” to everything that ails the family unit. Many times it just makes the problems much worse but the remedy always is for the woman to submit and make her husband the leader that he is supposed to be.
March 23, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“Really, the only ones patriarchy really works well for are those who have a lot of money and the husband doesn’t have to work very hard for it.”
And that’s why it doesn’t pass the “smell test”. Any religion that favors the rich is of “the World” and is not true to the teachings of Jesus.
March 23, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Corrie,
You wrote:
She needs not to expect anything out of him and she needs to learn how to make any situation work no matter what or else she has a problem.
There is a quote in the Quiverfull book from Phillips that says a wife needs to be sensitive to what it does to a man to hear his wife saying “Get me out of here.”
I thought this was pretty interesting. If a woman does not have a history of “crying wolf,” perseveres and has a track record of self-sacrifice with her husband, always caring for and nurturing him, what does that mean to a man when his wife DOES say “Get me out of here!”? If the man is called to care for his wife just as he cares for his own body, laying down his own life for his wife, if she is crying out for him to “Get her out” of a situation, I would think that she would have good cause. What does it say of the character and the love of a man who would not want to know that his wife was in distress.
I can understand that there are women who might be a problem, who might be intolerant and not willing to “persevere” when the going gets tough. But that was not what he was saying. It is as if a woman never has recourse to call out for help.
Having been through two situations when my exact thoughts and words were “Get me out of here!” I can honestly say that not letting this information known and following the patriarchal rules took a terrible toll on us. My husband is still mortified over aspects of it, and had I been more assertive, it would have saved him a great amount of literal years of personal suffering, including physical pain and trauma that he suffered. In hindsight, we both believe that my approach was wrong. I can’t say that the first situation would have resolved any differently, but the second instance of “Get me outta here!” would have ended a long trail of tears on both of our parts (not to mention our whole family) much earlier with much less collateral damage.
If we could have known then what we know now, neither of us would choose to follow the “Bloom where you’re planted and persevere until you die” advice, taking measures to transplant FAR, FAR earlier than we did. All it did was foster idolatry.
March 23, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Let me preface the quote from Phillips, in case you missed it. Phillips says that a woman should just suffer and never complain. In context he talks about a woman not nagging and being the dripping faucet.
March 23, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I’d like to know how many people here have heard their pastor/preacher or any other pastors/preachers say the same type of thing regarding wives towards their husbands. Has anyone had experience hearing a teaching like that from the pulpit? [raising my hand now]
I heard this type of teaching from Mr. Harris, the actual word “nag” being used as well. How do they think that they are living with understanding towards their wives, and teaching others to do likewise when they use such loaded language?
March 23, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Really, the only ones patriarchy really works well for are those who have a lot of money and the husband doesn’t have to work very hard for it.”
From what I’ve seen the only ones patriarchy works for are those with a lot of daughters to brainwash. Everything is about the father/daughter relationship in the home because the lifestyle cannont be sustained without the daughter’s household labor. Convince them they are out of God’s will and without their “covering” without Daddy and then Mom has free labor as long as she wants.
God luck with passing it on through multi-generational faithfulness because there is not a comparable number of patriarchial families with sons to marry.
March 23, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Just saw the Gunn Brother’s monstrously bad film (thank you netflix). I just felt so sorry for the women featured there. If that is the best the patrios have to offer, I can only call them FLDS-lite.
March 23, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I just saw that Stacey has posted about being “quiverfull” and I wanted to know, honestly, what difference it makes to be part of the movement rather than just having a mindset. Personally, I felt that it was a judgmental post, because it wasn’t saying that if you don’t have lots of babies then you are bad, but if you don’t subscribe to THIS point of view (all the other legalistic stuff), then you aren’t really allowed to call yourself “quiverfull.”
I was just discussing this with my husband the other day, and my problem is that the psalm that this is written in (Psalm 127), is in fact a Psalm about the general blessings on Israel. It has to do with familial blessings as well, but the manner doesn’t exactly speak of peace. I suppose that this is something of a “culture war,” but I am determined that we should define ourselves as Christians, not “Christians and…” I find it hard to believe that an obscure Psalm is something that should define our theology.
The terminology is something that has always bothered me, and the particular post I noticed refers to having babies for a purpose “being quiverfull.” Shouldn’t it be “having a quiverfull”?
March 23, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Interesting point, Abby. If you use the phrase “I have a quiverfull,” the emphasis is on the blessing, but it is not who you are. If you describe yourself as quiverfull, the focus is on yourself and your works. It is self-idolatry in a sense. When people’s very identities and self-worth are so tied up in it, it’s no wonder it becomes cultlike.
March 23, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Yes, good point, Abby. It demonstrates how much of an identity Quiverfull is, a marker of the truly holy, right? And yes, we should call ourselves Christian, period. Only then should we add the rest.
And Gail, I laughed at your “monstrously bad film” comment. But like you, I continually ache for the young women involved. What is to become of them when Prince Patrio Charming fails to emerge, all while they spend their prime quiverfilling years untying Daddy’s shoes?
And with each non-breeding year the pressure will increase for them to accept Daddy’s pick, even if they don’t like the guy. Just as long as he’s right on the gospel of submission. Those elite daddy-daughter duos (Mom’s irrelevant here) know everyone’s waiting and watching for the next Doug Phillips-endorced voyeuristic kiss at the altar.
The other option is for these girls to remain under Daddy’s protection into the senior center. I’m sure these girls will make excellent nurse-maids for Daddy in the nursing home.
I see bitterness and anger ahead as this experiment ripens into multi-generational nonsense. The young women will suffer most for it, all for Daddy’s ego and present comfort.
March 23, 2009 at 10:59 pm
#216 – good luck – sorry
March 23, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Debbie, what do you think will happen if these women never marry? After Daddy is gone, who then do they submit to? An uncle, a brother, a cousin?
Submitting to someone else, though, doesn’t really seem to help their Daddy’s vision. And if they do, how similar would a relationship like that be, especially with the odd lack of physical boundaries between father and daughter? As creepy as helping my own father shave sounds, I don’t even want to begin to imagine helping my brother. Would this twisted Christianity they teach even allow them to become a “helpmeet” to someone else?
Obviously they can’t just continue ministry on their own, especially if we’re talking about someone like the Botkin sisters, since they are very much at a forefront of their father’s ministry. That’s not allowed, because they aren’t under the authority of a man.
March 24, 2009 at 12:35 am
Catherine said, “Debbie, what do you think will happen if these women never marry? After Daddy is gone, who then do they submit to? An uncle, a brother, a cousin?”
Interesting question, Catherine. I’m curious where everyone else thinks this is heading.
I’m going with brother, all icky and twisted like you said. Big brothers naturally like to boss little sisters around already in the regular world. But in patrio-land, little brother gets to order big sister around.
Patrios promote this as patriarchy-in-training for the young bucks. They need to learn how to be leaders, and what better way to ready for the task than by demanding that big sister whip them up a snack. Now.
But maybe it’s really practice for sheltering future spinster sister. The back-up-brother-boss. Maybe instead of father/daughter retreats, they’ll have brother/sister retreats where sister rubs brother’s scalp and follows his voice commands while blind-folded.
Yes, it’s sick. But really any more disturbing than when practiced by daddy/daughter pairs?
March 24, 2009 at 1:44 am
I have no idea why I am still awake…
In the “So Much More” book, it states that one must have a male as a head, and this can be an older, wiser brother. If a girl does not have a willing father to participate in this oversight and for the daughter to rotate around like a satellite, she is to seek out another man as a surrogate.
(Do I see abuse potential there! It sounds much like my 8 year old thought process with the man that molested me. He was a grandfather type replacement not a father however. But I had no boundaries and especially no boundaries with men who I perceived as authority figures. I did what the grandfather type willed of me, not really understanding things. But can you imagine a lovely young pubescent girl going to a man and her asking him to be her father-figure for whom she would seek to be a helpmeet? Bad news. That is much like the thoughts I had in my grandfather replacement experience.)
This was also discussed when Nancy Leigh DeMoss reviewed the Passionate Housewives book. She should actually fall short of the Vision Forum standard that we can assume that both Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald accept and support since they both recommend and support the Botkin girl’s book and film where this doctrine is clearly articulated. Nancy never married, her father is no longer living. I don’t know if she has a brother, but if she did, she would have to submit to him. Maybe John Piper fills in as her spiritual male covering? But then, Nancy was likely just another market in which to promote the book.
One also needs a resident male protector to dwell under one’s roof because this is presumably one of the evils of going off to college. A young woman would have to sleep unprotected by a male patriarchy (which may be a brother) UNDER THE SAME ROOF. At a dorm, there would be no resident male protector. If they had a male security guard (my small Catholic college dorm of about 150 girls had a big guy named Ernie that watched over us by night, and later, one wing with about 5 male students only, so I guess we were all covered). But then, Ernie was not my official overseer. One of the guys, Tom, was in my clinical group and nursing class. Did he count? I guess if I’d have gone to him (in ’84) and asked him to be my male protector, and if he accepted, but then I would have had to have done his bidding. My my.
March 24, 2009 at 1:46 am
Gag. Barf.
March 24, 2009 at 2:23 am
Hey, Night Owl! I’m still up, too
The whole “male” covering just starts to unravel, huh? And if John Piper is Nancy Leigh DeMoss’ head or covering, how would Noel Piper feel about sharing her husband as head of another woman? Is it two bodies sharing one head? Or, for that matter, in these patriarchal families, when the husband is the head of the wife, but he also is some kind of head to the daughters, isn’t he redefining what a body is?
I always get a chuckle out of the ladies who claim they’re under a biblical understanding when they claim their husband is the “head” of their home. Since when have you seen a home with a head on it?
Am I just poking fun, or is there something to consider in these questions? I think the head analogy in the NT is something that needs a fresh study (which, I’m well aware that many people have done and presented wonderful understanding). If only those who have taken on the responsibility of helping to feed God’s Church and protect and present sound doctrine would put aside their prejudices and prayerfully consider these things. What a healthy Body we could have.
March 24, 2009 at 9:45 am
Kathleen,
You are exactly right that we need to take a fresh look at the question of the head analogy. A man is only called the head of his wife- not his daughter, not his home, not any other woman who comes under his so-called “authority”.
The body/head analogy has to do with being one and the body/head analogy cannot be used anywhere else but Christ/Church and husband/wife.
March 24, 2009 at 9:53 am
Kathleen,
I have heard the word “nag” from the pulpit, several times.
Who likes to be nagged? I know a lot of males who nag at their wives constantly. Why don’t we hear about males who nag at their wives and what that does to her?
I heard one pastor tell a friend of mine that her husband can define “nagging” anyway that he wants to and that meant that she wasn’t allowed to bring up anything a second time or that was nagging. So, when he didn’t pay the light bill, she wasn’t allowed to ask him about it when the electricity was turned off because that would be “nagging”.
It is a very convenient belief because the one in authority is above being questioned. Surprise….NOT!
March 24, 2009 at 9:58 am
You know, the whole promotion of the Quiverful heresy as the ultimate in godly lifestyle might more aptly be named hyperJovinianism.
Jovinian was a third century monk who was named as a heretic by the very early Church Fathers (St. Jerome in particular) because he taught, contrary to the Scriptures, that marriage was equal in holiness to virginity. But the Quiverful folk go him one better, by teaching that singleness and virginity is LESS holy than marriage, if not an outright sin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovinian
March 24, 2009 at 11:18 am
The more I think about it, I suppose I can see someone citing Tamar being taken in by her brother Absalom after her rape as an example of the necessity of a brother taking in his sister. Then again, the only reason he had to take her in is because David did nothing about that whole incident.
In a way, I guess it can reflect the older, unmarried, fatherless patrio girl. They’ve been emotionally raped by the teachings they’ve followed, their father has done nothing about it, or has contributed to it, and now they have no where to go, so they turn to their brother.
March 24, 2009 at 11:30 am
OH, Catherine, I can see some patrios adopting your reasoning above. They’re in their offices right now writing it down, word for word. It’s the answer they’ve been searching for!
The brother! The brother–that’s it! Now they have to start thinking about how to train sister to give her heart to brother while under his roof someday, perhaps with his wife scratching her head in the next room. Not nagging, however, just bringing it up once and then shutting up about the whole darn thing. Not for her to complain, yah know.
Is it any stranger than them adopting their philosophy about a dad nullifying all his daughter’s decisions through that one Numbers verse out of context?
March 24, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Well thank you much, Debbie (maybe I should write a book) but for some little reason, I just can’t see them adopting the analogy with it.
And what Numbers verse might that be? I think I’ve missed this one.
March 24, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“Debbie, what do you think will happen if these women never marry?”
Not to worry! Remember- there’s alway’s a buck to be made in a crisis.
“And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.” Judges 11:37
Virginity Retreat!
Come, Bewail your virginity, in the sunny mountains of New Zealand….!
March 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm
At least New Zealand is prettier than Guyana was in the late ’70s. Someone’s got to vote the Botkin son into Parliament so that he can have enough political experience to qualify as Prime Minister by age 57.
I wonder if they have a stash of Koolaide and cyanide already sealed in nitrogen-packed cans for long-term storage in a bunker in New Zealand somewhere. Or maybe it won’t be needed in New Zealand? Only such measures are necessary if the VF faithful remain in the US.
If taking dominion in the US somehow translates into fleeing the country (something so basically bizarre and ironic), maybe cyanide spiked Koolaide for having final dominion over one’s body through suicide makes sense to the leaders, too.
I can hear it now. “Save your children and let them got to heaven with clean hands and a pure heart!” A little better isolation from outside information and a little more intense exposure to teaching, isolation from home, some necessary barbed wire, and they will be set and ready. Maybe they can tape the big event on video to be shown on TV when Botkin takes Canterbury TV back for Christ?
No one who ran off with Jones to Guyana believed that they were going off to live in a totalitarian state. They thought they were going to a place where they had a new chance to start over and develop an idealistic society where they could get society right for the Lord. All that militia training will come in hand. And this is not hard to imagine, considering how dramatic some of these folks can be and the years of programming Botkin would have had with McCotter.
March 24, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Virginity Retreat!
Come, Bewail your virginity, in the sunny mountains of New Zealand….!
Momgodin, you are fuuuunnnneeee! That made my day.
March 24, 2009 at 2:29 pm
momgodin, you crack me up. Sadly, I could actually see them attempting something like this. Just imagine what retreat activites they could come up with.
March 24, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Cindy K at 206,
I only just finished the Epstein chapter in Quiverfull, and I am also finding the book a little disappointing.
On the one hand, I think it was brilliant of Kathryn Joyce to write a secular book about this subject. She is absolutely correct that the media has only covered patriarchal beliefs in the most haphazard and shallow way. So her book is an important initial introduction to the thinking behind patriarchy.
On the other hand, I agree that the writing seems a bit dry and haphazard. The things I am enjoying most are the occasional details about how patriarchy actually works in practice — like the difficulty of organizing a cooking schedule when all the women in the church have to check with their husbands before signing up.
I am a bit disappointed because there is not much new information for someone like me who has been following this phenomenon on the internet for quite a while. I think Joyce just read all the same sites I have, and then took it a step further by attending a couple conferences and events.
I would be much more interested to read a book by someone who lived this lifestyle up close and personal!
March 24, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I’m finding “Quiverfull” a slow read as well.
I actually enjoy her ability to produce unbiased, fairly accurate descriptions of the people she writes of. I’m not familiar enough with the “details” to be able to determine when they are misinformed. But I am a little familiar with at least the names of people she writes of and yet STILL have to pause and place the person she is introducing who plays a role in all the madness that is patriarchy; she gives their role and what organization or contirbutions they are connected to and it just gets dizzying. I can’t imagine how it is for someone reading it with no foreknowledge, but perhaps the novelty of all this patriarchal craziness is enough to propel them through.
March 24, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Thank you, Laurie and Alisa!
I agree that Joyce approached the people she interviewed with a great deal of respect, and she doesn’t berate anyone. I can think of about three sentences where I think one could argue that she left her own opinion shine through, but in a tasteful way. I certainly could not have approached the topic with any measure of detachment like she does. The direct quotes need no embellishment to make them look even more objectionable than they already are.
Here is a quote that I am working into a blog post on my blog, but I wanted a couple of trusted people to review my critique of it first, something Nancy Campbell said:
From page 49:
“’She is flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone,’ said Adam. ‘She shall be called women, because she was taken out of me.’” Campbell repeated the oldest story with starry-eyed wonder. “Adam recognized that, of all the animals, she was not a new creation. Every single thing God created was a new creation – the stars, the sun, the moon. Adam and the animals were dust of the earth. Eve wasn’t. She wasn’t made from dust. She was not a new creation. She was not some independent, new creation who could do what she liked. She was part of man. Out of man. Made for man.”
In short, I find the specific use of “new creation” to be difficult because Paul uses this term in 2 Cor 5. This overlaps into the whole ambiguous area of a woman needing a man as a spiritual intercessor, and it is even more so if you attach (as I believe any Christian would) significance of the phrase to all Believers becoming new creations in Christ Jesus. This I find disturbingly sick based upon the fact that all Christians are new creations in Christ, unless the powers that be want to argue that new creation status in Christ and the Gospel of Reconciliation only applies to men. It’s ambiguous enough to be a problem for me.
March 24, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Cindy,
I’ve just shuddered reading some of Nancy Campbell’s quotes. The quotes that I have read in the book are indeed VERY disconcerting and mind boggling. It’s been many years since I’ve seen or read anything by her, but I *had* remembered her as a smiling. nurturing grandmother type figure. The amount of scary unBiblical hogwash that seems to be coming from her has totally destroyed that facade, or at the very least, made be feel sorry for the amount of deception a sweet person can regurgitate.
I even recalled the name Val Stares and could even picture her short tightly permed dark hair in it’s 90′s shape, and there is a quote from her in the book that is in defense of an “unattended home birthing” book that Above Rubies had endorsed that is downright chilling in it’s ignorance.
I too jumped to the chapter on Jen Epstein, simply because of familiarity. I felt Kathryn Joyce did a good job at the formidable task of condensing such a drawn out, complicated story.
I’m reading it in bits and pieces; I’m not one for reading a book straight through!
March 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Tomorrow on Morning Edition (NPR) there will be a story on Quiverfull families.
March 24, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Speaking of Val Stares, Carol Balizet, who wrote “Born in Zion”, a guide for expectant mothers, claims that suffering is good.
Her writings are responsible for the deaths of several women and were the driving force behind the founding of a cult in Massachusetts which is being investigated for the deaths of two children:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b17.html
March 25, 2009 at 12:41 am
Off to bed now, but I just posted something I already intended to discuss as a concept (what James Sire calls the “Biblical hook.”
I used that Nancy Campbell quote as an example of using the term out of context implying that woman gets saved differently than man and how this really disturbing language classifies as an error of rhetoric.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/biblical-hook-using-nancy-campbells.html
March 25, 2009 at 5:35 am
I have met Val Stares and though she seemed a very sweet woman the bondage that came out of her mouth was very hard to swallow even though I was basically sucking down the whole Above Rubies teachings at the time. I recall her telling us that your soul would be connected for all of eternity to every man you ever slept with, indeed he would have a piece of your soul. I was sitting next to my poor friend who had quite a colourful life before she became a christian and she was SO condemned she could hardly walk after the talk. Of course she then had to have lots and lots of prayer that only confirmed for her that her conversion hadn’t really fixed anything, she was still filthy rags. Sigh.
That Born in Zion book totally outraged me every time I saw the ad in Above Rubies. I was able to dismiss it as pentecostal error because of the emphasis on “Name it and Claim it” (because that wasn’t my church background) but it scared me because I know people who ordered and swallowed it whole. There were also some tapes they used to sell on how to have pain free childbirth, another road to condemnation.
Above Rubies was my introduction to the whole movement, as a young and isolated mother. Of course it got weirder and more way out as the years went by.
March 25, 2009 at 9:50 am
“I recall her telling us that your soul would be connected for all of eternity to every man you ever slept with, indeed he would have a piece of your soul.”
Huh? Don’t these women read their Bibles????
Jesus laid that error to rest over 2000 years ago!
I guess Val never read Mark 12, about the woman who outlives seven husbands, and the Sadducees ask Jesus whose wife she would be in the Resurrection; (Mar 12:24) and Jesus answering said unto them, “Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”
Sheesh… I think somebody ought to make a Christian version of Snopes, to counter all the false information being spewed around these days.
As CS Lewis wrote, “What do they teach them in these schools?”
March 25, 2009 at 10:46 am
An answer to prayer this morning…
John Holzmann from Sonlight is taking on the patriocentric movement, referencing both Cindy and me in his article. Finally, a well-respected man in homeschooling circles gets it and is warning others. Here is his article:
http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/03/2009-christian-home-educators-of.html
Here is mine commending him:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/2095/
March 25, 2009 at 10:57 am
I have really messed something up here… a young girl by the name of Jocelyn posted here on the 13th and I just pulled her comment out of spam. Now I don’t know where it is and I don’t know who she is! I really wanted her thoughts to be expressed here, so Jocelyn, if you are reading this, please forgive me and please post your thoughts again. I am so sorry!
March 25, 2009 at 10:58 am
Anyone have have any idea who Jocelyn is and what her blog might be?
March 25, 2009 at 11:03 am
Oops, I found it. Read cimment #84 in this thread. Also, here is her blog:
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?page_id=2
March 25, 2009 at 11:22 am
Anyone with a take on this article? It is the sequel to his first one that Dug Phillips and Stacy McDonald highy recommended called “Don’t Believe Everything Your Read on the Internet.”
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/abanes/11601195/
March 25, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Miss Jocelyn in #84 said: “The Bible calls all women to be a helpmeet and a keeper of the home, and that is what “the daughter” and I are striving to be, just what God created us to be.”
Ok, I’ll bite. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where it says all women are to be a helpmeet? It says that wives were created as helps meet for their husbands, in other words, they were created to be just right for their husband, but where does it say anything about a daughter being created to be daddy’s help meet?
March 25, 2009 at 1:02 pm
By the way, I find it interesting how easy it is to take Scripture out of context by simply adding two words together to make a compound word.
My Bible says help meet as two different words, which basically means that God made each individual wife to be just the right help that HER husband needs, one that is meet for HIM.
When we put the two words together as compound word, it suddenly means something very different. Helpmeet instead of help meet is a job description that supposedly looks the same for each woman but actually takes away the very essence of woman being a help meet. Helpmeet puts her in a box to fulfil specific duties specific ways, whereas help meet leaves her free to help her husband in the way HE needs it.
March 25, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Long-time lurker here, much appreciate everyone’s insights. Catholics are celebrating the Solemnity of the Annunciation today and it just struck me again how Mary’s interaction with the angel Gabriel is so far from what we’re being told is the biblical patriarchal model. There’s no father, no husband in the event whatsoever. She is approached personally, she is appealed to, she asks questions, she makes her choice. She is called “full of grace”. She’s very young and yet has autonomy.
Any attempt to add to the account of this event by saying there “must have been” or “would of course have been” a male protector in the picture is completely imposing something foreign to the text.
I know you have mentioned this before, but thought I’d reiterate it on the special day that I and my fellow Catholics celebrate this momentous occasion of the Christian faith.
March 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Ah, so many excellent links here today. How about another? It’s to that NPR interview Gail K. mentioned, a clear-headed, five-minuted summary on the Quiverfull movement:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102005062&sc=emaf
Thatmom, I liked what Johnscorner had to say. He has fresh insight into so much of what we’ve already discussed, like college education:
“Strange, too, from my perspective: Each of these “leaders” is, himself, a highly-educated person–enjoying not just a high school education, but a college and post-graduate degree! . . . But they feel their own children are unable to match them?]”
His comment made me wonder if part of the reason the patrios discourage college, even for boys, is to help establish themselves further as the primo-patrio. The guy at the top of the multi-generational foodchain is the only one deserving of and validated by a degree.
As far as young Miss Jocelyn, I was going to give this 17 year old a pass because she’s obviously brainwashed into the movement hook-line-sinker-Quiverfull. (Do these girls ever have original ideas, or do they just cut and paste from the Botkins?)
But little Miss J came here on her own, calling us ignoramus, twisted, unChristlike gossipers. She then signs out with “Blessings of peace and grace be upon you.”
Think we mighta touched a nerve?
March 25, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Catholicmom said, “Mary’s interaction with the angel Gabriel is so far from what we’re being told is the biblical patriarchal model. There’s no father, no husband in the event whatsoever”
Excellent point, Catholicmom
March 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Yes, Catholicmom!
That was well-worth coming out of lurk-dom.
Thanks for sharing that.
March 25, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“Ok, I’ll bite. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where it says all women are to be a helpmeet?”
I can do better than that — I can show you where Paul says the exact opposite. What we’re seeing in posts like Jessica’s is the Jovinian heresy, expanded and enlarged. It’s funny how the devil never really comes up with anything new — in every era, he trots out the same half-dozen or so heresies — Arianism, Gnosticism, Donatism, Jovinianism, Montanism, etc — and refurbishes them to suit the times and the audience, but the fabric is always recognizable if you know what to look for, and frankly, it’s getting a bit frayed and threadbare in places.
Paul on the idea that every woman ought to be a helpmeet:
1Cr 7:24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that [state] in which he was called.
1Cr 7:25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy [has made] trustworthy.
I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress–that [it is] good for a man to remain as he is:
Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
1Cr 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess and those who use this world as not misusing [it]. For the form of this world is passing away.
1Cr 7:32 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord–how he may please the Lord.
But he who is married cares about the things of the world–how he may please [his] wife.
1Cr 7:34 There is [fn] a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world–how she may please [her] husband.
And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.
1Cr 7:37 Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, [fn] does well.
So then he who gives [her] [fn] in marriage does well, but he who does not give [her] in marriage does better.
1Cr 7:39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment–and I think I also have the Spirit of God.
March 25, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Arietty:
You wrote –
I recall her telling us that your soul would be connected for all of eternity to every man you ever slept with, indeed he would have a piece of your soul.
This was big in the Pentecostal church. Basically, you need deliverance (like an exorcism) to be free of this kind of thing, that repentance in prayer and a 180 degree change in your heart and life and public confession and renouncement of all of these things that we Christians have — the Blood of the Lamb — are not enough to free us from the bondage that fornication brings. It is a sin that is almost worse than murder, though they would say that someone who had committed murder would need some kind of exorcism to remove the spirit of death.
There are times when I think that people need confidence in prayer and that this kind of prayer with the elders of the church (like in illness or when there is demonic activity which I have also seen manifest), but not for every sin. When God sets us free, he makes us free indeed.
When I studied hypnotherapy for pain management as my continuing education in nursing, I watched what was essentially exactly what I’d seen in many Pentecostal services. This was an Eastern practice of breaking “chakra ties” with the souls of former sexual partners or other people. It is a pet teaching of Father Marty, a catholic minister who does a lot of hypnosis. But basically, it is an old soulish/psychic teaching from those traditions.
This was introduced into the church when Phineas Quimby, a European trained mesmerist trained Mary Baker who formulated Christian Science by mixing these gnostic and psychic techniques about matter being energy with the Bible. EW Kenyon came along and said that Mary Baker Eddy was on to something, so he corrected her work and supposedly sanitized it for the church. This is where the Word of Faith movement came from. It is hypnosis and the ideology of hypnosis worked together in an amalgam with Christian ideals, worked in with the approach of men like Charles Finney and the revivalism that Gothard finds so appealing. (The other branch of Word of Faith comes from the William Branham who was a spiritist who saw a demon appear on the platform which told him what sick people to call out of the congregation for God to heal.)
I grew up in the Christian psychic/hypnosis end of things in the sanitized world that Kenyon framed out. They at least taught the importance of the Word of God which was their ultimate undoing. I think 90% of what I saw credited to the Holy Spirit was man’s psyche or psychic, hypnosis and hype.
What is so sad is that I see this same worship of man and man’s power in patriocentricity.
I believe that the soul ties stuff came into the church through the Quimby/Baker Eddy/Kenyon avenue, something that was originally an idea of Eastern mysticism. Bill Gothard is very enamored with this “higher life” and higher Christian living stuff that grew out of England, that which makes gnosticism out of Christianity. It is merely just the Eastern mystical approach to soul purification so that Christians who follow this (be it through Pentecostalism, Charasmatic manifestations, or through following Bill Gothard’s Spooky Talmud) can be a better breed of Christian than the normal, rank and file Christian. It is gnosticism — the hidden knowledge that makes them a cut above. Patriocentricity tries to find it in works.
Were I not hidden with God in Christ, I would hang my head in shame and embarrassment over this knowledge. But having this part of my flesh mortified, that old man is crucified with Christ, and never the less, I live. I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me, wherein is all my power. May the Lord be strong where I have been weak, believing these things to be of God when they are devilish Pelagian man pulling himself up by his bootstraps to be a better man.
This is just another peripheral twist to SPIRITUAL EUGENICS and using human striving to perfect the soul. It is spiritual survival of the fittest and building the master spiritual race.
May we be set free by the Blood of the Lamb and nothing else! The child of God needs nothing else.
March 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm
My Bible says help meet as two different words, which basically means that God made each individual wife to be just the right help that HER husband needs, one that is meet for HIM.
Mrs. W.
When we put the two words together as compound word, it suddenly means something very different. Helpmeet instead of help meet is a job description that supposedly looks the same for each woman but actually takes away the very essence of woman being a help meet. Helpmeet puts her in a box to fulfil specific duties specific ways, whereas help meet leaves her free to help her husband in the way HE needs it.
Well said!
That’s why reading all our “Wifely Submission manuals” usually only set us up for failure. I tried, and found that was not what my husband wanted/needed.
March 25, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I would like to throw in here that refocus of attention, changing one’s state of consciousness, essentially what hypnosis is, is not inherently evil. As a person with chronic pain that has life threatening allergy to most all non-narcotic pain medications and two chronic pain conditions myself, training a person to focus on aspects of their environment rather than their pain can be the difference between a person being on permanent disability and having a job enabling them to earn a living.
Prayer is another experience that causes a shift in attention, and it is observable by a change in brain wave activity, the warming of the hands, more relaxed physical posture and muscles, decreased awareness of time and physical factors in the environment. Prayer is a change in consciousness — a change in the focus of a person’s attention. That is not inherently evil. It’s healthy.
I have trained in hypnotherapy for the management of both pain (acute and chronic) and I am also certified in the management of pain during childbirth though the refocus of the client’s (or my own) attention in order to decrease their experience of pain.
If I say, “Don’t think about bananas!” what do you do? Don’t you reflexively think about bananas? Hypnosis for pain management is training people to resist paying attention to both their pain (when we know that the pain is not a sign of a correctable problem) and to resist being influenced by situations that draw their attention to pain which increases its debilitation factor. It is a training of the mind to be disciplined and to not be given to imaginations which increase the perception of pain. Experience with understanding shifts in consciousness actually can help facilitate one’s prayer efforts, and neurofeedback authors have written about how they have helped say people with ADD who have great difficulty slowing their brainwaves down to achieve a prayerful state be able to learn to pray.
What is very objectionable to me is when hypnosis is used and these techniques are used surreptitiously to refocus attention in order to make people less objective, lulling them into a state of mind that will make them easily manipulated, less of a Berean and thus more accepting of a flawed and illogical message, or to evoke other social pressures to increase compliance or group think. When the shifting of attention is used by manipulative Christian leaders to take people’s good earnest desires and fears, using them against the person in order to get a desired outcome that suits and benefits only the manipulator, and these things are passed off in as the work of the Cross, of God and of the Holy Spirit, then it is very wrong and deceptive.
What is objectionable to me is the use of these psychic techniques to win religious arguments, to promote world views and other Christian sounding ideologies, and doing so in the Name of Jesus, passing these things off as the work of the Church when they are in fact the works of men. It is the use of the shifting of focus, be it through red herrings, shame-mongering, elitism or higher life Christianity BY MAN’s MEANS and for man’s agenda, claiming that all is done through Christ and that all is the work of the Holy Spirit. When it amounts to humanism, human effort and sales techniques and is passed off as the work of God, this is wrong.
That is a world away from teaching a person progressive relaxation and how to be mentally disciplined to diminish or manage pain in a clinical approach.
March 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm
About the new article on crosswalk about the “you can’t believe everything you read” article.
The first half is very good. I think that my posts here in this forum today and the lion’s share of information on my blog attests that I want people to be free from techniques of manipulation so as to not fall pray to cultic and psychological influence.
This author has not remotely done his homework by quoting the Passantinos in the second half of the article. Though well-intentioned, the Passantinos are self-proclaimed experts that expose their ignorance in these areas, first stating that cultic influence and PTSD don’t exist, then they accuse their critics of using such cultic tactics against them. They gained their notoriety through Hank Hanegraaf who has been cited as a master Matthew 18 style manipulator himself (behavior versus doctrine), even losing a court case resulting from his own willfull and aggressive tactics, trying to use the court system to silence his rightful critics. It backfired on him and he lost in court. (I don’t think that juries and judges think much of the arrogance and piety of some of these holier-than-thou religious leaders that have a reputation for being quick to anger.)
Dr. Paul Martin, former member of Botkin’s Great Commission cult and founder of the first fully accredited inpatient center for recovery from manipulative groups, cults and abusive relationships published the definitive answer to the many errors and the ignorance of the Passantinos over ten years ago: http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/martin_paul_overcomingthebondage.htm
March 25, 2009 at 5:01 pm
About the new article on crosswalk about the “you can’t believe everything you read” article.
The first half is very good. I think that my posts here in this forum today and the lion’s share of information on my blog attests that I want people to be free from techniques of manipulation so as to not fall pray to cultic and psychological influence.
This author has not remotely done his homework by quoting the Passantinos in the second half of the article. Though well-intentioned, the Passantinos are self-proclaimed experts that expose their ignorance in these areas, first stating that cultic influence and PTSD don’t exist, then they accuse their critics of using such cultic tactics against them. They gained their notoriety through Hank Hanegraaf who has been cited as a master Matthew 18 style manipulator himself (behavior versus doctrine), even losing a court case resulting from his own willfull and aggressive tactics, trying to use the court system to silence his rightful critics. It backfired on him and he lost in court. (I don’t think that juries and judges think much of the arrogance and piety of some of these holier-than-thou religious leaders that have a reputation for being quick to anger.)
Dr. Paul Martin, former member of Botkin’s Great Commission cult and founder of the first fully accredited inpatient center for recovery from manipulative groups, cults and abusive relationships published the definitive answer to the many errors and the ignorance of the Passantinos over ten years ago.
For some reason, this post will not come up so I have taken out the link to the article, but it can be found by googling “Paul Martin Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization”
That said, I am actually a person who has worked hard to not only tell people why they should not believe everything they read, but I actually arm them with information to help them understand how to identify and resist covert manipulation. In other words, it is one thing to warn people to be discerning, but I have actually worked to educate people about how to be discerning. Who has more integrity and evidence to support that integrity? Me or the former Kirby salesmen who skips town to avoid the debt collector, dissembles about nearly every point of his personal demographics but posts an article that says “You Can’t Believe Everything You Read”?
March 25, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Thank you for the reminder about the NPR report on the Quiverfull book!
This is so disturbing, as has been expressed many, many times in this forum. I share so many of the good ideals in patriocentricity, those based upon the Scripture. I rejoice to see large families that are happy and doing well where God is truly honored. We yield our members as weapons of righteousness, and all we do in word or deed is an act of worship and of warfare in the Kingdom of God.
But Joyce does discern the social Darwinism in this birthing for the sake of taking over the world aspect of all this. I think that the spiritual eugenics of it all speaks for itself, merely by quoting the proponents of the movement.
I am also disappointed in Nancy Campbell. I once admired the “Above Rubies” magazine years ago, during the Gentle Spirit years and when I thought along those lines, trying to shove my personality, gifts, callings and life into a box designed by man. But that was not the woman God created me to be, nor was it who my husband married. Shedding those shackles in Christ and understanding the deception, I look at this Nancy Campbell stuff now and am grieved by it. It is disturbing.
This is the gospel of the dehumanization of women and of spiritual eugenics — building the master spiritual race with the womb as the primary weapon.
Good for NPR.
May God open our eyes to see Him that we might realize who we are. He is Holy. We are not. May we never use His Robe of Righteousness as a cloak of maliciousness to work man’s purposes or even to work what man discerns to be God’s purpose by man’s arm of strength. May God show Himself strong to all of us while we can still call upon Him, while He is near.
March 25, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I am trying to explain patriarchy to a friend of mine, and I need help with some links. I know someone here must have one or more of them….
Some place where educating daughters past 8th grade, or in high school, or some such. Or not educating daughters at that point because they should be learning to take care of the home instead.
The argument about not sending daughters off to college.
The recent one about daughters running their fingers through Dad’s hair and taking off his shoes.
Thanks for help in advance. I’d go look back through the posts, but do you know how many there are….
March 25, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Annie C., “Elizabeth in Texas” provided this link way upthread that covers many of these issues. It’s an article by Kathryn Joyce, author of the Quiverfull book we’ve been discussing:
http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/dogma/victory-through-daughters/
March 25, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Annie, you can go back to summer of 2007 on this blog and find the “visionary daughters” threads. Awesome information resource.
March 25, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I am not encouraging anyone to look at Kathryn Joyce’s stuff right now because she doesn’t document anything and she has factual errors sprinkled throughout. If she has messed up some of the simple facts, I am concerned about the rest of her documentation. Several of us are reading her book and hope to get reviews online within a week or so. It is a tough read and I am only sorry that it was written by someone who didn’t grasp the spiritual abuse aspect of it all. As it is presented, it is really painful for anyone who has been through this stuff.
March 25, 2009 at 8:42 pm
“Shedding those shackles in Christ and understanding the deception, I look at this Nancy Campbell stuff now and am grieved by it. It is disturbing.”
Cindy, this is one of the things that is troubling about the Quiverfull book. As I mentioned to you earlier today, I still find myself with burdens placed on my back when I read this stuff and without the balance of Scripture, it is really hard to read.
March 25, 2009 at 9:58 pm
That is very interesting thatmom. So as I understand it you find yourself triggered into a feeling of burden response when you read some of the quotes in the Quiverfull book because you are not doing that which the quote espouses? Correct me if I misunderstood you.
It’s interesting to me because I sometimes feel a seduction in this kind of teaching which I am examining, why does it still hold some wistful appeal to me. In the past when I was more freshly out of the whole QF package I would have to avoid reading quotes and websites from the teachers because I would feel paralyzed with a fear of not performing as instructed even though I knew intellectually that was rubbish. Really I put it down to a powerful superstition ingrained in me during my years of reading this stuff. I no longer have any of this response, time and walking other paths consistently has loosened its grip. Only the wistful appeal remains, to surprise me from time to time. I am happy to be able to read about this book and read the quotes and not be triggered into guilt.
I think it’s an important book because it’s written by an outsider and has brought this movement into the public spotlight. But it is not an abuse survivor’s handbook and some people may need distance before it can be of value to them. I know if I lent it to my friend who is still immersed in the lifestyle she would probably get LOTS of great ideas and be ordering the Botkin books immediately!
So maybe it is time for some good, digestible books written by christians about the theological flaws of this movement and the abusive elements. Just as you can find dozens of christian books critiquing the excesses of pentecostal teachings maybe in 5 years we will have books lining the shelves of christian bookstores critiquing the patriarchal movement.
March 26, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Arietty,
it is an interesting thing about spiritual abuse. You never know when something will trigger those past guilt feelings!
I have found myself struggling with some of those thoughts as I have read Quiverfull because the author is not a believer and does not offer the right, biblical perspective on this movement. So there is a sense of hopelessness that comes across to me and her solution seems to be exposure. But exposure is only part of the solution.
I remember immersing myself in the Gospels and the book of Acts at one point and that being the healing that I really needed. Without the finished work of Christ on the cross and constantly being reminded of that, none of us have any hope at all.
I am also concerned that the lack of footnotes and documentation along with the incorrect details will give fodder to those who wish to downplay or discredit her claims.
March 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The NPR. Org article was interesting. Especially the picture of the Hucksteads. Did anyone notice Mrs. Huckstead is wearing pants? It looks like they don’t subscribe to the whole package.
March 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Lol I wear skirts only out of preference but I am by no means patriocentric. Some people we know pick and choose too.
March 26, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Well, I’m dying for Vision Forum to see pics of my lil’ “David” playing the Celtic harp they sell, and my girls in the coonskin caps & knives. who’d a thunk it’d backfire?!
Caption: “Thanks, Vision Forum!”
heh heh…
Oh. I vaguely remember Above Rubies not appreciating my humor before I was put out of the fold. Ditto The Woodshed ladies.
March 26, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Cindy K,
I am so sorry that Joyce’s book is dredging up so many bad feelings for you!
This may be a little off-topic but I am reading that 1991 feminist classic “Backlash: The Undeclared War on American Women” by Susan Faludi, which details the secular media’s constant or frequent berating of women (in often very insulting or patronizing terms) during the 80s for not getting married soon enough / not having enough children / having careers/ being too independent, etc. While my experience cannot possibly be compared to your experience with spiritual abuse, I am finding this reading of hundreds of pages of distilled sexism and misogyny utterly discouraging and depressing. So maybe I can relate a teeny bit to how you feel reading Joyce’s book.
I am hardly equipped to pontificate about solutions (especially in the spiritual realm). I always feel better when I consider women of history, and women today throughout the world, who have pushed back and are pushing back against often overwhelming cultural beliefs and hostile attitudes.
March 26, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I didn’t really read the articles mentioned about “online discernment ministries,” but glanced them, and I must say I was kind of confused! So, basically, he was calling blogs like this one odms and cultic? I’ll be honest, I’ve never heard of the guy before, but the same things he claimed can be said of people on either side of the fence, whether true or not. The more I read the articles and comments the stronger my feelings that people there were wasting a lot of time fighting when they should have just been reading their Bibles.
I realize that when we read the Bible, we don’t always come to the same conclusions, because of cultural mindsets, misunderstandings, etc, but I’m starting to wonder if a lot of our differences aren’t just because we’re listening to someone else tell us what the Bible “supposedly” says rather than reading ourselves what it ACTUALLY says.
I’ve read the Bible a few times in my short life, but never before this time has some of the really important stuff sunk in. What changed? I read now because I want to understand it, not just be able to say that I’ve read it x number of times.
March 26, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Anyone with a take on this article? It is the sequel to his first one that Dug Phillips and Stacy McDonald highy recommended called “Don’t Believe Everything Your Read on the Internet.”
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/abanes/11601195/
I had a take on it over at White Washed Feminists and received a note from Mr. Abanes asking me to read the second piece in that series. It’s funny, I think some of the people who were all gung ho about his post were exactly the people he was talking to. But I already know not to believe everything I read.
March 27, 2009 at 12:09 am
Anyone have a link to discussion on the Harris boys (of Rebelution) It was said earlier that their book was being used in the church. I’m interested in what the churches are using the book for?
Thanks!
March 27, 2009 at 2:13 am
My take on the “ODM, online discernment ministries” critique is it’s the usual Expert condemning the Grassroots discussion. Don’t you know you can’t discuss teaching and teachers without being a part of the old boy’s club too? If your not theologically approved then it isn’t a theological discussion, it’s gossip.
March 27, 2009 at 8:23 am
Another thing that struck me about those articles, that I forgot to mention last night, is that he claims that people are blasting anyone without their exact viewpoint theologically. The fact is, I think we’ve seen that most of the women speaking HERE have varied theologies. What is being attacked IS a specific theological viewpoint that is wrong. It’s not like we’re a bunch of people from the same church background with the same viewpoint attacking all other viewpoints. It’s more of a ‘ganging up” (in a good way, of course) on one very bad trend by lots of people with varying viewpoints. That, I think, will make all the difference. When all of us come together in spite of our differences to say that what is being taught in one place or another is clearly unbiblical to all of us.
March 27, 2009 at 10:47 am
Cindy,
re the NPR article….
“”The womb is such a powerful weapon; it’s a weapon against the enemy,” Campbell says.”
I will refrain from saying what I said to Cindy via the phone when I heard this quote.
“I think, help! Imagine if we had had more of these children!” Campbell says, adding, “My greatest impact is through my children. The more children I have, the more ability I have to impact the world for God.”
….” Campbell says if believers don’t starting reproducing in large numbers, biblical Christianity will lose its voice.
“We look across the Islamic world and we see that they are outnumbering us in their family size, and they are in many places and many countries taking over those nations, without a jihad, just by multiplication,” Campbell says.”
This is so theologically wrong that it isn’t funny. Really, it is just a huge load of bull.
We are to go OUT and make disciples of all nations. Jesus never instructs His followers to stay in their bedrooms and make disciples by having dozens of children.
The “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” is not replaced by “go out and make disciples of all nations”. We don’t reproduce physically, we reproduce spiritually.
What a puny God they serve if they believe that God will lose His voice and that His kingdom is at stake if Christians don’t get busy and have enormous amounts of children.
That is NOT how we are to bring in God’s kingdom. What Bible are they reading?
And then the blurb about the QF family who relies on the seminary’s food banks? I know way too many QF families who keep on having children they cannot afford and rely on handouts from the Government and other Christians in order to survive. The same Christians, btw, that they denigrate by saying things like: “they are selfish” “they hate children” “they cut off God’s blessings”. The very same Christians that they rely on to fund their irresponsible behavior are the very same ones they look down their noses at.
How are they impacting the world by being takers and being people who are so focused on their own selves and their own little world? Are they fulfilling the mandate to go OUT and make disciples of all the nations?
And then there is the quote from the QF dad that said that the “Bible was very high on big families”.
Really? Where? Chapter? Verse?
Yes, children are a blessing but it doesn’t say LOTS of children are a blessing. A person must also provide for his/her OWN. And if you can’t do that then you had better re-examine your testimony and how the name of God is blasphemed when you keep on having children when you can’t afford to care for your own but rely on all the other “child-hating” slobs who only have 2 or 3.
And this is coming from a mom of 10 (all birthed from my own Womb Weapon).
Maybe that is why we must talk about the male organ as a sword?
Where does the Bible tell us that our reproductive organs are weapons? LOL It really is bizarre.
March 27, 2009 at 10:48 am
Abby
I realize that when we read the Bible, we don’t always come to the same conclusions, because of cultural mindsets, misunderstandings, etc, but I’m starting to wonder if a lot of our differences aren’t just because we’re listening to someone else tell us what the Bible “supposedly” says rather than reading ourselves what it ACTUALLY says.
Oh yes! Absolutely!
Sometimes people say “this is the Biblical way”, or “the Bible says that….”, and when you ask them where it says that, they can’t tell you. If you ask them where they heard about it, it was usually some book or sermon. Someone else’s interpretation. “Second-hand gospel”
March 27, 2009 at 10:48 am
“The “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” is not replaced by “go out and make disciples of all nations”. We don’t reproduce physically, we reproduce spiritually.”
That should be NOW replaced. The earth is full and Jesus has commanded us to go OUT and make disciples. He never tells us that our children are the way God has a voice or that by having many children the kingdom of God is ushered in.
March 27, 2009 at 10:54 am
Anne,
Great article. The very people who tried to use his first article in order to cover up their own deceitfulness and to do damage control are the very ones who have egg on their face. It seems he is talking right to them.
“Before I begin the following article, it should be noted as a point of reference that the tactics often used by cults to mislead and deceive their followers include: half-truths, false information, outright lies, faulty reasoning, unsubstantiated assumptions, quotes taken out of context, manipulation of facts (and concealment of facts), sensational language, fear-mongering, conspiracy theories, hate rhetoric, and verbiage that presents a rigid “us vs. them” mentality.
Such tactics are particularly useful by cultists (and ODMs) when attacking perceived enemies. In the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, the perceived enemy is all of Christendom. In the case of the infamous Jonestown commune (as well as David Koresh’s Branch Davidians), the perceived enemy was the government. In the case of Shoko Asahara, just about everyone was the enemy. Each group has its perceived enemies and targets them for verbal assault in hopes of depicting them as the part of the Antichrist world system, and/or at the very least, portraying them as apostate, heretical, and unbiblical.”
And the perceived enemy of the patrios are the “feminists” and anyone who disagrees with them becomes a “feminist”.
The article goes on to explain who he was talking to and it certainly could be applied to the patrios who hold the keys to the kingdom in their hand, or so they think. According to them, there is only one way to think about many non-essential issues and if you don’t think like them, you are an enemy.
March 27, 2009 at 10:59 am
Arietty (#281) ~ After reading the second article and reading about who he’s seen attacked, my impression of the ODM was the fringe element like VFM who have a history of attacking character instead of ideas, and of lambasting anyone who doesn’t share their viewpoint exactly. After all, they have that idea that they’re presuppositionally correct and biblical.
And I was pleased that he made it clear that we should absolutely discuss ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. I couldn’t agree more with that. I have often wished the same courtesy could be extended in my direction from those with whom I’ve disagreed.
~~~
Corrie, does the idea of your womb as a “weapon” leave as bad a taste in your mouth as it does mine? I find that idea rather disturbing. The Great Commission was to bring the Word of God to all people. It’s a mission of peace, fueled by love. I feel sometimes like these people want to take away my faith that anchors me in the storm and use it as a hammer to beat others into submission.
March 27, 2009 at 11:01 am
“It’s not like we’re a bunch of people from the same church background with the same viewpoint ” -Abby
Exactly! But we are born again Christians- just coming from different denominations, tax brackets and educational experience. (Where God has placed us,and where we have “…a good report among them”)
and yeah- where we do have a little influence, which frightens these guys.lol.
Though I may seem to have much in common with Quiverfull-Patrios, (the open/closed womb persuasion) I am against their purpose for it. We remind believers that “the LORD shall teach him in the way that **he shall choose.**” Ps 25:12 So, trust the Lord- NOT men! Appreciate personal testimonies, but don’t embrace their personal calls. And beware of those who suggest that you should!
So, I am just telling churches the truth about what VF and their books promote. And I tell them to let the Holy Ghost lead them from there. (I’m already being called a “man-hater who promotes sites that slander good Christian men”.)
I believe in these last days we see many leaders in Christianity who don’t TRUST the Holy Ghost IN believers, and they don’t trust the believers. The free thinking believer is a threat to their control. That’s why we have a generation that has not been taught or encouraged to follow and trust the Holy Spirit within them. And that is why so many surrender to cults!
It’s similar to the problem have in America’s education systerm. We didn’t teach a generation about their Constitutional freedoms and now they are willing to surrender to tyranny without a fight.
March 27, 2009 at 11:08 am
Corrie,
you make some great statements (as usual…)
We are to go OUT and make disciples of all nations. Jesus never instructs His followers to stay in their bedrooms and make disciples by having dozens of children.
This is one of the things that bothers me about people who isolate themselves in order to protect their children. Sure, we should protect them, but not by hiding our light under a bushel!
I can see some positive in their desire to live according to their convictions, something some Christians could learn from. The opposite side are not focused enough on holy living, just “gaining converts”, filling their churches and keeping them full, so they compromise.
What a puny God they serve if they believe that God will lose His voice and that His kingdom is at stake if Christians don’t get busy and have enormous amounts of children.
That is NOT how we are to bring in God’s kingdom. What Bible are they reading?
LOL! I wonder…. Probably one with footnotes by Mary Pride, Nancy Campbell et al.
And then the blurb about the QF family who relies on the seminary’s food banks? I know way too many QF families who keep on having children they cannot afford and rely on handouts from the Government and other Christians in order to survive. The same Christians, btw, that they denigrate by saying things like: “they are selfish” “they hate children” “they cut off God’s blessings”. The very same Christians that they rely on to fund their irresponsible behavior are the very same ones they look down their noses at.
Very true, Corrie. Not that I think it’s wrong for churches to support families during periods of need. We were a large family. We went through rough patches where the church helped us out. The church got us a car we could drive legally (big enough!), and we paid it back.
I don’t think it’s right for families to expect this kind of help, but it is good for churches to be like a family and care for each other.
March 27, 2009 at 11:09 am
“”The womb is such a powerful weapon; it’s a weapon against the enemy,” Campbell says.”
I will refrain from saying what I said to Cindy via the phone when I heard this quote.” -Corrie
Ooo! Ooo! Let me say it:
“My kids can beat up your kids!”
lol.
March 27, 2009 at 11:13 am
I am not against home schooling, but I did write a blog post just today about why we don’t necessarily want to home school our children, nor do we think it’s the only godly way.
http://americannaussie.blogspot.com/2009/03/children-wanting-to-be-at-home.html
March 27, 2009 at 11:28 am
“Corrie, does the idea of your womb as a “weapon” leave as bad a taste in your mouth as it does mine? I find that idea rather disturbing.”
Anne,
Oh yes. You have no idea. I can’t really write just how strong the bad taste really is!
I just don’t get all this talk about male genitalia as “swords” and wombs as “weapons”.
Momgodin,
Oh, that is a good one! LOL I like it!
My retort to the quote was on the tawdry side.
Madame,
I agree that churches should help out those in need and there are times where families will need that help. But, the attitude that we are to keep on having children when we cannot afford to care for them (fulfilling a TRUE biblical command) is something I can’t stomach.
I can’t find a command to have as many children as one can physically have but I do know that a person who does not take care of his own is worse than an infidel. And that person needs to look at his/her own income producing potential and plan their family accordingly so that those who are TRULY in need can get the resources.
March 27, 2009 at 11:40 am
2 Cor 10:3-5
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
We do not wage war according to the flesh for the weapons of our warfare are NOT of the flesh. How much more clear can that be?
That means that our penises and uteri are not weapons because they are of the flesh.
If we looked at the nations the way that God looks at them, we would see that the fields are ready for the harvest. More people means more disciples.
Just look at the early Church. Did they need to out-produce the pagans in order to usher in the kingdom of God? Utter nonsense! Did God lose His voice when there were so few of them compared to the vast number of people who were not believers? NO!
Look at Scripture? How about Gideon? In fact, so many stories in the Bible depict God purposefully using just a few so He gets all the glory. Isn’t that what it is all about? And His plan for His kingdom will NOT be thwarted. It doesn’t depend upon us having a ton of children. It is the Holy Spirit leading and guiding individuals who then go out and make disciples out of all the nations.
There is a lot in the QF movement’s theology that smacks of idolatry, imho.
And, where is it written that we are guaranteed that all of our children will be Christians?
March 27, 2009 at 11:43 am
“”The womb is such a powerful weapon; it’s a weapon against the enemy,” Campbell says.”
Nancy Campbell needs to read Ephesians 6. Verse 12 reads:
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
womb = flesh
March 27, 2009 at 11:46 am
Kathleen,
Amen! Forgot about that verse. And our weapons are spiritual:
“10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.”
Nope, nothing about militant fecundity. Paul must have been having an off day?
March 27, 2009 at 11:57 am
Sorry, Corrie, I posted about the same time as you. But I have seen the same thing working at a Christian gleaning organization. I know FQ families there who have looked at non-FQ families and have at least made them feel like they were not doing the “biblical” thing like them. Like they were on a higher level of understanding with the Lord, based on their preferences, extra-biblical interpretations grounded in Basic Life Principles, etc. The Christian woman[!] who runs the gleaning organization with her husband does NOT fall into these FQ family’s (some Gothard) mindsets for many reasons, and yet, they certainly receive much for their growing families. I’m sometimes quite amused to see these families I know from my former church participating in the gleaning organization, because it then becomes a great equalizer. There are requirements to participate and helping at the warehouse in all its functions is part of them.
March 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm
What does the Bible say about barren women?
Is 54:1
Sing, O barren, thou [that] didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou [that] didst not travail with child: for more [are] the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
March 27, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Gal 4:27
For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
March 27, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Just off the top of my head, bringing to memory the Scriptures and what they say about this issue, I have to believe that the QF movement has faulty reasoning and not a sound understanding of God’s word.
This is Mormon theology at its best.
March 27, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“Campbell says if believers don’t starting reproducing in large numbers, biblical Christianity will lose its voice.”
Reminds me of Voddie Baucham’s “We’re losing a generation!” blarb.
“We look across the Islamic world and we see that they are outnumbering us in their family size..” Campbell says.
That’s why Jesus said the fields were ripe unto harvest! Have your babies, but engage those people, not try to overpopulate them to win the “war”.
March 27, 2009 at 12:16 pm
1 Cor. 7
But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord–how he may please the Lord.
1Cr 7:33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world–how he may please [his] wife.
1Cr 7:34 There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world–how she may please [her] husband.
1Cr 7:35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.
Where is the militant fecundity? I thought that our wombs are weapons and that God’s voice is silenced if we are not prolific in our childbearing?
How can you serve the Lord without distraction when you are unmarried and not reproducing? Wouldn’t God’s voice be silenced if we took Paul seriously?
March 27, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Corrie, Kathleen, well said!
As for Pat theology resembling Mormonism, yes, it does, but it resembles this even more:
http://www.divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_web_all.pdf
Radical Patriarchy is a theme, and the Christian, Jewish, Unitarian and Moslem versions of it are variations on the theme, which teaches that man can bring about the Kingdom of God himself, by using the sword and the genitalia.
March 27, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Oops, I meant Unificationist, not Unitarian…
March 27, 2009 at 12:40 pm
A little something just for Corrie:
This commentary really has a bite to it.
March 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Cynthia,
That Divine Principle thing never fails to send chills down my spine because it is so similar to patriocentricity and the militant fecundity crowd.
Cindy K,
LOL! Yes, a bite is right! Some weapons are not created equal! LOL
To the rest, obviously I don’t have a problem with big families. If a couple wants to have a big family that is their choice and as long as they don’t expect others to supply the funds so they can keep on having children,I think it is great. But, to say that the Bible forbids birth control is to go beyond what the Bible really does say. It doesn’t forbid birth control and birth control is sometimes the BEST thing for a particular couple, especially when there is illness, genetic problems, an accident that leaves the breadwinner handicapped, etc.
The QF movement teaches that the Bible forbids birth control and many of them are very militant even in cases where the mother has cancer (some women have had cancer that is fed by estrogen) and they tell them that they still can’t use birth control. What they also won’t tell them is that they can abstain from sex until the cancer is gotten under control and they have gone through treatment.
Which brings up another huge problem I have with many in this movement- abstaining from sex is not an option, even when the spouse is sick. Talk about perverse and selfish. The mother’s life is not sacred.
Like someone said to me on the phone today, if the mother dies because she can’t abstain from sex and pregnancy will prevent her from seeking proper medical care, then her husband can always find some fresh meat to take her place.
March 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Oh and a pet peeve…I tend to believe that a lot of SUPER STRICT home schooling families (not all) in this kind of patriocentric mindset, sexually abuse their children.
I brought this up in a blog discussion elsewhere and was shot down. I mentioned that a lot of these parents kiss their CHILDREN on the lips (a sexual act) and say that they are just “loving” their kids and they it is good and right to do that. Eww gross, not in this day and age and culture, people.
I didn’t realize how bad some things were that happened to me till I got married.
March 27, 2009 at 3:20 pm
The Bible forbids birth control? Nonsense!
Children are gift. Since when is a gift forced upon the recipient?!
The Bible speaks of gifts. (We’re especially gifted, so I researched this.)
A gift is something that is *desired*.
Because I desired children, I’ve seen my opened womb as a gift. But that truth doesn’t stand alone. It must be understood along with other truths: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born… I have seen the travail(!) A time to get, and a time to lose…and a time to build up;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing!”
God uses scripture at different seasons in our life to either give faith to receive or faith to be content. We are not under the law.
Look at Paul’s explanation of the collection from the believers. That was a (cash)gift, but he said it had to originate from a willing heart, a desire. And, he was not willing that some be burdened while some were eased. If you can’t afford kids, then you’re not obligated to bear that burden.
We are not under the law, folks! Gifts are freely received and freely given- not to be used as a yoke of bondage.
March 27, 2009 at 3:27 pm
er…that would be “gifts”. ;o
And when I said we were especially gifted, I didn’t mean with the # of kids we have.
We all play several instuments by ear. I didn’t force them to play- they desired to make music. Every time I broght an instrument home, they’d fight over who would get it. Thus, God showed me that he gave the abiity to those who desired it.;)
March 27, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I find the patriarchy movement fascinating. Thankyou so much for this blog – I really appreciate reading well-thought-out biblical arguments for why these sorts of teachings are extra-biblical.
I have many blog friends who are of this persuasion, and I’ve started reading patriarchal websites and blogs out of sheer curiosity. The problem is, the more I read them, the more I start to take leave of my senses and feel that maybe they are right!! Then I come here and regain some perspective! I don’t know why I read such rubbish, because I end up feeling really down and guilty about my life!
My husband is suffering from serious depression, and we’ve only been married for 6 months. To start a family now would be serious folly, and yet I start to feel guilty about using contraception. He isn’t working, so I support us with my job, and yet I start to feel guilty about that too. I know the Lord led me to my job, and we’ve prayed about starting a family, and it is so clearly not the right time. Thanks for making me feel a bit better
March 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm
The Patrio’s love to condemn those of us who are not QF as having a weak faith. But how strong is a faith that believes that the Truth of the Word of God can not continue without birth in large numbers. He is God and doesn’t actually need us at all. But He can use us whether we have ten children, or none at all.
And this makes me feel for those whose quivers are small through no fault of their own. They must feel as if they’re failing to do the Lord’s work if they don’t have overflowing quivers.
March 27, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Rachel,
Thanks for sharing! I know how you feel about the birth control issue.
For the first two years of our marriage, I was on birth control, and a lot of our college friends were under the influence of a well-meaning professor who basically taught them that you shouldn’t prevent pregnancy at all. Half of them got pregnant within the first year and were all still in school, and not really financially secure enough to have a family! At least one of those couples ended up divorced after their second child because there was too much strain on their very very young marriage, but others are doing okay.
My husband and I never believed that what the professor said was legitimate, partially because the information he gave was about 30 years old, and he failed to say that using condoms was okay if you couldn’t handle having a family right away. He just railed on the pill, leaving a lot of couples feeling terribly guilty. My problem really wasn’t with the fact that he has a personal problem with the use of the pill, but that he taught this in a religion class as a religious issue!
A lot of my friends from college were really annoying to me, because they never questioned their professors, and believed anything they were taught. They never looked at the scriptures themselves, they usually just took the prof’s word on it. I never spoke out against a professor (at least in class), but I had enough sense to not believe everything I was told (or read).
Satan’s arguments are so alluring. They are “based” in Scripture, which makes them seem legit. But they are twisted lies. The only way to defeat them is to fight them with the Truth.
March 27, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Anne, I agree. Also, whenever I watch the Duggar’s show (18 kids and counting), I am annoyed when they act amazed that people outside their home are nice. As if they have been taught that anyone who isn’t part of their movement is automatically a mean, spiteful person.
Why are people teaching their children that the world is going to treat them so badly? I mean, sure, there are mean people in the world, but to be constantly amazed when there are good things outside your little bubble?
In fact, I see it the other way around. I think we should constantly be amazed at the cruelty in the world. We should never lose our touch with the world God intended, and we should never become desensitized to suffering.
March 27, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Wow, great discussion. I feel like I am trying to jump on a speeding bus!
Abby, did you see the Monstrous Regiment of Women film? I remember being so irritated by the woman who talked about people hating children in our culture. I don’t think it is fair to say that because there are many many people who are not Christians who really do love children. I was contacted by her after I commented on my first blog about what she had said and I wrote back to her but she never responded. I think many people are simply in awe of the Duggars or any family really with more than a couple kids. Some people really dislike the idea of large families but I think it is mostly older people who lived through the Depression and who were much more materialistic after WW 2. (I have a whole theory about the greatest generation but it isn’t very politically correct!)
I am feeling sad today. Reading the Quiverfull book is a bummer. My son-in-law’s grandmother pass away this morning, an answer to prayer because she has suffered for several months, as has the family. And then I reconnected with a couple Clay and I knew in college after about 35 years and learned that one of their daughters was killed in a car accident as a teen. It broke my heart to read it. This stuff has really gotten to me the last week or so. I could you prayer if you think about it.
March 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Karen, prayer said.
I understand the feelings of sadness. I have forbidden myself from watching the news because I get sad easily from it, and I have a hard time if I do too much reading on the subjects here. It is deep, and it’s hard to get past the feelings of hopelessness for the people who are tied up in it.
I have to say I agree with your assessment of people who think everyone in the world hates kids. My parents had 4 kids before age 22, and they were finished after that. I just told my mom last night that I am so glad that they raised us right. When she was the same age I am, she was raising a 14 year old, a 10 year old, a 7 and 6 year old! We were so close to needing assistance, but somehow my parents managed to keep us off of public assistance. If they had kept on having children, none of us would have had the quality of life that children deserve to have growing up.
I think it’s unfair to label couples who don’t want to have big families as hating children or being selfish. As far as I’m concerned, I think more about the effect it will have on my children to get to spend more quality one-on-one time with us. I cherished that time with my parents when I got it, and I want to be able to give that to my children whether I have just the two I have now, or a few more, but having lots of kids just for the sake of having lots of kids, I just don’t see that as a self-less act.
I’m wondering, is there a verse that speaks of trying to appease God with our works (or sacrifices) and how it doesn’t work? And why do we all always seem to go down that road at some point? (Trying to please God with our works, that is.)
March 27, 2009 at 5:47 pm
momgodin:
Re. #280, I was the one who asked about the Do Hard Things book a while back because the powers that be in my church decided to use the book for the Jr. High/Sr. High Sunday School class.
After reading the book and browsing the website, I could let loose with quite a rant regarding this movement/book. For now I’ll restrain myself and just say that our child opted out of that particular class.
But here’s one of my main frustrations with Sunday School and “Bible” studies in general: WHAT’S UP WITH ALL THE BOOK STUDIES? OUR KIDS (AND WE ADULTS, TOO) SHOULD BE STUDYING THE BIBLE ITSELF.
Sorry, that’s one of my hot buttons. I’ll try to calm down now let you all get back to the discussion at hand.
March 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Karen, I’ll remember your prayer requests. It sounds like it’s been a little rough lately.
Abby, I agree with your assessment about selfishness. Wouldn’t it be selfish of me to continue to have babies if we can’t afford to meet their needs, or provide the nurturing support they require to grow up healthy? But I guess I just don’t have enough “faith” according to them.
March 27, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Abby,
I couldn’t agree more. I would never trade any of my children and I can’t go back in time nor would I want to (well, maybe sometimes when it gets really hard!) but there is only one of me and it is very hard to give each person quality time. Most of the time it is survival mode and I feel like my younger ones have been the most ripped off because I have to devote so much time and energy to my older ones and their schooling. My children know that I love them but I am stretched thin and this is coming from a person who has a very strong constitution, needs little sleep and has no health issues.
I am in a season of struggling with several issues and my thoughts about these issues…I have been parenting since I was 19 and I am now 43 and my youngest is only 2. I know we are not to get weary in well-doing but I am weary and it is only the grace of God that I keep on keeping on.
March 27, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“Anne, I agree. Also, whenever I watch the Duggar’s show (18 kids and counting), I am annoyed when they act amazed that people outside their home are nice. ”
It annoys me, too. People are MOSTLY kind and praising of me when they find out I have 10 children…they are mostly amazed. Rarely have I been mistreated by the “worldlings” that supposedly hate children so much.
March 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Rachel,
My hat goes off to you! Keep on doing what God is asking YOU to do!
March 27, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I saw a testimony of an Asian woman last night, and I didn’t catch all of the story on PBS, but I did catch the programme as it this woman talked about her experience when she first started reading the Bible. She’d recently lost a very significant loved one, and miraculously opened up to the Book of Job after someone encouraged her to start reading the Bible for comfort. She came to “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away,” and she said she began to understand. We can be overtaken with the sadness, but it is important what we do with that sadness. And her heart was opened to the Lord through this passage, and she is now a Believer.
I worked in a trauma center that served many local counties, and one night, a friend of mine in the ER cared for an Amish boy who had drowned in creek while he was out in the field with his father. She went with the father when she took him in to see his son that they could not revive. This sweet Amish man embraced his son and quoted Job. This woman was not a Christian (and not YET!), but she bore testimony all over that hospital about her experience of witnessing this man’s steadfast trust in God at this heart-wrenching moment. (BTW, This nurse’s name is also “Cindy,” so pray for her that her heart would be opened to the Lord that we might all meet together in the presence of the Lamb one day. Please pray that God continues to woo her to repentance with His kindness.)
I am so challenged by this every time I think of this passage in Job and the tears that I have shed over all the opportunities I have had to see this verse lived out and to likewise follow it. I pray that God continues to transform me and make me as faithful to Him and His Word when I am touched by tragic things. It is not a resignation of sadness, but a fear and trembling dynamic, as we are always working out our faith in Him, and we know Him through His Word. I don’t believe that it is ever easy, but it is not easy because it is transforming us.
And there is the cause to rejoice in the sadness. Sometimes the vines are heavy with fruit, but sometimes there are no grapes on the vine and the olive doesn’t cast its fruit and there are no cattle in the fold. But you know, I serve a God who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. He speaks and the earth melts. He knows how many hairs we all have on our heads, and He turns the hearts of kings and the paths of rivers as He wills. He is the victory that overcomes the world, not the womb of man trying to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. The righteous not need fear, particularly if one does believe that the Lord is righteous over the wombs of those who are washed in His Precious Blood.
My God sits in the heavens and laughs. He has his enemies in derision. He never slumbers or sleeps. He doesn’t tell us to be troubled or fearful but to believe in Him. It is God that girds us with strength and makes our way perfect. I’m lifting my hands up above all my enemies round about me and so shall I offer sacrifices of joy. My help and my hope come from the maker of heaven and earth not the creatures of His hand. And He promised us that He would not be mocked. I am determined to be one of those whom He searches the earth for, one to whom He can show Himself STRONG. To the Living God be all the glory for it.
March 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm
And though it should go without saying that I pray this for all who love the Lord and who embrace Jesus as their Savior. By faith I pray that He shows Himself strong to all of us. May we all have a Spirit God gave us of love, power and a sound mind.
These things are frustrating and disturbing. I feel like so many of those things, quotes from so many Evangelical Christians who are self-declared Quiverfull and some that are just what I would call general Evangelicals, just grieve me to read. Joyce’s book is ripe with such quotes. But that doesn’t make God any less God and I am encouraged today and last night as I saw this Asian woman sum it all up. God gives and God takes away, and He in His wisdom and power is blessed. He always causes us to triumph in His Son. And in the end of it, for all those who know Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they will triumph in Him.
So, yeah, it’s frustrating and painful, but we’re just all working it out right now, all with fear and trembling. God have mercy on us, but He’s going to work this all out, leading and guiding us into all truth. (He just does it in ways that I would not, and for that I am blessed and thankful.)
March 27, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Wow I’ve had totally different experiences to most of you ladies. I have a 19 month old, and 8 month old, and I’m 19 weeks pregnant. I have people mostly be extremely rude to me about it. These are people I don’t even know!
March 27, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Abby said:
“Anne, I agree. Also, whenever I watch the Duggar’s show (18 kids and counting), I am annoyed when they act amazed that people outside their home are nice. As if they have been taught that anyone who isn’t part of their movement is automatically a mean, spiteful person.
Why are people teaching their children that the world is going to treat them so badly? I mean, sure, there are mean people in the world, but to be constantly amazed when there are good things outside your little bubble?”
Agreed completely. For the past two years, there was a preacher and his family who would come onto my college campus every month or two, stand on one of the big rocks outside the student center on the plaza, put their sandwich signs on, and yell at us all that we’re going to hell.
He called himself “brother” Matt, though I have no idea why, as none of my brothers would call me the things he did (whore, it’s Biblical of course, alcoholic, drug user, etc.) He always came with a throng, probably 10 kids, his wife, a handful of other adults, presumably his brothers and their families. One day while I was standing in the middle of the crowd that had formed around him (most of them mocking and jeering) someone asked why he brought his youngest children out with him to hold his signs; these kids must have been 10 or younger. His response was that he wanted them to “see the world.”
I wish they could have seen some more of the world, like the anti-human trafficking event we’re holding in our house right now, or the homelessness outreach a bunch of my friends went on a few weeks ago. If you terrify them into thinking the world is “evil” based on the small snippets of what they’ve seen, you’ll never have to worry about them leaving. It’s like the elephant and the chain.
His daughters there, about college age, but never set foot in a college classroom I’m sure, and looked like they would have known who the Botkins were, if I’d thought to ask, were no better. If anyone pointed out to them that this is probably the most counter-productive way to reach people, all we ever got was, “well yes, but Jeremiah and Isaiah were very unpopular.”
Last I checked, the Bible does not say, “be perfect, therefore, as Jeremiah was perfect.”
March 28, 2009 at 1:24 am
Catherine, there are some groups of Christians who teach that everybody belongs either to the Kingdom of God or to the Kingdom of this world, and they teach that the ruler of this world is Satan, based on 1Jo 5:19 [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
and
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
This dualistic view is called “Two Kingdoms Theology”, and it is especially prevalent among denominations which are descended from the Anabaptist Movement.
March 28, 2009 at 3:45 am
This is the first time I’m commenting here. We are a mostly conservative, Christian homeschooling family with 6 kids. We are not patrio-types, but I confess, I was lured into the idealized family life that Vision Forum sells. Thankfully, God put cotton in my husband’s ears, or something, because he did not seem to remember a thing I was relaying to him regarding all that courtship/betrothal business, and the million-year plan nonsense, etc.
What I was really interested in was where Elisabeth Elliot fits into all this. Some of her writings seem a bit like Debi Pearl. “Men will be men” and such like, or is she just old-school. I would not consider my grandparents Patriocentric, but they definitely held to traditional gender roles.
March 28, 2009 at 8:18 am
Hi Christine,
Welcome to the discussion!
I really don’t know where Elisabeth Elliot fits into all of this. Imho, she doesn’t see to fit the typical patrio model of womanhood but she does espouse some of the same principals. It confuses me.
March 28, 2009 at 8:36 am
Abby, for the past few weeks my son and I have been studying through the book of Jonah and when I saw this verse it just popped off the page at me. It seems that the Lord brings it to mind several times a day now.
“Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs. Jonah 2:8
So much of the patriocentric movement and lifestyle is based on pure idolatry, casting a vision for things that are not of the Lord of of His kingdom. Their descriptions of family life are all father-centered and me-centered. Their “decorum” is based on personal taste and style. It is all idolatry; even their children have become their idols. And the end result is that they are forfeiting the grace that could be theirs. How very, very sad.
March 28, 2009 at 8:36 am
Hi Christine and anyone else who has been lurking. We are so happy to hear new voices in the conversation! :0
March 28, 2009 at 8:38 am
That was supposed to be a smile face and ended up looking like a patriocentrist who laid eyes on a white-washed feminist!
March 28, 2009 at 10:08 am
Yes, Karen, that smilie face did look like it had just seen a WWF! LOL
In my experience, people are very kind to me about having a large family (we’re expecting our sixth baby in October, for those who don’t know.
) but in private can be quite rude. Even my own brother was congratulatory over our latest pregnancy and then called our mother to ask if I’d lost my mind.
Still, it doesn’t bother me. People always have opinions about things, but how much weight I give those opinions is up to me.
What I can’t understand is that idea that Christians have a monopoly on all things moral and ethical. Even atheists believe in morals and ethics. They may not be the same as mine, nor are they for the same purpose (doing it for God as opposed to doing it for ones self) but they do have them.
I think when Christian parents teach too much of a disconnect between themselves and others there are two risks. One is that those children will not feel comfortable witnessing to their faith in the world. The second is that one day, if they’re shown that “those people” can actually be good, it will cause them to question everything they’ve been taught, even the things that are true.
The best thing we can give our children is Truth and Love. And we can’t keep those things to ourselves in isolated little communities. We have to share those gifts with the world.
March 28, 2009 at 11:57 am
That was supposed to be a smile face and ended up looking like a patriocentrist who laid eyes on a white-washed feminist!
thatmom, you rock!
::Rolling on the floor laughing::
March 28, 2009 at 11:58 am
Oops, that was supposed to be unitalicized. I’ll say again for good measure, “thatmom, you rock!”
March 28, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Emmy, thank you thank you!
March 28, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Christine,
I have heard Elisabeth Elliot agree with several things the patriocentrists say. Courting, giving daddy emotions (Jonathan Lindvall), headship/submission, and such. However, she is also a very strong woman devoted to God and I think she would be horrified at some of the other teachings.
My overall impression of her is that she is more traditional than patriocentric, and that her ideal headship/submission would be between two strong, intelligent Christians who are very respectful towards each other.
Like yours, my grandparents are traditional. My grandpa has always been a fan of female missionaries and would never think to silence women’s gifts like the patriocentrists.
Hope this helps.
March 28, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Thatmom,
Not to high-jack the thread–just a quick mention:
I recently “discovered” that verse in Jonah as well. Isn’t it incredibly poignant? And here is another one that is also particularly thought-provoking:
Galatians 4:16 Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
March 28, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I’m just wondering….has anyone looked at doing any kind of a timeline of this stuff? I’m just wondering at what point did vf go overboard. Maybe I just didn’t notice…but it seemed that at first Doug was fairly reasonable…conservative for sure but I remember looking through the catalog without warning bells ringing.I even bought stuff from them. Was it coinciding with Geoff Botkin appearing on the scene? When did Kevin Swanson start connecting with Doug? And then Voddie, he is kind of new to this whole scene I believe..just in the past few years. I’m remembering that Jonathan Lindvall was pretty far out there quite a while back. I remember him being all the buzz after the conferences because he was advocating never allowing children to play”pretend” games. or play alone with other children. What about Chris Davis of the Elijah Co? I remember him saying a few things that made me cringe- but mostly I liked what he had to say about education.Maybe the whole idea of patriarchy just wasn’t on my radar screen yet.I guess I am wondering how much Botkin had to do with the slide downward into the idea that women were not to have any kind of calling of their own, no missions etc..
March 29, 2009 at 1:29 am
http://undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/general-patriarchy-timeline-from.html
March 29, 2009 at 10:16 am
Just went there Cindy. Thant helps a lot. Thanks!
March 29, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I happened to see that the NCFIC has a line-up of upcoming conferences, the one in December featuring Paul Washer. Anyone know anything about why he would be included in this group? I am puzzled, since he head a missions organization.
March 29, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Mary,
You are right about Jonathan Lindvall and he was all the rage back in the early to mid 90′s. Many patriarchalists have borrowed heavily from his teachings and teach them as their own, now.
I believe the Elijah Co. is no more due to the divorce of Chris and Ellyn Davis. Don’t have much more information than that but maybe someone else does? They were big for a while.
I remember Phillips being much more normal when I first started homeschooling and then becoming increasingly patriocentric. I don’t think it started with Botkin because I remember him becoming more patriocentric before Botkin came on the scene.
March 29, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Karen,
re: #327 right on!
Anne,
Congratulations!
March 29, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I have some questions about Sonlight curriculum.
I want to know why they are deemed as not Christian enough. Also, I have heard they teach evolution as true. Is this true or not? Is Sonlight a “fill in the gap” curriculum like ACE?
Thanks ladies I am looking now for what curriculum/s I want to use for Pre-K.
March 29, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I’ve used Sonlight for P-K, K and Grade 1. I have never seen any material that teaches evolution is a fact. There are a few books that Sonlight uses that have sections in there about evolution, but in the grades I’ve taught, they don’t include the evolution reading into the standard curriculum. So basically if you are following the Sonlight daily schoolwork guide, it does NOT use the sections on evolution.
March 30, 2009 at 12:17 am
I have another question I’d like to bounce off of you ladies, one that came to me while I was in the shower.
Suppose now that all these children run off and get married. What do you think will happen to the father-turned-grandfather? I think it would be incredibly hard to give up control over children that you’ve been able to rein in for so long; loosing the special attention might be additionally difficult. Do you think it could be possible in a decade or so, when all the Daddies get lonely, that patrios might start advocating extended families living together? I’m sure they’d pull out a million and one reasons for this, all from the Old Testament, but I think it would be primarily to get their daughters’ attention back. Not to mention their granddaughters’ if they have any.
Sure it would be detrimental to their daughter’s marriage, but that didn’t seem to stop them in regards to their own marriage. Further, their granddaughters will then be learning to be a helpmeet to their father and grandfather. Soon they’ll be trained to helpmeet anything with a Y chromosome that walks through the door. That’s the point, isn’t it?
March 30, 2009 at 12:27 am
About the Sonlight materials: I wonder if all these patriocentrists who homeschool their children NEVER open one of those secular encyclopedias that have evolutionary theory referenced in them.
I’m a young-earth creationist and have taught my kids such, but I’ve exposed my children to the evolutionary theory to discuss the differences. So far, they seem to have a grasp on the logic presented in the creationist theory and have accepted it, so I don’t worry about them.
March 30, 2009 at 1:34 am
Corrie in #340:
I remember Phillips being much more normal when I first started homeschooling and then becoming increasingly patriocentric. I don’t think it started with Botkin because I remember him becoming more patriocentric before Botkin came on the scene.
Attending Grace OPC in San Antonio in late ’98 through about ’02ish, I worshipped and fellowshiped along with many families who left our church when Doug Phillips left to formally found Boerne Christian Assembly. Doug Phillips, from what I understand, was considered an attendee, but a man who became elder there in 2000 referred to Doug Phillips as a member and an attendant. That man conisdered Doug to be a part of our church. Doug rarely attended, presumably because of his HSLDA and his commitments with Henry Morris and his creation science group.
My husband was ill at the time and he had several therapies that were ineffective, but because this was all so life-altering, I can narrow down the dates very well. I remember going to a dinner gathering at friends at the church, people who lived 5 miles down the road from Doug’s house in the Boerne area, not all that far from a town called Sisterdale. My husband had just had two big appointments and a major medical procedure that week. Because he was too sick to drive but could actually work, I was his “helpmeet” by assisting him in his office, driving him around, and he even had to go to court that week, so I took him to court to give expert testimony. I remember that, much to my shame and my own ability to make great pies, I actually purchased two exquisite blackberry pies that I ordered in advance to take to the dinner because I was so exhausted to do it myself. It was one of the worst weeks I had, and I couldn’t believe that I was not taking something I’d made myself, and this troubled me.
It was the late Spring. I’d heard bits and pieces of Doug’s beliefs as propagated through the homeschooling community and their local co-op or support group or whatever they called it, but when it was mentioned, the HSLDA affiliation was always mentioned. I don’t know whether or not this was an officially sponsored HSLDA group that Phillips ran from his Boerne home or not. I used to doubt half of what I heard from Phillips followers because frankly, it sounded nutty. I did the “I must have misunderstood and missed something” dissonance rationalization that I would often do…
Anyway, in ’99, I attended this dinner, and I heard about these rigid beliefs about women. No working. No education outside the home. Only homeschooling. For girls and women, a subservience and an obsequious submission to men on the behalf of women, what sounded much like ecclesiocentricity (not a word I used at the time, nor did I hear it stated this way, yet this is what this is). And the birth control issue was also a matter of discussion. During this evening, I listened to two rather avid and what I describe as militant, aggressive Prairie Muffin Phillips followers (not called that yet!) review these ideas, and I was assured that I had not misunderstood what they were advocating. But to be honest, I did not want to believe it.
From the research on Botkin, he would have been in New Zealand at this time, business partners with Jim McCotter, founder of the cult of the Great Commission. I never heard Botkin’s name, though incidently, I did hear of the Pearls and Davis with the 3 initials and of other people, though I tended to remember more of what their followers maintained about them rather than the names. I never heard any talk of the Ezzos in this circle, and that surprised me because they described formulaic approaches to everything, particularly that having to do with gender and childrearing and childbearing.
So based on both what I observed first hand at my own church where I paid my tithe where I attended with Phillips and some of his following, these ideas were well established at Vision Forum before Geoff Botkin ever became a formally notable entity at VF.
I doubt seriously that Doug learned these ideas from Howard Phillips, because Howard teaches and, concerning the Constitution Party, teaches nothing like this. Now, I would say that this stuff is much more like the Gothardesque practices with which I was familiar. And I am told and believe that the writings that I’ve read of Mike Farris, I think it is far more likely that Phillips took what he liked from Gothard and Farris, creating his own, unique amalgam of the two of their beliefs, mixing into it the Dabney ideology that he learned from his father, but not something that was taught as a religion unto itself, something that I thing Phillips actually bears out.
And again, I think the documentation concerning Botkin’s activities, talking about Isaac working with Hopkins and the Navy at the age of 12 (likely putting him in Maryland), the citations of his name in the Montgomery County and Silver Spring, MD area in the local papers concerning the Great Commission political take over attempts in the late eighties, and the New Zealand news sources that put him in NZ in the late ’90s and early 2000s — all of these things suggest that Phillips and Botkin didn’t connect until after the Canterbury Media project in NZ went sour after 2002. That said, Phillips was already gaining momentum with his weird views long before Botkin came along, and I believe that all of this evidence supports this.
My question that I don’t know will ever be answered is whether Doug Phillips sought out Botkin to make films for him, whether McCotter or some other Right Wing group affiliated with Howard connected Botkin and Phillips, or whether Botkin had designs on Phillips, selling himself to attach him to Vision Forum’s building momentum. By 2002, I was nearly totally outside of those circles (no longer going to the OPC — I moved on to the AME where I was the palest face in the crowd), so I never heard of Botkin and have no info about where he came from or exactly when he arrived. And then, I was distracted by other things like regulatory worship, new perspectives on Paul, Federal Vision nonsense and the growing weirdness of RC Sproul. In 2002, Botkin’s name did not even come up on the radar for me.
March 30, 2009 at 8:40 am
Thanks ladies. I don’t mind if it teaches evolution, as I want my kids to be exposed to other viewpoints, I just don’t want it teaching evolution as fact.
March 30, 2009 at 9:08 am
Anne, what great news!
March 30, 2009 at 9:45 am
Cindy,Under More Grace is amazing. It still blows me away how much information you have; your research and articles on these subjects are positively brilliant.
March 30, 2009 at 9:50 am
It is interesting to ponder where these things came from and which came first, the chicken or the egg. Cindy’s timeline is helpful but it doesn’t provide some of the nuances that help to qualify beliefs etc. For example, Bill Gothard is very patriarchal but I wouldn’t necessarily see him as patriocentric, at least he wasn’t in the early days. The Oak Brook College of Law welcomes women and most of the apprenticeship opportunities with ATI are open to women as well. I was wondering how that all worked together with the young women who are working at the Indianapolis Training Center for Bill Gothard serving the likes of Kevin Swanson and Doug Phillips. I wonder if Kevin told them they have several abortions in their future since they aren’t home under their dads’ protection. My guess is that they lapped up the attention from these young ladies, not to mention the delicious food they served these men.
This movement is not static…it changes all the time, thus making it difficult to pin down.
March 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
Over the weekend I attended part of the local APACHE homeschooling convention in Peoria. I happened to pick up a magazine published by Illinois Christian Home Educators(ICHE) and is called The Alliant. The issue I brought home was called Raising Daughters and was published in the summer of 2005.
At that time, Roger Erber was the ICHE board president. Erber is a pastor with James McDonald’s denomination, is connected to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, and was/is involved with Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute. His son has a blog and on it lists his favorite movie as being The Birth of a Nation, which was an early 20th century silent film based on the pro-confederacy book The Klansman. Mr. Erber’s wife recently spoke in Peoria for a woman’s tea hosted by Stacy McDonald and her church.
This issue of The Alliant contains an article by Erber called A Vision of Femininity where he says things like “Though the world around us is telling us that there is no difference between boys and girls and that we should treat them as though the same, the Bible tells us that there is a great diversity and inequality in God’s created order. Boys and girls are certainly equal in value but in design and designated place in God’s order, there are great differences.” and “Because of our multi-generational view of the future, we must train our daughters to recognize their role in raising up a godly generation to follow.”
Another article is written by Erber’s daugher, another one by his son-in-law,another one entitled Ladies Wear White Socks by Debi Pearl, and the obligatory anti-girls going to college article by Stacy McDonald. All of this written 4 years ago.
The point I am making is that this multi-generational/daughters staying home rhetoric is already several years old and was promoted before I ever saw or heard of Botkin.
As aside, I do not believe Erber is the president of the ICHE board any longer and at one time had heard that there were board members who disagreed with his views on girls and that caused a division and he stepped down. Now I am wondering if that could even be true, given the fact that ICHE placed a stack of these issues of The Alliant on the table, thus promoting the patriocentic agenda. I was really disappointed in them.
March 30, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Cindy K says:
I doubt seriously that Doug learned these ideas from Howard Phillips, because Howard teaches and, concerning the Constitution Party, teaches nothing like this.
I have been fascinated by Howard Phillips’s role in all this for a long time. My father was slightly acquainted with Howard Phillips 40-some years ago because they were college classmates. He recalls Howard Phillips as an extremely nice guy who was vocal, even back then, regarding his very conservative political beliefs, which were outside the norm in that environment. My father says that Phillips took a lot of criticism of his beliefs very graciously and had a really lovely personality.
My father cannot believe that Howard Phillips could possibly be on board with the beliefs of Vision Forum and his son Doug — but my father is also a little bigoted in that he can’t believe that anyone who went to Harvard could possibly believe in patriarchy.
I think Howard is definitely on board with these patriarchal beliefs, and I also think that a lot of them DO come from Howard for the following reasons:
1) From Doug’s blog, you can tell that Howard is very supportive of Doug’s activities. He even teaches at the VF “Witherspoon” school for public policy, which is open only to men.
2) In Kathryn Joyce’s book, she alludes to a speech where Doug credits his father for pushing Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority.
3) Howard was close with or possibly converted by Rushdoony. I haven’t read Rushdoony but my understanding is that he espoused extreme patriarchy. Howard is also in with Phyllis Schlafly and Eagle Forum.
4) Susan Faludi’s book “Backlash” (which I am reading simultaneously with Kathryn Joyce’s book) has a couple pages devoted to Howard Phillips. If I recall correctly, she describes him as instrumental in the push by conservative religious/political leaders to oppose women’s entry into the work force. When I go home this evening, I will see if there is anything of relevance on Howard from that book that I can post here.
My guess is that Doug is simply taking Howard’s beliefs to their logical conclusion and that Howard is very proud.
March 30, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Also, Howard’s activities as discussed by Faludi took place in the early 80s.
March 30, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Laurie,
I intimate these things in my series on the Kinism connection and the Confederate Cause posts. It’s weird, too, because Doug’s brother says (reportedly on line — hat tip to Lynn Dell for pointing this out) that Brad Phillips favorite author is Dabney. (Not CS Lewis, not Tolkien, not Schaeffer, not Edwards or Arthur Pink…)
I wrote to Howard twice asking straight questions with no response and without any kind of acknowledgement that the CP or Howard received my email.
But I can’t find any direct evidence that I can document, save that he attends most all of Doug’s major functions.
So that introduces a question… If Howard is bizarre in his beliefs and Doug developed his views under the tutelage of Howard, why is Doug so functionally acerbic and Howard so likeable? What does that mean? I’ve never received an answer on that one either.
March 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Note,
Lots of people hung out with Fallwell. They were not bizarre. Just because Howard was involved with Christian Reconstruction makes him like Gary North. Phyllis Schafly hung out with Fallwell and worked with the Christian Right, and she did not turn out like Phillips, for example.
Rushdoony was not extreme like Phillips. I have not posted this yet but I asked for an official statement from Andrew Sandlin as well as others that I have known that knew Rushdoony. I got one, and it attests that Rushdoony was NO LEGALIST in his conduct. He was actually, in real life, very hands-off with people and gave people lots of liberty. Though he leaned agrarian, he loved strong, educated women, etc… And Sandlin worked closely with Rushdoony for several years and he is not a legalist. I would tell you if Andrew was a legalist, and he is not.
Phillips is more like Gary North, and Gary North and Rushdoony, though North was a part of the organization and married Rush’s daughter, North went off the deep end. The nicest thing I can say about the relationship between North and Rushdoony is that it was not pleasant for many years before Rushdoony’s passing. The views that Phillips holds are far more like Gary North’s.
I listened to Howard many times and attended very many Taxpayers to the then CP meetings in Maryland. Women could run for office in the party and Howard encouraged this. If Howard founded a political party and didn’t think women should be in the workplace, I don’t think he would be championing women running for civil office in the Constitution Party. The person who ran the Maryland party when I left that area was a woman. How would Howard allow that if he was against women working outside the home?
I’m not trying to defend Howard at all, but I don’t think that Howard lives remotely like Doug, and his daughters have had careers. If he were against this, why would he have sent his daughters to school?
March 30, 2009 at 1:22 pm
For me, it was really Mary Pride who first introduced some radical thought. In the home I grew up in going to college was the expectation for all. It was always a matter of when, not if I go. So, in the summer of 1989 (having already graduated college, married and expecting my first baby) I was handed a copy of her book, “The Way Home”. That was the first time I had ever heard that college may not be the only way, and in fact could do more harm than good to a young Christian. I revolted at the thought, but 5 years later when we started homeschooling the idea was popping up again by more people, notably Jonathan Lindvall and the like.
March 30, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Thatmom said: “The point I am making is that this multi-generational/daughters staying home rhetoric is already several years old and was promoted before I ever saw or heard of Botkin.”
The ones I recall at the forefront of this “vision” are the two Doug’s: Wilson and Phillips. I’m sure there were other’s, like Phil Lancaster and John Thompson. And this was definitely pre-Botkin. Botkin just figured out how to cash in on it.
March 30, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Wow — that’s interesting that Doug’s sisters have careers!!! I had no idea. I wonder what they think about Doug’s activities?!? Oh to be a fly on the wall when Doug and his sisters talk (IF they talk)!
Interesting information about Howard Phillips, Rushdoony and North. Again, I only know about Rushdoony in passing so I was just relying on a general (apparently erroneous) impression!
I am not convinced that Howard championing female candidates meant that he was okay with women in the workplace. There does seem to be a weird cognitive dissonance where people who disapprove of women working sometimes love certain female candidates or political types, such as Governor Palin or Phyllis Schlafly. Maybe Doug is just more consistent than Howard!
March 30, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Karen, so crazy, but in #328 you shared a verse that I heard in church yesterday! It was in a slightly different context, but I always feel like if I hear a verse in more than one place, in less than 2 days, I’m supposed to consider it as a message, or at least meditate on it. I can’t remember the exact context yesterday, but the sermon was about reconciliation.
I have to say, I have really liked the thread of the conversation here for this last post. There really is a lot of nuance in the way different people present patrio ideas, and yet, the message is the same. It gets tiring to hear the same old lines and have to beat them back yet again. There really is nothing new under the sun!
March 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Cindy,
If Howard is bizarre in his beliefs and Doug developed his views under the tutelage of Howard, why is Doug so functionally acerbic and Howard so likeable? What does that mean?
I think it’s a fascinating question either way. I wonder why, if Howard is more normal in his worldview and attitudes towards women, why he doesn’t ever take his son aside and say, “Lighten up!”
I am sure that this has been said before, but Doug does come off (at least in his internet persona) as though he is overcompensating for an incredible insecurity. Perhaps he feels very much in his father’s shadow and is trying to outdo the old man.
I think Howard is more likeable because he is more confident and can therefore afford to be gracious and deal with disagreement.
Also, it may have something to do with Howard’s more varied background — as once having been a member of a minority religion (i.e. Jewish),and someone espousing a minority political view (growing up in liberal Massachusetts and going to liberal Harvard). Doug, in contrast, seems to have been more surrounded by people who agree with him and his family, and therefore maybe has a harder time coping with dissent. I could be wrong– it’s just a theory.
March 30, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Cindy, I meant to mention that I look forward to checking out your blog and reading your posts!
March 30, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I will have to go back and look in Mary Pride’s book, which I really liked at the time, to see what she does say about college. What I remember from the mid-80′s is that the idea was not really gender related but rather encouraging homeschooling families to find creative ways of preparing kids to have careers to forgo the high cost of a college degree. It was for both men and women and apprenticeships were encouraged. This was big in Bill Gothard’s conferences and out of that mentality his law school was born, actually as the brain child of a young man we personally knew who wanted to study for the bar independently without attending law school. But never do I remember any discussion about women being alienated from those choices by anyone except Lindvall. He was by far the most extreme. I remember hearing him in 1986 and thinking his hoarding away of hid daughters was just plain bizarre. I have often wondered what happened to his girls. Anyone know? And wasn’t John Thompson the one who had his daughter excommunicated for rebellion when she left home as an adult?
BTW, if you want to grasp Lindvall take Stacy McDonald and subtract the lavendar oil and Victorian lace and there you have it. I have yet to read anything from her that is original. It is all regurgitated 1980′s homeschooling stuff.
March 30, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Abby, I don’t know why but the Lord has been impressing that verse on my for over a week now. It comes to mind several times a day. We need to all pray about this because I really believe there is a reason for it.
March 30, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I was just thinking about the first time that I heard the no college talk- it was from Doug Phillips at the chec conference, years ago. It was not in reference to daughters- it was the idea that you would just give the tuition money to the son or daughter to start their own business instead of pay for college.Sounds great if you have that kind of money sitting in a savings account
.I might even still have that tape. His point was that unless your child wanted to be a doctor or lawyer they should not attend college.I remember his seminars being so popular that year that it was standing room only and some folks were asked to leave because of the fire codes.I will look and see if I have the date on that.
March 30, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Cindy said, “My question that I don’t know will ever be answered is whether Doug Phillips sought out Botkin to make films for him, whether McCotter or some other Right Wing group affiliated with Howard connected Botkin and Phillips, or whether Botkin had designs on Phillips, selling himself to attach him to Vision Forum’s building momentum.”
However they got together, it’s a dream come true for Doug. (A propaganda/mind control expert for hire)
According to those links you gave us, the GCM Shepherding/Discipling cult… expanded their influence and promulgated their private doctrines and practices nationwide via regional conferences.
wow, what a great idea! :
(http://www.crossroads09.com/)
“Just attended a seminar with the Botkin family and as an attorney myself, found it unusual that the many enterprises and ventures mentioned were not disclosed with names.
Although the lovely family is a testimony, I wonder what else this man has done to create a sustainable system outside his family, and what successes he is willing to disclose to people whom he encourages to follow to a far away country in the event of catastrophe.”
-Teresa Ward, atty
say WHAT?! At these seminars he’s inviting Homeschooling Americans to follow him BACK to New Zealand?!
Am I wrong to expect a statement from Botkin renouncing that cult? OR a testimony of being delievered from it? He’s not a Baptist, right? What denomination does he now claim to be?
Also, how many different denominations comprise Family Integrated Churches? Does FIC seek to be recognized as a new denomination?
March 30, 2009 at 6:50 pm
So Botkin’s oldest child is 27? 28? Is he unmarried? I see no spouse for him mentioned anywhere.
Am just wondering how this jives with the theology they are promoting. Why hasn’t this model young patrio man done his duty and married one of the keepers at home?
Anna Sofia and Elizabeth, I believe, are far past the recommended age for marriage in patrio world. What’s going on here?
March 30, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Laurie,
I’ve written a lot about this in the past, but I believe that Doug and many of the other patriocentrists manifest what is basically the predictable human behavior of shame most common with addictions. In the ’80s and thought it is not vogue, it is codependency. Specifically, the men are love avoidant with women and the women are love addicted, but you can be layers of either. They propel one another like cogs in a wheel, and if you look on my blog under love addiction/love avoidance or search in the little box at the Lt hand top for “Cycle of abuse,” I have a pretty good diagram. It is pretty standard addictions and recovery stuff.
This is built upon the theories of Murray Bowen who was a really good psychiatrist who pioneered family therapy. The major psychological process for children in a family is being able to separate from parents and from the family identity which is a gradual process as one grows into maturity. For the parents also, there is the process of letting go of their ever-changing child who undergoes a fantastic transformation which is also as challenging as the process of standing as an individual. It starts with enjoying an infant and the mother’s ability to teach the child how to self-soothe through trust and moves on to bigger things like how to put your teen’s first fender-bender or when they have their first major success into perspective. He called the state of the family in complete identity the “undifferentiated ego mass.”
He is also the guy who is credited as first articulating “triangulation.” This occurs in any relationship where there are three people, and these relationships, even when there are one or two parties that have serious problems, tend to work themselves into a balance. I talk a lot about this botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com. This affects us in every relationship, as when you have a conflict with one person or source in your life, the mature and assertive thing to do would be to contain the conflict and resolve it by involving only the one other party. Triangulation is a mechanism by which people draw others in on the conflict needlessly, but not needlessly for them, because they have fear or aggression that they can’t deal with. This is also the dynamic used for gratification also. For instance, if a husband does not get the due attention from his wife that he desires (meeting adult emotional, intellectual, spiritual or sexual needs together or in isolation), he may triangulate by meeting those needs with another adult in positive or negative ways (friendships, involvement at church, hobbies, sexual affairs). If he triangulates with a child and the needs are those that should be met only by spouse or even only by another adult, this is covert incest (not sexual, though when there is sexual incest, there is usually some other cover incest that took place first).
So Back to love addiction and love avoidance, the patterns of how grown children learn to objectify (treat as objects and reject intimacy) those who they struggled with in order to survive, either through neglect, smothering, or a parent that used us like tools or curses. If the parent failed consistently for whatever reason (this is very common in families where there is a very ill parent for example), the child learns how to survive and then carries that template into other relationships.
From all I’ve learned of Doug Phillips and, take the Bailey Brothers for example, they are love avoidant with women. They reduce women to something less than they are, defining them as something lesser, then they jump in as rescuers in a larger than life display (which is also objectification). There is a seductive nature to this that is quite powerful for the love addicted woman which draws on her desire to be rescued. In this situation the men (love avoidant) become overwhelmed with the neediness of the woman and act out with aggression, there is a crisis, but then they return to the relationship out of guilt and duty. Love for them is about guilt and duty because they were used as children. (I would bet that most of these men had unresolved issues with smothering, demanding or obsessive mothers that pushed them too hard so that they learned to survive by turning relationships with women into being all about duty and obligation which sounds so much like the sterile mission of patriarchy. Care for the objectified, slightly less than human help meets…. Love Avoidants are usually care takers.)
Love Addiction generally develops from neglect, doing anything and developing a larger than life fantasy, waiting for the knight in shining armor. By making the man larger than life in their fantasy, the woman is actually objectifying the man because the standards are super human and anything but who the man really is. So they have intimacy issues, overwhelming the seductive rescuer, they have more inner crisis problems (as opposed to the love avoidant who will create intensity and crisis OUTSIDE of the relationship or will turn to diversion). But they propel one another like cogs in a wheel through the cycle of addiction.
I am love avoidant with women because of a complex relationship with my mother, first from not bonding (she was terrified I would die as an infant because my traumatic birth and post partum depression), so she compensated by a very anxious smothering, looking to me to heal her emotionally. She used me to soothe herself as children have the remarkable gift to do, but I never learned to soothe myself. (I turned to religious addictions, had a short run with alcohol in my youth, looked to relationships, career for a short time, entitlement, etc. while trying to soothe myself because I didn’t learn it as a baby and child.) I was also recruited to help her as a communication help with my father because she lacked the forthrightness to be direct with him. My father then learned that he could communicate to her through me and it worked better, me, both of their biggest fans. These two people hung the moon, right? All these things were my training for how relationships work and how to “be” with people. And it has taken me years to unlearn and is yet still the path of least resistance. Healthy relationships are not easy but are work for me, and I must be vigilant to watch for the patterns of my desires within my emotions.
Look at my blog tag list and look at the botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com material. This is all just directly from or addictions and recovery material developed upon and with Murray Bowen’s fine work defining the dynamics of families. It is actually a rabbi and family counselor’s development of Bowen’s theories (Rabbi Edwin Freidman) in a book called “Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue” from which the term “multigenerational faithfulness” originated. It was introduced into the church growth and leadership conferences through Friedman’s book in the ’90s, so though VF lives out the worst of what Murray Bowen defines as pathologic, it is ironic to me that this is where they derived one of their central terms, and Swanson even aptly named his radio show… And who says God does not have a sense of humor!
The dynamics of the patriocentrists themselves and the family dynamics that follow are classic textbook stuff from Bowen and from the addictions/recovery literature. IT IS ALL ABOUT core shame issues.
March 30, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“My father cannot believe that Howard Phillips could possibly be on board with the beliefs of Vision Forum and his son Doug — but my father is also a little bigoted in that he can’t believe that anyone who went to Harvard could possibly believe in patriarchy.”
Never forget that what we are dealing with is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT — I am convinced that the religious aspect of all this is largely a smokescreen, ideological bait to attract fundamentalist Christians and lure them to where they will allow themselves to be molded into a particular political mindset.
March 30, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Cynthia Gee,
That’s the issue. Howard is very charismatic and has that wonderful personal command. I was actually very pessimistic about having any real impact in our government when I met Howard, but there was enough nostalgia there that I got sucked in with some logical fallacies that he likes to throw around. Chip Berlet (who has spoken at the Intl Cultic Studies Assoc in the past) astutely identified a notable pattern when he described what he called “Right Wing Populism.”
And he’s survived as an entity in DC, though maybe not running things, but he is an entity in DC for 40 years. He is very personally charismatic and he’s smart. And he’s wealthy. I don’t think these folks ever eat Top Ramen and stretch ground beef with oatmeal and eggs, and I don’t think they eat PBJ for lunch every day. It’s a business. Can you every really know how much of it is business and how much of it is true belief? These guys might not even know it about themselves, so how can we know any more then they? All we can do is make the best and clearest observations that we can using the wisdom that we have. And I have a lot of questions because it doesn’t all add up. Too much contradiction from my vantage.
The thing that troubles me most — if Howard is not behind Doug and if observes that Doug is legalistic, for the sake of his son, the sake of the Body but mostly for the sake of the Name of the Lord, why doesn’t he say or do something? Why does he appear at their notable functions? He might not want to say “I don’t agree with my son,” but he certainly could boycott the big functions. But he doesn’t, giving them his tacit approval. Howard let set the agenda for a Constitution Party meeting in Texas a few years ago, and 3/4 of a day turned out to be a trip to see the Allosaur that Doug used the courts to manipulate to steal and a trip to the Boerne homestead for a BBQ which my husband passed on. I refused to attend at all because Doug was such a presence in the materials about the meeting, complete with boy staff following him around (it is creepy to me).
Like Luther once said, you can’t keep a bird from flying over your head, (I think with the implication of bird doo falling on your head), but you certainly can keep him from making a nest in your hair. I think of that when I think of Howard’s stance with Doug. He’s set no limits whatsoever on Doug that I can see. (Maybe he has addressed these things privately and it is just not public knowledge.) But none of it makes sense.
March 31, 2009 at 12:48 am
Cindy K, the information you share is always enlightening and valuable.
You wrote:
“From all I’ve learned of Doug Phillips and, take the Bailey Brothers for example, they are love avoidant with women. They reduce women to something less than they are, defining them as something lesser, then they jump in as rescuers in a larger than life display (which is also objectification).”
This analysis is quite astute and rings true to me from the little I have gleaned over the years (I never had the opportunity to take psych classes in undergrad; too much on my plate already!)
I also appreciate the information Laurie posted (and the way she gathered information from diverse sources, including from a secular book [Faludi].)
Cynthia Gee: TOO TRUE about never forgetting this is politics. Some people contend that all religion is politics, anyway, but I believe I have met people who were genuinely invested in their religion from a purely spiritual perspective (though a lot fewer than one might imagine, to be sure).
In this case, I believe the patrios start with an idealized and ideological template for how they believe the world works, humanity works, gender works–and how each of these SHOULD work. Rather than create a religious or ideological system anew, they return to that which is familiar to them and to those within their own cultural background–here, Anglo Protestant Christianity–and fashion it into their own image, presenting it as merely a more accurate or more faithful version of that familiar institution.
The result is several hundred times more support and attention and adherants than they would have gotten if they had created a new religious system out of thin air and called it Botkinism or Visionism.In its carrying of the Christian name and American Protestant impramatur, this new theology-cum-historical-revisionism can be implicitly linked in the public’s mind with benign enterprises like stalwart American patriotism, the historical good works/charity of evangelical Christian denominations, and general “old-fashioned” living.
And the people who follow these leaders believe all along that they are just getting back to the basics of Christianity, to the essence of the Bible, while all the while, unbeknownst to them, they are being led into a whole new world (albeit a new world with very old roots in the patriarchy of polytheistic cultures).
It’s brilliant!
March 31, 2009 at 9:06 am
Wow, I think Cindy K’s psychological analysis is right on target. SHAME and ADDICTION are definitely at play here! (Sounds like my family except for the explicit patriarchal beliefs.)
I went back and looked at the Howard Phillips references in Susan Faludi’s book about the ‘80s anti-feminist backlash. My prior characterization of Phillips wanting to get women out of the workforce is not exactly warranted. Phillips is quoted as saying in 1987 that he opposed what he perceived as a deliberate government policy “to liberate the wife from the leadership of the husband.” However, it is unclear in Faludi’s book what exactly he is referring to or the context of the statement. So the statement may refer to a discomfort with equal opportunity in the workplace or something else altogether. Faludi also mentions Phillips’s opposition to the Women’s Educational Equality Act, but it the basis for his opposition is unclear.
That having been, said Howard Phillips is definitely lending his name and his credibility to Vision Forum. So I have to assume that Howard is okay with the notion of depriving women the right to vote or practice law (both ideas promoted on the Vision Forum site) and the other ideas his son is promoting. The difference may be primarily that Howard was a politician whereas Doug is more of a religious leader. Politicians by nature have to compromise and accept the world as it is. Howard may have been willing to work with and promote ambitious women back in the day in order to promote other aspects of his conservative agenda.
March 31, 2009 at 9:43 am
One thing I find fascinating and ironic is that the one of the main arguments in favor of the Quiverfull strategy of outbreeding the opposition is essentially “Social Darwinism” (and is just as morally repugnant). The idea is that patriarchy is justified (at least in part) because only patriarchal societies have a long-term chance of survival. Under the Quiverfull theory, this is because the long-term health of a society is a numbers game and, you can’t have a society in which women are constantly pregnant without women becoming dependent on men. Therefore, patriarchy is inherently just the way things have to be.
As a secular feminist, I am naturally interested in whether there is any chance such a long term numbers strategy could work. It sounds like an awfully compelling theory on first blush. But I think the theory does not take into account all the unpredictable variables that make up human history. It doesn’t take into account immigration, unexpected wealth (150 years ago no one would have predicted that Saudi Arabia would control an enormous proportion of a valuable natural resource), the power of ideas, and the nature of human motivation. The fact is that women, when given resources and opportunity, will generally not choose to have large families. The Quiverfull folks attempt to control for this by limiting the ideas to which their daughters can be exposed – but I don’t think that kind of isolation can work in the long term, especially in the era of the internet.
March 31, 2009 at 10:05 am
“The Quiverfull folks attempt to control for this by limiting the ideas to which their daughters can be exposed – but I don’t think that kind of isolation can work in the long term, especially in the era of the internet.”
Laurie,
Massive societal changes as the Quiverfull mindset call for cannot be accomplished for the long run without heart changes and the work of the Holy Spirit in peoples’ lives. This is one of the missing ingredients in this mindset. Truth itself will win the day and doesn’t need to be propped up by legalism. When it comes to changing hearts, teachings that are based on anything but the Word of God will never stand. This is why those who come here trying to sort through the patriocentric teachings are always pointed back to the Bible and are encouraged to search the Scriptures themselves and to use proper exegesis when doing so. Those who align themselves with truth based on Scripture feel free to ask questions and to make a place for their children to do likewise.
March 31, 2009 at 10:10 am
We have a new phrase for the double standard the patriocentrists present when it comes to women teachings and publicly speaking. It is called the Lois/Eunice Clause. Lois and Eunice were the mother and grandmother of Timothy and Paul commends them for teachings sound doctrine to Timothy, whose father was an unbeliever. The patriocentrists loathe women teachers, especially of men, and denounce it often. But when Phyllis Schaftly, Elisabeth Elliot, or Nancy Leigh DeMoss do the same, they employ the Lois/Eunice clause…sometimes it is ok. Kind of like telling the truth and the Rahab Clause. It is also known as the King Lemuel’s Mom Clause since she instructed her son through Proverbs 31. So many clauses, so little time.
March 31, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thatmom,
I do so hope you are right! Sometimes I worry that we are heading towards another Dark Ages.
I love the Lois/Eunice clause! Until the patriocentrists truly take dominion of everything, they will NEED women to sell views that would seem unpalatable coming only from men.
March 31, 2009 at 12:32 pm
John Holtzmann put up part II of his posts about the CHEC conference.
http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/03/chec-mens-leadership-summit-part-ii-for.html
March 31, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Yesterday Cynthia Gee said, “Never forget that what we are dealing with is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT — I am convinced that the religious aspect of all this is largely a smokescreen, ideological bait to attract fundamentalist Christians and lure them to where they will allow themselves to be molded into a particular political mindset.”
Yesterday my husband basically said the same thing to me about the Harris twins’ book Do Hard Things. Many of the examples given in the book of teens doing hard things revolve around involvment in some conservative political campaign or cause. We speculated that perhaps these young men are interested in political careers, and, if so, they’re certainly building a huge base of workers and big name recognition for themselves.
Anyone have any insights on this?
March 31, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I would believe it, and it started a looooooong time ago. We would go to homeschool conventions when I was growing up, in the 1980s-early 1990s, and sometimes they would have “social” get togethers (I believe this was sponsored by Gregg Harris–who is the boys’ father, correct?). They would be advertised as social groups with games and activities, opportunities to get to know other homeschoolers, which was pretty excited in those days before there were the extensive networking established between homeschoolers today.
I went at least once or twice, and each time, it would be a huge commercial trying to get us involved in political movements, coming to Washington DC as pages, etc. It felt so gimmicky, and I just remember feeling so duped by the process.
March 31, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Re. #378
It’s a political movement by men who still fall under the spell of post-millenialism (sp). At it’s very heart the movement is based upon the desire of these men to convince Christ to return to earth. Only when the entire earth is under His feet will that happen and instead of furthering the kingdom of God by using His word they want to use the sword of the state. A state they wish to create.
That is what’s behind all the feudalism, neo-confederacy junk, “1000″ year language, and controlling where information comes from.
They wish to rebuild Calvin’s Geneva on a global scale but in the end they will fail as the reformed always do.
Of course I could be wrong and they could only be in it for the money.
March 31, 2009 at 4:09 pm
#373
Laurie -
That assumes they have unfettered access to the internet. As I understand it, these girls have no free access to any uncensored media at all. They are also not free to move about the community or to socialize at will. They are literally living in a separate society, even as they physically live side by side with the rest of us.
March 31, 2009 at 4:14 pm
And their post-mil tendencies do not stem from the desire to see souls won to Christ other than the ones they birth. It doesn’t come from a love of people. What it all boils down to is a complete misappropriation of God’s Holy Law.
So what is my conclusion? They are in it for the money… if they were truly post-mil, they’d be out there knocking on doors sharing the GOSPEL, not antifeminism.
And I think the society they are looking for is more Massachusetts Bay Colony rather than Calvin’s Geneva…
March 31, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Annie,
Oh, I know. That isolation is definitely part of the plan because they know that just having lots of kids isn’t enough by itself. (After all, the flesh-and-blood descendents of the Puritans are today’s liberal WASPs!)
But I wonder how practical it really is in the long run to keep enormous populations of girls (assuming the movement grows) that isolated. The internet is part of what potentially could make that isolationism difficult, though I suppose girls’ internet activity is monitored.
March 31, 2009 at 5:05 pm
” At it’s very heart the movement is based upon the desire of these men to convince Christ to return to earth. Only when the entire earth is under His feet will that happen and instead of furthering the kingdom of God by using His word they want to use the sword of the state. A state they wish to create.”
The last time men attempted such an ambitious project, God “confounded their language”.
To me, all these multigenerational plans smack of presumption (see James 4:13), and this idea that mere men can literally drag God down out of Heaven is even worse that what the builders of the Tower of Babel tried to do so long ago, when they said, “let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
This is only my speculation on my part, but the resemblance to Babel is uncanny — in the Patrios and their plans, might we be seeing the birth of Babylon THE GREAT, as spoken of in Revelation 17?
March 31, 2009 at 5:16 pm
How deliciously (or nauseatingly) ironic this all is. All of these folks go on and on about worldview, talking about it far more than the cause for a Christian’s worldview — Christ. And the taxonomy of terms is a bit different
The patriocentrics who boast proper Christian Worldview have merely dressed up their language but their human flesh still stinks:
They still follow situational ethics, but they justify it with “Rahab’s Lie” and “the Lois/Eunice clause.”
They follow social darwinism and spriitual eugenics, but they dress it up with quiverfull and militant fecundity, all under the guise of their weird version of evangelism.
And they call this the building of the “City of God” (see John Holtzmann’s Part II post), but they are using miserable humanistic means to do it.
How ironic. Who was that who said “We have seen the enemy and we are him?” Marcus Aurelius?
March 31, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Anyone see the latest Oprah show on the Fundamentalist Mormons one year later? Spooky. Really. Especially in that it reminds me a lot of the patriocentric rhetoric.
March 31, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I’ve haven’t read here in awhile and have been trying to catch up. Someone mentioned Chris and Ellyn Davis of the Elijah Co. getting a divorce? Is that true? I was shocked to read that.
March 31, 2009 at 5:40 pm
They are in it for the money. That is why the have to keep on reinventing the wheel in order to present a “new” and “fresh” product to keep us dumb homeschoolers on their bated hook, every-buying their products in hopes that it will create a Christian Utopia in our own homes and somehow magically transform reality into a Pride and Prejudice plot.
March 31, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Corrie, the book Do Hard Things was extensively promoted shamelessly at the church and volunteers were recruited to operate much of the functions during the “full-accord events” of their conferences. The email blasts to the hofcc churches made it something of a full-church expected to participate event. How convenient that it is also Gregg Harris and his family’s bread and butter, while Harris calls working for another company other than your own family-owned/run business as not as biblical as what their interpretation of the Scriptures are.
When the premise promoted is that getting back to the “biblical” family involves a family enterprise, then what is the discerning listener/reader to understand? Those who come to their conferences on homeschooling, and even listen to the Sunday morning pulpit messages, will hear this agenda.
Now, for the Do Canard — oops, I mean Hard Things book: the Harris Twins and family campaigned heavily the congregation for Huckabee. They were, ahem, careful that they did not do it on the church website, or the Rebelution website (since it is under the jurisdiction now of the non-profit status of the church since The Rebelution.com is considered one of the church’s “ministries”, and functions under Noble Institute for “leadership development”, the description of it’s outreach to the community.
They ticked off many Ron Paul and other conservative voters during that election cycle and by their status in the church were able to sway people to support Huckabee’s campaign. I was not one of them, since I had done my own research. Cindy K. actually posted some information on Huckabee (if I remember correctly) and the info was shocking. He received support and funding from BILL GOTHARD to run his campaign. He is a graduate of ATI, and was also instrumental in getting “Character First!” implemented in Arkansas schools.
Another little tidbit about Huckabee that I thought was fascinating was that his WIFE ran for Secretary of State in Arkansas. Now, when the Alex and Brett Harris received a question on their highly-touted blog, by some girl whether they thought it was right for a woman to run/lead in political office, they remained completely silent on the issue. Given that they have laid out their understanding on their blog about the distinct “roles” men and women must play, citing exact quotes from Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology (portions of Scripture that are really in need of better discernment, IMO), it seems that they would also fall into the same line of thinking. Their father, Gregg, is also very vocal over the years about women are to come alongside men and follow their leading and vision. This has all been documented on my blog. Harris’ own words.
So, these two young Harris brothers are attending Patrick Henry College, a Michael Farris enterprise. What do you think will be the outcome for them? They are certainly ambitious, and if anyone thinks they will just start up some little book writing career, well, that may be, but I have a hunch they’ll branch into government (that evil, nasty secular thing you shouldn’t have anything to do with, especially if you’re even THINKING about homeschooling your kids through charter school funding!)
Gregg Harris lays out what each family should be doing with their resources and time and family in his Seasons of Life seminars, that are pretty much repackaged to his local church congregations on Sundays. In his Seasons of Life teachings, he teaches that the “householder”, i.e., husband/father, will go through seasons in his life where he is learning (teenage years), establishing a family (20+), building family business, then becoming an Elder in the church, then he will sit in the city gates (politics). I believe he is ramping up either himself and/or his twin sons to follow this pattern. Granted, the twins have their own successes in speech and debate and political help of the Justice down south somewhere.
In many, many of Gregg Harris’ speeches, he has very much emphasized the role of women to support the vision of her husband. Nothing about her having a vision of her own.
Funny thing is, when it suits their purposes (as in supporting a candidate that was in their speech and support CLEARLY the “biblical” candidate) they bring out all of the things that they previously have stated are off-limits to Christians who are supposed to follow a “biblical” world-view. Such as, Sono Harris, though her “role” preached about as wife to the visionary, is to take a back-seat to the successes of her husband, she was able to publish a whole list of personal, independent leadership positions she held while going to college and even during her early years of marriage. This was in a recent theatrical production one of the family’s at their church started for their community (it’s this other family’s new non-profit “ministry” to the unsaved, with Bible-themed musical productions). You’d think that would be a good thing, but the funny thing is that they had to hire their lead talent from a local liberal university and the lead actor is openly gay, professing to be a Christian. Now, this goes WAY past the strict family values and gender roles that the church is so adamant about towards it’s members, and they called THIS production event another “full accord event”, which means, they expected every family to participate and support and get people to attend this theatrical production.
It’s all about building up “businesstries” (THANKS to Sarahwalstonblog, for that word she made up. It’s brilliant!)
When Mrs. Harris can brag about her leadership accomplishments (in the local metropolitan ballet company she danced with while a wife/mom, her college leadership thing she led, her speeches put on by her family’s “non-profit” when they visited Japan, etc.) then why, oh why, did Gregg Harris advocate from the pulpit on a Sunday morning for the congregation to watch that abysmal “Return of the Daughters”? There’s more wackiness at my blog, about the nutty teachings this guy has, and how it will affect his sons’ teachings in the near or distant future. Anybody remember the crazy flack that came and is still coming with the “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” stuff Josh Harris wrote? Well, I have news: Gregg’s writing another book.
March 31, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I had way too much to say, and it came out probably sounding incoherant. I’m very sorry if it doesn’t make sense, so just ask me and I’ll try to clarify.
March 31, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Ooops, my answer was to Connie, not Corrie (my eyes need fixin’).
March 31, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Corrie said, “Anyone see the latest Oprah show on the Fundamentalist Mormons one year later? Spooky. Really. Especially in that it reminds me a lot of the patriocentric rhetoric.”
I caught the show, too, Corrie and thought the same thing in many ways.
I was struck by the high level of access the FLDS allowed Oprah. For example, Oprah got to informally interview a group of teenage girls, asking them whatever she wanted. Sometimes the girls (and later, other subjects) slipped and gave the “wrong” answers. You could clearly tell that some were lying by their hesitation and non-verbal clues. Oprah didn’t even need to editorialize much–she let the interviews speak for themselves.
I wondered why the FLDS let Oprah in like that, until I realized they probably thought they could convince her that they were right. They were foolish in their arrogance. I see that in the patrios as well. They have little idea of how weird they appear to the real world. They isolate themselves with only those that agree with them. They think they are smarter than us and can convince us stupid, ungodly types of whatever they’re trying to sell.
But arrogance usually comes back to bite in time.
March 31, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I don’t know whether Bill Gothard gave money to Huckabee, but they are both supported by Jim Leininger, co-owner or former owner of the Spurs Basketball team in San Antonio. Leininger also bankrolled Vision Forum and is the guy who bought Doug’s Phillips’ house for him.
I displayed a photo on my blog during the primaries of Bill Gothard with Jim Leininger.
Guess who is also the largest single contributor to HSLDA and Patrick Henry College?
March 31, 2009 at 7:46 pm
#383
Laurie -
I would be more shocked if it wasn’t monitored. And it’s not like all these girls are in one place, they’re spread out throughout the US population, in these small home churches. It’s not that hard for a small group to narrowcast themselves into virtual isolation anymore.
March 31, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Kathleen: “Well, I have news: Gregg’s writing another book.”
I gave a hearty LOL to your ominous tone…and realized it was funny preceisly BECAUSE it is truly ominous.
Those who are in my age group (pushing 30) probably remember the countless “college-aged groups” and “young singles” groups that you sat through having IKDG discussed like a Biblical scroll. I think some of you might remember my introductory post here last year in which I explained that for a brief time during high school and college, I widely touted the conservatism of my own views. Part of this reason was because I enjoyed being shocking, but also because I latched onto Harris and thought, “a-Ha! This is like the semi-arranged marriages my parents had back home! Westerners are copying us instead of mocking us–awesome!”
I now realize that MANDATED courtship engineered by parents (usually fathers) is hooey. You couldn’t pay me enough money in the world to endorse Harris’ or VF’s man-made rules (caveat: I recall Harris’s ideas being a lot less nuts than VF and company). One would think that if mandated courtship were so very important to biblical marriage (the definition of which is itself contested), SOMEONE in the NT would have mentioned that fact: Jesus? John? Paul? WHO?
March 31, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Debbie from CA, I quite agree with your assessment of the Oprah show.
I just loved watching those young teens sit in the circle with Oprah. Some of them, especially Olive and that blonde girl with the saucy wit, were brimming with vigor and mental activity and intellectual sparkle. But then I felt sadness that all of these marvelous gifts were subsumed by the party line they had CLEARLY been trained into repeating.
It was very, very clear to me that they had been well-coached.
Explain to me how EVERY SINGLE PERSON–man, woman and child–responded to Oprah’s question (“what age is acceptable for girls to get married?”) with the SAME answer: “18 sounds good to me,” “I’ve always felt 18 was a good age,” “hmmm….I’d say 18.”
oh, REALLY? No one’s answer differed.
And the girl who returned back to the ranch after 4 years out—yikes! She was so flushed and nervous and conflicted, it was painful watching her!!
Ach.
Human’s laws and the havoc they wreak.
March 31, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Good observation about the 18-year-old line, Emmy. And yes, Oprah was terrific with those girls. She connected with them in a surprising manner and pulled out some of their spark within, spark that had yet to be extinguished. I think Oprah would have loved to raid those delightful girls from the compound herself and offer them a better life apart from their futures as polygamous wives.
The mothers, on the other hand, tried to cover their defeated existence with nervous laughter, but their dead eyes and rehearsed speeches gave them away.
I think life has gotten even worse for the FLDS since they moved to Texas. Now the women have to take their young children out into the fields for the better part of the day and work the crops by hand. The children don’t know what “play” is. Work has officially and unashamedly replaced any concept of play on the compound.
March 31, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Sadly, those spunky FLDS girls will soon be married off, and by the time they’re able to entertain the idea that perhaps they deserve more than no education, and a family that can be largely political (which wife has favor), and more children than they could support, they’ll already have 3 or four children and be living on a ranch where even the police work for the Prophet. It’s very sad.
Karen, I like what you said about the clauses. The very fact that there is such a clause disproves their point. Obviously, some women are meant to teach, just as others are meant to work (like Deborah), etc. etc. These women are in the bible. And just because they’re “non-normative” doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, and can’t be doing God’s work. So, how can they be so sure that I’m not doing what God wants me to be doing?
They can’t. But if they allow us women to talk, to teach, to be involved, to be educated, we will present a great threat to their authority, their power, and ultimately, their bottom line.
March 31, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Kelli,
Regarding comment 387, yes, the Davises got divorced. It was 2 or 3 years ago I think.
I was pretty shocked when I discovered that, too. I felt bad for them but also a little duped. Someone I know from another message board who is a good friend of theirs said she didn’t know why and didn’t want to. Neither Chris or Ellyn has ever explained and I try to cut them some slack since it’s personal. But I think they owed it to their customers to make some sort of announcement or something instead of let everyone think they’ve been married all this time.
I don’t get Ellyn’s e-mails anymore but I visit Chris’s blog once in awhile. He went to Israel for a few months and it made for some interesting reading. He’s substitute teaching now and working on a book.
April 1, 2009 at 9:02 am
Following up with my fascination with the Howard Phillips angle, I read much of his blog last night. It consists of many trips down memory lane often accompanied by obituary of a recently deceased government figure Howard knew.
In terms of social issues he seems most pre-occupied with gay people. He argues that the Republican party should expose and expel all practicing homosexuals in their midst. He departs from his normally measured writing style to label gay people as “sodomites” and “homos.” One recent entry called “Homos on Parade” lists a number of gay people in President Obama’s administration.
Howard doesn’t seem pre-occupied by women’s roles at all, though he undoubtedly disagrees with feminism. He wrote a column praising recently deceased Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn. He writes about how he encouraged one of his daugthers to attend Hillsdale College to study with a particular economist.
Most notably, Howard recounts his friendship with feminist journalist Vera Galser (recently deceased at 92). Howard notes that Vera told him her secrets and wanted him to date her daughter. Howard quotes at length from a flattering obituary which recounts the story of how Vera put President Nixon on the spot in front of millions of viewers to ask why his administration had so few women and whether he thought this was an imbalance that should be corrected. Howard titled his post about Vera Glaser “A Successful Feminist.” In contrast, it is impossible to imagine Doug befriending a feminist, or writing in a gracious or respectful way about a feminist.
Again, I think the difference may be that Howard, as a politician, had to accept the world as it is to a much greater extent, and was forced to rub shoulders with people from opposing viewpoints in order to accomplish anything. Doug on the other hand is all about creating a new world as he thinks it SHOULD be. Howard may well be in total agreement with Doug’s view of the what the world SHOULD be, while better able to accept and function in the world as it IS.
*Now shutting up about Howard Phillips*
April 1, 2009 at 9:13 am
Somehow I missed Cynthia’s comment yesterday:
Never forget that what we are dealing with is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT — I am convinced that the religious aspect of all this is largely a smokescreen, ideological bait to attract fundamentalist Christians and lure them to where they will allow themselves to be molded into a particular political mindset
I assume you are talking about the Constitution Party and the Religious Right in general rather than Doug’s activities? Because even if Howard is just taking on a politically convenient persona (something I think President Bush definitely did), it sure seems as though Doug takes it awfully seriously.
The idea has definitely crossed my mind that this Vision Forum is more a matter of business than it is of personal conviction. But then it appears that Doug and his family are walking-the-walk. He does in fact have a lot of kids and he is in fact homeschooling them. It seems that it would be impossible for him to allow his daughters to leave home before marriage or go off to college. That seems like an awfully major thing to do to your kids if such conduct doesn’t actually reflect your beliefs.
April 1, 2009 at 9:25 am
I don’t know if Doug is a “true believer” or not… but it’s kind of funny how he and Beall did such a quick “180″ when it came to Beall voting last fall.
Regardless of Doug’s religious beliefs, he IS a part of the religious arm of the movement (which I suspect is considerably larger than the Constitution Party), and as such is responsible for selling the religious right a paradigm which lines up with the larger goals of Howard Phillips and friends.
April 1, 2009 at 9:49 am
That seems like an awfully major thing to do to your kids if such conduct doesn’t actually reflect your beliefs.
Laurie,
I don’t believe that this is the case if you only know love as duty and deadness and lack of real intimacy. If those around you are like unto objects for your use, I would think it would be rather easy. That is what ideological totalism (religious cultic behavior) is all about. The totalism wins out over the ideology eventually, and the end justifies the means. He could well be doing it and not really believe it, that is if people are just the means to an end for him.
April 1, 2009 at 10:52 am
Ooooh. Good point, Cindy. But that implies that perhaps he is a sociopath or, more likely, has narcissistic personality disorder. Not that that is impossible or even unlikely by any means. (I think NPD is quite common and have experienced people who have it myself.)
April 1, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I’d like to point out that many conservative flesh and blood descendants of puritans exist. For example, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are descended from early New England puritans. Hardly left wingers. I’m personally descended from early New England puritans, and I’m not liberal, either.
Further, I commend to you the book Radical Origins: Early Mormon Converts and Their Colonial Ancestors. Many early LDS leaders were descended from puritans.
We didn’t all stay in New England. And we represent many races and creeds, not just WASPY rich Massachusetts liberals.
April 1, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I guess only the ones I know!
Didn’t mean to stereotype. I guess my main point is that it is really hard to control how your descendents turn out. I am pretty sure my lifestyle and my values would make my great grandfather’s head spin!
April 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm
The whole “no play” part of the FLDS really bothered me, especially since I have heard many patrios espouse the same concept. I once heard a presentation where the woman only allows her children 1 hour of play on Saturdays and she gets to decide what they are allowed to play (of course, they aren’t allowed to play with undesirable neighbor children).
I am all about working hard but not allowing children to play? Gads. They will be underdeveloped, for sure, if they are not allowed to play and use their imaginations and explore the world around them.
April 1, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Oh, my, ladies… Doug Phillips just posted a rant on what a non-racist he is, but strangely enough, the permalink does not work. Here’s a sampling:
“The second group who hate answers like the one that Voddie and I gave include people with an agenda to smear Christians and Christian ministries. Not content to address real ideas and real positions, they resort to perverse fact-twisting, bizarre analogical reasoning, outrageous straw men—-anything to appeal to those silly and undiscerning individuals who can be easily taken captive by the fear-mongering tactics of the kook-brigade. This point becomes clear should you find yourself surfing the web and stumble across “Christianswholovebabiesareracists.com,” or perhaps “womenwhoareatleasttentimessmarterthanourweaklinghusbands.com,” or even “holyfeministswiththespiritualgiftoflying.com.”
He’s worked himself into quite a lather, hasn’t he? LOL.
April 1, 2009 at 9:07 pm
“I am all about working hard but not allowing children to play? Gads.”
It’s not so surprising, really, that the patrios are uncomfortable with the idea of play. Jesus praised little children, and said that adults ought to be more like them.
The devil, on the other hand, takes the opposite position — he hates children, and wants them to become as much like adults as possible, as soon as possible.
We see this in the secular world, in the push to sexualize young kids at earlier and earlier ages, and we see this same paradigm played out in religious cult settings in the push to curtail play and imagination and turn kids into miniature versions of adult cult members.
April 2, 2009 at 12:39 am
#404: Laurie, when I withdrew my support from Vision Forum and in discussing my concerns with American Vision at many times during 2006 and 2007 (for the increasing presence of VF material and Phillips), I used the term “sociopath” frequently. And I really had separated myself completely from the patriocentrists and this discussion between 2004 until May of 2007, so my strong opinions are based on what I knew personally prior to 2004.
I’ve put a great deal about this on my blog under “con-artists.” And if you read the general description of NPD and all of the criteria, who does every single one sound like? Of course, to rightly apply the diagnosis, you have to do a comprehensive history for comparison and an objective assessment inventory, but how do you think psychologists know which inventory beyond the general MMPI might be warranted? They observe and assess notable characteristics. Though Phillips has seriously toned down his publicized anger and aggression since the aftermath of the Midwest Christian Outreach about VF, he used to splash it all over his internet billboards in the past. I don’t think you have to be a trained professional to see the problems (save if you are not responding to it all from a confirmation bias).
April 2, 2009 at 12:49 am
Laurie in #400: I believe that much of that terminology and language comes from Rushdoony in print and in person, BTW. I hear Rushdoony language in nearly everything of the patriocentrists, too, though often they take the terms and info far out of context. Like the recent photo of Baucham on my blog with the powerpoint presentation in the background, some of that is Rushdoony language.
April 2, 2009 at 1:41 am
Dear Doug,
I don’t hate your answer about inter-racial marriage.
I’d just bet $100 that none of your kids marry an African-American.
You might want to lay off the “fear-mongering kook” attack line. Given the totality of your rhetoric over the years, you might cause folks to wonder if it takes one fear mongering kook to spot another one.
Because when all else fails, you call your enemy a Baby Hating Feminist.
April 2, 2009 at 7:53 am
“I am all about working hard but not allowing children to play? Gads. They will be underdeveloped, for sure, if they are not allowed to play and use their imaginations and explore the world around them.”
Anyone with an ounce of understanding about children and their development knows that children’s play IS their work.
I got the same vibes from the Botkins. I have no sense that those kids actually ever played and when I read their expectations on their 13 year olds I was stunned.
April 2, 2009 at 7:58 am
“Oh, my, ladies… Doug Phillips just posted a rant on what a non-racist he is, but strangely enough, the permalink does not work. Here’s a sampling:”
I think Doug forgot one group in his tirade…those who actually can think and reason and discern what under the hood of his rhetoric.
I stand and applaud his position and Voddie’s position. But it is hard to swallow in the midst of all the Dabney worship. And the sales of Elsie Dinsmore. And the publishing of the original Henty books. And the refusal to answer questions about this over the years. And the tone and condescension and spin in that blog entry. And their many other ideas about hierarchy and feudalism. Shall I continue?
April 2, 2009 at 8:01 am
“We see this in the secular world, in the push to sexualize young kids at earlier and earlier ages, and we see this same paradigm played out in religious cult settings in the push to curtail play and imagination and turn kids into miniature versions of adult cult members.”
This is one thing that has always bothered me about what is being marketed at homeschooling conventions and in the patriocentric groups. There is such a push to turn children into miniature adults. And so many of those families place their children on display only to find out later how unhappy those children are. Nothing is sadder than a stuffy 10 year old, imho.
April 2, 2009 at 8:02 am
“Though Phillips has seriously toned down his publicized anger and aggression since the aftermath of the Midwest Christian Outreach about VF, he used to splash it all over his internet billboards in the past”
Well, maybe he has tone it down some, but this latest rant sound pretty angry to me. And I still remember his rant about college that I quoted on the into to patriarchy podcast. What a nut case. He compared women who discuss these issues to cows.
April 2, 2009 at 8:30 am
I have so many other books to buy that this won’t be one of them for quite a while! Hmm wonder if the library has it…
April 2, 2009 at 9:03 am
Don’t you think that Doug HAD to address the race issue on his blog this week because John Holzmann, a many with much credibility, is checking this out now and even linked to the kinism website on his blog this week?
Karen,
It could be just as likely that Doug Phillips is using controversy to promote his book. It does have some good sting in it, however.
What I’d like to know is exactly what Council got together to canonize both Calvin and Rushdooney? I have learned much from reading his work, agree with some and disagree with some of it, too. There is also early, mid and late Rushdoony, as he softened on some of the more problematic teachings. Yet I might be run out to Rhode Island for making such a statement, that Rushdoony is not in the canon. Too much of this is about politics and not enough of it is about the Word. And in the end, as Sarah aptly observes, all they have to really rely upon is pejorative. Much of what they teach is intramural but they insist that these matters are essential doctrine and with no cause for question. If they do engage their critics on the level of ideas, they would have to defend their positions and they cannot. They would have to show respect to other believers with whom they disagree and they would have to admit that many of these things are intramural. It is easier to throw pejoratives around and call arguments contrived and convoluted. You’ve got to have something to tell the tourists, you know. They have cognitive dissonance working in their favor concerning their followers and most of them will capitulate to “Doug said…” But really, that is all that they have and that is preferable to them than showing respect to their critics.
Now, here’s an interesting observation… Why do these very important people get so upset over what silly and hateful people have to say? My grandmother always said “Consider the source” concerning the opinions of others and whether they were worth attention or stress. (A layman’s interpretatiof of the risk of answering a fool in their folly?)
First, how do they even know what these silly, hateful people are saying if it is irrelevant? They would have to be engaged in reading the silly stuff. And secondly, if they believe that these people are particularly silly and without reason, why is it that they deserve honorable mention? The lady doth protest too much methinks, or is there concern that there might be some method in the silly, hateful madness?
April 2, 2009 at 11:31 am
Cindy K wrote,
“Why do these very important people get so upset over what silly and hateful people have to say?”
Because what the “silly and undiscerning people” in the “kook-brigade” say hits home with them on some level.
As your grandmother points out, when someone is sure that they are right, it doesn’t matter much what detractors say. But when a person is NOT so sure, it becomes very important to silence dissent, for fear that others will listen and agree, AND even more importantly, to silence that nagging voice that comes in the night and keeps you awake with the awful suggestion that maybe, just maybe, the dissenters are right, and you yourself are WRONG.
April 2, 2009 at 11:43 am
I just went and read the new Vision Forum blog piece that others here have mentioned. I think it’s funny because Doug mentions that people build strawmen out of them. The subject of the post concerns both Doug and Voddie’s rejection of miscegenation (race mixing). If Doug had me in mind when he wrote his post, he has made a strawman out of me. In fact, I believe that Doug is actually opposed somewhat to miscegenation considering that he helped RC 2.0 adopt a son with black skin. And this is why the kinists now rail against both Doug and RC 2.0, even exploiting and using Jen Epstien to create trouble for Doug in particular by advising her and aiding her in her blog. I never believed that Doug advocated miscegenation.
What I have said is that Doug’s position on slavery is ambiguous and it is paradoxical because of the overlap with the League of the South and such, giving lectures on Southern Patriarchy and hailing Dabney, etc. And he has preached what are essentially agrarian economics and embraced much of their principles, though this is not good PR. In fact, I have listed my specific questions about these matters online for God and everybody to read. It is paradoxical. I also wrote a blog post called “Perception: A Major Problem for Patriarchy.” There has been a gross lack of clarifying statements and commentary on these overlapping belief systems, and people find it confusing.
In Doug’s post, he says that there are two groups of people that will hate his post. First will be the kinists and racists. Then will be the internet assasins who suck in silly women with their hatred of their fellow Christians or some such thing.
For the record, I would like to say that I applaud the definitive statement on where these men say that they stand on miscegenation. Doug wrote a very good post about the truth of Scripture on the matter and I celebrate it. May there be more such clarifying statements, all I’ve ever wanted to see on these points of ambiguity.
As for this comment on marrying someone from another race or ethnic group, I don’t think that it answers any of the other questions I have asked about the other matters concerning the teachings of Dabney and some of the early racist comments made by Rushdoony early in his career, who will be the slaves in the agrarian economic system, etc.
It’s a step in the right direction, and I am glad to see Vision Forum come out with a statement to clarify this. I hope that it will be followed by many more, and I hope that they continue to refine their documents. Though I find the way that they handled the matter pathetic, I am glad that they changed their tune on women voting. Maybe next month, they will change their position on women working outside the home.
I am very happy to see them make such statements, and anything that makes their positions clearer, particularly those positions that show that they are abandoning the problematic and are coming into line with what the Bible actually teaches. I am thrilled.
Someone said to me of their changing of the Tenets recently that this is bad because they likely did not change their beliefs and hearts, only just the paperwork. I look at this as a plus though because they are coming closer to a better statement that is more reasonable. At least they won’t be spewing hateful things like they have in the past. It went unabated before, and now they are pulling back. Better the church put the pressure on them and get them to temper themselves than to have the world do it. It may be for all the wrong reasons (PR, money and to not look so nutty), but at least it is a change in the right direction. That is good for the Body.
Horray, Doug! You are not with the kinists on this point! Horray Voddie that you are do not support educational antinomianism. That’s wonderful. But I didn’t have any doubts about these particular specifics. But keep the clarifications coming. My honest questions have been displayed online for many months. I look forward to those specific answers.
April 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Interesting anti-racism post by our VF form friends. I must remain officially neutral on the matter of their sincerity, because, to be honest, I’ve been so traumatized by their twistings of scripture in the area of gender (and their subsequent coverups–see, e.g. “helpmeets”) that I can’t help but wonder whether they have come up with some dismaying view of race that they are also hiding.
I have strong views on Christians who traffic in concepts like “racial distinctiveness” and racially unyoked marriages.”
As soon as so-called “Bible-believing” Christian preachers sermonize or even “gently recommend” against marriage between people whose ancestors came from different parts of the world, the red flag goes up and STAYS up.
I believe the New Testament is strongly anti-racist and universalist. Jesus treating Samaratians with respect, “no Gentile or Jew, woman or man,” the events of Pentecost, the “every nation, tribe, etc.” verse–there are numerous examples of this. The Old Testament’s literal tribalism has been modified with an extension of God’s grace to all.
I laugh at racist “Christians” of any ethnic background (that includes non-Europeans) who assert that people with different geographic origins shouldn’t “mix”–as though human beings are cake batters and not God’s children. I laugh over how their views “out” them as people who have BEGUN with a set worldview (see my post a few days ago) and latched onto Christianity and tried to map it onto their value system.
Racist Christian leaders’ faulty argument#1:
“Well, but all those verses that talk about universalism in Christ are just saying that we all share in a SPIRTUAL kingdom. The Bible says that all Believers are equal in God’s eyes despite their gender or race; that’s not the same thing as condoning physical marriage between these believers are different backgrounds!!! Just because person of Group X is my brother or sister in Christ, does that mean I have to MARRY them? No!”
Faulty Argument #2:
“Well, it’s not that the Bible technically speaks out against intermarriage, it’s just that it’s BETTER FOR THE CHILDREN [that old racist saw] if they don’t grow up with the confusion and dissionance of different “CULTURAL” backgrounds [to which Emmy says: "oh, so I guess Welsh Christians shouldn't marry German Christians....seeing as how they have different cultures, right? Neither should Nigerian Christians marry Black American Christians, even though a goodly chunk of the latter have some Nigerian ancestry...seeing as how their cultures are so radically different and all. Oh, no? You mean those unions would be okay? Hmmmm. Wonder why."]
Rubbish.
These are all real arguments I’ve heard made, by the way, folks.
I am amused especially by those European-ancestry Christians who spout off about how “Western culture” has been the natural breeding ground for Christianity and its noble messages. Apparently they’ve conveniently “forgotten” not only the West Asian backdrop of Yeshua and his cohorts, but that for the first few hundred years of the faith, African (Coptic Ethiopian/Egyptian and western North African) communities carried the banner of Christianity while the Europeans resisted this weird Eastern cult.
Historical revisionism is what these “worldview Christians” specialize in.
In fact, I think I’m going to pull a thatmom and coin that phrase.
“Worldview Christians” are the types of people I mention in my post above and here. They give primacy to their pet worldview, not to the Gospel, but scream bloody murder if you suggest that the source of their views is cultural/social, and not the Bible.
IMO, Christians are people who take their cues from Jesus and the Apostles’ emphases on the spirit. Worldview Christians are people whose concerns largely center on the flesh, particulary unchosen biological identities. Whereas Christians believe all people–irrespective of sexual organs or geographic location of one’s ancestors–share equally in the spirit and grace of Jesus’s kingdom, Worldview Christians’ unseemly focus remains on which genitals you were born with or on which continent your ancestors were born.
Worldview Christians do so much damage to Christianity and to non-Christians’ views of the religion that it makes my head spin.
April 2, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Has anyone else ever been to this woman, Tanya’s, blog? Here’s a recent post about the influence of Dabney on the patrio movement:
http://old-fashionedmusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/marketing-of-titus-2-woman-part-7.html
I recall reading something on a feminist forum that linked to her writings, and they were very anti-woman and patrio, so I mentally relegated her to the category of “unquestioning Vision-ary.”
But apparently, judging from her post here about Dabney and the comments (scroll down) to her, she has had a change of heart about at least one topic popular with some patrios.
April 2, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Ha ha, never mind–I see Cindy K and others beat me there! Good on you!
April 2, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Apparently they’ve conveniently “forgotten” not only the West Asian backdrop of Yeshua and his cohorts, but that for the first few hundred years of the faith, African (Coptic Ethiopian/Egyptian and western North African) communities carried the banner of Christianity while the Europeans resisted this weird Eastern cult.”
Not to mention the entire Eastern Orthodox Church (the second largest single Christian communion in the world with an estimated 225.0 million members worldwide), who would see Doug Phillips and his ilk as a bunch of theologically illiterate, redneck Johnny-come-latelys.
April 2, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Okay. We need to get a function that allows us to “green” great posts, so that the authors can know they’re appreciated.
April 2, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Emmy (Comment #422),
In my previous comment about Vision Forum’s statement on miscegenation, I did not mean to imply that I believe that just because statements are made that it heralds sincerity. When I posted info about my emails back and forth with Voddie on my blog, I received several warnings from several kind people in Houston warning me that Voddie was not anyone to be trusted. Some of the emails are from quite credible people.
So I suffer no delusions, and I think that these types of statements are very likely just PR damage control. I don’t trust that any of it necessarily reflects good character but is more likely a response to getting caught with a hand in the cookie jar.
What I do think is very good is that they are formalizing statements and setting standards that are far more Christian sounding and softer than they were. It may give them wiggle room (cause for plausible deniability), but it also does reign them in somewhat. For example, when VF finally responded to Don Veinot’s questions after the MCO article, they were asked whether they believed that those who were NOT Reformed and those who followed different eschatology were considered Christians. But their response of “Yes” set a precedent that can now be used to hold them accountable. It is something that, prior to the statement, remained ambiguous. It is at least something.
For example, I don’t think that Doug carries on by publicly calling people Canaanites anymore, and I don’t think he’s going to make that mistake again. (I hope that he doesn’t, anyway.) People who look to him for “vision benchmarking” as a role model will learn that it’s not acceptable to treat other Believers in such a way, and that when you do, there will be consequences (if they look that deeply at it). Acting pious and elitist and being pompous about it puts you on the counter-cult apologetics radar screen. And if Doug is no longer calling people “Canaanites” on a regular basis, people will not see this as commonplace and will not feel license to do it themselves. So it is not a repentance, but at least the behavior is kept in check. Attrition is not as desirable as contrition, but attrition is better than acting out.
April 3, 2009 at 12:23 am
Whoa.
Has anyone seen these “big family t-shirt websites”?
I particularly like this one:
http://www.cafepress.com/scrappintwins/1473923
which reads “One baby? I laugh at your one baby!”
God forbid when I get married my husband or I wind up having fertility problems. Apparently God only ever opens the womb; Him closing it is a laughable suggestion at best.
April 3, 2009 at 12:51 am
Cindy K: Oh, I was quite aware your post was not an endorsement of VB and DW’s anti-racist commentary. I certainly don’t think you’re as credulous as all that!
When Stacey M. posted her life story a few weeks back, I suspected, as some here did, that she was only doing so because critics forced her hand (too little too late?) But, on the other hand, I did have to give her props (and still do) for at least addressing the topic, and airing her private business, albeit in a manner that made her look like the good guy.
Perhaps that’s what you mean when you say:
Attrition is not as desirable as contrition, but attrition is better than acting out.
April 3, 2009 at 8:35 am
http://www.cafepress.com/scrappintwins/1473923
which reads “One baby? I laugh at your one baby!”
>gavel slam!<
“WRONG spirit! Case closed.”
This is the kind of thing that makes my argument so easy. That, and such typical pharisaical slips as calling other Believers “Canaanites”. :p
April 3, 2009 at 9:09 am
Has anyone read the book
“The Family God’s Weapon For Victory”m by Robert Andrews?
April 3, 2009 at 9:19 am
Momgodin, where are other believers called Canaanites? I think I’ve missed those sites.
April 3, 2009 at 9:30 am
Catherine,
There was a phase when all of these guys including Gothard went around telling their followers that they were a cut above other Christians for following their paradigms. Gothard is into the higher life movement which many pentecostals are into, but elitist groups like Vision Forum also embrace this idea which is really nothing more than gnosticism. There is a better and higher way to be a Christian, and you can be a better, higher grade of one. (There are hierarchies everwhere, apparently.) I know I was taught this in pentecostal churches because those who spoke in tongues essentially had more “power credentials.” VF does the same thing, but instead, they look to conformity with their extra Biblical behavioral standards as the sign of the higher life, as opposed to the Pentecostals’ looking to tongues, signs and wonders.
But in the heat of Doug’s aggression and outspokenness some years ago, he was in the habit of calling those outside of his narrowly defined group as “Canaanites.” They were people who called themselves Christians and went through the motions, but they didn’t do it right and were spiritually like the pagan peoples whom the Israelites were supposed to kill and conquer like the days of Joshua taking the Holy Land.
Don Veinot noted it in his article, and I think he footnotes where others have documented Doug saying this. Other groups had their versions of this, too, but I don’t think they were as caustic in their choice of descriptors:
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2007/spring_2007.pdf
April 3, 2009 at 9:37 am
I think those t-shirts aren’t actually talking about large families, but families with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) I would never wear one, as I know that women’s struggles with infertility are extremely painful (and the whole attitude of the tee is kind of braggy), but as the mom of twins, I can see that they’re *trying* to be humorous. I mean there is something about having to do every baby-related activity twice (or three times for some) in a row that is exhausting & exhilarating at the same time. Just my $.02…
April 3, 2009 at 9:53 am
Joanna,
About a year and a half ago, someone actually did post a link to a cafepress site where you could buy tshirts and other things like undies for your husband with patriocentric stuff printed on them. (Some of us procrastinated about buying them as gag gifts.) I was a little angry because it was Corrie and I who talked about it here on TW a couple of months before they appeared. I added in that they should also sell herbal formulas with Yohimbine and call it “Patriarch’s Pal.” I forget what I thought of calling the herbal female corrective. But there used to be a bunch of such Tshirts and such on cafe press.
April 3, 2009 at 10:48 am
Cindy, I totally believe it, I was just talking about those t-shirts in particular. A twin-mommy-friend had sent me a little virtual button with one of those same messages on it as a inside (or should I say twinside) joke (harhar).
April 3, 2009 at 11:16 am
I just want Corrie to get the credit where it’s due!
Technically, I think it was her idea bounced off of some sarcastic thing I had to say. Nothing says “Merry Christmas” like a pair of boxer trunks with “Big Daddy Patriarch” silk screened on them! Or “Future Patriarchy in the Oven” with a big arrow pointing down.
April 3, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Sounds good to me.
April 4, 2009 at 8:59 am
Cindy, thank you for that link. It was quite informative. Perhaps this is simply my interpretation of scripture, but it seems to me that the people who were most concerned with who would be first in the kingdom were essentially told, “stop worrying yourself with that or you’ll be dead last.”
April 4, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I agree, Cynthia. Standing up to a bully as a group is usually pretty darned effective.
April 5, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Sorry to bother y’all, but could you pray for my left leg? It’s been hurting for about 8 days now, and it’s getting worse. I was seen in the ER Friday night to rule out the possibility of a blood clot, since I’ve had them in this leg before, and they didn’t find any, but I’m beginning to wonder if maybe they missed something — BOY, this leg hurts!
Thanks……………………….Cynthia
April 6, 2009 at 12:13 am
Cynthia, thanks for letting us pray for you. Please take care of yourself.
April 6, 2009 at 2:22 am
Marcia,
I believe these ladies are well aware of what they are doing.
They are fighting against “Christian” beliefs that teach women are sub-human, baby machines, and should submit to abuse.
These are teachings that have hurt these women and their families greatly.
They are addressing teachings that some claim is heresy. These teachings are sneaking into acceptance without people knowing what they truly are.
They see a teacher claim to be one thing, but they know him to be another. These ladies point out the differences.
I am aware of many blogs that can get 200 comments in an hour. This blog gets roughly 17 per day. Please notice that this thread was started almost 1 month ago and has been commented on by many different women during different times of the day and from different time zones across the world. So while it may appear to be a continuous stream of comments, it is just that, an appearance.
The women here are wives, mothers, homeschoolers, public schoolers, nurses, counselors, teachers. I can assure you, they are busy. They are busy helping those who have been trapped by this seductive teaching. Those trapped are very much the lost/hurt people you describe. I can testify that these ladies saved me from being dragged into patriocentric teachings.
Please, do not discount their work.
Please do not think so little of them.
April 6, 2009 at 2:34 am
P.S. I come to this blog as well as several others for fellowship. When there is pain and suffering, these ladies do not throw out phrases like “just have faith” or “there must be some unrepented sin in your life” or “get over it”, there is genuine mourning with the person.
I cannot say this of any church I have attended.
April 6, 2009 at 8:34 am
Wonderfully put Nicole.I too appreciate the depth of knowledge and wisdom, gained through adversity that is represented on this blog.I am thankful to those women who spend some of their precious time here warning of the pitfalls of patriocentricity. I trust that God has placed on their hearts a desire to help others trapped in this lifestyle of lies.
This ‘time spent’ argument is getting quite old. I guess there is nothing more these folks can say.
April 6, 2009 at 9:34 am
Cynthia, I hope you are feeling better this morning. We will be praying for you, that it isn’t a blood clot. {{{}}}
April 6, 2009 at 9:35 am
Kathleen, yo crack me up!
April 6, 2009 at 10:11 am
I cam across this verse this morning in my study and thought it might bless someone else, too.
2 Corinthians 13:4
“For though He was crucified in weakness, yet He lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, but we shall live with Him by the power of God toward you.”
Doesn’t that just bless you clear down to your toes this morning?
April 6, 2009 at 11:43 am
To Marcia the Nurse,
As Nicole pointed out, if you had looked at the dates and times of people contributing, you would have seen that we’re not online “hours and hours” and this is not time wasted. These are serious issues that need to be pressed by responsible members of the body of Christ. Get your head out of the sand!
It’s strange that you would think we should be accountable to you for our time, when these self appointed leaders don’t even have to qualify as biblical elders!
I’m also surprised that you, a nurse, would think that other Christian women are not serving as you are. My husband works at a local mission’s addiction program while I teach eight of our twelve children. I just hosted a Homeschool Alumni weekend fellowship retreat with fifteen out of state guests- in our home. And I’m seven months pregnant. Do I have permission to sit here and read for a spell?? Thank you! :rolleyes:
April 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm
This is off-topic, but I am really looking for some information. I have a toddler whom I suspect MIGHT be autistic, due to it running very prevalently in our family (every one of my aunts who have boys have one autistic one, all at different stages though, some barely autistic and some very autistic). My mom is the only one that didn’t have an autistic child…because she had all girls. In our family, it’s all BOYS who are autistic.
He is going to the doctor in a few weeks and I want to talk more to the doctor about it then. He is showing many signs of this.
Do any of you ladies know anything about autism, particularly in small toddlers? If so, please reply to me so I can talk to you.
Thanks.
April 6, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Karen – loved the verse! Thank you for bringing this and other words of encouragement to our days.
Kathleen – thanks for sharing the lyrics. You have a gift for this–have you thought of starting a band and taking your act on the road?
Cynthia – am praying for relief from your leg pain and wisdom for you and the doctors.
MrsW – don’t have any personal knowledge of autism, but will pray that you get answers to your concerns about your little guy.
Nicole, Mary and Momgodin – good words well spoken. Momgodin, you definitely have “permission” to sit and read a spell. I think probably every woman on this forum has a plate that is quite full, but sees that the examination of teachings and protection of wandering sheep is a priority.
Marcia – Your concern for the feelings and reputations of others, as well as for the hearts and time usage of those who spend time here is a good reminder for all of us to examine our motives. I am glad that you have found the freedom to be a fulltime working woman. I can’t remember if you are married or not, but regardless, if you had been trapped in some of the extrabiblical rules set out by the patrio leaders who are being warned against here, I am sure your life would be quite different from the one you enjoy now. It is for this very freedom (not to be rebellious or sinful, but to be able to enjoy the purpose and vision that the Lord graciously intends for each woman to have) that thinking women will still be continuing to post here.
April 6, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Btw, hope I made it clear that the “freedom” is not necessarily for all women to be working women, but to be able pursue the calling the Lord lays on their hearts, whether wife, mother, missionary, teacher, nurse, etc.
April 6, 2009 at 3:24 pm
mrs. w.,
I would be happy to answer any of your questions. I have an 8 year old who has autism. When my last baby was 12 months, he started to lose language, and I thought, “here we go again!” well, i immediately put him on the diet that my now 8 year old is on. He just turned 3, and he is developmentally on target. I wish I would have known to do the diet so early with my other one, but I didn’t realize that all children with autism didn’t sit in the corner and twirl their thumbs. I am more than happy to write to you.
Blessings,
Amanda
April 6, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Mrs. W, email Anne at annebasso@gmail.com . She’s my best friend, so she won’t mind my giving this out… she has two boys with autism- her older boy has apserger’s and her 3 year old is also on the scale. Email her. She knows what she’s talking about and its VERY easy to overdose with information on the internet and work yourself into a frenzy.
April 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm
MrsW,
You’re getting good advice from these ladies based on the small amount I know on the subject, and I’m sure Anne will be an invaluable resource for you. First thing I would do is put him on the diet (gluten [all wheat, rye and barley] free and casein (all dairy) free diet- GFCF for short). It’s really easy to do a google search and find out what to exclude, but for starters, just start serving simple meals of meat and vegetables, and eggs (no cereal, except perhaps oatmeal occasionally) for breakfast, if you’re looking for a quick implement. Cut down on just about all sugar, and even limit fruit consumption for this reason. Don’t be surprised if he acts up when you make the diet changes, and if he does, rejoice! because that means it’s working on getting some of the toxins out of his system, but the “acting up/being out of sorts” shouldn’t last longer than 2-4 days.
Anyway, I’m sure Anne know way more, but hopefully this will get you started.
Lots of love!
Alisa
April 6, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I would like to make a gentle reminder that true needs are not just limited to those who are hurting, lost, or homeless. It is grievous to elevate one over the other and imply that one’s pain is inferior to another’s.
The innocent ones, even the “least of these” within these movements and under these teachings, are every bit as valid . . .as are their hurts, secret heartaches, and wanderings. I thank God for those who minister to the bodily needs of those who lack, just as I thank Him for those who minister to the emotional, spiritual, and mental needs of those who also lack. This is a lovely reflection of the body of Christ, interwoven within the tapestry of mankind.
April 6, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Oh Hillary! That is SO true!
Some of the children (and mothers) of these cults suffer the effects for years, and even turn away from the truth altogether.
Jesus said, Woe unto them, by whom offences come! (Matt 18:6,7)
April 7, 2009 at 8:36 am
Thanks ladies. Interestingly enough, my son is already gluten free, casein free as the doctor found him to be allergic to those things early on. I am thinking that might be why we didn’t really pin down any of his symptoms until now.
April 7, 2009 at 8:56 am
Mrs W,
I know you’ve got a ton of love in that tender heart of yours that will give you whatever you need to devote yourself to meeting the needs of your son, whatever is going on. I thank God that He gives you encouragement always and that you will be filled with wisdom (something promised to us without any restrictions when we ask for it).
April 7, 2009 at 10:13 am
When someone confronts you and holds you accountable threaten legal action….I am sure that this is in the Bible somewhere.
Don’t give any real information, just enough to make it look like you are being honest. Call the RPCGA a clever acronym like POIQ and claim that you were ordained in a small Baptist church but your dog ate the papers (or was that a fire? or was that they were lost?). And hopefully no one will notice that you didn’t bother to give the name of the church and the city, state where this church allegedly exists. (A person who wanted to tell the truth would have given this information.)
Say you were released instead of deposed for the sin of independency from the presbytery that does NOT recognize you as having credentials to be an elder. Say that you were never asked for paperwork when you were.
Claim that you are telling the whole story but hope that everyone else doesn’t notice that you don’t let the OTHER SIDE (ie., ex-wife) tell their side of the story. And then threaten everyone else with legal action so they CANNOT tell the other side of the story.
And always play the victim and then use the word of God as a cover for evil.
Some of us were not born yesterday.
April 7, 2009 at 10:29 am
Add me to the list of people who were threatened with “legal action” for privately trying to hold them accountable for what they did to another woman (ie., ran her down, slandered, libeled and gossiped about her to dozens of people) and hijacked her list. And that was back about 7 or 8 years ago. I guess things never change; people just get more sophisticated at covering up who they truly are and how crafty and cunning they can be.
April 7, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Thatmom – Thanks for sharing the verse. It encouraged me and made me smile when I was having a hard day.
MrsW – You’re getting some awesome advice! I have a little to add.
My siblings and myself have struggled with learning disorders. In addition to adjusting diet and taking nutritional supplements, we are following a neurodevelopmental program put together for us by a Neurodevelopmentalist certified with the International Christian Association of Neurodevelopmentalists. I could list MANY symptoms we suffered from that the ND approach has helped us get rid of, or lessen greatly.
The ND approach addresses ADD, autism, cerebral palsy, and other challenges by taking a disorganized brain, which produces these symptoms, and organizing it. That’s the short of it. For the long of it, you’ll have to check out these articles:
www DOT littlegiantsteps DOT com/nd_article.php
(“The Neurodevelopmental Approach” by Linda Kane)
www DOT littlegiantsteps DOT com/articleslocal.php
(A bunch of articles)
www DOT icando DOT org/ican.htm
(Here’s a list of ICAN Certified Neurodevelopmentalists)
All of the ICAN Neurodevelopmentalists we’ve been evaluated by have been kind and encouraging. They love Jesus, and it shows! Some of the activities on program are difficult, but oh has the work been worth the results for us!
I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions, the people at Little Giant Steps welcome them.
I wish you and you child all the best with whatever approaches you choose!
“For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.”- Jeremiah 29:11
April 7, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“Btw, hope I made it clear that the “freedom” is not necessarily for all women to be working women, but to be able pursue the calling the Lord lays on their hearts, whether wife, mother, missionary, teacher, nurse, etc.”
Ah, Kathy, well-stated.
Yes, women have many callings and not just one as we are taught by those in the patriocentric movement. The same people who would like to funnel all women into one specific mold of being ONLY a wife/mother as if we all have the same bent and same gifts. I suppose the “normative” approach is appealing because it takes choices away from the people who should have them and puts control into the hands of a select few. So Much More easier to control half of the population when you tell them they only have one option.
Being a woman is So Much More than being ONLY a wife/mother just as being a man is so much more than being ONLY a husband/father.
April 8, 2009 at 8:31 am
Is this also Patriocentricity? Because this fellow seems to be pretty mainstream in our denomination.
What is y’alls opinion of the following remark?
“A father/husband is ultimately responsible to for *everything* that happens to members of his family.”
My spirit disagrees, but I need to understand why. Is it because I know what it’s based on? Is it because…I’m an egalitarian?!
This fellow had said that he must approve everything his eight and six year old daughters wear, because he know better than his wife what men think. Then he further stated that his responsibility requires this of him. So his paranoia is…virtuous?
April 8, 2009 at 8:33 am
oops. that should read “A father/husband is ultimately responsible to GOD for everything that happens to members of his family.”
sorry for that!
April 8, 2009 at 9:24 am
Momgodin, it’s not because you’re an egalitarian, it’s because you read your Bible:
Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
The person who said “A father/husband is ultimately responsible to GOD for everything that happens to members of his family.” is gravely mistaken, and his mistake should be pointed out to him, lest he lead others astray. There isn’t any ‘leeway’ about this – the Bible directly contradicts his statement.
April 8, 2009 at 10:45 am
Anyone read the Botkin sister’s latest blog post about emotional purity? I actually thought the first four points were pretty good, but had huge issues with the last one.
5. Last but not least, keep the lines of communication with your parents wide-open.
First off, they believe father should be the leaders. Leaders…initiate. Leaders LEAD. So…then, why do they say this:
“A lot of girls have confessed to us that they have a really hard time talking to their dads about personal things. Sometimes they complain that their dads don’t come and talk to them enough. We can’t always wait for our fathers to initiate and draw us out — men are never going to be as good at this as we would like them to be. Sometimes we need to take the initiative and start the conversation. Deuteronomy 32:7 says, “Ask your father and he will show you, the elders and they will tell you…” It doesn’t say “Wait for your father to remember to come talk to you.” Fathers need to tell, but daughters need to ask, and demonstrate to their fathers that they want their council and wisdom.”
Okay – actually, I agree with them. Daughters shouldn’t wait for fathers to initiate conversations. BUT, the responsibility of keeping communication open shouldn’t rest on the daughter’s shoulders alone. Opening yourself and talking about personal stuff like feelings, particularly romantic ones towards guys, leaves a girl vulnerable. A father needs to show himself WORTHY of being the person a girl shares what is on her heart to. Communication is a two way street and BOTH parties need to initiate and work together.
Also:
“Some girls confess to us that whenever they try to go to their fathers to unburden their anxieties or concerns they always end up dissolving into a puddle of tears on the floor before they can get to what they wanted to say. What makes it worse is that most dads really don’t appreciate this.”
No guy likes having a girl cry on him. But crying? Tears? There is nothing, NOTHING, wrong with crying. And if a dad can’t be man enough to stomach a daughter crying when she comes to him, well, then I’m sorry; my estimation of that father is definitely lowered. I’m not saying that he has to appreciate tears, but he has to understand that sometimes it is impossible NOT to cry. And that crying is not bad and is not a manipulation tactic. Please note that it can be used for manipulation, but…I don’t cry for no reason. I don’t like crying, particularly in front of my dad. If I’m crying in front of him, I have a reason. I have no doubt that it’s the same for other girls.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, Elizabeth and Anna-Sophia are putting the brunt of the blame and responsibility for communications between fathers and daughters on the daughters.
1) Who cares if your dad doesn’t initiate conversations with you? YOU have to do this because he is a man and men just aren’t good at this sort of thing. You have to work on it and if you don’t have good communication skills with your father, then it is YOUR fault.
2) Crying is not allowed. Why? Because guys don’t like tears.
The other problem I have with this article is the assumption that you have parents who will not hurt you with whatever you tell them. My parents are wonderful parents and I tell them a lot of what is on my mind. However, not every girl has parents that she can tell everything to. Some girls have fathers who don’t deserve to hear all that is on their daughter’s heart. Some fathers would hurt them even more if they knew all that their daughter is thinking.
It may work in the ideal world, but it can’t and will never work for everyone.
Also…one more thing. Where in the Bible does it say that I need to give my father my heart? Where does it say in the Bible that he needs to know everything that’s going on in my mind? Doesn’t a girl have a right to privacy? Doesn’t a girl have the right to cherish certain things to herself?
April 8, 2009 at 10:49 am
yet another example! (sorry)
“…tyrants like pastor Gray who extend their authority to questionnaires asking a missionary whether his wife wears pants to bed deserves an answer of “nothing, if I’m lucky”.”
“That made me laugh. Until I realized that there really are pastors who would try to control such things. That is really sad.”
That’s another one that comes up often. Am I the only one that is wicked enough to want to say:
“control? I thought it was about subjugation of women.
must I always point out the obvious here?
The point of that question is that you needn’t hope to get lucky, if she has to wear a dress to bed! ”
or am I paranoid? I think if I said what I thought, the men would be shocked and deeply offended. Yet it is obvious to me, that in the bed of such a tyrant, a woman in pajama pants has a better chance of getting some sleep if she wanted to.
It seems the whole point is to deprive her of choice.
Am I becoming jaded? I’ve been reading the No Longer Quivering blog…
April 8, 2009 at 11:11 am
Momgodin, you are not being paranoid. While many dresses-only people will insist it’s for “modesty,” just as many women who come out of that lifestyle will tell you the reason for dresses is really one of “easy access” whenever and wherever the man pleases.
April 8, 2009 at 11:16 am
And some “dresses only” people do it because they feel it is a good testimony or more modest. It’s disgusting that you’d think that of me if you met me just because I’m skirts only. My husband doesn’t expect “easy access”. Some people just have disgusting minds.
April 8, 2009 at 11:29 am
MrsW, I apologize if I have offended you. I did not mean to come across as saying all dresses-only people think this way. I understand that many believe dresses are the only proper attire for women, based on their religious convictions. But I have had quite a number of ex-dresses-only women (and more than one husband) that the “easy access” was certainly part of it. As for me assuming what your motives are if I saw/met you, I wouldn’t. I’ve learned the hard way about assuming anything about anybody.
April 8, 2009 at 11:38 am
“.tyrants like pastor Gray who extend their authority to questionnaires asking a missionary whether his wife wears pants to bed deserves an answer of “nothing, if I’m lucky”
Hebrews 13:4 talks about marriage is honourable and its bed being undefiled. What this “pastor” did was go where he didn’t belong (think: stepping into their bedroom) when he asked those personal questions that are between a husband and wife. Same goes for people who want to know why people “only” have so and so amount of children, or why they aren’t having more children, or why they have so “many” children, etc., etc.
April 8, 2009 at 11:48 am
Light -
And then there are those of us who are atheists and dresses-only simply because jeans chafe and stretch pants just look horrid.
April 8, 2009 at 11:49 am
I know these are probably really basic questions, but here goes:
What makes the Botkin sisters experts on father-daughter relationships? Why does anybody listen to them? Where do the Botkins get their authority to weigh in on how daughters are supposed to behave?
I’m puzzled at their self-appointed “expert” status…even in patriocentric circles. Or especially in patriocentric circles, as it’d seem like they’re getting kind of old to be held up as stellar examples of how adult young women are supposed to be living.
I mean, if all their dad’s teachings and all their “give your father your heart” stuff were correct and functional, shouldn’t they already be married by now?
I could see how the patriocentric types would want advice from a “successful” young woman like Kelly Bradrick, who married a proper Vision Forum guy in a lovely wedding at the “appropriate” young age and has now had a child. It’d make sense that other families would want her advising their daughters, since she has already attained the patriocentric ideal.
But you’re not going to get much “multi-generational faithfulness” from daughters who never marry and just hang around the house.
So if “multi-generational faithfulness” is a family’s thing, why are they looking for advice from two gals who haven’t yet gotten to that place?
I find this all very puzzling.
April 8, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“And some “dresses only” people do it because they feel it is a good testimony or more modest.”- Mrs W
but… what is the point of being “modest” in bed? why have “standards” for the bedroom? there’s no testimony there?…
April 8, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Who said I have modesty standards in bed? Man some of you ladies have dirty minds!
April 8, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Mrs. W,
Light and I were objecting to this very thing, and now you are saying we have the dirty minds? :confused:
April 8, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I could see how the patriocentric types would want advice from a “successful” young woman like Kelly Bradrick, who married a proper Vision Forum guy in a lovely wedding at the “appropriate” young age and has now had a child. It’d make sense that other families would want her advising their daughters, since she has already attained the patriocentric ideal.
But you’re not going to get much “multi-generational faithfulness” from daughters who never marry and just hang around the house
This puzzles me as well–mostly that if this way of raising daughters is supposed to work, why are some of the strongest advocates of it still single??? And why are those still single looking to other single girl leaders in the group as experts in these things? Wouldn’t you want to take advice on preparing for this way of life from someone who’s actually been there, who’s actually had success in it?? *scratches head*
And I still don’t get why it’s always all about the father, and the daughter changing to suit his whims, desires, and comfort zones (i.e. he’s not comfortable with her crying, so crying = BAD).
I’m so grateful my daddy isn’t that kind of man
April 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm
GPMM has left a comment (#479) that she felt was not allowed and talked about it on my thatmom blog. I wanted to be sure you all saw her/his comments and that she knows I am not preventing her from posting.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/more-thoughtful-articles-from-sonlights-johm-holzmann/
I will take this opportunity to remind people that if you place more than one link in a comment, your post will get stuck in spam. I can’t help it. AND, I don’t always get behind the scenes at this blog every day so if you have something stuck, PLEASE send me at note and remind me. shesthatmom@gmail.com
April 10, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I really hate to say this, But I think that blog is really sad. I spent a few moments over there, and frankly, I feel like the McDonalds are taking everything far too personally. When she writes something in quotes, it’s mostly taken from here or a sister blog, and I am pretty sure that half of those things were not directed at her.
One problem I saw was when she claimed that she has never called an INDIVIDUAL a “white washed feminist,” which is probably true, but when you label a group, you label those in the group. If I say something general like “people are stupid” but then qualify it with “oh, but not you, you aren’t stupid,” I’m really just backtracking to cover up my bad attitude.
The biggest flaw with the whole thing is that when they address their beliefs, the things they address are such superficial things. What about theology? If they wanted to share what they really believe, they should focus on the theological claims, not the things that are a matter of personal choice. It just seems like children who get their feelings hurt too easily, and I have nothing but pity and a strong desire to say “grow up.”
April 12, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Word Girl said “What began as legitimate critical analysis of questionable teachings has turned into a witch hunt that’s gone far beyond what’s reasonable and rational. I think *that* is sad.”
Apparently, the Bible does not think it UNreasonable, UNrational, illigitmate or sad to examine their past behaviour:
“Dr. Paul Martin of Wellspring has done an analysis of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (12%) concern Motive
21 verses (*ONLY 10%*) concern Doctrine”
-http://wellspringretreat.org/index.php
April 12, 2009 at 1:47 pm
lol. “irrational” either! :p
such people sound like politicians rather than Bereans
“Bill Clinton’s personal life has nothing to do with his public service!”
“We know Geithner didn’t pay his taxes, but he’s the most qualified for the job.”
April 12, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Let me just clarify for those who are up in arms about what I said:
When I said that James and Stacy are taking things far too personally, I meant that many of the things that Stacy claims were misrepresentations of herself were things that were said of the beliefs of OTHER PEOPLE! Not her. I don’t remember anyone here saying that Stacy believed girls are to be the father’s helpmeet, this claim is exclusive of the Botkin girls. Other claims are similarly misrepresented as being against herself.
This is simply not true. I don’t have the time to go through each post here, but I am pretty sure that even when the conversation is difficult to follow, everyone knows who is being discussed.
Instead of reading the first two sentences of a post and then commenting on it, it is really a good idea to read the whole thing before deciding whether or not your reply is worth making.
My problem with the whole “they’re picking on me” attitude is really that criticisms here are directed at specific people, yet when James and Stacy want to fire back, they do not name names, instead opting to generalize their complaints. Generalizations often lead to misunderstandings and easily hide lies.
April 12, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Marcia,
I really like your response. And congratulations on being comment #500!
Now, who’s gonna be #666?
But I did notice that you said this:
I guess what I find so frustrating about defenses of the McDonalds is that it feels like their defenders set up straw men. Far as I can tell, NOBODY – not Cindy K, or Karen, or Corrie, or anybody else who has commented about them on this blog – has ever demanded perfection out of James and Stacy. Far from it…and actually, just the opposite.
I could be wrong about this and obviously shouldn’t presume to speak for anyone else, but I’ve always understood that the ladies (like Cindy) who are concerned about the McDonalds would like is for James and Stacy to quit setting themselves up as authorities in areas where they themselves have clearly missed the mark.
How can anyone be blessed by their “flawedness” if the McDonalds cover up their flaws?
I first became aware of Patriocentricity, or hyper-patriarchy, completely by accident. One afternoon I happened to stumble upon a blog where the subject of birth control had come up, and basically, the women in the discussion were saying that if someone used birth control, they were sinning. Having a large family was clearly perceived as more virtuous than NOT having a large family. In fact, having a family that looked as though one had never used birth control – you know, upwards of at least 7 kids or so – seemed to be one of the prerequisites for being an authority in the Patriocentric world.
I’m guessing that if someone set up a hyper-patriarchal ministry and clearly stated from the beginning that their large family was actually NOT the result of a single no-birth control marriage but was actually a blended family, the result of two divorces and then a remarriage, that would automatically disqualify the person from ministry in the patriarchal world, at least in most folks’ eyes. Certainly a group that labels birth control a sin (something that the Bible never speaks to specifically or directly) would think that divorce and remarriage might disqualify someone from the ministry, since the Bible actually DOES talk about the qualifications for elders. And it seems just sorta sneaky and disingenuous to post all sorts of photos of one with one’s big bunch of kids and never bother to mention that one hadn’t actually “birthed” all those children herself. I’ve now read enough of these pro-patriarchy blogs to notice how all the families that they admire are always huge. And none of those would be a blended family of “his, mine, and ours.”
So that’s just one thing that makes the McDonalds’ situation worth looking at. Notice, NOBODY is suggesting that James and Stacy should be “perfect.” We all KNOW that they are “flawed” human beings, just like the rest of us. It is THEY who have downplayed their imperfections in order to (I would suspect) not hurt their
money-making businessesministries.We see a smaller example of how they aren’t very open or honest in the way that they handled their poor daughter’s betrothal, or whatever that was. Again, I really don’t think that anyone here has any desire to pick on the McDonalds’ children. If anything, I think the prevailing feeling is that those kids’ private lives should never have provided their parents with blog fodder and should have remained private!
But the fact remains that their parents DID use their daughter’s betrothal as an opportunity to set up the superiority of how their family “does” romance. At one point, I think they had even published some high-and-mighty-sounding piece touting the superiority of betrothal as compared to easily broken “post-modern” engagement, and they said that the “biblical” standard for breaking off a betrothal was way higher than ordinary engagements, and akin to divorce.
But when things didn’t work out for their daughter and her betrothed, and the young couple ended up breaking things off, neither James nor Stacy spoke honestly about this. They were willing to broadcast every last Jane Austin detail when it served to promote their teachings, but when their teachings flopped and whoops, it turns out that breaking off a betrothal actually isn’t the same as getting a divorce, they were totally silent.
Nobody wanted them to further embarrass the young people involved. But it would have been SO refreshing for James to write, “Y’know, folks, I apologize for adding Pharisaical burdens to people by insinuating that breaking off an engagement is a sin akin to divorce.” THAT would have actually enabled people to learn from and learn with the McDonalds.
But instead? Silence.
Why are these people “authorities” who get book contracts and make money off of teaching people? That’s the part I don’t get. If you have a blended family and don’t want to talk about how you got to that point, FINE. That’s perfectly fine. Grace and peace to you!
But don’t set yourself up as a teacher, especially in a world that condemns far more esoteric lifestyle decisions as “unbibiblical.”
Anyway, I apologize for this long and windy comment, but I’ve been reading this blog for well over a year…I’ve read just about every single comment as the conversations have unfolded…and I find it so frustrating that there are people out there who don’t seem bothered by the McDonalds’ rank hypocrisy. I don’t understand how anyone can defend them.
April 12, 2009 at 9:46 pm
He is risen INDEED!
Um, sorry. I’m having a flashback to my uberconservative Lutheran childhood, during which a somewhat hearing impaired gentleman tended to yell out at an inappropriate time of the service.
Anyway. I drove 180 miles, roundtrip, today in order to spend Easter with family. It is the most mind-numbing, boring, farmland/roadkill lane that could be imagined, and I’ve made it hundreds of times. That makes it worse, to state the obvious.
My mind is usually engaged, because what else am I going to do. Today I just kept thinking about the True Womanhood page. I seriously pondered why I come here, and why I say what I do while here.
April 12, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Kids. I didn’t mean to end the above comment, but I was interrupted and hit send.
So. I was about to state, yet again, how I genuinely appreciate several of the women who post here. I don’t want to be redundant, but there are most likely readers who weren’t around in the past and didn’t read the comments where I said how kind Karen, Corrie, Cindy and others here had been to me.
But this leads into my point. Corrie, I’m going to use you as an example, because I read your blog in the past.
I don’t remember why I first started reading here. I think I may have followed my friend Molly, who has long since bowed out after being dismayed at the argumentative tone of some of the posts. Girl just wanted to discuss how a woman could follow Jesus.
Anyway. I read Corrie’s posts. She mentioned her past. She talked about her kids.
If I had happened upon another blog, the way I happened upon this one, and found that Corrie’s past was being dissected, over and over again, to the point that someone posted her ex-husband’s name, and pointed others to pictures or videos of her kids acting goofy, and then made that the subject of a post, where many people weighed in on how her kids acted, in a video that was from a private party and did not in any way represent the individuals those children actually are, I would damn well go to bat for Corrie and say that THIS IS WRONG.
I would do it for any of you. I would do it for you, Karen, and I would do it for you, Cindy.
I have said Ad infinitum that I don’t have a problem with anyone having a different opinion about anyone’s teachings.
Go ahead and say that James McDonald said this in one of his sermons/books/other teachings, and that you don’t believe it is valid because the Bible says this, or this, or this.
Quote it all day long.
But don’t dig up another Christian’s sins from years past and post them online for everyone to see, and then say, look, this person’s a sinner.
I’m going to end by saying that I have posted pictures and videos of my kids online at different times and in different venues. So have many of you, and I want everyone reading here to think about that statement. SO HAVE MANY OF YOU.
That does not make it right for ANYONE to start a thread about how those kids might have acted. Are any of you my Facebook friends? I have a goofy video of my daughter on my page. She’s a teenager, and very funny, even inadvertently. The fact that a video of the McDonald girls at a party was made a thread here, where you all held forth for hundreds of comments about them, well, if you can’t see that this was wrong, I guess anything I say won’t make a difference.
April 12, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Hi Kris–we are cross-posting, I think.
All I can say is that from the point that I began interacting online, and I tentatively pinpoint this as early as January 1999, when I was on maternity leave FROM MY JOB and stuck at home during a blizzard, Stacy McDonald has been a friend to me and an encouragement as a Christian. She has never, not once, criticized me even though I know that she would not have made the same choices I have.
I live a life very far removed from the nirvana that some people believe the McDonalds espouse. I work. I like the money I make. I also like Jesus, as do my children.
I am certain that James and Stacy believe differently than I do. I am also certain that they would welcome me in their home, tomorrow, if I would ask.
And I will continually be bewildered as to why anyone allows this continual denigration of them to continue.
April 13, 2009 at 4:02 am
I really liked reading your most recent perspectives, Marcia. And your humor (the Lutheran joke was LOL funny!–NO offense to Lutherans; my significant other is one.).
I DO wish that there was some other way of talking about the lifestyle propogated by Vision Forum ,the MacDonalds, et al, without having to “name names”–especially not when minors are involved. I believe it would be “ideal” that if we are going to dissect any video footage of children, that it be of general group shots, with so many kids doing stuff that we wouldn’t be able to identify them by name or family.
For example–there was a thread that did not post the related video, but which discussed the training (recorded on video) of young girls to groom and dress and shave their fathers. Don’t you feel, as many of us here did, that that type of material really NEEDS to be dissected? I suspect you do agree, but that where you feel the sticking point is with the “naming of names,” when we know exactly who the kids in the video are. And I share your discomfort at that!
Again, it’s unfortunate that that the names of kids must be named at all, and I would prefer not to do it if at all possible. But Kris made a valid point, too–that in some cases, parents have offered up their kids for public discussion, in an unfortunate fashion, and those children’s lives or beliefs jave been offered as the examples of Christian *mandates*–see, e.g., the Botkins’ book written when they were teens, and the McDonald courtship advertised by the parents.
Okay, all that out of the way, though, I noticed you didn’t really address Kris’ main points about WHY so many people here and elsewhere keep questioning the personal credibility of self-appointed leaders of a growing movement that might potentially become a very strong force in American Christianity.
You answered only that Stacey has been kind and a friend to you–and I think that is truly wonderful, and really feel a lot of warmth about her in that respect and others. If you read up in this very thread, I had very good things to say about Stacey as a person. And, I’ve also written about how I admire the Botkin sisters’ strength and leadership (even though by the Christian mandates they identified, they are not allowed to be leaders of women older than them or of men, either) and their “wordly” accomplishments of writing and publishing and doing speaking tours. I have a lot of goodwill towards all of these women, despite the hurtful things they have said about Christian feminists (I am one, and loving it!).
But, again, no matter how much goodwill we hold someone, and no matter how good of a friend they have been to you or me, I believe Kris’s points hold true: if they are teaching about doctrine and setting themselves up as leaders and interpreters of the Word, any deceptions they may have had in their personal lives that directly impact what they teach….well, that stuff’s gotta be open to inquiry, Marcia.
It’s kind of like, did the U.S. president, when he or she was still running for office, take campaign contributions he or she wasn’t supposed to? Well, that’s not really about the policies they have as president, or the work they do, but it does affect their personal creidibility in the job they do. And this is even a more tenuous link than the one here, because here we have Christian teachers and leaders teaching a doctrine that proscribes X—say, dishonesty or debt or what have you–and then not being up front about topics that bear on this.
IF you feel moved, I’d love to hear you address those points of Kris’s head-on.
Otherwise, perhaps we can take it to mean that you feel caught between a rock and a hard place, and that you’d prefer to sit this one out rather than be perceived as taking a side against your friend—–fair enough!
And very understandable, to boot—perhaps even commendable,from a personal friendship point of view.
April 13, 2009 at 4:03 am
Oh, and Happy Easter to all!
April 13, 2009 at 11:36 am
In response to 503-504:
I don’t expect everyone to agree with my interpretation of what particular actions are unreasonable or how far is too far. But to intimate that I have in general condemned any and all examination of someone’s fruit and past behavior is a strawman.
My issue is not with holding patrio and other teachers accountable or with questioning their teachings and examining their behavior but with the manner in which this is done. I really enjoyed the iMonk’s recent post that relates to this topic.
internetmonk.com/archive/a-note-to-weed-eaters
April 13, 2009 at 1:29 pm
gpmm, I am willing to e-mail with them in order to have a written record of their responses. I do not trust them to speak the truth in private.
Secondly, the Matthew 18 process does not apply in this situation. There is no personal offense involved, but rather a public questioning of public teachers. Here is the article I wrote about this very subject:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/slander-libel-and-gossip-oh-my-understanding-the-difference-between-matthew-1815-and-galatians-2/
April 13, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I think I had a bit of an attitude the other day, so if my words seemed overly harsh, I do apologize.
That said, I have found some of the “be careful little eyes what you read” posts actually to be scripturally sound, and words that need to be heeded by even those who wrote them. I really liked the iMonk’s post, it was relevant and funny, and it was spot on, at least for those whom he was gently rebuking.
But here’s the thing. We all need to be constantly reminded to be better Christians. I’ve been reading a few books that are reminding me of our calling, particularly that our lives are meant to give continuous glory to God, not ourselves. “Whatever you do, do it for the Lord.” If we stop trying to manipulate people into thinking we are greater, and instead point them to the Greatest One, even when we are diminished, we give God the glory. This is all about human pride, self-serving, glorifying oneself instead of God, etc… James and John were rebuked for trying to obtain places of honor, we should be as well when we try to edge our way into the seat of honor.
So, even if James and Stacy are telling the truth, it is the spirit that reveals their hearts. If they were truly trying to give glory to God, there would be no threat of lawsuits. There would instead be humble seeking of forgiveness, and honest answers to valid questions. But instead, they elevate themselves, say they are above questioning, and call everyone who questions them something akin to a tabloid journalist.
April 14, 2009 at 7:31 am
Please continue this discussion with the new thread, all things patriocentric, thread four.
Thanks.
April 14, 2009 at 11:01 am
By the way, I don’t have an “ex-husband”.
My first child was born out of wedlock when I was 19 years old.